RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Will It Finally Sink In This Time?

Wednesday
January 5, 2005

Will It Finally Sink In This Time? by Lindsay Perigo

(Author's note - I am obliged to Pete for posting the link that inspired this article.)

"God works in mysterious ways" is really a euphemism for "God works in indefensible ways." And that is a pointer to the bottom line reality: there’s no such entity working in any such way; God simply ain’t there. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (68 messages)

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 9:14am

Barbara,

You wrote, "I cam't imagine why Linz is being criticized for not doing something he didn't intend doing."

I can. Perigo as the host attracted my attention to this subject with an appetizer and now I want the main dish that should follow. He doesn't have to provide the meal if he doesn't want to, but that's my gripe.

Pukszta

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 9:54am

Hey Rooster --

"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."

The Panda story is excellent for unmasking some of the common metaphysical, epistemological and logical mistakes commited by theists.   The key theist absurdity is promoting faith as a legitimate form of knowledge.   Faith amounts to beleiving in something because a person wants to. This is a psychological habit that most of us (including myself) are guilty of from time to time, but theism gives it a cloak of respectability.   Your friends want to beleive that there is such a thing as "God" because it makes them feel better. They've made far to many commitments to the idea and no matter how flawed the idea is and no matter how intelligent they are in other areas of their life, it would turn them upside down psychologically to adopt atheism at this point.   It is more comfortable for them to continue with their habitual belief system.

In reality, their real knowledge (if it is valid) is formed just like everyone else's. It is formed through their sensory perceptions of reality. Through these perceptions they are able to form conceptual knowledge by using their cognitive ability to gain an understanding of connections between different things within metaphysical reality. The fact that they've come to similar ethical concepts as yourself means that they've formed similar connections in their experiece with reality. Their problem is a matter of knowledge integration. They may have formed certain valid concepts, but they integrate these ideas with other contradictory and invalid ideas. In this case, they are integrating the valid knowledge they've obtained with their faith based belief system.

"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."

Rooster, your friend (and I'm sure he's a really nice fellow) is guilty of question begging.   This may be an interesting analogy IF the preist can first develop a valid concept known as "God".    He must first accomplish this feat. He must then show that "God's" characteristics allow for a comparison with the concept of fatherhood. The problem he will have is that it is impossible to know "God's" characteristics.  God, according to religonists is outside of metaphysical reality, and thus "God" is outside of the realm of possible knowledge.

"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?"

Mr. Perigo is a veteran Objectivist who (from what I can tell) is only going to give concern to knowledge that can be validated using Objectivist epistemology.   Based upon this, it is perfectly natural for him to toss out any discussion of "God" because "God" is not a valid concept.   Based upon Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology "God" simply doesn't exist.   The idea is entirely arbitrary.   Because of this there is nothing wrong with addressing a group of Objectivists presupposing the idea of God as total nonsense.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 1/10, 9:59am)

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:59am

Rooster,
I've also wondered how highly intelligent people can hold superstitious beliefs. What's different about me, I ask? I think I was lucky, for one thing, I had already reached the age of reasoning, nine years, before I was exposed to a systematic effort to inculcate religious belief. I had been reading for several years. My favorite things to read were science books, dinosaurs, astronomy stuff. When I could find it. Anyway, my first experience in 'sunday school' involved arguing about what 'faith' was and the existence of god. Perhaps because this was a mormon sunday school and the teachers were not 'professionals' their arguments were not persuasive to me and I rejected them. As for highly intelligent peoples belief's: for millennia the centers of higher learning in the west were the church. There was a strong self interest served by making arguments supporting the existence of god and promoting the existence of the church. Any learned person, even a first rate philosopher or mathematician would be branded a heretic if he did not make arguments in favor of god and the church. So, you have people with iq's perhaps in the 200's making very involved arguments, basically to preserve their lives. These arguments are very convoluted, I think, and difficult to disprove, especially if you want to believe them. [I have, by the way, read the theodicy arguments on the catholic encyclopedia website, as you suggested. Including their links to the existence of god arguments]. Located here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm
That's my two cents.
Mike E.

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 12:22pm

As it happens, the Catholic priest's argument *was* addressed in my article. The point I made was that (unlike an earthly father) God knows in advance how it's all going to play out (if he doesn't, he's not God). So why proceed with the exercise knowing the suffering & devastation it will wreak? Worse (which I didn't mention), why create a place of eternal torture where he's going to punish transgressors, when he knows in advance they're going to transgress? One would have to conclude it's for the sheer hell of it! That kind of God is not made in man's image, but in the image of an unspeakable monster.

As for responding to criticism, funnily enough I reserve the right to do that. Pretty radical, ay? I guess I should grant critics the right to say anything they like & renounce my right to respond, but, there you go - I guess I'm just not cut out for altruism. As a rule, however, when criticism comes from a mannerless, grandstanding boor I shall probably ignore it; when it comes from a coward that won't reveal its identity I'll *definitely* ignore it. I suggest that everyone adopt the same policy, so that boors & cowards will wither from lack of attention.

Linz

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 12:52pm

Rooster Puke wrote:

Perigo as the host attracted my attention to this subject with an appetizer and now I want the main dish that should follow. He doesn't have to provide the meal if he doesn't want to, but that's my gripe.
___

Mr. Puke: if you were a guest in my house with an attitude like that you'd be out on your proverbial rooster ass.

You come to the dinner party cloaked in a jacket stinking of vomit, freely partake of the best the host chooses to place on the table, then bitch that you consider it to be a mere appetizer and demand the main course?

Where I come from we call that bad manners. I would be grateful if I was you that the owners of this site have more patience for nameless nitpickers than I do.

David

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 12:54pm

Linz wrote:

...I suggest that everyone adopt the same policy, so that boors & cowards will wither from lack of attention..,

Oops, couldn't resist :)

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 12:59pm

No worries, David. And very well said.

Linz

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 2:49pm

Rooster,

Most of my preferred arguments against theism come from evolutionary theory and determinism, so you can't use them honestly. But I think that there are a few ways you can answer the argument of the father.

I will return later with a few more, but I think that the simplest one was already provided by Linz - it is impossible to reconcile an omnipotent and benevolent God with the existence of suffering without an admission that you cannot understand anything about God's intentions, thereby making the Priest's argument's dishonest. If we cannot apply human standards of morality to God's acts meaningfully, we might as well not speak them at all and the Priest's analogy is an attempt to speak of them. How many good fathers would allow 100,000 children to learn the lesson of death?

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 7:39pm

Jason,

You're right that I can use your "pink panda" argument to good effect, because I can deliver it in good humor to keep the discussion going. I should have given that more thought before my posting my initial response to you. You are also right about "question begging", but now that this thread has given me occasion for reflection, I realize what I usually try to find out from theists is how their belief in god supports their moral and political positions rather than why they believe in god.

As for the estimable Perigo, you state: "Mr. Perigo is a veteran Objectivist who (from what I can tell) is only going to give concern to knowledge that can be validated using Objectivist epistemology." Perhaps, but I am a veteran Objectivist myself. In fact, while young Perigo was still waving the red banner of the workers' revolution, I had already drunk deeply of the wisdom of Miss Rand which fixed my adult understanding of the world. So I un-humbly submit I have as much if not more standing to dictate what is relevant to an Objectivist discussion if veteran status is the standard.

Of course, it's not. Where I give Perigo his due is that he completely changed his world view to embrace the truth. Few people do that. They'll rationalize wrong-headed beliefs for a long time until reality finally intrudes. Doing what he did required intellectual courage, especially when it means walking away from fellow leftists who'll brand any apostate as a traitor. I had the good fortune to come to know Objectivism at a fairly early age. I'm not exactly sure if I would have been able to do the 180 Perigo did if I had gotten onto the wrong intellectual track.

Pukszta

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 7:44pm

Mike E.,

Thanks for the link. That's an interesting resource.

What you say about why people hold onto their theist beliefs is no doubt true in many cases, but I really don't think it is a comprehensive explanation. In any case, I hesitate to psychologize this. Unless I know I shouldn't, I try to accord a person the same modicum of respect for his intellect as I expect him to accord me.

Pukszta

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:03pm

Perigo,

Nice try, but your article didn't address the theodicy loophole. The whole point of theodicy is that god does not use omnipotence to control what we or nature do because that would make free will and the laws of nature pointless. As for god tolerating the evil that will occur in the future because of his omniscience, that presumes he lives within time. Now before you scoff at that nonsense (a scoff to which I am sympathetic), The Church of the Fourth Dimension in London, England, has an interesting resolution of this god-outside-of-time problem that is at least not inconsistent with physics.

In short, people of good will have put a lot of thought into the issues you have raised in your article. I don't think it is a waste of time to consider what they have to say. If nothing else, it is food for thought which all Objectivists should always have a taste for.

As for your distaste for "grandstanding boors", could it actually be an annoyance for a lack of deference?

Pukszta

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:06pm

Bertlesen,

Do lapdogs yip or yap?

Pukszta

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:11pm

Hmm, that wasn't very nice of me, was it, Bertelsen? My apologies. However, next you want to take me to task on behalf of Perigo, you might want to make sure it is not the same sort obnoxiousness that your boss routinely indulges in.

Pukszta

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:24pm

Level,

I take your point, but for the same reasons I stated to Erickson, I would not say the priest's argument is dishonest. That involves a psychological call that I'm not competent to make. Also, his comparison to my willingness to let my kids learn from folly to god's willingness to let free will and nature play out their roles was not meant as a precise equation. That said, if I ever had a bad seed I could not redeem, I hope I would have the integrity to let him suffer the wretched consequences of his evil acts.

Another important point his colleague made to me was that god is omnipresent in the sense all time occurs to him at once. Now does this sound a lot like a rationalization on top of a rationalization? Yeah, but I find a lot of ideas from perspectives alien to mine interesting. Plus, keeping the priests yacking while playing ping-pong is good way to keep them off their game.

Pukszta

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 12:05am

Puke has been banned. It was made clear to him that his boorish oafishness was not appreciated, & he carried right on with it. The "lap dog" post to David Bertelsen was the last straw. I don't know what sort of breeding, if any, Puke had, but I echo Mr. Bertelsen - where we come from we are taught basic manners. We don't wander onto other folks' property & then insult the hell out of them - or their other, well-mannered, guests.

Linz
(Edited by Lindsay Perigo on 1/11, 12:07am)

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 7:05am

It's about time. I am not sure about Mr. Puke's other contributions to the forum since I haven't read most of his posts. Is doesn't seem worth all those insults, does it? I certainly have had enough of Mr. Puke's rudeness toward our hosts.

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 12:58pm

PERIGO BANS PUKE BECAUSE HE CAN

When shall they come for me? Well, since I don't know, let me say what I know and stand up for what I believe in before the censors do their worst.

My view of events:
1) Puke mocks and insults Perigo repeatedly, in what some have agreed is bad taste (I'm obviously biased here).
2) Perigo dislikes it and asks that Puke tone it down (I presume that Perigo asked because honestly, I know other people have asked Puke to tone it down, but I cannot remember such a request on the part of Perigo).
3) Bertelsen defends Perigo and attacks Puke with an insulting post.
4) Puke responds with an insulting post, but knowing and admitting that he was trying to insult Bertelsen, tries to tell Bertelsen that there is no point in insulting people if you do not like to be insulted, and that he thinks that Perigo is generally insulting. This should have made it clear that nothing Puke wrote was personal.
5) Perigo uses that fact that Puke responded to Bertelsen's insults as an excuse to ban Puke.

Why not just tell the world that this is Perigo's web board, he can ban who he wants to, and that the reasons don't have to be just either?

It's odd how people who like to insult others react when they get insulted too. I think that some form of the Golden Rule should be in effect, but I guess it is easy to dehumanize whoever you are insulting and prove to yourself that he deserves your insults.

For the record, I once posted on the now-defunct Objective Science Forum, which was run by the editor of CapMag.com. It is partly a result of my discussions on forum that I see Objectivists as subsuming a wide variety of personalities (the common denominator is intelligence). I posted under my real name (no big secret by the way) and my arguments (and a bit less often, my person) got insulted by all kinds of Objectivists. I stated my disagreements, made arguments for them, and sometimes got convinced that I was ignorant (thankfully, it was a science forum). I've used my SOLO name on many web boards and it is a part of my e-mail address. It comes from a time that I was a part of the hiphop culture. So what is this nonsense about cowardly anonymity? I've repeatedly declared that if anyone wants my name, they can have it, and that I can provide my name if it becomes part of SOLO policy, and not some selective attack that Perigo uses on people that he doesn't like.

In fact, the main reason that I haven't provided my real name is that I enjoy Perigo's rants, and I sometimes wonder how the animus that drives him to insult me so will manifest itself if he knows my real name. I amuse myself by watching him bellow at arguments he has no interest in responding to because he deems them irrational, but which I know are quite reasonable and are usually differences of perspective and even when factually motivated, are significant indifferent contexts. But I am by nature an intellectual empath - sadly, I cannot say the same for many people I know, but I do what I must. I look for wider and wider explanations all the time to subsume more and more facts, including anomalies, which I do not dismiss as exceptions (they still have to be causally explained).

In any case, this "coward", finds Rooster's banning to be the prerogative of Mr Perigo, but to be clearly at odds with fair play. Why should you ban someone who responds to insults in kind? Because you were the butt of his insults?

Fine, but you like to insult people in general, Linz. If you want charity to begin at home (a traditional moral standard, by the way), then why are you encouraging your insults and those of your friends?

Thankfully, Linz wasn't George Washington. Some of us just like to make the rules and not play by them.

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 4:03pm

The coward known as Lowest Level is now banned also. He & Mr. Puke can now insult *each other* pseudonymously to their heart's desire (only not here). Better still, they could read up on how to behave when a guest in someone else's house.

Linz

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 4:17pm

Linz,

Because of you the number of new writers at the Autonomist website has just increased by 3 within the last 24 hours. Their own founder has never pulled that off! He owes you!

George

PS: Stay tuned for: "SOLO: a Perversion of Objectivism part 7 (the abridged 700 page edition)"

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 1/11, 4:22pm)

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 4:39pm

And the rest! The first *sentence* was 700 pages!

Linz