Christians don't believe in God!?

[Guest]

TK

do any of the errors (as you see them) in the gospels have any major theological significance, or rather simply matters of detail? if the former, can you give me a couple of examples?

As for matters of detail, here is an example (though not an error if one is familiar with the ways of the time and culture then)

Matthew 3:17 - And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.”

Mark 1:11 - And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”

[_Evangelion]

I'm an objectivist...

Hi Asimov,

Are you an "objectivist" as is Ayn Rand's philosophy?

Just curious.

Yes.

Asimov, you astound me.

Objectivism is a joke. I know of no serious academic or philosopher who takes it seriously, and no leading research university which considers it worthy of specialisation or study. I studied philosophy at university (Bachelor of Arts: Major in Religious studies; Minor in Philosophy), and covered many different schools of philosophical thought. Objectivism was not one of them; it wasn't even mentioned in passing.

The reasons for this are simple: Objectivism has nothing to offer (whether intellectually, sociologically, philosophically or economically), it has no historical or sociological relevance, it has had no impact on the world, it has played no role in any significant part of human history, and its current membership is limited almost entirely to the USA. (There are small pockets of Objectivist activity elsewhere in the world, but they are so small as to be virtually non-existent).

Rand's only claim to fame is that she invented what is arguably the world's most unsuccessful and unpopular worldview - a truly remarkable feat, considering the length of human history.

Her writings are turgid, verbose, and laughable; her propositions woefully argued. She distorts her sources, she hardly ever references her quotes, she throws sweeping generalisations into a half-baked mixture of unsupported assertions and unproven premises, and her fiction is interspersed with scenes of violent sex (possibly inspired by personal experiences within her various failed relationships - one of which was with a married man).

Rand was a pseudo-philosophical poseur who created a club for egotistical pseudo-philosophical poseurs and called it "Objectivism". It is not a serious worldview; it is merely populist pap for lassaiz-faire capitalists.

I can recommend this site. It contains many excellent critiques of Objectivism (though there are a few dead links here and there). Please read it with an open mind; a difficult task for an Objectivist, I know. But please, do try.

I would have thought that a person of your obvious intelligence would be more inclined to existentialism (which in my opinion is the most intellectually honest philosophical position for an athiest).

Your acceptance of Objectivism is as disappointing as it is baffling.

[Guest]

Objectivism is a joke. I know of no serious academic or philosopher who takes it seriously, and no leading research university which considers it worthy of specialisation or study. I studied philosophy at university (Bachelor of Arts: Major in Religious studies; Minor in Philosophy), and covered many different schools of philosophical thought. Objectivism was not one of them; it wasn't even mentioned in passing.

So?

The reasons for this are simple: Objectivism has nothing to offer (whether intellectually, sociologically, philosophically or economically), it has no historical or sociological relevance, it has had no impact on the world, it has played no role in any significant part of human history, and its current membership is limited almost entirely to the USA. (There are small pockets of Objectivist activity elsewhere in the world, but they are so small as to be virtually non-existent).

Could you elaborate as to what it doesn't offer? Since you seem to be so well-versed in the apparent irrelevance of Objectivism.

Rand's only claim to fame is that she invented what is arguably the world's most unsuccessful and unpopular worldview - a truly remarkable feat, considering the length of human history.

That's a matter of opinion.

Her writings are turgid, verbose, and laughable; her propositions woefully argued. She distorts her sources, she hardly ever references her quotes, she throws sweeping generalisations into a half-baked mixture of unsupported assertions and unproven premises, and her fiction is interspersed with scenes of violent sex (possibly inspired by personal experiences within her various failed relationships - one of which was with a married man).

Again, care to support any of those premises?

Rand was a pseudo-philosophical poseur who created a club for egotistical pseudo-philosophical poseurs and called it "Objectivism". It is not a serious worldview; it is merely populist pap for lassaiz-faire capitalists.

Insults now?

I can recommend this site. It contains many excellent critiques of Objectivism (though there are a few dead links here and there). Please read it with an open mind; a difficult task for an Objectivist, I know. But please, do try.

More insults?

I would have thought that a person of your obvious intelligence would be more inclined to existentialism (which in my opinion is the most intellectually honest philosophical position for an athiest).

A matter of opinion again.

Your acceptance of Objectivism is as disappointing as it is baffling.

Well so far I've read 4 or 5 paragraphs of you insulting me. If you care to actually point out any flaws I'll be happy to discuss them with you.

[_Evangelion]

Objectivism is a joke. I know of no serious academic or philosopher who takes it seriously, and no leading research university which considers it worthy of specialisation or study. I studied philosophy at university (Bachelor of Arts: Major in Religious studies; Minor in Philosophy), and covered many different schools of philosophical thought. Objectivism was not one of them; it wasn't even mentioned in passing.

So?

So I am surprised that an obviously intelligent person such as yourself has chosen to adopt it as his personal worldview.

Could you elaborate as to what it doesn't offer? Since you seem to be so well-versed in the apparent irrelevance of Objectivism.

I never claimed that it doesn't offer anything. I am sure that it offers some sort of emotional and/or intellectual benefit to those who embrace it - just as Christianity does.

In any case, it's impossible to prove a negative. That's a logical fallacy - as you would have known if you had studied philosophy.

That's a matter of opinion.

No, it is a matter of fact. Objectivism is so small and insignificant that it constitutes little more than a private club. It has had no discernable impact on history or society.

Her writings are turgid, verbose, and laughable; her propositions woefully argued. She distorts her sources, she hardly ever references her quotes, she throws sweeping generalisations into a half-baked mixture of unsupported assertions and unproven premises, and her fiction is interspersed with scenes of violent sex (possibly inspired by personal experiences within her various failed relationships - one of which was with a married man).

Again, care to support any of those premises?

Firstly, these are not premises. A premise is the foundation of an argument; these are criticisms in the form of allegations. And yes, I can support all of them.

Secondly - read her work! (Have you read any of it?) Failing that, visit the Website to which I've posted a link, and read other people's critiques of Objectivism.

Hey, I'll even do you a favour and quote some of them in my next post.

Rand was a pseudo-philosophical poseur who created a club for egotistical pseudo-philosophical poseurs and called it "Objectivism". It is not a serious worldview; it is merely populist pap for lassaiz-faire capitalists.

Insults now?

What insults? Who am I insulting?

I can recommend this site. It contains many excellent critiques of Objectivism (though there are a few dead links here and there). Please read it with an open mind; a difficult task for an Objectivist, I know. But please, do try.

More insults?

Again, who exactly, am I insulting - and how?

I would have thought that a person of your obvious intelligence would be more inclined to existentialism (which in my opinion is the most intellectually honest philosophical position for an athiest).

A matter of opinion again.

Well, obviously!

Your acceptance of Objectivism is as disappointing as it is baffling.

Well so far I've read 4 or 5 paragraphs of you insulting me.

Oh really? Where did I insult you? Please quote the exact words with which I allegedly insulted you.

For someone who is quick to belittle Christianity, you seem remarkably sensitive to any criticism of your own beliefs.

If you care to actually point out any flaws I'll be happy to discuss them with you.

I posted a link to a site containing some excellent discussions and critiques of Objectivism and Rand's work. If you don't want to read them, that's your business.

However, I must point out that it doesn't look very good when an atheist comes onto a Christian forum to criticise Christianity, but refuses to accept any criticisms of his own worldview. That's a classic case of hypocrisy.

As an atheist and debating opponent, you have just lost all credibility with me.

[_Evangelion]

And now, my previous criticisms - with evidence to support them.

Her writings are turgid, verbose, and laughable

Obvious to anyone who has read them! But here's a sample from The Fountainhead:

• Howard Roark laughed.
  He stood naked at the edge of a cliff. The lake lay far below him. A frozen explosion of granite burst in flight to the sky over motionless water. The water seemed immovable, the stone flowing. The stone had the stillness of one brief moment in battle when thrust meets thrust and the currents are held in a pause more dynamic than motion. The stone glowed, wet with sunrays.
  The lake below was only a thin steel ring that cut the rocks in half. The rocks went on into the depth, unchanged. They began and ended in the sky. So that the world seemed suspended in space, an island floating on nothing, anchored to the feet of the man on the cliff.
  His body leaned back against the sky. It was a body of long straight lines and angles, each curve broken into planes. He stood, rigid, his hands hanging at his sides, palms out. He felt his shoulder blades drawn tight together, the curve of his neck, and the weight of the blood in his hands. He felt the wind behind him, in the hollow of his spine. The wind waved his hair against the sky. His hair was neither blond nor red, but the exact color of ripe orange rind.
  He laughed at the thing which had happened to him that morning and at the things which now lay ahead.
  He knew that the days ahead would be difficult. There were questions to be faced and a plan of action to be prepared. He knew that he should think about it. He knew also that he would not think, because everything was clear to him already, because the plan had been set long ago, and because he wanted to laugh.
  He tried to consider it. But he forgot. He was looking at the granite.
  He did not laugh as his eyes stopped in awareness of the earth around him. His face was like a law of nature — a thing one could not question, alter or implore. It had high cheekbones over gaunt, hollow cheeks; gray eyes, cold and steady; a contemptuous mouth, shut tight, the mouth of an executioner or a saint.
  He looked at the granite. To be cut, he thought, and made into walls. He looked at a tree. To be split and made into rafters. He looked at a streak of rust on the stone and thought of iron ore under the ground. To be melted and to emerge as girders against the sky.
  These rocks, he thought, are here for me; waiting for the drill, the dynamite and my voice; waiting to be split, ripped, pounded, reborn; waiting for the shape my hands will give them.
  Then he shook his head, because he remembered that morning and that there were many things to be done. He stepped to the edge, raised his arms, and dived down into the sky below.

On and on it goes, for paragraph after unrelenting paragraph!

Later in the book, John Galt vents his spleen in a speech which lasts for sixty pages!

If that's not the embodiment of "turgid", I don't know what is.

[_Evangelion]

Next:

her propositions woefully argued.

Brilliantly demonstrated by Critique of the Objectivist Ethics (click here). This guy dissects the fundamental premises of Rand's ethics, and shows that they are wholly insupportable.

Read it and weep!

Alternatively, see this blistering criticism from a review of Atlas Shrugged:

• Rand's central tenet, that "A is A", the existence of one truth, is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. That you might simply define a problem, then look for the one correct answer, is an escapist philosophy with little practical or intellectual value.
  
  It is a reaction to the true complexity of the world, the distillation of the messy uncertainties down to an absurd and unsupportable level.
  
  "A is A" is a leap of faith more characteristic of the more fundamentalist religions than a reasoned philosophical tenet upon which to build any kind of a system.

The review can be found here.

I was particularly impressed by the reviewer's astute observation that a central tenet of Objectivism ("A is A") is a leap of faith, comparable to the faith-based premises of fundamentalist religion.

Indeed, the more I learn about Objectivism, the more I realise that it is little more than a religion for atheists. It is almost entirely faith-based - and necessarily so, for it finds virtually no support from events, concepts or experiences in the real world.

Ergo, it is impossible to embrace Objectivism without simultaneously embracing the two most commonly ridiculed aspects of religious experience: belief and faith!

How ironic, then, that objectivism is so popular amongst atheists.

[_Evangelion]

Next:

She distorts her sources

For evidence of this, we turn to Gary Merrill's analysis:

• At some points she goes so far as to provide *vague* references. For example, on pp. 50-51 she offers us:
  
  As an illustration, observe what Bertrand Russell was able to perpetrate because people thought they "kinda knew" the meaning of the concept of "number" ...
  
  Now I'm hardly a Russell expert, but at one time I had read quite a bit of Russell, and I did once serve on the dissertation board of a Ph.D. candidate whose dissertaion was entitled "Russell's Theory of Number". I can't *imagine* what she is talking about here.
  
  But worse -- she offers me no way of determining what she is referring to and no way to determine whether her "criticism" (if we can call it that) of Russell is well founded.
  
  In addition, how can this be an *illustration* of anything since there isn't enough detail to tell what is being referred to?
  
  [...]
  
  These sorts of things would not be so bad, though they *are* bad, were it not for the fact that she so frequently gets things wrong.
  
  There is the business above concerning Russell, for example. There is the claim (p. 59) that "modern philosophers declare that axioms are a matter of arbitrary choice." (no substantiation or reference is provided).
  
  There is the claim (p. 52) that "It is Aristotle who identified the fact that only concretes exist". (Any of you Aristotle scholars want to wade in here with a brief account of particulars vs. concretes?)
  
  And *none* of this comes with even a *hint* of specific attribution that would allow a reader to evaluate it. The closest she gets is along the lines of (p. 60) "For example, see the works of Kant and Hegel." Now *that* really narrows it down!

Merrill's devastating critique can be read at your leisure here.

[_Evangelion]

Next:

she hardly ever references her quotes, she throws sweeping generalisations into a half-baked mixture of unsupported assertions and unproven premises

We saw an example of this in the previous post, but here's a few more - again, from Merrill:

• First, any number of *positions* are referred to without there being any clue as to who is claimed to hold these positions.
  
  These are the following (numbers in parentheses are page numbers in which the positions are mentioned):
  
  * Nominalism (47, 53, 74)
  * Pragmatism (77)
  * Conceptualism (53)
  * Linguistic Analysis (50, 77, 78 )
  * Realism (53 and elsewhere)
  * Mysticism (60, 79, and elsewhere)
  * Irrationalism (60)
  
  Sweeping and very strong claims are made concerning these various positions, and yet the reader is offered not a clue as to exactly *what* the position is nor *who* has held the position that is being criticized.
  
  Since Rand is offering these as *failed* attempts at solving certain problems, and since she is claiming that *her* purported solution succeeds where these fail, it is (to say the least) irritating to the reader that he has absolutely no way of objectively judging her criticisms of the positions nor the success of her own solution.
  
  For example, a familiarity with the positions being criticized may well introduce the reader to certain classic problems that Rand's solution faces as well. Without such familiarity the reader remains ignorant.
  
  Since Rand herself characterizes the dependence of argument on such ignorance as argument from intimidation, it is especially peculiar that she has so studiously failed to be specific.
  
  Either she is *unable* to cite specific references to support her criticisms, or else she is *unwilling* to do so.
  
  This is simply a mark of poor scholarship and both by the standards of professionals and her own criteria it is poor and deceitful argumentation.

Examples could be multiplied.

[_Evangelion]

Finally:

and her fiction is interspersed with scenes of violent sex (possibly inspired by personal experiences within her various failed relationships - one of which was with a married man).

Reference to these failings are found in Robert Slade's review of Atlas Shrugged:

• Both family and sexuality are rather hideously portrayed. First, is it ridiculous to call a woman a misogynist? Rand seems to rail against the "keep 'em barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen" mentality, but also manages to put women very firmly in a subordinate position.
  
  Sexual activity (tame as it is) seems to be more of an "acquiescence to rape" than any kind of romance. (One also suspects that Rand was into bondage, considering a great many of the descriptions and comments.)

Available here.

And again, from a different review of the same book:

• There is also a continuous thread of nearly pathological sexuality in the sadomasichism of the book's characters. Rand fetishizes rape as a ritual of ownership, as the correct relationship of the Titan of industry with his women.
  
  Ayn women are surprisingly anti-feminist players, as mere vessels for the savage power of rich and brilliant men. Ayn Rand was a singularly strong woman, yet her male sexual totalitarianism shows some kind of deep conflict that belies it.

You can read the rest here.

Thankyou, and goodnight!

[Guest]

I never claimed that it doesn't offer anything. I am sure that it offers some sort of emotional and/or intellectual benefit to those who embrace it - just as Christianity does.

In any case, it's impossible to prove a negative. That's a logical fallacy - as you would have known if you had studied philosophy.

I didn't ask you to prove a negative, I asked you to elaborate on what it doesn't offer since Objectivism speaks of intellectualism, sociology, philosphy, and economy as well as ethics and aesthetics and politics.

You did claim it has nothing to offer intellectually, and now you're saying that it might have something to offer intellectually. Stick to your stance.

No, it is a matter of fact. Objectivism is so small and insignificant that it constitutes little more than a private club. It has had no discernable impact on history or society.

Randian Objectivism is small and insignificant but the philosophies that Objectivism encompasses are huge. If you're speaking specifically of Rands philophy, sure, it's small. What does that matter, though?

- A truly remarkable feat, considering the lenght of human history

Rand didn't develop her philosophy until the 20th Century, which is small blip in the course of human history. Even Christianity didn't take off right away as a widespread belief system.

Firstly, these are not premises. A premise is the foundation of an argument; these are criticisms in the form of allegations. And yes, I can support all of them.

They are premises in an argument that Objectivism is a joke.

Secondly - read her work! (Have you read any of it?) Failing that, visit the Website to which I've posted a link, and read other people's critiques of Objectivism.

I've read it, I have no problem with her work.

What insults? Who am I insulting?

Wow, calling people who adhere to Objectivist principles egotistical pseudo-philosophical poseurs is not an insult?

Again, who exactly, am I insulting - and how?

And then insinuating that Objectivists are close-minded in a broad brush-stroke stereotype. Are you going to accuse black people of being useless thieves next and then be surprised that people consider those insults?

For someone who is quick to belittle Christianity, you seem remarkably sensitive to any criticism of your own beliefs.

Did I speak of being offended? An entire post of vitriol gives me nothing to discuss with you about Objectivism. Instead, you rant on with no questions, no room to discuss, you just offer you "criticisms" on it and then expect me to do something about it, hoping to change my mind to the obviously more suitable position of existentialism. Without of course supporting why existentialism is superior.

I posted a link to a site containing some excellent discussions and critiques of Objectivism and Rand's work. If you don't want to read them, that's your business.

I read a few of the links, and I disagreed with a number of points. I'm not going to argue with a website and if you have a favourite criticism then by all means post it in your own words and we can discuss.

However, I must point out that it doesn't look very good when an atheist comes onto a Christian forum to criticise Christianity, but refuses to accept any criticisms of his own worldview. That's a classic case of hypocrisy.

I see...so, ignoring my:

"If you care to actually point out any flaws I'll be happy to discuss them with you."

I'm apparently close-minded and hypocritical.

Who says I don't accept any criticism of my belief? I don't accept it because you haven't supported it. Of course, I haven't read your proceeding replies.

As an atheist and debating opponent, you have just lost all credibility with me.

Aww, I'm crushed that you would think that. For someone who didn't offer a debate about objectivism and link-dumps, I don't care.