Satan sounds like the good guy.

[BaalChatzaf]

Peter

I agree with the content of your argument against faith and how an omniscient being is a contradiction , but you why are hating on the Big Bang ? Total physics layman here, but on metaphysic grounds , aside from all the maths of scientific explanation of such an event , as long as a singularity is not a creation event, creatio ex nihilo, how far fetched is it? Something banged (or may have). The CBR and redshift of galaxies seem to show expansion (?), maybe everything spreads out , recedes , bangs , rinse and repeat , throw in maybe an extra not yet detected dimension or three?, no?

Although I didn't set out a full refutation of god, thank you for expression of agreement with my conclusions.

Big bang, that was thrown in for fun Although, I don't believe the big bang theory to be correct. I don't actually throw it in the exact same category as mystical beliefs. It's in the middle of mysticism and plain error. It's a result of the corruption of science and various mistakes made along the way. I can't give you a full explanation from scratch. That would probably take a small book to fully flesh out everything.

"The CBR and redshift of galaxies seem to show expansion" - I did astronomy 101 at university. Any explanation that is irrational can be thrown out. Any explanation that can be vetoed on philosophical grounds can be thrown out. An expanding universe is one such explanation.

throw in maybe an extra not yet detected dimension or three?, no?

I also reject the possibility of extra dimensions. There are three spatial dimensions, and there is time.

as long as a singularity is not a creation event, creatio ex nihilo

Well, you make a good point. A singularity would have been the universe. That's true. In which case, the big bang theory would be a theory of how the universe changed to be this way, rather than a theory of how the universe itself began. A singularity, as defined as an infinitely small region of the universe is impossible. I reject the existence of actually existing infinities. So a singularity is out. Secondly, what is infinitely small about it if it is all that exists, it would be the totality of existence, and so the largest thing that exists. Maybe it should be called the great shrink, as everything became smaller in comparison to the universe. (and there's nothing to expand into.) - In terms of not being ex nihilo, they can only get the math to go back to a very short time after the big bang which is considered the birth of the universe. But you are wrong in thinking the physicists are not suggesting that the universe literally came from nothing. There are books about it.

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468

But I reject the notion of space-time expansion all together. I reject the existence of actually existing physical space and time. There is no such entity.

There are a group of physicists who are working on explaining the universe under rational grounds. They are not affiliated with Objectivism, but they are on the same track and have realized the same things. That there is something very wrong with modern physics, and some of it has to do with irrational philosophy.

One explanation I have seen for red shift is that it is a function of a star's age. The older the star, the more red shifted it will be. Now there's a rational hypothesis.

Also there is astronomical evidence that shows various objects joined together with highly different red shifts.

Also, even the mathematics of the big bang theory can be shown to be meaningless by those who unlike me actually have a very strong grasp of it. They can break it down, show you it's not scary, and explain what it all is supposed to mean.

I should probably start a blog about it so I can just refer people there whenever I'm asked. I reject the big bang, space-time, quantum theory (but not quantum mechanics), and black holes

That math is logically consistent. Which is guarantee that it describes nature.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

[moralist]

Tony writes:

Greg: The "people" you speak of. Who know right from wrong, and act otherwise.
Who are they, precisely?

They are us.

No one begins life always loving what's good. It's an acquired taste.

(You raised some other really interesting points that I'll respond to later today.)


Greg

[Nerian]

Don't you [Peter] consider also you are new here to be questioning the membership of a poster on the forum?

I'm far from being new here, and I, too, wonder why Greg is here.

My belief is that he finds this site a congenial place for bragging about how rewarded for virtue he thinks he is - while also indulging a most unChristian zest for condemnatoriness against categories of people of whom other list members aren't fond.

Ellen

Peter, Well thought and written. But you're preaching at me. I was 'converted' long before you came along, so I know this stuff --and I have the life experience to confirm it.

Don't you consider also you are new here to be questioning the membership of a poster on the forum? One whom I think has earned his stripes here with good nature, his often good sense and an honest exposure of his belief-system. "Call it when you see it", but know what you're seeing first. You don't find value in these debates of comparisons of our ideologies, or in learning more about the principles of the religious people who's lives surround you? Speak for yourself, but I do. Or - as well, that Objectivists can teach something to Christians - at the least, of Capitalism and individual rights, and why separation of Church and state are non-negotiable? Can't you tell that it was a respect for Objectivism that brought this poster here - and that he has stayed on despite some pressure?

I've learned that one thing lacking in Objectivism is grace: grace under pressure, and grace when on top. It denotes lack of confidence and a defensiveness I believe, of what's basically a brand new philosophy (as philosophies go). We prize its neighbor, benevolence, but I notice some confusion in how to practise it. It is not "civility", per se(particularly not when at the expense of honesty). Do you know that benevolence relates to your "justice" too? If one is going to stick it to the "immoral", it is justice first to benevolently assume before that point, that nobody is automatically "immoral". Simply by dint of his being, or calling himself, a Christian, etc., etc. And, that it takes more than a label to make the man.

We have or have had at OL, Socialists and Muslims, and (ow!)skeptics. I've also on occasions blown my top with one or other. But long run, I see looking back, that the experience was invaluable to my thinking. Who knows? maybe for them too.

Thanks. And sorry if I seemed to be preaching. I thought someone had implied otherwise. Maybe not you.

No. Honestly, I don't think my being new matters in my questioning another older member why he is here. I am confused why someone like that would be here. I would not go frequent a Christian forum because Objectivism and Christianity hold some superficially similar conclusions (while having radically different reasons), like for the fact that both are against murder, rape and stealing. I didn't tell him to leave or anything like that. And I wasn't trying to imply that I am the all-knowing master of Objectivism. If I came across that way, I do apologize. I don't consider him immoral as a person. I don't think I said that anywhere. I consider that part of him that rejects reason and in its stead places 'I know because I know' to be immoral. I don't know for sure his full context so I must refrain from that judgement. I was shocked to see someone uphold Objectivism in one post, and then completely reject everything he just upheld in an other.

I'm all for benevolence. I agree it's something worth employing. Good will. Great stuff.

But I want to keep stressing the context of this forum. This is a forum devoted to Objectivism. Because of this, I feel free to delve into the deep ideas of Objectivism. I feel free to go full on Objectivist. I'm not going to do that in real life. I don't think there's anyone in my real life who even knows I hold Objectivist ideas! Not even my girlfriend.

I thought I'd be scorned for not being 'Objectivist' enough. So I certainly don't want people with differing ideas to be rejected. I just didn't think there would be anyone who rejected the very basics..

That math is logically consistent. Which is guarantee that it describes nature.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Internal logical consistency of anything is no guarantee of it being tied to reality.

[tmj]

I see it as foils are nice, but not all foils are always nice all the time, undue condemnation is itself a foil.

Undue condemnation being an example of moralizing, the bad kind

[BaalChatzaf]

Don't you [Peter] consider also you are new here to be questioning the membership of a poster on the forum?

I'm far from being new here, and I, too, wonder why Greg is here.

My belief is that he finds this site a congenial place for bragging about how rewarded for virtue he thinks he is - while also indulging a most unChristian zest for condemnatoriness against categories of people of whom other list members aren't fond.

Ellen

Peter, Well thought and written. But you're preaching at me. I was 'converted' long before you came along, so I know this stuff --and I have the life experience to confirm it.

Don't you consider also you are new here to be questioning the membership of a poster on the forum? One whom I think has earned his stripes here with good nature, his often good sense and an honest exposure of his belief-system. "Call it when you see it", but know what you're seeing first. You don't find value in these debates of comparisons of our ideologies, or in learning more about the principles of the religious people who's lives surround you? Speak for yourself, but I do. Or - as well, that Objectivists can teach something to Christians - at the least, of Capitalism and individual rights, and why separation of Church and state are non-negotiable? Can't you tell that it was a respect for Objectivism that brought this poster here - and that he has stayed on despite some pressure?

I've learned that one thing lacking in Objectivism is grace: grace under pressure, and grace when on top. It denotes lack of confidence and a defensiveness I believe, of what's basically a brand new philosophy (as philosophies go). We prize its neighbor, benevolence, but I notice some confusion in how to practise it. It is not "civility", per se(particularly not when at the expense of honesty). Do you know that benevolence relates to your "justice" too? If one is going to stick it to the "immoral", it is justice first to benevolently assume before that point, that nobody is automatically "immoral". Simply by dint of his being, or calling himself, a Christian, etc., etc. And, that it takes more than a label to make the man.

We have or have had at OL, Socialists and Muslims, and (ow!)skeptics. I've also on occasions blown my top with one or other. But long run, I see looking back, that the experience was invaluable to my thinking. Who knows? maybe for them too.

Thanks. And sorry if I seemed to be preaching. I thought someone had implied otherwise. Maybe not you.

No. Honestly, I don't think my being new matters in my questioning another older member why he is here. I am confused why someone like that would be here. I would not go frequent a Christian forum because Objectivism and Christianity hold some superficially similar conclusions (while having radically different reasons), like for the fact that both are against murder, rape and stealing. I didn't tell him to leave or anything like that. And I wasn't trying to imply that I am the all-knowing master of Objectivism. If I came across that way, I do apologize. I don't consider him immoral as a person. I don't think I said that anywhere. I consider that part of him that rejects reason and in its stead places 'I know because I know' to be immoral. I don't know for sure his full context so I must refrain from that judgement. I was shocked to see someone uphold Objectivism in one post, and then completely reject everything he just upheld in an other.

I'm all for benevolence. I agree it's something worth employing. Good will. Great stuff.

But I want to keep stressing the context of this forum. This is a forum devoted to Objectivism. Because of this, I feel free to delve into the deep ideas of Objectivism. I feel free to go full on Objectivist. I'm not going to do that in real life. I don't think there's anyone in my real life who even knows I hold Objectivist ideas! Not even my girlfriend.

I thought I'd be scorned for not being 'Objectivist' enough. So I certainly don't want people with differing ideas to be rejected. I just didn't think there would be anyone who rejected the very basics..

That math is logically consistent. Which is guarantee that it describes nature.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Internal logical consistency of anything is no guarantee of it being tied to reality.

OOOOOOOPS. I meant to say logical consistence is NO guarantee of correctness. Mea Maxima Culpa.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Peter

I agree with the content of your argument against faith and how an omniscient being is a contradiction , but you why are hating on the Big Bang ? Total physics layman here, but on metaphysic grounds , aside from all the maths of scientific explanation of such an event , as long as a singularity is not a creation event, creatio ex nihilo, how far fetched is it? Something banged (or may have). The CBR and redshift of galaxies seem to show expansion (?), maybe everything spreads out , recedes , bangs , rinse and repeat , throw in maybe an extra not yet detected dimension or three?, no?

Although I didn't set out a full refutation of god, thank you for expression of agreement with my conclusions.

Big bang, that was thrown in for fun Although, I don't believe the big bang theory to be correct. I don't actually throw it in the exact same category as mystical beliefs. It's in the middle of mysticism and plain error. It's a result of the corruption of science and various mistakes made along the way. I can't give you a full explanation from scratch. That would probably take a small book to fully flesh out everything.

"The CBR and redshift of galaxies seem to show expansion" - I did astronomy 101 at university. Any explanation that is irrational can be thrown out. Any explanation that can be vetoed on philosophical grounds can be thrown out. An expanding universe is one such explanation.

throw in maybe an extra not yet detected dimension or three?, no?

I also reject the possibility of extra dimensions. There are three spatial dimensions, and there is time.

as long as a singularity is not a creation event, creatio ex nihilo

Well, you make a good point. A singularity would have been the universe. That's true. In which case, the big bang theory would be a theory of how the universe changed to be this way, rather than a theory of how the universe itself began. A singularity, as defined as an infinitely small region of the universe is impossible. I reject the existence of actually existing infinities. So a singularity is out. Secondly, what is infinitely small about it if it is all that exists, it would be the totality of existence, and so the largest thing that exists. Maybe it should be called the great shrink, as everything became smaller in comparison to the universe. (and there's nothing to expand into.) - In terms of not being ex nihilo, they can only get the math to go back to a very short time after the big bang which is considered the birth of the universe. But you are wrong in thinking the physicists are not suggesting that the universe literally came from nothing. There are books about it.

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468

But I reject the notion of space-time expansion all together. I reject the existence of actually existing physical space and time. There is no such entity.

There are a group of physicists who are working on explaining the universe under rational grounds. They are not affiliated with Objectivism, but they are on the same track and have realized the same things. That there is something very wrong with modern physics, and some of it has to do with irrational philosophy.

One explanation I have seen for red shift is that it is a function of a star's age. The older the star, the more red shifted it will be. Now there's a rational hypothesis.

Also there is astronomical evidence that shows various objects joined together with highly different red shifts.

Also, even the mathematics of the big bang theory can be shown to be meaningless by those who unlike me actually have a very strong grasp of it. They can break it down, show you it's not scary, and explain what it all is supposed to mean.

I should probably start a blog about it so I can just refer people there whenever I'm asked. I reject the big bang, space-time, quantum theory (but not quantum mechanics), and black holes

That math is logically consistent. Which is guarantee that it describes nature.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Error Error. Internal consistence does not guarantee factual correctness where as inconsistency is wrong prima facia.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Don't you [Peter] consider also you are new here to be questioning the membership of a poster on the forum?

I'm far from being new here, and I, too, wonder why Greg is here.

My belief is that he finds this site a congenial place for bragging about how rewarded for virtue he thinks he is - while also indulging a most unChristian zest for condemnatoriness against categories of people of whom other list members aren't fond.

Ellen

Exactly. That you are not new here gives you more right to state your case, in my mind.

We are on somebody else's property, we shouldn't forget. The owner will have the final say.

In my mind, my having been here a long time doesn't give me more right to be puzzled by Greg's posting here than Peter has to be puzzled. It only counters your apparent belief that someone new here is out of line in being puzzled. And Peter wasn't suggesting that Greg be thrown out. He was just wondering why Greg is here.

Condemning Greg for his condemnatoriness. OK. ;)

And I'm not going to judge him by Christian standards, that'd be hypocritical, but by Greg the individual - and I like the guy despite some odd epistemology he has.

I dislike his condemnatoriness, but wouldn't say I condemn him for it. Nor am I judging him by Christian standards, only noticing his hypocrisy by those standards. He makes up his own version of Christianity, and keeps changing it as he goes along.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I thought I'd be scorned for not being 'Objectivist' enough. So I certainly don't want people with differing ideas to be rejected. I just didn't think there would be anyone who rejected the very basics.

You won't be scorned for not being Objectivist enough. There's a wide range here in the extent of agreement with Rand, including some questioning of basics, depending on what one takes those to be - differences of opinion as to what the basics are are plentiful.

Greg, however, I think, is unique among those who have posted here in his lack of concern for even making a show of logic.

Ellen

[anthony]

I'm all for benevolence. I agree it's something worth employing. Good will. Great stuff.

But I want to keep stressing the context of this forum. This is a forum devoted to Objectivism. Because of this, I feel free to delve into the deep ideas of Objectivism. I feel free to go full on Objectivist. I'm not going to do that in real life. I don't think there's anyone in my real life who even knows I hold Objectivist ideas! Not even my girlfriend.

I thought I'd be scorned for not being 'Objectivist' enough. So I certainly don't want people with differing ideas to be rejected. I just didn't think there would be anyone who rejected the very basics..

.

Outside of real life, there are few better places to test and apply your thinking than here. For that very reason of some disparity of ideologies, coupled with some seriously heavyweight scholars. Better than real life, in that all here at least understand, they can meet you half -way. In the world, even with a person of receptive mind, you might spend all night explaining only the basics - I fully appreciate how intellectually alone one can feel. I didn't mean to rain on your parade btw. ;)

You pick things up fast, so no need to worry.

[moralist]

Tony writes:

So it's not essentially man's nature to be evil.

It is essentially man's nature to do evil.

What makes the difference?

Choosing to rise above our nature to do evil.

Don't you agree there are two fundamental departures from "right"?

a. One's principles are wrong.

Acting on those wrong principles is a choice to do evil

b. The principles are right, but one contravenes them.

Yes. Also choosing not to act on right principles is also a choice to do evil.

See? Whether or not the principles are wrong and acted upon, or right and not acted upon...

...the end result is exactly the same, because the only effect on this world is what we actually do...

...regardless of the reason, right or wrong.

This is why I'm a behaviorist and not a dogmatist. Dogma is just an internal narrative. ONLY what we DO matters.

Thing is, how does one know: either what the "right" principles are - or when and why one acts against (or for)them?

Wrong principles are: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony

Right principles are: joy, sharing, productivity, humility, modesty, contentment, moderation

It ain't rocket science, Tony.

Only by reasoned thought, action and introspection. Not by consequence(directly). Though trial and error plays a secondary role naturally.

In my view, neither intellect or emotion are worthy of our trust . Whenever we do anything wrong, the first thing we hear is our intellect's convoluted wordy justifications for why the wrong we did is right, and why it's someone else's fault.

However, our Conscience can be trusted. That wordless inner knowing of what's right and wrong which is neither thought nor emotion..

And yes, in lieu of following our Conscience, observing the just and deserved consequences of our own actions (as well as observing the consequences of others' actions) is a secondary way or learning... but there is usually pain involved. That's learning the hard way... but at least it's still learning.

You see, your ~any reason will do~ argument can't hold up then. As non-omniscient beings, outcomes are never forseeable or guaranteed, which all the more reinforces the need for forming reality-based convictions and sticking to them in thought and action.

...as long we're acting on right convictions.

If we are true to wrong convictions by acting on them, it's just as evil as being untrue to right convictions by not acting on them.

Conversely it has been your general approach that the right way IS to act contrary to one's thoughts and feelings

Not always. Whether or not thought and emotion is in accord with our actions is incidental compared to whether our actions are in accord with our Conscience.

Can you see the hierarchy?

This is the right one:

Conscience > actions > thoughts > emotions

This is the wrong one:

emotions > thoughts > actions > Conscience

and that convictions are (I presume) conferred upon one.

In my view, convictions are not conferred. We chose them.

Which makes sense (only) if one is a believer and has faith that God, who sees all and rewards right behavior, has set the absolute standards of conviction for mankind.

Sorry. Belief doesn't cut it. We either know. Or we don't know. Pretending doesn't count.

The observable fact that a Christian and an Objectivist both honor life; and, that the "right behavior" -for both groups- has close parallels in ways, at times; and, that Christians (as I've been arguing earlier) are often highly rational, selectively;

and, that both logically develop good characters as a result of staying true to their conviction --

I stop right here...

... because if you don't know the dogma, it is impossible to tell the difference in the behavior of a decent Christian and that of a decent Objectivist.

can't overcome that single difference which we have in the nature of man and existence.

That difference you just described is the unshaded dogma parts of the two circles. You won't find me there.

I'm in the shared behaviorist middle..

I've worked for Jews for decades... but I'm not Jewish. I've worked for the Catholic Church for decades... but I'm not Catholic.

How can this be?

It's the magic of a shared moral standard of decent behavior trumping the differences of dogmas...

...and that is the secret of being successful in business as well as in life.

Greg

[moralist]

Ellen writes:

I dislike his condemnatoriness, but wouldn't say I condemn him for it.

[Ellen Stuttle]

That about sums up my feeling for you.

Thanks for the gif.

Ellen

[anthony]

In my mind, my having been here a long time doesn't give me more right to be puzzled by Greg's posting here than Peter has to be puzzled. It only counters your apparent belief that someone new here is out of line in being puzzled. And Peter wasn't suggesting that Greg be thrown out. He was just wondering why Greg is here.

Condemning Greg for his condemnatoriness. OK. ;)

And I'm not going to judge him by Christian standards, that'd be hypocritical, but by Greg the individual - and I like the guy despite some odd epistemology he has.

I dislike his condemnatoriness, but wouldn't say I condemn him for it. Nor am I judging him by Christian standards, only noticing his hypocrisy by those standards. He makes up his own version of Christianity, and keeps changing it as he goes along.

Ellen

Ellen, It seems to me that there is no one, single standard in any and all religions, taken individual by individual. How can there be? Ultimately each person develops his own subtle personal interpretation. This is a 'given', I feel - just like one knows they have belief in God - and that they honestly believe this is the only way - and that they manage to switch between faith and reason at will. Therefore, I don't see the hypocrisy or even dishonesty. They are true to their own belief system, as much as they can be in reality.

With Greg it's a "sense of life" thing I like. You'll know how there is a dissonance which artists/art works often have (Objectively speaking) between their conscious metaphysical convictions, and their sense of life. An affirmative and upbeat sense of life can carry one a long way.

[tmj]

What sense of life is based on the evil nature of man?

[anthony]

That's the point. A sense of life is not based on one's conscious, metaphysical value judgments.

("...the evil nature of man.")

It's formed much earlier.

"A sense of life is a preconceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an

emotional, sub-consciously integrated appraisal of man and existence". [Rand]

For example, an Objectivist (by definition) has a rational, consciously-developed view of man and existence; although, simultaneously he may also have a poor sense of life.

"Since it is an emotional sum, it cannot be changed by a direct act of will".[AR]

(But it can be changed, more easily when young and by longer effort when older, according to her).

[moralist]

Ellen writes:

Thanks for the gif.

You're welcome to use it.

It's from a motorcycle forum.

I'm a biker...

Greg

[Ellen Stuttle]

I dislike his condemnatoriness, but wouldn't say I condemn him for it. Nor am I judging him by Christian standards, only noticing his hypocrisy by those standards. He makes up his own version of Christianity, and keeps changing it as he goes along.

Ellen

Ellen, It seems to me that there is no one, single standard in any and all religions, taken individual by individual. How can there be? Ultimately each person develops his own subtle personal interpretation. This is a 'given', I feel -

I agree with that statement. However, there is the issue of "basics" and of how far one can stray from those while still legitimately claiming a label. Same issue which arises with people who call themselves "Objectivists" but who discard "basics" - and of course the same question as to what qualifies as "basics."

Some of Greg's behavior and some of his stated beliefs fall outside the range which I see as "basic" to Christianity.

A prominent example of a belief falling outside that range is his idea of a moral law as part of the fabric of the universe which guarantees with the inexorability of the universal law of gravitation that each person always reaps - in his/her life on this earth - the "just and deserved consequences" of his/her chosen actions. Along with being blind to huge numbers of counter examples, this idea isn't part of any variant of Christianity with which I'm familiar. Although Christianity holds that there's a final balancing of moral accounts, this balancing is said to occur in an afterlife.

When pushed on his "moral law" contention, Greg will sometimes change it to merely the idea that being moral has the consequence of making one a better person. Duh. Almost tautological. But then he reverts to the all-embracing "just and deserved" consequences claim.

Another example of his switches is his quoting the Bible, and defending God's actions as portrayed therein, and then, when pressed on particulars, saying that all the Bibles could be burned and this would make no difference, the Bible stories are just people's images of God and not God

With Greg it's a "sense of life" thing I like. You'll know how there is a dissonance which artists/art works often have (Objectively speaking) between their conscious metaphysical convictions, and their sense of life. An affirmative and upbeat sense of life can carry one a long way.

Well... Since I don't buy Rand's idea of "sense of life," no, I won't know what you indicate, and I'll remind you of how far you have to go with your claim of "Objectively speaking" - see current art threads.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Peter,

I haven't read the whole thread, and I don't know if anyone else has recommended Carl Jung's "Answer to Job".

I think that you would find this work interesting at least for the parts about Satan.

Jung suggests that Satan was an instigator to human benefit - first directly, by tempting Eve to eat the apple, then indirectly by holding Job up as a mirror to God, thus making God aware of His, God's, amorality, with the result of God's decision to incarnate as Christ in penitence.

Ellen

[moralist]

Ellen writes:

Some of Greg's behavior and some of his stated beliefs fall outside the range which I see as "basic" to Christianity.

That's rich, Ellen... a secularist passing judgment on who is and who isn't a Christian!

A prominent example of a belief falling outside that range is his idea of a moral law as part of the fabric of the universe which guarantees with the inexorability of the universal law of gravitation that each person always reaps - in his/her life on this earth - the "just and deserved consequences" of his/her chosen actions.

Wow... you have the power to act and can escape the consequences you set into motion by your own actions? I'm impressed. I sure can't. And I've yet to see anyone else get away with pulling off that little stunt either.

Along with being blind to huge numbers of counter examples, this idea isn't part of any variant of Christianity with which I'm familiar. Although Christianity holds that there's a final balancing of moral accounts, this balancing is said to occur in an afterlife.

When pushed on his "moral law" contention, Greg will sometimes change it to merely the idea that being moral has the consequence of making one a better person. Duh. Almost tautological. But then he reverts to the all-embracing "just and deserved" consequences claim.

So in your view, what you become as the result of what you do is "merely". Tell me, how you can hate without "merely" devolving into an uglier person than you were before?

Another example of his switches is his quoting the Bible, and defending God's actions as portrayed therein, and then, when pressed on particulars, saying that all the Bibles could be burned and this would make no difference, the Bible stories are just people's images of God and not God.

When you recreate what you ~feel~ is my view, it's usually wrong because it is filtered through your negative reactions to it. Nevertheless I have no problem correcting your fabrication even if it means repeating what was said before.

The Bible was written by men who loved God. ( I fully admit this is a concept totally foreign to you.) Their words accurately described God's moral law, but their words were not that law itself... just as the finger pointing at the Moon is not the Moon itself. This is so self evident, and yet it can totally elude the blind scribes full of learning yet devoid of wisdom. There were also blind scribes in Jesus' time, and He had something to say about them:

"You search and investigate and pore over the Scriptures diligently, because you suppose and trust that you have eternal life through them. And these very Scriptures testify about Me!"

...and this is no less true today.

Greg

[anthony]

I dislike his condemnatoriness, but wouldn't say I condemn him for it. Nor am I judging him by Christian standards, only noticing his hypocrisy by those standards. He makes up his own version of Christianity, and keeps changing it as he goes along.

Ellen

Ellen, It seems to me that there is no one, single standard in any and all religions, taken individual by individual. How can there be? Ultimately each person develops his own subtle personal interpretation. This is a 'given', I feel -

I agree with that statement. However, there is the issue of "basics" and of how far one can stray from those while still legitimately claiming a label. Same issue which arises with people who call themselves "Objectivists" but who discard "basics" - and of course the same question as to what qualifies as "basics."

Ellen

I think you're not taking enough into account that religion is primacy of consciousness - which means a Christian could 're-write' whatever he wishes - subjectively in his mind - based loosely/selectively/fundamentally on his interpretation of the scriptures.

The only basics are the existence of God and Jesus, really. (My memories of my Divinity classes are vague, I'll admit)

Conversely, Objectivism by its nature, has objective, "immutable" basics as well as consistent derivations which can't ever be discarded or modified at whim, without being immediately apparent. Not the best comparison.

If Greg - in what I sense is his admiration of some elements of Objectivism - has tried to meld together some aspects of Christianity with some of Objectivism (i.e. causality, personal morality) and created something not quite Christian and not quite Objectivist, the contradictions are his own to deal with, I'd say. As are any personal benefits he finds in there.

(I can quite respect those aims, though).

[dldelancey]

Greg's contradictions are ours to deal with when he brings them here. I can also quite respect the aims of others if others can quite respect my aims. Unfortunately, I don't see an honest exchange of respect where Greg is concerned. There is an obvious lack of respect, in fact.

[anthony]

Hmm, It seems I can't get very agitated about religion and its irrationality, immorality, when secular progressivism-skepticism is holding all the power in the world. I've obviously had quite different experiences with Christians and other religions. They left me alone and I left them alone, and I found some fine people along the way. There's no clear and present danger of Christianity taking over governments.

In the mean time, it is philosophical skepticism which is grinding us down everywhere. To only recognise and oppose it by its end results of political, Statist machinations isn't enough, it needs the same intellectual opposition we are giving here to religion.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It is to the individual's great detriment to assert knowledge through faith. In that act, he lands a terrible blow to the validity of his mind and senses. This contradiction will plague his mind with self doubt and despair, either consciously or subconsciously, and infect every facet of his life. It'll prevent the achievement of happiness that is the moral purpose of his life. It is what taking something on faith does to the individual that is immoral.

Peter,

There is a premise here you should check, especially since this conclusion is an article of faith among Objectivists. And I mean that literally.

Are you certain faith causes unhappiness, self-doubt and despair?

It's a cause and effect thing?

Really?

By what means have you ascertained this?

Observation?

Or are you just repeating or inferring this from the Objectivist literature?

The causality you claim bears no resemblance to what I have observed over my life. Look at a Buddhist monk for an easy example of where the contrary exists. I can even get you neuroscience on it. But outside of Buddhists, I observe everywhere happy, well-adjusted, productive people who hold faith in God volitionally among their mental processes. And they chose this faith in full awareness.

btw - Ayn Rand made a similar claim in the money speech from Atlas Shrugged.

Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil.

I have observed many people in life who got money through dishonest means. And I have observed the joy some of them have displayed year in and year out, but I have yet to hear one of them say (much less scream) that money is evil. The ones I knew always said money was marvelous and they wanted more of it. They usually used money as a tool of power (in addition to buying goodies) and they enjoyed every bit of it.

Between my own observations and what Rand wrote, when there is a conflict, I will go with what I have observed.

I'm not against Objectivist values here, but I am against the way they are being promoted in these examples. When a person makes a claim that cannot be observed or validated by others except subjectively, and in fact, when there are countless examples anyone can easily observe that contradict that claim, if the person insists on that claim, isn't that based on faith?

If not faith, than what is the standard or mental process?

(Core story is actually a good candidate, but that is another issue.)

In the way I use my rational faculty to judge matters, I have to identify something correctly before I can judge it correctly. I call this cognitive before normative.

When someone gives an incorrect identification of causality, I have to validate their conclusions--their evaluations--by other means or reject them. I happen to accept productive honesty with money and reason as virtues, but not because looting and faith cause unhappiness to the looter and the faithful. (There are other reasons why I hold these as virtues and we can discuss them some day.)

In plain language, how can I accept the evaluation of someone about how faith and ill-gotten money cause misery when that person displays that he or she ignores contradictory examples that are easily observed everywhere any day of the week? (I could say "blank-out" if I wanted to be a smart-ass. )

I base this on their own words where they proclaim causality rather than explain how it works and point to evidence. If I accept their premise even as it contradicts my own observations, I would have to take their evaluation on faith.

Not on reason.

And I'm afraid that is what many do in our subculture. I say this based on several years of online discussions where I have observed it firsthand.

Michael

[moralist]

Diana writes:Greg's contradictions are ours to deal with when he brings them here.

I have no problem with the views of others which are different than mine. They're not for me to deal with because the just and deserved consequences of the views of others are experienced in their own lives by the ones who hold the views just as I do for mine.

I can also quite respect the aims of others if others can quite respect my aims. Unfortunately, I don't see an honest exchange of respect where Greg is concerned. There is an obvious lack of respect, in fact.

You're mistaking agreement for respect.Greg

[moralist]

Tony writes:

I think you're not taking enough into account that religion is primacy of consciousness - which means a Christian could 're-write' whatever he wishes - subjectively in his mind - based loosely/selectively/fundamentally on his interpretation of the scriptures.

...and the objective reality of how our lives unfold show the results of our interpretations.

Everyone, whether religious or secular, interprets meaning for themselves, because we are subjective beings.

Heck, there are actually bigger differences within a religion than between religions! For example: Catholic and Protestant Christians in Ireland. Shiite and SunniMuslims in the Middle East. People kill each other over religious differences. It's ironic that those violent religious clashes have far more to do with Satan than with God.

The only basics are the existence of God and Jesus, really.

Add good and evil, and that about sums it up for Christianity.

Conversely, Objectivism by its nature, has objective, "immutable" basics as well as consistent derivations which can't ever be discarded or modified at whim, without being immediately apparent. Not the best comparison.

Yes... and that is the strength of Objectivism: Affirming the absolute.

If Greg - in what I sense is his admiration of some elements of Objectivism...

Indeed.

Atlas Shrugged is an American Capitalist Business Operations Manual. It would be difficult to fail in business, or in life, by following the ethical principles Ayn Rand described so well.

Greg