The Number of the Beast

[NOTE: Elizabeth was kind enough to point out a problem to me. Apparently my opening post in this thread got chewed up and spit out. Normally I'd attribute this to the malice of gremlins, but our host Joseph would berate me for being irrational. So I'll blame Joseph instead. ;) Here it is the opening post once again for your edification and amusement. Regards, Bill.]

Greetings, everyone from the Atheists On-line thread (even you, Yip-Yap Ethan).

I waltzed into the Solo website today to find my mailbox stuffed with thirty-four messages from this weekend. Apparently I was upsetting a great number of people with my posts pondering the nature of free will, a brief Q&A on what Catholicism does and does not teach, and an explanation of my presence in this forum. I got a message from the Solo administer for each condemnation I received.

To Mr. Stolyarov: I also got a message for each sanction I received. For that I thank you, Mr. Stolyarov. As always, you are a gentleman. I agree with you that civility is desirable, that disagreement is not cause for fear, and that rationality can be found beyond the precincts of Objectivism. I do wish to assure you that my participation in this forum is not contingent upon the merits and demerits I receive. While it is convenient to have more than ten points to secure unmonitored status, beyond that the utility of the points is limited for me. I prefer to focus on what people write, because that is what I can best respond to.

Even so, the number of the beast is now 71, and I appreciate your efforts in making that so.

To the rest of you: As for the condemnations of my posts, all I can say, people, is: Get a grip! It�s a great big world out there, and to the extent any of us cares to think about Objectivists, there are six billion who disagree with you. We aren�t going away. �Atlas Shrugged� is a fairy tale. Galt�s Gulch will never be. So get used to disagreement.

Moreover, focus on the message and not the messenger. I know Christians, Jews, and other believers give a lot of you folks the heebee-jeebees. I do not doubt that some of the palpable anger arising in response to me, having plainly stated that I am a Catholic, arises from wrong done to do you by someone corruptly using religion as a club. That is unfortunate, but at some point you must serve yourself and see things as they are. To wit, not one of the arguments I have put forth in this forum is predicated upon a belief in God. Look hard, people. You won�t find one.

What I have done is asked you to consider the facts � in particular, the facts of your own experience of self-awareness and free will � indeed, the very fact that the mass of tissue making up your body is alive! � and consider if there may be something more to reality than mere matter. That�s all. Nothing more. You need not fear that if this is so: That reality may make room for God. You can still be an atheist if that is your heart�s content, but you will have taken one big step back from the precipice of materialism.

Materialism is a nihilistic abyss. It offers the great lure of science to explain all, but if all is explainable, then all is mechanical. If all is mechanical then we are nothing but a supremely complex manifestation of matter whose timeline through spacetime is predetermined by the remorseless laws of physics. There is no self-awareness. There is no free will. There is only illusion to conceal from us a path we have but no choice to follow. The intellectually honest materialist will not deny himself this knowledge, and once he possesses it, what�s the point? There is no hope. Morality is nothing but prudence. Politics is the pursuit of power. Beauty is whatever sells.

While Rand and Peikoff have had the sense to denounce materialism, they have pointed Objectivism toward the materialist abyss by a gratuitous metaphysical denial of God. To maintain the logic of this gratuitous denial, they have confined Objectivist reality to the tidy confines of matter and mechanics, in which science can ultimately explain all. Unfortunately, this is the black hole of materialism from which Objectivism cannot turn itself away from no matter how vociferously Objectivists deny that is the direction it is headed in. Therefore, Objectivism is a nihilist project.

It does not have to be. Neither the denial of God nor the embrace of Him is necessary to validate Objectivist moral, politic, and aesthetic principles. But so long as Objectivists mandate atheism as an article of faith and therefore shun any knowledge that cannot be ultimately proven by science (to safeguard the faith from any doubt), Objectivists have packaged themselves to be obliviously consumed by the nihilism of their material universe.

Regards,

Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 2

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 8:29am

"To the rest of you: As for the condemnations of my posts, all I can say, people, is: Get a grip! It�s a great big world out there, and to the extent any of us cares to think about Objectivists, there are six billion who disagree with you. We aren�t going away. �Atlas Shrugged� is a fairy tale. Galt�s Gulch will never be. So get used to disagreement."

Agree or Disagree, the truth is the truth and reality is what it is. Once upon a time, everyone believed the world was flat.

I have experienced self-awareness and consciousness, so have you. At this time there is no scientific explanation of the processes that lead to this phenomenon. I am confident, in time, that it will be better understood. Evidence exists, the research and explanation will be forthcoming.

Reality may make room for GOD?

It is entirely possible that others have had experience with GOD. Billions of religious people talk about GOD god, gods, godesses and accept them, follow them, talk on and on about them. Not one can give any evidence that he she it they exist. No one can even give us a consistent rational definition of the nature of this (non)entity.

But so long as Objectivists mandate atheism as an article of faith and therefore shun any knowledge that cannot be ultimately proven by science (to safeguard the faith from any doubt), Objectivists have packaged themselves to be obliviously consumed by the nihilism of their material universe.

I shun god because there is no evidence. I see that the belief in god(s) has caused much strife as it is impossible to quantify the entity and yet it is used as a justification for anything and everything. It simply is not necessary and without reason. Why do we need god? Seriously! Why should I believe in something that I have no proof AND no evidence of. The fact that something is alive does not require there to be an omnipotent omniscient creator. If evidence is presented I will humbly submit to it upon inspection and proof. All this other talk is simply trying to dodge this fact Bill. You keep bringing up the same argument and people keep shooting it down. How do you expect us to respond? Either support your argument by showing us how we are wrong or admit that your effort is forlorn and mis-founded. You may wish to have Objectivism and Theism, but they are mutually exclusive due to the absence of evidence.

Yip Yapper Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 4/20, 10:03am)

Post 3

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 10:04am

Used Spell-Checker on the above due to roten speling :-)

Post 4

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 12:52pm

"Unfortunately, this is the black hole of materialism from which Objectivism cannot turn itself away from no matter how vociferously Objectivists deny that is the direction it is headed in.� Therefore, Objectivism is a nihilist project."

objectivism is not nihilist in that it has a non theistic code of values. you are falling into the intrinicist-subjectivist dichotomy. we do not need a diety, or any external authority, to give us values. all we need is our own self interest. those behaviors which are good for one's happiness are defined as the moral, those which are iminical for such the immoral. any imperatives or standards above and beyond the pursuit of one's interests. now of course, there are questions as to whether or not the irrational who is a threat to our interests is persuadable to do otherwise, and thusly, if moral judgements are at all useful, but it strikes me that they are such, as, volition or no volition, our moral judgements and arguments clearly have effects on the minds of other men (whether or not they have the desired effects, I wont go into now). ultimately, however, the only standard is one's own benefit. you may call this "nihilism", or "the sociopath's creed", if you will. but, the matter is we clearly do have a standard of judgement. it is simply not an external intrinsic cause, but an egoistic cause. actually, it is only as a selfish instrument that standards of ethics of value and moral causes are at all useful: if it is not in one's own selfish interest to be good, who needs goodness? what's it good for? either something is good for me, or it is no good at all, the very concept of goodness itself notwithstanding from this judgement. again, call this nihilism if you will. I will conclude my post with a quote from max stirner. Objectivists will find fault in many of his ideas, as he is much more of a subjectivist "whim worshipper" style egoist than rand was, and had no qualms about, say, initiating force. all of this said, however, his work captures the ultimate essence of egoism very well, and may well be of inspiration to a more objectivist style egoist when technical questions of what behaviors are or are not egoistic are put aside and instead immerse ones self in the overall spirit of it, much as one does with hugo or nietzsche. anway, here goes:

"Away, then, with every concern that is not altogether my concern! You think at least the "good cause" must be my concern? What's good, what's bad? Why, I myself am my concern, and I am neither good nor bad. Neither has meaning for me. The divine is God's concern; the human, man's. My concern is neither the divine nor the human, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine, and it is not a general one, but is - unique, as I am unique.
Nothing is more to me than myself! "

Post 5

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 12:57pm

addendum:

I am fully aware that I dodged your prime objection, namely determinism/materialism. however, we must note that in the technical sense of nihilism, objectivism is not such, for it has a moral code, just one so radically different from more common types that they conceivably might not consider it a morality. also, it seems that, determinism or no determinism, humans still have thoughts, whether or not these thoughts can be reduced down to molecular neurotransmitter operations, and, even if determined, is still put in different paths of motion by these thoughts. if this seems odd to you, think of computers, which are also put in different paths of action by different arrangements of data. determined beings have different types of conceptual arrangements, which are obviously malleable, which leads to the possibility of, even if there is no volition, persuading them to an egoist ethic, and thusly, moral persuasion and judgement are not useless, even if we assume determinism.

Post 6

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 1:32pm

In case this might be helpful in this intelectual blood bath:

http://www.ios.org/obj-studies/cyber/SH4intro.asp

round 93, ::ding ding::

~Eric.

Post 7

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 1:34pm

Ethan:

I am pleased to see that I've successfully encouraged you to dispense with the yipping and commence with the arguing. Now let me take you to your next stage of self-improvement and show you how you are wrong.

First of all, you missed the entire point of my post. The issue isn't atheism. It is materialism. Materialism is a nihilistic creed that reduces humanity to nothing but a purposeless pulse in the drumbeat of the universe, because if there is nothing but matter, then there is nothing that isn't pre-ordained by the laws of physics. For this reason most Objectivists rightly despise materialism, but too many fail to recognize that that is all that Objectivism is if there exists no true knowledge except that which is verifiable by science.

Second, you fail to understand your faith in Science is just that, and I dare it's a great deal less reasonable than those who have faith in God. To wit, you wrote: >>I have experienced self-awareness and consciousness, so have you. At this time there is no scientific explanation of the processes that lead to this phenomenon. I am confident, in time, that it will be better understood. Evidence exists, the research and explanation will be forthcoming.<< Your belief in Science coming to the rescue is touching, but it is nothing but faith. Moreover, it is faith in an idea that must in the end contradict what you are actually experiencing. That would strike most as unreasonable, or at least suspect. It's better to know science than to believe in it.

Third, you can try to present yourself as a hard-headed independent thinker who'll settle for nothing but the evidence before you, but let's face it: Reliance upon science to explain everything is in practice trusting authority to tell you what is and is not true. You demand evidence of the point I am trying to make (which is that volition and consciousness are as we experience them, thus reality is more than that which is material -- i.e., subject to causation), exactly what sort of evidence am I to put before you in this medium? It could be nothing but the findings of experts employing the scientific method that you would deem persuasive. So we have a situation in which you will not believe what your experience tells you until it is confirmed by authority.

(Mind you, relying upon authority is not always unreasonable. If your experience has led you to trust an authority on one aspect of a subject, it is reasonable to trust him on another. But to deny the validity of experience until the scientists you have so much faith in tell you that you can, well I dunno. I think I'll stick with God instead.)

Finally, speaking of God, you can knock down strawmen all day long over my failure to give you a proof of His existence, Ethan, but I've never offered any such proof. All I have argued is that experience has given me knowledge of things that exist which are not material and not subject to causation, therefore, it would appear that reality is more than mere matter. If so, it is possible for God to exist in such a trans-material reality. Maybe He doesn't, but Objectivism is nothing but a naive materialism if it denies the totality of reality to protect its atheist metaphysics from any circumstance that permits God's existence.

Again, the focus is on the Objectivist demand for atheism, not the need to believe in God.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 8

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 2:04pm

Hello, Robert.

I said that Objectivism is at the edge of the nihilistic black hole of materialism. You disagreed by making an important point: >>objectivism is not nihilist in that it has a non theistic code of values. you are falling into the intrinicist-subjectivist dichotomy. we do not need a diety, or any external authority, to give us values. ... the matter is we clearly do have a standard of judgement.<<

Objectivism does have a worthwhile project before it, which is a secular code of morality. It is my belief that because human nature is not very malleable and is discoverable by reason -- i.e., one need not know God to know man -- there does exist an objective moral code that reason can show to exist even if reason may not be able to explain in its entirety why it should exist.

However, the mere assertion of a moral code does not rescue Objectivism from the clutches of materialism. Even materialists recognize the need for prudence in society, hence certain strictures upon our individual conduct. However, prudence is not enough, because a person's value of it declines the stronger he is relative to another. Morality can only endure if it is grounded in the recognition of the dignity of the other, which is at odds with Objectivism's exclusive reliance upon self-interest. I believe this foundation of self-interest reduces Objectivist morality to mere prudence.

I have written about this at length in an article I submitted a couple of weeks ago to Solo's editor. Because it identifies a fundamental problem with the Objectivist embrace of "selfishness", I suspect it won't be published here. If so, I'll post it in the forum for further discussion on this topic.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 9

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 2:27pm

Eric:

Thank you for the link. I think Rand recognized the evil consequences of Nietzsche's thought and formally exorcised from her philosophy what she believed would have been the paths to such evil -- for example, her prohibition in Objectivist morality of the uninitiated use of force. I also think she remained enamored with the flavor of his thought and romanticized it. Thus, she tamed Nietzsche for suburbia.

But perhaps not. Objectivist morality, being grounded exclusively in self-interest, is essentially a call for prudence, which would do little to restrain a Randian hero's will to power if only he can rationalize it ala the denizens of Galt's Gulch.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 10

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 2:51pm

Hi Bill,

Understanding how a complex bio-electrical system (a brain) becomes self-aware is an undertaking for the future and, yes, for sciencetists. It may come down to a simple (I use the term loosely) matter of system complexity. We don't know yet. That doesn't affect Objectivist epistomology or metaphysics one bit. Being related to a physical process (the workings of the brain) doesn't reduce mankind to purposelessness. Conciousness seems to be able to arise from the physical form of our brain and it complexity. If the brain is damaged, we can lose that conscious awareness.

In any case, you seem to be going about things backwards. You are looking for a way to reconcile your faith with reason and it just doesn't work. How does the lack ofunderstanding of consciousness equate to your Catholic or anyone else's other religious beliefs? Throughout history there a examples of things that were not understood being attributed to religious/theistic/spiritual happenings. Time after time the real physical rational causes have been found. You can claim all you want that we are relying on faith, but it just doesn't pass the test. I can site mountains of evidence for the physical rational causes of just about anything. I can think of not even one thing that can be attributed to God. You say conciousness? Well, when the roots of it are uncovered by rational science, be prepared to find your next point of theistic retreat. To know that you don't know is really to know. Just because I can't explain how my car works doesn't mean agels are powering it. Just because a brain is a complex bio-electrical system doesn't mean God created it. It's not faith to beleive that science will discover the answer, as overwelming evidence suggests that physical rational logical explanations can be found for anything.

I think this conversation has run it's course. Obviously one of us is right and one is wrong. The only way for me to win this (round) of the argument is to wait for scientific proof that refutes your position. I'm quite sure that you will then find another reason to beleive in God. That's the wonderful thing about the irrational; it requires no evidence or reason to justify any beleif you care to have. I prefer a reality that's real and understandable.

Ethan

Post 11

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 3:16pm

Hi, Ethan.

I agree with a lot of what you have written, which will help to delineate the differences that remain. I certainly think science should continue delving into the mysteries of consciousness and volition; I'm just not sanguine about success. Meanwhile, we need to have firm grounding in believing these things are real and not illusions, otherwise what's the point of morality? Our experience of them is one good reason to believe they are real.

More later, but the wind is blowing hard here and I need to batten down the hatches.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 12

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 4:12pm

you complain that, " Objectivist morality, being grounded exclusively in self-interest,�is essentially a call for prudence"

as mentioned above, what is the point of any moral values above and beyond the prudent? if it is not good for me, what good is it at all? ethics is only useful as a "technology" to help ground human decisions for human benefit. any moral standards above and beyond one's benefit are pointless at best.

Post 13

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 3:28pm

Bill,

What is the purpose of God?

Why is there a God rather than not a God?

Who made God?

All action requires change. Does God do anything?

Do you believe in hell?

Is God morally good? By what standard is your judgement made?

Mark Twain said, "faith is believing what you know ain't so." Do you agree? Why not?

Regi

Post 14

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 4:38am

"Galt's Gulch will never be"

Apologies for derailing this discussion, but I felt it necessary to flag up this quotation. On what grounds do you make this position? Galt's Gulch is, theoretically, perfectly possible - all it takes is a few good men, willing to relinquish some of the 'luxuries' of the outside world in order to operate a world of their own where they can trade achievements without force and compulsion, and without scorn for those achievements. All it takes is the ability to recognise a gilded cage and the will to escape from it.

Actually, Galt's Gulch was based on a real town in Colorado, and, inasmuch as there is a Free State Project, and online communities such as ours, there is no reason why there cannot be a Galt's Gulch.

Post 15

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 10:38am

Hi, Regi.

I see that you wish to interrogate me. Seeing that my interrogation-resistance training from the Air Force is quite rusty, I�ll capitulate and cough up the answers.

You: >>What is the purpose of God?<<

In a word: Hope.

You: >>Why is there a God rather than not a God?<<

So that we can be free actors rather than mere automatons of a material universe.

You: >>Who made God?<<

Who made the universe? (This is my clever way of saying �no one� or �I don�t know� by illustrating that atheists also lack an answer to the most basic of questions.)

You: >>All action requires change. Does God do anything?<<

He is the Creator (Eden), the Covenanter (Noah, Abraham, and Moses), and the Redeemer (Christ). The Bible, through various literary styles from allegory to testimony, records God�s interaction with the history of man.

You: >>Do you believe in hell?<<

Yes.

You: >>Is God morally good? By what standard is your judgement made?<<

God is perfectly good, which I accept to be true by theodicy.

You: >>Mark Twain said, "faith is believing what you know ain't so." Do you agree? Why not?<<

Of course not.

Faith is the belief that something is true when I lack sufficient evidence to know without doubt. If I encounter evidence that falsifies that belief, then I no longer doubt, because I know it isn�t true. Thus, faith evaporates and is replaced by knowledge.

The truth is that we all operate on faith to some extent. Some do so irrationally, perhaps by continuing to believe things they know from experience are not true. Just as irrationally some may deny any faith at all and wrongly claim as knowledge those things that properly remain the subject of doubt. Others, such as myself, try to distinguish between those truths which I can know with certainty (knowledge) and those in which I must retain doubt (faith).

Faith, properly applied, means knowing as much of the truth as I can, even if I cannot know everything with certainty, but at least knowing where that lack of certainty exists.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 16

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 10:42am

Matthew:

I stated: >>Galt�s Gulch will never be.<<

You asked: >>On what grounds do you make this position?<<

It is utopian. It is the perfect society of Randian heros.

As with all utopias, it does not allow for the imperfections of human nature and it sustains itself by means that are impossible in the real world. This is why all attempts to build heaven on earth end up as tyrannies. Some petty, like the many utopian communities that sprung up in the United States during the nineteenth century. Some tragic, like Jonestown and other cults. Some utterly horrific, like the Soviet empire, the Third Reich, and Mao�s Cultural Revolution.

Utopias fail in such awful ways because reality ALWAYS intrudes. Either human nature is not sufficiently malleable to be formed into the perfect citizens of the perfect society or the irrational means of sustaining the perfect society collapses or both. The human vice of pride in the founders of the perfect society prevents acceptance of such failure, so the coercion begins to defy reality. It is a tale of hubris that has played itself out time and time again during the bloody twentieth century.

Just take a look at Rand�s inability to sustain a Galtian community. As the imperfections of human nature accumulated, the �Commune� of Rand and her fellow travelers was soon torn apart by petty jealousies and the great woman ended up embittered and dying alone. A cautionary tale to say the least.

We can also take a look at the specific problems of sustaining a Galt�s Gulch in the real world in the context of your next statement �

You said: >> Galt's Gulch is, theoretically, perfectly possible - all it takes is a few good men, willing to relinquish some of the 'luxuries' of the outside world in order to operate a world of their own where they can trade achievements without force and compulsion, and without scorn for those achievements.<<

Well, it would take a whole lot more than that. In an ironic way, Galt�s Gulch is a parasitical society. It is only possible in the first place and then sustainable by its consumption of wealth produced outside of it � that is, the wealth the Galtians created in their prior lives or that which Ragnar the pirate steals. How does it survive once the wealth of its denizens is consumed and there is no wealth from the outside world left to steal?

Either the Galtians devolve into a subsistence culture or they trade with the outside world. The former is hardly novel, let alone attractive, and the latter is simply to replicate what each Galtian had before taking his leave of the outside world. So, what�s the point?

You declare: >>All it takes is the ability to recognise a gilded cage and the will to escape from it.<<

I am the general manager of a successful manufacturing company my family owns. Its success is driven by my invention of an automation technology called Datafacturing�. (It compresses the expertise of a journeyman machinist into a database compact enough to reside in the controller of a CNC machine tool, thus making the machine �intelligent�, so to speak.) If I am in a �gilded cage� it is only because this imperfect non-Galtian world of ours is my market. What possible rational incentive exists for me to �escape from it�? What can a Galt�s Gulch offer me that the real world can�t? The society of sociopaths? I�ll take a pass on that, Matthew.

You concluded: >>Actually, Galt's Gulch was based on a real town in Colorado, and, inasmuch as there is a Free State Project, and online communities such as ours, there is no reason why there cannot be a Galt's Gulch.<<

But not in splendid isolation, which would make it something other than an uncompromising Galtian society.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 17

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 10:44am

Hello, Robert.

I stated: >>Objectivist morality, being grounded exclusively in self-interest, is essentially a call for prudence.<<

You asked: >>what is the point of any moral values above and beyond the prudent?<<

As I said earlier: If self-interest is the standard for morality, then prudence decreases in value to you the stronger you are relative to another. Therefore, prudence is not a firm enough foundation for morality because it eventually yields to might makes right.

You then stated: >>any moral standards above and beyond one's benefit are pointless at best.<<

If so, what holds you back from committing murder? Your self-interest � i.e., that murder would not produce any benefits for you? Or is the real reason you refrain from such a heinous crime the irreparable harm you would have done to another?

Do you see how the prudence of self-interest may not be enough to restrain a person from harming another? It is the recognition that another would be harmed that restrains from such an evil.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 18

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 1:02pm

THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST UPDATE!!!

Posts 7 and 15 are taking a shellacking from God-fearing Objectivists! Raising their no-sanction talismans to ward off the Rat's hexes they have plunged the Beast's number to 62. Only 53 more points to go to strip him of his unmonitored status. Prove the Rat's theory that atheism is more important to Objectivists than reason and keep those X's coming.

Dewey Cheatham & Howe Accountancy Services

Post 19

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 1:52pm