The Rise of the Global South

[Mike Renzulli]

I would like to comment and, in a way, warn you all about potential events that are occuring that can have a huge impact on us globally.

What I am about to say confirms the fact that religion and politics are intertwined (one way or another).

Like I said in a former post, I am a former Christian. However, not only am I a former Christian, I am also the son of a clergyman. My dad is a priest in the Episcopal Church which, as you all are aware, is on the verge of being kicked out of the Anglican Communion which is all but defunct itself.

During the time I spent in the Church, I was active when Bishop V. Gene Robinson (who is openly gay and non-celibate) was ordained Bishop of New Hampshire. It was because of Robinson's ordination that set off the backlash that has lead to the splinter not only in Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion worldwide.

Many conservative Episcopalians (whom my father counts as one) have allied themselves with conservative Anglican Diocese in Africa in which it is in Africa, Asia and Latin America that is influencing the cultural conservatism seen in Christianity today. Much like the U.S. is seeing with the growth of cultural conservative Christian denominations in the southern United States.

At the expense of sounding ominous or alarmist, because of the growth of conservative sects of Christianity in the Global South, this can have an impact on the U.S. even more so since it can re-enforce the brand of Christianity coming from the southern U.S.

An example of this is the quasi-alliance being seen with the Catholic Church and evangelical Protestants using the cloak of Intelligent Design to bring creationism back into educational institutions as well as their active and hostile activities towards social issues like abortion rights.

What is happening with countries in Europe with the activities of Muslims that are hostile towards the countries they settle in can also happen here too and, while immigration should remain mostly free, the influx of immigrants from countries, like Latin America, can have an impact since many can and will be influenced by their religious leaders.

I know for a fact that there is an Anglican Mission in America that hails from Africa in which the head of this effort is an Anglican Bishop who is known not only for his opposition to gay clergy but I believe has also allied himself with authorities in his country sanctioning the open persecution of gays and lesbians.

I think as Objectivists, we need to be more pro-active in terms of not only spreading our ideas but also ready to be a philosophical counter-balance to the potential "onslaught" that can happen.

While I am glad to see atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, becoming more outspoken about religion, what these gentlemen lack is a distinct moral and philisophical base to make their arguments against the existence of God. Also, some of them are not solid in their arguments against God's existence and it can come back to bite them.

For example, Richard Dawkins says in his book The God Delusion that the existence of God is "very highly unlikely". While I understand his reasons for saying this since he is a scientist and obviously wants to leave open the possibility of a god's existence, this can come back to haunt him since he leaves room for this possibility. The religionists can have a field day with this.

At least Objectivists see and embrace reality for what it is and our atheism is grounded in the fact that there are no gods of any kind to believe in or that exist.

The influence of religion in this country and Europe down the line can happen and can lead to the west experiencing a dark ages similar to what happened in Europe during the 4th and 5th centuries.

I think we ignore this potential threat at our own peril.

If you would like a source to read that further explains what I am talking about, check out The Next Christendom by Phillip Jenkins.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Mike Renzulli

[Brant Gaede]

I would like to comment and, in a way, warn you all about potential events that are occuring that can have a huge impact on us globally.

What I am about to say confirms the fact that religion and politics are intertwined (one way or another).

Like I said in a former post, I am a former Christian. However, not only am I a former Christian, I am also the son of a clergyman. My dad is a priest in the Episcopal Church which, as you all are aware, is on the verge of being kicked out of the Anglican Communion which is all but defunct itself.

During the time I spent in the Church, I was active when Bishop V. Gene Robinson (who is openly gay and non-celibate) was ordained Bishop of New Hampshire. It was because of Robinson's ordination that set off the backlash that has lead to the splinter not only in Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion worldwide.

Many conservative Episcopalians (whom my father counts as one) have allied themselves with conservative Anglican Diocese in Africa in which it is in Africa, Asia and Latin America that is influencing the cultural conservatism seen in Christianity today. Much like the U.S. is seeing with the growth of cultural conservative Christian denominations in the southern United States.

At the expense of sounding ominous or alarmist, because of the growth of conservative sects of Christianity in the Global South, this can have an impact on the U.S. even more so since it can re-enforce the brand of Christianity coming from the southern U.S.

An example of this is the quasi-alliance being seen with the Catholic Church and evangelical Protestants using the cloak of Intelligent Design to bring creationism back into educational institutions as well as their active and hostile activities towards social issues like abortion rights.

What is happening with countries in Europe with the activities of Muslims that are hostile towards the countries they settle in can also happen here too and, while immigration should remain mostly free, the influx of immigrants from countries, like Latin America, can have an impact since many can and will be influenced by their religious leaders.

I know for a fact that there is an Anglican Mission in America that hails from Africa in which the head of this effort is an Anglican Bishop who is known not only for his opposition to gay clergy but I believe has also allied himself with authorities in his country sanctioning the open persecution of gays and lesbians.

I think as Objectivists, we need to be more pro-active in terms of not only spreading our ideas but also ready to be a philosophical counter-balance to the potential "onslaught" that can happen.

While I am glad to see atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, becoming more outspoken about religion, what these gentlemen lack is a distinct moral and philisophical base to make their arguments against the existence of God. Also, some of them are not solid in their arguments against God's existence and it can come back to bite them.

For example, Richard Dawkins says in his book The God Delusion that the existence of God is "very highly unlikely". While I understand his reasons for saying this since he is a scientist and obviously wants to leave open the possibility of a god's existence, this can come back to haunt him since he leaves room for this possibility. The religionists can have a field day with this.

At least Objectivists see and embrace reality for what it is and our atheism is grounded in the fact that there are no gods of any kind to believe in or that exist.

The influence of religion in this country and Europe down the line can happen and can lead to the west experiencing a dark ages similar to what happened in Europe during the 4th and 5th centuries.

I think we ignore this potential threat at our own peril.

If you would like a source to read that further explains what I am talking about, check out The Next Christendom by Phillip Jenkins.

The Muslims re Europe are no problem here. It's all demographics. The demographics for the U.S. concern illegals from Mexico and to a lesser extent Central America. As for Europe, they are cooking in their own P.C. juice. If WWIII was The Cold War then the war against Islam jihad is WWIV and the U.S. will once again "save" the world, if not Israel--for it only takes one bomb--and millions upon millions could very well die.

Personally, I think Europe should save itself. America First? Israel? Too much in too little. It's so concentrated! I think Israel should be thrown into the deep end of the pool and learn to sink or swim. The wild card, always there, is OIL. Because of oil the U.S. is stuck to the Middle East as if it were a tar baby. This means the U.S. is stuck to Israel much more strongly than any "Israeli Lobby" can stick the U.S. to Israel, all because of the proximate geography.

--Brant

[Selene]

I would like to comment and, in a way, warn you all about potential events that are occuring that can have a huge impact on us globally.

What I am about to say confirms the fact that religion and politics are intertwined (one way or another).

Like I said in a former post, I am a former Christian. However, not only am I a former Christian, I am also the son of a clergyman. My dad is a priest in the Episcopal Church which, as you all are aware, is on the verge of being kicked out of the Anglican Communion which is all but defunct itself.

During the time I spent in the Church, I was active when Bishop V. Gene Robinson (who is openly gay and non-celibate) was ordained Bishop of New Hampshire. It was because of Robinson's ordination that set off the backlash that has lead to the splinter not only in Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion worldwide.

Many conservative Episcopalians (whom my father counts as one) have allied themselves with conservative Anglican Diocese in Africa in which it is in Africa, Asia and Latin America that is influencing the cultural conservatism seen in Christianity today. Much like the U.S. is seeing with the growth of cultural conservative Christian denominations in the southern United States.

At the expense of sounding ominous or alarmist, because of the growth of conservative sects of Christianity in the Global South, this can have an impact on the U.S. even more so since it can re-enforce the brand of Christianity coming from the southern U.S.

An example of this is the quasi-alliance being seen with the Catholic Church and evangelical Protestants using the cloak of Intelligent Design to bring creationism back into educational institutions as well as their active and hostile activities towards social issues like abortion rights.

What is happening with countries in Europe with the activities of Muslims that are hostile towards the countries they settle in can also happen here too and, while immigration should remain mostly free, the influx of immigrants from countries, like Latin America, can have an impact since many can and will be influenced by their religious leaders.

I know for a fact that there is an Anglican Mission in America that hails from Africa in which the head of this effort is an Anglican Bishop who is known not only for his opposition to gay clergy but I believe has also allied himself with authorities in his country sanctioning the open persecution of gays and lesbians.

I think as Objectivists, we need to be more pro-active in terms of not only spreading our ideas but also ready to be a philosophical counter-balance to the potential "onslaught" that can happen.

While I am glad to see atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, becoming more outspoken about religion, what these gentlemen lack is a distinct moral and philisophical base to make their arguments against the existence of God. Also, some of them are not solid in their arguments against God's existence and it can come back to bite them.

For example, Richard Dawkins says in his book The God Delusion that the existence of God is "very highly unlikely". While I understand his reasons for saying this since he is a scientist and obviously wants to leave open the possibility of a god's existence, this can come back to haunt him since he leaves room for this possibility. The religionists can have a field day with this.

At least Objectivists see and embrace reality for what it is and our atheism is grounded in the fact that there are no gods of any kind to believe in or that exist.

The influence of religion in this country and Europe down the line can happen and can lead to the west experiencing a dark ages similar to what happened in Europe during the 4th and 5th centuries.

I think we ignore this potential threat at our own peril.

If you would like a source to read that further explains what I am talking about, check out The Next Christendom by Phillip Jenkins.

"An example of this is the quasi-alliance being seen with the Catholic Church and evangelical Protestants using the cloak of Intelligent Design to bring creationism back into educational institutions as well as their active and hostile activities towards social issues like abortion rights."

Interesting observation. There are a number of words in that statement that cry for clarification, e.g.,

'quasi-alliance' [a mouth full of concepts bouncing around]; 'evangelical Protestants' [i have good friends who are evangelical Quakers, are they the Pro-test-ants that you mean???]; "the cloak of Intelligent Design to bring creationism back into educational institutions" [hmm - clever phrasing, but it means...?]; "their active and hostile activities towards social issues like abortion rights." [a social "issue" means...? and why should I, as a thinking individual care about a "social issue"]; finally, "abortion 'rights'". Roe v. Wade and the underlying case notwithstanding, the "right" to "abort" exists where in the Constitution? Define the terms please.

[Chris Grieb]

I wonder if the quasi-alliance will succeed. I think that the fundamentalist have a distrust the RC church being right on a few issues will not overcome. One example is fundamentalist friend refers to RC's who convert to a more fundamental church as becoming Christian. I don't think this will be overcome easily.

[Mike Renzulli]

Ultimately they do. I think both the RC Church and the evanglicals have a distrust of each other that lies below the surface since, ultimately, both factions independently believe they are God's chosen people and believe the other is wrong though they don't openly say it.

I will never forget one news report I read back in the 80s where one evangelical or fundamentalist church leader commented that he felt that a visit by Pope John Paul II to the U.S. was a visit by Satan himself. Before he died, I believe the Pope also said that he felt that the Anglican church was "not a church in the proper sense". He later retracted this. However, the present Pope has said essentially the same thing.

With this kind of sentiment existing within the 2 factions, it could come to a head at one point and their alliance will splinter.

I wonder if the quasi-alliance will succeed. I think that the fundamentalist have a distrust the RC church being right on a few issues will not overcome. One example is fundamentalist friend refers to RC's who convert to a more fundamental church as becoming Christian. I don't think this will be overcome easily.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Mike Renzulli

[Mike Renzulli]

Hey Selene,

I appreciate your response but do not have time for the clarification you request. If your issue is the (for lack of a better term) fundamentals of my statement, I am open to and would appreciate any input or constructive criticism to correct any errors in judgement or phraseology as I am relatively new to Objectivism.

Otherwise, I look forward to exchanging views with you on the issues I have raised in this post.

Interesting observation. There are a number of words in that statement that cry for clarification, e.g.,

'quasi-alliance' [a mouth full of concepts bouncing around]; 'evangelical Protestants' [i have good friends who are evangelical Quakers, are they the Pro-test-ants that you mean???]; "the cloak of Intelligent Design to bring creationism back into educational institutions" [hmm - clever phrasing, but it means...?]; "their active and hostile activities towards social issues like abortion rights." [a social "issue" means...? and why should I, as a thinking individual care about a "social issue"]; finally, "abortion 'rights'". Roe v. Wade and the underlying case notwithstanding, the "right" to "abort" exists where in the Constitution? Define the terms please.

[Mike Renzulli]

post deleted

Edited October 30, 2007 by Mike Renzulli

[Alfonso Jones]

While I am glad to see atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, becoming more outspoken about religion, what these gentlemen lack is a distinct moral and philisophical base to make their arguments against the existence of God. Also, some of them are not solid in their arguments against God's existence and it can come back to bite them.

For example, Richard Dawkins says in his book The God Delusion that the existence of God is "very highly unlikely". While I understand his reasons for saying this since he is a scientist and obviously wants to leave open the possibility of a god's existence, this can come back to haunt him since he leaves room for this possibility. The religionists can have a field day with this.

At least Objectivists see and embrace reality for what it is and our atheism is grounded in the fact that there are no gods of any kind to believe in or that exist.

Allow me to say "amen" to this portion of your post. Dawkins and Harris often seem to write with the intent to reassure the reader that though they are atheists they are "nice people" who share an altruist moral view - in fact, arguing that they are more truly altruistic than Christians.

Alfonso

[studiodekadent]

While I am glad to see atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, becoming more outspoken about religion, what these gentlemen lack is a distinct moral and philisophical base to make their arguments against the existence of God. Also, some of them are not solid in their arguments against God's existence and it can come back to bite them.

For example, Richard Dawkins says in his book The God Delusion that the existence of God is "very highly unlikely". While I understand his reasons for saying this since he is a scientist and obviously wants to leave open the possibility of a god's existence, this can come back to haunt him since he leaves room for this possibility. The religionists can have a field day with this.

At least Objectivists see and embrace reality for what it is and our atheism is grounded in the fact that there are no gods of any kind to believe in or that exist.

Allow me to say "amen" to this portion of your post. Dawkins and Harris often seem to write with the intent to reassure the reader that though they are atheists they are "nice people" who share an altruist moral view - in fact, arguing that they are more truly altruistic than Christians.

Alfonso

I agree that many atheists are too compromising on ethical issues with Christianity. Indeed, I left the Richard Dawkins forum after some loutish Marcusian prick attacked me constantly and refused to listen to my arguments dealing with Objectivism.

The hostility that many atheists have against Rand is appalling.

But I dont think Dawkins and Harris are neccessarily altruistic. Altruism requires the belief that an action is good if the ultimate intention behind it is other people. Helping others as a means rather than an end is not altruism. In short, even if they agree with "helping others is good", that does not mean they agree with "helping others is the ultimate good."

They may be philosophically confused, may I add. But Ill wait for more evidence before I decide whether or not they are altruists.

As for Dawkins talking about the nonexistence of God, I have never found his arguments to be utterly brilliant. They are at times useful however.

[BaalChatzaf]

As for Dawkins talking about the nonexistence of God, I have never found his arguments to be utterly brilliant. They are at times useful however.

There are some rather good reasons for NOT believing in God, but proving non-existence is a different matter. Withholding belief is very reasonable. The Argument from Design is far from conclusive and not all that convincing. Belief should rest on what is known or experienced (through the normal senses). We believe things we cannot prove, but these things at least are compatible with what we know either first hand or with reasonable certainty, for example the belief that physical laws hold everywhere and everywhen. Our insistence on uniformity is not supporting by any finite set of observations, but is a convention that extends the scope of our limited observations. It enables us to get from the few things we do know to the many things we do not know.

There is only one basis for asserting that God does not exist is that such existence denies the Law of Non Contradiction. Does the existence of God lead to a logical contradiction (the assertion that P & -P is the case for some proposition P)?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[studiodekadent]

There is only one basis for asserting that God does not exist is that such existence denies the Law of Non Contradiction. Does the existence of God lead to a logical contradiction (the assertion that P & -P is the case for some proposition P)?

I agree entirely. However I was not specifically referring to that. I was referring to how all of the arguments Dawkins has advanced have never really impressed me, although his point that creationism does not account for systems growing in complexity is a useful argument.

[Alfonso Jones]

While I am glad to see atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, becoming more outspoken about religion, what these gentlemen lack is a distinct moral and philisophical base to make their arguments against the existence of God. Also, some of them are not solid in their arguments against God's existence and it can come back to bite them.

For example, Richard Dawkins says in his book The God Delusion that the existence of God is "very highly unlikely". While I understand his reasons for saying this since he is a scientist and obviously wants to leave open the possibility of a god's existence, this can come back to haunt him since he leaves room for this possibility. The religionists can have a field day with this.

At least Objectivists see and embrace reality for what it is and our atheism is grounded in the fact that there are no gods of any kind to believe in or that exist.

Allow me to say "amen" to this portion of your post. Dawkins and Harris often seem to write with the intent to reassure the reader that though they are atheists they are "nice people" who share an altruist moral view - in fact, arguing that they are more truly altruistic than Christians.

Alfonso

I agree that many atheists are too compromising on ethical issues with Christianity. Indeed, I left the Richard Dawkins forum after some loutish Marcusian prick attacked me constantly and refused to listen to my arguments dealing with Objectivism.

The hostility that many atheists have against Rand is appalling.

But I dont think Dawkins and Harris are neccessarily altruistic. Altruism requires the belief that an action is good if the ultimate intention behind it is other people. Helping others as a means rather than an end is not altruism. In short, even if they agree with "helping others is good", that does not mean they agree with "helping others is the ultimate good."

They may be philosophically confused, may I add. But Ill wait for more evidence before I decide whether or not they are altruists.

As for Dawkins talking about the nonexistence of God, I have never found his arguments to be utterly brilliant. They are at times useful however.

I'm not saying that Dawkins or Harris ARE altruistic, just that they are attempting at times in their books to reassure their reader that they are really "good people" in much the way altruists would understand. Sort of like "Well, yes I am atheistic, but don't worry, I won't misbehave or anything..."

Alfonso

[studiodekadent]

I'm not saying that Dawkins or Harris ARE altruistic, just that they are attempting at times in their books to reassure their reader that they are really "good people" in much the way altruists would understand. Sort of like "Well, yes I am atheistic, but don't worry, I won't misbehave or anything..."

You are correct. However, this tactic is to be expected when one of the prominent arguments against Atheism is the Dostoyevsky Gambit (i.e. "if God is dead, everything is permitted"). Obviously they want to rebutt this argument as quickly as possible. And I do not blame them for wishing to do so. Even Ayn Rand wanted to rebutt this argument.

However, you are correct that many anti-atheists would probably have a frozen abstraction of "morality" (i.e. they use "morality" to refer to "any morality that I agree with"). This does have to change. May I add, when Dawkins is often confronted with the Dostoyevsky Gambit, he states that one can find morality within secular philosophy. He does not state any morality in particular, and secular philosophers have produced a lot of differing moralities. So I think Dawkins at least is unlikely to himself have frozen his abstractions.

The question of course is how do we thaw out the public's frozen abstraction of "morality" and replace it with a correct abstraction. You have to do that before you try and convert them. The most important issue, I believe, is to simply make it known that morality is merely a code of values to guide decision-making, which is an inevitable part of the human condition. This of course requires that we demolish the idea that the primary purpose of morality is restraints or lists of "thou shalt nots." This idea will not be easy to demolish because it is so heavily ingrained in our culture.

[Dragonfly]

While I am glad to see atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, becoming more outspoken about religion, what these gentlemen lack is a distinct moral and philisophical base to make their arguments against the existence of God.

I don't know about Harris, but I think that Dawkins has a much more solid philosophical base to argue against the existence of God than Rand. The existence of a moral base is of course completely irrelevant, the question of the existence of God is not a moral question.

For example, Richard Dawkins says in his book The God Delusion that the existence of God is "very highly unlikely". While I understand his reasons for saying this since he is a scientist and obviously wants to leave open the possibility of a god's existence, this can come back to haunt him since he leaves room for this possibility. The religionists can have a field day with this.

I disagree. We cannot prove that God doesn't exist, so we can only state that his existence is very highly unlikely. Now such a low probability (like the probability that there is a teapot orbiting Pluto) may be translated in everyday language as "it isn't true", but when you are seriously discussing argument pro or contra the existence of God you have to be accurate. It is a better reply to the religionists than merely saying "God doesn't exist" (although that would be the shortcut version in everyday language), as they often also use probability arguments for the existence of God. You'd better answer these than using a blunt denial which you strictly speaking can't defend and which therefore could be interpreted as dogmatism. It is also more effective in convincing people who are open to a rational argument. For the real dogmatists it won't make a difference anyway.

[Dragonfly]

I agree that many atheists are too compromising on ethical issues with Christianity. Indeed, I left the Richard Dawkins forum after some loutish Marcusian prick attacked me constantly and refused to listen to my arguments dealing with Objectivism.

Recently Daniel and I had some interesting discussion on that forum with the author of PARC... (you'll need to register to read it).

[Ellen Stuttle]

I don't know about Harris, but I think that Dawkins has a much more solid philosophical base to argue against the existence of God than Rand. The existence of a moral base is of course completely irrelevant, the question of the existence of God is not a moral question.

It is by implication if God's Will is taken to be the source of ethics, as it is so taken in the major monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), and even in less absolutist ways in multiple other religions.

Ellen

___

[BaalChatzaf]

I disagree. We cannot prove that God doesn't exist, so we can only state that his existence is very highly unlikely. Now such a low probability (like the probability that there is a teapot orbiting Pluto) may be translated in everyday language as "it isn't true", but when you are seriously discussing argument pro or contra the existence of God you have to be accurate. It is a better reply to the religionists than merely saying "God doesn't exist" (although that would be the shortcut version in everyday language), as they often also use probability arguments for the existence of God. You'd better answer these than using a blunt denial which you strictly speaking can't defend and which therefore could be interpreted as dogmatism. It is also more effective in convincing people who are open to a rational argument. For the real dogmatists it won't make a difference anyway.

One simply points out to a believer that they do not have an empirical leg to stand on. There is no more reason to believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob than there is to believe in Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Demon. If they try the Argument From Design, show them that it does not carry logically. If they persist in claiming there is no morality without God, show them that morality is perfectly supportable by reason. Show historically that societies have existed which had ethical standards and did not worship the deity of the Abrhamic religions. There are many portions in the writings of Plato (the Timmeus) and Aristotle (The Nichomachean Ethics) to indicate that pagans knew very well the difference between Right and Wrong.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 30, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Dragonfly]

I don't know about Harris, but I think that Dawkins has a much more solid philosophical base to argue against the existence of God than Rand. The existence of a moral base is of course completely irrelevant, the question of the existence of God is not a moral question.

It is by implication if God's Will is taken to be the source of ethics, as it is so taken in the major monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), and even in less absolutist ways in multiple other religions.

The original claim was that someone like Dawkins lacks a moral base to make an argument against the existence of God. Whatever the religionists claim, you don't have to concede their premise that this "source of ethics" argument is a valid argument, a moral base is not relevant to refute their claims. Anyway, Dawkins has some interesting things to say about the base of our morals.

[Mike Renzulli]

I disagree. We cannot prove that God doesn't exist, so we can only state that his existence is very highly unlikely. Now such a low probability (like the probability that there is a teapot orbiting Pluto) may be translated in everyday language as "it isn't true", but when you are seriously discussing argument pro or contra the existence of God you have to be accurate. It is a better reply to the religionists than merely saying "God doesn't exist" (although that would be the shortcut version in everyday language), as they often also use probability arguments for the existence of God. You'd better answer these than using a blunt denial which you strictly speaking can't defend and which therefore could be interpreted as dogmatism. It is also more effective in convincing people who are open to a rational argument. For the real dogmatists it won't make a difference anyway.

I can't agree with your statement since the Objectivist view of atheism is a statement of the fact that no gods of any kind exist. Same goes for other mystical creatures, an after life or paranormal phenomenon, like psychics, reincarnation or ghosts.

Our denial of the existence of any gods isn't grounded in dogmatism, its a statement of fact and also cuts the proponents off at their knees since they have nothing they can argue with you other than the onus would be on them to prove their god exists. If believers take our denial of their god's existence as dogmatic, I say so be it. Its about time belief in such mythologies should finally be thrown into the dustbin of history where it belongs. If Objectivist's denial of any Supreme Being or mysticism speeds this up, so much the better.

One book you may want to look up that I will be buying but was recommended to me by another long time Objectivist is God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger. In this book Stenger proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that God does not exist using scientific proof as well as logic deconstructing the arguments in favor of God's existence.

A summary of what Stenger's book entails can be found here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenge...ess/Summary.htm

Edited October 30, 2007 by Mike Renzulli

[BaalChatzaf]

One book you may want to look up that I will be buying but was recommended to me by another long time Objectivist is God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger. In this book Stenger proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that God does not exist using scientific proof as well as logic deconstructing the arguments in favor of God's existence.

A summary of what Stenger's book entails can be found here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenge...ess/Summary.htm

This depends on how one defines God.

I have a theory. I think Abraham and some of his descendants were visited by some very advanced non-terrestrial visitors and were given some advice and guidance. These folks were so advanced that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and several generations of descendants therefrom regarded the visitors as God or gods. If a civilization is so advanced as to be incomprehensible by the locals, the locals will take them for Gods. The Ten Plagues and that trick with the Sea of Reeds required some advanced technology. Also the zapping of Sodom and Gommorah. We could do that ourselves with current technology. A small theater nuke would work fine. And that so-called angel that told Sampson's parents of his forthcoming birth. The way he left was a perfect description of a Star Trek type beam up. In the book of Ezekiel the vision the Zeke had of Wheels within Wheels is a rather good description of a landing vehicle. Why would such clever non-terrestrial pay such a visit. They wanted to foster a race of people who could produce a decent pastrami on rye. They succeeded too.

Its just a theory, but it has the virtue of being consistent with known physical laws.

On the other hand if one defines God as being both omnipotent and omniscient one can trivially derive a logical contradiction.

If God is omnipotent can he make something so heavy he cannot lift it? Theological exaggeration very quickly leads to paradoxes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 31, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Dragonfly]

One book you may want to look up that I will be buying but was recommended to me by another long time Objectivist is God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger. In this book Stenger proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that God does not exist using scientific proof as well as logic deconstructing the arguments in favor of God's existence.

A summary of what Stenger's book entails can be found here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenge...ess/Summary.htm

I know Victor Stenger very well. In fact in the preface of his previous book Has Science found God? he thanks me (among many other people) for discussing, criticizing and correcting the manuscript.

[Brant Gaede]

One book you may want to look up that I will be buying but was recommended to me by another long time Objectivist is God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger. In this book Stenger proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that God does not exist using scientific proof as well as logic deconstructing the arguments in favor of God's existence.

A summary of what Stenger's book entails can be found here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenge...ess/Summary.htm

I know Victor Stenger very well. In fact in the preface of his previous book Has Science found God? he thanks me (among many other people) for discussing, criticizing and correcting the manuscript.

Now it's correct?

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

Now it's correct?

I suppose most if not all grammatical and spelling errors are now gone. I no longer remember whether there were factual errors. Of course there will always remain some disagreements about the content.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I don't know about Harris, but I think that Dawkins has a much more solid philosophical base to argue against the existence of God than Rand. The existence of a moral base is of course completely irrelevant, the question of the existence of God is not a moral question.

It is by implication if God's Will is taken to be the source of ethics, as it is so taken in the major monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), and even in less absolutist ways in multiple other religions.

The original claim was that someone like Dawkins lacks a moral base to make an argument against the existence of God. Whatever the religionists claim, you don't have to concede their premise that this "source of ethics" argument is a valid argument, a moral base is not relevant to refute their claims. Anyway, Dawkins has some interesting things to say about the base of our morals.

Actually, I understood the original claim. Unfortunately, I think that it gets at the Really Big Problem, borrowing from Bob K's capitalizing style. The "source of ethics" argument needn't be valid to be the problem which looms large for...99% of the human species? Science has long confessed its inability to ground ethics. Most people think of ethics -- as does Dawkins, and as do you and Bob K. -- as the question of how one acts toward one's fellow man. Most people think of science as not giving any reason not to be blood-thirsty bastards -- "nature red in tooth and claw." Dawkins tries to say, well, really, "altruism" is biologically founded. Sorry, but this doesn't do the job of providing an individualist ethics, such as is needed for the scientific approach to epistemology.

An odd feature of all this is that I think the liberal world view -- which is Dawkins' view on social issues -- goes back to Plato, not to Aristotle. And that Plato's views lead, rather soon, to totalitarianism. Bob K's thread asking about why AR didn't think of Plato as "the most evil man" in history. (Originally she said, in describing Kant thus, just "in terms of the consequences of his views" -- her pronouncements on Kant get truncated often.) The way the history of thought has gone, the scientists have accepted "other-focus" as being what ethics is all about. I think that AR was right that it's this idea which must be counteracted ever to have a peaceful human world. But unfortunately AR herself set up another absolutism.

I'm aware that I'm rambling here. The "point" I'm trying to make is that the moral issue is so much Where It's At, and regrettably I don't think Dawkins does a good job on this problem.

Ellen

___

Edited October 31, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[BaalChatzaf]

The way the history of thought has gone, the scientists have accepted "other-focus" as being what ethics is all about. I think that AR was right that it's this idea which must be counteracted ever to have a peaceful human world. But unfortunately AR herself set up another absolutism.

I'm aware that I'm rambling here. The "point" I'm trying to make is that the moral issue is so much Where It's At, and regrettably I don't think Dawkins does a good job on this problem.

Ellen

___

Ellen, on a desert island there are NO ethical questions. Only survival. Who can one wrong on a desert island? Only one's self and that is more like making an arithmetical error than commiting a sin. If I hit my thumb with a hammer that is not an ethical defect, it is just bad aim. Anything one does to himself that harms no one else is not an ethical breach. It may be a silly act, it may be a self harmful act, it may even be fatal but it is never a morally or ethically wrong act. One has a right to do anything to himself that does not harm another. One of the benefits of self-ownership.

Ba'al Chatzaf