Ayn Rand and the Intellectuals

Sierra Times ^ | 5/1/03 | Ray Thomas

[Diamond]

I reasoned that the existence of God is not possible when I was a teenager. Nothing has changed my understanding of this in fifty years.

And in your reasoning you must have come to the logical conclusion that you were (at least as a teenager) omniscient. Just like my teenagers.

Cordially,

[Misterioso]

No. I reasoned that omniscience was impossible. Just like omnipotence. I'm sure that's what you were able to demonstrate for your children.

[exmarine]

Is it your opinion, then, that an atheist or an agnostic does not know the difference between right and wrong? That, by definition, they are amoral? Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

Obviously, I am saying that atheists claim there are no universal standards for right and wrong, which, by process of elimination, would make morals relative to man's preferences, in which case morals are reduced to personal tastes, and there is no right and wrong. Right and wrong are words that refer to a standard. What is the standard in atheism? The individual? The community? The culture? The government? Those are the only choices you have, but in each case, the standard would be man-made, therefore not universal, not authoritative, and containing no force. If you say morals are decided by the culture - which culture? Are all cultures their own moral authority. Here is a true statement: If there is no moral authority above society, then society becomes absolute.

[r9etb]

Is it your opinion, then, that an atheist or an agnostic does not know the difference between right and wrong? That, by definition, they are amoral? Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

I don't have any problem with the idea that a self-professed atheist or agnostic can tell right from wrong. A religious type will tell you that knowledge of "right" and "wrong" are written on our hearts, and that we therefore know the difference, even if we (fallen as we are) actually behave wrongly.

The question is, rather, do atheists and agnostics have any rational excuse for their opinions concerning right and wrong?

For example, if an atheist tells me something is "wrong," do I have to believe him? Note that the atheist must appeal to transcendant concepts to tell me that murder is wrong, as opposed to a merely sub-optimal choice. It seems to me that the fundamental precept of atheism precludes appeals to transcendent moral concepts.

As for an agnostic, when he tells me that something is "wrong", he's either going to have to justify his claims from the atheistic position (which won't work), or from a theistic position (about which he claims to know nothing).

There's no middle ground for the agnostic, since appeals to pragmatism don't work either -- pragmatism is an optimization approach, which is primarily based on answering the question, "what can I get away with?"

[stuartcr]

Even though we see Him differently, there is only one God. He just made us different.

[stuartcr]

I'm not familiar with the beliefs of atheists. The definition I have says that they do not believe in God. I made one comment about animals and their grieving, (something that has been on the animal channel a number of times, and that I have personally observed in a couple of my pets)for dead babies or mates, and you go off on my comparing humans to animals...why? I really don't care what you believe about me, I was just asking how you came up with the thought that I was an atheist.

[stuartcr]

I don't believe in hell. Since we are all human, I have no problem measuring things on a human scale based on the results of this life.

[r9etb]

I don't believe in hell. Since we are all human, I have no problem measuring things on a human scale based on the results of this life.

According to your profile, you "hope there is an afterlife."

If there is an afterlife and no hell, then pretty much anything goes here on Earth -- it all boils down to whatever you can get away with. And if there is no afterlife, then it still boils down whatever you can get away with.

Either way, you have nothing on which to base a judgement of right vs. wrong.

[exmarine]

I'm not familiar with the beliefs of atheists.

As I pointed out, many of your beliefs are consistent with those of an atheist, so why should I not believe you are an atheist. Do you have a belief that would indicate otherwise?

[exmarine]

Even though we see Him differently, there is only one God. He just made us different.

Your God must be a very small god (small g) - kind of like the greek gods - indifferent, distant, not big enough to support moral absolutes and allows humans to do whatever they want. This is a god of your own imagination, isn't it? He certainly isn't the God of the bible who is very very big - an infinite-personal God who spun the galaxies into their orbits, who created mankind in His image, who delights in having a personal relationship with puny little ole me, and whose character and goodness fill the entire universe. Just what is your god good for?

[stuartcr]

Yes I do hope for an afterlife, what it could possibly be, I have no idea...I don't even know if I could comprehend it in this life.

I agree with your second paragraph.

My basis for judging a right or wrong, obviously comes from God. This does not mean that it is an absolute, it means that people are different. There are good people, and there are bad people. This is obvious by observing human behavior.

[stuartcr]

Just a belief in one, all-powerful God, creator of all...but please don't ask me why, because I cannot, and feel no need to, substantiate my belief. Feel free to think anything you want.

[stuartcr]

I never said anything about the bible, other than I don't believe that it is the inerrant word of God. I would not assume to judge what God is good for...I am just thankful for my life, and everything that He has provided for us.

[Diamond]

No. I reasoned that omniscience was impossible

How could you, a finite being, know with any certainty that either the existence of God is impossible or that omniscience is impossible?

Cordially,

[unspun]

What isf those doing it, did not believe, or had no reference to believe, that it was evil? Would it have been more or less evil to not raid the neighboring cattle, thus putting your own tribe in jeopardy?

Well, they would be doing evil if they were not compelled by righteous reasons. There is an innate sense that we people have about such things. That doesn't mean it's 100% accurate, but it is there. There are many who will testify to this, including those in primitive, tibal communities, especially those who have learned something better and have been able to express what occured in their consciences during their darker days.

[unspun]

Diamond, what was that thread that you referred to me a week or so ago? (Please don't look it up, if it doesn't come trippingly off the fingertips.) Just hadn't gotten to it.

Eccl. 12:11-12

[stuartcr]

I guess it wouldn't be so righteous if you were the being raided or killed.

[Diamond]

I can't remember what I did 5 minutes ago, much less a week;^)

Cordially,

[Diamond]

oops. That previous link doesn't work.

Cordially,

[stuartcr]

make that...'I guess it wouldn't be so righteous if you were the tribe being raided or killed'