tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post430245818713996237..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Objectivism & Religion, Part 12Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-61947244969149954692008-06-10T01:00:00.000-07:002008-06-10T01:00:00.000-07:00As an agnostic close to what you're talking about,...As an agnostic close to what you're talking about, I think, let me try to sum up my position. I don't think it'll do any better here than elsewhere, but I'll try it anyway.<BR/> <BR/>I'm a pagan. I believe there are gods, spirits, what have you. Why do I believe this? Did somebody tell me, and I accepted their telling as truth? No. Did I read it in a book somewhere and assume the book was true? Again, no. I believe it quite simply because of experience. I have tried things suggested, and they have led me to the things they were supposed to, i.e. they produced the results claimed. I'm not talking levitation or other whackiness, please give me some credit for being a bit more serious than that about my religious convictions.<BR/> <BR/>Suppose I read or am told that ritual X does thing Y, be it an internal change, something external, communication with a god, whatever, it doesn't actually matter. I do ritual X, and Y happens. Yes, I've heard all the reasons. Coincidence, hallucinations, etc. But let me offer just one example of why I think that's not necessarily a valid argument. People like to say you're hallucinating or experiencing some sort of abnormal brain state or such if you claim to communicate with a god, let's say. Let me ask you something. Where else does this claim come up? Counter with, "a bunch of people claimed to have experienced this" and you get "oh, mass hallucination". Again, where does this come up outside of arguments against religious experiences? What's the mechanism for said mass hallucination? I've yet to hear any real explanation.<BR/> <BR/>Anyway, my point here is not to get into a debate about religious experience, whetherit does or doesn't exist and so on. What the previous paragraphs attempt to do is briefly sketch the reasons I feel the way I do, and the fact that I have indeed thought deeply about it, I am not just blindly accepting it but attempting to deal with the philosophical arguments behind it. This out of the way, let us finally turn to the question of agnosticism.<BR/> <BR/>I say I am an agnostic. Bit wait, didn't I just say I was a pagan and believed in spirits and such? Yep, I sure did. However, I also realize two things. One is that I do not have irrefutable proof, and the other is that since I do not have that, evidence may be found that conclusively proves I am wrong. But I do not ask anybody to prove a negative or convert or what have you. To my mind if you haven't had an experience, I don't see what you're doing having a religion in thefirst place. Well, you could be working towards it, e.g. you may be practicing Buddhist meditation and be new at it, thus having no experience. But I think eventually, and this eventually is different for all, if you're not having an experience, you're not getting anything out of it, well I don't see why you'd keep doing it.<BR/> <BR/>Anyway, regardless of how any of you feel about my depth of thought or rigor of inquiry or whatever we might name, I hope I have demonstrated the following. 1. Some of us who claim to be agnostics aren't anything like what Peikoff is talking about. 2. You might be mischaracterizing agnosticism when you claim it's a politically correct shield. 3. Yes, some of us really are trying to confront the philosophical issues involved with the questions under consideration.khomushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16300367810603232592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-55541776671976538512008-06-07T19:31:00.000-07:002008-06-07T19:31:00.000-07:00Perhaps in some cases the motivation is not so muc...<I>Perhaps in some cases the motivation is not so much to evade deep thinking as it is to avoid useless and acrimonious discussion.</I><BR/><BR/>Is avoiding useless, acrimonious discussion a good reason to straddle the fence? I'm an atheist, and I don't waste time trying to convince religious people. They're True Believers, so it's a waste of time.<BR/><BR/>Many religious people take the same approach with atheists.JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-84521796928014554872008-06-07T16:27:00.000-07:002008-06-07T16:27:00.000-07:00Strange as it may seem, I'm also with Peikoff in t...Strange as it may seem, I'm also with Peikoff in this regard. The religious agnostic today is not just stating that no certainty is possible (in that sense every scientist would be an agnostic), but he is avoiding a controversial viewpoint about religion, there is something weasely in that attitude. There is a time to say outright that something doesn't exist, even if we never can claim <I>complete</I> certainty. Would those religious agnostics also be agnostic with regard to the existence of Zeus, Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I doubt it, as these entities are not controversial today and therefore they wouldn't hesitate to relegate them to the realm of fantasy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6317678330195900402008-06-07T13:37:00.000-07:002008-06-07T13:37:00.000-07:00Jay: "Unfortunately, the agnostics I've yet don't ...Jay: "Unfortunately, the agnostics I've yet don't really fit that mold. Instead, they seem much like Peikoff alluded to: using agnosticism as a politically correct 'shield' to protect themselves from any real, deep thinking about life's big questions."<BR/><BR/>So what if people are trying to "evade" real, deep thinking. Maybe they are incapable of deep thinking. In that case, they are probably better off evading it. <BR/><BR/>There is another side to this issue as well. Perhaps in some cases the motivation is not so much to evade deep thinking as it is to avoid useless and acrimonious discussion. People nowadays are so thin-skinned about disagreements, that it's often better to presume a wishy-washy form of agnosticism to avoid futile rancor. I'm in complete sympathy with H.L. Mencken who, whenever he received a letter challenging or criticizing his writings from someone who was obviously in over his head, would reply: "You are probably right."gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-47230753180434021712008-06-06T22:56:00.000-07:002008-06-06T22:56:00.000-07:00Greetings young Meg,I am on Sabbatical from the Dr...Greetings young Meg,<BR/><BR/>I am on Sabbatical from the Dreaded ARCHNblog whilst I work on my new business launch. Probably for another month or so, so my interest in things Randian is on hold till then. Still drop in on your site occasionally tho...;-)Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-25244084766330553922008-06-06T20:32:00.000-07:002008-06-06T20:32:00.000-07:00>> as a politically correct "shield" to protect th...>> as a politically correct "shield" to protect themselves from any real, deep thinking about life's big questions.<BR/><BR/>It's like they fear having a perspective or a conviction, but they try to make it seem as if they are intellectually rigurous instead. <BR/><BR/>Although I am more of a weak atheist, I agree with Peikoff on this one, and so with many critics of agnosticism.quark schizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02239572138808437670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-26930939801257556502008-06-06T18:32:00.000-07:002008-06-06T18:32:00.000-07:00hey guys,what's up??- meghey guys,<BR/>what's up??<BR/>- megAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-66853095023485233822008-06-06T10:37:00.000-07:002008-06-06T10:37:00.000-07:00All Huxley’s agnosticism is trying to insist upon ...<I>All Huxley’s agnosticism is trying to insist upon is to keep the mind open, keep the path to inquiry clear.</I><BR/><BR/>That's good advice. Unfortunately, the agnostics I've yet don't really fit that mold. Instead, they seem much like Peikoff alluded to: using agnosticism as a politically correct "shield" to protect themselves from any real, deep thinking about life's big questions.JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.com