Are Objectivists REALLY Atheists?

Ladies & gentlemen,

This is my last post in this forum.

Mike,

I appreciate your tone and respect, and will comment some of your assertions.

“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.”

I don’t think that reality is strictly composed by the physical world, and think there are also non-physical realities. In example: are the axioms and deductions of logic and mathematics, or the laws of morality, a physical reality? No. We use them to live, and to explain reality, but are not “over there” as physical reality is.

“Things are not probable in metaphysics therefore the only useful metaphysics are those which are reality based i.e.: objectivism.”

The good metaphysics is reality based. My intention in this thread was to discuss what metaphysics is right: the one that affirms the possibility of a higher Existence or the one that denies this possibility.

”Do you call an interest in reality an "ideology"?”

No. Interest in reality is philosophy.

[Joel Català:] "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 experimentation."

”Quantum mechanical calculations have proved extremely accurate.“

I know that.

“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.”

Not correct, Mike. Einstein was a determinist, and when he said his famous sentence he indeed was thinking about his distaste for the inherent probabilistic nature of quantum theory. He was definitely a genius, but nobody is perfect. The fact is that general relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally at odds. When Albert Einstein said God, he meant God.

---

Sarah, your post #46 is a sample of superficial thinking, swinging, mockery and contempt, and that’s a real pity.

---

Katdaddy, SOLO romance leader, I abhor ad homimens and definitely prefer to speak about ideas.

The only true parts in your sentence are that you did not listen, that I shunned Objectivism --everyday I am more convinced about that decision--, and that I do have an anti-Islam vision. Though with significant differences, I see both philosophical systems as wrong.

---

Now, before departing SOLOHQ, I will sketch my actual, current view about Theism here for the sake of clarity.

The metaphysical system which I understand as the most reasonable includes the following elements:

You may see that I don't find any incompatibility between science and Theism. A Creator is the only Existence “before/outside/above” space-time and its intrinsic laws. The universe will always evolve following the natural laws, which are a fundamental component of creation. Those laws and the universe were created in the appropriate way to enhance the Creator’s purpose for mankind.

The universe is intelligible so mankind can learn from the wisdom embedded in it. The way of learning from it is through resorting to the use of the intelligence and reason, with which we humans are endowed.

I also ascribe some moral elements to creation, which are not physically linked to the physical space-time:

The Creator also generated an absolute moral system, which provides mankind with an objective morality. That morality is the most appropriate to enhance meaning, pleasure, and happiness in human life, and is good for every individual, as every individual has a soul which requires morality. Our capability of free will guarantees that every human being can choose to follow His morality or do otherwise.

Sincerely,

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 7/18, 3:14am)

(Edited by Joel Català on 7/18, 9:25am)

Post 61

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 7:52am

Joel,

Perhaps the objective morality you speak of in essence is not very much different than the objectivist's morality many soloist's pursue. Without the issue of "atheism" we probably live much the same lives and treat our fellow man similarly. Good luck to you. I appreciate your civility and your clear explanations of your point of view even as we disagree.

Best regards,

Mike Erickson

Post 62

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 10:11am

Joel,

Quiter!

gw

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 8:30pm

Gary Williams - Post #42 - atheist, as Sarah House has pointed out, means "not a theist", as such if you believe God does not exist, then your position would not be "anti-God", or as you translated it "anti-nothing", but it would be "not a believer in God" or "not a believer in nothing". Otherwise, you earn points for appreciating Sarah House.

Joel Catala - Post #40 - Presumably you are not here to read this, but there is an error of sorts to set straight. Einstein, as was noted in another post on this tread, had his own idea of what he referred to as God was. Most of his references to God of which I am aware were either shortcuts to talk about moral action or the embodiment of the laws of physics which he sometimes thought could not be as others described them because God would not allow that. What he meant was: This is not physical.

Einstein wrote a short Foreword to Homer W. Smith's book Man and His Gods. He wrote of his response to the book: "The work is a broadly conceived attempt to portray man's fear-induced animistic and mythic ideas with all their far-flung transformations and interrelations. It relates the impact of these phantasmagorias on human destiny and the causal relationships by which they have become crystallized into organized religion." [Professor Smith emphasizes] "the boundless suffering which, in its end results, this mythic thought has brought upon man." "His historical picture closes with the end of the nineteenth century, and with good reason. By that time it seemed that the influence of these mythic, authoritatively anchored forces which can be denoted as religious, had been reduced to a tolerable level in spite of all the persisting inertia and hypocrisy."

Prof. Smith's book is not the least bit favorable to religion and his story is one of man creating God, not the other way around. Einstein seems to be fine with this viewpoint. Einstein believed in objective observation and praised Prof. Smith for sharing that belief.

Post 64

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 9:04pm

Charles,

Thank you for this reference. I found the forward by A. Einstein here:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/homer1a.htm#FWD

Along with the first few chapters of the book.

Post 65

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 9:04pm

Chuck,

I was referring to the adjective, not the noun!

Such as theist thinking, which is a contradiction.(And we all know those little bastards can't exist!) Such as a real god. God is not real therefore He/She/It is nothing.
And theist belief, which is crap.

Am I getting cranky? .......Damn you J.A. Folger!

gw

Edit: Oh hell, I really don't have any more to say with out getting really nasty and Odin knows I don't want to get "banned" here! I declare this edit to be null and void. I'm going to bed.

(Edited by gary williams on 7/18, 9:14pm)

Post 66

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 9:06pm

Sarah House - Post #50 - MSK has my endorsement in his comments to you about this post. I would like to add a word or two, or many more.

Consciousness is axiomatic with respect to its existence, but we can study it forever with respect to how we achieve it and how it arises from our minds and bodies.

A is A. This is a shortcut way of saying that one should observe something to find out what it is. If it is something, it has a nature and attributes and we can learn what these are. That entity is knowable from these attributes and only from these attributes. Do not be looking at it as a representation of some ideal form in the hands of God or in the mind of God or any such approach to knowledge. Use your senses to perceive its basic attributes and the conceptual capability of the mind to understand it in terms of its objective attributes. This is quite a mouthful, so it is convenient to remind people of it by saying "A is A". That is only a reminder, however.

When I was very young, two bullies attacked my younger sister with stones. My response was to return the attack with a fury the attackers could not match. My sister lived and they never attacked her again. When I was in the 7th grade, a bully 4 years older than the rest of us, ruled the playground. This ended when my good friend, a very nice and gentle kid, Bob White, also a very big kid, beat the bully up after watching him beat up a friend of ours. In the 10th grade, an 11th grader pushed the girls aside day after day as they tried to get on the bus until I grabbed him and told him we were going to fight every day until he stopped. He stopped. Bullies exist. Most dictators are bullies. Some countries are bullies. They only respect those who are prepared to fight for their principles. Generally, it is the nature of bullies that when this preparedness is demonstrated, they do not choose to fight.

Having noted this fact of reality, I will not define someone who errs in understanding this as a non-Objectivist. It is probably harder to understand this reality when one is raised in a time when the schools teach that any fighting is reason for expulsion and any comment that might be taken, even and maybe especially when irrationally, as an insult, is as evil as if one attacked another with a knife. One no longer hears: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." By elevating hurt feelings to such heights of condemnation, we have pulled the foundation out from under the legitimate protection of the rights of man against initiated violence.

Post 67

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 9:15pm

Gary,

You have completely lost me now. I have no idea what you are talking about. The damned scientist in me! When others leave too much between the lines, I simply cannot fill it in. You will have to help me out here.

Charles, whose Dad is Chuck (or Andy, or Skipper), so I never was.

Not that I really care what version of Charles you use! Chuck is fine, I am just not used to it.

Post 68

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 9:20pm

Charles,

A quick note, don't confuse pacifism with passivism. Just because I don't like the use of violence doesn't mean that it isn't sometimes necessary. I'd just like to use other options first when possible. Edit: According to dictionaries the two words are synonymous. Well, I disagree. Let it be known that I, Sarah, hereby de-synonymize the above two words.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 7/18, 9:23pm)

Post 69

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 9:47pm

Charlie,

Adj. 1. theist - of or relating to theism. - theistic or theistical.

n. ad-jec-tive - 1.The part of speech that modifies a noun or other substantive by limiting, qualifying or specifying and distinguished in English morphologically by one of several suffixes, such as -able, ous, er and -est or syntactically by position directly preceding a noun or nominal phase.

2. Any of the words belonging to this part of speech, such as white in the phrase a white house. Or theist in the phase theist bullshit. Or such as cranky in the sentence "I am a cranky poster."

gary who's dad was dad, is, and is very tired and is really going to bed now.

You can give me hell about this post tomorrow Chuck, but now I really gotta go.

gw

Edit: You really should have paid attention to my earlier "Torpedo" reference, you coming from a Navy family and all!

(Edited by gary williams on 7/18, 9:54pm)

Post 70

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 9:57pm

Sarah,

It is rational to use other options before force in most contexts. With some people and some nations, the option is this: If you persist in using force to get what you want, I will use a much greater or more determined force to see to it that you do not get it.

With others, there is simply a disagreement that is best worked out by compromise or by discussions to find a new path which benefits everyone. We all solve most conflicts in this manner for the very good reason that it usually works best. It is important to recognize when the other party is not sufficiently rational that there is hope for this process to work. There are people who take this problem-solving approach as a sign of weakness and use our inclination to proceed in this manner as a means of buying time or making off with and hiding the stolen goods.

We often have to make difficult choices based on the cost of action versus the cost of inaction. We might in principle be justified in responding to an initiated use of force with force, but decide the cost is too high to exercise our option to do so. Perhaps you and I might evaluate the costs differently. This is to be expected, since some of these assessments are very difficult. You will never find me saying that the world and the sum of the individuals in mankind is not very complicated. It makes some room for disagreement!

Post 71

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 11:27pm

"Friend, I would not harm thee for the world, but thou art standing where I am about to shoot."

Post 72

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 1:22pm

C.A.,

First, The Chuck thing is a Peanuts reference and a tip of the hat to Peppermint Patty.

Second, Semantics bores me. (See I know big words too!)

Third, Sarah's Number 46 is an excellent example of Reductio ad Absurdum. (See, more big words!) Wait...you agreed with me on that didn't you? Sorry! This is directed at Joel's post #60.

Forth, Thanks for giving me some points. I promise not to spend them all in one place!

Fifth, I'm ex-Army so Navy references make me bristle. Would that be considered an instinct or a programed response. ;-) Hooaah! (I read your profile. Interesting!)

Sixth, Again, the semantics thing. I own a dictionary or two & debating things like Michael Marotta's definition of "spirit" or having someone tell me what my own definition of "atheist" should be, is a lot like eating okra; it won't kill me but I do loath it so. I tend to mash it around and then push it aside.

Lastly, Referring to the first item -You do not get to pick your own nickname. That wouldn't be very much fun.

gw

(Edited by gary williams on 7/19, 1:24pm)

(Edited by gary williams on 7/19, 1:29pm)

(Edited by gary williams on 7/19, 4:42pm)

Post 73

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 7:20pm

Gary,

Atheist as an adjective means "not of or relating to theism", which only implies that an atheist person does not subscribe to theism or the belief in a god. Atheist thinking would simply imply that it was not the case that one believes in a god.

1) Charlie Brown is a poor, hapless fellow. I cannot in any way associate myself with him, except for the fact that I once was very shy in the presence of some beautiful young ladies, unless I had something interesting to talk to her about. One of my early girlfriends was also a redhead. Otherwise, can you imagine Charlie Brown posting on SOLO HQ? How about Charlie Brown, the physicist?

2) Semantics can be fascinating, though it is more so when one asks what the concept for which a word may stand is needed for and how the meaning of the word should be refined to serve a suitable purpose in the thinking of a rational man. For example, the word tolerance is defined in a contradictory manner in many dictionaries. This is a result of a long history of irrational use of this word. So, it is fascinating to try to refine its meaning to serve a more rational purpose.

5) I grew up with the Navy, but served in the Army in Vietnam. I then worked for the Navy Dept. for 10 years. The Navy Dept. is certainly one of the more competent government agencies, but it is a frustrating exercise to work for any part of any government. I much prefer operating my own company. The Army was less well run than the Navy, but it is better run than most of the Federal government.

6) Dictionaries - be careful using them. See 2) above. Consider the definition of "capitalism" from the Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, 2nd College Edition, 1970. The definition 1 is "the economic system in which all or most of the means of production and distribution, as land, factories, railroads, etc., are privately owned and operated for profit, originally under fully competitive conditions: it has been generally characterized by a tendency toward concentration of wealth, and, in its later phase, by the growth of great corporations, increased government control, etc." Do you see any problems with this definition? I see many.

Nicknames - they are best when they are affectionate. I do not like the mean-hearted ones, but I try to remember that "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." If I forget, then see Rick's Post 71 above, though he seems to be referring to a primitive weapon ill-suited to use by physicist with his own lab available for the development of a more awesome demonstration of force. [This is where some people insert evil conjuring sounds, but since the good one's are largely copyrighted, and I respect intellectual property rights, I will not indulge in their use.]

Post 74

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 10:34pm

Mr. Charles Anderson,

Sir,

I think I may like you...

But you have a piousness and condescending attitude to your posts and that ain't cool!

Also -

First, It was a tip of the hat to Peppermint Patty not to "The Born Loser!"

Second, Semantics is boring!!!!!!!!! Words have meaning and debating their usage is usually an exercise saved for 8th grade boys. You are a scientist & I am an ex-english major, verbal literalist, college quitter. We are "Oil and Water." But, no harm no foul. Yet, Semantics still bores ME!

[(We could have this conversation in German or Russian, and that might peak my interest as I am desperately in need of practice in those languages!)... Have you ever tried to find a Russian speaker in Texas?]

Third, Wait a minute, what the hell happened to 3 & 4?

Fifth, Army! I am impressed. (And just how does a squid allow his son to become a grunt anyway?) Seriously, you were in Vietnam. Long war. 58,000+ died. Some remember. Some do not. I do. I salute you.
[I served in Lebanon, 1983, 183+ dead, not considered a war, no one remembers. (but, I picked up dead Marines and put them in body bags. I damn sure remember!)]

Sixth, S is O, .....semantics is okra, and you know how I feel about Okra!

Lastly, Chuck is a cool nickname! Just ask Peppermint Patty!

And at last, Lastly, Have you ever seen the Monty Python skit about "Sticks and Stones?" If you haven't, then what I am thinking now will not make any sense. But If you have, then.............

Sticks and stones will break my bones but......wait.........no, don't throw sticks and stones....put the sticks and stones down....really, I mean it....put the sticks and stones down......Charles the physicist, put the thermo-nuclear weapon down........that's not nice......put them down......Run, gary, run!!!!!

With that said, I really need to warn you about the "Torpedo". She can tear you a new one and make you like it!!! And so can MSK, you really need to arm yourself with more than archaic english and arrogance. I am a neophite, they however, are thinking monsters. Consider yourself warned!

And, I look forward to our future engagements.

Good Day sir, and I meant no disrespect.

.
gw

p.s. You really need to have your ducks in a row if you intend to patronize Sarah House!(The Torpedo!)...You have been warned!!!!

(Edited by gary williams on 7/19, 10:49pm)

Post 75

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 11:13pm

Calm down Gary. You are OK. Really, I mean you no harm.

As for Sarah House and my friend MSK, if you think I am patronizing them, you are misreading me. If I differ with them on a point, I am sure that I can count on them to defend any point they do not wish to concede. MSK and I have a bit of a history doing that already. I am sure that I will enjoy any such discussions with Sarah as well. We agree on enough things that I have some confidence in her judgment already and that means I shall be glad to consider her point on such topics as we may disagree on. We appear to have enough of a similar frame of view to make useful discussion well worthwhile.

Sure, sometimes I just say what I think about something and I hope that someone out there is interested in what I have to say. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they are not. I think my own way and I make no apologies for that. I leave you free to think what you will think. I have no present plans to direct any of several electron annihilator beams at you. I have expectations that you will teach me something, so I cannot afford to blow you away. You see, I really do not like being in a state of wrongness. This means that I really, really appreciate it when someone gives me the gift of a better idea than my own or when someone directs me to understand an error. This is what friends are for. I hope you will be a friend.

As for being pompous: Yeh, I probably am. I actually do think that I have figured out quite a few things in my great many years of thinking. Of course, I am still figuring things out and I am still getting some good help from my friends in doing it. And I understand that my style is too serious for many at SOLO. Unfortunately, my humor is silly and pretty much only works with kids, so I have to suppress it here.

Post 76

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 11:20pm