Reason vs. Faith, Question 4 of 8 - Ayn Rand Institute

[epicn2l]

Objectivism does believe and recognize an omnipresent "God" they just call it Reality, The Universe or All that was, is and ever will be. Just as religion say that we are all part of "God", Objectivism can say we are all part of "Reality" or "The Universe". Religion says we should obey the laws of God, Objectivism says we should obey the laws of Reality. Objectivist should be more specific about God (The Universe) compared to God (Being in Heaven with angels).

[koss121]

the point of a philosophy isn't to get people to follow it, while it's on the agenda

[platinum014]

i don't understand why people are not getting this. the only world we see is reality and all the laws of reality thats it. theres nothing less nothing more. never has been. never will be. god was created from mans mind. without man there is no god to be thought of. without man. there is no religion written down. it was created by man and now it must be destroyed by man.

[MrChirpsky]

One of the flaws in Objectivists' standard approach, not just to religion but to all schools of thought, is to treat society as a product of ideas rather than the other way around. For instance, Christianity today is at a vast remove (along a continuum) from what it was even a couple hundred years ago, and there are more points of contact between seemingly opposite schools of thought today and their own origins of hundreds or thousands of years past.

[Radeo]

@MrChirpsky

Ideas are a product of society? From whence came society and its structure?

You are package-dealing the notion of "society" with very premise you are arguing against.

Current "points of contact" exist only because secular ideas and laws of civilization act as a moderator, i.e., facilitating discussion by outlawing coercion.

[hyobel]

How does objectivism deal with transcendence?

[WarVideo]

@hyobel

It doesn't deal with it.

For more details look up Leonard Peikoffs podcats #14, time 8:10.

[Philosopher2087]

The Ayn Rand Institute has great intellectuals.

[InFromTheVoid]

It's not that obejectivism is OUT to destroy religion...it's just that it is a consequence of thinking objectively lol

[InFromTheVoid]

there is no way to objectively deifne "god"...it is just an assumption. The question he is asking is irrelevant. The question should be...WHY do people keep making such assumptions? ANd again it would go back to, emotions and a lack of logical thinking.

[Torrriate]

This guy with glasses leans far out of his realm as a proponent of science. Science is THE tool to learn about nature. But it fails per definition to answer ultimate questions about nature, because what you assume as the very source of everything, mind out of matter or matter out of mind, leads you ultimatively to very different conclusions. And this is the realm of philosophy and not science. It's up for everybody to decide on his own.

[CipherMind117]

Objectivism IS a philosophy anyway so I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish.

[Torrriate]

I guess you were addressing InFromTheVoid. Nevermind. Cheers.

[CipherMind117]

Sorry, but no, I was addressing you. Objectivism is a philosophy so it is one of the Ayn Rand Institute's missions to address morality; right and wrong.

[Torrriate]

@CipherMind117 I never mentioned morality or objectivism, but sure, he can address whatever he wants, and if he has got the acknowledged definitions of objectivism and reason at hand, he can address them from this perspective too, but solely from this perspective. Not from the viewpoint caliming to be able to explain the universe's come about and way to understand it ultimatley. But maybe he didn't intend. Then I mistook this excerpt from the Q&As and my apologies are granted.

[CipherMind117]

@Torrriate He doesn't say the universe came to be. He says that the universe is a fact; it is the reality. It has always existed. Not always existed as it does now, but all the matter and energy has always existed. He doesn't claim to understand the universe ultimately, but says neither can you or any religion or theist.

Also this man is from the Ayn Rand Institute, a completely Objectivist group. So that's where the Objectivism bit in my first response came from.

[lucentenor]

@CipherMind117

To clarify, matter is a form of energy. It could, reasonably, be that all matter was at one point pure energy. Just another bit of thermodynamic evidence that refutes the necessity of a prime mover if a "Big bang" occured- which many think did, and is one of many such massive mass-energy fluctuations that may occur.

[CipherMind117]

@lucentenor My point exactly.  There is no necessity for a prime mover, it is an extra step which cannot be logically made. Apply Occam's Razor and cut out the unnecessary prime mover.

[Torrriate]

@CipherMind117

He doesn't say the universe came to be. He says that the universe is a fact; it is the reality. .........."It has always existed. Not always existed as it does now, but all the matter and energy has always existed."

What? Prove it! It's not even logic to go for the realm of infinity. I'd be very careful addressing this topic.

About the obejctivism part...Now I see why you mentioned it, but then I don't get your very first reply.

[CipherMind117]

It is the only logical assumption that can be made. The claim is still weak, but it is the most logical choice, because it doesn't require anything which we have never observed.  Also, saying it isn't logic to "go for the realm of infinity" is rather arbitrary.

My first post was in response to you saying "And this is the realm of philosophy and not science. It's up for everybody to decide on his own." Objectivism is a philosophy so it is in its purview to say what is moral.

[Torrriate]

@CipherMind117

Well to me such "weak" claims are irrelevant.

In regions of this gravity we should first agree on definitions, like what is logic or what does it mean to be objective in a certain sense.

And this brings me to your objection to my critique about the Ayn Rand

Institute's  member's statement - unless we agree on those definitions they will remain just statements to one party at least.

[richardcadbury]

There is no unified theory.

There is no unified force.

Not that we know of yet.

[Roark308]

God created the natural world.

And then he said: "Go forth and be objective."

And then he rested.

[polaka03]

It was EMOTIONS and SURVIVAL INSTINCT that got her out of a communist state in the first place!

[WarVideo]

She must be the only russian with emotions or survival insticts.

[polaka03]

I doubt it.

So... people in that ARI cannot agree on the role of emotions, huge discrepancies between the members. I'm not surprised:)

[davidngo4415]

actually no. it was her reason and rational need for intellectual freedom away from mysticism that got her out of Russia. If she was just an angry person who wanted bread, she would have been just like the many other oppressed Russians, begging and stealing for their ration of bread. Instead, she rationally knew there was a better way and used her rational faculties to get out.

[pookiehohn]

Emotions serve a vital survival purpose. However, they do not aid when it comes to logical decisions.

[Scrampster]

emotions are great help when making logical decisions. So long as the emotion is evaluated objectively. So what are the thoughts that created the emotional experience? Are they valid? Rational? Complete? ie, is this emotional experience an accurate representation of reality?

If so, use it for a decision... if not, check your premises.

[WarVideo]

Emotions are not instincts, wanting to liveis not an instinct its a choice.

[Scrampster]

lol, I like that. So who is god?

[pookiehohn]

Why can't it be an instinct and a choice.

[polaka03]

What if GOD is RATIONAL? xDDD

we need to live by reason because that IS god's reality:)

[philosophyarchitect]

What if setting yourself on fire is rational? What if irrationality is rational?

God as something with no logical referent who's defined entirely by his superiority to everything reason gives us is an attack on reason. You can't say "God, therefore reason" when one must first suspend one's rational faculty in order to accept that word as having any meaning.

[polaka03]

You can leave out the "god" thing, I'm not that into it (who knows what we are talking about when mentioning god?)

We don't always know what is rational. Ms Rand herself escaped from communism - a system "based on rationality". It's no good saying that they were not rational - they thought they were! Victory of the mind, burn the churches etc.

That rationality turned out to be murderous. Then Ms Rand escapes that and... lo and behold, creates yet another "rational dream":)

[philosophyarchitect]

So I guess we shouldn't try to be peaceful because sometimes people do violent things even though they say they're peaceful? I'm well aware the USSR would announce that they said what they were doing was rational. So would a lot of religious scholars. I don't believe they were; I believe Rand's system was.

[polaka03]

Only the definition of the word itself, "rational", varies a lot, doesn't it?

You can try and be rational, I could do too. My actions and yours would be different though - and probably every single individual's... You never have "all the data" to make a decision, and if you had, still it would be problematic to reach a perfect conclusion. So you need to use your instincts as well.

Rand is all for emotions - that complicates it even further. I could always say "I feel this way"! lol

[philosophyarchitect]

Yes, the definition can vary depending on how you act, but Rand gave a specific definition and that's the one we advocate.

Our actions would definitly be different. That doesn't mean we're no both being rational.

No, no one is omniscient. Rationality is using all the data you do have and evading nothing, and never drawing conclusions not based on some data.

Nope, no "instincts" necessary.

Rand made it quite clear that emotions aren't a source of knowledge.

[polaka03]

I'm sorry, but it is no argument "Rand made it quite clear".

And she did say that, if you e.g. love your husband, then you should act altruistically, but then it is not called that because you love that person. So you decision to sacrifice your interest (which is not called a sacrifice, according to her) is BASED ON YOUR EMOTIONS - love IS an emotion!

And you say now emotions aren't a source of knowledge. Maybe, but they're good enough to make decisions based on them - according to Rand:)

[nurbSoldier]

Maybe if you actually paid attention to the videos, you will see that the Objectivists openly advocate emotion. Objectivists are not Vulcans.

It is not altruism to express love for your husband/wife. You value that other person. But if you were forced to pretend to love some fat, ugly pig, then it would be altruism.

[polaka03]

Hey! If you actually paid attention to what me and my ARI interlocutor had said, you will see that it is him/her who told me there is no place for emotions in this philosophy!

He/She said that because if he/she hadn't, they would have had to admit that I was right. And of course, they'd rather contradict their own alleged point of view than admit that.

You're saying obvious stuff now - back to square one, lol!

[nurbSoldier]

Whoever he is happens to be wrong. Art is a product of emotions. So is music. So is architecture (outside of basic utilitarianism). Don't forget cooking (outside of bare substinence), or industrial design. I think you know that Rand and other Objectivists heavily praised these things.

Besides, I am more interested in the opinions of the opinions of Ayn Rand and Yaron Brook, Director of the Ayn Rand Institute than I am some friend of yours.

[polaka03]

They're not friend of mine. They got involved to prove I was wrong - I don't even remember what that was.

They did it to prove Ayn Rand's philosophy was seamless, which it isn't.

It's not my fault that they don't know enough about what they believe in!

[philosophyarchitect]

I don't know what it is but I feel bad for this guy. Never the less, a blunt answer was required.

[bioperluc]

Yea, just glad he's actually looking for answers rather than playing Moses like the last guy.

[elmasfregon]

I think it is a lot easier to believe that a god will provide a sense of happiness when you die if you are poor and miserable in this life than having earn that happiness yourself. Imagine Bill Gates looking back at his life and seeing all that he has accomplished. If that sense of achievement and happiness is not spiritual, I don't know what is. But not everyone is willing to work that hard for it.

[shrynakesavan]

at the questioner : "Dude, shut the fuck up...!!!" and go back to school...

[rbilkie]

Seriously. And it has to be so incredibly annoying to have to answer a questioner like that. He piles up so many stupid questions in ten minutes of stuttering that it just makes you want to yell at him to get out of the academic world. Though I don't think more school is the solution, I think it's probably the problem.

[shrynakesavan]

hmmm... yes i see ur point of view... sending them back from where they came..in the first place... dosent make sense... guess i lost my cool

[GamblerJustice]

At least he is asking.

[Radeo]

Dr. Ghate totally looks like Dr.Egon Spengler (a younger Harold Ramis).

[shovelcharge]

lol he does

[jprational]

The churches (and non-affiliated "spiritualists") are constantly defending their turf by besmirching science and attempting to spin/twist scientific evidence (observations of the real world) to justify their fantastic beliefs in bizarre arbitrary stories about the "true" nature of the universe.

I think that the questioner fell in to that trap.

[shovelcharge]

excellent

[akinobjectivist]

I think that the question about physics represents many religious types to point to the order of the universe as evidence of god. as is the case with the question on physics, the order of the universe in fact points to reality NOT god.

[qtronman]

One would have to have a premise somewhere in such a "scientific" theory that, in effect, makes room for the non-rational.