When it comes to morality, one religion's "morality" is another religion's "immorality."

Thinktwice

[thinktwice]

When it comes to morality, one religion's "morality" is another religion's "immorality."

And that contradiction is evidence of serious flaws in religious moralities.

For me, a rational ethics -- free from religion -- is the only ethics worthy of carrying the name "moral."

Aristotle produced a simplistic rational ethics based on virtues visible in respected people, and vices visible in non-respected humans. And teaching Aristotle's non-denominational ethics in public schools would be a great idea, but ... We'd be turning out individuals with the same moral upbringing of Alexander the Great, and that wouldn't do in a socialistic world.

Even better is Ayn Rand's ethics. Her's is an ethics metaphysically based in reality and epistemologically based in reason; making it a clear and concise rational ethics that makes sense. Ayn Rand's ethics is clearly also what America's founding fathers had in mind when writing the founding documents that recognized and moved to preserve individual freedom -- the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

[yendu bwam]

When we have eliminated all contradictions and fallacies from a line of reasoning, how can we be certain that we will have arrived at the truth? And if we can't be certain of this, then how can we be certain that reason will lead us to the truth?

Bingo. Thinktwice, for your own adventure on the way to truth, you need to think about this.

[yendu bwam]

Based on that empirical data, I'd guess that there are far more Rand fans out there than Rand haters; but the saddest fact is (for those interested readers) that Ayn Rand is hated virulently -- as was Mark Twain -- by religious folks committed to altruism and claiming to preach love.

First, based on the empirical data, the more correct statement would be that there are more who read Rand than who read "The Ayn Rand Cult." Why do you believe that those who read the Ayn Rand cult are 'haters?' Why do you assume all those who read that book are religious folks? Many millions of people read Marx as well in the great and glorious Marxist/Leninist movement (that left the world far more injured than not). The basic premise of Rand's work - that morality may be derived from reason - is incorrect.

[yendu bwam]

And I have noticed that you have ceased responding to most of the points or questions I have raised in recent posts.

You are not alone in noticing such.

[yendu bwam]

If my God does exist, then my "mystical" basis is in fact the reality basis, while any materialistic basis is in fact the wrong basis.

Thinktwice - Most people in this world intuit or infer the existence of God. You cannot disprove His existence. Therefore, you must accept the possibility that He exists.

[yendu bwam]

Killing off millions of people is not the result of a rational ethics, it is the result of the ethics of altruism -- the ethics of communism, socialism and Christianlty; where self-sacrifice is not optionsl to the individual, but mandatory. Tithing is a minor example. And those Russian/Nazi massacres you mention are the product of altruism, too -- massacres that were "justified" (in Stalin and Hitler like minds) for the good of the state. Checking one's premises can lead to startling observations.

You've got it bass-ackwards, thinktwice. Marxism, and the resulting Leninism and Stalinism, was based on a 'morality,' in which certain things (collectivized farming and wiping religion from the face of the Earth, as examples) were believed to be 'good' and certain 'bad.' In fact, these 'good' Leninist notions were considered to be far more good than not committing murder. As a result, very intense reason was brought to bear in carrying out Marixist morality. You use the word altruism to mean doing anything someone claims to be good for others (by any morality). Thus, because Marxism intended to improve the world, you are able to label 'altruistic' the massacre of millions. You think that Ayn Rand's ideas are good for the world. Thus, her ideas must be 'altruistic' by your reasoning. Well, that's semantics at that point. The primary difference (besides the fundamental one about the belief in God) between Christianity and Leninism is this: Leninism used its morality (its idea of what is good and bad) and rationality to attempt to improve the world by brute force, the individual be damned (or murdered). Christianity posits a very definite morality (from God), and expects each person to strive to achieve to live life according to that morality. The secondary effect of that would be a wildly better and more loving society - but not brought about by force.

[yendu bwam]

Part of Ayn Rand's brilliance is that she continually checked her premises. In so doing, she used her mind to check on her mental processes, a self-exam far superior to Christians checking their consciences over adherence to things like man-made religious rules. Checking her premises was also a habit that resulted in her writing with incredible clarity -- always.

You are describing an impossible computer loop - where a computer thinking about its thinking discovers truth. In your worldview, a computer could develop 'morality.' Rand is exactly the same. She purports to develop morality through reason, but actually uses her underlying morality and reason to come up with a more defined version of her underlying morality. Her primary claim is bogus.

[yendu bwam]

Actually, Rand thinks she is the computer thinking about her thoughts, and by being such, has discovered truth. If such is true, it will only be some time before computers thinking about their thoughts come up with exactly the same ethics as Rand. I'm waiting...

[thinktwice]

You use the word altruism to mean doing anything someone claims to be good for others (by any morality).

Speaking for myself, I use the word altruism to identify the ethics of sacrifice within Marxism, Naziism, Fascism, Socialism, and Christianism; and ... altruism is in fact the ethical bond those isms share.

The evil element in altruism is the mandatory self sacrifice demanded from individuals within Marxist, Nazi, Fascist, Socialist and Christian circles.

There is nothing immoral in voluntary self sacrifice, the insidious evil wrapped in altruism comes when nations, states and churches demand "sacrifice" from individuals.

[thinktwice]

When we have eliminated all contradictions and fallacies from a line of reasoning, how can we be certain that we will have arrived at the truth? And if we can't be certain of this, then how can we be certain that reason will lead us to the truth?

If we can't be certain of anything, how can you be certain in your faith?

In a rational world, humans make mistakes and contradictions happen; and man's progress toward "truth" requires the answering of contradictions -- the result being revised truth awaiting further contradiction.

When it settles, truth remains. That's the rational way. That's how knowledge is gained. That's why we have libraries containing books stuffed with recorded advances in knowledge. And that, is the essence of real-world epistemology.

In contrast, mystical, matter of faith contradictions are beyond reason -- there is no way they can be rationally assessed. Instead, it is reason itself that must suffer in defense of faith.

[yendu bwam]

If we can't be certain of anything, how can you be certain in your faith? In a rational world, humans make mistakes and contradictions happen; and man's progress toward "truth" requires the answering of contradictions -- the result being revised truth awaiting further contradiction. When it settles, truth remains. That's the rational way. That's how knowledge is gained. That's why we have libraries containing books stuffed with recorded advances in knowledge. And that, is the essence of real-world epistemology. In contrast, mystical, matter of faith contradictions are beyond reason -- there is no way they can be rationally assessed. Instead, it is reason itself that must suffer in defense of faith.

Hey thinktwice, good questions! First, one cannot be certain of one's faith (which is why we use the word faith), since one may not prove the existence of God. However, the vast, vast majority of people in the world infer or intuit the existence of God, from many lines of evidence. And in a rational world (which this is not always), man does indeed resolve contradictions through reason (including in religious faiths). But what does he resolve contradictions in? There must be something (truth, and particularly moral truth) behind the raw material to which we apply reason. Rand HAD to have started with some notion of good and bad before she applied reason to produce her rational ethics (she might think 'freedom' is good, or bodily integrity is good, or non-interference in our personal affairs is good, or whatever). But those notions did not come from reason. More often than not, such notions are actually things we want. In the case of the major religions, such as Christianity, some of these things are such that we do not always want - hence one of the powerful needs for the religion. Libraries full of practical knoweldge (quark theory, medical information, how ant farms work, etc. etc.) do not have anything to do with deciding what is good and bad. (Yes, medicine can prolong your life. If you say that's good, you believe that prolonging life is good. The latter is not something derivable from reason.) Again, matter of faith beliefs can be contradictory, and need to be sorted out by reason. But there, one is applying reason to an existing morality which may have some wrinkles in it (though Christianity, as understood by most in this world, is remarkably self-consistent and free of such wrinkles). On your last statement, it's true in some sense that reason may suffer in the defense of faith. That is by far mostly the result of people trying to justify anything by their faiths - and often promoting actions which are blatantly immoral as per their faiths. If an axe-murderer commits his awful deeds in the name of Jesus Christ, that does not mean that Christianity or Christ himself would have condoned such actions.

[yendu bwam]

Speaking for myself, I use the word altruism to identify the ethics of sacrifice within Marxism, Naziism, Fascism, Socialism, and Christianism; and ... altruism is in fact the ethical bond those isms share.

Does not Rand think the world would be better off (i.e., people would be happier) through her 'rational ethics.'

[yendu bwam]

The evil element in altruism is the mandatory self sacrifice demanded from individuals within Marxist, Nazi, Fascist, Socialist and Christian circles.

To call such evil posits some underlying morality which says so. And for Christians, it is not demanded. Christians believe God gave us free will, which includes the ability to do anything at all we want. Christians are exhorted to help, pray for and love others. There is all the difference in the world between the two.

[Prysson]

People who think for themselves, those individuals who are not afraid to ask any question, run up against the lack of evidence for a supreme being, and must devise a code of morality from the evidence of their senses (from reality.)

It is difficult to determine exaclt what your position is though by the quote I take I am assuming that you are an athiest. (forgive me if I am wrong)
I have to take issue with this statement. First of all you declare that people who think for themselves. I think entirely for myself. I am completely responsible for my worldview and the positions I hold. In fact I am ultimately responsible for them since in my worldview their are actually consequences for being incorrect.
The statement is so full of incorrect assumptions that are ultimately a product of a position of arrogance. They have no basis in truth or reasoning. "People who think for themselves" Implying that christians do not...this actuallyshows a fundamental lack of knowledge of christian theology. Christianity demands that you think for yourself. The choice of "being saved"" or not having to be a choice made of free will demands that one "think" for oneself.
"Those individuals who are not afraid to ask any question" Once again I cant even begin to understand on what basiss you make such a rediculous proposition. What question exactly are you suggesting that I and any other "Christian" are unwilling to ask. What questions have I failed in the course of my life to ask regarding my belief in the existance of God. It seems to me that I have traveled a long road between being baptised in the faith, becoming an athiest, Becoming convined of deism and finally returning to christianity. My course has been one set by "QUESTIONS" I have not had a day in my life pass when I have not questioned. I just come up with a different answer than you.
"run up against the lack of evidence for a supreme being" This statement is arguable in two ways. First of all when you take is in conjuction with the previous statements it basically is saying that anyone who thinks and questions accepts that there is no proof of God. That statement is so completely absolutly false and so demonstrably so that I shouldnt even bother taking the time to give evidence of it but I will. Simply put there are 2000 years of "thinkers" and "questioners" detailing all of the "evidence" that God exists. This actually ties into the second contention I have with the comment which is you stated "lack of evidence" There is a multitude of evidence of the existance of a Supreme Being. The fact that you reject the evidence does not make the evidence not be there. You may reject the evidence if it is your choice to do so. That is the whole free will part. But the evidence is actualy there. You seem to worship intellec t as so many "athiests do" Einstien himself declared that "science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind" He was adamant believer in God. Every peice of scientific evidence he saw in the universe convinced of that. There are miracles and accountings of God and his angels beyond measure. INteresting that people like you accept without question the existance of Alexander the Great and his exploits despite the fact that there are no works written by his contemporaries who might have known him. It is all gathered from "Accounts" and com,piled together from sources that niether knew him nor for the most part were even alive when he was. And yet we take these pieces of information and accept them as fact. However, let a man claim that God spoke to him, or he wrestled with Jesus and we deny the evdience. "He must have been lying" 3000 witnesses to the Risen Lord and you say we have no evidence. Yet you cannot pull a single account of Alexander the Great from a man who knew him and what we know of him is fact. It shows the prejudice of your mind that you so readily reject evidence of Gods existance simply because you did not see it yourself. And yet I would wager you have never seen a proton, but I doubt that you would question its existance.
But personal accounting aside. The fact is that there is ample evidence of Gods existance. In Fact there are prominant one time athiests who have set out to proive that God doesnt exist only to end up proving to themselves that God does in fact exists. C.S. Lewis comes to mind. You simply refuse to accept the evidence we offer as valid. That is fine and it is certainly your perogative to do so. But you can not say that it doesnt exist. You can only say that you reject the evidence as valid.
"and must devise a code of morality from the evidence of their senses (from reality.)"
This is the last bit of your comment and this too is flawed. Once again based on what comes before it basically declares that lacking evidence a thinking man must devise a code of morality from his senses (reality). I would first of all state again that the supposition that someone that belkives in God doesnt think is grossly erroneous. Secondly I would state that what you claim to be a reality is a very limited thing. As a said you have never sen a proton yet you accept it as a given (even if you have seen the proton the anaology still holds) Ther is one example of a thinking person accepting something on faith without proof. He has not seen it and so therefor it isnt real and no worldview can be based on it..at least that would be the case if rational people actually did operate under your so stated belief that only things that can be seen and witnessed and proven by tactil first hand knowledge are real.
For one thing I would once again point out that there are a multitude of people who would argue that they do have tangible real evidence in their lives. Evidence that is "reality" sensations that are far more real and tangible that the picture of a proton in a science book. You once again choose to reject this as evidence but that does not make it so. Just because you have never experience and "infilling" does not mean that they do not exist. I have never had cancer but I dont doubt that it is out their.
No you can reject evidence and state that you do not "believe" it if that is the position that you want to take. What you can not do is claim that thinking rational people only come to the conclusion that God doesnt exists because there is no proof that can be sensed.
Ever aspect of that statement has been proven to be false over and over again and again. Rational people do belive in God, Rational people do find evidence of his existance, and despite you position even those that do not have first hadn experience of it can still hold their belief "rationally" based on the accounting of others. After all 90% of the things we hold as "truth" in this world are things we have never personall experienced in any tangible way.
You argument is nonsense.

[yendu bwam]

There is nothing immoral in voluntary self sacrifice, the insidious evil wrapped in altruism comes when nations, states and churches demand "sacrifice" from individuals.

Yes, this is part of Rand's morality. Note that Christianity is a religion, which again, exhorts people to be kind to others. Christ did not force anyone to do anything.

[thinktwice]

Note that Christianity is a religion, which again, exhorts people to be kind to others. Christ did not force anyone to do anything.

Christians are involuntarily expected to die for their faith.

[thinktwice]

C.S. Lewis comes to mind.

C. S. Lewis, the man that wrote: "Man is a nasty, pride filled, dirty creature."

Those are words of hate, not love.

[yendu bwam]

Christians are involuntarily expected to die for their faith.

C'mon, thinktwice. Christ forced no one to do anything. Whether a person decides he believes in Christ, and whether he decides that such belief is worthy of dying for, is ENTIRELY his decision. Nobody is forcing him to do either.

[yendu bwam]

C. S. Lewis, the man that wrote: "Man is a nasty, pride filled, dirty creature." Those are words of hate, not love.

No they're not, thinktwice. Christians (like Lewis) are called upon to love one another (and even ones enemies!). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't recognize human nature (including in ourselves). Lewis didn't hate anybody.

[yendu bwam]

The statement is so full of incorrect assumptions that are ultimately a product of a position of arrogance. They have no basis in truth or reasoning. "People who think for themselves" Implying that christians do not...this actuallyshows a fundamental lack of knowledge of christian theology. Christianity demands that you think for yourself. The choice of "being saved"" or not having to be a choice made of free will demands that one "think" for oneself.

You bet. Christians are indeed called upon to use their gray matter. "Be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."

[yendu bwam]

Rational people do belive in God.

Misterioso - The vast majority of people in this world intuit and infer the existence of God from much available evidence. Given that, they apply their reason to that reality. But you can't get to notions of right and wrong, and of a full-blown morality, with reason alone. If you are an atheist, you get to choose what is right and what is wrong. There is nothing at all limiting your choice. Both Rand and Stalin were rationalist atheists. They just started with different moralities (though Rand thought she actually derived hers out of nothing!).