Objectivism and Christianity

[Brant Gaede]

Atheism is rational. Belief in a supreme being is faith.

--Brant

Is this true? It strikes me that both are theories intended to fill in the blanks that occur beyond the limits of what we can observe. In fact, these are both causal theories that try to explain why things are what they are and why they behave as they do. This sounds rational to me.

A commitment to a particular theory of existence takes us past the point of what the evidence can directly support. According to the evidence alone I cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am atheist! Why?

Metaphysics is all about big picture thinking. It is all about taking the observed parts, the evidence, and building a picture of the whole that fits the evidence and is internally consistent. It is a very rational (though not necessarily linear and deductive) enterprise. Whatever the big picture you arrive at, whether it is one that requires a god or one that excludes a god, it is a theory about existence. Making the commitment to claim that one is true and the other is false, in the absence of any conclusive evidence, is faith. For myself, I consider it to be faith (or self-confidence) in my ability to generate a picture that fits with all the evidence and is internally consistent, and faith in my judgement that this is so, that makes me atheist. I am an atheist because I have confidence in my thought processes and my judgement and these have led me to conclude that there is no god.

Where I have a problem is with a different kind of faith. The kind that requires a commitment to a picture generated by some higher authority. A faith that requires the suspension of my own judgement and a commitment to someone else's judgement. I consider anything that demands the suspension of one's own judgement to be the root of all evil. I see elements of this in the practice of both Christianity and Objectivism.

So I can't agree that "atheism is rational" and "belief in a supreme being is faith." They can both be the result of rational thought, even if the commitment to one or the other is an act of self-confidence or faith. Both beliefs can also be practiced blindly by adopting the images and models of the universe proclaimed by some authority, who cannot be contradicted without fear of exile, and who demands the suspension of one's judgement (at least on those occasions when you contradict them). This is the faith of a cult.

Paul

I'd suggest more science and less philosophy here. I presented no theories, just two conclusions for an expression of clarity. It's not a matter of my opinion, your opinion, ergo: uncertainty. Present your evidence for the existence and nature of God.

--Brant

[halfknott]

I think the issue here with this group of "Objectivists" is not just a simple "atheism is a rational conclusion based on rejection of the arbitrary." Rather that Christianity does not merely represent a "theistic" religion with a default kind of deity that doesn't happen to have any evidence in favor of its existence. The Christian God is a very specific thing, with very defined and specific attributes, which if taken all together as making up the whole that is God, are mutually exclusive and render the existence of a being with all those attributes impossible. Christianity is not deism, nor even theism with an agnostic flavoring. Christianity is the active belief in a being who can not possibly exist, and whose incomprehensibility is one of its attributes(if you take "ineffable" as one of its descriptors.) Belief in a professed contradiction is an active attack on the thinking mind, and renders those with the belief just the way the preachers of Christianity want them: ready to take everything on faith and authority. Once one conclusion is allowed to be taken on faith and without reason, whether its the acceptance of the arbitrary as true or the contradictory as true, then there is no standard left to decide what must be accepted and what must be rejected. If a contradiction is possible, then integration of all knowledge is rendered arbitrary and meaningless; if apples ARE oranges, then the meaning of "fruit" is lost, along with the meaning of everything else, since fruit and non-fruit are one in the same.

This is where the contradiction between being a Christian and being an Objectivist lies. Its either reason or authority, there is no middle ground, and while some Xian O'ists may be or may seem to be exercising their independent judgment in trying to synthesize Objectivism with the existence of the Christian God, they are simply trying to synthesize whim with understanding, reason with faith, existence with non-existence, A with non-A. They aren't exercising independent judgment, they are simply substituting some of the authority of Ayn Rand's with Jesus'. They see everything as dogma, and are simply trying to mix and match, missing the contradictions involved because they aren't trying to have an integrated understanding of reality; their conceptual hierarchy is a mish-mash of disparate beliefs sometimes filed under "things that make sense" and sometimes filed under "things that feel right, or ought to be right." There is no integrating dogma with dogma, only rationalizing the possibilty of coexisting contradictory dogmas.

If "Objectivism" is to have any meaning, it must include the tenet that there is no room for faith in the human mind, whether it be faith in the arbitrary or in the possibility of contradictions existing. If "Christianity" is to have any meaning it must include the tenet that faith in the words of Jesus Christ and his disciples, and belief in an all knowing, all good and all powerful god is mandatory. If these are the meanings of these two terms, then there can be no such thing as a "Chrsitian Objectivist." In as much as they are Christian they aren't Objectivists and vice-versa.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Mind-Unchained

[Darrell Hougen]

My own standard is not whether people are Objectivists or not. It is whether they are good people or nasty bitter souls. I know many Objectivists and Christians of both stripes. Being good or nasty is a deep personal choice and, from what I observe, which philosophy or religion one professes does not seem to influence that much. Give me a good Christian any day over a bad Objectivist and vice-versa.

Hi Michael,

Although I am sympathetic to Christianity for a number of reasons --- Christians believe in love and forgiveness; Christianity has evolved with Western Civilization, etc. --- your letter was wishy-washy enough to make me a little queezy. If a philosophy is to be excused if some or most of its adherents have a genial disposition, then why not excuse liberals who, in many cases, are genuinely concerned about the plight of the poor? (I'm talking about the young and naive here and not necessarily their leaders who are often cynical manipulators.) As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't engage and/or talk to Christians, but your letter appears to concede too much. You've almost said that philosophy is irrelevant to a person's disposition and values and that its ok to simultaneously embrace contradictory views of reality. Perhaps your own views are not firm. The tone of the letter certainly is not.

Darrell

[william.scherk]

Atheism is rational. Belief in a supreme being is faith.

Is this true? It strikes me that both are theories intended to fill in the blanks that occur beyond the limits of what we can observe. In fact, these are both causal theories that try to explain why things are what they are and why they behave as they do. This sounds rational to me.

A commitment to a particular theory of existence takes us past the point of what the evidence can directly support. According to the evidence alone I cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am atheist! Why?

I know why I am atheist -- because I don't believe. No creo. I never did believe in a sky-being or a gawd or a prime mover or a creator.

So there is no theory that fills in the blanks . . . one doesn't need a theory to be or remain atheist. All one needs to be called atheist is an empty slot where others fit in supernatural faith and its ramifications.

Maybe you are adding atheism to the set of knowledge claims of science, of origin-stories and results of scientific inquiry that poses the questions, 'how did life arise,' or 'where did life come from' or 'why is the world and universe the way it is'? If so, one does not entail the other. A lack of belief in spirit worlds does not imply any other set of faithful beliefs, nor a supplicant trust in authority, nor an abnegation of disciplined, rational exploration of the knowledge landscape.

A theory of life on earth such as evolution is built up from rational inquiry, observation and verification. As with any scientific frame of inquiry, there are answers yet beyond the knowledge horizon. Is this true of faithful inquiry into sky-beings within believing communities? Do they ever get to a standard of inquiry and shared, consensual, universals of knowledge?

Is there a similar process of discovery, discernment, and verification attending the supernatural entities and events, and similar universal fruit? Does the process roll on and up in a winnowing, searching, narrowing, unifying expression? Does it provide an edge and force against ignorance, and a vigilant eye at the keyhole of knowledge? Is it always open, alway pushing, always at the edge of current knowledge?

I say no, that the faith process commits to everlasting dogma of sects of gawdism, none of which are comparable to the fruits of reason.

In any case, an atheist may be agnostic on origin theory, or a doubter of Darwin or even have no confidence in any scientific concept, let alone string theory. A lack of faith in powerful spirit beings doesn't equate with any particular theory that an atheist may hold to be true.

The gawdslot is void, that's all I can conclude about an atheist's 'faith.'

[BaalChatzaf]

I know why I am atheist -- because I don't believe. No creo. I never did believe in a sky-being or a gawd or a prime mover or a creator.

Do you believe in the uniformity of physical laws? If you do, you believe in something for which you have no empirical proof, nor can you have. To say physical laws hold everywhere and every when is to assert something that is impossible for us to verify empirically. So if you accept the uniformity of physical laws, you accept something on belief. But it is a -reasonable- belief. If phyhsical laws were not uniform, then we could not do sceince. The best we could do is run with jury-rigged heuristics that have to be fixed whenever they break. We operate on the happy assumptions that our most general laws hold in all places and for all times. This is why we hold on to our best conservation laws and symmetries. Without them, our knowledge of the world would be a crap shoot.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Judith]

A theory of life on earth such as evolution is built up from rational inquiry, observation and verification. As with any scientific frame of inquiry, there are answers yet beyond the knowledge horizon. Is this true of faithful inquiry into sky-beings within believing communities? Do they ever get to a standard of inquiry and shared, consensual, universals of knowledge?

Is there a similar process of discovery, discernment, and verification attending the supernatural entities and events, and similar universal fruit? Does the process roll on and up in a winnowing, searching, narrowing, unifying expression? Does it provide an edge and force against ignorance, and a vigilant eye at the keyhole of knowledge? Is it always open, alway pushing, always at the edge of current knowledge?

According to Ken Wilber, the answers to these questions is "Yes". If you're interested in pursuing the matter further, check out his book "Eye to Eye: the quest for a new paradigm".

I'd love to get up a reading and discussion group on this book here. I read it first in 1996 and have been fascinated by the ideas he presented therein ever since.

Judith

[regi]

Do you believe in the uniformity of physical laws? If you do, you believe in something for which you have no empirical proof, nor can you have. To say physical laws hold everywhere and every when is to assert something that is impossible for us to verify empirically.

Excuse me for butting in here. This is an assertion based on a misunderstanding of what physical laws are. Physical laws are nothing more than a formalized description of the nature of things that are observed. There is no a priori assertion that any particular discovered law has to hold in all contexts--all the physical laws are contextual, which simply means, under these condition it has been established that this thing thus identified will always behave in such'n'such a way.

In fact, your expression, "uniformity of physical laws," is a bit of a floating abstraction. Physical laws are not like man-made laws, the word "law" in physics only means a principle by which we identify things and their attributes. If you mean by "uniformity" that once a thing's attributes have been identified it will never have different attributes and be the same thing, that is true. But that fact is not science, or metaphysics, it is epistemological.

Regi

[regi]

Hi Michael

Hey Regi!

I'll read your essay and get back to you.

I hope you enjoy it. It needs a couple of corrections which I'll make when I republish it.

You are free to use it if you like as well.

We still disagree on some important things, but I've never found you anything but reasonable in those disagreements.

Regi

[Darrell Hougen]

I know why I am atheist -- because I don't believe. No creo. I never did believe in a sky-being or a gawd or a prime mover or a creator...

Brilliant reply. As I once said, "Atheists are a group of people linked by lack of a common belief."

Darrell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

Ken Wilbur is brilliant! I love this guy's work.

And he can do something very few people can do: he can zero his brain waves and/or make them active by choice. And he proves it.

To others, here are some of my main points in this discussion before they get derailed again:

1. I am not "conceding" anything because I am not preaching anything. Let others preach. I want no part of it.

2. A person does not have to have a rational view of metaphysics to develop good character. A rational view of metaphysics is merely one component out of many. It's a good thing to have and it rationally grounds arguments, but that is as far as it goes in character development. There is a wide array of choices that affect this.

3. Scapegoating is just as evil as altruism, if not more so. I loathe scapegoating.

4. The greatest good a person can do for himself is to think for himself. He should ignore anyone who says what he really thinks or believes is xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and lumps him with a collective. This is a case where contempt is in order.

That will do for now.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... your letter was wishy-washy enough to make me a little queezy.

Darrell,

Others have thought I was morally wishy-washy, too. They learned otherwise.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

I know why I am atheist -- because I don't believe. No creo. I never did believe in a sky-being or a gawd or a prime mover or a creator...

Brilliant reply. As I once said, "Atheists are a group of people linked by lack of a common belief."

Darrell

Apparently there are two types of atheist: those who are defined by what they don't believe and those who are defined by what they do believe. I am the latter.

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Paul,

I am an atheist who is defined by what I know and don't know.

I observe the world. I observe what goes on inside me. Both exist.

When they clash, I prefer to say I don't know and try to figure it out rather than latch on to one at the expense of the other.

Michael

[tjohnson]

There is no a priori assertion that any particular discovered law has to hold in all contexts--all the physical laws are contextual, which simply means, under these condition it has been established that this thing thus identified will always behave in such'n'such a way.

When we look at distant objects in the universe the light may be billions of years old. we assume the the laws of light behaviour that we developed here and now apply equally to light billions of years old. We have to make this assumption in order to create theories about the origins of the universe.

[regi]

Hi "g.s."

We have to make this assumption in order to create theories about the origins of the universe.

Has it ever occurred to you to ask what possible purpose, "theories about the origins of the universe," objectively serve?

As for, "we assume the laws of light behaviour that we developed here and now apply equally to light billions of years old," that is not an assumption. Light is whatever it is, and has very specific attributes (not completely understood even now, however) and if what we are seeing is light that is truly "billions of years old," then it must have the characteristics it does, or it would not be light.

While the sciences only address what can be directly perceived (what we call the physical) and cannot address what is not directly perceived (life, consciousness, and volition, for example), there is no need for any "assumptions" in any aspect of science, and whatever calls itself "science" but is based on assumptions (psychology, cosmology, and evolution, for example) is not really science.

Regi

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... and whatever calls itself "science" but is based on assumptions (psychology, cosmology, and evolution, for example) is not really science.

Regi,

Heh.

Here we go.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Do you believe in the uniformity of physical laws? If you do, you believe in something for which you have no empirical proof, nor can you have. To say physical laws hold everywhere and every when is to assert something that is impossible for us to verify empirically. So if you accept the uniformity of physical laws, you accept something on belief. But it is a -reasonable- belief. If phyhsical laws were not uniform, then we could not do sceince. The best we could do is run with jury-rigged heuristics that have to be fixed whenever they break. We operate on the happy assumptions that our most general laws hold in all places and for all times. This is why we hold on to our best conservation laws and symmetries. Without them, our knowledge of the world would be a crap shoot.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Regi,

To put Bob's (BaalChatzaf) post another way: try to do physics without assuming the first law of thermodynamics. Or try to grasp relativity without assuming the constancy of the speed of light. All science requires assumptions. Another term for the assumptions in science: justifiable faith (supported by all available evidence). Although I don't think too many scientists would like it to be called this.

Try to grasp quantum reality with direct perception. Personally, I have to rely on the brilliance of some incredibly insightful mathematical physicists who developed the theories, and some others who have been able to translate them into images I can understand. Not a whole lot of direct perception here.

Paul

[Darrell Hougen]

I know why I am atheist -- because I don't believe. No creo. I never did believe in a sky-being or a gawd or a prime mover or a creator...

Brilliant reply. As I once said, "Atheists are a group of people linked by lack of a common belief."

Darrell

Apparently there are two types of atheist: those who are defined by what they don't believe and those who are defined by what they do believe. I am the latter.

Paul

Atheism really is a lack of belief in God (or gods or mystical beings). It does not imply belief in any particular thing. This cuts both ways, of course. Atheists agree that they don't believe in God, but may have nothing else in common. If you are an Objectivist, for example, then you have a particular set of beliefs in common with other Objectivists. You may disagree about some details, but there is a similarity of beliefs. But, telling someone that you are an atheist is telling them almost nothing about you.

Darrell

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul,

I am an atheist who is defined by what I know and don't know.

Michael,

I get this but I think it is more complicated. There is what you know, what you don't know, and what you believe. What you believe is made up of some key assumptions and personal theories, very often on an intuitive level.

Two key assumptions I have discovered inside me are: that there is no such thing as unextended entities; and there is no such thing as disembodied actions. These two assumptions rule out gods and ghosts and anything supernatural. This gives me the disposition of an atheist in terms of what I don't believe. (I decided I was an atheist when I was 8 years old. It took until my twenties to understand why.)

These two assumptions also greatly affect my intuitive models of the world and my interpretations of my experience. They determine what entities are generated in my intuitive models, which, in turn, shapes my explicit beliefs. I have never (at least since the age of 8) interpreted my experience in supernatural terms. My models and theories of existence are fundamentally physical models: ultimately, I believe, all phenomena can be explained in terms of things in action. I'm wired this way until I prove myself wrong.

My models are informed by my experience and what I have read (especially on theoretical physics, psychology, philosophy, cosmology, and evolution theory). These models are shaped by the two assumptions above plus my concept of causation. Causation acts as a guiding principle for generating my models of existence. The model of existence I hold tells me all can be explained, in principle, without appeal to a god. I am confident in the thought processes and judgement that led to this model, so I say I am atheist because of what I do believe.

So I guess I need to correct my earlier statement. I am an atheist because of what I don't believe and what I do believe.

I observe the world. I observe what goes on inside me. Both exist.

When they clash, I prefer to say I don't know and try to figure it out rather than latch on to one at the expense of the other.

Michael

I fully agree with this approach. What I find different in me is mine don't clash with respect to anything supernatural.

I am guessing you are referring to a sense of spirituality inside you. I don't think one needs to assume some supernatural existence to account for a sense of spirituality. I do believe one needs to think in terms of complex systems, in terms of reciprocal relationships between parts and whole systems, and in terms of striving for increased integration within and between systems, to account for consciousness and one's sense of spirituality. We are complex conscious systems in a sea of complex systems and we are driven by the principle of integration. Linear, reductionist thinking will not create the solution to the puzzle of consciousness and a sense of spirituality, but supernatural explanations are a step backward.

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But, telling someone that you are an atheist is telling them almost nothing about you.

Darrell,

This is precisely my point in terms of character. If you say you are a Christian or an Objectivist, this tells you almost nothing about a person's character.

I am harping on this because I am tired of being involved with a manner of thinking that calls good people bad and assholes good. The standard is wrong when whether a person is good or bad is attributed predominantly to a body of thought.

I want to be involved with good people so a reality check is in order.

I believe all the way to the bottom of my being that once a person has made a commitment to using his mind to the best of his ability and not being one of the bad guys, you can build on that and dangerous/evil ideas will not have much of a chance to spread, irrespective of the body of thought he may adhere to at any particular time in his life.

I wish Objectivism influenced people to choose to be one the good guys, but it doesn't. It only helps with thinking about things. The choice to be a good guy or bad guy is individual and comes way before that.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What I find different in me is mine don't clash with respect to anything supernatural.

Paul,

How does this differ from what I said? I'm confused by what you wrote here.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Michael,

I thought you were saying that there is a clash between how you experience different things. Some things can be explained with reference to science. Some cannot and may require supernatural explanations (ie: God or spirit). Understanding you this way, I said I don't experience a clash that leads to supernatural explanations.

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

I'd suggest more science and less philosophy here. I presented no theories, just two conclusions for an expression of clarity. It's not a matter of my opinion, your opinion, ergo: uncertainty. Present your evidence for the existence and nature of God.

--Brant

Brant,

Sorry! I did this to you once before. Something you wrote became a springboard for a sequence of thought. I didn't mean to give the impression I was picking a fight. I'll try to be more thoughtful next time I use your words as a springboard.

Paul

[Brant Gaede]

There is no a priori assertion that any particular discovered law has to hold in all contexts--all the physical laws are contextual, which simply means, under these condition it has been established that this thing thus identified will always behave in such'n'such a way.

When we look at distant objects in the universe the light may be billions of years old. we assume the the laws of light behaviour that we developed here and now apply equally to light billions of years old. We have to make this assumption in order to create theories about the origins of the universe.

This spelling of "behaviour" left England hundreds of years ago. It arrived in America as "behavior." I assume you are still in Great Britain. When you get to New York you'll be spelling it "behavior." Of course!

--Brant

[Paul Mawdsley]

This spelling of "behaviour" left England hundreds of years ago. It arrived in America as "behavior." I assume you are still in Great Britain. When you get to New York you'll be spelling it "behavior." Of course!

--Brant

Naaaah. He's a Canuck!!!!!