RoR: Forum

Some explanation

Having been impressed by Glenn Beck's interview of Penn Jillette, and reading Joe's book: Morality Needs No God -- especially of how people with faith and people without faith can possibly cooperate/collaborate (if we set our boundaries) -- I think this topic is important. For instance, Rand Paul just gave a 13-hour talking filibuster about domestic drone strikes and it has people, people from a terribly wide spectrum of perspectives, all fired up. Glenn Beck thinks a 3rd political party has just been started by the filibuster. Recall how the Tea Party was started. Let's assume Glenn's right. If he is right, then how could we screw it up? One main way we could screw it up would be to be real divisive and derogatory and refuse to work together with anyone who did not share 100% of our beliefs.

Besides the personal reflection I got from writing my thoughts down, I also wrote this piece in order to do what I can to help prevent such a screw up. A 3rd party where half the party attacks or hates the other half is not going to succeed, but a party of people who have gotten beyond that kind of a thing would succeed. There may be as much as 45% of the citizenry (over 100 million potential voters) who would be willing to break all ties with conventional bipartisanship in order to join a 3rd party. In a 3-party race, getting 45% of the vote would all-but-guarantee a victory.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/08, 7:35pm)

Post 1

Friday, March 8, 2013 - 8:19pm

Interesting... more of a meta-discussion. I mean just within the cultural context, when people say that they accept the literal truth of the Bible, they have no idea what they are talking about because they do not know the actual Bible, only some translation. When Protestants say that, Catholics may quip back, "Yes, the King James Version was good enough for Saint Paul and it's good enough for you."

I mean, sure, I have been to churches, a synagogue a couple of times, and heard the Dalai Lama, and being raised in this culture, I think that I know what most people mean by "God."

I like your answer, that you are a believer in natural law. That can be as undefined as God, but the intent of it comes closer to what I believe.

Deeper still, of course, we understand by analogy. Words are symbols. You never call the bear by his name, lest he should hear you, so you call him "Bruno" the Brown One. Onomatopoeia is important, too. I am impressed by all the words for God in the Hebrew Bible: El, Elohim (a plural), Yahweh, and more.

But when someone asks you that question - as you well know from cultural context - they are not opening the door to a metaphysical inquiry.

If you are afraid of dividing a non-existent third party over religion, you have cause and effect misplaced. For whatever religion-like beliefs I might personally hold, the fact remainst that the US Constitution specifies that there shall be no religious test to hold office. So any political acitivist who brings religion into the dynamic seems willing to abandon the Constitution.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/08, 8:33pm)

Post 2

Friday, March 8, 2013 - 8:22pm

Ed,

You're right about not succeeding if one half of the party is attacking the other. But fringe parties and new parties attract loons, and success attracts all those that feel like they lost power that should have been theirs in the parties that lost. How to keep them as supporters, but not allow them to set the goals or define the party - that's the hard part.

We should remember that the Progressives have been winning by creating sets of promises and generalities tailored to each ethnic group, to each socio-economic group (except the wealthy), to gays, and to women. They have to lie to do it, but they unite disparate groups, while giving each one the sense that the Progressive movement is the only one that hears them, the only one that will instantly right all their wrongs. It speaks to collectives instead of individuals and that is powerful in our culture.

In politics, almost anything is possible, but I still think we will have no hope till we either hit the very, very ugly dead end of runaway inflation (most likely) or a major crash that turns into a gigantic depression (probably followed by hyperinflation). Out of those ashes, there is a chance that rational political approaches might win.

Post 3

Friday, March 8, 2013 - 8:25pm

"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to �do something.� By �ideological� (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals...The only groups one may properly join today are ad hoc committees, i.e., groups organized to achieve a single, specific, clearly defined goal, on which men of differing views can agree. In such cases, no one may attempt to ascribe his views to the entire membership, or to use the group to serve some hidden ideological purpose (and this has to be watched very, very vigilantly)."

-Ayn Rand, "What Can One Do?"

Post 4

Friday, March 8, 2013 - 10:38pm

I believe that reality exists beyond my mind, and that my body and my thinking conscious process is a part of reality.

I accept things as true when I experience evidence and perform logic that come to conclusions that are consistent with my prior knowledge. I do not accept as true nor alter my expectations of the future given ideas that lack evidence or contradict what I know.

I want to live a life full of productive effort: where I create self supporting values that increase my abilities and reliability. I hold my body, the things I've worked for, the things I've acquired in trade, and the things gifted to me as my property. I retaliate when my property is used, taken, or destroyed without my consent.

I know that specialization and trade can make interactions with others worthwhile. I work towards establishing mutually beneficial relationships with others, whom I call friends. I respect my friends' property and sometimes even come to their aid in defense.

Post 5

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - 7:31am

Well, I had big hopes but people whom I respect answered, and the results are in: I failed.

When I watched the 'Glenn & Penn' effect I became inspired. If these 2 can agree on ethics and politics -- it was so cool to see Penn conclusively argue for getting religion out of the public sector -- then we are truly cooking with oil now. I thought I would write an article that might be later re-titled: Beyond Religion: The true scope of human support for a rational, constitutional, and limited government in America.

But alas, my hopes have been dashed -- the message received was not the message intended. Instead of diminishing the focus on religion in ethics and politics, I am told that I accidentally did something to in order to increase or highlight the focus -- and I've been warned (twice) to 'stay away from those other people over there.'

How am I supposed to integrate all this new information? I have to go through a whole, new round of introspection and rational reflection and second-guessing and what-if-this-what-if-that, etc. Aaagh! Do you people know how hard that is?

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/09, 7:34am)

Post 6

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - 8:50am

"Those who are discouraged deserve to be." -- Harlan Ellison.

Personally, Ed, I think that you made your basic case - about metaphysics and religion - to us well enough. I originally posted a link to a prayer, but when I saw that the discussion took a different direction, I edited that out. I will place it into the other "Religion" discussion, just for the record.

I would say easily that whatever "religious" ideas we all share (even DMG and Steve) are reflected more in the story of Howard Roark and the Temple of the Human Spirit. (That is also the title of a blog you might like. See here.)

Beyond humanism, a few of us (Fred, myself) here also seem open to the Unknown. Personally, while I live on the same "plane" of reality as DMG and Steve, like Fred, I think about the story of Flatland. Even Feynman who was dogmatically anti-religious and even made a scene at his father's funeral as his father also was a non-believer opened the door to these subatomic thingees being effects of processes we do not perceive directly, moving backward and forward in time by physical necessity. "God"? I dunno...

But I know that that Pope in Rome is a fraud - at least I have no reason to accept his claims to being the Vicar of Christ, even if I accepted any of the claims of Joshua ben Joseph in the first place ...

And that is where we Objectivists must part with the religious right. To us, it is metaphysical inquiry (if that), but to them it is Absolute Truth.

However, there is hope. If you look at the Pew Polls on religion in America, and if you tally in the atheists (more than Jews or Muslims), with the agnostics, with the casual believers who are largely "uncertain" or not willing to be certain, then you are at like 20% of the populace.

Pew Foundation: Not All Non-Believers are Atheists here.

Pew Fondation: Religious Landscape of America (16% Unaffiliated).

I'd say that we are winning. Keep up the good work -- and let Reason be your Guide.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/09, 8:52am)

Post 7

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - 10:16am

Michael,

I agree with most of your post above, but the passing away of religion isn't all good news.

While it is true that organized religion and belief in their defined God is diminishing, substantially, and mostly on a generation by generation basis, there is bad news. The underlying epistemology hasn't shifted as one would hope. And the altruistic morality of sacrifice remains. As Fred has pointed out, there are new "religions" - Progressive politics, environmentalism, abused science, political correctness, the sacred tribe, etc. The rituals, the trappings, the church... have all changed but the tribal worship and sacrifice continue.

And to add to the bad news, these new religious variants are coming without the view of morality as an understanding of natural law, of universal values and principles. Instead they have shifting relativistic morality. Yet they bend this as needed to justify the altruistic call to sacrifice to "the people," to political correctness, to the state, to the planet. In addition, what is also disappearing with religion is the view of man as capable of choice and the expectation of individual responsibility (not that these were well grounded in religion, but at least they were more there than not).

It isn't so much that the heart of religion is dying, as that it's worst elements are crawling out of the corpse and taking up a parasitic residence inside elements of modern political, social, and scientific thought - warping them to better suit altruism and irrationality.

Post 8

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - 12:06pm

Thanks for the feedback, guys.

On the issue of metaphysics and epistemology (leaving ethics and politics aside), it seems like everyone is an agnostic. Agnostic means without knowledge and pretty much everyone agrees that they are in a precarious position regarding having 'concrete' knowledge of God. For atheists (defined negatively as non-theists), they would agree that they are not in possession of any knowledge of God. And people of faith are in the same boat. The reason to have faith in the first place is precisely because you don't have the requisite knowledge of your subject matter. That covers probably more than 99% of the population of the earth.*

But many people do not claim to be agnostic. It seems that these people haven't been using the word "agnostic" in the literal sense. That's weird.

Ed

*Extreme outliers would include people who claim to know God in the literal sense -- just like they know their very own neighbors. These people claim that they can describe what He looks like, whether he wears clothes or doesn't need them, whether He likes chocolate more than vanilla, or even whether He has a Holy Twitter account (probably not limited to the usual 140 characters, though) -- because they claim to have real knowledge of God (the same kind of knowledge you would have about your very own neighbor).

:-)

Knowing Him just like a neighbor, they claim to be in a very special position in that they can speak for God, and therefore, they are not constrained by the usual humility taught as a moral code for humans in the Bible. In other words, they have become more perfect than the rest of us, and therefore we should listen to them when they tell us what it is that God wants. Not surprisingly, a lot of war and bloodshed has come directly from this small fraction of self-righteous humans. Thankfully, only a rare few claim to be in possession of literal knowledge of God, and they tend to end up in psychiatric hospitals.

Post 9

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - 1:07pm

Ed,

For atheists (defined negatively as non-theists), they would agree that they are not in possession of any knowledge of God.

That wouldn't be my position. I'd say there is no evidence that God, as described by believers, has actual existence. But I am in possession of lots of knowledge about the different claims made by believers - about the various literary, mythical entities referred to as 'God.' There isn't a real God, but there are many, many mythical entities that are so named, and we Atheists have at least some knowledge about them.

Socialists have posited a utopia that can only be reached by socialism. I know of their claims, and because I find the logic faulty, and the evidence inadequate, I don't believe that utopia exists, but I possess knowledge of its existence - AS A FALSE CLAIM.

The problem I have with Agnosticism is that it doesn't pass judgement on the only God we do know of... the one that is argued for by the various Theists. Or, that it does pass judgment on the claims, but then says there might be a God, because there might some other claim that is true.

The body of existing claims has been examined closely. It is a collection of different ideas that exist and there is no evidence of a real God beyond these claims. If the claims are inadequate then that is the only God - the claims are God and it is a mythical entity - not a real one.

Agnosticism includes a presumption that God might exist, even after acknowledging that none of the claims measure up. So, that amounts to saying that such a thing as God could really exist even though there is no evidence. Because it is couched in the form of a possibility doesn't change the epistemological error. I can say that Santa Claus really exists, or I can say that it is possible that Santa Claus really exists - both are without evidence.

Even possibilities require some evidence. Knowledge depends upon this call for evidence. Reason is identification and identification is of something that exists. The only God I can identify is the one that is a mythical being - in effect, a literary character. If someone alludes to even the possibility of there being a real God, they must identify those specific characteristics of the literary God that they are discussing (because the characteristics are many and often contradict one another), and give evidence of those characteristics being able to exist.

Post 10

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - 6:46pm

Steve,

I'd say there is no evidence that God, as described by believers, has actual existence. But I am in possession of lots of knowledge about the different claims made by believers - about the various literary, mythical entities referred to as 'God.'

Yes, I agree with you about the evidence regarding how believers have described God (there isn't any evidence whatsoever), but look at what you are saying in a literal sense. You are saying that you have knowledge about the belief-claims of some people of questionable rationality -- but that is not the same as having any kind of knowledge of God. Belief and knowledge are 2 different things. They are not 2 variants of the same kind of thing. You cannot go from one to the other. A belief isn't knowledge and no amount of willing can make it so. The real trouble is that belief is so arbitrary. Being based on subjective whims (people believe in the kind of God that they "want" to believe in), such beliefs preclude knowledge.

Socialists have posited a utopia that can only be reached by socialism. I know of their claims, and because I find the logic faulty, and the evidence inadequate, I don't believe that utopia exists, but I possess knowledge of its existence - AS A FALSE CLAIM.

Again, there is the whole arbitrariness to it all. For instance, some envision a Utopia where people are equal cogs in some kind of a grand wheel. Others include animals in the picture. A Jehovah's Witness/Watchtower Society pamphlet, for instance, depicts lions playing with lambs instead of eating them! There is no end and no limit to the kind and amount of things you can postulate if you are willing to unhinge your mind from reality and enter the whim-ruled playground of the arbitrary.

The problem I have with Agnosticism is that it doesn't pass judgement on the only God we do know of... the one that is argued for by the various Theists. Or, that it does pass judgment on the claims, but then says there might be a God, because there might some other claim that is true. ...

I agree with you that Agnosticism -- as it has been assumed (i.e., the non-literal way in which people have used the term) -- is guilty of pandering to the arbitrary. I agree that when viewed that way it is a bad thing. There is no legitimate place for the arbitrary in the realm of human thought. Maybe we can say conventional agnosticism to differentiate it from its literal meaning. On this differentiation, literal agnosticism is just not knowing (a-gnosticism), but conventional agnosticism is a combination of 2 things:

1) not knowing
2) welcoming the arbitrary into the realm of human thought

You and I know that (2) is not a legitimate thing for anyone to do -- i.e., it is wrong to do -- so might that be a common ground we share here?

Ed

Post 11

Saturday, March 9, 2013 - 7:53pm

Ed,

You are saying that you have knowledge about the belief-claims of some people of questionable rationality -- but that is not the same as having any kind of knowledge of God.

It is. If God is ONLY those belief-claims of some people of questionable rationality. If there is no real God, then there is no knowledge to be had about him. But if there are belief-claims about God, you can have knowledge of the belief-claims.

Let's do it this way. Neither of us are believers in a God, right? Yet, when we use the word "God" we know what the other person is discussing. We know that the other isn't a believer, so we know that we are both only referring to belief-claims. I know that you know things about people's beliefs. That is knowledge, because those things exist (the belief-claims).

Their belief-claims are not knowledge. We agree on that. But what I said was that I had knowledge of the belief-claims, not of God. And, they don't have knowledge of God (we agree - no evidence). Therefore there is no knowledge of God. Therefore when someone uses the word "God" the only logical refererant can be the belief-claims. That means that Agnostics have no word to logically use for whatever entity they are saying they don't know about, but might exist.

The act of being an Agnostic is in itself a claim for the existence of God, as a possibility, without evidence that is reasonable. You said, "...literal agnosticism is just not knowing (a-gnosticism)" - not knowing what? That's the problem. You have to have an object for that phrase - a thing that isn't known.

Theists put forth what they think is evidence, but isn't, or make claims for faith, which don't meet the test of reason. But at least they are straight forward and follow the process of argumentation. Atheists deny that the arguments meet the test of logic, or that the evidence holds up. They too are following the process of argumentation. Agnostics, on the other hand, smuggle the belief-claims of believers into an imagined dimension, or future time, or other universe and then throw up their hands to say, "I don't know." Do you see why I say the Agnostics should reject that there is any evidence for God, and then realize that there is no concept of God left to say, "I don't know" about. All that is left that we have evidence of in reference to the word "God" is evidence of mystical belief-claims. That's why I can't be an Agnostic about a real Santa Claus, or a real God.

Post 12

Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 8:28am

Steve:

Do you see why I say the Agnostics should reject that there is any evidence for God, and then realize that there is no concept of God left to say, "I don't know" about.

Here is one concept for God: the universe, as it is.

I and all like me once were not, and now we are. We were clearly created.

We can begin to erect our little God hoops and claim "Not allowed, in order to be a God, a God must be at least this high" and say that act of creation was not 'real' God-like creation, because we've erected those lists for God The Creator characteristics that jarringly start with the must have

1] Must be willing to jump through Hoops erected by the merely created denying their own creation by defining their way around it: "Must have been through Exogenous Magic in order to be God The Creator."
2] ... any number of characteristics so defined.

Is that a concept of God that is God enough, or as 72% of Americans who believe in the Magic God would claim, "Not God enough and vaguely Pagan?"

This Floorwax/Dessert topping nature of the concept God is evidence enough -- to this agnostic -- that the manmade concept is by definition a logical singularity, and therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to deal with it by claiming "If I am not allowed by definition to know, then I don't know."

Alternately, from afar, how can the meta-concept God be like a children's bowling game, where we set up the pins and then knock them down? "We've imagined every possible concept of God we can imagine, they are all fantastic and impossible, and therefore, there is no allowable concept of God The Creator that can possible exist. We can bowl a miss, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 or strike, and that's it."

I mean, other than the universe, as it is.

As well, including the above, assuming that the concept of God the Creator was something that actually submitted itself to jarring "Rules For God Posted and Enforced By The Merely Created."

I recognize your criticism of agnostics. I not only do not speak for all agnostics, but rail at the idea. I only speak for this agnostic, now and forever. There is no church of Agnosticism, and in a larger sense, there is no Universal Church of Permitted Churches to submit my petitions to. I gladly discuss my thoughts on the topic, but I'm not submitting them to any church elders, anywhere in this universe.

I think you think this agnostic is saying "Maybe there is a white haired guy on a throne or similar outside this universe" when the topic comes up. No, I am not. I am being polite to others who believe when that topic comes up. I am saying, on that topic "I don't know" because in my life, that is where such topics belong; the outside of this universe circular file.

The topic comes up regularly with my older sister, who is a believer. She is aware of my beliefs, is probably not happy with them, but we get along, because I don't permit the by definition unknowable to be the cause of a path to war. I am a believer, too, in that I believe in the universe, as it is, as that which created me. We just don't believe in the same thing. She believes in a super-creator, who created and used that universe to create me. She believes in an after-life, and so on. Or maybe, just hopes for it. And here's my polite answer to the by definition unknowable: "I don't know."

And when she asks me, "But what if the price of admission is faith in this life that there is a next life?" and I ask her "But what if the price of admission is gratitude for this life and not expecting, as due course, as an ingrate for the universe that is, that we deserve a better life than this one? So flip a coin; since neither of us know what any such theoretical price of admission could possibly be, we each have even odds of being right."

But on the topic of White Haired Men on Thrones, that literal criticism of ancient man's pondering's of the by definition unknowable and the jarring boundary condition of
0=0 transitioning to A!=0 is too harsh on merely representative art. It is literally criticising the art on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Personally, I think physics has for decades gone beyond the fantastic imaginings of ancient mankind. Cosmological processes that are daily studied by cold scientists are so far beyond the art in the Bible on any 'fantastic' scale as to be unrecognizable.

For most of us, advanced physics might as well be in another universe. Better to paint beautiful pictures on ceilings and admit "I don't know."

Everything we know is mostly space. Space. Molecules. Atoms. Protons. Neutrons. Not a solid particle to be found; particles that are made of force interactions between smaller particles...lather, rinse, repeat. And everything ... absolutely everything in the universe, if time is run backwards, is quite seriously thought to have occupied a mote of space smaller than a grain of sand is today-- our current understanding of physics not only permits this, but requires it. In fact, doesn't seem to be a way to postvent it (the temporal opposite of prevent something from occuring in the future).

The scientific consensus on this difficult but not impossible to know process of expansion changes based on better evidence over time, and in our current expansion phase, we are still trying to determine if that expansion will ever stop and reverse itself or fade to 3 deg K.

If an oscillating universe, then what knowledge can we have of other cycles, other than, they probably exist and will exist?

Equally, if an ever expanding universe, then if it happened once, it can happen again and again, may be happening again and again, but so rarely and improbably that at least so far, no evidence of our expanding universe colliding with another.

In both purely physical hypotheticals, be it other cycles of our oscillating universe, or our instance of our one-shot expanding universe, of what possible knowledge can we have of other cycles and other instances? With our present knowledge, we can't even claim that other cycles, should they exist, or other instances would have the same balance of cosmological 'constants' -- what we observe in our universe may be impressed by a boundary condition at the beginning of our cycle or instance.

And so, on the topic of the unknowable, it is entirely reasonable to say "I don't know."

What of any of that is any less fantastic than anything in the literature of ancient man? Why are we so critical of ancient man's expression of art on the topic of the unknown but fantastic?

This agnostic doesn't criticize the art, it is beautiful. But I do criticize the abuse and politicization, the carny huckster usage of the art of the unknown to lift legs and snow peers and rule them with mysticism.

So, by believing in the existence of a fantastic universe(a belief beyond faith that I assert is actual knowledge), one that I know created me, and by being grateful for my existence, am I believing in God? Some will say yes, some will say no, and I will laugh and say "I don't know," because clearly the purely man-made concept is by definition, by practice, and by observation, unknowable.

Man is capable of creating unknowable meta-concepts. Man is also capable of imagining mathematical singularities. With some irony, best dealt with on the imaginary plane.

regards,
Fred

Post 13

Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 12:04pm

Fred,

Here is one concept for God: the universe, as it is.

But, defined that way, 'God' is just a synonym for 'universe,' unless there are other properties that make God different from universe.
-----------

I and all like me once were not, and now we are. We were clearly created.

That can be taken in different ways. It can be about you, and about each other, as individuals, in which case your creation is explained by biology - procreation. But you clearly intend to mean more than that. Evolution speaks to the creation of the species, but I suspect you mean more than that. For the creation of the universe, we go to cosmology, and things like the Big Bang theory. But, do you mean more than that? I'm not clear on what it is you want an explanation for that somehow is explainable by the imagining of 'God' whose properties are unknown. It is the creation of the concept of God that I think needs explaining.
-------------

We both agree in our positions on all of the contemporary religions and their organizations. You wrote:

I think you think this agnostic is saying "Maybe there is a white haired guy on a throne or similar outside this universe" when the topic comes up.

Absolutely not! I have far too much respect for your intelligence to think that of you. I disagree with your position on agnosticism, but not like that. I think you have, with your reason, pushed back the areas a 'God' could 'live' in, till it has to be some kind of meta-concept that lives beyond the frontiers of modern physics, with its string theory and whatnot, even beyond the geography of the universe. You have pushed it so far off that it has no effect on the universe we know, or even could be expected to know in this lifetime. Now, my thought is that you have some strong affinity for holding on to this distant bit of an abstraction - some personal, emotional attachment, but have made it so far away that you are safe from any logical errors or misdirection of the sort that a regular theist or agnostic might be subject to - BUT, that's just my imaginings going on - my apologies if my psychologizing strikes you wrong.
-------------

Your position sounds a bit more like Deism, like Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, David Hume and others believed in at time of our founding fathers. From Wikipedia: "Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge." But science has advanced so far since the seventeen hundreds as to leave less room for a definition of God. And your take on all of this would be very much your own.

Wikipedia says there is a modern Deism:

Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.

Perhaps there is some fine line in philosophy/psychology where on one side you are a Deist, and on the other you are Agnostic.

Post 14

Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 1:56pm

Steve,

I have to agree that, when an Agnostic claims "I don't know", that there has to have first been a subject matter (e.g., such as a definition of God) about which it would have been logical to be making such a claim in the first place. And I agree that there is not, nor can there be, an objective definition of God -- and that that leaves us with the myriad, arbitrarily-postulated belief-claims (of the historical people of faith) as the only subject material upon which to make our logical comments. Basically, we are arguing about whether it is proper to say that you do not have knowledge of the arbitrary:

As soon as you say you do not have knowledge of something which is arbitrary, then you have accidentally granted epistemological status to the arbitrary subject matter in question.

Wittgenstein said that of that which I cannot know, I will not speak -- or something like that -- and both Rand and Peikoff warned us not to engage in conversations about the arbitrary (but rather to treat it is if nothing had actually been said). But imagine that in concrete terms. How would it work out if I took their advice? If I took their advice, then when that potential trading partner asked me that 5-word question:

Do you believe in God?

... then I would've just stood there, staring back at them, as if they had not uttered any words at all. Now, if I had done that -- if I had taken the advice of Rand and Peikoff -- that surely would have been uncomfortable and it might have cost me the profit of a business transaction. So, in place of pretending that no words were uttered (because someone else failed to be rational and instead they accidentally gave way to the arbitrary), I think that there should be a response. In my essay, I offered one possible response:

You have not given me enough information to answer that question. Please first define God, and then I will attempt to tell you whether He/She/It is something I believe in.

What do you think of that response? To Fred, you wrote:

Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe ...

I see 2 salient points here: (1) Man either creates and controls everything (has unlimited power) or does not create and control everything. And (2) the universe is either orderly or it is chaotic (not orderly).

The right answer to (1) is that man's power is, by nature, limited -- and is wielded inside of an unchanging arena of possibility known as: reality. Because of the unchanging arena, man has to learn how best to utilize his power in order to succeed in that arena. Deists might speak of this dynamic by saying that there is a Higher Power -- which is a literally-mistaken-yet-correctly-intentioned way to go about describing the basic fact that nature has to be obeyed, before it can be commanded. I like to say Higher Order, because that only invokes natural law, not supernaturalism (or some kind of a super-natural law).

The right answer to (2) is that the universe is ordered rather than chaotic. In an entertaining Phil Donahue interview of Ayn Rand, Rand conclusively argues that the universe is ordered because it has to be ordered -- because reality is the standard for determining whether something is ordered or not [fast-forward to 5:00 minute mark of this YouTube video (2/5)]. Donahue light-heartedly admits to Rand that she persuaded him to come around to her way of thinking about the subject matter, and that that is somehow a 'big deal' -- perhaps because he realized he was an obstinate creature to begin with.

:-)

At any rate, both of these answers are commensurate with "modern Deism." Pulling back and taking a philosophically-telescopic view, here is a run-down of how different people would answer these 2 questions:

1) An existentialist would say that man totally creates himself, even though the universe is always out there in order to bump up against. An existentialist may or may not say that the universe is ordered, but will admit he can never discover the order of the universe and can only discover the order in his own soul -- so that is his focus.

2) A pragmatist would say that you have no power to create yourself, only the power of experiment, affording mankind with fleeting glimpses of what it is that might work for an arbitrary goal, at an arbitrary time, in a limited context. A pragmatist would say that it appears as if the universe is ordered, but that future experiments may falsify that conjecture.

3) A metaphysical idealist would say that you were created and cannot do anything to refine yourself -- that you cannot build your own soul -- because someone else has already done that for you. They would say that the universe is ordered because someone else chose to design it that way.

4) A metaphysical realist would say that man is here inside an ordered reality, but can learn about that reality (to gain a measure of power in order to accomplish goals) and that he can learn about how to go about the business of building one's own soul (to work on oneself in order to accomplish moral improvement).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/10, 5:41pm)

Post 15

Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 4:34pm

Ed,

If someone asks me if I believe in God, I just say, "No." I assume the REAL question is, "Do you believe that God, as we Christians tend to understand him, actually exists?" The context of the situation makes that a reasonable assumption. And that is why my "No" answer is valid. And it is appropriate to the conversation, because that is the kind of answer they are looking for - a 'Yes' or a 'No' in the sense of "Do you agree with my views?" Understand that at that point you still might not know why they want to know.

Then I might say something that tends to move the conversation away from what could be an uncomfortable moment for them, and to an area of agreement. I might say something like, "But I do believe that, even without a belief in God or a religion, we all need a morality that tells us what is good, what is bad, which actions are right, and which are wrong. And that we have a moral obligation to exercise those judgments." Knowing the person is a Christian, and depending on the situation, I might go on to say that I agree with most Christians who believe that humans exercise choice, and that our basic rights derive from out nature - and not as a gift from government. That restores a bond for communication and gives them the opportunity to decide where to go next in the conversation.
--------------

You wrote:

I think that there should be a response [not going silent]. In my essay, I offered one possible response: You have not given me enough information to answer that question. Please first define God, and then I will attempt to tell you whether He/She/It is something I believe in." What do you think of that response?

As an Atheist, I prefer a more straight-forward answer. If someone asked if you believed in Santa Claus, what would you answer? Wouldn't you say something, like, "I used to. But that was long ago"? If someone asked you if you believed that extra-terrestrials have been visiting Earth on a regular, and recent basis, what would you say? Something like, "No, I haven't seen any evidence that might be true"? As long as an object of discussion has been identified, explicitly or implicitly, then you should be able to say yes or no.
------------

The social context can make a big difference. When we, here on RoR, discuss these issues our agenda is usually just what it seems. We are arguing a logical point, or chewing on the epistemological issue in an assertion, or addressing an ethical or a political ramification. But if a person who knocked on my door and stood there with 7th Day Adventist brochures in his hand asked if I believe in God, I'd smile, because I'm a friendly person, and say, "No, thank you" and close the door. Because the REAL question was "Can I sway your beliefs in the direction of the 7th Day Adventist beliefs" and my "No, thanks" and closed door is the most straight forward answer to the real question.
------------------

A friend who is a Christian might ask you that question, because they are hoping you'll say yes, and they can share a larger part of their world with you. Or, they might be having doubts about their faith and want to explore letting go of them with you. You don't know till you answer. Context is king :-)
-------------------

Somehow, nearly the whole culture, even non-believers, treat the question of God's existence like it is unique at an epistemological level. As if there was a special logic, and a special category of actual existence that don't appear with anything else, anywhere else, any other time... except for when God is the subject matter.

Now, the universe is unique in that it encompasses everything that exists. And the beginning of all things is a unique question. But I haven't yet found an argument that involves God and the Universe such that it can't be handled with normal logic - none of which have ever left me seeing that a concept of God adds to the understanding much less is required by the logic. Discussing the origin of the physical universe, or what we don't know in fundamental physics can easily take one to a "I don't know" position, and maybe to a "We may never know that one" position, but ignorance hasn't ever appeared to me as a sound argument that God must exist.

Post 16

Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 5:09pm

Steve:

Re; [Me] We were clearly created.

[You] Evolution speaks to the creation of the species, but I suspect you mean more than that. For the creation of the universe, we go to cosmology, and things like the Big Bang theory. But, do you mean more than that?

I simply mean, from a state of nonbeing (any of is as humans) there is now a state of the universe that includes all of us as humans. By whatever process, we were clearly created, as in, we did not create ourselves.

And things like Cosmology, Big Bang Theory, and Evolution are far more fantastic(and yet believable)than the art of ancient mankind describing merely imagined magic in order to scare the kids and fill the offering plates.

For some reason, there is still a remnant of significance to the question, "Were we created by a vengeful old guy with white hair on a throne using bolts of lightning" or somesuch...and forgive me, but it is years since I studied the gibberish, "The God Of Abraham..." or whatever. I don't mean anything remotely like that when I assert "we were created."

I'm referring to the truly amazing stuff, and from my POV, your question should have been:

"But, do you mean less than that?"

Isn't the form of your question doing what you accuse agnostics of doing(by being polite, and in response to questions on the topic of the by definition unknowable simply saying "I don't know") -- by granting the magic domain as something that is 'more than that?'

Of course not, but look what happens around by definition conceptual singularities.

regards,
Fred

Post 17

Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 5:35pm

Ed:

I have to agree that, when an Agnostic claims "I don't know", that there has to have first been a subject matter (e.g., such as a definition of God)

This reminds me of the wording of the 1st Amendment and the implied conundrum: the government is forbidden from exclusively establishing religion. There is complete religious freedom, by law.

OK, so then how does the government define religion if it is prohibited from defining religion in any restrictive way? It cannot, because it must not, and so therefore it must do what it may not, because it must not. The perils of legislation around conceptual singularities. Fortunately, the government has no need to ever define religion-- especially for the curious purpose of prohibiting its mere appearance anywhere in America.

Man is quite capable of conceptualizing meta concepts that by definition cannot be defined; God is one such, by definition. If by definition, the meta-concept God can be both inside and outside of the universe we are confined to, one or the other or both, then by definition, there are concepts of God(instances of the meta-concept God, not actual Gods) that cannot be defined, and barely imagined, including the superset not yet imagined.

Here is a manmade black box: it is capable of emitting concepts of God. The black box is not God, and the things it emits are not Gods; The black box is a factory for emitting imagined concepts of Gods. By definition, mankind has created the black box emitter of concepts of God -- meta-God -- as being undefinable and unlimited.

When we examine one concept emitted by the black box, we can ask for its definition and look for proof of its existence. Spaghetti monster. The universe as it is. Ayn Rand.

We can do that a million times, and find them all to have clay feet, or some of us will split off and choose the latest concept as the basis for our new religion, and not have come close to exhausting the bottomless by definition meta-God concept emitter black box.

By definition, when mankind dreams up a black box like that, apriori knowledge of what's in it is not possible.

Especially given that it doesn't even exist.

So..where do all these concepts of God come from, if not from that inexhaustible black box emitter, the meta-God fountain?

Do we ask agnostics about a single instance, or the set of all possible instances? Because then an agnostic would have to politely ask, "Please define the set of all possible instances that could be emitted from the black box meta-God emitter." Because we need to have the subject matter at hand, right?

Some claim to know the answer to that question, or try to put the meta-God emitter black box into a restrictive box of some kind...as in, manufacturing rules for the meta-concept emitter blackbox God concept emitter.

Agnostics don't. They say the question has been rigged, by definition, and "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable position on such topics.

regards,
Fred

Post 18

Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 6:12pm

Fred,

I'm left still happy with my Atheism, and feel comfortably on solid logical ground despite any questions regarding the 'creation' of human beings. I don't think of myself as 'created' but rather 'born.' I don't think of our species as 'created' but rather 'evolved.' And so forth.

And I see no place that a concept of 'God' would need to be inserted here... no matter what definition of that word is used (I think we already have enough words for those area of knowledge related to our discussions).

I'm very leery of this meta-concept business - the idea that man can create concepts that can't be defined and yet claim that there can be any validity to them as concepts. I'm pretty sure it isn't on solid epistemological ground. We can make up ideas out of whole cloth, but that isn't the same as presenting an idea with a theory that makes it logical, or with evidence that meets the test of logic. Why does adding the words "black box emitter" or "meta-concept" or "God" increase our understanding? Why would a meta-concept of God (tossed in with meta-concepts of the universe) have some shred of reason, while a meta-concept of a box of coco puffs wouldn't?

Call me a stick in mud, or hopelessly linear, but I just can't discuss that which can't be defined :-)

I'm not thinking of anything else to say on this... so I'll leave it at that at least for now.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 3/11, 1:51am)

Post 19

Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 6:31pm