Mike82ARP

Did anyone actually read the blog, or are you merely providing vapid blurbs?

My point was that Rand's statement "No supernatural dimension exists" can neither be verified nor falsified. It is therefore impossble to determine whether Rand was correct or not. A statement like "no supernatural dimension exists" is incompatible with a belief in a supernatural power God and his son. Again, there is no way to verifiy or falsify whether or not a God exists. Here is an interesting article on the subject: Jesus or Ayn Rand - can conservatives claim both? http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/29/jesus-or-ayn-rand-can-conservatives-claim-both/comment-page-1/ Thank you. Therefore, a statement that cannot be either verified or falsified cannot be considered as “fact”. Here’s a more interesting article from a more philosophically astute (than I am) friend of mine. Jesus Christ AND Ayn Rand http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/jesus-christ-and-ayn-rand/

Good man....Those were some tough years to be there. Was group at Bunker Hill at Bragg in your day? I guess you ETS’d after your tour. I almost re-upped, but got married and didn’t want to subject my wife to military life.

This one for the 82nd http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/82_Airborne_Patch.svg If you meant the SF badge backing, the 7th group had the red and the 5th the black with the Vietnamese flag ribbon which was removed years after I got out.

Yup!!! I was then with the 82nd and later 5th Group at Ft Bragg.

Well, you’re heading in a different direction. Anyway, can kids understand the concept of sin? Yes. It is analogous to disobeying their parents. Can they understand that there are consequences for sin? Yes. They realize that every time they are punished for misbehaving at home. I’m a rational adult and think Christianity is perfectly rational if you understand the meta-narrative of the Bible. Most people, including many Christians and nearly all atheists do not. What I’ve learned from the Bible comports with what I’ve seen in the world based on my purposely diverse experience as an individual, egoist, parent, student, cop, Army paratrooper, fraud investigator, chiropractor, and teacher.

re the point about indoctrinationYes it would apply to O'ism and children. If by indoctrination we mean trying to instill concepts, ideas or notions that require a context they have yet to integrate, especially things that deal with philosophic principles. At what age or level of understanding do you think children should be asked to understand metaphysics? By bad indoctrination, I mean teaching concepts,etc., and at the same time demonizing opposing views rather than comparing/contrasting them. All philosophies entail some form of indoctrination. At what age do I think kids understand metaphysics? Well, I think metaphysics and epistemology are two sides of the same coin. From my observations the majority of kids (in the US, anyway) probably develop this around 10th/11th grade. 10th/11th graders on average would probably be the age I would guess. Richard Dawkins makes the case that children younger than this should not be exposed to religious indoctrination because to exercise free choice in the matter(and all the 'matters' involved with accepting a religious point of view) one should have a near fully formed rational capacity. He makes great pains to explain how much he hates even the labeling of children : Hindi children, Xtian children ect. I agree with his position, for the reasons I stated, the subject matter is at a fairly high level as far as the ability to integrate all the complex abstractions involved with making those choices about accepting things as true. Not that we shouldn't teach 'about' metaphysics and epistemology in general but we should be very careful not present things that are based on a context or level of abstraction they have yet to acquire. Not exactly the same but similar to the idea of expecting children to grasp calculus without them having a fair mastery of arithmetic. Good point. But when you wrote, "free choice in the matter(and all the 'matters' involved with accepting a religious point of view) one should have a near fully formed rational capacity”, it seems to imply that somehow free choice for the kids would be negated in the future. Dawkins himself was raised (or indoctrinated) in the Anglican Church, but later exercised free choice in making a determination on his worldview, so Dawkins is making a specious assertion in this case which does not surprise me. The teaching my kids receive is relatively simple. We do not expect them to comprehend complex theological issues, but in order to avoid raising kids with a relativistic mindset, some sort of authoritative basis for teaching is necessary.

re the point about indoctrinationYes it would apply to O'ism and children. If by indoctrination we mean trying to instill concepts, ideas or notions that require a context they have yet to integrate, especially things that deal with philosophic principles. At what age or level of understanding do you think children should be asked to understand metaphysics? By bad indoctrination, I mean teaching concepts,etc., and at the same time demonizing opposing views rather than comparing/contrasting them. All philosophies entail some form of indoctrination. At what age do I think kids understand metaphysics? Well, I think metaphysics and epistemology are two sides of the same coin. From my observations the majority of kids (in the US, anyway) probably develop this around 10th/11th grade.

I agree with your assessment. Evan read The Fountainhead at 14. In my experience as a parent, youth group leader, and high school teacher, I can attest that 14 year olds are knuckleheads when it comes to philosophical acumen. While they may be intelligent and get good grades, they lack the experience for this level of analysis. But since MEM informed us that Evan said we were “all shooting in the dark”, I get the impression that Evan really doesn’t know where his head is. RE: your last statement about indoctrination. Having admittedly grown up in an areligious home, how did you come to this conclusion? Would this apply to indoctrination in Objectivism? Personally, I’m against indoctrination, religious or otherwise. While religious indoctrination in the past may have had some bad consequences, people of my generation and later have a pretty healthy dose of skepticism and question pretty much everything including their religious upbringing. Most adult Christians do not remain the same church as their upbringing.

I would put it this way: What is regarded as fact can turn out to be false. But in that case, the alleged fact was never a fact. Example: suppose in a criminal case, the police regarded it as fact for quite some time that a certain 'person of interest' had an airtight alibi. But later it turned out that a good friend had given this person a false alibi. The alleged 'fact' had never been a fact. I understand that people sometimes misuse the word “fact”, but what does this have to do with your statement that, "Compatibility in this case is independent of factual truth.”?

How so? I would think one would need to know if something were true before attempting to compare it to another thing (which should also be true) before evaluating their compatibility. For example, if I were going to compare apples and oranges and mistakenly used a lemon instead of an orange, would the resulting compatibility determination be correct? Maybe there’s some O’ist philosophical gymnastics that can be proposed to support your point, but being relatively new here, I can’t think of any. I'm not an Objectivist, nor am I arguing from an Objectivist point of view here. As for the 'truth' issue, I doubt this will get us very far in this debate because before long we will reach the realm of pure belief, with no empirical facts to back it up. But I have the feeling that this issue is still very important to you, so I'll give it a try; I suggest a step by step approach "A statement is true if it corresponds to fact". Could we agree on this as a common ground for the discussion? I'll await your reply before continuing. “Could we agree”? Yes. Can a “fact” be false? I’d be more likely to go along with a practical certainty as a definition of truth, that which we feel comfortable to act upon. But I still can’t see how you can state that compatibility is independent of fact.

ITA. Compatibility in this case is independent of factual truth. How so? I would think one would need to know if something were true before attempting to compare it to another thing (which should also be true) before evaluating their compatibility. For example, if I were going to compare apples and oranges and mistakenly used a lemon instead of an orange, would the resulting compatibility determination be correct? Maybe there’s some O’ist philosophical gymnastics that can be proposed to support your point, but being relatively new here, I can’t think of any.

As much as I dislike an uber-parochial closed Objectivist like Bernstein, I did not think D’Souza did a very competent job defending his premise. He conflates reason with empiricism and his definition of “faith” is off. Of course, you’ll also find that Christians from different denominations define faith differently which further confuses the issue. Here is a commentary from a friend who also wasn't pleased with D’Souza’s performance. http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/dsouza-vs-bernstein-is-either-good-for-mankind/

1. Are you going to prove the unprovable? Nor will I. You know where the burden of proof lies - yes? It's not for me to prove the positive. It seems your arguments here and there ask for atheists to validate the non- existence of... nothing. 2. Independence of mind is central to Objectivism: only one element of it requires not sharing one's consciousness with a deity. That's a justification enough. 3. The solipsism remark shows your knowledge of each individual's concept-formation is not as complete as an earlier impression I had. To say nothing of, and its link with, rational egoism. RE #1. I am not seeking to prove anything. I am only pointing out that certain O-ists seem to think they have “proven” that the supernatural cannot/does not exist. The main point I am arguing against is the “prove” part. There is no proof, yet they act certain that this is the case. RE: #2 I don’t know how or where you get the idea that one “[shares] one’s consciousness with a deity." RE: #3 My remark was in response to yours, "For all their apparent difference, for this reason religion and communism share the same altruist-collectivist roots...” Well, you’re wrong. Then you wrote, "How do I know this? Because *I* know this.” Well, you can believe you “know” whatever you want to. It’s a free country. Mike: For clarity would you be more forthcoming on your reasoning, rather than simply negating my interpretations of O'ism - or go on repeating that atheists have a "belief" which they cannot justify? The metaphysics of Objectivism posits that man is an autonomous, volitional, rational being. Then because he has to gain his knowledge, independently, by creating his own concepts and integrating fresh knowledge constantly, and acting on that, the virtues and the principles he holds, he is deserving of all the benefits he accrues. So, must live for his own survival and thriving, with no innate duty or demanded obligation to others. From that, where does one find a commonality between Xian ethics and O'ist? If you criticise rational egoism as "solipsist" - not acknowledging that you or I have had to work for every step of knowledge ourselves (*you* know, *I* know) making our own mistakes, and then implementing it in action, and correcting it as we go - well, it's possible you don't understand rational selfishness in its full sense. If not, how do you view altruism? Where can a supernatural being fit into a philosophy of reason? If you contend that you are NOT "sharing your consciousness" with a deity, then consider these: Do you believe God is omniscient/omnipotent? Does he have a purpose for each man and woman? Does he know what's in each mind and heart? Does he expect/demand reverence from you? Do you seek him for guidance and support? Do you sense he responds in any way? How do you imagine him to be? Do you believe in the immortal soul? Please don't consider this a grilling - I'm making a point about mind-independence. You really don't need reply to these rhetorical questions, but talking with thoughtful and honest religionists, (and my early experiences) indicates to me that possessing a "consciousness of God" intrudes deeply on one's mind and existence. Last, I was going on about communism and religion as being altruist/collectivist. I don't think they have the same cultural roots - although early religion, Judaism, was tribalist with much pragmatism for the survival of the community - but I was trying to say they have the same epistemological root in Primacy of Consciousness - and psychologically, authoritarian. Mystic intrinsicism (religion) and secular skepticism (social-progressivism) being two sides of the same coin - "ultimately interchangeable" according to Rand. [Consciousness and Identity, IToE]. (Hell, that's long. It just grew bigger on me...) To attempt this would be like explaining color to a blind person. Just be content with what you wrote, ""How do I know this? Because *I* know this.” In the meantime, ponder this: It is not contrary to Christianity that a man should love himself, or, which is the same thing, should love his own happiness. If Christianity did indeed tend to destroy a man’s love to himself, and to his own happiness, it would therein tend to destroy the very spirit of humanity. . . That a man should love his own happiness, is as necessary to his nature as the faculty of the will is and it is impossible that such a love should be destroyed in any other way than by destroying his being. The saints love their own happiness. Yea, those that are perfect in happiness, the saints and angels in heaven, love their own happiness; otherwise that happiness which God hath given them would be no happiness to them. -On Charity and It’s Fruits, by Jonathan Edwards Peace.

It is harmful insofar as it is a waste of his (finite) time. In certain cases, I’d agree with you..

Really? I do not think that is a position that is defensible today. In the context of free speech. We’re here, aren’t we?

Hi Evan: Welcome to OL. I would read Michael’s thoughtful post...and then read it again. I’ll give you my perspective as a Christian who subscribes to most of what Objectivism teaches. I grew up Roman Catholic, went to RC school, was an altar boy, etc. When I was about your age, I saw the hypocrisy of the RC church and quit going. My parents allowed this probably because they saw the hypocrisy too, but in their traditional upbringing would not leave the church. In later years they only went to Christmas and Easter services. About 15 years later, right about the time I was completing grad school, I became a Christian and now 27 years later still attend church every week. I also stay aware of the goings on in other churches and read a good bit of theology. I abhor then fundamentalist, altrusitic, legalistic, pentacostal, mystical/sensational types of churches which most atheists erroneously think is normative of Christianity. I have 4 adopted children- 13 yo twin boys, and 2 recently arrived Russian sisters, ages 12 and 8. They attend church every Sunday at this time and enjoy it, but I have not pushed the boys into becoming “members”. I will leave that decision to them. If when they are older and they wish to stop going to church, I will want to know their reasons why and expect a rational explanation (not so they can play with their iPods), but will not force them to attend or change my feeling for them if they stop going (there are theological reasons for this that I will not go into). Unfortunately, not all parents think the same. I’ve known of some ultra-fundamentalist types who have made their children leave the home. Other churches will ostracize you. All this is not Christian but unfortunately common. I don’t know what your religion is. You should have an idea of what types of responses have occurred in the past when someone declares they have become atheists. Some churches will have an inquisition, other will be understanding and let you leave with no hard feelings. Speak to your parents about this. Hopefully you can present your case in a manner not to offend them. If they really want you to go, then go. It’s not worth becoming estranged over this if you can help it.

1. Are you going to prove the unprovable? Nor will I. You know where the burden of proof lies - yes? It's not for me to prove the positive. It seems your arguments here and there ask for atheists to validate the non- existence of... nothing. 2. Independence of mind is central to Objectivism: only one element of it requires not sharing one's consciousness with a deity. That's a justification enough. 3. The solipsism remark shows your knowledge of each individual's concept-formation is not as complete as an earlier impression I had. To say nothing of, and its link with, rational egoism. RE #1. I am not seeking to prove anything. I am only pointing out that certain O-ists seem to think they have “proven” that the supernatural cannot/does not exist. The main point I am arguing against is the “prove” part. There is no proof, yet they act certain that this is the case. RE: #2 I don’t know how or where you get the idea that one “[shares] one’s consciousness with a deity." RE: #3 My remark was in response to yours, "For all their apparent difference, for this reason religion and communism share the same altruist-collectivist roots...” Well, you’re wrong. Then you wrote, "How do I know this? Because *I* know this.” Well, you can believe you “know” whatever you want to. It’s a free country.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I understand this objection. You then wrote, "not a shred, a dight, a crumb of evidence”. I would then ask, how did this stuff all get here?

Peter wrote, "Reason leads to correct observations of reality." I fully agree. This tenet is what attracted me to Rand’s philosophy. You then wrote, "However, *believing* through *authority* without personal observation is a leap of faith sometimes more justified than others." Agreed again....

You set up false dichotomy when you write "supernatural or- reality” since at this time you cannot disprove the supernatural. You may choose not to believe in the supernatural, but as you are aware, belief does not create truth. Additionally, your comment “independence of mind (or not)” is also unjustified. Your final comment seems to delve into solipsism.

LOL!!!!

Still, both mysticism and altruism do have a long tradition in Christianity. You’re correct, but the mysticism and altruism are not universal tenets of Christianity. You commit a composition fallacy to use that line of argumentation. I could say that atheism ultimately leads to socialist/communist/collectivist societies and cite examples such as China, USSR, East Germany, the socialist countries on Europe where only a small fraction of the population could be classified as religious. Would you find that objectionable?

My focus here was on whether Objectivism and Christianity are compatible (not whether their premises are (in)correct). They are incompatible because the statement 'No supernatural dimension exists' leaves no room for the idea of a supernatural being and his son. Discussing whether Rand was correct is another issue. Since there is no proof either way, epistemologically speaking, agnosticism is the only position which avoids the fallacy of claiming knowledge of something which cannot be known. As for ethics - since there is no scintilla of evidence indicating that a god exists, deriving a code of ethics from a 'god's will' would be an epistemological fallacy. I disagree. One cannot simply proclaim “x” and expect everyone to believe it just because someone says it. in this case one would have to determine whether Rand’s proclamation is actually true before using it make a determination of whether O’ism and X-nity are compatible. I suppose if you view Rand as some sort of omniscient goddess you might just accept whatever she says. I don’t. I said nothing about ethics.

I'm not sure what you mean by "self-attesting," since reason is not an "authority." Yes, reason can justify its own foundations, but if some method other than reason is proposed, then how could it be evaluated without the use of reason itself? What possible competitors could there be? Ghs By “authority” I meant the primary basis for your belief. You wrote, "how could [reason] be evaluated without the use of reason itself?” That was my question. Using reason to evaluate reason is technically circular reasoning, but it seems that at point that becomes necessary. How does one "evaluate" anything, including your argument, without the use of reason? Or, more broadly, how can one "justify" anything without the use of reason? Even use of the term "circular reasoning" -- which suggests a type of fallacy -- makes no sense without presupposing reason as a guide, since a "fallacy" refers to an invalid form of reasoning -- which in turn presupposes that we can distinguish between valid and invalid arguments. All notions of justification, etc., presuppose the efficacy of reason and would make no sense without this presupposition. To ask that reason itself be justified therefore commits what Randians call the "fallacy of the stolen concept." (Other philosophers have recognized this fallacy without using this label.) It's not as if we have possible competitors here. We accept reason because we have no other choice if we wish to acquire knowledge and speak intelligibly. This has nothing to do with "circular reasoning." Ghs Good explanation. It makes perfect sense. Thanks! I’m here to learn.