Christians don't believe in God!?

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Post by _Asimov » Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:14 am

Whether or not it's true that your previous criticisms regarding her writing skills and her referencing are accurate I could care less. I don't worship Rand and if she has problems with writing and referencing is not my issue. I study the actual philosophy of Objectivism and not the person behind it.

It's almost like saying that Darwin was a racist.

Evangelion wrote: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! :D
I'm weeping....

Anyways, I read the argument and I'm finding a few issues with his critique. First and foremost his references are vague and I have no idea if I agree with the way he presents Rand's argument. He presents her argument as the way he sees it and not as the way it is presented in her book.

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.
How is it a leap of faith, Evangelion?
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.
Just a question, have you actually read any of her works or is all of your opinion based on the criticisms of it?
Ergo, it is impossible to embrace Objectivism without simultaneously embracing the two most commonly ridiculed aspects of religious experience: belief and faith!
Ergo, you haven't supported your assertions!

Belief isn't ridiculed by Atheism...what are you talking about?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Post by _Evangelion » Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:58 pm

Asimov wrote:
Evangelion wrote: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
Asking me to elaborate on what it doesn't offer, is asking me to prove a negative!

The burden of proof lies with you. What are the benefits of Objectivism? What does it have to offer?
since Objectivism speaks of intellectualism, sociology, philosphy, and economy as well as ethics and aesthetics and politics.
Irrelevant. Just because Objectivism "speaks of" intellectualism, sociology, philosphy, economy, ethics, aesthetics and politics doesn't mean that it actually offers anything in these fields. I could "speak of" these subjects until the cows came home, but unless I could also offer something objective, meaningful, substantial, positive and life-changing in each area, I wouldn't have achieved anything.
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.
On reflection, I decided that it might offer some emotional and/or intellectual benefit, in the same way that Christianity offers emotional and/or intellectual benefit to Christians. This is not the same as rejecting my entire position on Objectivism.

In any case, I am at liberty to change my mind - am I not?
Randian Objectivism is small and insignificant but the philosophies that Objectivism encompasses are huge.
Irrelevant. The philosophies that most worldviews encompass are huge. But so what? Unless the philosophy itself is huge, there will be little impact on the rest of the world.
If you're speaking specifically of Rands philophy, sure, it's small. What does that matter, though?
See above.
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.
Irrelevant. I can name three other philosophies developed in the 20th Century which have had a massive impact on the entire world: Socialism, Communism and Facism. Objectivism doesn't even come close to the stature of these systems.
What insults? Who am I insulting?
Wow, calling people who adhere to Objectivist principles egotistical pseudo-philosophical poseurs is not an insult?
I said it was a world-view for egotistical pseudo-philosophical poseurs. I didn't actually claim that you are one. I do not reject the possibility that some Objectivists are not egotistical pseudo-philosophical poseurs.

So I haven't actually insulted you.
Again, who exactly, am I insulting - and how?
And then insinuating that Objectivists are close-minded in a broad brush-stroke stereotype.
I speak on the basis of personal experience with other Objectivists I have known personally (one of whom was a member of my former university's Philosophy Society). If it's a stereotype, it is one I have reached after interaction with Objectivists themselves.

If you wish to remove that bad impression, this is your chance.
Are you going to accuse black people of being useless thieves next and then be surprised that people consider those insults?
Please, don't talk nonsense. Try to remain... objective. ;)
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?
Well, you certainly gave that impression with your frequent accusations that I had insulted you. Are you now saying that you were not offended, and that I have not insulted you?

Please, stick to your stance.
An entire post of vitriol gives me nothing to discuss with you about Objectivism.
LOL, you call this "vitriol"? :lol: What an incredible over-reaction. :roll:
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.
What gives you the idea that I was hoping to change your mind to existentialism? That seems an incredible leap of logic, particularly since I am not an existentialist myself. I wasn't trying to change your mind; I was merely giving you my opinion of Objectivism, after which I posted some criticisms of it at your request. Please, don't presuppose my motives. At the very least, it is disingenuous; at the very most, it is extremely dishonest.

I believe that Existentialism is superior due to its intellectual honestly. Existentialism simply states that life has no meaning except that which we create for ourselves, by the actions we choose.
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.
My favourite criticism is that its most important premises are utterly unprovable.

Take, for example, Objectivism's stance on individual rights. Rand argues that only individuals have rights (why only individuals?), and that the most fundamental of these is the right to life.

But on what basis does she make this claim, and why should we accept it? We cannot prove it from reason, from nature, from science, from mathematics, from philosophy, or any of the other conceptual tools at our disposal. It is merely an optimistic idea which Rand borrowed from Rousseau (who first proposed the doctrine of "natural rights").

It is, in fact, nothing more than an article of faith.
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.
I didn't claim that you were unwilling to discuss it. I was simply commenting on your strong reaction to criticism, which at first appeared to prelude any possibility of discussion.
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.
By "accept", I did not mean "embrace"; I meant "tolerate". But you seem to have come round a little, so that's OK. :D
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.
Aww, what a great guy! :lol:
Last edited by _BJDedera on Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

User avatar
_Evangelion
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Black Country, UK (ex-Australia)

Post by _Evangelion » Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:02 pm

Asimov wrote:Whether or not it's true that your previous criticisms regarding her writing skills and her referencing are accurate I could care less.
A classic error: "I could care less". The correct phrase is "I couldn't care less."

The expression "I could care less" makes no sense at all, particularly when presented by someone whose intention is to demonstrate just how little he does care.

For your benefit, an explanation now follows:
  • Clichés are especially prone to scrambling because they become meaningless through overuse.

    In this case an expression which originally meant “it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all” is rendered senseless by being transformed into the now-common “I could care less.”

    Think about it: if you could care less, that means you care some. The original already drips sarcasm, so it’s pointless to argue that the newer version is “ironic.” People who misuse this phrase are just being careless.
Source.
I don't worship Rand and if she has problems with writing and referencing is not my issue. I study the actual philosophy of Objectivism and not the person behind it.


You don't care that her methodology was suspect and that her representation of others' views were often inaccurate? You don't care about these things, even though they are frequently central to her argument? Even though they are part of the mechanism by which she actually conceived and defined Objectivism?

That's a bit odd. :?
It's almost like saying that Darwin was a racist.
It is nothing like that at all. The problem with Rand's inadequacies is that they strike at the very heart of her claims and the strength of her arguments.

She misrepresents the positions of others, and then goes on to attack that misrepresentation as if it were the real thing (a classic case of the logical fallacy known as "straw man"). She criticises philosophical systems that she names, but never actually defines. She presents alleged quotes from other writers, but fails to reference them (so how do we know they are accurate?) and when these quotes are checked, they are found to be (a) misleading, or (b) non-existent.

Since her arguments often depend on her "solution" to a problem which allegedly arises from the views of others, and since those views are frequently misrepresented, Rand merely succeeds in "solving" problems which she has invented herself, and falsely ascribed to others.

This is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind. It also strips her arguments of any residual value that they might otherwise have possessed, and results in a pathetically weak foundation for her philosophy (such as it is).

That is why you should care about the quality of her writing; because it is central to the construction of her worldview.

Any worldview is only as valid as the arguments which underpin it - and if those arguments are based on false premises, the worldview necessarily collapses.
I'm weeping....

Anyways, I read the argument and I'm finding a few issues with his critique. First and foremost his references are vague and I have no idea if I agree with the way he presents Rand's argument. He presents her argument as the way he sees it and not as the way it is presented in her book.
So basically, you disagree with him.
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.
How is it a leap of faith, Evangelion?
Because it presupposes - without evidence - that the principle of causality is a corollory of the principle of identity.

In fact, Rand's condeption of causation and identity appears to have been stolen directly from Descartes.

Rand says:
  • existence exists
  • consciousness exists
  • existence = identity.
Descartes says:
  • cogito, ergo sum.
The only significant difference is that Descartes' cites consciousness as proof of existence, whereas Rand cites identity as proof of existence. Perhaps it could be argued that Rand is saying the same thing as Descartes (albeit less succinctly); but I am not sure if Objectivists would agree.

At any rate, the weakness with this argument is its subjectivity. How do I know that my consciousness exists? I might be nothing more than the projection of another mind, in which case my consciousness is merely an illusion.

Descarte explores the same theory in his hypothetical about the possibility of a deceiving God and an "evil demon".
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.
Just a question, have you actually read any of her works or is all of your opinion based on the criticisms of it?
I started reading The Fountainhead, but gave up after finding it impenetrably stupid.

I have since read relevant excerpts from Rand's work, usually presented in the context of critical or supportive writing on her views. I also spent several months as a member of an Objectivist forum, reading their arguments and debating their views. I was eventually banned from that forum after suggesting that Atlas Shrugged would make an excellent doorstop.

I guess some people just can't take a joke. :lol:
Ergo, it is impossible to embrace Objectivism without simultaneously embracing the two most commonly ridiculed aspects of religious experience: belief and faith!
Ergo, you haven't supported your assertions!
How so?
Belief isn't ridiculed by Atheism...what are you talking about?
I did not say that belief is ridiculed by athism. Please read what I wrote - and read it CAREFULLY.

Here it is AGAIN;
Evangelion wrote: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.
I certainly recall stating that belief and faith are the two most ridiculed aspects of religious experience. I do not recall stating that belief is ridiculed by atheism.

But you claim that I said belief is ridiculed by atheism. So tell me, please - just WHERE did I say that?
Last edited by _BJDedera on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Søren Kierkegaard

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Post by _Asimov » Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:34 am

Evangelion wrote: Asking me to elaborate on what it doesn't offer, is asking me to prove a negative!
Not really, since I'm not asking you to prove Objectivism is wrong. And I'm also not claiming that Objectivism is right because you can't prove it wrong, which is fallacious.
The burden of proof lies with you. What are the benefits of Objectivism? What does it have to offer?
It offers the freedom of the individual to choose and pursue happiness. It limits the power of governments to impose on the people. It offers economic freedom, cultural freedom, individual identity, and contract based relationships of mutual benefit between individuals.
In any case, I am at liberty to change my mind - am I not?
Of course you are.
Irrelevant. I can name three other philosophies developed in the 20th Century which have had a massive impact on the entire world: Socialism, Communism and Facism. Objectivism doesn't even come close to the stature of these systems.
Nor does it come close to the damage those systems have wrought upon the world. Socialism, Communism and Fascism were spread largely by coercion and brute force.

Maybe Objectivists are too nice to do that, hehe.
Well, you certainly gave that impression with your frequent accusations that I had insulted you. Are you now saying that you were not offended, and that I have not insulted you?
I saw your statements as I thought you intended them to be; insulting. I didn't take offense, much like I don't take offense when I'm told by Christians that I'm a sinner who doesn't deserve life. I just don't think that it offers much to the discussion.
Please, stick to your stance.
I am :).
I was merely giving you my opinion of Objectivism, after which I posted some criticisms of it at your request. Please, don't presuppose my motives. At the very least, it is disingenuous; at the very most, it is extremely dishonest.
I asked you to support your criticisms, you provided the criticisms unasked. I did presuppose your motives, I apologize.
I believe that Existentialism is superior due to its intellectual honestly. Existentialism simply states that life has no meaning except that which we create for ourselves, by the actions we choose.
Which I agree, and it's not in conflict with Objectivism from what I've read and understood.
But on what basis does she make this claim, and why should we accept it? We cannot prove it from reason, from nature, from science, from mathematics, from philosophy, or any of the other conceptual tools at our disposal. It is merely an optimistic idea which Rand borrowed from Rousseau (who first proposed the doctrine of "natural rights").
I'm going to ask you to clarify what you think is meant by "right to life".
I didn't claim that you were unwilling to discuss it. I was simply commenting on your strong reaction to criticism, which at first appeared to prelude any possibility of discussion.
I felt that your strong criticism precluded any possibility of discussion. It appears that we both misunderstood each other.
Aww, what a great guy! :lol:
:P
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Post by _Asimov » Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:03 am

Evangelion wrote: Think about it: if you could care less, that means you care some. The original already drips sarcasm, so it’s pointless to argue that the newer version is “ironic.” People who misuse this phrase are just being careless.
I do care some, she wrote the philosophy. :)


Source.
You don't care that her methodology was suspect and that her representation of others' views were often inaccurate? You don't care about these things, even though they are frequently central to her argument? Even though they are part of the mechanism by which she actually conceived and defined Objectivism?
Her criticisms of other peoples argumentations may be off, but that is her own failing as a human being. Her methodology might differ from mine in how arguing for Objectivism is done. I don't directly study Rand, I study the ideas by her and then see how they make sense in a hypothetical and real-life situation(s).
It is nothing like that at all. The problem with Rand's inadequacies is that they strike at the very heart of her claims and the strength of her arguments.
That doesn't necessarily mean that they strike at the very heart of the strength of my arguments. It appears as if you think that because I follow Objectivism that I must use her argumentations for Objectivism. I don't, I do all the work myself and refine my belief system as I learn more.

Ayn Rand was against Homosexuality, I'm not. That doesn't mean I'm not an objectivist.
Since her arguments often depend on her "solution" to a problem which allegedly arises from the views of others, and since those views are frequently misrepresented, Rand merely succeeds in "solving" problems which she has invented herself, and falsely ascribed to others.
I don't focus on the problems of other worldviews. I focus on what Objectivism has to offer me and other people and then I discuss the ideas regarding it.

I analyze other belief systems but I try not to do that in the context of my own belief system. That would be like slinging bible quotes to a muslim while he slings koran quotes to me.
That is why you should care about the quality of her writing; because it is central to the construction of her worldview.
Her writing isn't central to the construction of MY worldview, though.
So basically, you disagree with him.
Yes
Because it presupposes - without evidence - that the principle of causality is a corollory of the principle of identity.
I think you have it a little off here, Evangelion, and I will attempt to explain it to you. The wording of what you say is a little vague,

What is meant by that statement is that the identity of an individual or object determines how it will act. IOW, the actions of the individual is determined by the nature of the individual.
The only significant difference is that Descartes' cites consciousness as proof of existence, whereas Rand cites identity as proof of existence. Perhaps it could be argued that Rand is saying the same thing as Descartes (albeit less succinctly); but I am not sure if Objectivists would agree.
Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists, and that anything that exists has an identity.

Descartes was a mind-body dualist, I'm not and neither was Rand. Rand believed that the mind was dependent upon the body and that reality was independent of the mind.
At any rate, the weakness with this argument is its subjectivity. How do I know that my consciousness exists? I might be nothing more than the projection of another mind, in which case my consciousness is merely an illusion.
You know that your consciousness exists because you are using it to perceive reality. In any case, even if you are in illusion you still exist and you still perceive as an illusion.
Descarte explores the same theory in his hypothetical about the possibility of a deceiving God and an "evil demon".
And Descartes' solution wasn't very well done. It's possible that it's true we are being deceived, but really he would have to prove that any of this is indeed true.
I have since read relevant excerpts from Rand's work, usually presented in the context of critical or supportive writing on her views. I also spent several months as a member of an Objectivist forum, reading their arguments and debating their views. I was eventually banned from that forum after suggesting that Atlas Shrugged would make an excellent doorstop.
I'm enjoying Atlas Shrugged so far, but I have a high-tolerance for "turgid and overly verbose" writings. I don't like participating in the Objectivist forums...they're elistist snobs for the most part who need to get out and have some fun.
I did not say that belief is ridiculed by athism. Please read what I wrote - and read it CAREFULLY.
Ah, I see that I misread.

Looking forward to your reply.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Christian Evidences & Challenges”