Objectivsim -> atheism; ~atheism, therefore ~Objecivism

When I use the term “knowledge” I mean: “An understanding of words, concepts and ideas that are independent or transcendent from deterministic necessity.”

Consider this; much of our universe is governed by deterministic necessity. The position of our solar system, all the other systems in our galaxy and the positions of all the galaxies in the universe are where they are and could be no other place than where they are because of deterministic necessity. Because of this, we can predict with extreme accuracy the position of planets, etc. Matter in motion acts in a deterministic way. We don’t have to factor in to our equations that Jupiter may decide to take a breather.

If matter in motion didn’t act in a deterministic way, what would it mean? If hot water and fresh coffee grounds didn’t always make a cup of coffee, but sometimes, for no reason, made sulfuric acid, would we ever drink what is in the cup? No

The question is do we act in the same way? Are what we call thoughts and ideas necessarily determined by the atoms bouncing around in our heads the way atoms bounce around in solar systems? Or can we act independently or transcendently. If our minds consist of nothing more than the same matter that makes up the rest of the universe, one may be tempted to answer, yes. But, then the question would be, isn’t that answer also necessarily determined? And on and on it goes! If what we call “thoughts” are necessarily determined, then words and ideas really have no meaning, we could not have thought or acted any differently than we did anymore than Jupiter could take a break.

With determinism all “knowledge” terms are functional synonyms. For instance, one person comes to a “true conclusion” and another to a “false conclusion,” both are the necessary effects of antecedent causes belonging to matter in motion. Neither person can come to any other conclusion; they were determined to come to that conclusion and only that conclusion by the antecedent causes. To call a person’s argument “stupid” or “brilliant” in a deterministic worldview is nonsense on one level and a functional synonym on another level. It is nonsense because the argument in question is just the product of antecedent causes and can be no other than it is. There is no independent mind that can take credit or be given credit for the argument; there are just antecedent causes that produce the necessary effect. On the other level, the judgment that an argument is “stupid” or “brilliant” is itself the product of antecedent causes, and the person making the judgment can say nothing else. In this way the judgments of “stupid” and “brilliant” are functional synonyms. These judgments say nothing about the actual argument, but are merely effects necessarily determined by antecedent causes.

This is why it is the case that if the deterministic position is true, there is no knowledge. Like “stupid” and “brilliant,” “knowledge” and “ignorance” are also functional synonyms. Both terms can mean nothing more than “effects of antecedent causes.” The so-called “ignorant man” is thus because of antecedent causes. In fact, he could be nothing else. The “knowledgeable man” is thus because of antecedent causes. In fact, he could be nothing else. It would also be true that the person judging them as knowledgeable or ignorant could come to no other judgment. His judgment is not an independent conclusion, but the determined effect of antecedent causes that were put in motion many years ago; which of course makes the judgment also meaningless.

For “knowledgeable” and “ignorant” to be antonyms, a level of independence must be present. For terms like “Sound argument” or “invalid argument” to have different meanings, a level of independence must be present within the judge. For the conclusions of opposing arguments to have any real and distinct value, the arguers and the judges must have the ability to make decisions independent of mere matter in motion. So, any philosophical position that denies this level of independence, necessarily denies the existence of real knowledge. In a system, like determinism, where knowledge and ignorance is functionally the same thing, the term “knowledge” is meaningless.

 
What I would like to do is examine the philosophical position of Atheism and its ability to account for knowledge.
 
Philosophy has identified nine cosmologies or theories of reality. Two of these theories of reality are Atheistic. They deny that God or gods exists. The other seven hold that reality consists of some sort of God or gods. So, let’s take a look at the Atheistic cosmologies.
 
The first is called “Negationism.” It is found in a few eastern philosophies and religions. It states that reality consists of no God and no universe. Everything is just illusion.
 
It should be clear that if the universe doesn’t exist, then thinking creatures that are part of the universe don’t exist and there could be no knowledge. So, if Negationism is true, we can fairly say that there can be no knowledge. The reason is that Negationism does not have the elements needed to get us to knowledge. Let me illustrate this as it will come into play again later on. It is like making a glass of ice tea at home. We may have the ice and some water, some lemon and sugar; but, after looking through the entire house we find there is no tea. At this point we do not have all the necessary elements to make ice tea. We have some of the needed items, but we can never get to our goal, unless we go outside our house and bring in the needed element from somewhere else. So it is with Negationism. Negationism doesn’t have the elements needed to get to knowledge, it also has the added problem that there is no place it can go to get the needed elements. Given these facts, we can fairly and necessarily conclude that knowledge can’t occur within the framework of Negationism.
 
We can also take the next logical step and conclude that if knowledge does exist, then Negationism is false.
 

The second Atheistic cosmology is “Naturism” or often called “Naturalism” depending on how technical you want to get about the terms. In cosmological Naturalism, reality consists of only nature, i.e. our universe. By universe we mean our dimensions of time and space, energy and matter and all that is inherent to them. In Naturism, this universe, which is basically matter in motion, is all that exists. Basically, everything is made up of some kind of matter in motion. This is the cosmology of western Atheism; it is a cosmology that most of us are familiar with. When we read the Atheistic philosophy of Bertrand Russell or Anthony Flew, this is at the basis of their writings.

The next question we must ask is what elements in this cosmology get us to knowledge? What elements of this cosmology allow us to be independent of or to rise above the deterministic nature of mere matter in motion, so that we can have free thought and are able to make free decisions; not simply act as we must like some predetermined programmed mechanism? Well, if matter in motion is all there is, then matter in motion is all there is! In other words, there are no elements that allow us to draw independent conclusions, or to give real meaning to words and sentences. If this form of atheistic cosmology it true, then the matter in motion that makes up you and me must also act in a necessarily determined way, as all other matter in motion must.

Given Naturalism, “thought” can never be independent of the matter in motion; because that is all that exists. But, we have already said that our definition of knowledge has an element of independent thought to it. When an atheist calls himself a “free thinker,” what does he mean, if not an independent thinker? He is someone who will not allow himself to be intimidated into drawing certain conclusion, but will derive his conclusions by his own means. As you can see, this is in direct contradiction with Naturism; where there is no independence and all conclusions are determined by the initial conditions of the Big Bang and the necessary following implications of those conditions.

If we get right down to it, it comes to this: If Naturalism is true; there is no independent thought and knowledge. However, if knowledge does exist, then we know with certainty that Naturalism is false.

You see, we have come to the same conclusion with Naturism as we did with Negationism. Naturism also lacks the elements to get us to any real knowledge. So we can say that if any Atheistic cosmology is true, then there is no knowledge. But if knowledge exists, then all atheistic cosmologies are false.

The point of our thread is this: We have concluded in another thread that if Objectivism is true, then naturalism is true. Since we now know that naturalism is false, we can also conclude that Objectivism is false.

This article is a condensed version of my on line article that can be found at:

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/atheism1.htm

Regards,

G. Brady Lenardos

Your key mistake is the assumption that volition must be supernatural ('transcendent') rather than an emergent property of a natural, even causal, system. Since the remainder of your argument relies on that assumption, it's also invalid.

Emergent entails a system complicated enough that you can't pinpoint a trait (e.g. intelligence, volition) to an individual cell, 'element', etc. They rely on the system.

If the universe is probabilistic (i.e. has some degree of randomness such quantum mechanic behaviors which influence otherwise causal behavior) then how does this affect volition? To me, it doesn't particularly matter - the inability to predict behavior of conscious organisms would be there even with 100% causality, so certainly would be with a naturalistic probabilistic universe. I'm curious if this matters to the religious - if there's randomness to any degree, then thought is not 100% causal - would you consider that free will?

GWL quoted Rand as follows:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. (my emphasis)" Question to Rand: How can man's reason be absolute if man is merely a biological entity formed by irrational biological processes, which created him by accident?

Biological processes aren't rational or irrational. They simply are.

If the universe is 100% causal ('deterministic') then necessarily everything in it, including the subatomic particles in neurons, etc. is also 100% causal. This does not pose a particularly interesting problem to me as I consider free will essentially an issue of epistemology (i.e. can you know enough about a system to predict it?) rather than metaphysics.

If the universe is probabilistic (i.e. has some degree of randomness such quantum mechanic behaviors which influence otherwise causal behavior) then how does this affect volition? To me, it doesn't particularly matter - the inability to predict behavior of conscious organisms would be there even with 100% causality, so certainly would be with a naturalistic probabilistic universe. I'm curious if this matters to the religious - if there's randomness to any degree, then thought is not 100% causal - would you consider that free will?

Now consider adding a dualistic element, a 'soul' in a conscious being that somehow takes input from and exerts influence on the natural world aspects of the being. Does this truly enable anything that would not be possible with purely a naturalistic universe?

If the soul operates completely on stimuli from the natural universe in a causal manner, then its behavior would also be 100% determined by the arrangements of the universe - hence adding nothing not already possible in the purely natural and causal realm.

If the soul can operate in a 'free' manner then it may vary its influence on a conscious creature even given the exact same state of stimuli from the natural universe. This results in a probabilistic behavior - a largely causal natural universe, influenced by effectively random inputs from the soul.

A soul itself would then itself either behave causally or probabilistically - so adding a soul simply begs the question. Whatever your conception of free will and issues with it vs. determinism, a soul adds nothing not already possible without it.

GW, it's fine to criticize Rand, but you should make some effort to understand what she is saying. If you simply proceed to take pot shots, with little or no understanding of her philosophy, you can't expect the people here to take you seriously, or to engage you in rational discussion.

To say that reason is man's basic tool of survival is not to say that reason shouldn't be directed towards recognizing the truth and correctly identifying reality, for it is by doing so that one best serves the goal of human survival.

GW, what is the purpose of this kind of rhetoric? I'm beginning to take you less and less seriously. You talk about being concerned with the truth. Why don't you start practicing what you preach?!

More of the same. Do you even understand what Rand is saying here, or why she is saying it? I guess not; otherwise, you wouldn't be resorting to such ridiculous mockery. Her point is that a (productive) purpose is an organizing and integrating principle in a person's life that enables him or her to live well and to achieve happiness.

Over 40 years ago, Betty Friedan, who sparked the feminist movement, wrote a book entitled The Feminine Mystique, in which she pointed out that woman who had adopted the view that their only purpose in life was to raise children and be a housewife were in many cases very unhappy, because they weren't exercising their talents. Accepting such a role as their only option in life was taking a psychological toll on them.

She challenged the idea that women's only role in life was to bear and raise children, and advocated that women pursue a productive career commensurate with their talents.