About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 9:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My thanks to you Jeremy, for saving my typing time!

Post 61

Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 11:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Okay okay.  It'd be swerving off-topic to discuss the validity of the Super Cheese Theory.  (S.C. is what I call god, since it may as well be a hyper-intelligent hunk of fermented milk)

So I'll just constrain my post to your very, very last statement.

"But those Objectivists who are serious about seeing their principles winning broader support in society need to either remove from Objectivism that which excludes its acceptability to the vast majority of the population..."

Why?  That's really all I can ask.  The vast majority of the population also believes communism is good in theory, if not practice.  Should we toss the idea that any subservience to a collective or State is just plain evil?  Should we also accept Kant's noumenal reality simply because the majority of the population possesses very little certainty about their place in the universe, or that we exist in a real, fathomable reality?  (For more on Kant see Prof. Ed Younkins great article on the main page.)

I have always understood why people seek to explain complicated matters with a self-deprecating shrug and a smug, "God works in mysterious ways".  But because some people are willing to submit before something they can't see, hear, touch, feel or fathom doesn't mean Objectivism should compromise the most basic axiom within: reality is real.  This will, of course, evoke a "well, that's just a religious truth claim" or "that has to be taken on faith just as much as the idea of Super Cheese".  In fact, no.  Since Man began rubbing sticks together to make flame, to when we tossed Neil Armstrong onto the moon, all the way till today, this very second, Man has been grasping, smelling, hearing, feeling, seeing and fathoming the material universe.  All evidence, for hundreds of thousands of years, points to: Yes, we do in fact live in a real, fathomable, causal universe, that through time and trial has been tested and can be tested today.  I have yet to hear tell such a vast array of actual, perceptible, proven acts of "God".  This leaves the Super Cheese far behind in the race for the minds of rational men.  That's why It's one compromise Objectivism can't afford to make.  If Objectivism can open the door for "God" simply to get a following, it can also open the doors to many things pervading our culture.  See: drug use as an accepted, lauded recreation, sport sex, gore flicks, Democrats, purple dragons, Islamists, noumenal realities, and MTV.  I don't see it happening, and I don't see anyone agreeing with you any time soon.  The idea of "God" is not necessary.  Why even entertain the idea?  Ah well.  That's enough for today.  Gotta run!




Post 62

Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeremy:

Me: >>But those Objectivists who are serious about seeing their principles winning broader support in society need to either remove from Objectivism that which excludes its acceptability to the vast majority of the population ...<<

You: >>Why?  That's really all I can ask.<<

Because, I said the alternatives are either:  [1] Relish the rejection of society as does the village atheist; or [2] accept the fact that Objectivism makes claims that exclude all religious claims and so must be preached to succeed.  I am presuming that a person typically seeks out Objectivism in the pursuit of happiness.  So I put forth three alternatives that strike me as rational for a happy Objectivist.

My suspicion is that most Objectivists really find happiness in the first alternative, which is fine.  Life would be a good deal less interesting without curmudgeons.  However, I am prepared to be proven wrong.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 12:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Compromise on basic reality just for acceptance of some points? It's like building a house with no foundation.

Post 64

Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 12:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Jeremy.

You wrote: 
All evidence, for hundreds of thousands of years, points to: Yes, we do in fact live in a real, fathomable, causal universe, that through time and trial has been tested and can be tested today.  I have yet to hear tell such a vast array of actual, perceptible, proven acts of "God".
Are you so sure?  If so, square volition with causation.

You have two choices:  [1] Volition is an epiphenomenon of a material universe in which no true choice can exist because everything is mechanical -- i.e., there is no uncaused caused, only the deterministic machinations of the laws of physics; or [2] a person can freely choose to take an utterly unpredetermined action, in which there is at least one aspect of reality that lies beyond the material and the mechanical.

Then consider animation.  How is that some of the material of our universe actually lives?  Sure, we understand a great deal of the mechanics of life, but we remained stymied at bringing life to that which is inanimate.  Life remains irreducible to matter and mechanics.  Is that merely because we have yet to obtain the scientific know-how to do this?  Perhaps, but it still is a remarkable state for matter that eludes our capture.

Finally, there is consciousness.  How is it we are self-aware?  What does it mean to be self-aware in a material universe ruthlessly enslaved to the determinism of physics?  It would be nonsense, wouldn't it?You would only be aware of that which the laws of physics have predetermined for you, which would seem to remove the "self" from self-awareness.

My point is, Jeremy, if you are looking for acts of God, you may not need to look far.  You may embody them by virtue of your life, your free will, and your consciousness.  Even if you scoff at that, they are nonetheless remarkable things to exist in a material universe which continue to elude any scientific accounting of them.  And this you must concede:  Science has not explained animation, violition, and consciousness.  Until it does so, it requires as much a leap of faith to believe these things are reducible to matter and causation as to belief they are divine gifts.

Moreover, if you truly believe it is rational to conclude that these things are reducible to matter and causation, then you must address the paradox this raises:  Rationality cannot exist in such a reality, because whatever can be attributed to rationality (or irrationality) is in fact the manifestation of a long, long series of causes predetermined by physics.  If so, why bother?

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 65

Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 3:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, since you've opted to change the direction, I'll go along with you on two conditions.

1. You have to answer this question with a simple yes or no.
2. The answer decides whether or not I'll go along.

Q:   If your assertions are proven to be false, would you refute your belief in the supernatural? 


Post 66

Friday, April 9, 2004 - 6:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan:

You wrote: >>Compromise on basic reality just for acceptance of some points? It's like building a house with no foundation.<<

First of all, I suggested that as only one of three options for the happy Objectivist.  Of course, the frustrated Objectivist has many other paths he can follow.

Second, my point is that I found atheism to be a gratuitous metaphysical assumption of Objectivism.  Therefore, it is no more necessary for building a house than window treatments are.  Obviously you disagree that it is gratuitous, but all you have done so far is assert such.  How in fact is atheism necessary to justify, for example, the morality of capitalism as a political system?

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 67

Friday, April 9, 2004 - 6:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good morning, Jeremy.

You have proposed a game: 
Bill, since you've opted to change the direction, I'll go along with you on two conditions.

1. You have to answer this question with a simple yes or no.
2. The answer decides whether or not I'll go along.

Q:   If your assertions are proven to be false, would you refute your belief in the supernatural?
Normally I would accept such a challenge.  I know why I believe what I do, therefore I am ready to either defend those beliefs or learn something new.  However, because of the way you worded your challenge (which I assume is necessary to make your point), it would be intellectually dishonest of me to accept it.

That is because my belief in God is not scientific knowledge.  It is not falsifiable.  Therefore, by the terms you set, there is nothing you can say in so many words that would falsify my belief.  For me to accept would just be jerking your chain.  On the other hand, if you are proposing something other than a game, such as a discussion in which to persuade me that reality is material and mechanical in its entirety -- i.e., the supernatural does not exist -- and in that context you are asking me if I am open to such argument, my answer is yes.

If that is the case, I would be very interested understanding how free will exists in the Objectivist universe if there is no uncaused cause.  That would be persuasive.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 68

Friday, April 9, 2004 - 9:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That is because my belief in God is not scientific knowledge

Okay, that's all I really needed to see.


Post 69

Friday, April 9, 2004 - 7:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill said :

"Because, I said the alternatives are either:  [1] Relish the rejection of society as does the village atheist; or [2] accept the fact that Objectivism makes claims that exclude all religious claims and so must be preached to succeed.  I am presuming that a person typically seeks out Objectivism in the pursuit of happiness.  So I put forth three alternatives that strike me as rational for a happy Objectivist."

Let me answer these one by one:
1) I neither relish nor care whether "society" as a whole likes me, dislikes me, or ignores me. I realize the inter-dependencies of modern society, but my understanding and acceptance of objectivism doesn't prevent me from working with and trading with people who have other beliefs, no matter how false they may be. Objectivism isn't about popularity, its about accepting and understanding reality.

2) Succeed? You seem to think Objectivism has a goal for success. It's a philosophy for living. That is, living my life. If you choose to ignore reality, you will suffer the consequences. I'm not out to save you.

3) Drop Atheism? Why? It's a simple truth, unless you have some evidence to the contrary. I know, you believe what you believe and know why you believe it....etc.

Bill Said:

"Even devout Christians, for example, do not view everything through the lens of religion, let alone most religious people.  They are aware of the secular world around and do take lessons from it."  
 
Yep, even devout theists have to deal with reality sometimes.

Yet Objectivist arguments frequently lose any hearing from theists at the outset because they are larded with insults to their intelligence and character."
 
Their loss. I won't lie to them to get them to listen to me. In all honesty, I don't run about proclaiming my atheism, but I don't hide it or deny it either just to accepted.


Post 70

Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 6:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think it's great that Mel Gibson has stuck to his guns and created his outspoken vision, for the public to pay to view, if they so desire.  From that perspective, hooray.

However, that does not change for me one iota that the premise of this entire film is philosophically, metaphysically sickening, and on two major levels... The first level is presented as a given:  the sadism of the Roman society.  The second level, and more important to me, is Jesus' "answer" to the problem, which over the course of 2,000+ years has really not shown itself to be any sort of answer at all:  to meet sadism with delusionally austere masochism. 

Oh yes, we all know how much sadists are moved by the suffering of victims as a "deterrent".  Of course, that's rubbish; they find it delicious.  All that such a tactic establishes, is a diseased, perpetual cycle of existence, as we no doubt see today in heavily Christianized societies... and indeed, in most religionized societies.  That seems to me to be all that religion really is, and perhaps its grand appeal that no one will really examine, much less admit to.

You can go on and on about the grandeur and pageantry of the "passion play" all you like, but in the end, all I've ever seen in this story, through all its countless and tiresome depictions, is a justification for a lifestyle of passive-aggressive sado-masochism, and calling it "virtue".

Bah, humbug.   


Post 71

Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 6:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just realized that I was responding to the first page of comments on this topic... Now that I'm getting the swing of things, I realize that the topic string went into a different direction afterwards.

Oh well.


Post 72

Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 5:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Jeremy.

Me: >>That is because my belief in God is not scientific knowledge.<<

You: >>Okay, that's all I really needed to see.<<

Good.  But do you understand that a belief that God does not exist also lies outside the realm of science?

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat



Post 73

Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 9:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That's all ya got, Bill?

In that case, your arguments for Super Cheese existence based on lack of scientific evidence have as much credibility as those to the contrary.  If I can't doubt your lack evidence, you can't doubt mine; so according to you we're arguing from and for equal premises.   The only way out for you is agnosticism--and that's a sham way out.

Of course, I don't accept your premises at all.  Consciousness, existence, and free will are phenomena that can be studied and evaluated.  Your "God" is not, except where He supposedly came into contact with living, breathing humans of the natural universe.  Your "arguments" are the modern manifestation of pro-theological "arguments" since the concept "god" was first spawned by uninformed primal savages.  Before gravity and its effects were discovered and named, the moon was a "god", and the tides were at Its conscious beck and call.  Before the natures of infections and disease were discovered and named, illness was a plague and punishment, or demons, sent by "God" with a vengeful purpose.  Fire was worshipped as an angry life-giver and life-taker, sentient and wild and bowed to by men unable to understand the natures of the effects of hot and cold and friction. 

It's always a backtracking game for theists.  As soon as one phenomenon is studied, examined and detailed in its nature by Man, theists slip over to another as yet undiscovered or undelineated event.  "Well, of course Catholics accept the nature of contagions...we don't believe they are angry demons (anymore).  But what about this thing over here, Mr. Reason?  Where is your science now?" 

There's no way to argue with your faith.  That's the point of faith.  It's impossible to rationally explain how a man's life belongs to someone else, so faith has been the murdering mystic's most reliable tool.  You argue from a position devoid of scientific evidence, and nothing more.  That's the entire basis of your faith (duh), and in fact is the only tool left to theists when they seek to undermine reason and life.  "You have an absence of evidence as well, so I'm right!" 

That's no argument.  You'll have to do better.  But don't bother trying with me, because this is as far as I'll go with this one. 


J

(Edited by Jeremy Johnson on 4/12, 12:09am)


Post 74

Monday, April 12, 2004 - 2:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Spending my Easter holiday's in a predominantly
catholic country (68% of the population), I was quite
surprised that there is hefty criticism of Gibson's
"Passion of the Christ" here. A friend of my
Girlfriend's family told his congregation on Easter
Sunday NOT to watch the movie.

Translating an opinion piece from one of the national
papers...

"Many people now look for Jesus in the cinema instead
of the Church. The cinema theatre is heated, you don't
need to go down on your knees or sing and you can eat
and drink. Popcorn and coca-cola, instead of bread and
wine.
  Conservative church goers embrace Gibson's "blood
orgy", that together with it’s anti-Semitic speeches
has earned the director millions. Others, such as the
Arch-bishop of Hamburg, criticise the film, "The
message of life is given too small a role". In other
words, Gibson filmed Good Friday, but not Easter
Sunday. But the story of Christianity is the victory
of life over death."

Mixed messages here of course, Church vs. Pop Religion
etc., still a surprising message of "life over death"
though! Nevertheless, I think it is the extremity of
the message, rather than the message itself which is
called into question.


Post 75

Monday, April 12, 2004 - 9:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It irritates me beyond belief, the way that these people say "Well, you can't prove that God doesn't exist, so he could"...

That is their oily and cowardly core argument for the existence of God.  That's it.

And this is what I've started to counter with, in response to hearing that:  "Well, you have no proof that Ricky, the Two-Headed, Invisible Llama That Steals Socks doesn't exist, yet you don't arbitrarily believe in HIM, do you?  In fact, when you sit down and consider all the randomly imaginative things that there are ALSO no bodies of evidence for, why do you pick God?" 

I mean, why THAT? 

To which I then add:  "You choose to believe in God, because you are the type of person who finds enticing the constant presence of a bullying alpha male in your life... Religion is a sado-masochistic kink, and this God fellow is your dream sadist... you clueless or dishonest masochist.  You subscribe to the God dynamic, because it allows you to be bullied BY God, while also bullying others in "His" name.  It's a sadomasochist's dream."

Yes, they love that.  And it usually shuts them up, too. 


Post 76

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 5:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Jeremy.

You wrote:  >>That's all ya got, Bill? ... That's no argument.  You'll have to do better.  But don't bother trying with me, because this is as far as I'll go with this one.<<

The fact is that our experience of free will is that it is an uncaused cause, which is in contradiction to our scientific understanding of the universe.  Because I accept the scientific method as a valid means of discovering the nature of our universe, I find this contradiction fascinating and exciting.  For me, it is well worth exploration rather than settling for pat answers that do not upset my preconceptions of what should be true.

Because of your faith in materialism, I understand the reluctance to examine the evidence, such as that of free will, which belies that faith.  That is your choice, and I'm not here to persuade you otherwise.  I would no more try to do that than attempt to convince some backwoods Bible-thumping creationist that the dinosaur fossils in his backyard are more than 6,000 years old.

However, the exchange has been useful.  It confirms my hypothesis:  Objectivism functions as a religion for its adherents who embrace its metaphysically gratuitous atheism.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 77

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 5:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My dear Orion:

You offered a cunning tactic for silencing those who believe in God: 
To which I then add:  "You choose to believe in God, because you are the type of person who finds enticing the constant presence of a bullying alpha male in your life... Religion is a sado-masochistic kink, and this God fellow is your dream sadist... you clueless or dishonest masochist.  You subscribe to the God dynamic, because it allows you to be bullied BY God, while also bullying others in "His" name.  It's a sadomasochist's dream."

Yes, they love that.  And it usually shuts them up, too.
I do not doubt that "shuts them up".  Most sensible people walk away from those who are insulting them.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 78

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 7:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, you've gotta stop this, man. 

"Uncaused causes"?  What the hell....?  I don't even know what that means.  But anyway, I'm no expert on the scientific studies of free will, consciousness, etc ad nauseam, but if I was I wouldn't attempt to verify the nature of those concepts to you.  How or why I gain the principles in my noggin has nothing to do with this little debate.  What I believe doesn't enter into it, until you've presented verifiable evidence which can be analyzed by....whomever.  (Verifiable evidence does not mean a lack of evidence, nor does it mean unexplained phenomenon, nor does it include your desire for the universe to have A Conscious Cause or Intent.)

 It's not up to me to prove anything.  That's your job.  You're positing a phenomenon's existence, so the burden of proof lies with you.  So, prove it. 

Nothing can come before that. 

And none of this has confirmed your hypothesis.  You have confirmed your hypothesis, to you.  That, also, does not stand the test of scientific inquiry.  Okay for you, but my faith--even my Objectivist faith--is far too flawed to accept your conclusion.

And THIS, I promise, will be the last word from me!  I've always been a lousy demon-slayer, and the pay sucks. 8^P



Post 79

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 9:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Jeremy.

You threw down a gauntlet:  >>It's not up to me to prove anything.  That's your job.  You're positing a phenomenon's existence, so the burden of proof lies with you.  So, prove it.<<

I do not wish to exasperate you, my friend, but at the risk of appearing obtuse, I'll point out that I have offered a compelling piece of evidence to support my beliefs.  It is the universal human experience of free will as the power to make a genuinely unpredetermined choice.  This is a remarkable thing in that almost everything else we can experience is reducible to scientific explanation.

In response you have said that you believe volition, consciousness, and animation will be reduced to scientific explanation in the future.  Your belief is not unreasonable, because it is the history of our species to comprehend more and more of our universe in terms of science.  However, science is limited to explaining only that which is deterministic -- i.e., material and mechanical.  Therefore, science is incompetent to explain reality in its entirety if part of reality lies beyond the deterministic.

Our experience of free will does indicate that reality may include that which is not subject to the deterministic laws of nature.  However, if free will (the act of making a choice) is subject to physics, then the act of choosing is an illusion.  What basis exists for believing our experience of free will is a fraud?  None that I know of.

Prove that?  I can't, any more than you can do otherwise.  However, Jeremy, it is not my objective to dissaude you of your Objectivist beliefs.  As stated I desire to know whether or not Objectivists hold their beliefs religiously.  You certainly have had no obligation, and perhaps no interest, in assisting this effort of mine.  Furthermore, I agree it is not necessary to continue this particular conversation in order to merely re-iterate our positions and the bases for them.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the time you have taken to respond to the issues I have raised.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.