RoR: Forum

This poll and its predecessor have proven enlightening. While the freethought topics of Atheists, Humanism and Secular Humanism did not beat Entrepreneur, Book Clubs, and Self-Improvement for the positions of worthy supplements to Ayn Rand Meetups, people still consider them important enough to warrant listing Ayn Rand Meetups in freethought directories. Encompassing all these topics in some fashion should cut a wide swath through the potential market for new PROPEL™ members.

Post 1

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 6:45am

Could the person or persons who vote "Detrimental" please elaborate?

Post 2

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 6:56am

Using American Atheist as example, being listed there gives far too much emphasis to the non-theistic aspect of Objectivism, an aspect of consequence rather than exclusiveness...... Humanistic associations, perhaps, would be of benefit in extending options to others not familiar with Objectivism..... the problem is that these associations are more against religion than for secularity or reality, which, to me, makes for a liability than a gain....

Post 3

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 8:55am

Robert, I wholeheartedly agree.

Just yesterday, I wrote this to a few colleagues:

...for most people, “atheist” means “believing in NOTHING” – including morality. They equate it with nihilism, and that is why most people find “atheism” repugnant. That’s why I’ve always opposed the notion of mocking religious symbols and icons: it plays into the nihilist stereotype.

People do need principled guidance. You can’t beat a “something” with a “nothing.” That’s why [merely] refuting religion is not a fruitful approach; the proper approach is to replace it [with]...a positive, systematic, compelling set of moral principles. To show people what we stand for.

In that vein, I think that linking our cause to the American individualist tradition – as its culmination and validation – affords us the best opportunity for spreading our philosophy.

Post 4

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 10:11am

All right. For those who voted "Beneficial," please elaborate. Since I voted that way, I will go first.

Objectivists embrace a reality-oriented world view that cherishes reason, science and a secular legal code. Most atheists you encounter will not challenge that view, in my experience. Where most atheists go wrong lies in their continued support for altruism and collectivism.

Where can an atheist who senses the wrongness of those ethics and politics go to locate atheists who embrace their opposites -- egoism and individualism? Unless he already knows about Ayn Rand and where to look for Objectivist clubs, he will be hard pressed to locate them. Currently, he will also have a hard time locating such other atheist clubs in any freethought directory.

I have met several atheists who expressed gratitude for the existence of my Objectivist club. They visited other freethought groups and did not like the lack of focus on positive values, the assumptions of collectivism, etc.

American Atheists explicitly states its mission as to maintain rigorously the separation of church and state and the defense of the civil rights of atheists. I am not saying they do not occasionally stray into territory where I think they do not belong, but by and large, I can support their mission. Meanwhile, the Atheist Alliance International maintains a global directory online of freethought groups of all stripes. I have taken advantage of both listing services in the past.

Post 5

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 3:39pm

I said beneficial. In my experience 'atheism-centric' orgs do tend to be leftist humanist (bad, undoubtedly, though not really nihilist). But I see no harm in getting the attention of a few people going to such orgs that may be drawn to actually having a sensible philosophical basis for Objectivism.

In short, I'd be opposed to an Objectivist organization linking to more general atheist orgs, but certainly not vice-versa.

Post 6

Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 10:07pm

Beneficial, for the reasons put forth already. There are always people in every ideological group who are fence sitters. They might be new to the area and still forming their opinion, they might have doubts about certain tenets, etc. These are the people who will be receptive to new ideas. A link to a website might be all it takes to stimulate someone's initial interest.

Post 7

Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 8:57pm

I voted (plain) humanist in the first poll, and beneficial in this one. But I must say that I agree with Bob & Robert's caveats on the atheism association, in so far as her atheism was the last thing that attracted me to Rand (but I accepted her arguments after about 6 days of thought, and one day of rest) and I have found that those who are attracted to Rand because of her atheism are the types of "objectivist" that I find most unappealing. Someone who needs even more arguments to bolster their dislike for a deity in whom they disbelieve has a blister on their soul.

In general, I am not a joiner or a chatter, I don't attend many club functions, or even like too much email. So take my opinions for those of someone unlikely to respond to your (or any) marketing campaign. I don't wish to bias your sample.

Ted

BTW, The person who introduced me to Rand was an atheist before he read her and is no longer an objectivist. None of the friends to whom I introduced Rand were outright atheists, all became explicit atheists afterwards, but none of them became anti-theists, if you get the difference in meaning. The history of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, or however you spell her name, is quite educating.

Post 8

Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 6:19pm

Detrimental, but not terribly so. Somewhat negative insofar as what's already been stated; that the "a" in atheism literally means no, but in many cases atheistic individuals are clearly "anti-theistic," which can be perceived as cranky and mean spirited (not that those attributes are unique to atheists, by any means), and/or dark and creepy (like Goths) which is hard to justify in light of Rand's humanistic benevolence, or - love of life. A reason I qualify detrimental with "not terribly so," is that in fairness, not all atheists cross the line from "religion neutral" to "religion antagonistic," and also that it's not objective to use those who subvert the true definition, to taint the intention of atheists who are epitomizing "A is A," by not believing in unprovable concepts.

However, as none of us were there to witness the ultimate origin of matter, is it being objective to categorically state that, "there is no God?" That one and only instance (ultimate origin of matter) is where I personally can't make the "leap of faith" required to categorically accept either naturally eternal matter, or a seemingly magical occurrence when nothing gave way to something, both of which must be accepted to believe in an "accidental" creation, and because of that can't pronounce myself truly atheist.
Unless there's a third option I'm oblivious to, how is the belief in the two aforementioned circumstances any less "faith-based" than belief in an infinite intelligence" somehow behind all existence?

"Intelligent Design" proponents were predominantly motivated by a sort of religious incrementalism, where they saw a chance to figuratively get a theistic foot in the door of the debate concerning creation, and as such wouldn't have been satisfied to leave it at a mere generic mention of "an infinite intelligence." Some proponents of "ID," of which I'm one, saw it as a chance to actually introduce nothing more than that generic mention, and leave it at that, in a truly sincere interest in not being dogmatic about the moment of ultimate origin of matter. I'm against any attempt to apply ID one iota beyond that event. Labeling as "flat earthers" (or worse), or accusing anyone in favor of that generic, non-denominational mention of a God-like entity, of wanting to apply ID to anything other than the ultimate origin of matter was (is) subjective, but I can see where most would be suspicious of that being the case.

I have no problem with true atheists, I actually admire the bravado they possess, to go against the majority - as long as they can be truly religion neutral and not harbor a hatred of someone like me who can't join in their intransigent (as I see it) view of existence. I beseech all atheists reading this to ascribe a similar bravado to me, for daring to leave room for something as "mystical" as the possibility of an infinitely intelligent being, especially in this forum of rationality based upon one's senses.

Post 9

Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 10:35pm

Hank Rearden,

You've shifted the discussion towards arguments about ID and cosmology - a bit off topic - but I want to address your comments. Please note that if you see this turning into an extended exchange on this matter, I suggest your move your next post to a newly created thread and provide a link here for others who want to follow this tangent.

There are people who hold a mostly non-religious view of ID, but they are definitely NOT responsible for the recent PR push to incorporate ID into the classroom. As you seem to be aware, religionists (Christians primarilly) were eager to get something like ID into the books to build a link between religion and science - a link that had been decimated by centuries of scientific advances.

ID is not science. At best, it serves a useless theoretical conversation amongst stoned college kids who stayed up too late (I'm reminded of the scene in Animal House when Kroger gets high with his professor, and the professor blows Krogers mind with the theory that the entire universe as we know it might just be a subatomic particle in a single atom in a cell of some massive-beyond-comprehension organism, and that each cell of our body contains the equivalent).

The problem that most atheists have with religion is not the fact that certain individuals can't intellectually rule out the possibility that a greater form intelligence beyond our perception might exist. The problem is that people are claiming with certainty that their holy book contains the revealed words of this creator, on down to its preferences on gay marriage, birth control etc. Even if non-religious ID theories held water, it would only be an endorsement of deism at best. Religionists still have to connect the dots from the theoretical existence of a creator entity to the validity of their holy book - this is not an exercise of reason, I can assure you.

(Edited by Pete on 2/23, 8:21am)

Post 10

Friday, February 23, 2007 - 6:23pm

Hank Reardon,

I've been an atheist since age 14, but like Ted said, not an anti-theist. It has never been anything I felt militant about.

However, in recent years I've become much more strongly anti-faith. If people want to take a position based on faith, I'm no longer willing to treat it as a sacred cow, or to let the position stand as if it were equal to a position built on reason.

If you are open to hearing reasons why there are NO scientific positions that involve a "leap of faith" I'm sure there are many people here that can address this in its area: epistemology. And in the area of metaphysics there are also many that can tackle the issues in that area or cosmology as Pete mentioned.

A scientist might say, we have no evidence to support this theory or that - except that it is a bit more elegant, or a bit simpler, or has more supporters. But they are using that theory not on faith, but as a place-holder till they have evidence. They still have minds open to reason. It is a difference in method.

My problem with faith is in the method - not the particular belief. The method of 'faith' subverts our means of survival, our means of understanding. It is like taking LSD. Any belief held as a result of faith becomes untouchable - no way to reason to a different result - no way to settle differences in faith-based beliefs but violence.

Faith is the method for building True Believers - people capable of vicious violence.

Richard Dawkins, in an essay written after 9-11, wrote,

"The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people rather than see them as individuals. Abrahamic religion gives strong sanction to both--and mixes explosively with both. Only the wilfully blind could fail to implicate the divisive force of religion in most, if not all, of the violent enmities in the world today. Without a doubt it is the prime aggravator of the Middle East. Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for the dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out."

The evils he attributes to religions can only have that effect on the human psyche by using the method of faith.

Post 11

Friday, February 23, 2007 - 6:40pm

Luke,

As to your poll: As I said above, I've been an atheist for a long, long time but I wouldn't be interested in attending a gathering of atheists - I just don't see the point. I also wouldn't be interested in attending a group who didn't believe in parapsychology or a group who didn't believe in witches.

Things I don't believe in don't kick up much motivational energy in me.

And I say this knowing that the group would tend to be better educated on average, more intelligent on average, and I suspect a little more interesting than average.

Post 12

Friday, February 23, 2007 - 6:57pm

Very true - all those are negatives, not positives - they are defensive motions, not flourishing and enlightening motions [and yes, am using the term 'motions' instead of the otherwise 'notions' for the specific differential it gives].....

Post 13

Friday, February 23, 2007 - 10:12pm

Nice insight, Rev'!

It is none other than man's notions that give rise to man's motions.

;-)

I like understanding that.

Ed

Post 14

Friday, February 23, 2007 - 9:51pm

Hey Steve,
Consider all your points well taken by me. As I'm new to this forum, I wasn't sure of the protocol regarding the amount of elaboration one was allowed in what was a "comments" section. I used quotation marks, to denote words and phrases that I suppose I was using loosely, so as to qualify them as not to be taken at their most literal sense.
I expected to be pilloried more than I have for my remarks (I know, the post is young). While I took some umbrage at the "Animal House" reference by the one member ("A.H." being one film that long has been on my top ten list of überoverrated comedies for one thing, and the inference that I'm some spaced-out lightweight), I fully expected more vitriol to be forthcoming.
I hope you're not missing my main point, in that I'm only focusing in on that one single, solitary event in the "history of the universe," when I state why I'd be being disingenuous to claim unadulterated atheistic status. It's not out of fear of retribution, leftover imprinted guilt, or lingering traces of hallucinogens. If words are to have concrete meaning to me, the doubt or unanswered question regarding what set everything in motion that I've yet to reconcile (albeit with my layman's mind) concerning ultimate origin of matter is sufficient to leave room for the possibility of eternity. Entertaining eternity engenders a state that makes my admittedly (and necessarily so) vague concept of an infinite intelligence to me plausible, yet not for any pathetic (read: fearful) or vindictive reasons, I assure you.
As Rand would have it (but not for that reason), I'm not ashamed to say I admire your obvious intelligence, that comes through in just your brief post. I can only somewhat meekly hope that I don't come off too incredibly sophomoric in your eyes with this murky concept. While limited time and more pragmatic duties prohibit me from elaborating here sufficiently, I can make a better case for this ID than I have in these response to a poll comments. Do Einstein's similar musings have no bearing (cosmic dice, et al)? Though even with unlimited time, and the benefit of truly open-minded and patient individuals to consider it, I hate to admit, there's likely no resolving this. Rand supposedly settled on atheism as a young girl, because she saw God as unknowable (I agree), and therefore not worth further consideration (again agreeing).
I'd say agree to disagree, but that's presumptuous and trite. I feel like a Martin Luther nevertheless.

Post 15

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 2:13pm

Hi Hank,

You said,

I'm only focusing in on that one single, solitary event in the "history of the universe,"

And you stated that given time,

[you] can make a better case for this ID than [you] have in these response

I like to cut to the chase and see what is really under discussion. Would you say you are an atheist who is having problems reconciling some issues from Cosmology or that you still have a degree of belief in a god - mostly because of those Cosmological issues?

The other thing I would try to separate out is the business of ID. "Intelligent Design" is a movement to open the door for religious beliefs to be taught along side of or in place of evolution. It is religion trying to hide under a cloak of psuedoscience.

My suggestion is to drop ID altogether and just focus on that one question you raised earlier:

However, as none of us were there to witness the ultimate origin of matter, is it being objective to categorically state that, "there is no God?"

Why carry the dishonest baggage of the religionists if what you have is just this one question?

If that question were answered in a satisfactory way, would you then see yourself as an atheist and with no reservations?

I ask because people often have a great many emotional hooks and identity issues that hold them to a set of religious beliefs. And it makes no sense to spend a lot of time in rational discourse if what you need to do is examine other areas of the self.

Post 16

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 2:26pm

Why even presume that matter has an origin? That is as much a pseudo-religious notion cloaked as science as archangels and the like....

Post 17

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 3:15pm

The fact that we have someone here adopting a name of a character from an Ayn Rand novel openly stating theistic sympathies underscores my motivation for listing Objectivist Clubs in freethought directories. It emphasizes that Objectivism is, in fact, unapologetically atheistic.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/24, 4:07pm)

Post 18

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 4:47pm

What Luke just said.

Sanction.

Erica

Post 19

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 5:01pm