Religion and Reality

[Darkdale]

One of the more dangerous aspects of religion is its’ potential to deviate from reality, to remove the boundaries of reason and to whittle away out our perspective. If our superstitions contradict a known reality (knowledge), then it is a bad superstition. Religion deals with tradition and with the unknown, which means that we spend a lot of time talking about and debating things over which we have no objective verification. Is this a weakness or a flaw?

The solution to this quandary, I believe, is objectivism and an accurate perspective with regard to our superstition. We must learn to allow our faith to exist in that dubious gray area of our reason. It does us no good to build worldviews upon unknowns. Our gods and our religious ideals must represent, philosophically and/or metaphorically, our epistemological foundations. Otherwise, all we are doing is engaging in make-believe.

 

[Popeyesays]

One of the more dangerous aspects of religion is its’ potential to deviate from reality, to remove the boundaries of reason and to whittle away out our perspective. If our superstitions contradict a known reality (knowledge), then it is a bad superstition. Religion deals with tradition and with the unknown, which means that we spend a lot of time talking about and debating things over which we have no objective verification. Is this a weakness or a flaw?

The solution to this quandary, I believe, is objectivism and an accurate perspective with regard to our superstition. We must learn to allow our faith to exist in that dubious gray area of our reason. It does us no good to build worldviews upon unknowns. Our gods and our religious ideals must represent, philosophically and/or metaphorically, our epistemological foundations. Otherwise, all we are doing is engaging in make-believe.

D'Dale,

I tend to agree with you almost entirely. From my own religion we are taught that rationality and reason are the gift of God.

"Until now it has been said that all religions were composed of tenets that had to be accepted, even if they seems contrary to science. Thanks be to God, that in this new cycle the admonition of Baha`u'llah is that in the search for truth man must weigh religious questions in the balance of science and reason. God has given us rational minds for this purpose, to penetrate all things, to find truth. If one renounce reason, what remains? The sacred texts? How can we understand God's commands and to what use can we put them without the balance of reason?
(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 102)

Regards,
Scott

 

[Radar]

I agree with you dale and I believe that the religious engage in their own make beliefs trying to rationalise the irrational and some would like to force their fairy tales on the rest of us.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The solution to this quandary, I believe, is objectivism and an accurate perspective with regard to our superstition.

Objectivism is naturalism brought to the defense of egoism and laissez-faire capitalism. I consider that an abuse.

 

[michel]

Objectivism is naturalism brought to the defense of egoism and laissez-faire capitalism. I consider that an abuse.

I'm sorry Jay, I have tread that three times and I still don't understand the point you are making. Could you explain what you mean in words I can manage ?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm sorry Jay, I have tread that three times and I still don't understand the point you are making. Could you explain what you mean in words I can manage ?

Possibly not.

 

[michel]

Possibly not.

Well, in that case I will not be able to understand how you consider Darkdale's comment to be an insult to you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, in that case I will not be able to understand how you consider Darkdale's comment to be an insult to you.

I did not say that objectivism is an insult to me but, rather, that Rand's objectivism is an abuse of naturalism.

 

[michel]

I did not say that objectivism is an insult to me but, rather, that Rand's objectivism is an abuse of naturalism.

Ah, I think I understand you now; I take it you don't 'like' 3 &4

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
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.
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.
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.

Copyright ã 1962 by Times-Mirror Co.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In my opinion Objectivism perverts Naturalism in defense of the worst manifestations of egocentrism much as Social Darwinism perverts Evolution in defense of the worst manifestations of ethnocentrism.

 

[Quiddity]

Neutral propositions independent of propositional acts are but dreamy and ignoring the subjectivism we all dwell in on a daily basis.

~Victor

 

[WeAreAllOne]

Just keep in mind we did think the Earth was flat once.

 

[ChrisP]

Neutral propositions independent of propositional acts are but dreamy and ignoring the subjectivism we all dwell in on a daily basis.

~Victor

I agree Vic. Is objectivity any use in a world of 6 billion subjective "realities"? How can we be sure a fact is objective? Because more than 5 or 6 people have been persuaded said fact is true?