Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
What, then, is so theologically disturbing about the theory [evolution]? What is there about evolution that places in question even the very existence of God? It can be summarized in three propositions:
1. The variations that lead to differentiation of species are purely random, thus suggesting that the workings of nature are "accidental" and irrational. Today the source of these variations has been identified as genetic mutations. Most biologists today follow Darwin in attributing them to "chance."2. The fact that individuals have to struggle for survival, and that most of them suffer and lose out in this contest, points to the basic cruelty of the universe, particularly toward the weak.
3. The mindless process of natural selection by which only the better adapted organisms survive suggests that the universe is essentially blind and indifferent to life and humanity.
These three ingredients--randomness, struggle, and blind natural selection--seem to confirm the strong impression of many scientific skeptics today that the universe is impersonal, utterly unrelated to any "interested" God. Darwin himself, reflecting on the "cruelty," randomness, and impersonality in evolution, could never again return to the benign theism of his ancestral Anglicanism. Though he did not casually forsake his religious faith, many of his scientific heirs have been much less hesitant to equate evolution with atheism.
Is the Darwinian--or now the "neo-Darwinian"--picture of evolution compatible with religion, and if it is, in what sense?
The article in its entirety is
RIGHT HERE.
This is the most massive mega-site I've found yet: CLICK HERE. Each link leads to tons of other links. This site could literally lead to thousands of links with information about all issues in evolution, creationism, young earth, etc. It looks like it's all here. But in case it's not, here are other sites that have been useful in past threads of this type:
The documents about the charges against Galileo and Galileo's confession (involving his "heresy" that the earth orbits the sun, contrary to scripture): CLICK RIGHT HERE. The site with the Pope's official 1996 position on evolution: CLICK HERE. A site (not the one cited above) with loads of information that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies: CLICK HERE.
To inform creationoids about the famous 2nd law of thermodynamics, of which they've heard but about which they know nothing, CLICK HERE.
For the anti-evolution $250K offer from Dr. Kent Hovind of Pensacola, Florida (the prize is yours if you can prove to his satisfaction that there are no miracles): CLICK HERE. For information from two people who "debated" against the learned Dr. Hovind (who is allegedly a government school teacher), CLICK HERE, and for the other Hovind encounter CLICK HERE.
Although creationoids claim that evolution inspired Hitler, It is becoming more and more clear that creationism leads to fornication, harlotry, sodomy and the breakup of the family. For information about Jimmy Swaggart, the creationoid fornicator, CLICK HERE. For another site with a fairly straight story about Swaggart's rise and fall: CLICK HERE. For information about creationoid TV evangelist Jim Bakker, and the tootsie (surely you remember Jessica Hahn?) who brought him down: CLICK HERE.
For the site of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, with tons of resources on evolution, education, the current controversy in Kansas, links to the text of Darwin's books (I couldn't get those links to work), the text of court opinions on teaching evolution, and a very good article titled: "Evolution and the Science and Religion Dialogue," CLICK HERE.
To read Does Evolution Rule Out God's Existence?, by JOHN F. HAUGHT, Ph.D., Georgetown University, CLICK HERE.
For a wonderful concept introduced to these threads by jennyp, click on eudaimonia. And Conway's Game of Life, a computer simulation, an addictive program which shows how complex self-sustaining arrangements can emerge from relatively simple rules acting on random starting configurations. It's another link from jennyp: CLICK HERE. And for information about Ayn Rand and Objectivism,CLICK HERE.
Will any of this material put an end the seemingly endless debates on this subject matter? Of course not. So let the flames continue!!
[
Reply |
Private Reply | Top | Last ]
I suppose this will show up on your "self search" screen.
Hi jenny!
Intelligent design doesn't have anything to do with it. (The fact that an intelligent person designed the program itself is irrelevant - this is a SIMULATION program, after all!)
Oh LOL! Maybe the Creator created the Universe as a SIMULATION program!
As for mutations in computer programs generally, you have to remember that computers are serial processors. They carry out complicated operations one after the other.
Complicated?? Like add, subtract, or goto?
In a chemical system, you have a massively parallel system of very simple interactions. And each interaction has some slop in it - there are almost always alternative amino acids that can successfully function in a given protein for example.
You, jennyp, are immensely more complicated than the most complicated program ever created by mankind! (Conversely, . . . I'm pretty simple!)
That's why a "simple" point mutation in a single byte in program code will usually cause a catastrophic failure, yet most DNA mutations are neutral.
That's a good point, jenny; but doesn't really alter mine! Laura's calling me to dinner! (Lucky me!) Ta ta! --jazz
. . seemingly endless debates . .
Self-fulfilled prophecy.
Give it a rest; the power of Satin compels you!
(Mmmmmm---satin. . .)
NANKIPOO:
But how good of you (for I see that you are a nobleman of the highest rank) to condescend to tell all this to me, a mere strolling minstrel!
POOH-BAH:
Don't mention it. I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive person, of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when I tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable. I can't help it. I was born sneering. But I struggle hard to overcome this defect . . .
Complicated?? Like add, subtract, or goto?
Well it depends on the hardware...and it may or may not be serial calculations.
Back in thread 2, post #181, you said: The distinction is between ends and means - moral action is a means to an end not an end to itself. The ends ( happiness) are individual - the means (objective reality) aren't and that's my basic point.
Shortly afterwards, you said: To put it simply, the individual cannot decide the results of a given action - so no one "decides" morality - it is objective. An individual can however choose how to apply moral actions towards his own life - and this I think is where your confusion is - such choices are arbitrary, but the results are not.
There may be the possibility of some confusion here. First you seem to say the means are objective reality, then you say the individual makes arbitrary decisions about the application of morality.
I think I know what you're saying: We all want happiness, and we choose the means of obtaining it, as in choosing to be honest or crooked. In applying those means, we have to deal with reality, and the results (the ends) are determined by the effects our actions have, and this happens according to objective laws outside of our subjective control. If we have chosen badly, we suffer; and if we choose well, we can experience happiness. Morality lies in making the correct choices for a happy life, and this is a process that can be objectively decided.
I don't know if I've clarified anything. But I think I have.
I think you got the essence of what I was attempting to say. The individual makes choices, the results of those choices are not arbitrary. As you said, morality lies in making the right choices which lead to a happy life. I think the point I was trying to get across was this - say Alice wants to be a lawyer and Bob wants to be a doctor - Alice and Bob have different ends. However to acheive those ends they have to make choices based on objective reality - i.e. they have to study hard rather than partying all the time. Their proper conduct (moral choice) is dictated by objective reality. Their ends (becoming a layer or doctor respectively) are individual, but the reality they face isn't.
Hi Patrick,
Excellent lead in for this thread! Bump for later . . .
The only thing that confuses me is; If only the fit, the best survive how do you explain the June bug???
If only the fit, the best survive how do you explain the June bug???
I guess somebody has to bite. I knew june bugs were ugly, but had no idea they were poorly adapted. Where are you seeing the miracle?
rational individuals will come to the same conclusions
No that is your flaw, as humans we our all rational beings and rational individuals consistently come up with different conclusions, that is why it is called subjectivity.
An individual may come to a wrong conclusion about moral law, for which he will suffer.
Unproven and I might add too many people do moral wrong without suffering.
I'm still waiting for you to define Garbanzo's "moral law", you keep discussing it like it exists.
His understanding of reality may be flawed, but he cannot change reality.
Here is another of your irrelevant statements. People can't change the facts. Brilliant, never would have guessed.
The crucial difference is the difference between one's understanding of objective moral law and objective moral law itself.
and yet another useless statement.
Individuals must decide for themselves how to apply objective moral values towards their individual ends.
Finally you get to something of use and continue to contradict yourself. As each individual gets to decide how to apply moral values, and as each individual's decision is usually different based upon the individuals desired ends, each individual must travel down a separate moral path, probably contradictory to each other. Therefore, you are espousing a scenario, where, each individual will have separate moral paths based on their separate ends.
Similarly an individual can choose his own ends towards fufilling his pursuit of happiness (his project if you will), but he still must obey moral law in order to accomplish those ends.
Prove this. This is were your whole physical law argument breaks down completely. You state: The rational individual learns from his mistakes and takes heed of the wisdom of others. He comes to understand the value of certain actions and the losses of other actions and chooses his future acts accordingly.
Basically your moral law is not fixed, but flexible and based on lessons people learn, which is different for each individual. So just in case you didn't contradict yourself enough, you state the moral law is dependent on varing outcomes of our actions and how we and other people interpret those outcomes. Truly stunning, truly subjective.
Like I stated before, there is no correlation between obeying moral law (being morally good) and being happy. And again G, you are trying to have it both ways. The end is happiness, the path obeying moral law. If I obey moral law then I will be happy. Happiness is certainly different for each and every individual, therefore the Path (Moral law) to get to happiness will be different for all individuals.
This is were your engineer analogy falls apart. You have determined your conclusion,= happiness. Unlike a physical law, your dropping the ball off a building, the outcome is never in doubt and there is only one outcome. The end is the ball hitting the ground because the law of gravity can't be broken. In your moral argument, the outcome is constantly changing and different for everyone, therefore the outcome is in doubt with multiple possible conclusions. The path(moral law), then, to the various outcomes will be different for everyone, therefore the moral law is not constant but flexible by your own statements. The outcome, personal happiness, is not constant, therefore the path to that outcome must be different each time.
The distinction is between ends and means - moral action is a means to an end not an end to itself. The ends (happiness) are individual - the means (objective reality) aren't and that's my basic point.
And as I've shown completely flawed. Maybe a descriptive statement will help. Four people, each with different ends (happiness requirements, A,B,C,D) are traveling down a single lane road (moral actions). It is the only road (moral law) there is no way to exit(there is only one objective moral law). This is your path, it ends at point A. But three of the four people wanted to go to B, C, D respectively. Therefore you need multiple paths (moral laws) to ensure each individual makes it to his end (happiness). Some of these ends may be in the opposite direction (opposed to someone elses moral law).
Hope that helps.
Finally, to ask "who" decides is not meaningful question in that you conflate means and ends.
I think I've shown it does matter who decides, because if your moral law is not objective and Garbanzo yours' isn't, you need to decide which path to take to get to your happiness.
The individual cannot decide what the consequences of his actions will be
Now wait a minute, another contradiction I think. You just stated:Similarly an individual can choose his own ends towards fufilling his pursuit of happiness.
To put it simply, the individual cannot decide the results of a given action
How many times are you going to contradict yourself in one post? You stated: individual can choose his own ends.
so no one "decides" morality - it is objective.
Okay just for you, I'll rephrase the question:
Who decides whether the outcome of the moral action is morally right or morally wrong? Opps, as I already stated you have answered this question. The individual does. Because according to you, if the outcome is morally right, it makes him happy, and if morally wrong sad (I guess). This sir is subjective. You continually attempt to spread layer upon layer of nonsense in an attempt to confuse. No matter I'm not in the least confused.
An individual can however choose how to apply moral actions towards his own life - and this I think is where your confusion is - such choices are arbitrary, but the results are not.
As I said, I'm not the one confused. You once more, contradict yourself. The end you are talking about is happiness, therefore the results are arbitrary and it is your actions which are not. as you stated: he still must obey moral law in order to accomplish those ends.
Garbanzo, my last thought on the subject. Morality, if as you say is based on whether the outcome makes us happy, then you must have no objection to William Clintons' lying, cheating, adultery, stealing, and power grabs as this has undoubtedly made him happy.
I can’t say that I’ve studied the Objectivism sites hard enough or long enough to fully understand them. But . . . the philosophy seems too closed-minded and egocentric to appeal to me. The comment: "If you believe in God then you don’t believe in Life" is harsh, cold, and not "reason"able. I think it takes more "faith" to be an atheist, than it does to be an agnostic. Yet Ayn Rand puts down faith and puts down religion. Here is her own summary of Objectivism:
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute — facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
I think I buy this. It begs the question: "so what?". It isn’t necessarily easy or even possible to perceive all that is real.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Does that render all of those "real" things imperceptible to the senses unimportant or meaningless? Reason is certainly important. But aren’t there other important characteristics of humanity? Love, compassion, communication, understanding, cooperation, friendship, strength, energy, vitality, virility, intelligence, . . . intuition?
3. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The pursuit of his own self-interest is the highest moral purpose of his life. Ugh! Doesn’t sound particularly moral to me. I certainly prefer "do unto others as you would have others do unto you".
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
Man. This doesn’t sound like philosophy. It sounds like personal political preference. But then she also says:
For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called ‘hippies of the right,’ who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism.
Basically, . . . she sounds like an egomaniac. Sorry, Ayn. I'm sure I would like you as a person! (I like everybody . . . just about.) --jazz
How has a CvE thread devolved into a discussion of objectivisim? This is sad. (Someone on another thread said that this a Perot phrase - I'd never heard it before, but really like it!) BTW, you shouldn't buy #1. There is always room for error and reinterpretation.
Jazz, why is it that you don't blast the creationists when they trot out their many-times-rebutted "facts" about evolution?
LOL! Ed! Hey, good to see you! *not to be taken literally. (Of course I can't really see you.)*
Yeah, it is sad. But if every E vs. C thread played out exactly the same . . . well, that would be sad, too, wouldn't it? I guess it's a matter of the lesser of two sads!
Jazz, why is it that you don't blast the creationists when they trot out their many-times-rebutted "facts" about evolution?
Haven't I blasted a Creationist recently? *hiding behind corner with shotgun at the ready* "Oh, Daaaaaaaaataman! . . . Stiiiiiiiingray . . ."
Quite frankly, I don't have the energy, Ed. Those Fundamentalist-Creationists-types are tenacious critters! They'll write several BOOKS worth of rebuttal in the time it takes me to write my name! Besides, it's much more fun shootin' at the Darwinists. They aren't quite sure how to handle an agnostic. . . . especially one with a sense of humor! But, damn Ed: you worry me. I think you've got me figured out! I'll have to pick on Jenny some more: *still hiding behind corner* "Oh, Jehhhhhhhnnny! . . ."
<fondling an AK-47>... Hmmm. I have a sudden urge to take a little after-dinner stroll 'round the block. >:-D
Scratch that. Fondling one of those cool pepper spray squirt guns the Seattle police were using today.
Dang! You're one helluva fondler! A man has to be careful wandering these threads! ; >
Stingray, you really came up with a whopper this time: Objectivism is self-contradictory because we believe there's an objective reality!
Therefore, the very term "Objective Reality" implies that there is something against which it stands in opposition, something called "Subjective Reality." In so doing, the Objectivist establishes that that which is subjective is as real as that which is objective, since both are necessarily part of a broader reality. Reality is either objective or it is not, but if it is, there can be no such thing as the "subjective," or a "subjective reality," for if there were, that which is subjective - necessarily being a part of the same reality as the objective - is that which could be understood in the same way as that which is objective. This is because for the Objectivist, both the subjective and the objective exist solely in the material, that is to say, in reality.This passage just makes no sense. (And the ones you wrote after it aren't much better.) By your logic, the very term "truth" implies that there is something against which it stands in opposition, something called "false". In so doing, you establish that that which is false is as real as that which is true, since both are necessarily part of a broader reality. A statement is either true or it is not, but if it is, there can be no such thing as the "false", for if there were, that which is false - necessarily being a part of the same reality of the true - is that which could be understood in the same way as that which is true... etc.Either there are things in life we know as subjective, or there are not. And if there are not, then the Objectivist is left to explain how the things they call "subjective" are not also part of an "Objective Reality," or they are left defining the subjective out of existence. The former means that they either have to include the subjective as part of an "Objective Reality," which means they must assent to the possibility of the supernatural - something which is anathema to their self-professed "rational/materialist" world-view - or they must try to define out of existence that which they themselves allege to exist - the "subjective" - which is not rational.
-- Stingray, thread #2, post #124
See? It's just philobabble.
So anyway, you don't believe in the concept of an objective reality. OK, that leaves subjectivism. for your edification, here's some understandable sentences regarding what you apparently believe:
In metaphysics, "subjectivism" is the view that reality (the "object") is dependent on human consciousness (the "subject"). In epistemology, as a result, subjectivists hold that a man need not concern himself with the facts of reality; instead, to arrive at knowledge or truth, he need merely turn his attention inward, consulting the appropriate contents of consciousness, the ones with the power to make reality conform to their dictates. According to the most widespread form of subjectivism, the elements which possess this power are feelings.aHA! So now who's the Marxist-Nazi dupe, Stingray?In essence, subjectivism is the doctrine that feelings are the creator of facts, and therefore men's primary tool of cognition. If men feel it, declares the subjectivist, that makes it so.
The alternative to subjectivism is the advocacy of objectivity - an attitude which rests on the view that reality exists independent of human consciousness; that the role of the subject is not to create the object, but to perceive it; and that knowledge of reality can be acquired only by directing one's attention outward to the facts.
Objectivity, according to the Nazis, is a crime. It is the antonym of "instinct," and therefore a crime against the Fatherland. What Germany requires of its citizens, Hitler says repeatedly, and what Nazism offers is not dispassionate thought or even-handed judgement of fact, but unbridled nationalist emotion.... "As for me," states Goering, "I am subjective, I commit myself to my people and acknowledge nothing else on earth. I thank my Maker for having created me without what they call a 'sense of objectivity.'" "We are not objective," says Hans Schemm, the Nazi educator, "we are German."
... The theory of subjectivism ... did not achieve a successful sweep of the philosophic world until the appearance of the Critique of Pure Reason. "Things-in-themselves," said Kant, exist, but are unknowable; the world men perceive and deal with, the "phenomenal world," is a human creation, a product of fundamental mechanisms inherent in the structure of human consciousness. On this view, it is the essence of the subject to create the object; and objectivity, as defined above, is impossible to man. ...
There are two different kinds of subjectivism, distinguished by their answers to the question: whose consciousness creates reality? Kant rejected the older of these two, which was the view that each man's feelings create a private universe for him. Instead, Kant ushered in the era of social subjectivism - the view that it is not the consciousness of individuals, but of groups, that creates reality. In Kant's system, mankind as a whole is the decisive group; what creates the phenomenal world is not the idiosyncracies of particular individuals, but the mental structure common to all men.
Later philosophers accepted Kant's fundamental approach, but carried it a step further. If, many claimed, the mind's structure is a brute given, which cannot be explained - as Kant had said - then there is no reason why all men should have the same mental structure. There is no reason why mankind should not be splintered into competing groups, each defined by its own distinctive type of consciousness, each vying with the others to capture and control reality.
The first world movement thus to pluralize the Kantian position was Marxism, which propounded a social subjectivism in terms of competing economic classes. On this issue, as on many others, the Nazis follow the Marxists, but substitute race for class. (emphasis mine)
-- Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, p62
"This passage just makes no sense."
Wow. What a surprise, coming from you.
"So anyway, you don't believe in the concept of an objective reality."
I believe in that thing called "reality." I believe that reality necessarily encompasses that which is both subjective (thought, idea, that which can be known through faith, intuition, or revelation) and objective (that which can only be perceived by the senses and that which can be empirically ascertained.)
The very phrase "objective reality" limits the Objectivist concept of reality only to the latter. Yet, as I explained on the other thread, doing this means that the Objectivist cannot explain something as subjective as the mind without resorting to either a priori assumptions about its existence, or defining it out of existence because it cannot be quantified by any perceptory or empirical means. In the case of the former, you can only claim to know the mind exists because it exists, which is antithetical to the Objectivist view that reality can only be known through sensory perception and empiricism.
“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible)." -- Ayn Rand Institute
Reason, according to your own propaganda sheet, is only "reasonable" to the degree in which it can "identify and integrate the material provided by man's senses." Anything that cannot be "identified and integrated by man's senses" is therefore "not reasonable," hence it's "not real." I don't make this stuff up! It came off the ARI's web site!
So tell me, having never touched, smelled, seen, tasted, or heard your own brain, how do you know it exists? Because you've seen pictures of a brain? So what? I could show you a picture of a unicorn. Does that mean unicorns exist?
How do you know you have a mind? Have you ever weighed it? Smelled it? Tasted, touched, seen, heard, or boiled it down in a beaker? Show me the lab analysis of that which you call your "mind," and I'll be only too happy to believe that you have met the Objectivist standard for proving that you have one.
How do you account for reality that you cannot personally perceive? How would you know that Antarctica exists if you've never been there? How do you know I exist? All I am are pixels on a phosphorescent screen to you. How do you know I'm not an AI program running on your server designed to make you think you're debating a "real" person?
And how do you know any number beyond the number twenty exists beyond your ability to count your own fingers and toes? And isn't a number - like a photo - just a representation of a reality you've never personally perceived? How do you know such a thing as a billion of anything exists? Have you ever seen a billion of anything? Counted a billion of anything? Measured, weighed, held, touched, tasted, smelled or heard a billion of anything? How do you know a billion of anything exists, and is therefore a part of your "objective reality?"
"So anyway, you don't believe in the concept of an objective reality. OK, that leaves subjectivism. for your edification, here's some understandable sentences regarding what you apparently believe..."
No, I don't believe in reality the way you define it. And given the Objectivist way of defining it, neither do you, because it is impossible to know all that we know without taking some things on faith, or at least basing our personal knowledge, to a very large degree, on the collective minds and experiences of people we have never met, who themselves had to base their knowledge, to a very large degree, on the collective minds and experiences of people they had never met, and so on.
Objectivism, therefore, cannot possibly explain the existence of everything that's real without making faith-based assumptions about those parts of reality the Objectivist cannot personally measure or perceive. The only other option left open to the Objectivist is to dismiss those parts of reality that cannot be explained by the Objectivist. And once you start down that path, then the very process of deciding what's real becomes an entirely subjective process, wherein the Objectivist is left creating his or her own reality. In either case, by the Objectivist's own definition, the Objectivist doesn't exist. Objectivism is relegated to the same status as any other "idea," (like a unicorn) existing not in reality but solely in your head. And since it is a subjective idea, why should it necessarily be the only one everyone believes? Because it's "rational?" Hehehe...
"aHA! So now who's the Marxist-Nazi dupe, Stingray?"
I could see why you would conclude that given the fact that you had to misrepresent what I wrote and believed to arrive at such a conclusion. How "objective" of you. But thanks for proving that even an "objectivist" is not beyond "subjecting" reality to suit his or her own purpose. I guess it all depends on what "is" is for you, doesn't it?
Later...(much.)
A philosophical bump for you...
Regarding Rand's summary of her philosophy (and it's only a summary), you say: The comment: "If you believe in God then you don’t believe in Life" is harsh, cold, and not "reason"able.
But then to Rand's statement: 1. Reality exists as an objective absolute — facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. you say this:
I think I buy this. It begs the question: "so what?". It isn’t necessarily easy or even possible to perceive all that is real.
I could respond by saying that if reality is all there is, as you seem to agree, then ... where's heaven, where's hell, where are the angels, where is god? And you can respond: "Oh but they exist. I believe they exist. I hope they exist. I want them to exist." And then I just ask you to read Rand's statment again. And once again, if necessary. This seems easy on the surface, but it's really not. Philosophy, done properly, is difficult stuff. And it's very important too.
I'm not going to be able to teach you all of philosophy in a couple of posts. And I can't teach all of Rand's philosophy here either. Her books do that. You really need to dig into the stuff to know why she says what she ends up saying, and only then can you say whether it's reasonable or not. It may, upon first contact, strike you as cold and doctrinaire, but so does 2 + 2 = 4. Very cold. No feelings. No compassion. But it's quite correct, and there are no compromises. That's the way she is. And if you really study her stuff, you might come away convinced.
"Reality exists as an objective absolute."
Define "reality." Define "exists." Define "objective." Define "absolute." Or are you afraid to define your terms?
Rand says: "Reality exists as an objective absolute."
Stingray responds with this: Define "reality." Define "exists." Define "objective." Define "absolute." Or are you afraid to define your terms?
I'm not afraid, Stingray, just weary from reading your posts. I suppose that all those words really are new to you, and after reading through your posts, I'm quite certain that you don't know what any of those words mean. Indeed, I'm certain that you feel they mean whatever you wish them to mean. I regard your response as a serious cry for help; and I think I can help you.
Visit the Rand website. The link is at the beginning of this thread. Buy some of the books, or the tape courses. Join a study group if you can find one near you. And after a while -- it will take time and sincere effort -- you will learn what these things mean. And you will be better prepared to discuss all these issues. You have potential, and it is a great waste if you don't use it. I wish you well.
"I'm not going to be able to teach you all of philosophy in a couple of posts."
Presumes that you are able to teach "all of philosophy" in any number of posts. To believe that, you must either be a genius the likes of which the world has never seen, or your ego is writing checks that your as...er..."brain" can't cover.
"You really need to dig into the stuff to know why she says what she ends up saying, and only then can you say whether it's reasonable or not."
Why does anyone need to dig up a grave to know that a rotting corpse stinks?
"It may, upon first contact, strike you as cold and doctrinaire, but so does 2 + 2 = 4. Very cold. No feelings. No compassion. But it's quite correct, and there are no compromises. That's the way she is."
Presumes that whatever Ayn Rand wrote is as universally true as 2 + 2 = 4. While this is absurd on its face, I suspect that what we are dealing with in you is not a rational man but a "Randian cultist." The following proves it:
"And if you really study her stuff, you might come away convinced."
Proselytizing. Not much differnce here between you and a JW. JW's worship Jehovah. PatrickHenry worships Rand, and wants everyone to come away from her works convinced of one, immutable truth: 2 + 2 = Rand.
Thanks for telling us all where you, jennyp, garbanzo, and all the other "Randian Cultists" are coming from on these threads. :)
"I suppose that all those words really are new to you, and after reading through your posts, I'm quite certain that you don't know what any of those words mean. Indeed, I'm certain that you feel they mean whatever you wish them to mean."
Interesting position you've taken, after having written this on the last thread:
Aristotle says we need do get our definitions clear, or else we're just not communicating.
I defined those terms. You didn't agree with my definitions. You have not defined those terms in any way, shape or form except to appeal to Rand.
"Miss Rand was very adept at defining her terms."
Rand is not writing your posts, you are. You, who would presume to know so much about "all of philosophy" that you would presume to teach it, ought to have no problem defining any philosophical terms. So define them. Show us how smart you are.
"So if someone is going to attack her philosophical system which she called Objectivism, it is essential to use her definition, and not something pulled out of a dictionary (the compilers of which make no reference to Rand)."
So Darwin doesn't matter to evolution. It's the data that matters. But Rand matters to Objectivism because...?
Because it's a philosophy based on a subjective set of beliefs set forth by a person in whom you happen to believe and with whom you happen to agree?
Funny...Sounds strangely like the justification one might expect to hear offered by any number of adherents to any number of different religious systems.
The really tragic thing is that I don't waste as much of my time talking to JW's who come knocking on my door as I have writing to you.
Talk about weary!
After being in these threads, it's easy for me to see why I like numbers so much better than words!
2=2=2=2=2=2=forever!
Reality=? (Evidently whatever you want!)
A few minutes go by, when an entering customer inquires loudly, "Whose white horse is that outside?"
LR says, "It's mine. Why?"
The man says, "It's awful hot! Ya better do somethin' to cool him down."
LR thinks about it a minute, then says to Tonto: "Go outside and run circles around Silver. That'll make a nice cool breeze for him."
Tonto, faithful as always, does as the LR says.
A few more minutes go by, when another entering customer inquires loudly, "Whose white horse is that outside?"
"It's mine. Why?", LR replies.
"Ya left yur injin runnin'............"
"Ya left yur injin runnin'............"
As an American Indian (Native American) and a member of the Chippewa Nation, I find your joke both ill-suited for this thread, and insulting. And though I am not one to deny you the right to say or write whatever you think, I would certainly like to believe - as a rational person - you are capable of thinking before you write.
Or perhaps I assume too much in calling you "rational?"
good one :-)
You suppose the "Masked Man" wore a mask because he was ashamed to be seen with an Indian? :)
"So anyway, you don't believe in the concept of an objective reality. OK, that leaves subjectivism."
Is it necessary to "pick one"?
"The alternative to subjectivism is the advocacy of objectivity."
This either/or black/white thinking is peculiarly Western, and yields lots of false dichotomies. For example: Darwinism or Young Earth Creationism.
Haven't I blasted a Creationist recently? *hiding behind corner with shotgun at the ready* "Oh, Daaaaaaaaataman! . . . Stiiiiiiiingray . . ."
The quality of these threads has taken quite a slide. You're right about the predictability, especially with a couple (VR & PH). I'm glad you still have your sense of humor. I ran across this and it reminded me of dear old PH.
"How do you know you have a mind? Have you ever weighed it? Smelled it? Tasted, touched, seen, heard, or boiled it down in a beaker? Show me the lab analysis of that which you call your "mind," and I'll be only too happy to believe that you have met the Objectivist standard for proving that you have one."
Sometimes you frighten me, Stingray.
And here's one for Vade Retro (Fits: Retro):
"'Reality exists as an objective absolute.'
Define 'reality.' Define 'exists.' Define 'objective.' Define 'absolute.'"
Sometimes you frighten me, Stingray. But it is a pleasant fright. And sometimes I think these people don't have a clue.
"Sometimes you frighten me, Stingray."
In a good way, hopefully. :)
Later...
I don't want you to feel slighted, garbanzo, so I dedicate this one to you:
Do you guys have a sense of humor? Funny. I thought you did (Swaggart & Bakker stuff).
How do you know you have a mind?
I think it's a legitimate question given the ravings of some on the other side.
You're killing me with those pics!!! They're great!!! I'm going to print them up and take them to work! Thanks...
I won't assign this one to any particular evolutionist.
"As an American Indian (Native American) and a member of the Chippewa Nation...."
I "feel" my leg being ever so lightly ..... pulled. But maybe I'm imagining things.
The despair.com "Futility" pic is classic. Love your stuff, Dataman.
So you found my ball. I knew I hit that one a ton!
The bad news, of course, is I was putting for par at the time.
The bad news, of course, is I was putting for par at the time.
The ultimate sand trap. Just the picture alone without the words is great.
Haven't I blasted a Creationist recently? Quite frankly, I don't have the energy, Ed. Those Fundamentalist-Creationists-types are tenacious critters!
I haven't been following lately - tuned in when I saw your name. I also find it takes too much energy. They know the truth and don't let any facts intrude. It's like arguing with those nutcase anti-NWO types. I heard a couple of the Medved show yesterday. They talk fast and spout "facts" that are completely wrong. By the time you've shown one to be false, they've shot off ten more.
As for picking on the Darwinists, you have a point. Too often they exude an aura of superiority that's fun to prick. Besides, science becomes stronger when challenged. When you stop being skeptical of your own ideas, you're setting yourself up for a fall. As Feynman said, you're the easiest one for you to fool.
BTW, I just finished reading Cradle of Life by Schopf. (It's where I read that Feynman quote, which I hadn't heard before.) Really a great book by a working scientist. You'll enjoy it. Maybe if enough read it, we could have a thread.
Post # 20
Thanks for the bump
I think this is exactly what Garbanzo is trying to sell.
The final judge of moral action is objective reality.
In other words, objective reality is the judge of moral action. He attempts to remove the individual from the decision process. But to judge means: to form an opinion about. In takes an individual to form an opinion and opinions are subjective.
So, the final opinion "subjective reality" of moral actions is determined through objective reality. I find this an extraordinary contradiction. He can't have it both ways.
Either there is an absolute moral law irregardless of individual opinion, or the individual gets to make it up as they go along.
bump
I "feel" my leg being ever so lightly ..... pulled. But maybe I'm imagining things.
Can't be imagining things because it is not objectively real.
But, if it isn't objectively real then how can I imagine it?
But, if I'm imagining it, how can it not be objectively real?
But, if it isn't objectively real then how can I imagine it?
But, if I'm imagining it, how can it not be objectively real?
I keep running around in a circle, I've got to stoppp, too dizzzzy.
You creationoids should be thrilled about this story. It means you're not alone.
Doomsday group lives in Bible days, awaiting endMOUNT GERIZIM, West Bank (Reuters) - In their handmade linen robes, sandals and cloth head-dresses, the White family look like extras on the set of a film about the Bible.
But the family of seven from Detroit, Michigan, are living the Bible days for real in the Promised Land getting ready for what they hope and pray will be the end of the world.
"We're on a pilgrimage out of Babylon," said the mother of the family, Ader, 39. "I believe the millennium is Judgment Day and we are going to be judged."
"We just wait. And if we die waiting, fair enough," said John Kohath, a 74-year-old retired maintenance worker from Guildford, England, with a flowing white beard and a belief that the end might almost be nigh.
By their estimate, based on what they say is a corrected reading of the Hebrew calendar, the year is now 6000 and the end will come when the lost biblical Ark of the Covenant reappears at the dawn of 6001 sometime next spring.
"We're convinced it is in Jerusalem in a cave in the Old City. My husband has been there. He knows," said Ader. "The millennium of Yehoah (God) starts this March or April. It depends on the first new moon after the vernal equinox."
There's more of this. If you want the whole article, CLICK HERE.
The article doesn't say, but I'm quite prepared to make a large wager that these folks don't believe in evolution either. So, creationoids, what are you waiting for? Head over to Israel and join your co-kooks.
#50.........
Hey Pat! What did those Angels Gate folks believe in?
I'm sorry. It was surely not my intent to offend you. Or anyone else for that matter. I was merely keying off of another post that mentioned the Lone Ranger on the earlier thread.
After all of the vitrol that flies back and forth here, I thought that this would LIGHTEN things a bit; not make it worse.
I, too, am a Native American. My ancestors didn't come here quite as long ago as yours did, but I was born here in this country. The state of INDIANa; the city of INDIANapolis. I've posted in other places about the things OUR government has done to your people by breaking 99% of the treaties (laws) that they've written. My heart goes out to anyone who gets stomped on by the do-gooders; either in Washington, or in Window Rock.
At least (I think) that in this thread, we agree that our government has gotten out of hand with EVERYONE these days and we wish we knew how to get some sembelence(SP?) of intelligence back into our leaders.
Hey Pat! What did those Angels Gate folks believe in?
Heaven's Gate, I think you mean. As to their beliefs, it's fair to say that they wouldn't agree with Rand's thinking about reality. And that ought to make creationoids uncomfortable. Here's an actual cut-n-paste paragraph from their website, which I downloaded when they were