Christian Objectivist

[We Erred Rand]

Of course I can personally assign 'any meaning' to any term,

That's all that was meant.

but in using language you would get a complete communication breakdown...

I'm not urging you to assign different meanings to terms in your personal life for the sake of doing so.

if (random example) you'd decide to assign the meaning 'umbrella' to the term 'lime'.

"It's going to rain. I'll need a lime."

The arbitriness in assigning is therefore quite limited.

You've just finished telling anyone reading your post that the term "lime" means "umbrella." We've all read it. Now when you say "It's going to rain, I'll need a lime," there is no breakdown in communication. We all understand what you're saying. Therefore, so long as you tell people how you intend to use terms in your communications with them, the arbitrariness is infinite, not "quite limited."

[We Erred Rand]

Xray wrote:

>>>As I wrote in my prior post, terms like "contradiction" and "incompatibility" are not exclusively reserved for formal logic; they are also used in countless other contexts without causing any misunderstanding in communication.

Quite so. That's also true of many words; "altruism" and "selfishness", for example.

>>>In criminal cases for example, evidentiary findings can contradict a suspect's version of events.

>>>Defense laywers would have field day day in court if the prosecution could only build a case against their clients if they formally conradicted themselves.

Formal contradiction doesn't require that the client contradict himself. It only requires the statement that is incompatible with the client's assertion be framed in the form of a denial; it doesn't matter who makes the assertion. Example: Client: "I was at the opera when the murder occurred." Janitor: "You were NOT at the opera when the murder occurred."

The janitor's statement is a formal denial of the client's statement; one is affirmative, the other negative.

Let's say defendant D has stolen a motorbike; an eyewitness has even seen him with the vehicle.

D says he had been at a different location at the time. But then additional evidence is discovered: his DNA is found on the mororbike. This evidence contradicts D's version even further.

The DNA evidence simply shows that he touched the motorbike at some point, or rode it at some point, or perhaps he — or, who knows? maybe someone else — put D's clothing (which might have his DNA all over it) on the motorbike. The existence of D's DNA on the motorbike does not prove D stole it, and it does not not contradict D's alibi, nor is it even incompatible with it, as just explained.

I don't understand your use of the worthless DNA argument. You've just stated that there was an eye-witness to the crime. That's more powerful evidence than the DNA, which simply shows that he was in physical contact with the bike at some point in the past.

D asserts: "I did not steal the bike!"

Witness asserts a denial of that: "You did steal the bike!"

Those two assertions are formally contradictory.

[BaalChatzaf]

D asserts: "I did not steal the bike!"

Witness asserts a denial of that: "You did steal the bike!"

Those two assertions are formally contradictory.

Yes. Both could be false.

D asserts: "I did not steal the bike!"

Witness asserts a denial of that: "You did steal the bike!"

Those two assertions are formally contradictory.

[Xray]

I don't understand your use of the worthless DNA argument. You've just stated that there was an eye-witness to the crime. That's more powerful evidence than the DNA, which simply shows that he was in physical contact with the bike at some point in the past.

The DNA argument is not "worthless" because it supports the eyewitness's testimony.

[Xray]

You've just finished telling anyone reading your post that the term "lime" means "umbrella." We've all read it. Now when you say "It's going to rain, I'll need a lime," there is no breakdown in communication. We all understand what you're saying. Therefore, so long as you tell people how you intend to use terms in your communications with them, the arbitrariness is infinite, not "quite limited."

I think it is very limited because people will think of someone who does this as just plain crazy.

[Xray]

D asserts: "I did not steal the bike!"

Witness asserts a denial of that: "You did steal the bike!"

Those two assertions are formally contradictory.

Yes. Both could be false.

But doesn't, in formal contradiction, one assertion have to be true?

[BaalChatzaf]

D asserts: "I did not steal the bike!"

Witness asserts a denial of that: "You did steal the bike!"

Those two assertions are formally contradictory.

Yes. Both could be false.

But doesn't, in formal contradiction, one assertion have to be true?

That is the difference between a contrary pair and a contradictory pair. A contrary pair could both be false but cannot both be true. With a contradictory pair one must be true and the other false.

[Xray]

But I still can’t see how you can state that compatibility is independent of fact.

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/

[We Erred Rand]

I don't understand your use of the worthless DNA argument. You've just stated that there was an eye-witness to the crime. That's more powerful evidence than the DNA, which simply shows that he was in physical contact with the bike at some point in the past.

The DNA argument is not "worthless" because it supports the eyewitness's testimony.

DNA only shows that he had been in physical contact with the bike at some point time (perhaps the owner let him ride one day; perhaps he secretly took it for a spin and returned it). It doesn't support the eyewitness's claim that he saw D steal the bike.

D asserts: "I did not steal the bike!"

Witness asserts a denial of that: "You did steal the bike!"

Those two assertions are formally contradictory.

Yes. Both could be false.

D asserts: "I did not steal the bike!"

Witness asserts a denial of that: "You did steal the bike!"

Those two assertions are formally contradictory.

I don't see how both could be false. Either D stole the bike or he didn't steal the bike. One or the other must be true. Whichever one is true, the other must be false.

[We Erred Rand]

>>>I think it is very limited because people will think of someone who does this as just plain crazy.

How is this relevant to whether or not people understand the meaning of terms?

[We Erred Rand]

>>>But doesn't, in formal contradiction, one assertion have to be true?

Yes. One must be true and the other must be false.

[Mike82ARP]

But I still can’t see how you can state that compatibility is independent of fact.

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/

[Selene]

Mike:

That's weird...your link did not work and this one seems to, yet it looks the same...

http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/jesus-christ-and-ayn-rand/

Great picture on the top of the article!

And here is the money quote:

The question to be asked first is not: Are the worldviews of Christianity and Objectivism (Ayn Rand’s philosophy) compatible? Rather it is: What is true? Or, more specific to the context of this discussion: Is there any truth in Christianity or in Objectivism? And here is where the Christian must make the crucial choice mentioned above: will he be an advocate of reason, rationality, and objective truth by objectively assessing the truthfulness of his conceptions of Christianity (and willingly rejecting that which is found to be untrue), or will he be an advocate of irrationality, fantasy, and subjective fairytales by insisting that Christianity is true without any objective reason for believing so – that it’s true merely because he wants it to be.

A...

[BaalChatzaf]

Mike:

That's weird...your link did not work and this one seems to, yet it looks the same...

http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/jesus-christ-and-ayn-rand/

Great picture on the top of the article!

And here is the money quote:

The question to be asked first is not: Are the worldviews of Christianity and Objectivism (Ayn Rand’s philosophy) compatible? Rather it is: What is true? Or, more specific to the context of this discussion: Is there any truth in Christianity or in Objectivism? And here is where the Christian must make the crucial choice mentioned above: will he be an advocate of reason, rationality, and objective truth by objectively assessing the truthfulness of his conceptions of Christianity (and willingly rejecting that which is found to be untrue), or will he be an advocate of irrationality, fantasy, and subjective fairytales by insisting that Christianity is true without any objective reason for believing so – that it’s true merely because he wants it to be.

A...

That can't be Jesus. He doesn't look the least bit Jewish. He is the Aryan Christ of the anti-semites.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

That can't be Jesus. He doesn't look the least bit Jewish. He is the Aryan Christ of the anti-semites.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Correct Bob:

Malcom X [Detroit Red] made the same point when I heard him "preaching" on Harlem street corners in the '60's. He learned it from the Honorable Elijah Mohamed, Message to the Black Man in American*.

Interesting reading *http://www.seventhfam.com/temple/books/black_man/blkindex.htm

Such classic sections like:

1 There are many other chapters of the Holy Quran Sharrieff that open with the above verses, "Allah is the best knower." The beautiful teachings of the Holy Quran have no equal in other scriptures.

2 All so-called Negro preachers should have one, but be sure it is the one translated by Yusuf Ali or Maulana Muhammad Ali. Any other translation of the Holy Quran, by Christian authors, is as poisonous to the reader as a rattlesnake.

3 What I am trying to make clear is that white people do not believe in Allah and Islam or the prophets of Allah. Why then, should you seek the truth of it from them? You will soon come to know that you should not seek any truth from them. They have you following in the wrong direction and hope to keep you like that; but by my Allah's power and wisdom, and my life's blood, you shall know the Truth even against your own will.

4 They (white people) have nearly all of the poor black preachers on their side to oppose Allah, myself and Islam, the religion of righteous. They will fail and be brought to disgrace as Pharaoh's magicians and he himself were by Allah (God), for you have not known Him, or His religion, as Israel had not known God by His name Jehovah (Exod. 6:3)

5 They felt that they should not believe Moses' representation of God by any other name than God Almighty, regardless of Moses' stress upon Jehovah as being the God of their Fathers. Pharaoh had not used that name (Jehovah); so Israel would not accept it until a showdown between Jehovah and Pharaoh. I would not like to have you wait until a showdown between Allah and the modern Pharaoh's people; therefore I come to you with the truth, verifying that which is before it, and giving good news to the believers that they most certainly shall have Heaven in this life. I also come to you with the warning to those who disbelieve that you most certainly shall have hell in this life, and in the hereafter you most certainly will be among the losers, or do they say, "He has forged it?" Nay, it is the truth from the Lord, that you may warn a people to whom no warning has come before, that they may follow the right direction (Holy Qur'an 32-3).

6 You say, "Who is this Allah, and this religion Islam?" Know my people, the Divine Supreme Being, has 99 attributes that make up His name, and Allah is the 100th. Surely His are the most beautiful names. He will make Himself known to the world that He is God and besides Him there is no God and that I am His Messenger, that Islam is a religion backed by the power of Allah (God ) to free you form the hands of you merciless enemies (the slave masters) once and forever.

7 Allah, your God, will grant you power to overcome your enemies though their power may look as endurable as the mountains. Fear not! Allah is the Best Knower. Armageddon has started, and after it there will be no Christian religion or churches. Jesus was a Muslim, not a Christian.

This is why most folks are clueless about what is spreading in the "urban" "poor" "ghetto's" of America.

A....

[Xray]

>>>I think it is very limited because people will think of someone who does this as just plain crazy.

How is this relevant to whether or not people understand the meaning of terms?

Understanding the meaning of terms is the precondition for evaluating whether or not a linguistic sign is used in the correct context.

[Xray]

Quote from the article "Jesus and 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/

"How can you invoke Jesus and follow Rand?"

ITA. It's s really about premises. For how can one at the same time be of the opinion that "no supernatural dimension exists" (Rand's stance), but then regard Jesus as God's son and believe in the resurrection of the flesh??

From the same article:

Defenders of Rand say that a person can adopt elements of Rand’s philosophy and reject whatever clashes with their faith.

Which would be patchworking; in fact that's what people do very often. They cherrypick what suits them and disregard what doesn't fit into their philosophical 'quilt'.

But imo orthodox Objectivists would reject this because it goes against what Rand said about Objectvism being an "all or nothing" philosophy:

N. Branden: Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, "It's all or nothing."

http://mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAndHazards.html

NB pointed out that this encourages dogmatism.

[PDS]

Mike:

That's weird...your link did not work and this one seems to, yet it looks the same...

http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/jesus-christ-and-ayn-rand/

Great picture on the top of the article!

And here is the money quote:

The question to be asked first is not: Are the worldviews of Christianity and Objectivism (Ayn Rand’s philosophy) compatible? Rather it is: What is true? Or, more specific to the context of this discussion: Is there any truth in Christianity or in Objectivism? And here is where the Christian must make the crucial choice mentioned above: will he be an advocate of reason, rationality, and objective truth by objectively assessing the truthfulness of his conceptions of Christianity (and willingly rejecting that which is found to be untrue), or will he be an advocate of irrationality, fantasy, and subjective fairytales by insisting that Christianity is true without any objective reason for believing so – that it’s true merely because he wants it to be.

A...

That can't be Jesus. He doesn't look the least bit Jewish. He is the Aryan Christ of the anti-semites.

Ba'al Chatzaf

In addition, I refuse to believe that Christ used hair gel or botox.

Indeed, I have faith that he didn't.

[Mike82ARP]

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

[Xray]

A consistent atheist need not assert the non-existence of God. It is sufficient for him to point out that no sound evidence proves the existence of God. Why should anyone believe a proposition for which there is not a shred, a dight, a crumb of evidence?

Ba'al Chatzaf

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?

Why would it need a god to get it here?

[Mike82ARP]

A consistent atheist need not assert the non-existence of God. It is sufficient for him to point out that no sound evidence proves the existence of God. Why should anyone believe a proposition for which there is not a shred, a dight, a crumb of evidence?

Ba'al Chatzaf

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?

Why would it need a god to get it here?

Because matter doesn’t appear out of nothing without cause.

[We Erred Rand]

>>>Understanding the meaning of terms is the precondition for evaluating whether or not a linguistic sign is used in the correct context.

And that proves there are an infinite number of meanings one can arbitrarily assign to any term — so long as one makes that assignment explicit to others when communicating with them. The linguistic sign "Limes" = [any term one arbitrarily designates], so long as one makes explicitly clear to others the right side of the equal sign.

"Correct context", as you used that phrase, simply means that one assigns a meaning to a term (i.e., the right side of the equal sign) that the majority of other language users assigns to it. There is no inherently correct or incorrect context for a linguistic sign.

[Xray]

A consistent atheist need not assert the non-existence of God. It is sufficient for him to point out that no sound evidence proves the existence of God. Why should anyone believe a proposition for which there is not a shred, a dight, a crumb of evidence?

Ba'al Chatzaf

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?

Why would it need a god to get it here?

Because matter doesn’t appear out of nothing without cause.

If you argue on the basis of a causality chain, then god must have a 'cause' too.

[Xray]

>>>Understanding the meaning of terms is the precondition for evaluating whether or not a linguistic sign is used in the correct context.

And that proves there are an infinite number of meanings one can arbitrarily assign to any term — so long as one makes that assignment explicit to others when communicating with them. The linguistic sign "Limes" = [any term one arbitrarily designates], so long as one makes explicitly clear to others the right side of the equal sign.

"Correct context", as you used that phrase, simply means that one assigns a meaning to a term (i.e., the right side of the equal sign) that the majority of other language users assigns to it. There is no inherently correct or incorrect context for a linguistic sign.

By correct use I did not mean "inherently" correct (indeed there is no such thing), but what is called 'correctness' here is the result of a social convention.

Just as it is e. g. 'correct' to write the first person singular in English with the capital letter "I".

[Mike82ARP]

A consistent atheist need not assert the non-existence of God. It is sufficient for him to point out that no sound evidence proves the existence of God. Why should anyone believe a proposition for which there is not a shred, a dight, a crumb of evidence?

Ba'al Chatzaf

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?

Why would it need a god to get it here?

Because matter doesn’t appear out of nothing without cause.

If you argue on the basis of a causality chain, then god must have a 'cause' too.

Yeah, probably the same cause as “existence”.