What a ridiculous tangent has developed on this thread.
By this time it should be obvious to all that even the most intelligent and otherwise rational of men often hold on to some form of contradictory or absurd belief; and this fact is not the exception, but far closer to the rule. This is as true of Objectivist as anyone else. Whether it's some watered-down form of theism, anarcho-libertarianism, conspiracy theorizing, or the equating of a Jackson Pollock painting to one by Vermeer, it's all born of one of three possible causes: cultural/psychological conditioning, honest ignorance or purposeful evasion.
If you suspect cultural/psychological conditioning or honest ignorance, then a short point by point elucidation of your reasoning should quickly suffice. Lead the horse to water, and then leave him the hell alone - because you can't make him drink. If on the other hand you suspect purposeful evasion, in that the person already knows better but wants or needs to maintain his position; at that point the proper response is contempt. Not contempt for the person as a whole, that is rarely warranted, but contempt for that aspect of his thinking (or better stated, his rationalizing).
Now, in the case of an Objecti-Theist, honest ignorance is probably not the case; therefore the proper course of action in dealing with these types, on this subject, should be clear enough. A 'soft tone' or 'kid gloves' with an Objecti-Theist is playing with fire. Theism, even in its mildest form, is wholly antithetical to the fundamentals of Objectivist philosophy; in any compromise between Objectivism and Theism, only Objectivism will lose. In regards to the irrationality of mysticism, Objectivism is most definitly a ‘closed system’ on this topic.
The topic of atheism when discussed with a non-objectivist takes on a different dimension. An educated person (much less an Objectivist) should not entertain to engage at length in so childish a debate as the existence of God? In my opinion, this does far more harm than good. It will matter little that as an exercise in debate skills, you may win the verbal exchange. Almost invariably this will be the case, but you will have lost the war for the sake of winning a battle: for you have granted the person making an arbitrary assertion an equivalent status as the man basing his thinking on empirical evidence and objective proof.
Unlike the Objecti-Theist however, this persons assertion of a deity should not be treated with contempt or derision. If the person is receptive to Objectivist philosophy to some degree, then a pounding away on this single subject will only act to sabotage your efforts. This is not to say that you run away from or evade the topic, but it is to say that you should guard against getting caught up in a single issue debate that they can so easily mistake for an attack at the very core of their being. Let me put it this way, the God/atheism debate is perhaps the single worse starting point for an objectivist seeking to influence the culture.
Atheism, standing on its own - argued solely from science, will usually not have a positive influence on the culture; and to the degree that it does influence the culture, the deposed mysticism will merely reinvent itself in some other guise. Widespread erosion of mysticism will only come about as a result of the ascendancy of a new and vibrant philosophical change within the culture. Only as a mere corollary to a positive philosophy of life, will atheism assume its proper place as a concept: i.e. a conclusion that is so obvious, that argument is consisdered redundant or ridiculous.
George
(Edited by George W. Cordero on 7/13, 2:00pm)
|
