Are Objectivists REALLY Atheists?

Come on, Sarah, would you say the same about Albert Einstein's and Sir Issac Newton's Theist position, "superfluous and unsubstantiated", or a product of "denseness"?

Sorry, but indeed it's your way and tone of discussing that sounds to me as very faith based.

Best wishes,

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 7/16, 7:22am)

Post 41

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 7:50am

Joel,

would you say the same about Albert Einstein's and Sir Issac Newton's Theist position, "superfluous and unsubstantiated", or a product of "denseness"?

Yes, I would. And I do. Appeal to authority all you want, that won't make your position any stronger.

I've already addressed why my position isn't faith based in post 8. Your rationalization of a god being willingly limited by natural laws is trite and won't cut it. Just because this is the dissent forum doesn't mean you can get away with shoddy arguments.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 7/16, 7:52am)

Post 42

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 8:29am

Sarah,

I like your term "Amystic!" It is far more precise. I have never liked the term Atheist because it implies "Anti-nothing." which is rather silly.

As far as God or Intergalactic Computer Programmers (God is a geek?) or Boogymen go - someone, somewhere, somehow is going to have to introduce me and let me shake their hand in person or perhaps teleport me to the home planet of these super-dudes (the planet "Nincompoop" perhaps?) for me to start even concidering their existence.

Some folks here are really, really wanting these things to be so, that they are starting to invent possible realities. There is only one reality and their deities haven't shown up yet.

But, you don't need me! I just wanted to say -

"You go girl!!!"

gw

Post 43

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 8:50am

I've already addressed why my position isn't faith based in post 8.

I already argued against your second premise of the syllogism you constructed in post #8 with my post #35.

There you argued against the hypothetical existence of a contradictory deity, an exercise that did not demonstrate anything of real substance.

Best wishes,

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 7/16, 9:09am)

Post 44

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 9:06am

Joel,

A problem with theism and all of these "box within a box" ideas is they are not provable or disprovable. When you posit an invisible all pervasive power controlling the universe of course no one can prove you wrong. One of the properties of your "invisible force" is that it is invisible. Or else "everything" is proof. "Intuitively obvious to the most casual observer".

Another problem with these ideas is that they are so convenient. No need to bother with complicated mathematics or the study of philosophy or physics or the science of genetics or evolution. GOD explains everything. Or if your life sucks, just believe in GOD and you'll go to heaven. All these other people you don't like will conveniently burn in hell. GOD is the greatest labor saving device ever invented. You don't have to be smart or think hard or study. GOD is the explanation for everything.

About Einstein. Trying to bring up an "authority" to prove your point simply points out the emptiness of your argument. It so happens that Einstein was one of my first heroes. Before I'd ever heard of Ayn Rand. I was ALREADY an atheist. I don't believe Einstein's conception of god is anything like you would have us believe. Einstein was very much struck by the wonder of nature. And the universality of it's laws. He knew there was a great deal that he did not understand. But he KNEW there was an underlying explanation for everything. He worked very hard for his entire lifetime trying to come up with a theory that described everything. If he believed that a GOD such as you believe in was the explanation for "everything" he would have stopped working. His underlying sense of the ultimate laws describing all of nature are what I believe he meant when he said "God does not play dice with the universe". He also had the additional emotional distress of feeling somewhat personally responsible for the atomic bomb and the horrors of it's use. I think the context of him being asked questions over and over about this subject elicited some the his "belief in god" quotes.

Post 45

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:18am

Mike,

Your post has some points of my interest. Here I reply it.

“When you posit an invisible all pervasive power controlling the universe of course no one can prove you wrong.”

Be aware that the usefulness of the scientific method is limited to the strictly physical phenomena. In metaphysics your only remaining tools –actually, the most poweful available ones– are logic and reasoning.

“Then you posit an invisible all pervasive power controlling the universe of course no one can prove you wrong.”

Well, apparently some ideologies claimed to do so. In example: Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

“One of the properties of your "invisible force" is that it is invisible. Or else "everything" is proof. "Intuitively obvious to the most casual observer".”

I never said that.

”GOD explains everything.”

Ditto.

“Or if your life sucks, just believe in GOD and you'll go to heaven. All these other people you don't like will conveniently burn in hell.”

Straw man argument.

”About Einstein. Trying to bring up an "authority" to prove your point simply points out the emptiness of your argument.”

Agreed. Notice that I brought two scientific authorities to make Sarah realize that the idea of a Creator of the universe is not silly or trivial at all.

“It so happens that Einstein was one of my first heroes. Before I'd ever heard of Ayn Rand.”

Are you here bringing the authority of Ayn Rand? [kidding]

“Einstein was very much struck by the wonder of nature. And the universality of it's laws. He knew there was a great deal that he did not understand. But he KNEW there was an underlying explanation for everything. He worked very hard for his entire lifetime trying to come up with a theory that described everything.”

I subscribe your words.

“His underlying sense of the ultimate laws describing all of nature are what I believe he meant when he said "God does not play dice with the universe".”

Not exact: he said that in opposition to the randomness that had been theorized in quantum physics. A randomness that is a fundamental feature of quantum theory and that today has been proved to be in accordance with extensive expermentation.

“He also had the additional emotional distress of feeling somewhat personally responsible for the atomic bomb and the horrors of it's use.”

He was a pacifist. This was one of his personal flaws.

“I think the context of him being asked questions over and over about this subject elicited some the his "belief in god" quotes.”

A staunch Atheist would hve never mentioned “god” in those positive terms. He was a very religions man, and had trust in a non-personal overarching reality. Every good scientist has a sense of religiosity.

But, of course, he still could be wrong: nobody's perfect.

Best regards,

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 7/16, 10:21am)

Post 46

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:21am

Joel,

Alright, I'm in a good mood today so I'll play for a little while.

You posit that a god created natural laws and then willfully limits himself under those laws. Let's assume that's the case. Furthermore, let's get rid of the "who created the creator" problem by letting this god be eternal. Now, we've got this creator god who must be sufficiently powerful to bring about the whole of existence, so for all practical purposes this god is omnipotent.

Of course, we have the "you can't create something from nothing" problem, so we'll need some kind of stuff around for our little creator god to make existence out of. But wait a sec, if our creator god is omnipotent, why can't he create something out of nothing? An omnipotent being can't have any kind of restrictions placed on him. So let's just let this god break our little "rule" and create something out of nothing.

So now this god creates existence and the laws that govern it. We humans come along and start defining words to describe existence and laws. We've got this thing we call the "natural world." In short, it's absolutely everything that exists whether we know about it or not. By this definition, our creator god would be part of the natural world.

We've also got these laws that govern the natural world. We define these "natural laws" as laws that govern existence, in which this god is, by definition, included. Hold on now, we already said that our creator god was omnipotent. So how can he be bound by natural laws? Well, the solution you posit is that he willingly submits to these laws he's created because otherwise we'd have a whole mess of problems, what with causality being bunk and all. But no, this god is omnipotent so he could just fix, by whatever means, all the problems that his omnipotence creates.

Arg, now we've got another problem. Since he clearly isn't bound by natural laws and is only submitting to them by choice, he's outside of the definition of the natural world, i.e. that which is bound by natural law. He's blinked himself out of existence! But he's omnipotent so he can just place himself into our definition if he so choses, but then our definition would have to change to accommodate this fickle god of ours and our natural laws would become no laws at all, since omnipotence has no restrictions.

But hold on again, we already said that this creator god did create natural laws, which are now, by definition, nonexistent. So these natural laws, causality and all that stuff, never existed in the first place.

But then, how are we here to have this discussion? Ah, we can relax because our good ol' omnipotent god can do whatever he pleases, including keeping us in existence. But with a lack of causal rules he can't leave existence to its own devices or it could easily pop out of being or I could spontaneously become omnipotent myself. So he must then resign himself to having a hands-on approach to existence. Anything that happens does so because the creator god willed it to happen.

Oh, but stop the presses. If our god is omnipotent he can make the existence causal on a whim. We're back to having rules and he can go have a beer while watching us simple humans worship him. But if we've got rules then the creator god must be exempt from them and therefore supernatural and he's blinked out of existence again. But since he's omnipotent he can place himself in our existence thus voiding any rules. But then he can create rules if he wants and he'll be outside existence again and thus nonexistent. Ad infinitum

Edit: The punchline is: your creator god idea is full of shit. There is no rational or physical way a creator god is a viable entity.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 7/16, 11:12am)

Post 47

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:44am

I just printed Post 46 so I can have it framed and placed on my wall!

gw

Post 48

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 11:56am

Joel,

"Be aware that the usefulness of the scientific method is limited to the strictly physical phenomena. In metaphysics your only remaining tools –actually, the most poweful available ones– are logic and reasoning."

Strictly physical phenomena are all there is and all that I'm interested in. Logic and reason with no connection to reality, the physical world, is simply mental exercise. Things are not provable in metaphysics therefore the only useful metaphysics are those which are reality based i.e.: objectivism.

Do you call an interest in reality an "ideology"? As in, ANY belief in anything is an ideology and anyone who professes any belief can be called a "true believer" and dismissed if they don't believe what YOU think is obviously true.

"Not exact: he said that in opposition to the randomness that had been theorized in quantum physics. A randomness that is a fundamental feature of quantum theory and that today has been proved to be in accordance with extensive expermentation."

Quantum mechanical calculations have proved extremely accurate. The underlying phenomenon I do not think are adequately explained. Perhaps "particles" are simply the interactions of energy fields and their positions cannot be measured at sub atomic scales because in close proximity to each other they come in an out of existence in an unpredictable manner because the energy fields themselves cannot be adequately characterized. My point is just because we have equations that work doesn't mean we know exactly what's going on. Einstein was talking about exactly what I said, nature is not capricious, there are underlying reasons for everything, things don't simply pop out of existence in one place and pop into existence somewhere else. This non-capriciousness of nature, I think, is what Einstein called god.

Post 49

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 12:15pm

Wow man. - I just had a Nathan flashback with that candy stripped bullshit above. Bad trip, man.

Sarah, you are doing a great job with the troll. Are you sure you are not an objectivist? Dayamm you're good with both comparative religion and scientist stuff. Bear hug right back at cha, girlfriend.

Joel has shunned objectivism, is a recent convert to Judaism with an anti-Islam agenda and is trying to promote his extremist crap here on Solo. I for one, ain't listening.

Post 50

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 2:12pm

Gary,

Thank you for the compliments. The problem I see with "amystic" is that it can easily be confused with "a mystic." That would be all kinds of bad.

Kat,

Thank you too. Although, I don't know if I'm that good. Theism is just really easy to argue against.

As far as being an Objectivist, that all depends on what I'm supposed to agree with in order to qualify. There are a number of things that bug me. For example, treating consciousness as axiomatic implies that it's not something to question or investigate. Yes, there's the whole "using consciousness to attempt to disprove it" bit, but just because we are conscious doesn't mean we can't investigate it. It just seems like closing a door in neuroscience that shouldn't necessarily be closed.

Then there's the tautological identity thing: A is A. Yeah, it's true, but it doesn't say much. It's a useful thing when someone is saying A is B, but it doesn't say much about what A is. Granted, I may be overly picky here and should let science deal with what A is, but it just seems like a rather empty thing on which to base a philosophy.

The arguments against other political systems don't suit me much either. This is evil, that's evasive. Jargon. Someone unfamiliar with the Objectivist notion of evil or evasion will have a pretty feeble understanding of why Rand is attacking other political philosophies. Then he'll take that feeble understanding and come across a socialist with an appeal to emotion and end up being accused of saying that feeding babies is evil.

I haven't read much about the Objectivist position on aesthetics, but having a well defined position on such a topic seems like it would be a weak point to succumb to Randroidism. As post-modernism has shown, there definitely is such a thing as bad art, but that's no reason to go and define exactly what good art is.

Obviously I'm more dovish than hawkish. That doesn't seem to go over well.

So, I don't know. Am I an Objectivist?

Sarah

P.S. Bear hugs all around!

Post 51

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 4:48pm

Sarah,

You do not have to be anything other than Sarah.

That is what is so great about #46 - There is no Rand in it, no Peikoff, no Kelly, no Branden and most definitely no pseudo wanna be of any of the former. It is pure "Sarah" and I like it.. I am not trying to disparage any of the before mentioned Objectivist icons. I am only saying that there is originality in your writing and that separates you from the herd.

I have, in the past, heaped facetious praise on some of those wanna be's just to get them to engage me. (You have to heap a lot of something to reach an Ivory Tower.") My praise of #46 is without any pretense. You write what is in your mind, honestly. No lexicon-ic plagiarism required, no OPAR-atic recitations. No Bullshit!

Keep on writing. Pick the topics that are important to you, put them in a book. I'll buy it.

Perhaps what's in your head is the next phase of Objectivism, perhaps it's the next step in philosophical evolution. Maybe not - You won't know until you throw it out there.

All I want to know is, if you become famous, can I be part of your "inner circle of sycophants?" //;-)

About A is A? To me it means - Reality is Reality, Truth is Truth & Bullshit is Bullshit! and nothings gonna change that. I may not know what is real from time to time, I may not always recognize the truth, but ...Bullshit? Well Bullshit is Bullshit and I just carry a big shovel. When truth and reality are thrown out the window then A is B.S.

A is A is a reminder to keep it simple, keep it true and keep it real. No Bullshit allowed!

Thats my opinon and I'm stick'n to it!

gw

Edit: Shit, I almost forgot - Investigating everything is the apex of being objective. Tear everything apart and see what makes it tick before you decide to believe it, including Objectivism. You'll know whats right.( Now back to our regularly scheduled program!")

(Edited by gary williams on 7/16, 4:56pm)

Post 52

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 5:13am

Michael Stuart Kelly wrote: "
As to your position, the one about higher beings who created us.
Back to square one. (sigh) Who or what created them?"

Right. And I agree. That is a separate question. Who created us is not necessarily the same as who created the universe. The universe had no creator. We may have.

Post 53

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 5:24am

To One and All. I have been accused of being hard to understand, so let me rephrase the question.

Do Objectivists not implicitly accept many of the premises of mysticism?

If Objectivists were truly rationalists and empiricists and materialists would we honor the spirit of Ayn Rand?

Would we post her picture on a website? (I suspect that some have her picture in their homes or offices.) Is this not ancestor worship? Is it not totemism?

To me, it indicates that someone acknowledges that Ayn Rand's spirit continues to live even after her body has died.

Is that a rationalist-empiricist-materialist assertion?

Is it logical? Is there evidence for it? Can it be explained by physical laws?

Post 54

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 7:43am

Michael M,

You questions:

Do Objectivists not implicitly accept many of the premises of mysticism?
Depends on the premise, but the fundamental one, that faith is a higher form of knowledge than reason, the answer is no

If Objectivists were truly rationalists and empiricists and materialists would we honor the spirit of Ayn Rand?
Problem here with definition of "spirit." Spirit in the religious sense, no Objectivist I know honors that since it does not exist. Spirit in the attitude sense, yes, that is a noble thing to honor, as it is in each one of us to some degree, and is a very selfish thing to do.

Would we post her picture on a website? (I suspect that some have her picture in their homes or offices.) Is this not ancestor worship? Is it not totemism?
Post picture to worship? No. The other questions: no.

To me, it indicates that someone acknowledges that Ayn Rand's spirit continues to live even after her body has died.

Is that a rationalist-empiricist-materialist assertion?
That is your assertion. I know of no Objectivist who posits that. But no, that is not a rationalist-empiricist-materialist assertion.

Is it logical? Is there evidence for it? Can it be explained by physical laws?
No

That help?

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 7/17, 7:51am)

Post 55

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 8:12am

Michael M.,

I believe the term "spirit" is ill used in your question. You seem to be referring to us having ghosts on our walls. I do not have a photograph of Ayn on my wall (I have post 46 there! //; ) Oh, I do gush about it don't I?)

Michael, a photograph is a combination of paper and some fancy schmancy chemicals that react to light thereby creating the reproduction of an image that exists in nature. It requires something called a camera. The picture is not a ghost. When you have someones photograph you are not possessing their "spirit". If that were true, I would own your ass because your mugg is on my screen right now!

Seriously, Ayn is dead. (there I go with that heresy thing again!) She did live however and during her lifetime she wrote a book or two, posed for some pictures and made a couple of sound recordings. These are all "reproductions." They are not ghosts. She reproduced her thoughts in books. She reproduced her image in photographs. She reproduced her voice in recordings. These reproductions exist but her ghost does not. I suppose, now, you will corrupt my usage of the word "reproduce" and now say some people have Ayn's children hanging on their walls or shoved into their bookshelves.

Ayn is dead. Ghosts do not exist.

I have read her books. I have seen her picture. I have heard her speak. And I have memory of all these things. (Crap, now she's living in my head!) Her books and pictures and recording are only reminders of her existence, nothing more. They give us insight into her mind and what she looked and sounded like, nothing more.

Ayn is dead, but her books and photographs and recordings live on. (NO, Michael they are not really alive!) That would be silly. Kind'a like your "spirit" question!

The english language can be tricky with all those double meaning words and all. I suggest channeling the ghost of Noah Webster. Perhaps he can help.

gw

Edit: Sorry if there is a bit of an acidic tone to my post, the ghost of J.A. Folger forgot to buy more coffee and I need a fix!

(Edited by gary williams on 7/17, 8:22am)

(Edited by gary williams on 7/17, 3:03pm)

Post 56

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 1:13pm

I got curious and decided to see what dictionary.com says about atheism. This is what I found as the definition:

1.
     a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
     b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2.     Godlessness; immorality

1. Denial? Doesn't that imply that the truth is that God or gods exist and an atheist is simply in denial of that fact? LOL.

2. This one is funny all on it's own.

My initial reason to post this was for humor. But I don't think it's funny anymore, I'm appalled.

Post 57

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 8:26pm

Sarah,

Just a word or two on your doubts, which are excellent.

On consciousness being axiomatic, that does not mean that it cannot be investigated. All the axiomatic part means is that it cannot be proven, because to disprove it, as you mentioned, one would have presume a state of non-consciousness while using consciousness to postulate that. In other words, gibberish.

But investigate we must. All forms big and small. So is there something more than consciousness - higher maybe? Can it be created in a lab from brain cells? These types of questions will be answered only by investigation, however, to do that reason is needed. This mans that we must build on what we have, not invalidate it and start over. Neuroscience in particular is extremely exciting to me - with all doors wide open. (You just can't say that a non-consciousness will be what understands the results - that would be hopelessly hopeless.)

The idea behind identity is a form of affirming axiomatic concepts, nothing more. Existence, identity and consciousness are all intertwined so intimately that talking about one always involves the others. The axiom of causality comes next, but it is a corollary. When axiomatic concepts are discussed, it is more like talking about different facets of a gemstone than about different rocks. A is A is a cute little shortcut phrase that became Objectivist jargon (accidently on purpose) by Rand's constant use of it.

As to your question, the only way we have of knowing the nature of that "A" is by perceiving attributes of it through our sense organs, registering these instances in the brain as percepts and integrating them into concepts.

Is there more? Maybe. But if it does not build on this, then it is beyond human understanding. The important thing is that this "more" need not be a contradiction of "A." It can be an addition to it. Just like a non-imagined higher form of utilizing concepts might be possible, however in order to work, it would have to build on this basis, not contradict it.

The real problems with other political systems is the non-rational premises they are built on. All the jargon your see posted is bullshit if this is not the starting point. Actually, the way I see a lot of people (not all, please!) using Objectivist jargon, it is bullshit regardless of what they are discussing.

You probably have noted in my posts that I shy away from Objectivist jargon. The reason is that I have no interest in playing the Randroid shuffle with anyone. Also, I am fully convinced that all complicated ideas can be expressed in simple language that anyone can understand. This practice constrains me a lot, but it sure makes me think!

Your criticism about the feeble understanding of other philosophical, religious and political systems by many who wallow in Objectivist jargon does Objectivism (and them) a tremendous disservice when they come out with guns blazing. So many spout evasion, dishonesty, evil and whatnot without having a clue as to why, except what they manage to parrot from Objectivist literature.

In terms of esthetics, Ayn Rand used the term Romanticism for the preferred Objectivist school of art. She went to great lengths to show how a sense of life (a subconscious emotional attitude to existence itself) is a psychological influence on how a person uses his/her rational capacity and the need to experience this sense of life in a concrete form is the psychological and emotional fuel required for exercising that capacity.

Romanticism is a category of art that holds the premise that human beings have volition. It goes from there and this is a long discussion. I suggest reading The Romantic Manifesto to get started.

On defining what good art and bad art is, volition is the standard. (An example in literature Rand gives is plot - the purposeful and logical progression of events leading to a climax - which indicates that man has volition and exercises it; whereas a purposeless chain of events without any logical connection would indicate that volition is meaningless and without value.)

You can be a dove and be an Objectivst. I personally like to get the bad guys and kick the shit out of them. That's a matter of taste, though. We all want to kick the shit out of them when they attack us, though.

Anyway, as to your final question: are you an Objectivist? I would say your are more of an Objectivist than many Objectivists I know. You use your own mind, regardless of where that takes you. Call it what you want. From what I've seen, it is a first class mind of a first class soul.

Michael

Post 58

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 9:21pm

Michael,

Damn it, how dare you come up with such an eloquent post. Stop it, your making me look bad Amigo! All that "first class mind" stuff is surely going to give her the big head!

Sarah is in no need of our help. All we need to do is suggest a target that suits her and say "Torpedo Away" and watch her wreck havoc. "Damn it, it's Sarah" will be the death cry of so many SOLO hacks.

Amigo, that was a really good post!

gw

p.s. - Stop it, us illiterate bastards need good posts too!

Post 59

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 9:38pm