About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 6:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Objectivists are atheists but not really crusaders for atheism, as they are radicals for capitalism and egoism or crusaders against altruism and collectivism. Ayn Rand did say some eloquent things, through her character John Galt, against the concept of Original Sin, and we know she rejected mysticism. Although she made it clear that subjugation to God is as bad as subjugation to a collective or anything which keeps man from living for himself or herself, she didn’t spend a lot of time on the traditional arguments for or against the existence of God

Leonard Peikoff strongly denounces any form of supernaturalism as an abandonment of reason and reality, and he characterizes theists as saying “To Hell with argument, I have faith.” Yes, some theists, like Rousseau, say this, but not all. Some theists do have rational arguments which need to be challenged and refuted, not simply dismissed and ignored.

Peikoff is very shallow and biased in his straw man definition of agnosticism, in “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series 1976, Lecture 6. He says the agnostic view point poses as fair, impartial, and balanced, but then treats arbitrary claims as ideas proper to consider and then regretfully says, “I don’t know,” instead of dismissing them out of hand. (Peikoff and Binswanger are good at simply dismissing things out of hand, like some people dismiss Objectivism.) Also, on the burden-of-proof issue, the agnostic demands proof of a negative where there is no evidence for the positive. Peikoff, already way off base, ends strongly by saying, “The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack. The fact is that his view is one of the falsest—and most cowardly—stands there can be.”

Well, Thomas Henry Huxley, you don’t need to roll in your grave. Just be glad you are dead and don’t have to listen to this obvious, self-evident, demonstration of ignorance.

Peikoff is not distinguishing knowledge claims from belief. He is not distinguishing strong atheism and theism from weak atheism and theism, and he is getting all mixed up about burden-of-proof.

Let’s define some terms:

A theist believes in God. An atheist rejects a belief in God.

There is a difference between knowledge and belief. Plato said that one can believe something that isn't true. This is not the case with knowledge. If one claims to know something and it turns out to be not true, then it wasn't really knowledge, was it?

On the other hand, some say knowledge is just justified belief, belief that has high degree of certainty. We can stipulate that this is what we mean by knowledge. We have a high degree of certainty that the floor will not collapse under us when we take a step. It is a leap of faith, but not unsupported faith. We have a high degree of certainty that the Pythagorean Theorem will hold up in Asia as it does in Spokane. We can demonstrate it. This kind of knowledge is objective, not personal nor subject to our wishes and beliefs. Yes, it is possible to have personal knowledge which can't be proven to others. We are concerned here with the kind of knowledge which can be demonstrated and agreed on by rational people in any culture.

To make a knowledge claim for God's existence is stronger than saying one believes God exists. The knowledge claim needs support of evidence and reasoning. Many theists claim faith but not knowledge. If knowledge, then no need for faith.

(As a side issue, is it good to have a lot of faith? We take little leaps of faith all the time, even when we take a step and have faith the floor will not collapse under us. When I step on an airplane, I don't know much about aerodynamics but have faith that someone else does. However, is it good to have faith that my brakes will be okay even when they haven't been checked for a long time and I hear scraping noises when I use them? If I loan my car to someone who gets in an accident when the brakes failed while the car went down a hill, would it be my fault?)

Some theists claim knowledge. Burden is on them to prove. They don't prove the existence of God by saying if we can't prove He doesn't exist, then He does.

If no knowledge, than agnostic.

An agnostic, in this sense, can be either theist or atheist.

An atheist also can be agnostic with regard to knowledge. If one rejects a belief in God but makes no knowledge claim, then weak atheist. A weak atheist has an advantage over a strong theist. He has no burden to prove anything.

If an atheist makes a knowledge claim that no God exists, that is a stronger position. It needs to meet a burden of proof.

(These terms, weak and strong, apply only to the kind of position it is. They are misleading. A weak theist may have strong commitment to his or her faith. It is just considered weak because it is not an objective knowledge claim. This is true also of the weak atheist. The weak atheist may have a perfectly rational position that one cannot know certain things. It does not mean the atheist is weak in his or her beliefs.)

We can only argue if reason for belief or knowledge claims can be supported. All things being equal, the theist has the burden of proof. If one believes in ghosts, a non-believer doesn't have to prove there are no ghosts, only that reasons for believing in ghosts are inadequate. However, once the non-believer claims as objective truth that ghosts do not exist, then he or she has a burden.

I think I am a strong atheist when it comes to definitions of god which are contradictory and we are using logic as a standard. If it is meaningful to say square circles do not exist, then it is meaningful to say the greatest conceivable being doesn't exist. Also the all good and all powerful God who co-exists with evil cannot logically exist. There may be things I do not yet know about how the universe got started or how life came to be, but I don't fill the gaps with God. In that case, I am a weak atheist, an agnostic. And, I’m honest, not a fence sitter or, as Leonard Peikoff calls me, a coward.

bis bald,

Nick



Post 1

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 12:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick,


========================
We can only argue if reason for belief or knowledge claims can be supported. All things being equal, the theist has the burden of proof. If one believes in ghosts, a non-believer doesn't have to prove there are no ghosts, only that reasons for believing in ghosts are inadequate. However, once the non-believer claims as objective truth that ghosts do not exist, then he or she has a burden.

========================

No one is called upon to explain a negative (as you suggest). The non-believer speaking about ghosts not existing -- is talking about the arbitrary (ie. the unmeaningful). Go to ...

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Author_101.shtml

... click on 'How to Think about God' for more.

Ed

Post 2

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 3:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ok folks, to avoid repetitions of arguments: we've had this discussion already here and here. Perhaps even Ed might agree with me here.

Post 3

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 10:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, those are links to another board, but I stand by what I say there. One can prove a negative if the argument from evil proves that an all good and all powerful god cannot exist in objective reality. The problem, though, is proving things don't exist which have enough existence to have a referent. I'm content to accept that if it is demonstrated that a certain defintion of God places God in the category of mythological or contradctory concepts, then that s a demonstration that God does not exist in objecive reality. It is an argument which proves a negative. It can't be made, though, before we know the defintion of God. We can only be agnostic about whether or not the car is blue if we don't know if the car even exists, and this is not a cowardly position.

bis bald,

Nick 


Post 4

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 10:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Cal.

Nick, you mentioned Zeus existing as a mythological concept. This is the 3rd kind of existence which I mentioned before: intentional existence. The reason that Zeus can exist as an imaginary construct is because we give him differentiating features -- he lost an eye, he's bearded, and he throws thunderbolts, etc.

For this same reason (that anything that is anything is, at least, differentiated as something), there can be no genuine conception of God. God is an arbitrary, anti-concept. And you can't disprove the arbitrary, because the arbitrary is not related to reality. Arbitrary things are always and only related to imagining minds. In order to think arbitrary things, it becomes necessary to sever all ties to reality.

Arbitrary things can have the transient, subjective existence that toothaches have -- but they can't have objective, or even intentional, existence.

Agreed?

Ed

Post 5

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 11:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:
The reason that Zeus can exist as an imaginary construct is because we give him differentiating features -- he lost an eye, he's bearded, and he throws thunderbolts, etc.

I think you're confusing him with Odin/Wodan/Wotan. AFAIK Zeus never lost an eye.

Post 6

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 11:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It depends, Ed, on how God is defined. Spinoza's God is much different than Billy Graham's God. We have to wait and see which God Joseph S. pulls up, then we can analyze and evaluate it.

bis bald,

Nick


Post 7

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 5:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I'm glad you're waiting for me.  Let me tell you what we believe.

 

I love what Rand says about Original Sin, and about mysticism.  The idea that we are guilty for the sin of another person is unjust and irrational.  The idea of having faith in the face of reason, as we shall see, is not possible.  Throwing ourselves blindly into our belief in God is dangerous and ignorant.  This begs the question, "whose God?” 

 

There are so many religions, and if all have this great “faith” that teaches them, why has it failed to communicate the simplest truth, even about the nature of God.  If two have learned opposite things by faith, then something is wrong.  No two religions with conflicting views can be completely correct - we know that.

 

I struggle against atheistic ideas on beliefs I do not hold.  I struggle against the Aquinas-type thinkers of the world who have a) attempted to rationalize falsehoods their churches taught and b) made fools of themselves.

 

The problem stems first from conflicting views of faith.  The first kind of “faith” is defined clearly by IoP.com

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Faith.html . 

 

Faith is not the antithesis of reason, as theists and atheists alike have suspected.  Where they got that idea, I do not know.  I hear it used in both ways, and cringe when I hear people talk about faith as defined in the link above.

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb 11:1, italics added)  I tell you that I have a rational belief, which leads to a faith that is firmly based in reality.

 

Faith is not separate from rational thinking, but rather a natural extension of it.  When you cover your ears or close your eyes to anything that might prove you wrong, this is not faith, but willed ignorance.  Faith is entirely proactive, for lack of a better word.

 

I’ll get back to that in a second, after this little detour.  Every action has a reason.  We do not act without reasons, regardless of how stupid or impulsive they may be.  Tell me, how do you get better at applying reason in your life?  This is the way I see it.  We think, using the reason we’ve gained from past experience and thought, and apply it to a situation in order to determine what the best action is.  After or while we complete that action, we will see the effects of our action, whether good or bad, and thus will be better suited to make the next decision, so long as we will that thought process function the whole time.

 

This is the point I’m trying to make about faith:  When we have faith, it motivates us towards an action.  After acting, we see whether it was good or bad, and thus faith may increase.  It is both a reason for acting, and a result.  An example of faith would be as follows:  you go through the process of reason, evaluation, induction, deduction, etc, and get as far as you can.  Faith would be shown in praying afterwards, asking if the conclusion is right or wrong.  If you didn’t think you would get an answer, would you pray?  No, it requires faith.  If God answered you, would it increase your faith?  I should hope so.  You’re then more likely to pray in the future.

 

What I mean is that God does something.  He isn’t defined as a mass of contradictions (everywhere but nowhere BS).  “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, and it shall be given him” (James 1:5)  Prophets have seen God.  Did they know it?  More surely than you know anything, they knew.  You said that claiming we know something requires that we show evidence.  The fact that there is no evidence that they have seen God, except their words, does not mean that they do not know.

 

Besides, if God showed himself to you, then you would have skipped the step of careful reasoning and deep meditation of thought.  Where would the growth be there?  Even if you believe me now, it will do you no good.  I mean that a belief in God will do you no good, unless you do something about it.

 

Let me ask you something.  If I told you I had seen an angel, touched him, and talked with him about God and heaven, would you believe me?  What if you had known me your whole life, and I had never lied to you once?  If you expect me to rely on proofs like Aquinas, I’m sorry to disappoint you.  I can tell you that anyone can do the same as I have done, and find the same evidence.  Seeing the personage of God is not beyond anyone’s ability.

 

It sometimes makes people nervous to think of an actual being; I don’t know why.  Perhaps the thought of a God who can get involved in one’s life is disturbing.

 
I hope you think about this before replying, realizing that I have no intent, nor even the slightest hint of the desire to prove for you the existence of God.  I imagine that’s going to bother you.  I care very little.  To me, it is almost like telling you that my computer screen exists.


Post 8

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 9:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quote:
When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it.


(Nick)My goodness! There are more than two methods to accept a statement as true, even though some may be subsumed under faith or reason. There is instinct, intuition, hunch, guess, divine revelation, authority, majority rule, peer pressure, wishful thinking, pragmatic workability, plausibility, strict logical consistency, loose logical consistency, coherence, and inductive certainty. None of these methods is full proof. When trying to decide if something is true, perhaps it’s best to use all our best truth tests and still keep in mind that we could be dead wrong. In that, we could be right.

Quote:
There's a lot of confusion about what exactly faith is. Many people confuse belief with faith. It's said that if you believe something, you must be taking it on faith. This is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. It pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant.


(Nick)Okay, what is the difference between belief and faith? I think there is a difference between knowledge and belief, even if knowledge is just a high degree of certainty or justified belief, but I don’t distinguish between simple belief and faith. The author of this essay seems to think reason is belief and not faith, or that when something can be supported with evidence, it is reason or belief, not faith. No, there is a conflation of definitions going on here. Remember it. In the last paragraph of this essay, the author talks about faith as being dependent on the belief. So, what s the difference between faith and being dependent on belief?

Quote:
The result of using faith consistently is the complete inability to think. Without any criteria for accepting a statement as true, every random idea, whether true or false, would be just as likely to be accepted. Contradictions would exist. No higher level abstractions could be made. Faith nullifies the mind. To the degree ideas are taken on faith, the process of thinking is subverted.


I agree that uncritical thinking is dangerous. If one convinces himself or herself, with faith, that his or her brakes are okay and ignores the warning signs, that could be dangerous. It could lead to an automobile accident when the brakes fail. If a doctor relies on faith rather than pragmatic training, he could make the wrong decision in surgery. I wouldn’t want to be under the knife of a surgeon who relies on faith alone, would you? If you are on the top of a burning building and have a group of theists praying for you and another group of atheists holding a blanket for you to jump into, with whom do you have more faith?

Quote:
Are there any ideas we take on faith? As a friend once asked, if we've never been to Afghanistan, how do we know it actually exists? Even if we were to meet people from Afghanistan, they could always be lying. This is taken to be an act of faith, since we have no direct evidence for the existence of Afghanistan.

This is mistaken, though. The evidence we have for accepting the existence of Afghanistan does exists. The evidence is based on the knowledge that other people have shared. First, there is universal acceptance of the fact that it exists. It is possible that everyone on the planet is lying, but there is no evidence for that claim. Also, there is reason to believe that if Afghanistan didn't exist, people from the bordering countries would say so. And since satellite imagery shows that there is land there, and the area around it is occupied, it is reasonable to assume that land is occupied as well. Furthermore, there is absolutely no known evidence that it doesn't exist. There is no known motive for the entire world to try to trick us. So in fact, the evidence we have suggest it does exist. Acceptance of it is an act of reason.

There's an important distinction here, though. When we accept the evidence from others, we must have reason to believe that they know the truth. In the case of Afghanistan, I mentioned bordering countries. But there are people who claim to have been there, or that lived there.


(Nick)There is the issue of burden of proof. Just because there is no evidence that something doesn’t exist, it doesn’t mean that t doesn’t exist. However, the person making the knowledge claim has the burden. There is a prima facie case for the existence of Afghanistan. If it is not significantly challenged, then we can, with a workable degree of certainty, assume it exists.

Quote:
Other cases are fundamentally different. When someone claims to have supernatural knowledge, or the ability to gain knowledge in a way that you are unable to, their claims cannot be considered valid. If someone claims to be able to speak to their god, and tells you what god demands, you have no reason to accept it as true. In fact, it should be rejected. If he claims to have knowledge which you are incapable of achieving, his beliefs must be rejected. If one has to accept the knowledge of others, he must use reason in order to decide which others to listen to. Again, if there is no evidence or contrary evidence for accepting a person's beliefs, it is not an act of reason. It is an act of faith.


(Nick)Claims are not “valid or invalid;” arguments are. The person who makes a knowledge claim has the burden to make a prima facie case supporting the claim. If he or she does so, then the burden shifts to those who reject the claim to find fallacies or flaws in the evidence presented by the person who made the supported claim. If he or she does this, then the person’s case fails. It doesn’t mean he or she is wrong, only that he or she cannot prove his or her case.

Quote:
Faith is an act of mental destruction. If there is no evidence for a claim, then accepting it is irrational. It is more likely to be false then true (since there are more false ideas then true ones, being that their is only one reality). Building a structure of knowledge on such a flimsy foundation will leave it shaky and unstable. Eventually, even if confronted with evidence against it, one's mind will be so dependent on the belief that fear of one's world view collapsing will encourage one to reject the evidence. When this happens, one acts against reality. This is an act of destruction.


(Nick)The person writing this article needs to know when to use “their” and when to use “there.” He or she also used “dependence on ‘belief’” to mean ‘faith’ when he or she said, at the beginning of the article, that there is a difference between belief and faith. Perhaps he or she means that faith is unquestioned belief or a higher than normal degree of belief. Hume would argue that any degree of belief is still faith. It could be wrong and often is. Never-the-less, I do still reject beliefs in and knowledge claims for a supernatural God and agree that uncritical belief, faith, is dangerous.

bis bald,

Nick


Post 9

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 10:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quote:
I hope you think about this before replying, realizing that I have no intent, nor even the slightest hint of the desire to prove for you the existence of God. I imagine that’s going to bother you. I care very little. To me, it is almost like telling you that my computer screen exists.


(Nick)Yes, well, you tell us what you believe, but you provide no support. You say you have no intent, nor even the slightest hint of the desire to prove for us the existence of God. This sounds to me like the person who convinced himself that his brakes are okay. There were warning signs that perhaps he should have them checked, and his friends, who knew something about automobiles, advised him that he should have them checked. However, he was as certain that his breaks were okay as he was that his computer screen existed. He had no intent, nor even the slightest hint of desire to prove that his breaks were okay. It was his experience that they had always held in the past, so he had no reason to suspect that they would fail in the future. He didn’t care what others thought. This is the definition of willful ignorance, and it is a little cowardly, you are unwilling to submit your views in such a way that they can be challenged.

Your belief is a belief. It is not a knowledge claim. If it is, it is a personal knowledge claim, one that cannot be proven to others. There is nothing there to debate. However, you do make a few other statements in your statement which can be debated.

Quote:
…Every action has a reason. We do not act without reasons, regardless of how stupid or impulsive they may be. Tell me, how do you get better at applying reason in your life? This is the way I see it. We think, using the reason we’ve gained from past experience and thought, and apply it to a situation in order to determine what the best action is. After or while we complete that action, we will see the effects of our action, whether good or bad, and thus will be better suited to make the next decision, so long as we will that thought process function the whole time.


(Nick)No, there are actions without reason. There are baseless decisions, the truly free decisions which have no reason or cause. If you are in the middle of field with no paths and no guideposts in sight, you could decide to stand still or start moving in a direction. You cannot avoid making a decision of some kind. Even the decision to not make a decision is a decision. As Sartre said, we are forced into freedom. Objectivists say one must choose to use reason, but what guides that initial choice to use reason? Objectivists do not believe reason is inherent. And, what guides the direction one takes when he or she starts moving? The answer is “nothing.” We can act without reason. We call it freedom.

Yes, we can evaluate our actions and learn some things from experience. We can apply some reasoning to what we have learned as we pursue a flourishing survival. There is a utilitarian calculus which we can apply egoistically. Still, there will be, if we are involved in life, situations where reason doesn’t reach, when options cannot be measured or are equal and one must still choose. One then makes a baseless, free choice. It doesn’t need to be faith-based.

Quote:
This is the point I’m trying to make about faith: When we have faith, it motivates us towards an action. After acting, we see whether it was good or bad, and thus faith may increase. It is both a reason for acting, and a result. An example of faith would be as follows: you go through the process of reason, evaluation, induction, deduction, etc, and get as far as you can. Faith would be shown in praying afterwards, asking if the conclusion is right or wrong. If you didn’t think you would get an answer, would you pray? No, it requires faith. If God answered you, would it increase your faith? I should hope so. You’re then more likely to pray in the future.


(Nick)There is faith involved in reason, but too much of it can be dangerous, as with the willfully ignorant, as with the guy who convinces himself that his breaks are okay. One can have faith in himself or herself, not some external entity to which one subjugates himself or herself. If it could be proven to me that a God does exist, I would rebel. I still want to be the master of my fate, the captain of my soul. I want to be my own person, not the object of someone else’s design.

Yes, some people do suffer from delusions that God actually answers them and interacts with them. I think it is easier to believe, if I have to believe, that these are delusions or self-deceptions of some kind rather than exceptions to laws of nature.

Quote:
What I mean is that God does something. He isn’t defined as a mass of contradictions (everywhere but nowhere BS). “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, and it shall be given him” (James 1:5) Prophets have seen God. Did they know it? More surely than you know anything, they knew. You said that claiming we know something requires that we show evidence. The fact that there is no evidence that they have seen God, except their words, does not mean that they do not know.


(Nick)It doesn’t mean that they do either. Mohamed claimed to meet the Angel Gabriel in the cave, yet we know how he could have experienced illusions and hallucinations brought on by his hunger and physical exertion. It is easer to believe plausible explanations than extreme claims.

bis bald,

Nick



Post 10

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 8:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I almost forgot, let me confront the so-called "problem of evil," which you make reference to at the end.  You may be familiar with Aquinas, and what he said about that.  It was at least insightful.

Part of it goes: “If God can prevent the suffering of the innocent, yet chooses not to, He is not good.”  And why not?

Let us consider why God does allow such suffering, problem by problem.  A) Death: Why does God allow an earth he created to kill thousands in natural disasters?  Why does he allow thousands to die of disease?  When one has a correct view of the life, and life after death, this is hardly a problem.  It is equivalent to picking a child up from school, where he learns what he needs to, though it is not always enjoyable.

B) Suffering caused by others:  Free will is necessary, both from a religious and a philosophical standpoint.  Where there is no choice, there is no good, and there is no evil.  There would be no point to teaching, or to learning, or even to life, there would be no right or wrong choices.  God, realizing the need to allow everyone to choose, allows people to make choices that would harm others.  If he were to impose immediate justice everyone time we were about to harm someone “unfairly,” no one would be able to do any evil..  There would be no good, because everyone would be compelled to act rightly.  Can we say a man is good if he were chained to the wall his entire life, because he did no evil?  God is not evil by allowing such, because it must be so, by all laws of God, reason, and the universe.  Otherwise there would be no point to this life.  Justice is real.  Those who are harmed will be healed, and those who harm receive judgment.  It is either selfishness or a failure to see the whole truth that makes us demand immediate justice.  The only reasonable thing that remains for us to do is to live, think, and love according to the best of our ability.

C) Suffering caused by circumstance:  This is the most – in my opinion the only – difficult question facing us today.  I am still considering the issue.  The vast majority of suffering is caused by others (B) and is useful to us in building character.  We learn more, as most philosophers and psychologists have recognized, when we have struggles and obstacles.   If a crippled child cannot immediately build character, he and those around him must, as he grows.  There are more difficult questions, such as the senile man, struggling and frustrated by his failing mind.  Would God allow us to suffer, even when we have nothing to gain, in order to teach a lesson to those around us?  I do not know.  I only know that I did learn and grow a great deal while caring for my grandmother, who died slowly and painfully of cancer.  It was also so with my grandfather, who wept in frustration when he lost his natural brilliance, the memories of his life, and even forgot our names.

Were such sufferings the will of God?  Someone will ask.  This is a shortsighted question.  Does God want us to be in pain?  Certainly not.  But it was his will to allow them, rather than to stop them, so he allows such suffering, which He realizes is better than any alternative.  Do you feel like you deserve an easy life of pain-free suffering?  Perhaps this is the real problem, and not the “problem of evil.”

While speaking of evil, it is good to note that evil may be viewed as a force, in that it is devoid of any.  Evil is as much a force as the freezing arctic air that penetrates our clothes.  In truth, there is not any energy in evil, rather it is the complete lack of goodness, as cold is the complete lack of heat, and ignorance is a complete lack of knowledge. 
 
The Devil is not the opposite of God, as there are no opposites of objects.  I once saw a standardized test, which asked what the opposite of a king was.  The “correct” answer was a queen.  That would make her not human, not have hair, not have any organs, not sit on a throne, not know how to speak, et al.  What is the opposite of a box?  What is the opposite of a straight line?  Don’t say a curved line, for you would only be talking about the attribute of straightness, and not the line.  Would a greatly curved line be “more” opposite than a slightly curved line?

In the problem of evil, we must consider the possibility of an afterlife and a judgment, or we will again fail to connect.  Similarly, religious fanatics must consider the possibility of no God, along with the reasons and ramifications.  Otherwise, we waste our time.  I think this might give you more to attack, since that seems to be your intent.


Post 11

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 7:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Robert Nozick, a Harvard Professor, quickly raises and dismisses three traditional escape-routes from the problem of evil. First, there is the view that evil is really just the absence of good. He notes that this would not convince someone who is really suffering. They would think it is not just a lack of goodness but something in its own right. Second, there is the view that evil serves to educate us about the good. He asks why we couldn't have skipped this class and come prefabricated, without having to complete this leaning process. Third, there is the view that evil is the result of free-will. He asks why God couldn't have just predicted which of us would misuse free-will and left them out of creation. He thinks it's unclear that free-will is really much better than a world without evil and suffering.

He also thinks the views of Plato, Plotinus, and the Gnostics are unsatisfactory. Plato and a Kabbalist view in the Jewish tradition think the world was created from preexistent material, not ex nihilo. Some of the material could have corrupted. However, why couldn't God have transformed it so as not to have the later residue of evil? Plotinus and the neo-Platonists believed that the divine one emanates lower levels and doesn't know that evil may exist in them. It's not satisfying to religionists, however, to have a God who doesn't know what is going on. The Gnostics believed that perhaps helper gods created the world, not the top God. Well, the top God is still responsible for the lesser gods since he created them too.

These dualistic views, that there is more than one God, do not solve the problem but delay it, trying to throw the blame for evil on someone other than God, but God must still be responsible for divinities under him.

Leibniz claimed that this was the "best of all possible worlds," and he was ridiculed by Voltaire in "Candide." However, Voltaire was thinking of a world that is optimally good, that other worlds may be worse. Leibniz was really thinking of an aesthetically good world where a simple set of principles and laws give rise to the wealth of the world's detail.

Schlesinger says there is no best of all possible worlds because it would have to be infinite, and God wouldn't create another infinite being like himself. Then, if it is finite, we can ask why it stops where it does. It could have stopped before allowing evil. God could say that if he stopped there, we would ask why he didn't stop somewhere else. Perhaps he did remove the really enormous evils.

This can satisfy intellectual criteria, but does it satisfy religious criteria? Does it adequately satisfy someone who is actually undergoing pain, suffering, or evil? Wouldn't we be embarrassed to explain this theory to someone actually suffering? It sounds like an inappropriate joke.

Nozick also advances the theory that perhaps this world has a net positive value, that after subtracting all the evil, there is a positive value left. Perhaps he created multiple worlds and some have more positive value than others. So, when we ask why he didn't create a world where there is no evil, perhaps he did but we just aren't living in it. This doesn't seem like a God who is concerned about us.

Is it better to bring a world with net positive value into existence rather than not bring it into existence? Certainly just existing is not existing well or flourishing. It's not enough just to merely exist.

Any satisfactory answer to the problem of evil must, first, reconcile omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness with evil. Second, it must be something we can utter and bring ourselves to say to someone who is suffering. Third, something analogous to it would serve to answer the more personal question of why our parents were not more perfect. Fourth, God cannot seem untouched by evil, like he is merrily going along and allowing us to suffer. Fifth, a satisfying explanation must talk about a divine being worth worshiping, worth have a religion about.

For the Jewish people, the Holocaust constitutes some kind of rift in the universe. There must be some kind of trauma there. God is not left untouched.

There are possibilities which are not completely satisfactory. Perhaps the Holocaust corresponds to God's attempt at self-destruction. Perhaps God is all knowing but not all wise. Did God have to experience something to know about it? Perhaps there are small dissonant parts that don't overall affect perfection.

Hey, as we said, they aren't completely satisfying.

Nozick asserts that we need a daring theodicy that drives issues about evil "deep within the divine."

I think we all know my views on this. Let's jettison this divine and stand on our own two feet. Let's accept that there is evil in this world, but we can make our lives meaningful though our freely chosen projects. We can face and overcome challenges alone, without crutches or safety nets or comforting parents looking over us.

bis bald,

Nick


Post 12

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 7:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The argument from evil:

1. If God exists, He must be omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
(This premise would be true by definition for traditional, orthodox Christians.)

2. If God is willing but not able to prevent evil, then He is, to that extent, impotent.
(This premise is true by definition of the word impotent. It means willing but not able.)

3. If God is able but not willing, then He is, to that extent, malevolent, not benevolent.
(If someone can prevent evil but allows it to happen, we don't think of that person is all good. That person is, to some extent, culpable for allowing that evil to happen. What do you think of someone who watches you being mugged or raped and does nothing, not even calling for help, even when there is no threat whatsoever to this witness and the witness has ample opportunity and ability? Able but not willing means not benevolent. This premise seems true.)

4. Evil exists.
(Some people may argue that what we think of as evil is simply a lack of good or our lack of seeing the big picture, as if some evil is necessary to prevent greater evil somewhere else. We endure pain at the Dentist to avoid greater pain of a future toothache. This could be the case with apparent, unnecessary suffering. However, most people are willing to concede there is what we can rationally conclude as unnecessary suffering. If evil is unnecessary suffering or what causes it, then most of us agree it exists.)

5. Therefore, God does not exist.
(This is the inescapable conclusion from the argument above if all the premises are true.)

Let's look, though, at some of the hedges on that argument:

Some people contend the God had a reason for allowing evil. that a perfectly wonderful world would be worse than one with evil. It would be sterile, dull, no chance for nobility or courage to develop. Much good comes out of tragedy, as when people are heros or character is developed.

Along these same lines, some people say some evil is necessary to contrast with good. A successful hedonist, one who never experienced pain, would never appreciate pleasure. Successful hedonist is incoherent.

And, some people say God allowed evil so humans could have free-will, an alternative. (This would make that story about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden a little wrong. If God actually wanted evil in the world, then He actually wanted Adam to eat the apple. And, mankind was punished because Adam did what God wanted him to do. What kind of God is that?)

Anyway, in "the Mind's I," there's a very interesting dialogue, by Raymond M. Smullyan, between God and a mortal trying to take God to task for allowing free-will.

First, the mortal opens by beseeching God to absolve him of having to have free will. This is, after all, a paradox emphasized by existentialists, that we are "forced" to be free. God may see it as His greatest gift to us, but we did not ask for it. The mortal, in this dialogue, says that he would never have freely chosen to have free will; free will brings with it unbearable moral responsibility.

Next, in typical Socratic fashion, God takes the mortal through the other possibilities and logical consequences, such as if God were to relieve the mortal of impending punishment for sinning or even his natural abhorrence for sinning. The mortal would refuse those options even if God were to command him to accept them. His present abhorrence of sin would be enough to cause him to freely choose not to accept the responsibility of not having future responsibility. Thus, God demonstrates that free will is a pretty handy thing.

Then, they get sidetracked talking about how God could learn from His mistakes "if" He made mistakes. This is just a transition, though, for the mortal to state his case that God made a mistake to give mortals free will in the first place. God even seems to understand and help the mortal with his argument. The mortal would not be in the predicament of having to choose if he were not given free will in the first place.

Now, God sets up a hypothetical reality where He introduces a new man which may or may not receive free will at the outset. The mortal, at first, happily proposes that he not have free will, but then God tells him that the man will then do terrible things which are now considered sinful and painful to others. They discuss that these acts will not be considered sins because of the lack of free will, but they will nevertheless happen.

Well, the mortal, seeing himself in God's predicament, revokes his proposal because he could not bear the responsibility of creating people who have no choice not to commit terrible acts. He decides to give him free will.

Out of this conversation comes the revelation that God is a utilitarian. He is concerned with hedonistic ends and the greatest good, or lack of suffering, for the greatest number. It doesn't matter whether something is called sin or not, the mortal and God are against unnecessary suffering. This is in opposition to Kantian type ethics that certain acts are right or wrong regardless of consequences. Smullyan's God seems not as ridgid as Kant or the God of some fundamentalists who follow legalistic rules like the ten commandments.

(However, , I say there are some problems with utilitarianism. Although I employ some components of the classical theory in my Neo-Objectivism, I reject the catch-phrase of 'greatest good for the greatest number.' Under this, not only would it conflict with my egoism, it would be perfectly acceptable to murder a rich, old miser and distribute his money to the poor. Kantian ethics would forbid that because of the wrongness of murder, whether it is utilitarian or not. Sometimes there is suffering involved with doing right and being moral, as in choosing to die on the Titanic. Smullyan doesn't deal with that enough here.)

Okay, then they talk about how to define God and determine His existence. This is where they finally get into Taoism and tie it into the discussion. There could be the possibilities that God is part of the mortal or part of being itself, but no answer to will satisfy the mortal. This is another sidetrack to set up more discussion of the reason God gave man free will. He didn't make man angels automatically but gave them a process to go through. Mortals are approaching sainthood and have simply not arrived there yet. Evil is just the lack of perfection to which God is assisting mortals towards, but this is misleading because God is the process as well as the facilitator. God says to the mortal, "...The ancient Taoists were quite close when they said of me (whom they called "Tao")that I do not do things, yet through me all things get done. In more modern terms, I am not the cause of Cosmic Process, I am Cosmic Process itself. I think the most accurate and fruitful definition of me which man can frame--at least in his present state of evolution--is that I am the very process of enlightenment...."

(So, this is what I get out of Taoism. At first I thought it was anti-intellectual, and some philosophers agree with me. Taoists do not like breaking things down and classifying them, but this is necessary for western type, scientific knowledge. We have our divisions and cubbyholes. We got them from philosophers like Aristotle, who categorized and labeled everything so as to discuss it and think about it. Taoists reject this kind of analysis. They don't care to capture thoughts with words. They would rather just feel their way through. It's like in "Enter the Dragon" when Bruce Lee told his student not to think but to feel. "It's like a finger pointing away to the moon." When the student looked at the finger, Bruce Lee slapped him on the back of the head and said, "Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss all that heavenly glory." I can understand now how this being one with nature is reflexive thinking, like driving our cars or doing routine tasks. Even martial artists or basketball players get into a zone where they are at one with the task at hand, not distracted from it. I can appreciate that mode and try to enter into it from time to time, but I also want to stand back, as would a spectator, and analyze. I sometimes want to think reflectively, not reflexively. Certainly reflective thinking could get in the way when I am doing some tasks. A basketball player doesn't have time to reflect on every move he makes. He must allow his reflexes take over. However, he might be able to control his reflexes by watching himself on video tape and analyzing how he could do better. I think both Smullyan and Taoists are more deterministic than this. They say that whatever we do is in our nature to do. It is our Tao.
Nothing much of intellectual value comes from this. In fact, I think it ultimately negates free will. It's non-human life forms or life forms without structured languages that have such fixed natures. They are the objects, but we are the subjects, IMV.

I also have mixed feelings about how Smullian's God gets around the typical altruism associated with utilitarian ethics and most non-egoistic ethics. When the mortal talks about a duty to others, God talks of the Mahayana Buddhists, who refuse to enter Nirvana until all others have entered, and Hinayana Buddhists, who seek only their own salvation. Smullian's God recommends a synthesis, a process that is partly social and partly individual. Nick Otani's Neo-Objectivism says that individual efforts can include others but should not be subjugated to others. If everybody is helping others, than what are the others doing?

Finally, I'd like to make some comments about Taoism and Buddhism apart from Smullian's dialogue. It's where I think I depart from eastern thought, but let me say what I agree with first. I agree with being natural, authentic, real, not phony or artificial. However, much of eastern thought is concerned with being at peace with oneself or one with nature, avoiding stress or suffering. Buddhism seems to advocate getting rid of desires to diminish suffering. This seems to me to be trying to avoid obstacles in life rather than meeting them head-on and overcoming them. Certainly, we can use judgment. We need not be rigid. We can be like the grass that bends with the wind rather than like the oak that breaks. We can use Judo. But there is nothing wrong, in Nick Otani's Neo-Objectivism, with having desires and going after them. There is nothing wrong with forging our own Tao within the parameters of allowing others to do the same, and I think we are forced into having the freedom to do so.

bis bald,

Nick,


Post 13

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 9:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
======================
"Since we cannot know what God is, but only what He is not, we must consider the ways in which He is not rather than the ways in which He is." --Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, Pt. 1, qu.3, introd.
======================

ie. It is impossible to have "God" as an object of thought (it is impossible to think about "God" -- in any noncontradictory way).

Ed

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 10:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(Ed)ie. It is impossible to have "God" as an object of thought (it is impossible to think about "God" -- in any noncontradictory way).

(Nick)Ed, Joseph S. has already rejected Aquinas type justfications. "I struggle against the Aquinas-type thinkers of the world who have a) attempted to rationalize falsehoods their churches taught and b) made fools of themselves." and "He isn’t defined as a mass of contradictions (everywhere but nowhere BS)."

Joseph S. seems to be leaving it up to us to meditate and come to our own conclusions about God. He evades saying what God is and, like we do when we talk about he self, talks about how God does. He is vauge on that too, implying that if we don't believe the prophets, then nothing he can say wll convince us. So, he isn't even going to try. To Hell wth reason, he has faith.

Some people say God cannot be defined because that would limit Him, and God is unlimited. Sure, we cannot have unlimited things as objects of the mind, but we do talk about other unlimited things, like infinity.

Joseph S. doesn't even come up with this argument. He just says that he beleves in God, and that's all there is to it. There is no way for us to challenge a premise or check for validity. Beyond a few rambling things he said about reasons for actions, reinforcement, and believing in prophets; Joseph S. left us no argument. He doesn't care. Or, perhaps, he posturing, protecting himself from attack. He can always say, "I don't care what you say. This is what I believe." And people say I'm smug.

bis bald,

Nick


 


Post 15

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 1:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good illumination, Nick.

Ed

Post 16

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 3:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
O-h-h-K-a-a-y-y...

     Since everyone's (in an O'ist-oriented forum, of all places!) in a mood to kill time with the pros-cons re arguments about the existence of (one version or other) of a 'God(dess)'...whether Abraham's, The Philosopher's, Bin Laden's, A.M.McPherson's, Benny Hinn's, Billy Graham's, Aunt Louise's, The Pope's, or whoever's...

     What's everyone's thoughts about Anshelm's Ontological Argument? --- You know, the one where God is defined as "...that than which nothing greater can be conceived."

LLAP
J:D

P.S. By any/all 'definitions', even in 'negative theology' I believe, "God" always has been considered to have  the characteristic -(not to be necessarily confused with her definition)-assumed  as -> "...the creator of the whole universe we perceive, plus a creator of a beyond-perception 'supernatural' area no one has access to 'till they're dead." --- Personally, I see NO reason to differentiate this...idea...from those of Santa Clause and The Great Pumpkin (need I add Roger Rabbit and ToonTown?)

Simply put: NO 'reason' to believe, or even to suspect, the existence of 'X', is, thereby, reason to dis-believe. More accurately put, methinks re 'dis-believers' about ANYthing is that the subject is considered as totally i-g-n-o-r-a-b-l-e and totally useless beyond the exercise of analyzing one's own (and maybe others') epistemological criteria for believing in...anything.

(Edited by John Dailey on 7/22, 4:01pm)


Post 17

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 4:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you, Mr. Nicholas Neal Otani.  I again appologize, because when I posted my second message you hadn't responded yet.  When do they turn this moderating thing off??

Anyway, I'll get back to you; you've given me a large task.  I do not intend to prove that God exists, but I am able to show that such a belief is logically consistent.  Are you asking for something beyond this?  You seem to have started this game, and decided my role and purpose before I started playing one.


Post 18

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 7:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joseph S. wrote ...

===================
I do not intend to prove that God exists, but I am able to show that such a belief is logically consistent.
===================

And professional philosopher Donald Davidson wrote, regarding correspondence and coherence theories of truth that ...

===================
Coherency is nothing but consistency.
===================

So, if 3 + 3 = 9, and 4 + 4 = 16, then 5 + 5 = 25 -- because there is no inconsistency.

So, yeah, Joseph -- we ask for more here (more than mere consistency). We seek correspondence with reality. Got any?

Ed

Post 19

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 10:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Anyway, I'll get back to you; you've given me a large task.  I do not intend to prove that God exists, but I am able to show that such a belief is logically consistent.  Are you asking for something beyond this?  You seem to have started this game, and decided my role and purpose before I started playing one.

You might try Pascal's Wager. It is not an attempt to prove God exists, but it does try to give reasons for beleving in God, based on the possibility of salvation. Of course, we can shoot that down too.

I started a post which identifies certain positions and talks about burden of proof. It is, as somone pointed out, the same post I posted on another board for a different discussion. It was not specifcally meant for you, but it should give you a chance to say what you want about your theist views without feeling that you are being prejudged at the beginning. I also posted an affirmative case against traditional Christian views, Me v. God, Immortalty, and Christian morality. Nobody has challenged it yet. Nobody has taken the negative postion against it. If you would like to present your own case here in a seperate post, feel free.  You shouldn't feel limited in any way or have any excuse to blame us for your not being able to support your claims with reason or show that they are logically consistent.

Actually, I think you started the game when you complained that people were not giving you the chance to present your views. I am trying to give you that chance, but you accuse me now of determining your purpose and role in the game. No, I  am simply identifying certain general ground rules that everyone must follow, that if we make a knowledge claim, other than personal knowledge or something that is self-evident, we have a burden to prove it. I follow these rules also. And, yes, if I find somethng in your reasoning that I can attack, I will do so. Feel free to defend against my attacks and attack me where you think I am weak. Let's try to keep the philosophical dialectic productive. Please don't hide behind insults and derisive jokes, like some people on this board do.

bis bald,

Nick 

(Edited by Mr. Nicholas Neal Otani on 7/23, 10:03am)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.