tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5292304578955387941.post3856452921945940425..comments2023-05-01T03:29:23.896-07:00Comments on An American Anti-theist: Ayn Rand vs. Philosophy in the Flesh: Part 1 Metaphysical Realism and the Correspondence Theory of TruthAmerican Anti-theisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18287086913599484297noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5292304578955387941.post-5256914074814003182009-02-16T06:14:00.000-08:002009-02-16T06:14:00.000-08:00Welcome to the blog. I always welcome criticism, b...Welcome to the blog. I always welcome criticism, but I don't hold punches. I just call 'em like I see 'em. So, with that in mind, let me address some of the issues you've brought up.<BR/><BR/>1. Glad you like the idea of a rational code of morality, one that makes sense, derived from reason, and doesn't need to rely on any hocus pocus or mumbo jumbo. That actually is the definition of rational, something that makes sense, that is based on reality, that adheres to the rules of logic. <BR/><BR/>Religion is an a priori assertion that a mystical being(s) or force(s) originated and control the universe and our lives. Superstitions are pretty much the same thing. The only difference is that religions are institutionalized sets of superstitions and superstition as a set is broader and includes things which are more folksy like knocking on wood or not stepping on cracks.<BR/><BR/>The assumption that such mystical entities exist in the abscence of proof is, once again by definition, irrational. Why? Well, since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, it is irrational to believe in something unless there is actually proof of its existence.<BR/><BR/>For example, were I to say that there are purple monkeys living somewhere inside the moon, you couldn't technically prove me wrong. You could only prove that there aren't purple monkeys in the place you happened to look. I could always claim that they moved. Or they were invisible. Or very small. Or that you have to believe in them to see them. The same is true with Nessie, Bigfoot, the lost city of Atlantis, Lemuria, alien abductions, and tales of demon posession, pixies, sprites, ad infinitum.<BR/><BR/>On the contrary, existence is a relatively easy thing to prove. If I say there is an apple in my refrigerator and I show you the apple, then it's proved. Simple. However nobody has ever produced a god, spirit, etc. or proved that such exist. There doesn't even exist a viable theoretical proposition by which such may be proved except to die and see for oneself. Yet, to believe in the existence of something with no tangible evidence despite the desperate intent to find such evidence simply reaffirms to me that such things do not exist in the first place.<BR/><BR/>To believe something in the abscence of any evidence in support of it, is distinctly irrational. Ergo, religion is irrational.<BR/><BR/>2. I tend to think that all religion is inherently blood-thirsty, oppressive, and cruel. This is why I am intolerant of it. Fundamentally, whenever and wherever a religion has managed to seize the reigns of political power it has been followed by arbitrary edicts, mandates, persecutions and, to make a long story short, an abundance of human suffering. There is no religion which is immune from this criticism. Every one has had their chance to be different in this respect and not a one has suceeded. <BR/><BR/>3. Intolerance of religion for the sake of enlightenment, truth, freedom, and the glory of mankind. Pagan superstitions are the shackles on the minds of humanity. If we could but shed them, we would be free to soar higher than any of us can possibly imagine. Or we could die groveling and gnashing our teeth at each other in the despair of the ignorant.<BR/><BR/>re: burden of proof--see above about proofs of existence.<BR/><BR/>By the way, it doesn't take many rules to prove the existence of something, it just has to be. If you can't produce it, or show evidence of it's effect on the material universe, how do you know it exists? Like I said earlier, anti-theists aren't trying to prove anything. We just don't believe you. So the burden of proof is yours. Prove me wrong. I dare you.<BR/><BR/>4. I would hardly call Mao, Stalin, or Hitler blinded by "a love of knowledge" or "an intense pursuit of reason". These people were maniacs. With the exception of Hitler, they were atheistic maniacs, yes. But atheism in itself is not a philosophy, nor a moral code. It is simply not a belief in yours. The moral codes that all of those people ascribed to were colectivist, statist, dehumanizing philosophies maintaining that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one. A morality not unlike that shared by religion. <BR/><BR/>The flaw is that altruism leads to blood-shed. It is always easy to sacrifice oneself and others to a goal which is "greater than oneself". Altruism is the core evil that drives both religion and collectivist philosophy. Only a philosophy that upholds the recognition of the inviolate rights of the individual in society can secure for us a future free of brutality and wasted life. Those who value their own lives above the lives of others and who believe that there is only this life, and no second chances, will think carefully before jeapordizing their lives in some ideological crusade. Fanatics are all too willing to die and to shed blood. The only difference between a fanatic and a moderate is a degree of belief, not the substance. A fanatic believes more piously than a moderate. If anything, moderates are more hypocrites than anything else. <BR/><BR/>5. Religion precludes critical reasoning because to deny he evidence of the senses and hold a vague emotional sense of existence as supreme is the antithesis of critical reasoning. Critical reasoning entails starting from established facts and reasoning towards new knowledge. Starting from your emotions and reasoning towards what you want to prove is decidedly uncritical. <BR/><BR/>The existence of scientists who claim religious belief hardly disproves this. Human beings have an amazing capacity to believe two conflicting things at the same time. The trick is to keep the two contradictory ideas from recognizing each other. But this is also not very conducive to critical reasoning in the long run. I think you'll find that this kind of mental gymnastics is responsible for a lot of the psychological dysfunction in intelligent people. <BR/><BR/>Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. If there is a contradiction then something is wrong with your premises. Critical reasoning depends on this. You cannot expect belief in the abscence of proof and then rigorously pursue the logical exploration of facets of reality at the same time. The means and method are contradictory and mutually exclusive.<BR/><BR/>I revere Thomas Jefferson. But I am not Thomas Jefferson. He also kept slaves, but even though I despise discrimination in any form, I don't hold that against his ideas. Although I find it hypocritical that he loathed slavery and still perpetuated it. No, that would be the logical fallacy of ad hominem (the fallacy of attacking someone's beliefs because of personal foibles). What I admire about Jefferson, or anyone for that matter, is the content of their minds, and the strength of their ideas. Those ideas that are irrational, that do not hold up to the rigorous examination of truth are worthless, regardless of who originated them. Those ideas that endure the sustained attack of reasoned enquiry are worth notice and more in-depth evaluation, also regardless of who originated them.<BR/><BR/>What quotes have I cherry-picked? Have I taken them out of context? Then show me the context I have misappropriated. Have you read the Bible in it's entirety and can you swear by every word in it despite its internal contradictions? I imagine you haven't or can't. The assumption that one must take an all or nothing approach to knowledge is another irrationality of the religious. The advance of human knowledge is made up of arguments that draw on support from a variety of sources. These are called theories. And theories are made or broken by the advent of new facts. <BR/><BR/>Knowledge is a continually evolving system. Religion is fixed and dead in that its only recourse to escaping its contradictions and fallacies is to pretend they never existed. The Knowledge born of scientific thought purges the bad ideas and welcomes the newly born ideas consistent with the comprehensive model of reality as is best known at the time. <BR/><BR/>I agree with certain sentiments of Jefferson and I respect his achievements. I disagree with others. I agree with some of Dawkins' ideas. I disagree with others. Reasonable human beings do not make themselves into acolytes chained by absolute loyalty to the sentiments of others. A reasonable human being weighs arguments themselves and makes up their own mind, based on facts and evidence.<BR/><BR/>Present your facts and evidence, if you want to dance. Until you can...well, warrantless claims will always be the immoral ones.American Anti-theisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18287086913599484297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5292304578955387941.post-72690408673681037152009-02-15T21:16:00.000-08:002009-02-15T21:16:00.000-08:00I am new to your blog, so bear with my addressing ...I am new to your blog, so bear with my addressing first your "flagship" statements.<BR/><BR/>A rational code of morality? That's a wonderful thought; after all, morality should make sense enough that you don't have to be a philosopher to determine what is moral and immoral/right and wrong. Of course, that is if by morality, one means to define in plain terms what is either moral (good) or immoral (the opposite of good). What I am not clear about is why religion is, for all purposes, categorized as irrational and superstituous.<BR/><BR/>The picture of the late "twin towers" of the World Trade Center is used (for obvious reasons) along with the thought, "Imagine no religion"; as though all religion leads to what the destruction of the Trade Towers is now the symbol. Clearly not all religious expression or belief is equal; certainly not equal to that of the terrorists of 9/11 infamy.<BR/><BR/>Intolerance of religious belief for the sake of what? Is this simply a personal aversion to any thought of God, and/or how does one keep from being intolerant of those who are not likewise disabused of any interest in God, or the very idea that God is? The "burden of proof" for what? God? Does the anti-theist have no burden of proof? Who sets the rules for such "proofs" or, in general, for the discussion/debate?<BR/><BR/>I grant you, religion can be (as was famously said) an "opiate", but so can a love of knowledge, or an intense pursuit of reason. It is hardly just the religious who are dangerous; unless Mao, Hitler, and Stalin (to name only three) can be thought to have been religiously motivated. They were not.<BR/><BR/>You assert that "the religious" are "wrong". Just plain wrong about everything? Wrong about religion? Wrong about what? And you imply that religion precludes critical thought. How in the world is that proven other than by the kind of stereotyping that is normally done by racial and religious bigots?<BR/><BR/>It seems you somewhat revere Thomas Jefferson. He was hardly anti-theist across the board. Cherry picking quotes from Jefferson hardly seems rational, except as a means to make an already biased case. This seems dishonest and immoral. No?dave bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11056333526527807385noreply@blogger.com