Christian Objectivist


Recommended Posts

Edited to correct myself:

Michael, after thinking this through a bit more, I see that I misunderstood you, and that I do agree with your clarification in your first paragraph. That is, how you are describing "deserve" in the context of consciously made choices, yes I agree with that. In that light, the rest of your post makes more sense to me.

Deanna,

Gurudom here I come!

:)

Bring it on, folks. I'm soaking it up.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, What is good and what is evil?

If you don't know the difference between what's right and what's wrong for yourself, how would you know whether what I was telling you was right or wrong? Just a rhetorical question for your consideration.

Good = increasing the attainment of god's goal(s)? Evil = decreasing? What are God's goal(s)?

I can't speak for God's goals because I'm just me. Although I have learned by direct personal experience that it's in my best interest (as well as the best interest of everyone around me) to make doing what's right the highest priority above everything else.

"This world is a machine.

As long as you pull the right levers,

they won't smack you in the face."

--Greg :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, What is good and what is evil? Good = increasing the attainment of god's goal(s)? Evil = decreasing? What are God's goal(s)?

There is only one problem with that. No one really knows (1) if there is a God goal and (2) even if there is no one really knows what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, What is good and what is evil? Good = increasing the attainment of god's goal(s)? Evil = decreasing? What are God's goal(s)?

There is only one problem with that. No one really knows (1) if there is a God goal and (2) even if there is no one really knows what it is.

Absolutely right, Bob. :smile:

We're on a need to know basis, so all we need to know is what's right and wrong for us in each moment.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

Objectivism has a very good answer to the question of "What is good?". Its based on the perspective of the goal to have a long life pursuing happiness while producing and voluntarily trading: not slaving nor being a slave.

You utterly failed to answer my question... not that I expected you would. Your belief is based on faith (unsupported ideas) rather than observation and reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

Objectivism has a very good answer to the question of "What is good?". Its based on the perspective of the goal to have a long life pursuing happiness while producing and voluntarily trading: not slaving nor being a slave.

That's all well and good, Dean. It's a fine definition. But you asked me what's good and evil, not Objectivism.

You utterly failed to answer my question...

That's because my response puts the responsibility on you where it belongs. My answer is that you already know, and if you don't already know for yourself, there would be no way of knowing the veracity of my answer which is based on my own observation and reason.

not that I expected you would. Your belief is based on faith (unsupported ideas) rather than observation and reason.

And what of your own unfounded religious faith (unsupported idea) in the validity of the bitcoin pyramid scam which has no basis in observation and reason? :wink:

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything."

G. K. Chesterton

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything."

G. K. Chesterton

Greg

As a general statement that is not true. Example: Richard Feynman was an atheist and he we also a very careful and critical thinker. He had zero patience with "cargo cult science". He also had little patience with philosophers who practiced Metaphysics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything."

G. K. Chesterton

Greg

As a general statement that is not true.

Generalities always have exceptions... but exceptions do not invalidate generalities.

Dean had made a comment about faith and reason. So my comment was only in response to Dean's unfounded faith in his bitcoin religion. No one has noticed yet but that Ponzi scam has been collapsing as bitcoin value inevitably returns to reality while giving the something-for-nothing suckers the fleecing they deserve.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything."

G. K. Chesterton

Greg

As a general statement that is not true.

Generalities always have exceptions... but exceptions do not invalidate generalities.

Dean had made a comment about faith and reason. So my comment was only in response to Dean's unfounded faith in his bitcoin religion. No one has noticed yet but that Ponzi scam has been collapsing as bitcoin value inevitably returns to reality while giving the something-for-nothing suckers the fleecing they deserve.

Greg

Exceptions are precisely what falsify general statements The statement for all x x has the Property P is negated by there exists x such that x does not have the Property P. The exception proves the general rule is false. Thus the existence of a black swan (such as exist in Australia) negates the general statement all swans are white.

This is logic 101. I suggest that you take a quick course in predicate logic

True generalities have NO exceptions which is what makes them true generalities.

Thus all bachelors are unmarried is a true generality. That follows from the way we define the word "bachelor".

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything."

G. K. Chesterton

Greg

As a general statement that is not true.

Generalities always have exceptions... but exceptions do not invalidate generalities.

Dean had made a comment about faith and reason. So my comment was only in response to Dean's unfounded faith in his bitcoin religion. No one has noticed yet but that Ponzi scam has been collapsing as bitcoin value inevitably returns to reality while giving the something-for-nothing suckers the fleecing they deserve.

Greg

Exceptions are precisely what falsify general statements...
Not when they're a tiny minority. That's the whole idea of a generality. It generally holds true in the majority of cases.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading the discussion on this thread from March-April, 2013.

In post #408 David links to a book called

Christ Triumphant

or

Universalism Asserted

as the Hope of the Gospel on the Authority

of Reason, the Fathers, and Holy Scripture

by

Thomas Allin

Reprint of the Ninth Edition

The thesis pertains to the dark god which haunts Christianity - a parallel to which I think haunts Objectivism.

[bold emphasis added]

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

The question of questions to which an answer is attempted in the following pages, is essentially this, can Evil triumph finally over Good? If we answer affirmatively with the popular creed, we are practically falling into Dualism; if we reply negatively, we are teaching Universalism. Such are the issues really involved. The more often and the more clearly this is stated as the turning point of the entire controversy about the larger hope, the better for those who write, and for those who read. The Calvinist settled this question by, in fact, affirming that if evil triumphs it is because GOD SO orders, i.e., because GOD decrees to evil an eternal existence; thus saving or trying to save God's omnipotence, but at no less a cost than that of blackening His character, nay, of virtually making HIM a partner in evil. But the popular creed saves neither the omnipotence of GOD, nor yet preserves His character. Sin, the one thing most utterly hateful in His sight, HE tolerates forever and ever, poisoning and defiling His works, and defying His power - satisfied, if in this brief life he cannot have obedience and righteousness - satisfied with endless disobedience and sin hereafter! HE appears before all creation as trying to dislodge sin, only to fail; as sending His Divine Son to save all men in order that HE may return rejected, baffled, vanquished. And so the curtain falls on the great drama of creation and redemption, presenting such a picture as this - a baffled Savior, a victorious Devil, a ruined creation, sin triumphant - and so to continue forever - a heaven wholly base, a hell wholly miserable.

Strong as these words are, they are not strong enough, for the horrors and the contradictions of the popular creed alike defy description. And these horrors are taught, these contradictions are believed in the face of the plainest teaching of God's two revelations, His primary revelation to our moral sense, His written revelation in Holy Scripture. Of the former and its teachings, it is needless to speak here; of the latter I have spoken at some length, and have tried to show that from its first page to its last the Bible is the story of one who is our Father - one whose 'wrath,' and 'fire,' and 'judgment,' are at once most real, and yet one and all are the expressions of that essential LOVE which HE is - One who being Almighty is sending His Son to assured victory, to reconcile to HIMSELF all things, 'whatsoever and wheresoever they be.' I know how eagerly men strive to save the popular creed by various modifications, by diminishing the number of the lost, by softening their torments, by asserting their annihilation, etc. What are all these but so many tacit confessions that men everywhere feel it impossible to maintain the creed still generally professed? What are they but in fact so many vain attempts to disguise the awful fact of Con's defeat, to hide if it may be the victory of the Evil One? For so long as sin lingers in a single heart, so long as a single child of the Great Parent perishes eternally, whether annihilated, or sent to Hell, so long is the Cross a failure, and the Devil practically victor.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exceptions are precisely what falsify general statements The statement for all x x has the Property P is negated by there exists x such that x does not have the Property P. The exception proves the general rule is false. Thus the existence of a black swan (such as exist in Australia) negates the general statement all swans are white.

This is logic 101. I suggest that you take a quick course in predicate logic

True generalities have NO exceptions which is what makes them true generalities.

Thus all bachelors are unmarried is a true generality. That follows from the way we define the word "bachelor".

Ba'al Chatzaf

The real world abounds in useful generalities that you would call untrue. There are exceptions to them but they are useful.

For example the game of chess abounds in useful "principles of strategy" as they are called. They have exceptions but are useful. They could be called rules of thumb. A principle of strategy in chess means this is what you do unless you have good reason to do otherwise. Do not move any piece a second time until after you have moved every piece once. Do not attack until after you have completed your development. Both principles are useful. Paul Morphy violated both principles in his famous Barber of Seville game, and was justified in doing so.

In programming there are Ledgard's proverbs and other principles, which are useful but should not be taken religiously. Don't goto (leading to spaghetti code) means unless you have good reason.

The food combining rules are useful but have exceptions. Do not put fruits and veggies in the same meal. Tomatoes are fruits but they go well with veggies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a little off the track, but in my readings on writing, I came across this tidbit on a blog from a guy named Colin McEnroe: If God Exists, Then (Dude) Why Did My Car Get Towed?

I got there by a weird route.

I was studying a lady who writes on writing (Lisa Cron, who wrote a book called Wired for Story: The Writer's Guide to Using Brain Science to Hook Readers from the Very First Sentence).

She referenced a blog called Miss Snark. I thought that was cute so I looked it up. It is by a literary agent and very, very funny. Miss Snark closed it in 2007, but kept up all the posts and comments as an archive. She said she ran out of new things to cover and didn't feel like going over and over the same things with a different slant.

Hmmmm... Sounds like a fun way to learn what writing looks like from the publishing insider view. And who knows? I might learn a trick or two about writing. (Both are proving to be true, btw.) I decided to go through her posts from the beginning.

From here I saw a link called "McSweeneys," so I clicked on it. I didn't know what the hell it was about, so I just clicked and waited to see what happened.

That took me to: I am Michiko Kakutani by Colin McEnroe. Ah hell. Three people I never heard of--Michiko Kakutani, Timothy McSweeney and Colin McEnroe--and it looks like there's a major hoax on the literati.

Boy, does that sound cool, so I started digging. Scratching the gossip itch. Going for the cheap shot. And, remember, digging takes time and effort and this is about people I never heard of!!! But dig I did. And I dug. (I'm hopeless, I know. :smile: )

I don't think any hoax happened, I did get some laughs, and I came across that blog post on God's existence and a car being towed. It's basically a review of a play called “Freud’s Last Session,” which is a dialog between Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis. McEnroe, although a Progressive, is quite entertaining and very, very intelligent. I almost sense a kindred spirit in him from the other side of the political-philosophical divide.

I think he nailed one of the truths people ignore when they go about bashing religion. Not truth about religion per se, but instead about the person who believes in religion. The quote below gives the thought and its context.

... the weakness of the play — which is fabulously acted in Hartford by Kenneth Tigar and Jonathan Crombie — is the playwright’s failure to give Lewis an arsenal of intellectual firepower that is equal to if not greater than Freud’s. In the play, Freud offers up the unoriginal observation that, in “Paradise Lost,” the devil has all the good lines. So it goes in this script too. Freud says all the cool stuff, and Lewis comes off as a pit of a frump. It was daring of Milton to give the devil such good lines in a pre-Enlightenment and pious world. It would have been equally exciting to give some crackling lines to Lewis, the Beta Dog in the modern dialogue.

. . .

I just wished that Lewis had been allowed to say something like,”Even if I’m wrong, even if at death my world goes blank and everything I believed was an illusion, it is to me a beautiful illusion from which I derive nourishment and which casts over my life a glow of meaning. You wouldn't scoff me for spending my life in the thrall of Mozart and Matisse, but their works are illusions too.”

FREUD: But they admit it, and so do we.

LEWIS: Will that be so important a distinction at the hour of my death? If I have loved life more for loving God and Christ, will I die a fool?

Those lines are not in the play, of course. They were written by Colin McEnroe. It's funny, but I think I like this review much better than I would ever like the play. That includes a feeling that I got much more aesthetic value from the review than I would ever get from the play.

I think this guy nailed one of the reasons I stopped bashing and mocking religious people a while back.

It's not that I agree with the religious person on his or her religion. I see so many of them love life in a manner I resonate with, I found myself unable to call them a fool anymore. And where I see deep love of life, I just don't see evil.

I didn't have words for why I did what I did, but now I do.

I'm not in your world, Colin McEnroe, but you are now in mine.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good catch, sir! ("I see so many of them love life in a manner I resonate with...")

It sometimes can hit one that the more one knows of life, the less and less one may love any of it - but that's not true and should never be considered true. Too clever by half, you may have heard (or been told). But no, I think it's more like: don't hold back. Don't get stuck half-way, get really "clever" and aim always to make that break through to where there's no difference between love and knowledge.

(Sorry, heavy stuff ;))

And your insights on the religious loving life, touched on an oldy love song of Rod Stewart's -

"If loving you is wrong - I don't want to be right..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...can Evil triumph finally over Good?

Each individual can only answer that question for themselves, for the war between Good and Evil is won or lost inside of us. So we are the only ones who decide the outcome for ourselves. Christ demonstrated how to win by His own life and death and life.

And He said to all, If any person wills to come after Me, let him lose sight of himself and his own interests, and take up his cross daily and follow Me by conforming wholly to My example in living and, if need be, in dying also.

(Luke 9:23)

This simply means to put doing what's morally right above everything else. Whoever loves what is good enough to do it, their life will overflow with blessings regardless of whether or not they believe in God. And Christ made this possible...

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will that be so important a distinction at the hour of my death? If I have loved life more for loving God and Christ, will I die a fool?

Yikes... what insight.

He hit upon a primary purpose of God. Someone to Whom we can be grateful for our life. For it is impossible to ever be truly happy while being an ingrate.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...can Evil triumph finally over Good?

[....]

The question Greg attributes to me comes from Thomas Allin's book Christ Triumphant, an excerpt from which I provided in post #587.

Greg's reply entirely misses the point of what Allin describes as "The question of questions to which an answer is attempted in [his book]."

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...can Evil triumph finally over Good?

[....]

The question Greg attributes to me comes from Thomas Allin's book Christ Triumphant, an excerpt from which I provided in post #587.

Greg's reply entirely misses the point of what Allin describes as "The question of questions to which an answer is attempted in [his book]."

Ellen

Ellen:

Unlike Greg, I am not a mind reader, but my guess (based upon Greg's other various pronouncements) would be that Greg is not a fan of the notion that Christ died for everybody--as opposed to a select few who may or may not have been predestined to saved, or damned. The point of the book you linked to is just that, and (going from memory here) considers the partial salvation view to be a doctrine that slanders the name of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...can Evil triumph finally over Good?

[....]

The question Greg attributes to me comes from Thomas Allin's book Christ Triumphant, an excerpt from which I provided in post #587.

Thanks for clarifying that, Ellen. It was not a question you asked.

Greg's reply entirely misses the point of what Allin describes as "The question of questions to which an answer is attempted in [his book]."

Ellen

My comment would naturally fall outside the boundaries of the point you were making because the view of the war between good and evil being decided by each of us within ourselves came from my own life experience and not from someone else's book. That's not to say that books have no useful value. Just that lessons learned directly by living have more transformative power than reading about someone else's opinions.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike Greg, I am not a mind reader, but my guess (based upon Greg's other various pronouncements) would be that Greg is not a fan of the notion that Christ died for everybody--as opposed to a select few who may or may not have been predestined to saved, or damned.

Your guess is wrong.

Just knowing who is going to give themselves over to good and who is going to abandon themselves to evil doesn't impinge in the least upon our own freedom to choose.

A Gift is just that... freely offered for anyone who wants it with no strings attached.

So enjoy it or piss on it.

It's your choice.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now