Religion is Totalitarian

In Post 25, Claude wrote,

Nothing -- no theory, whether scientific or philosophical -- is immune from change, alteration, and (GASP!!!!) improvement.

In Post 30, I replied, "NO theory, whether scientific or philosophical?? What about the theory that 'no theory is immune from change, alteration and improvement'? Is that theory immune from change, alteration or improvement? If it is, then the theory is false, because it is self-referentially inconsistent. And if it ISN'T immune from change, alteration and improvement, then it is theoretically deficient and is therefore false as well."

In Post 31, Bob Kolker replied,

The assertion that no physical theory is immune from potential falsification and open to change is not a physical theory or hypothesis. It is an observation ABOUT physical theories which has been borne out to some extent by experience.

It's not a physical theory; it's a philosophical one. Remember, Claude's original statement wasn't confined to physical theories. He was referring to all theories, whether scientific or philosophical. And since his statement is philosophical, it is self-referentially inconsistent. So your reply, even if true, is not a defense of his statement.

Secondly, although not self-referentially inconsistent in the way that Claude's is, your statement that "no physical theory is immune from potential falsification" is still problematic, because it is too broad. For example, the physical theory that the sun revolves around the earth was falsified by observation and replaced with the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. But that doesn't mean that the latter theory is itself falsifiable. We know that the earth revolves around the sun. That is a fact, and facts cannot be falsified, which leads to my third point. You say,

Most of 19th century physics has been empirically falsified. As we find out more facts it is reasonable to expect that some of our favorite theories will not cover some of these new facts.

It is reasonable to expect this, if the theories are not held conclusively to be true. But it is not reasonable to think that a theory that one holds conclusively to be true could nevertheless be false. One falsifies a theory by discovering a truth. The geocentric theory was falsified by discovering the truth that the earth revolves around the sun. But a truth, by definition, cannot be falsified; otherwise, it wouldn't be a truth.

One must distinguish between an X type assertion and an assertion ABOUT X type assertions. The latter is a meta-X assertion. In this way we do not get into self referential troubles.

One can validly make this distinction only if the assertion about X is not itself an X. But the assertion that no assertion, whether scientific or philosophical, is immune from potential falsification is itself a philosophical assertion, a fact which is not altered by declaring it to be meta-philosophical. If I say, "All English sentences have a subject and a verb," my statement is an English sentence which refers to all English sentences including itself, a fact which is not altered by calling it a "meta-English sentence."

The "meta" approach to self-referential statements can be traced to Bertrand Russell, and his attempt to solve the paradox of "the set of all sets that are not members of themselves." The paradox arises when one asks if the set of all sets that are not members of themselves is a member of itself? If it is, then it isn't; and if it isn't, then it is. Hence, the paradox.

Perhaps a simpler example of this type of paradox is the statement, "The statement I am now making is false." Is this statement true or false? If it is true, then what it asserts is in fact the case. But what it asserts is that it itself is false. Therefore, if it is true, then it is false. (And if it is false, then what it asserts is incorrect, in which case, it is not false.)

In order to avoid this kind of self-referential paradox, Russell postulated that a statement can refer only to statements of a lower type. Therefore, since the above example -- "The statement I am now making is false" -- refers to a statement of the same type (because it refers to itself), it is, according to Russell, illegitimate. Hence, the distinction that Bob Kolker and others make between statements and "meta"-statements appears to have come from Russell. But Russell's theory does not solve the paradox. Statements can and do refer to themselves, and it does not serve the cause of logic simply to "legislate," or to declare arbitrarily, that they cannot.

Furthermore, as noted above, Russell's "solution" would imply that the sentence, "Every English sentence has a subject and a verb," is not an English sentence -- which is absurd. Besides, as Harry Binswanger notes, since Russell's theory states that all statements must conform to the theory, the theory is self-contradictory, because, in referring to all statements, it refers to itself, something that it claims no statement can do. Therefore, by Russell's own theory, his theory is false.

What, then, is the solution to this antinomy or self-referential paradox, if Russell's solution fails? Well, observe that, while a statement can refer to itself (contra Russell), it must, if meaningful, be either true or false. To make this point intuitively obvious, Binswanger asks us to consider the statement, "The statement I am now making is true." Is that statement true? No. Is it false? No again, for there is no actual (i.e., meaningful) statement here that can be considered true or false.

This is easy to see if one realizes that in order to verify the statement, "The statement I am now making is true," one must verify its referent -- the statement to which it refers -- which in turn necessitates that one verify the referent of its referent, and so on. We are thus lead to a vicious regress. Since there is no ultimate referent, no verification (or falsification) is possible. Exactly the same reasoning applies to "The statement I am now making is false". There is no self-referential inconsistency, because there is no ultimate referent -- no meaningful statement that qualifies as being either true or false.

The answer to the paradox that Russell and others have found so insoluble is to recognize that it is meaningless to talk about the set of all sets as being either a member of itself or not a member of itself. The answer is not to declare arbitrarily as a kind of logical "patch" that sets, classes or statements cannot refer to themselves, which is what Russell has done.

That doesn't mean, of course, that there are no statements about statements (or theories about theories) that are not self-referential. As I acknowledged above, the theory that all physical theories are falsifiable is a theory that does not refer to itself, because it is not a physical theory. The same is true for the sentence, "All Chinese sentences use pictographic characters," for even though the sentence refers to all sentences of a certain type, the sentences to which it refers are Chinese not English. But there is absolutely nothing wrong or incoherent about a theory's being self-referential. Many statements and theories refer to themselves, and if they do so inconsistently, then so much the worse for the statements or theories.

Claude Shannon replied to me as well. In response to my rejoinder, �What about the theory that �no theory is immune from change, alteration and improvement"? Is that theory immune from change, alteration or improvement?�,� he replied,

To echo Prof. Kolker:

That's a simple declarative statement ABOUT theories; not a theory itself.

The fact that you couldn't distinguish the difference is very telling.

It�s a simple declarative statement about philosophical theories that expresses a philosophical theory. And since, as we have seen, there is nothing which says that no theory or statement can refer to itself, theoretical statements can be self-referentially inconsistent, as the one you�ve expressed clearly is.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/31, 9:00pm)

Post 61

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 1:45am

Plenty of people, in fact, have thoroughly disputed it: Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris.

These are all phony intellectuals and superficial scholars (no wonder you find them convincing: they fit hand-in-glove with your pre-existing biases�they don�t suggest a single new or challenging thought to you).

Their sleight-of-hand consists of holding Christianity completely accountable for its past crimes, and exonerating atheism for its crimes. . . and then looking for some point of temporal contact between the Christian crimes of the past and the atheist crimes of the present and saying �Ah! See? The so-called atheist crimes are merely a continuation of crimes from the past perpetrated by religion! Therefore, the present crimes WERE CAUSED BY RELIGION.�

Writes Harris re Nazism: "while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity." And, again: "The holocaust marked the culmination of ... two thousand years of Christian fulminating against the Jews."

There ya go! Since Christians long ago hated Jews, and Nazis hated Jews, it ineluctably follows that the Nazis were merely perpetrating hatred of a religious nature! It�s all Christianity�s fault! LOL! (Harris is truly a super-lightweight thinker.)

Harris says the same thing about the conflict in Sri Lanka.

"While the motivations of the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly religious, they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of life and death." LOL!!! So, Harris admits that the Tamil even see themselves as combatants in a secular struggle, and not a religious one; yet simply because they are Hindu and have religious beliefs about things OTHER THAN THE SECULAR CONFLICT THEY SEE THEMSELVES IN, Harris claims that THEREFORE, they have religious motives, and religion must be the ultimate cause of the conflict.

For Harris (as well as for Hitchens and Dawkins, who all have similar arguments), if contemporary combatants are religious, even if they see themselves in a purely secular dispute � over land, for example � Harris will blame the conflict on their religious beliefs, and therefore religion in general. On the other hand, if contemporary combatants are NOT religious (Nazis, Marxist communists), Harris will look for a similar conflict in the religious past of the nations involved and say �See? The current day secularists are merely continuing a past conflict from a religious past . . .therefore, religion is the cause of the current conflict.� (!!)

Damned if you do; damned if you don�t.

That�s called the �Procrustean Bed� method of argumentation. Procrustes was an ogre who was eventually killed by Herakles (Hercules) in his famous �Trials.� When Procrustes came across a traveler, he would torture him by chaining him on top of a bed: if the captive was longer than the bed, Procrustes would chop of just enough of his legs until he fit the bed perfectly. If, however, the captive was shorter than the bed, he would stretch him until he fit.

Stretch the theory to fit the available facts; or, lop off inconvenient facts so that the remaining facts conveniently fit your pet theory.

And this is an argument that �thoroughly disputes� the claim that atheist societies have murdered more innocent people than religious ones? Harris is a moron. No wonder Hardin finds him convincing.

you could find a much better place to make your case than in a prolonged debate with a philosophical shyster like Shannon, because no one is likely to read it.

Heeee, heeee, haaaa, haaaa, HA, HA!!! Admit it, Hardin: you�re jealous. We all know you�re jealous, so why not fess up to it? First of all, the Objectivist contributors to this thread resent your trying to �shepherd� them as if they�re your personal flock of "Objectivist faithful." Second of all (and sorry to be harsh) you bore them. You don�t challenge a single thing they�ve thought, read, or heard. In other words, you�ve got low ratings on this show and deserve to be taken off the air.

Tell you what � let�s take a vote: if the majority of contributors to this thread would rather spend their precious time with YOU, I�ll leave. On the other hand, if the majority of contributors would rather spend their time with ME, you leave.

Now, is that a square deal, or is that a square deal?

Post 62

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 8:27am

Dennis Hardin: (To your post 45) Congratulations to you and the other Objectivists involved. You can all jot down a triumph! It's a psychological sign when people like Shannon start to request a vote to decide whether he stays or goes, as he does in Post 61, for by doing so he openly recognizes that he has come to the end of his rope. Else he would have never come up with such an "offer". Now he even tries to call the Objectivists to his help, which proves that he has reached the conclusion that Objectivists are too hard a bone to crunch, i.e. Objectivists know where they stand and that they form an unbreakable and invincible fortress of ideas! Shannon implicitly recognizes that he cannot get through with the "snide, rude, contemptuous manner that inhabits the skin of every (religionist), unable to hold a honest debate", to use John Howard's comment of Post 57.

I've seen this happening often enough on this and other threads and websites to clearly notice the development taking place.

Post 63

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 1:17pm

I saw a new book in the bookstore today that is relevant to this thread. It's entitled The Devil�s Delusion and was written by David Berlinski. Here's the synopsis from Barnes&Noble, which is taken directly from the dust cover:

Synopsis

Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement�one that now includes much of the scientific community. �The attack on traditional religious thought,� writes David Berlinski in The Devil�s Delusion, �marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion.�

A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community�s cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:
Has anyone provided a proof of God�s inexistence? Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.
This brilliant, incisive, and funny book explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it can be�indeed must be�the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves.

Post 64

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 1:43pm

I saw a new book in the bookstore today that is relevant to this thread. It's entitled The Devil�s Delusion and was written by David Berlinski. Here's the synopsis from Barnes&Noble, which is taken directly from the dust cover:

Synchronicity. I was about to mention the same book.

The full title is "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions." Berlinski is a philosopher and mathematician who has written many books, mainly on the history of mathematics ("A Tour of the Calculus", "Newton's Gift", etc.)

This month's "Commentary" magazine has an excerpt from his recent book which it titles "The God of the Gaps."

Post 65

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 2:12pm

Here�s a review from the Barnes&Noble page (probably not from the dust cover):

Kirkus Reviews

An overwrought retort to Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and company. Discovery Institute senior fellow and science writer Berlinski (Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics, 2005, etc.) has a big job on his hands: convincing atheists that science doesn't back their lack of belief. He names names ("I count myself among Harris's warmest detractors"; "Richard Dawkins has nothing but contempt for theology, often glorifying in his impressive ignorance") and protests that while there has never been a worthy proof against the existence of God, there are numerous scientists saying that God is at the very least improbable, at the most a delusion. His counterargument is scattershot, however. There's nothing so elegant as Pascal's theorem to be found in these pages, but instead a lot of rhetoric by sly suggestion: If Noam Chomsky is a child of the Enlightenment, and since the Enlightenment produced the French Revolution, it follows logically that Noam Chomsky is responsible for guillotining the innocent. Since Hitler and Stalin were atheists, it follows that all atheists are mass murderers in fact or potentiality. And so forth. In calmer moments, Berlinski offers a nice tour through modern cosmology, pointing out some of the theoretical weaknesses and built-in conundrums of quantum mechanics, even if it seems to be stretching to claim that Max Born was guilty of "legerdemain." The author seems more comfortable with Einstein's more nondogmatic views, to say nothing of Einstein's willingness, at least publicly, to accept the possibility of God. As for the militant new atheists who deny divine agency in creation, he sometimes gets choked up in his furious rejections: "Scientific atheists should at least be open to the possibility that scientific explanations by their very nature come to an end well before they have done all the work that an explanation can do." By which, one supposes, he means that a leap of faith is needed in the whole question of whether God exists, which should come as no news to anyone on either side of the question. Those concerned with that question will find better grist elsewhere.

You might have noted Berlinski�s affiliation mentioned above: The Discovery Institute. According to Wikipedia, �The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses.�

One of the endorsements on the dust cover was by Michael J. Behe of Intelligent Design fame and senior fellow of The Discovery Institute. Another was from the late William F. Buckley.

Post 66

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 2:59pm

From the synopsis of the Devil's Delusion:

Has anyone provided a proof of God�s inexistence? Not even close.

Has anyone provided a proof of the non-existence of ghosts, of Santa Clause, of the Easter Bunny? No even close. Has anyone provided a proof that David Berlinski isn't a racist, hasn't committed a murder and doesn't cheat on his wife? Not even close. Has anyone ever told David Berlinski that you're not required to prove a negative?

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.

Has anyone explained to Berlinski that the universe didn't "emerge" and doesn't require an explanation -- that scientific explanations presuppose an already existing universe?

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.

Has anyone explained why most parts of our universe do NOT allow for the existence of life? The answer is, because that's their nature -- their conditions are inhospitable to life. Life exists on earth, because the conditions there ARE hospital to it. Everything that exists is "fined-tuned" by its nature to be what it is. The answer is philosophical, not scientific. The same question can be asked of religion. Have theologians explained why a GOD is fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.

The proper question is, are they willing to believe in anything so long as it's not bereft of sensory evidence and rational proof?

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.

The Objectivist Ethics have.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.

Secularism is simply the absence of religion. An absence cannot be a force for good or evil. The absence of faith in the supernatural is not the presence of virtuous conduct. Secularism is a necessary condition for rationality, not a sufficient condition.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.

There can be (see Kuhn's The Nature and Structure of Scientific Revolutions), but this is not the fault of science as a discipline; it is the fault of human beings who are biased in their approach to science. Unlike religion, science is willing to consider evidence as the basis for its theories.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.

Insofar as religious belief is based on faith, it is antithetical to the spirit of scientific inquiry, but the proper discipline for justifying the claim that religious belief is irrational is philosophy not physical science.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

The same question could be asked of Berlinski's book.

Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.

Which is the function of philosophy, not physical science or religion.

- Bill

Post 67

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 3:13pm

In post 61 Claude Shannon (CS) wrote:

Harris is truly a super-lightweight thinker.

If that's true, then Dinesh D'Souza (favorably cited by CS in post 10) is a "Flyweight" and CS is a "Strawweight" using the WBC weight classes here. :-)

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 4/02, 1:07pm)

Post 68

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 3:30pm

Now he even tries to call the Objectivists to his help, which proves that he has reached the conclusion that Objectivists are too hard a bone to crunch, i.e. Objectivists know where they stand and that they form an unbreakable and invincible fortress of ideas!

Jawol, Herr Obergruppenfuhrer! Gauleiter of Galt�s Gultch! We shall NEVER re-examine a single premise! Nein! We are a solid, monolithic fortress of unbending, unerring, unwavering rationality and certainty! We are the personification of Rearden Metal!

On your feet, everybody! Schnell!

Let us all sing the praises of beautiful, beautiful, indestructible, Objectivism!

All together, now:

(ahem! mi, mi, mi, mi, mi, key of C, please! Pete, please goose-step to the piano and accompany us):

�Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand uber alles,
Uber alles in der welt.
True Believers, stay together,
In denial, keenly felt,
From the feet up to the pipick*,
From the head down to the belt,
Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand uber alles,
Uber alles in der welt!�

(OK, c�mon now, Pete: give us a big, beautiful, indestructible, subdominant F-major chord):
�A-------------��

(OK, Pete, now let us all know where we stand with a beautiful, unchanging, unwavering, completely certain, Ten-Finger tonic C-major chord): �me--------------n!�

(Sniffle). I love sing-alongs. To paraphrase a Scotsman: �They always bring a tear to me glass eye.�

*Nothing dirty here. A "pipick" is a bellybutton.

Post 69

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 4:21pm

Glen Fletcher wrote:

as an excerpt from Berlinski's book.

Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated.
This brilliant, incisive, and funny book explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it can be�indeed must be�the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves.

I reply:

Berlinski is a very clever and witty writer. He is very amusing and his style is very easy to take. In his book -Black Mischief- he does a job and a half on academia. Definitely pee in the pants funny.

As to the substantial issues he raises I would replay that questions of the truth of religious beliefs cannot be settled empirically. They are beliefs about the world, but there is no way to test them. In that case the questions are not very well put. If an issue cannot be settle empirically, it can be safely ignored.

Bob Kolker

Post 70

Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 4:39pm

One of the endorsements on the dust cover was by Michael J. Behe of Intelligent Design fame and senior fellow of The Discovery Institute. Another was from the late William F. Buckley.

I'm so glad you posted that review from Kirkus! Now we don't have to read the book and decide things for ourselves based on Berlinski's arguments! All we need to do is see whom his name is associated with -- Michael Behe, William Buckley, Discovery Institute -- and we can do as Miss Rand did in similar situations:

"I haven't read that book, and have no intention of reading it!....but here's my review of it anyway in the Ayn Rand Letter based on someone else's reading of it and the publisher's blurb on the back of the jacket."

According to philosopher George Walsh, Rand had read no book on philosophy since about 1945. When asked if she had read Whittaker Chambers' review of Atlas Shrugged, it was again, a No, and I don't intend to.

Speaking of which, here's Whittaker Chambers' review of Atlas Shrugged:

BIG SISTER IS WATCHING YOU (National Review, December 1957)

"The news about this book seems to me to be that any ordinarily sensible head could not possibly take it seriously, and that, apparently, a good many do. Somebody has called it: "Excruciatingly awful." I find it a remarkably silly book. It is certainly a bumptious one. Its story is preposterous. It reports the final stages of a final conflict (locale: chiefly the United States, some indefinite years hence) between the harried ranks of free enterprise and the "looters." These are proponents of proscriptive taxes, government ownership, labor, etc., etc. The mischief here is that the author, dodging into fiction, nevertheless counts on your reading it as political reality. This," she is saying in effect, "is how things really are. These are the real issues, the real sides. Only your blindness keeps you from seeing it, which, happily, I have come to rescue you from."

Since a great many of us dislike much that Miss Rand dislikes, quite as heartily as she does, many incline to take her at her word. It is the more persuasive, in some quarters, because the author deals wholly in the blackest blacks and the whitest whites. In this fiction everything, everybody, is either all good or all bad, without any of those intermediate shades which, in life, complicate reality and perplex the eye that seeks to probe it truly. This kind of simplifying pattern, of course, gives charm to the most primitive story known as: The War between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness. In modern dress, it is a class war. Both sides to it are caricatures.

The Children of Light are largely operatic caricatures. Insofar as any of them suggests anything known to the business community, they resemble the occasional curmudgeon millionaire, tales about whose outrageously crude and shrewd eccentricities sometimes provide the lighter moments in boardrooms. Otherwise, the Children of Light are geniuses. One of them is named (the only smile you see will be your own): Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Antonio. This electrifying youth is the world's biggest copper tycoon. Another, no less electrifying, is named: Ragnar Danesjold. He becomes a twentieth-century pirate. All Miss Rand's chief heroes are also breathtakingly beautiful. So is her heroine (she is rather fetchingly vice president in charge of management of a transcontinental railroad) . . ."

Post 71

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 12:22am

It seems that some people are unable to notice the contradictions they commit. Hence, I am treated as a Nazi (which, of course, I am not) to use scorn instead of an argument, while otherwise it seems to remain completely unnoticed that I defend and promote the philosophy deduced from reality by a Jewish lady. Quite remarkable!

In what refers to demonstrating the nonexistence of "gods" of any denomination whatsoever, and other such nonsense, I provided the definitive proof in my writing "Ayn Rand, I and the Universe", as published by "Rebirth of Reason" (Chapter 1 to 3). It's just a matter of reading it to see that I (anyone) provided the proof of "god�s" inexistence.

(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 4/02, 12:38am)

(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 4/02, 12:40am)

Post 72

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 7:47am

Mr. Shannon said to Dennis Hardin in post #61:

Tell you what � let�s take a vote: if the majority of contributors to this thread would rather spend their precious time with YOU, I�ll leave.

Well, you've posted 27 times in this thread and you haven't received a single sanction. I'd say the people have spoken.

Post 73

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 11:01am

In Post 10, Claude Shannon offered us this:

Further reading to check your own premises:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html
Article in Christian Science Monitor by Dinesh D'Souza on the recent pro-atheism books by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens.

Here is an excerpt of a response by D'Souza to critics of the above-linked article:

Stalin was raised in the Orthodox Church. Mao was raised as a Buddhist. Lots of people repudiate their religious upbringing. Hitler vehemently rejected the traditional Christianity in which he was raised. During the period of his ascent to power, he needed the support of the German people � mostly Christian, mostly Lutheran � and he occasionally used boilerplate rhetoric such as �I am doing the Lord�s work� to try and secure this. This rhetoric, it should be noted, is a commonplace rhetorical device among atheist writers. Nietzsche, for instance, regularly compared himself to Jesus, even titling one of his books Ecce Homo (�behold the man,� a biblical reference to Christ). But no intelligent reader of Nietzsche can doubt that he was a rabid atheist, as was Hitler. One should not confuse political opportunism with personal conviction.

Not surprisingly, Hitler invoked Christ�s death at the hands of the Jews in order to solicit Christian support for his (secular and racial, not religious) anti-Semitic agenda.

Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, however, they denounced Christianity and launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken traditional Christianity. Since 1937 the policies of Hitler�s government became openly and increasingly anti-religious. In particular, they repudiated what they perceived as the Christian values of equality, compassion and weakness and extolled the atheist notions of the Nietzschean superman and a new society based on the �will to power.� Hitler�s leading advisers, such as Goebbels, Heydrich and Bormann, were atheists who were savagely hostile to religion. Several of his associates reported that the Fuhrer�s personal views were deeply anti-Christian. Again, Hitler�s hostility to religion in general, and Christianity in particular, were not incidental to the violence that characterized his regime. They were part of the Nazi ideology � a secular ideology that deified race over creed � and they helped to justify the horrors of extermination and holocaust. Like Stalin and Mao, Hitler illustrates the point made by both Dostoyevsky and earlier John Locke: when God is excluded, then it is not surprising when morality itself is sacrificed in the process and chaos and horror is unleashed on the world. So it has been in our time, and all the elaborate evasions produced by today�s atheists cannot change what their anti-religious kinsmen did, cannot change the grim facts of history.�

If the exclusion of God involved the sacrifice of morality by people like Stalin, Hitler and Mao, it is probably because they had accepted the false idea that morality is justified only by a belief in God, so that when they rejected God, they rejected morality along with it, which is what happens when you base your morality on an irrational foundation. The French existentialist, John Paul Sarte, is famous for his statement, "if there is no God, everything is permitted," a view which he attributed to Ivan Karamazov In Dostoyevki's The Brothers Karamasov, in which Ivan states, "If there is no immortality, there is no virtue." The pitfall of religious morality is that once you recognize the flaws in its foundation, you're left without a morality. But if morality is founded on reason -- if it is based on man's actual needs and values as a certain kind of living organism instead of on the commandments of a holy ghost -- then that problem doesn't arise.

Moreover, when you base morality on an irrational foundation, severed from man's earthly needs and values, you can get a grotesquely irrational morality, one that is in radical opposition to those values. Radical Islam, the religious version of Naziism, is a case in point. Since Islamic militants believe they're going to heaven if they die in a holy jihad, suicide bombings are idealized, with death valued over life. Although Christianity is better than the Muslim religion in that it doesn't believe in killing infidels and gaining converts by terror and force, it's version of morality is problematic as well.

Christianity values altruism and self-sacrifice, and demands unquestioning obedience to the will of God, which, in the Catholic Church, is channeled through the pronouncements of the pope. The result is, the pope can demand that people not practice contraception and abortion, abstain from sex before marriage, not engage in same-sex practices, not become "obscenely" rich, not practice genetic engineering, not cause poverty or "social injustice" (whatever that socialist catch-phrase is suppose to mean) or pollute the environment, and that if they violate these arbitrary prohibitions, they'll burn forever in Hell. This is irrational nonsense and it is anything but moral, Dinesh D'Souza to the contrary notwithstanding. How can it be moral for a God to torture people everlastingly, simply because they violated these prohibitions. Nor is there any justice in the application of this morality. I am reminded of the Mafia hit man who murdered over 20 people in cold blood, went to confession and was absolved of his sins by the priest who gave him five "Our Fathers" and five "Hail Marys" as his penance. This is the religion to which Dinesh D'Souza belongs.

Just as you can't get reliable scientific or physical principles by appealing to some religious authority or by basing them on faith in the supernatural, so you can't get reliable philosophic or moral principles by doing so.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/02, 11:23am)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/02, 11:31am)

Post 74

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 12:29pm

Bill,
Outstanding. I'm keeping this one.

Question: Why aren't you famous? Have you thought of compiling your writings into a book?

Post 75

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 4:22pm

Bill should be famous.

Moreover, when you base morality on an irrational foundation, severed from man's earthly needs and values, you can get a grotesquely irrational morality, one that is in radical opposition to those values.

Yes!

My question is: how to sever the connection so many people have between this very mortality and atheism, and how to best support the rational morality that, I think, resides in strong atheism? It doesn't even seem possible for nihilism to come from strong atheism. There's always some kind of irrational faith behind every bad idea. That's my view, and I'm sticking to it!

Post 76

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 5:10pm

Bill bravo once again, post 73 is excellent. By the way to Dennis who questioned arguing with Claude, I don't mind reading others who do so as I get to read Bill's outstanding posts!

Post 77

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 5:27pm

Thanks Mike, Teresa and John for the fine complements and the sanctions. I'll certainly consider your book suggestion, Mike. God knows I've written enough posts to have more than enough material for it. :-)

The question is, would anyone be interested in publishing it? And what would be the theme? Another book on atheism? The problem I see with a discourse on atheism is that it simply tells you what to be against. The more important question is: What are you FOR? Rand made the same point with regard to anti-communists. Being against communism doesn't say anything about what political system you favor.

This is why Objectivism is so important. It is a positive philosophy, not just a negation of religious faith. I think it was Barbara Branden who said that Objectivists are intransigent atheists, not militant atheists. Rand was opposed to religion primarily because it was anti-intellectual and anti-rational, but she didn't make her opposition to it the centerpiece of her philosophy, which is not to say that opposition to it isn't important.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/02, 5:29pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/02, 6:15pm)

Post 78

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 7:29pm

Bill should be famous.

He is famous. Bill is the best known True Believer of Objectivism in Galt�s Gulch. That�s quite an honor! Alas, it doesn�t amount to much in the real world . . . that place where Objectivists fear to tread.

Moreover, when you base morality on an irrational foundation, severed from man's earthly needs and values, you can get a grotesquely irrational morality, one that is in radical opposition to those values.

(Sigh!)

If good looks translated into good arguments, you would have won this debate long ago. Unfortunately, you don�t know your facts and you don�t know history, and the argument of this thread turns on facts of history, not on your psychologizing about the damaging effects you believe that religion ought to have on people. And when the historical facts conflict with your psychologizing, you claim it�s not your psychologizing that is in error; you aver that there must be UNDISCOVERED FACTS that simply haven�t been brought to light: �There's always some kind of irrational faith behind every bad idea�! And again, �It doesn't even seem possible for nihilism to come from strong atheism.� But nihilism HAS come from atheism, and has NEVER come from religion. It�s not a matter of being �possible� or not. It is simply historical fact. If your psychologizing can�t account for it, your psychologizing (and the philosophy on which it is based) is in error, not the facts.

You believe that you can answer questions of history by breezy appeals to philosophy. �Famous Bill� tried to do a similar thing with Kolker regarding mathematics on a different thread. He failed there, just as you fail here, and for the same reason: you cannot use philosophy to answer concrete questions regarding history (or science, or mathematics, or medicine, or anything else).

Your notion of �rational� is simply more na�ve materialism. The foundations of religious morality are �rational�; they are simply non-material. You cannot logically derive �ought� statements from �is� statements. Rand couldn�t do it; her followers like Peikoff couldn�t do it. In �The Open Society And Its Enemies�, Karl Popper shows that the totalitarianism of Hegel and Marx owes much to their trying to smear over the �fact-value� distinction. Popper, by the way, was an atheist. Unlike Objectivists, however, he was not a materialist.

Rand also tried to smear over the distinction between �fact� and �value� (�Values are simply KINDS of facts!� Na�ve and silly argument), which makes Objectivism as potentially totalitarian as Hegelianism and Marxism. I say �potentially� because the Objectivist movement has dwindled since Rand�s death, and since the schisms that formed both before and after Rand�s death (Brandens, Blumenthals, Hessen, Kelley, Walsh, Smith, Gotthelf, Hospers, Rothbard, Reisman-Packer, etc., etc., etc. � Peikoff/Binzwanger/Schwartz/Stubblefield being the only ultra-pure True Believers left) � have greatly weakened it even more. Additionally, the majority of Objectivists are simply Utopians, content to live in Galt�s Gulch.

Once more: There has NEVER, IN ALL OF HISTORY, been a MATERIALLY SUCCESSFUL society or civilization whose value system was based on any form of atheism. You can reread all the past issues of �The Objectivist� you want; you won�t find any mention of it. So your idea that religious morality is �severed from man�s earthly needs� is simply removed from historical fact.

The problem of jihad and religiously inspired terrorism is not caused by �the existence of religion, per se,�; explicitly atheist belief systems � National Socialism, Marxist Communism, Italian Fascism, Japanese Imperialism � are just as bad, if not worse. The problem of jihad is specifically ISLAM. Period. Not �religion, per se.� Irish nuns with red hair and green eyes are not the ones who are high-jacking planes and ramming them into buildings, nor have they threatened to �wipe Israel off the map.�

If there is one thing that the cult of Objectivism teaches us, it is how easy it is to stick to one�s views regardless of facts and reality. You are, of course in good company in Galt�s Gulch since Miss Rand was exactly the same way. As philosopher George Walsh tells us, she not only didn�t read any of her critics or any alternative viewpoints (even just to challenge herself and sharpen her own arguments), but practically her only method of scholarly verification for most of her statements was self-quotation. Her technique was to say, �I must be correct regarding my statement in �For The New Intellectual�: I wrote exactly the same thing 20 years earlier in �Capitalism The Unknown Ideal!��

No wonder politics and academia cannot take Rand (or Objectivists) seriously.

There's always some kind of irrational faith behind every bad idea.

Really? So for you, there�s no such thing as an honest mistake in the field of ideas. If an idea is bad � i.e., wrong � it�s because of the presumed existence of �irrational faith� on the part of him who holds the idea.

For you, therefore, ALL BAD (I.E., WRONG) IDEAS HAVE INTELLECTUAL ROOTS THAT LIE IN SOME SORT OF IRRATIONAL FAITH; ALL GOOD (I.E., CORRECT) IDEAS HAVE INTELLECTUAL ROOTS THAT LIE IN PURE MATERIALISM AND LOGICAL DEDUCTION (i.e., "Reason").

Well that�s nice and comforting. So now, instead of trying to grasp opposing ideas and analyze them, you can psychologize about the person who holds them and rely on ad hominem arguments. �His opposing ideas are the result of his adhering to an irrational faith, which makes him an irrational, and therefore evil, person. Of course, I can�t identify exactly what that irrational faith is, but I�m sure it�s there. That�s my view and I�m sticking with it!�

It doesn't even seem possible for nihilism to come from strong atheism.

It doesn�t seem possible to you because by �sticking to your views� irrespective of the historical evidence, you simply won�t allow yourself to acknowledge it.

�Won�t all yourself to acknowledge it� = �willful blindness to historical fact.�

For the third time (or is it the fourth time?), please respond to this challenge:

Take any ONE of the works of art I cited earlier � painting, architecture, literature, music � by the artists I mentioned, and demonstrate how the work in question � the specific work I cited in that post � was the result of duress by a religiously oppressive society toward that artist.

You claimed that such works were the result of duress. I challenged you to prove it (and not by making general psychological statements about religion, the creative process, etc.). Take ONE WORK -- take Dvorak's "Stabat Mater" or Milton's "Paradise Lost" and show us how Dvorak or Milton wrote their respective works under duress by a religiously oppressive society.

That's what you claimed, so it should be easy enough to prove.

Take your time.

Post 79

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 8:21pm