RoR: Forum

Linz,

Thanks for proving my point exactly.

Cheers.

Post 21

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 5:51am

Perigo,

If you are going to bitch about mental mastrubation, then you need to take yourself to the woodshed. As much as I enjoyed your article, it is a polemic persuasive to no one but those who agree with you. There's nothing wrong with that, especially here in this forum.

But none of us should fool himself into thinking that this a devastating critique of theist doctrines that do reconcile an all-powerful being with evil in this world. And so, I'm not going to apologize for asking for a little more meat to this discussion. I would like a better response than "God doesn't exist" to my Christian friends who invoke theodicy as explanation for things like the tsunami and Stalin and other wretched things. What better place than here to try to find that response?

Pukszta

Post 22

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 5:55am

Erickson,

All of what you say is valid, and I'm in your camp about celebrating the few bits of good fortune in this disaster rather than the indecent wallowing in the misery of others. As for strong and weak arguments with theists, please see my comments to Humphreys.

Pukszta

Post 23

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 6:12am

Humphreys,

When I discuss religion and philosophy with theists, my objective is not conversion. The goal is an interesting conversation. As I mentioned elsewhere, one of my neighbors is devout Catholic who invites me over to play table tennis. Often he has friends from the clergy there too. So I have plenty of good opportunities to discuss some meaty topics with devoutly religious people who neither take offense at my beliefs nor lack any confidence in their own. The result is friendly conversations in which, I have to confess, I am sometimes outmatched.

It is in that context I raised the issue of Perigo's article not providing much of a response to theists who have a more sophisticated rationalization for their beliefs than the man in the street. In particular I have had difficulty in trouncing their theodic arguments. Telling them there's no god is weak, and while I know I won't convert anyone, I still want to WIN the debate! So, what am I after here is both more and less serious than you might be thinking.

Pukszta

P.S. Regarding my description of the Anglican church, I'm taking my cue from the many "enemy" (i.e., religious, conservative, liberal, and even leftist) publications I read every month to stay on top of what the non-Objectivist and non-libertarian world is thinking. I have some vague recollection of the incident you referred to, but that wasn't the basis for my characterization.

Post 24

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 6:17am

Level,

Amen. There are Objectivists who treat the PHILOSOPHY of Objectivism as though it were a religion and get mired in the same intellectual morass as some of the more irrational and unreflective theists do. The problem for these Objectivists, they have no excuse. Objectivism is the very tool of knowledge that should prevent them from erecting the barriers to thought that they do.

Pukszta

Post 25

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 9:56am

This is a point that can be made against many belief systems, and, paradoxically (at least in this context), it applies very aptly to some practitioners of Objectivism.

Next, I agree. Those wedded to beliefs often operate on faith, and, often refuse new knowledge. "I believe" often speaks to a conviction that is pretty unshakable even with evidence to the contrary.

This is why disasters do not casue a reassessment of faith.
John

Post 26

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 11:03am

Rooster,

What are these theodic arguments? My experiences discussing with all kinds of religious people have led me to believe that philosophic discussions are futile unless there is a significant body of agreement.

However, it is fun sometimes fun to go into all that lawyering that sometimes characterizes debates about the existence of God. Old habits die hard.

John,

I've always wondered about the status of such beliefs relative to the theory of evolution: is there a good reason why beliefs like that which seem furthest away from empirical facts are the most strongly held?

Post 27

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 9:41am

Rooster Puke --

"But none of us should fool himself into thinking that this a devastating critique of theist doctrines that do reconcile an all-powerful being with evil in this world."

Do they? How? and why should I take them seriously? What if I told you that I believe that a massive, hot pink SPACE PANDA caused the tsunami? Would you take me seriously and find my arguments for such a thing worthy of further discussion? I (of course) believe that this Space Panda is an all powerful being and I can reconcile modern events and worldly evils with my beliefs fully by following the Word of the Panda. His holy book, the M'uran. Why? Because I have faith. What tactics can I use? Sure, I can try to reconcile the "order" in the universe with my Panda belief system. I can say that "something" had to cause reality. I can say --"if you can't prove that a pink Space Panda isn't the creator of the universe then you have to grant my religon consideration because how do you know it didn't?" In the end, once you back me against the wall I can explain to you the limitations of reason and logical arguments. I have FAITH in the Panda, so why do arguements matter? They are just mind games. How can I be so arrogant as to believe that pathetic, mortal, miserable sinners like you and I can know ANYTHING? The Panda knows all and I just follow His Word.

"And so, I'm not going to apologize for asking for a little more meat to this discussion. I would like a better response than "God doesn't exist" to my Christian friends who invoke theodicy as explanation for things like the tsunami and Stalin and other wretched things. What better place than here to try to find that response?"

I'm sure we would be interested in tackling any good arguments that might be presented. But here is the key. The burden of proof is on THEM and not on us. It is up to them to prove the existence of such a being. It is up to them to explain why I should believe in something that is up to this point undefinable. How they propose to prove the existence of "something" that is outside of existence will be a rather difficult task. In fact, by their own definition, any explanation of the word "God" says that this "something" is outside of existence. God is "supernatural". Or, more clearly NONEXISTENT. So at this point the only necessary response is "God doesn't exist".

- Jason

Post 28

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 12:50pm

While good, the post doesn't refute or even challenge the existence of god, but instead challenges the commonly held beliefs and excuses many of the religionists hold. For example, if one were to read "The Age of Reason," by Thomas Paine one would find out that he would probably think all the religionists beliefs surrounding the Tsunami were ridiculous, just like Lindsay Perigo, yet Paine still believed in god. Without going into more detail, I'll just say that I think Perigo's post only deals with the topic of a benevolent god, which is historically not always accepted, and cannot address deism, satanism, or any other lesser accepted religious belief.

Post 29

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 3:22pm

For example, if one were to read "The Age of Reason," by Thomas Paine one would find out that he would probably think all the religionists beliefs surrounding the Tsunami were ridiculous, just like Lindsay Perigo, yet Paine still believed in god.

Well put, Russ. There is the existence /non-existence factor. Then there are the varieties of belief which don't agree on the "nature" of God (e.g. omnipotence, benevolence etc).

However, Lindsay was dead on in his refuting the "beliefs" about God that this disaster could/should (but probably won't) challenge.

John

Post 30

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 4:55pm

Deleted because I inadvertently violated a copyright.

(Edited by Sam Erica on 1/07, 5:04pm)

Post 31

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 5:24pm

I cam't imagine why Linz is being criticized for not doing something he didn't intend doing. His excellent article is not a full presentation of the case against religion; did his critics not notice that that was not his subject? Besides, Objectivist writers, from Ayn Rand on, have explained in detail their reasons for being atheists. Surely this list does not need infinite repetitions of those reasons.

Barbara

Post 32

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 5:29pm

Rooster,

I second the request for these theist arguments that have you stumped. Perhaps we can offer up some suggestions for lines of reasoning to pursue at your next table tennis match.

I agree that there are some very intelligent people who offer theistic arguments which are very fine tuned and nuanced. These people often enjoy engaging atheists and other dissenters, and they do so respectfully. However, no matter how good an argument someone can put forth that some sort of entity beyond our perception and comprehension exists, and this entity deliberately created the universe somehow, it still does not then follow that any human being can make a claim as to the nature and wishes of that entity. It also does not follow that the bible or any other religious text is anything more than collection of fairy tales with a few pseudo-historic references interspersed.

(Edited by Pete on 1/07, 7:42pm)

Post 33

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 7:05pm

Thank you, Barbara! I confess I was incredulous when I saw some of these posts this morning. The article was a commentary on a current event with particular reference to the wailing & gnashing of teeth going on among the theologically-minded *because* of that event. It was not intended to be & did not purport to be an exhaustive analysis of all the traditional arguments for the existence of God. For purposes of the commentary, giving just one of them short shrift was sufficient. For a total demolition job, I doubt there's anything better than Nathaniel's original lecture on the subject, part of his Objectivism series if I remember correctly? And George H. Smith has written an entire book on the matter, 'Atheism - The Case against God,' which I'm told is excellent - though why on earth one would need a whole book to demolish such arrant nonsense is beyond me.

One of the reasons we classify articles - "commentary," "sense of life" "Objectivism" etc., is to give folk an indication of what to expect. I put my tsunami article in the "commentary" category & that's exactly what I gave folk. Brief & punchy. Had I given it the "Objectivism" or "War for Men's Minds" tag then perhaps readers would have been entitled to expect something more along the lines of what those who apparently need to be spoonfed are clamoring for. That was not my mission.

There was a saying when I was a kid - "Some folk'd moan if their bums were on fire. And they'd moan if they weren't."

Linz

Post 34

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 7:58pm

I wasn't trying to criticize Lindsay's post, per se, I was just trying to show why it wouldn't 'finally sink in this time' or why the Tsunami disaster wouldn't even move some believers to question god.

Post 35

Saturday, January 8, 2005 - 1:08am

Linz wrote:

SOLO is very liberal. It allows cowards to post under pseudonyms.

I can only ask: why? Almost without exception, those who do hide behind pseudonyms bear this forum nothing but ill will. I'm not interested in confronting enemies who refuse to show their faces. Next Level and his ilk have my contempt for their cowardice.

(Edited by Derek McGovern on 1/08, 7:14pm)

Post 36

Saturday, January 8, 2005 - 2:29am

Puke,

P.S. Regarding my description of the Anglican church, I'm taking my cue from the many "enemy" (i.e., religious, conservative, liberal, and even leftist) publications I read every month to stay on top of what the non-Objectivist and non-libertarian world is thinking. I have some vague recollection of the incident you referred to, but that wasn't the basis for my characterization.

Fine. Like I said, just checking.

As to the rest of your post, my comments were really just general thoughts on some of the things being discussed here, it wasn't intended as a direct response to you. As for Lindsay's article, he's explained that he wasn't trying to do what you criticised him for not doing.

MH

Post 37

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:19am

Quintana,

Believe it or not, the Strangely-Colored, Hyper-Intelligent Animal of Extraordinary Size argument isn't a very good one. Don't get me wrong, it is very effective in conveying contempt for a theist's beliefs. However, I don't feel contempt. Instead I have curiosity as to why people who are more intelligent and better educated than I do have theist beliefs and how they frequently draw from those beliefs the same prescriptions for the good life that I have as an Objectivist.

To satisfy my curiosity I need to open people up rather than shut them down with pink pandas.

Pukszta

Post 38

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:44am

Level & Pete,

In response to your request for the theodic arguments I have encountered which reconcile the existence of evil in this world with omnipotent and benevolent god, let me preface that I do not claim to explain these arguments with any competence. I'll give them to you as I best understand them.

The most interesting one is from a Catholic priest. He asked me to analogize God's role as creator to mine as a father. God wanted a creation independent of him. In particular he wanted creatures in his image who were capable of love and free to give or withhold that love. He did not want automatons, just as I as a father do not want my children to love me because I order them to but because they genuinely have that emotion for me.

Well, what Objectivist wants his children to love him for any reason other than the fact they do?

The only way to set up a world in which this free will among the creatures he has created operates to that effect is to also permit these creatures to do the evil they do and to let the forces of natures take their course. In the same vein, the priest asked if I have ever let my children learn a hard lesson by letting them engage in a folly I knew would turn out bad? Of course, I have.

So, you see, guys, God is an Objectivist!

Seriously, my point is that theists who have given any serious thought to their beliefs are not going to be rattled by Perigo's polemic. They'll brush it off as a cartoon of theism that does not characterize their beliefs. I see that Perigo pouts that he shouldn't have to bothered to do more than his article to shoot down such a ridiculous belief as a belief in god, and he's right. I just wonder why he bothered to start up a subject only to get annoyed when someone takes it seriously?

My bad, I suppose, for trying to inject a little (self-interested) purpose into this thread.

Pukszta

Post 39

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 9:08am