Peikoff and Agnosticism

[NickOtani]

Objectivists are atheists but not really crusaders for atheism, as they are radicals for capitalism and egoism or crusaders against altruism and collectivism. Ayn Rand did say some eloquent things, through her character John Galt, against the concept of Original Sin, and we know she rejected mysticism. Although she made it clear that subjugation to God is as bad as subjugation to a collective or anything which keeps man from living for himself or herself, she didn’t spend a lot of time on the traditional arguments for or against the existence of God

Leonard Peikoff strongly denounces any form of supernaturalism as an abandonment of reason and reality, and he characterizes theists as saying “To Hell with argument, I have faith.” Yes, some theists, like Rousseau, say this, but not all. Some theists do have rational arguments which need to be challenged and refuted, not simply dismissed and ignored.

Peikoff is very shallow and biased in his straw man definition of agnosticism, in “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series 1976, Lecture 6. He says the agnostic view point poses as fair, impartial, and balanced, but then treats arbitrary claims as ideas proper to consider and then regretfully says, “I don’t know,” instead of dismissing them out of hand. (Peikoff and Binswanger are good at simply dismissing things out of hand, like some people dismiss Objectivism.) Also, on the burden-of-proof issue, the agnostic demands proof of a negative where there is no evidence for the positive. Peikoff, already way off base, ends strongly by saying, “The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack. The fact is that his view is one of the falsest—and most cowardly—stands there can be.”

Well, Thomas Henry Huxley, you don’t need to roll in your grave. Just be glad you are dead and don’t have to listen to this obvious, self-evident, demonstration of ignorance.

Peikoff is not distinguishing knowledge claims from belief. He is not distinguishing strong atheism and theism from weak atheism and theism, and he is getting all mixed up about burden-of-proof.

Let’s define some terms:

A theist believes in God. An atheist rejects a belief in God.

There is a difference between knowledge and belief. Plato said that one can believe something that isn't true. This is not the case with knowledge. If one claims to know something and it turns out to be not true, then it wasn't really knowledge, was it?

On the other hand, some say knowledge is just justified belief, belief that has high degree of certainty. We can stipulate that this is what we mean by knowledge. We have a high degree of certainty that the floor will not collapse under us when we take a step. It is a leap of faith, but not unsupported faith. We have a high degree of certainty that the Pythagorean Theorem will hold up in Asia as it does in Spokane. We can demonstrate it. This kind of knowledge is objective, not personal nor subject to our wishes and beliefs. Yes, it is possible to have personal knowledge which can't be proven to others. We are concerned here with the kind of knowledge which can be demonstrated and agreed on by rational people in any culture.

To make a knowledge claim for God's existence is stronger than saying one believes God exists. The knowledge claim needs support of evidence and reasoning. Many theists claim faith but not knowledge. If knowledge, then no need for faith.

(As a side issue, is it good to have a lot of faith? We take little leaps of faith all the time, even when we take a step and have faith the floor will not collapse under us. When I step on an airplane, I don't know much about aerodynamics but have faith that someone else does. However, is it good to have faith that my brakes will be okay even when they haven't been checked for a long time and I hear scraping noises when I use them? If I loan my car to someone who gets in an accident when the brakes failed while the car went down a hill, would it be my fault?)

Some theists claim knowledge. Burden is on them to prove. They don't prove the existence of God by saying if we can't prove He doesn't exist, then He does.

If no knowledge, than agnostic.

An agnostic, in this sense, can be either theist or atheist.

An atheist also can be agnostic with regard to knowledge. If one rejects a belief in God but makes no knowledge claim, then weak atheist. A weak atheist has an advantage over a strong theist. He has no burden to prove anything.

If an atheist makes a knowledge claim that no God exists, that is a stronger position. It needs to meet a burden of proof.

(These terms, weak and strong, apply only to the kind of position it is. They are misleading. A weak theist may have strong commitment to his or her faith. It is just considered weak because it is not an objective knowledge claim. This is true also of the weak atheist. The weak atheist may have a perfectly rational position that one cannot know certain things. It does not mean the atheist is weak in his or her beliefs.)

We can only argue if reason for belief or knowledge claims can be supported. All things being equal, the theist has the burden of proof. If one believes in ghosts, a non-believer doesn't have to prove there are no ghosts, only that reasons for believing in ghosts are inadequate. However, once the non-believer claims as objective truth that ghosts do not exist, then he or she has a burden.

I think I am a strong atheist when it comes to definitions of god which are contradictory and we are using logic as a standard. If it is meaningful to say square circles do not exist, then it is meaningful to say the greatest conceivable being doesn't exist. Also the all good and all powerful God who co-exists with evil cannot logically exist. There may be things I do not yet know about how the universe got started or how life came to be, but I don't fill the gaps with God. In that case, I am a weak atheist, an agnostic. And, I’m honest, not a fence sitter or, as Leonard Peikoff calls me, a coward.

bis bald,

Nick

[Dragonfly]

If an atheist makes a knowledge claim that no God exists, that is a stronger position. It needs to meet a burden of proof.

I disagree. I don't have to prove that something doesn't exist for which there is no evidence at all. By the same reasoning you should be agnostic with regard to Zeus, Thor, Apollo, the devil, ghosts, fairies or a teapot orbiting Pluto. In such cases we can certainly state that such things don't exist. We might be wrong, but the burden of proof is on the person who claims that such things do exist.

Rand's reasons for becoming an atheist (which she wrote in her diary when she was 13 years old) are curious: first she correctly states that there is no proof for the belief, but then she continues with the argument that the concept of God is insulting and degrading to man, it implies that the highest possible is not to be reached by man, that he is an inferior being who can only worship an ideal he will never achieve. This is of course not a rational argument, the fact that something would be bad isn't an argument that it can't be true! It is in fact a purely religious argument, she only replaces "God" by "man" (or should I write "Man"?). It shows that she was in spite of all her talk about reason and against religion and mysticism a profoundly religious person (you hear the echo in The Fountainhead!). That this was written when she was 13 years old doesn't imply that she changed her meaning, by telling this story it's obvious that she held the same meaning as an adult.

[NickOtani]

I disagree. I don't have to prove that something doesn't exist for which there is no evidence at all. By the same reasoning you should be agnostic with regard to Zeus, Thor, Apollo, the devil, ghosts, fairies or a teapot orbiting Pluto. In such cases we can certainly state that such things don't exist. We might be wrong, but the burden of proof is on the person who claims that such things do exist.

It's okay if we disagree, but let me make sure we understand each other. I agree that one doesn't have to prove that something doesn't exist in order to reject a belief in it. I do not believe that Zeus, Thor, Apollo, the devil, ghosts, fairies or a teapot orbiting Pluto exists. I think if someone does say these things exist, the burden is on him or her to prove it. I am not even considering the possibility that they do exist, and I really don't think it necessary to prove they don't. Even if I can't prove they don't exist, it doesn't mean that they do.

However, so far am just rejecting a belief and challenging a knowledge claim. I am not makng a knowledge claim myself. I don't have to. I'm ahead on debate points as I am.

It is like in a court of law. The defendent doesn't have to prove he or she is innocent. The prosecuter, the one making the claim, has to prove he or she is guilty.

If I do make a knowledge claim, however, then I have to do more than simply say there is no evidence to believe these things are true. I have to make a prima facie case that they are false. It might not be hard to do, using known laws of physics and Occam's razor, to come up with plausible reasons for concluding that these things are not true. And, once I do this, the burden shifts to the other side to refute me.

And, yes, I know about Rand's belief that it is futile to pursue an ideal that is impossible to reach, but I don't think that is as serious as she does. People always strive to reach goals that are out of their reach. Sometimes they reach them, and sometimes they don't. When they do reach them, they aim a little higher. We may never become omniscient, but we can try to learn as much as we can, nicht wahr?

bis bald,

Nick

[jordanz]

On the other hand, some say knowledge is just justified belief, belief that has high degree of certainty. We can stipulate that this is what we mean by knowledge.

I don't agree with this definition. Knowledge is belief that is supported by sufficient evidence in a given context. If I only have n% certainty, then it isn't knowledge - it's a hypothesis (or something else).

We have a high degree of certainty that the floor will not collapse under us when we take a step. It is a leap of faith, but not unsupported faith.

No, it is not a leap of faith. I know that the floor won't collapse unless there is something to cause the collapse.

(As a side issue, is it good to have a lot of faith? We take little leaps of faith all the time, even when we take a step and have faith the floor will not collapse under us.

This is not a leap of faith. It is a reasoned action. Given the context of floors and things that can cause floors to collapse I have reasonable certainty that the floor will not collapse. This is not faith - it is called being rational.

I think I am a strong atheist when it comes to definitions of god which are contradictory and we are using logic as a standard. If it is meaningful to say square circles do not exist, then it is meaningful to say the greatest conceivable being doesn't exist.

This is the important thing. When someone says "I believe in God" you must first determine what they mean by "God". In most cases, they will not be able to define God in a way that avoids contradiction.

[NickOtani]

This is not a leap of faith. It is a reasoned action. Given the context of floors and things that can cause floors to collapse I have reasonable certainty that the floor will not collapse. This is not faith - it is called being rational.

Yes, reasonable certainty is not absolute and indubitable certainty. There is a small leap of faith in any inductive reasoning, unless it is perfect induction, which is actually deductive assertion. And, rational reasoning can be wrong. It is rational, if your friend is in a plane crash over the ocean and you hear nothing from him for several days, to assume he is dead. However, it is rational for him, bobbing up in down in the water, to assume he is still living. Both of you can be rational and come to different conclusions. Don't believe everything the Objectvists tell you about no contradictions among rational men.

bis bald,

Nick

[jordanz]

There is a small leap of faith in any inductive reasoning, unless it is perfect induction, which is actually deductive assertion.

I have never studied philosophy, so I will not be able to argue this point technically. I will leave it at this: I have no problem accepting the Oist position on induction. I do not agree that there "is a leap of faith in any inductive reasoning". The sun rises every day given the facts of our solar system. I have no reason to believe that it won't rise tomorrow given these same facts. Thus, the statement that "the sun will rise tomorrow" given the context of the facts of gravity, etc. is, indeed, knowledge gleaned from an inductive exercise.

[NickOtani]

Actually, though, the sun doesn't rise. It stays where it is. The positioning of our earth makes it appear to rise to us. And, yes, it has always behaved the same in the past. We can hope it will continue in the future and predict, with laws of nature, that it will. Someday, however, it might not.

Yes, get a logic book or ask a mathematician about inductive arguments. It is a characteristic of inductive arguments that they are inconclusive. Feel free to read my essay below, "Perception, Logic, and Language." It is good to be interested in Objectivism, but read other things too.

bis bald,

Nick

[jordanz]

It is a characteristic of inductive arguments that they are inconclusive. Feel free to read my essay below, "Perception, Logic, and Language." It is good to be interested in Objectivism, but read other things too.

This kind of trolling isn't worth my time ;) This is an Objectivist BBS.

[NickOtani]

This kind of trolling isn't worth my time  This is an Objectivist BBS.

Do others here think I don't belong on this board? Can I hear from an administrator or established and respected posters?

If not, I'll keep posting what I think. I don't live to please everybody.

bis bald,

Nick

[Aggrad02]

Someday, however, it might not.

And using this type of thinking you could say that one day it might turn into a giant turkey and gobble up the earth and fly away into the milky way. Neither proposition make any sense (logically they are the same).

And I have read your article on perception and plan on addressing the issues raised in a larger essay on the whole existential/subjectivist and objectivist issue.

[NickOtani]

And using this type of thinking you could say that one day it might turn into a giant turkey and gobble up the earth and fly away into the milky way. Neither proposition make any sense (logically they are the same).

No, I don't think so. Scientists tell us that someday the sun will use up all its energy and things won't be the same as they have been. Fortunately, they predict this won't happen for a long time yet.

The point is, just because things happen a certain way for a long time, it doesn't mean they will always happen that way. To believe they will takes a little bit of faith.

I'm not going to try to make fun of your arguments and turn our exchanges into a personality contest. I may not agree with others on this board, but I am trying to be responsible, polite, and sensitive. I'm not trying to be a flammer or a troll. Can we communicate?

bis bald,

Nick

[Aggrad02]

No, I don't think so. Scientists tell us that someday the sun will use up all its energy and things won't be the same as they have been. Fortunately, they predict this won't happen for a long time yet.  

The point is, just because things happen a certain way for a long time, it doesn't mean they will always happen that way. To believe they will takes a little bit of faith.

I don't think that rational people who have studied science think that the sun is going to last forever. But they do know that it is going to last a long time. Anyone who thinks that it will last forever is going to have to have faith because that would be a belief in contradiction of the nature of the sun. It would be the same as believing in God or fairies.

I'm not going to try to make fun of your arguments and turn our exchanges into a personality contest. I may not agree with others on this board, but I am trying to be responsible, polite, and sensitive. I'm not trying to be a flammer or a troll. Can we communicate?

I was just trying to give an extreme example of what happens if you play the "well it may always be that way but it may not tomorrow" game. Saying just because the sun is their everyday doesn't mean that it will tomorrow may sound logical but it is not, so that is why I gave my turkey analogy (BTW that was the first thing that "popped" into my head, I guess I created it, and thought that it was at least slightly humourous, we need that every once in a while in philosophy, I wasn't making fun of you).

Dustan

[NickOtani]

No problem. I apologize for being super sensitive.

I'd like to get back to the point of my first post in this thread, that Peikoff comitted a fallacy by lumping all agnostics into one box and calling them cowards. This was not very rational and objective of him, was it?

bis bald,

Nick

[Aggrad02]

No problem. I apologize for being super sensitive.

I'd like to get back to the point of my first post in this thread, that Peikoff comitted a fallacy by lumping all agnostics into one box and calling them cowards. This was not very rational and objective of him, was it?

bis bald,

Nick

I think it depends on the type of agnostic. For a very long time I considered my self agnostic because I hadn't made up my mind on the issue. I considered my self still reasoning through the problem and collecting evidence. Now I feel certian that I have found the answer (there is no God) and have no problem. But if the agnostic is agnostic because he is a skeptic or believes that you have to disprove a negative to be athiest then Peikoff has some valid arguments.

Dustan

[NickOtani]

I think it depends on the type of agnostic. For a very long time I considered my self agnostic because I hadn't made up my mind on the issue. I considered my self still reasoning through the problem and collecting evidence. Now I feel certian that I have found the answer (there is no God) and have no problem. But if the agnostic is agnostic because he is a skeptic or believes that you have to disprove a negative to be athiest then Peikoff has some valid arguments.

Oh Gee! Either I'm not making myself clear, or people are not reading what I said. Agnostics are not just people who can't make up their minds. They can be atheists who reject a belief in God but do not make knowledge claims that God does not exist. There is nothing cowardly about this postion.

Yes, there may be agnostics which fit Peikoff's description. There may also be Jews who are into usury. There may be Blacks who are lazy. There may be Asians who are good at math. Peikoff is wrong about fitting all agnostics into one box and labeling them all cowards. Don't you see?

Why are you reluctant to condemn this?

bis bald,

Nick

[Aggrad02]

[Oh Gee! Either I'm not making myself clear, or people are not reading what I said. Agnostics are not just people who can't make up their minds. They can be atheists who reject a belief in God but do not make knowledge claims that God does not exist. There is nothing cowardly about this postion.

I don't think you are being clear.

atheist = one who believes that there is no deity

agnostic = (1) a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable

(2)one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

One can't be both. If someone is agnostic as in the first definition then they are a skeptic and Peikoff's claims have some validity, if they are as in the second definition it depends why.

Why are you reluctant to condemn this?

I am not necessarily supporting or condemning it, but if you read how Peikoff defines agnostic (he uses the first definition, and the first definition only, I don't have his book here now or I would try and find the quote), then you would see that he is not lumping the same people together that you are saying he is. Besides, You cannot make a knowledge claim about a negative, you can only make a knowledge claim about reality, what exist. For example, if someone says that they know their car is not blue, they are not actually saying they know that it is not blue, but that they know that it is another color instead, red for example. You can only know that something exist, not that something doesn't.

Dustan

[NickOtani]

I don't think you are being clear.

atheist = one who believes that there is no deity

agnostic = (1) a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable

(2)one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

One can't be both. If someone is agnostic as in the first definition then they are a skeptic and Peikoff's claims have some validity, if they are as in the second definition it depends why.

Even in your dictionary definition, you are not distinguishing knowledge from belief or weak atheism from strong atheism. An agnostic makes no knowledge claim about the existence of God. He or she can still meet the first definition of rejecting a belief in God. He or she can be both atheist and agnostic. An agnostic can simply be a kind of atheist, the kind that makes no knowledge claim. You did not read my first post where I said there is a difference between knowledge and belief. Do you deny that there is a difference between knowledge and belief?

I am not necessarily supporting or condemning it, but if you read how Peikoff defines agnostic (he uses the first definition, and the first definition only, I don't have his book here now or I would try and find the quote), then you would see that he is not lumping the same people together that you are saying he is. Besides, You cannot make a knowledge claim about a negative, you can only make a knowledge claim about reality, what exist. For example, if someone says that they know their car is not blue, they are not actually saying they know that it is not blue, but that they know that it is another color instead, red for example. You can only know that something exist, not that something doesn't.

First, I provided the quote in my first post. You can look it up n the source I cited or in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, pages 3-4. Second, I can make a knowledge claim about a negative. I can say that square circles do not exist. Yes, they exist as contradictory concepts, but not in objective reality. If someone can demonstrate that God is in the same category as contradictory concepts, I would accept that he or she has proven that God does not exist in objective reality. Simply saying that there is no evidence that something exists is not a prima facie case proving that it does not exist. Finally, suppose someone asks you what color his or her car is and you don’t happen to know. Are you a coward for not saying it isn’t blue?

bis bald,

Nick

[Aggrad02]

If someone can demonstrate that God is in the same category as contradictory concepts, I would accept that he or she has proven that God does not exist in objective reality.

I believe that Peikoff and Rand have both done this.

Dustan

[Aggrad02]

I can say that square circles do not exist.

There is a difference between claiming knowledge about a concept (circle or circular) than claiming knowledge about God (an entity). To answer your question circles do not exist as an entitiy but as a characteristic of entities as being circular.

Dustan

[Aggrad02]

Finally, suppose someone asks you what color his or her car is and you don’t happen to know. Are you a coward for not saying it isn’t blue?

If I said that there is no way for me to know the color of your car, then yes I would be a skeptic and a coward. If on the other hand I said "where is your car?" and looked at it and said it was blue or not blue then I would not be agnostic about it.

Dustan

[NickOtani]

I believe that Peikoff and Rand have both done this.

You can believe anything you want. Do you claim as knowledge that they have done this? If you can't, are you a coward? If you can, are you going to prove it? Copy and paste the exact argument. Show your cards. I call.

bis bald,

Nick

[Aggrad02]

I believe that Peikoff and Rand have both done this.

You can believe anything you want. Do you claim as knowledge that they have done this? If you can't, are you a coward? If you can, are you going to prove it? Copy and paste the exact argument. Show your cards. I call.

bis bald,

Nick

I am on the road right now, as soon as I get home I will try and do that.

Dustan

[NickOtani]

There is a difference between claiming knowledge about a concept (circle or circular) than claiming knowledge about God (an entity). To answer your question circles do not exist as an entitiy but as a characteristic of entities as being circular.

This doesn’t really refute my contention that one can prove a negative. Anyway, the argument from evil is a good example an argument which proves an omnipotent and benevolent god cannot co-exist with evil. Such a god would fall into the same category as square circles. There are others. Sartre has a good argument about how God would have to be a coming to be subject which is also a completed object, which is impossible. Rand and Peikoff may claim that God does not exist and criticize people for relying on faith and trying to achieve some unreachable ideal, but they don’t present an argument proving that God does not exit. To say that it is self-evident or axiomatic is not to prove it.

If I said that there is no way for me to know the color of your car, then yes I would be a skeptic and a coward. If on the other hand I said "where is your car?" and looked at it and said it was blue or not blue then I would not be agnostic about it.

I don’t think it is cowardly to be skeptical. Some skepticism is healthy and productive. It motivates us to investigate and learn, not just accept something on faith. You seem to insinuate that not committing one’s self to a position is always cowardly. Since you are not supporting or condemning what Peikoff said about agnosticism, does that make you a coward?

I am on the road right now, as soon as I get home I will try and do that.

I will hold you to it. I will wait to see the exact argument where Peikoff and Rand demonstrate that God is in the same category as contradictory concepts.

BTW, you must be wealthy to be on the road with these gas prices.

Bis bald,

Nick

[Aggrad02]

Some skepticism is healthy and productive. It motivates us to investigate and learn, not just accept something on faith.

There is a difference between everyday skepticism (such as a used car salesman telling you the car you are looking at is sound mechanically, but you still wanting to take it to a mechanic) and philosophical skepticism which claims that knowledge can't be known. It is the second that Peikoff is talking about. There is a difference between not taking a position because you haven't investigated yet or your research hasn't led you to an answer yet, than saying oh well knowledge can't be known therefore I don't have to think.

BTW, you must be wealthy to be on the road with these gas prices.

I'am not sure what you consider wealthy (especially since you are in the Northwest and I am in Texas, one of the cheapest states to live in with the lowest gas prices, I paid $2.57 yesterday) but I do al'right. I own my own business and have to travel a lot for it, this isn't a vacation but there is always time to find fun in a business trip.

Dustan

[NickOtani]

There is a difference between everyday skepticism (such as a used car salesman telling you the car you are looking at is sound mechanically, but you still wanting to take it to a mechanic) and philosophical skepticism which claims that knowledge can't be known. It is the second that Peikoff is talking about. There is a difference between not taking a position because you haven't investigated yet or your research hasn't led you to an answer yet, than saying oh well knowledge can't be known therefore I don't have to think.

If there is a difference in kinds of skepticism, then this should be specified when using the term. When I talk about Hume, I refer to him as an ‘ultimate skeptic,’ not the kind of skeptic that Socrates was. Hume’s position is ultimately paradoxical, but Socrates merely questioned what some believed to be self-evident and demonstrated that it was not. His kind of skepticism promoted thought.

My point in my initial post in this thread is that there are also different kinds of agnostics. There are those who definitely reject a belief in God but do not make a knowledge claim. They meet the criteria of Huxley’s definition of agnostic, yet they are also atheists. They are not the kind of agnostics about whom Peikoff is talking, and Peikoff is wrong to characterize all agnostics as cowards. He is committing the same fallacy as is someone who calls all Italians mafia members.

BTW, I did find some of Peikoff’s arguments against the existence of God, according to some definitions. He said that if God is infinite, nothing can be infinite according to the Law of Identity. If God is the creator of the universe, nothing can be created from nothing. If God is omnipotent, entities must be limited by their natures. He says that no argument will get from this world to a supernatural one. (“The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series (1976), Lecture 2.).

The arguments from infinity and omnipotence work on the assumption that nothing can be unlimited, but this conflicts with the argument that nothing comes from nothing, which assumes that the universe must be unlimited. Also, there are examples of unlimited series in mathematics, even acknowledged in the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, page 85.

And, if arguments against supernaturalism work, there is still the God of Spinoza and Einstein, which is not supernatural.

Bis bald,

Nick