Return to: Home | Blogs | The Faith Column

33 comments from readers

gnuneo
19 September 2007 at 22:16

i'm SO very glad to hear that the best minds in QM, who have pointed out in unarguably precise logic and experimentation, that without an observer an event simply doesn't happen, are in randian terms therefore 'irrational'.

pure objectivism is as dead as pure subjectivism, but of course there are always some speed-freaks who constantly go back to long-settled philosophical arguments, but don't have the patience to actually follow them through to the end.

thank GAIA however that this particular speed-freak is comprehensively rejected in political terms by the vast bulk of people.

she will be a foot-note in history, and doesn't deserve even that.

gregperk
20 September 2007 at 00:06

We need to distinguish between quantum fact and quantum interpretation. The quantum facts are solid and not in dispute. However, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum fact (currently quite fashionable) is an expression of bad philosophy masquerading as science, and *that* is what is behind the notion that 'observers' are the fundamental cause of events/facts.

Such a notion cannot be a result of scientific study: science is an outgrowth of and utterly dependent on a metaphysics which recognizes the philosophical axioms Rand identified as existence, identity (including causality), and the primacy of existence over consciousness (i.e., consciousness as fundamentally the *grasp* of facts, not the creation or shaping of them). The scientists who think the Copenhagen interpretation follows from their work are in effect saying that they have *identified* facts which violate identity; that they have seen the *effects* of experiments which invalidate causality; and (this is priceless) that they have *studied* the facts of existence and discovered the fact of the primacy of consciousness! (Note the consistent pattern of relying on what is being 'refuted'.)

Rand's philosophy is of course not threatened by this kind of confusion. Indeed, Objectivism is a powerful tonic against unproductive blind alleys like the Copenhagen interpretation, and would put scientists in a better position to do great science.

Thanks,

Greg Perkins

P.S.: David Harriman is an Objectivist philosopher and physicist who is working in the area of philosophy of science. You may enjoy a lecture he gave which discusses this (inverted) relationship between science and philosophy: "The Crisis in Physics -- And Its Cause" (viewable for free at: http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=LS036DV )

gregperk
20 September 2007 at 00:16

Apologies, that link should read: http://tinyurl.com/2ywjjl

Dave N. in Sacramento
20 September 2007 at 01:48

Gnuneo,

I think that Ghate jumped a wee bit too fast from premises to conclusions: some of the conclusions do not seem quite that obvious to me.

But Greg Perkins is right about quantum mechanics. Go to your local university library and flip through Peter Holland’s 1995 book “The Quantum Theory of Motion.” That book lays out in great detail a fully deterministic, fully objective presentation of quantum mechanics that agrees with all experiments that have ever been carried out.

The theory presented in the book was developed over a half century ago by David Bohm. It’s old hat.

I know that the pop books on QM (you know, “Perfect Health Through Quantum Living” sort of nonsense) don’t mention Holland’s book – it’s more fun to spout pseudo-mystical nonsense.

The real problem is that there are *too many* different deterministic theories of QM (I’ve developed one myself, which I’ve never bothered to publish), and we do not know how to choose among them.

Incidentally, I hold a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Stanford: I am speaking here in my area of professional expertise. And, if you doubt me, read Holland’s book yourself (assuming you know physics at a bachelor’s level – otherwise, you may not be able to handle it).

Dave

Apple
21 September 2007 at 17:06

Love the comeback. The de Broglie-Bohm theory is like Rand's refutation of modern philosophy. It may be out there, but if I really really believe it not being there, then it is not there, not really, so long as I don't go out and look for it.

It's all about the primacy of belief, man! Ya know what i mean? Peace

Dave N. in Sacramento
22 September 2007 at 03:04

Hmmm... Apple, I'm not quite sure at exactly what level of discourse you intended to frame your comment, if you catch my drift.

Anyway, just in case your comment was a request for clarification, let me make clear that I am not claiming that Bohm-de Broglie theory is known to be true. My point is simply that the Copenhagen approach, to which Gnuneo appealed, has not been proven and is not the only conclusion that can be drawn from the experimental data.

People whose knowledge of quantum mechanics comes from books they found in the local bargain bin at Borders should not be using quantum mechanics to make points in philosophy.

To put it bluntly, QM is a real mess. People should let us physicists tidy up a bit before they start drawing conclusions from our poor housecleaning.

Dave

Apple
23 September 2007 at 18:03

Thanks, Dave, for the clarification. As New Statesman is like the Banner for the common man, I wanted to try to step into Your House for the experience. For you see, I'm a believer.

Perhaps the "real" problem isn't that there are too many deterministic theories of QM to counter the Copenhagen theory. The real problem may be that there are just too many physicists who subscribe to *determinism*, which is too limiting in the first place. It takes only synchronic factors into consideration but not any other kind. So it seems there's a dichotomy underlying QM theories: belief or determinism, neither of which satisfies you. I wonder how Objectivists treat such dichotomies. I don't suppose that perhaps there might be a divine law of identity as applied to actions that may figure in there somewhere?

Yes, physicists should tidy up the QM mess they've created in their special House, but do bring in professional floor cleaners who can sweepingly attend to ground-in dirt beneath the exquisite furniture.

Dave N. in Sacramento
25 September 2007 at 03:21

Apple,

You wrote:

> The real problem may be that there are just too many physicists who subscribe to *determinism*, which is too limiting in the first place. It takes only synchronic factors into consideration but not any other kind.

Well, actually, many of the quantum physicists in the twenties were very happy to chuck determinism. Personally, I sort of like determinism, but I’m happy to let the experimental evidence decide one way or the other.

You have not explained what you mean by “synchronic factors,” but, whatever you meant, I would prefer to let this be determined by the physics rather than imposed a priori.

Incidentally, the same point applies with regard to non-deterministic theories as to deterministic theories: there are also more than one known non-deterministic theories consistent with the experimental data (Edward Nelson of Princeton developed one many years ago, I have developed another myself, and there are probably quite a number of them).

In any case, my point is a narrow one. Gnuneo claimed to prove Ghate wrong by appealing to what Gnuneo thought were conclusively settled issues in quantum mechanics. Gnuneo was mis-informed about the status of quantum mechanics. He’s wrong.

That fact falls within my own professional purview as a physicist. I think I shall leave the broader philosophical issues outside of physics to those of you who consider yourself professionally qualified in philosophy.

Dave

haider
26 September 2007 at 11:30

I'm a Muslim, but I see myself agreeing with Objectivism in almost everything, except for its atheism. I accept that "existence exists" is an axiom of reason, but I don't see how we can accept that existence has *always* existed.

Ayn Rand asserts in the Virtue of Selfishness that infinite progress is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. This, I would think, also applies to infinite regress (i.e. that existence, and the chain of cause and effect, has always existed infinitely and indefinitely). In other words, it would be contradictory to believe in the law of causality and that existence has always existed.

Dr Ghate dismisses the existence of a creator because he defines the universe to be everything which exists, which would include the creator as well, which is, therefore, impossible. However, this is only true if we assume that the definition of the universe is complete. It would make sense to say that the universe is the sum of physical existence, which would accept the explanation that the creator is not a physical entity bound by time or cause and effect.

In any case, the idea that the universe has always existed doesn't seem rational, especially if we accept that the law of causality is an absolute, which I think is what Objectivism does.

All the best,

Haider

bala
26 September 2007 at 12:09

Haider,

The real objection to religion, as I understood Rand is that Faith is not the path to a happy life. Man is a rational animal and Rationality is his only tool of survival in a hostile world. As a rational animal, man's only way of figuring out what is good for him and what is not is his rationality. Whether it is differentiating food from poison or a good man from an evil one, it is man's rationality that will help him do it.

To accept certain premises on faith, you have to lower your guard and suspend your rationality. Once you do so, you have no telling what poisons will be thrown at you.This is the real problem with faith and the reason we should learn to live a life without faith.

Fonz21
26 September 2007 at 15:54

I wanted to address to Gnuneo. Your acceptance of a non-fact "if not observed it didn't happen" in the world of QM. Your downright anger and upset tells me that the objectivist philosophy gets under your skin and for sopme reason rubs you the wrong way. This deterministic view is odd for a person who realizes that in QM the standard rules of Physics do not apply, do we throw out all the rules of physics that apply to matter not in the sub-atomic. Laws of motion should be thrown out I guess. According to your thinking the deterministic B.S. that you put forth based on very little logic in a field that is in it's infancy and tools of observation that may be contributory to the results observed, i.e. We don't observe the particle we observe the reaction of other matter to determine action and causality. The field of QM has a long way to go to answer many fundamental questions, theories are suppose to follow logic and as of now the only field of science I know of that one theory leads to another contridiction after another is QM. I would like to think that a so called scientist would put his own house in order before trashing the philosophical beliefs of others bnased on suposition.

Malcolm
26 September 2007 at 16:41

Haider you claim that you "don't see how we can accept that existence has *always* existed". Why not? After all you claim that the consciousness you call Allah has always existed. Now if Allah has always existed then He has always existed. Which means that existence has always existed.

I am an atheist and don't believe in Allah and state the above only in order to show that everybody, the moment they open their mouth, must accept the axiom that "existence exists". Even if your creator exists, before He can create, He must *exist*.

Roger
27 September 2007 at 18:49

Haider, Bala, Malcolm: My view of these issues may be a bit simple, but proceeds along the lines of a "What If":

What if Allah, God, Buddha, all the gods of antiquity as well as of prehistory, as well as any mystical prime mover yet undiscovered or undefined, created out of nothingness (as some religions would have him/her do) just a simple blob of matter imbued with all of the known as well as the so far unknown laws of physics ?

What if this blob, driven by these simultaneously created physical laws, evolved to what is now our known universe including us, humans born in the 21st century on some minor planet in some insignificant galaxy in one of the "corners" of this cosmos ?

What if a further product of this process were the particular, human, variety of consciousness with which we appear to be endowed ?

Which factual and logical discoveries and conclusions could we draw from this theory? What would be their consequence(s)?

To my mind, there are but two possibilities:

Either, "God" "created" and set all this in motion once, and then "went away", in effect taking a permanent vacation.

Or, he continues to "meddle", either in specific outcomes, or in the sense of, from time to time and upon a whim, changing the physical laws on us.

In the first case, no amount of "prayer" for or against a desireable or unwanted event would change any outcome. Our sensations or whishes are, in and of themselves, irrelevant to the working of the universe. Only our actions informed by known facts and their logical application would be able to affect any change.

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed".

In the second case, a "meddling God", we should be forever uncertain of any outcome, prayer or not. Whether he meddled at the level of general or of specific causality, we could not even count on knowing which or when. Almost needless to mention, there is, to date, no incontrovertible evidence for such a scenario. All known evidence points the other way!

As Albert Einstein is said to have noted: "God does not play dice with the universe."

Just the same, the second case is a good description of the working, "reasoning", and necessary conclusion of the prescientific human mind, ascribing so many observed inconstancies in nature to the special action of some specific deity, to be propitiated by some form of sacrifice.

The first case makes the entire issue regarding the existence of god, moot, leaving us with Mr. Ghate' and Objectivism's conclusion that "existence exists". Though understandably tantalizing, the question of how, cannot be answered at present, if ever, and need not be answered in order to live successfully in the here, now, and foreseeable future on this earth.

haider
27 September 2007 at 19:39

bala and Malcom:

I totally agree with the Objectivist criticism of faith, and totally promote a rational approach to life. But I see the belief in God as a completion of rationality, because to deny God's existence would have you accept that the principle of non-contradiction and the law of causality are not absolutes.

The law of causality states that every effect has a cause. This would mean that if the cause does not occur, then the effect would not occur as well. Based on this understanding of causality, it is impossible to say that time has always existed. The reason being is that this would mean that the chain of cause and effect would be infinite (i.e. a never ending number).

Now, if we accept that an effect cannot occur without a cause preceding it, it does not make sense to say that the chain goes back "infinitely." To explain it with an analogy:

Suppose I said that I would not enter a room unless Person A enters the room, and Person A says that he would not enter the room unless Person B enters the room first, and the list goes on of people not entering the room unless a person before them does, NOBODY would enter the room unless the chain stops, and somebody enters the room without depending on someone else. If the chain goes on infinitely, then I'll never enter the room, and neither will anyone else.

The same is true with the universe: if the chain of causality goes back infinitely, then by the law of causality, and the law of non-contradiction, nothing should exist. Because we exist, it must mean that the chain of causality is finite.

And, Malcolm, I can't explain the nature of God, but I believe that he is not bound by the laws of causality, and that He does not exist within time. Therefore, the same does not apply to Him. In any case, if you wish to deny God's existence, it would still not make sense to believe in a universe that always existed.

Dr Ghate asserts that the origin of the universe cannot be explained or understood. I believe he stops a step too soon: we cannot accept that the universe has always existed, but that which brought it into being cannot be understood.

I believe in one God, and that He is absolute (i.e. not bound by space or time, does not possess a body, does not undergo change, etc), and any other belief in God which confines him to a body would make him bound by the laws of causality, which would necessitate that this "god" has not always existed.

Hope this explains my position clearly :)

All the best,

Haider

Ergo
28 September 2007 at 03:52

You esoterically knowledgeable types have all left me behind. I find QF interesting from a philosphical point of view, and I did take a few philosophy courses at U but I confess your use of terms, all of you, confusing. For one, you talk about the existence of consciousness and I think I know what you mean, but certainly, it isn't the same as the existence of my supper. I know where the latter is and feel its effects but I have never seen my consciousnes and can't see yours or even judge its effects. Mine seems to roam all over the place and is nowhere at the same time. Help me.

bala
28 September 2007 at 14:34

Haider,

You said "I believe in 1 God". Of course, you are free to choose to do so, but then you (like everyone else) also have to face the consequences of your choices.

Your choice does not change the point that to a true objectivist who understands the meaning and purpose of knowledge and the role played by rationality in life, belief per se is not an acceptable way of life. Further, to an objectivist, life is lived on the basis of verified knowledge and rationality. Belief, on the other hand, implies either accepting claims made by someone without demanding proof or propounding hypotheses to oneself and accepting them without bothering to verify them with the use of current knowledge or rationality. In the former case, you are exposing yourself to the hidden agenda that others may have, a hidden agenda that may include harm to you. In the latter case, you would be doing nothing more than creating a delusion that appears to explain that which appears inexplicable to you.

The consequences of such choices are unpredictable and have the potential to be dangerous. In the world around us, the consequences that I can see are pervasive misery, unhappiness and guilt.

It is helpful in the context of this discussion to understand that Atheism does not mean denial of the existence of God. An analysis of the word a-theism indicates that it means a way of life that excludes the notion of God from ones life (just as a-moral means without allowing morals to intrude in ones decisions). As an atheist, I do not say that God does not exist. Instead, I say that I don't care about the concept of God and whether he/she exists or not and that I have better things to do in life than worry about this unproven claim.

Hope this clarifies the position.

Ergo
28 September 2007 at 18:40

Belief in "rationality" can be as problematic as some "religious" beliefs. For instance, the Nazis were extremely "rational", had great respect for science, much of which turned out to be junk science - too late.

What was wrong with them was their premises and we are repulsed by them not because they are bad science but because they are revolting. But where do good premises come from? Unfortunately, organized religion usually follows the rule for other organizations - self-preservation before all. So then to the enabling act - and so forth.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is a kind of organized religion - let the best and strongest be encouraged

and survive for the good of all. Let society do the organizing. But who is to determine what the best, in human terms, is? Many things are being presented as rational these days - bring liberation and democracy by killing millions and destroying every trace of ancient cultures, or use extraordinary force

because we have it. These positions are inherently

contradictory only from a moral point of view and would not be in opposition to anything Ayn Rand

had to say.

bala
28 September 2007 at 20:02

Eartoground,

Rationality, to us objectivists, is not a belief. It is a necessity to survive. It is the only tool which is capable of helping us figure out the right course of action in the process of living our lives and being happy in the process.

The outputs of Rationality depend on the inputs you give, in other words, your premises. When you call the Nazis rational, you forget the fact that they started with the assumption that the individual exists for the sake of the state. This fraudulent assumption was the fount of all the lies they propogated as well as the moral jutification for all their atrocities.

Infact, the Nazi example demonstrates how Rationality follows the GIGO principle. Fraudulent assumptions yield macabre conclusions.

To Objectivists, the fundamental axiom is that existence exists. Reality exists irrespective of your ability and willingness to recognise it. As a living being, you need to understand this existence and do what you need to do to sustain your life. In the process, you will need to take a lot of decisions. Rationality is the only tool you possess that can help you take these life or death decisions. You need to apply your rationality to the perceptions that you receive of your environment through your senses. This process yield the higher level concepts and principles that help you move forward in life.

You asked the question "Where do good principles come from?". There is no better source than the concept of Rational Selfishness based on the inviolability of the Right to Life. Just to take a simple example, if you were to ask the question "Why should I not steal?", the rationally selfish answer is that "if you steal, you are essentially violating the Right to Life of your victim. By doing so, you are accepting the premise that violating the Right to Life is acceptable. In the long range, there is no moral defence when someone else stronger than you violates your own Right to Life the same way you violated your victim's. This action of yours thus creates an environment which in the long run, is inimical to your own survival. Therefore, it is in your own selfish interest to desist from stealing."

Hope this clarifies at least a part of the Objectivist position.

Ergo
28 September 2007 at 21:42

No, it doesn't quite. Ayn Rand believed in Capitalism without state interference. Even if it could work for the good of all, and that is doubtful, laissez-faire Capitalism has never existed and it is not likely, given human nature, that it ever could. To say people should be good is not original and a tautology in philosophy. 1)Politicians usually come from the business class and have direct business interests.

2)business forms a powerful, self-aggrandizing lobby.3)unrestrained capitalism (as we have known it) depends on an exploited class.

Besides being criminally boring, Ayn Rand's Fountainhead attempts to indict the poor as a group of in-breeding lay-abouts who should be discouraged; instead of elimating poverty through the implementation of fair government programs, she would eliminate the poor.

What do you think of the growing disparity between rich and poor today? Does it represent the natural cleaving of the deserving and not-so-deserving?

Objectivism would obviate empathy, sympathy and love which are the elements for progress in a human sense. It is a rigid, doctrinal system, as in most religions, which can't easily accommodate new, evolved perceptions, for instance, that women and gays are full and equal human beings.

Roger
28 September 2007 at 21:42

Haider: There is absolutely no requirement that the chain of cause and effect be finite. You're thinking in terms of a linear segment of C&E having a clearly defined start / finish. But, this is not the only possibility !

There is nothing demanding such a construct. A line-segment "wrapped upon itself" becomes a circle. The progression of cause and effect would continue indefinitely from (arbitrary) point A (-/cause) of B (effect/cause) of C (effect/cause) of D, E...eventually back to point A (effect/-). You may, by analogy, extend this one-dimensional hypothesis inductively to as many dimensions as you wish. Once you form it into a theory, however, it becomes subject to the tests of physical evidence: experience and prediction. It becomes falsifiable. And THAT is what makes it valuable. See next paragraph.

All physical knowledge we have to date of our universe, however we chose to define and delimit it, points to the absolute truth of the laws of conservation: of mass, of energy, of motion. Whether this system is in fact open or closed, i.e. receiving energy from another universe outside itself but invisible to us, or a sort of perpetuum mobile eventually winding down to an absolutely even distribution of mass, energy and motion, thus forever eliminating the issue of cause and effect in some very distant future, or whether it is closed, but containing mechanism(s) for self-regeneration thus avoiding the entropy death, is a matter of physical research involving practically all branches of present-day science at one level or another. Theories abound, and theoretical fashions keep coming in and out of consensual favor, and nobody knows yet what the "final" result may be, but the beauty of it all is not only in the result, but in the quest resulting in daily fresh discoveries.

As for belief in "...one God, [who]is absolute (i.e. not bound by space or time, does not possess a body, does not undergo change, etc), ...", that would spoil it all, because it would be a nonfalsifiable theory.

This god would have to be a cause without causes, causing nothing, thus in fact doing exactly what you have him avoid, namely breaking the "chain of causality". Such a god does not "...complete rationality...", but instead violates it in the most egregious manner.

He would also, in the same sense, violate the rule of non-contradiction: a non-entity, as it were, capable of modifiying other entities!

The great French mathematician and cosmologist, Simon De Laplace (18th cent.) was once asked by Napoleon why the construct of god did not appear in his decription of the heavens. His answer: "Sire, I have no need of this hypothesis." Certainly a concise application of Ockham's principle (14th cent., but said to date back to Aristotle) of parsimony in scientific explanations, that "entities be not multiplied beyond what theory requires". Even Sir Isaac Newton in "...Principia Mathematica", 3rd edition: "there must not be admitted more natural causes than are verifiable and sufficiently explanatory of observed phenomena" (Hope I got the Latin xlation right; it's been a few years since high-school.)

So, make your choice: Either "god" is an entity, thus subject to cause and effect, and thus rather finite, as I understand you thus not in conformity with your vision of "God"; Or, he is not "confined to a body, time, space, cause and effect, etc." but thus becomes ineffective in just such a realm, and thus unverifiable /unfalsifiable, but more to your liking.

"You can't have your cake and eat it, too."

The law of causality and the rule of non-contradiction ARE ABSOLUTES. There are many others, but these are primary. No exceptions!

bala
29 September 2007 at 02:38

Eartoground,

Firstly income inequality is a natural outcome of the fact that neither are people equally skilled, nor are their respective skills equally valued. People earn according to the wealth they create. Would you be so bold as to claim that a construction worker creates as much wealth as an engineer at Intel or a doctor and that they should all therefore earn equally? Increasing income inequality is only an indication of the vast difference in wealth created by different people.

Try making the wages of all 3 categories I mentioned. equal The outcome is easily predicted - you will have a mad scramble to be a construction worker and an absolute scarcity or Engineers and Doctors. How many would be willing to put in the effort required to be a doctor if their knowledge is valued at the same level as that of a construction worker?

I am not saying that all who are rich today are people who deserved to be so, but then there are 2 points. The first is that as far as someone who is not rich today is concerned, the way to riches is the building of skills and the creation of wealth. The second is that Those who do not deserve the welath they possess will lose it soon to those who do. If nothing else does this, relative incompetence will do it.

When you complain about income inequality, you are essentially complaining that it was wrong on the part of nature to create people unequally and that it was further wrong on the part of some to go on and get themselves even more skilled, thus exacerbating inequality. You will thus end up becoming an enemy of the very concept of excellence and by extension, a champion of mediocrity and incompetence. You are free to do so, but then you have to face the consequence of living in a world in which everything descends to the level of the most incompetent person alive.

Secondly, how do you think governments will "eliminate" income inequality? If you say taxation and redistributing the wealth thus garnered among the poor, you are essentially talking of nothing more than a modern-day Robin Hood who robs Peter to pay Paul. There is no rational argument that justifies forcing me to pay for your education or healthcare. You may be prepared to use force (as is being done using Tax) to make me pay, but that does not change the fact that you would have acted like a robber on the highway if you did so.

Taxation is the biggest crime being perpetrated against man by man. It is a payment extracted by force from each person who creates wealth and engages in voluntary commercial transactions. It is arbitrary (read non-objective) and subject to changes on the basis of whims and fancies. It is the first thing that needs to be abolished if we are to see a free world.

Remove taxation and all your grand schemes for income equalisation go up in smoke (as they deserve to).

bala
29 September 2007 at 02:52

Eartoground,

At one place in your post, you said "laissez faire capitalism never existed" and elsewhere, you claim that "unrestrained capitalism (as we have known it) depends on an exploited class".

How did so many people get to know something which never existed? I don't know if you realise it, but you have badly contradicted yourself in your own post.

That still leaves the claim that capitalism depends on an exploited class. No worker who works with a capitalist can claim to be exploited until he has been forced by the capitalist concerned to work on terms that he (the worker) never agreed to. As long as employment is voluntary, it is incorrect to call it exploitative. A worker who feels that the terms offered by a particular capitalist are not good enough may quit and look for alternate employment. As long as he is not prevented from doing so through the exertion of force (monetary inducements cannot be called force) by his current employer, you cannot call this arrangement exploitative.

You may feel that the wages are low, but then wages are determined by value produced and demand-supply conditions in each labour market. Is this ultimately what you want to deny????

bala
29 September 2007 at 06:06

Eartoground,

Talking of love, Objectivism (as defined by Rand) is the intense admiration of the values possessed/professed by a person. It is rational and not causeless. An objectivist loves another person because of what the other person is and because of the rationally derived conclusion that association with this person is going to give him/her happiness. This love is not restricted by age,gender or any other artificial criteria that you may bring in. I wonder how you logically say that Objectivism would reject the rights of women and gays. When we Objectivists say "Man is a rational animal", we mean the human species; not just the male of the species.

It is also incorrect to say that Objectivism is doctrinal. Objectivism makes no demands on a person except that he be rational (which means being true to his nature as a human being) and selfish. It does not proscribe anything to any individual. Instead, it gives a clear and absolute rationally defined morality that helps the individual decide the Right and Wrong of his actions on his own. It is a code of freedom, not of restraint. It would be interesting to see you highlight the "doctrines" of Objectivism and show how they are either not rationally derived or derived from false premises.

Ergo
30 September 2007 at 03:32

bala, when I said laissez-faire capitalism never existed I didn't say or mean the "concept" of laissez-faire capitalism never existed. We were told it was so but you and I and every one else who knows anything about capitalism realizes that tariffs on imports and other types of penalties were always levied; that is how, for instance India's cotton industry was destroyed. "Dumping" of excess goods on developing countries to their detriment is still a common practice. Perhaps this is what Ayn Rand objected to; I wouldn't know. This represents one kind of abusive government control of industry. But the last twenty years have brought about a 180 degree turn with almost no government control over corporations, and the result - abuses of Enron, World Com and dozens of other corps and loss of income and security for ordinary people. Utilities have been privatized almost everywhere with hugh increases in cost to consumers. The result of labour union marginalization and off-shoring, at least in North America, is that real earnings are at mid 1970's levels. No sane person speaks of complete parity in wages but the disparity is atronomical with no end in sight, and this when numerous studies have shown that economies are healthier when workers' wages easily support a reasonable standard of living. The present situation, seen by many as a prelude to serious world-wide recession, must seem ideal to you Objectivists.

When it all falls apart you will simply say,"people were not observing Objectivist principles", a tautological excuse for a system that cannot work in the real world.If human nature is essentially good, it does seem it can be easily corrupted by a corrupt, unregulated system. Capitalism must be controlled in order to be viable, that is, for the good of all.

Selfishness" needs defining.

No one should be a slave but it seems reasonable and inevitable that everyone makes some concessions. It may make me happy to give up something for the good, for instance, of my children.

Perhaps that is one kind of selfishness but it is quite different from spending money at the pub while they

go without essentials. But perhaps if it puts me in a better frame of mind... I could go on forever.

I am trying to illustrate that what seems "reasonable" to one may not be so obvious to another.

I may be wrong about objectivism and women's and gay's rights. Hope so. But love isn't all about values.

I hope my children have "the right values" but I love 'em anyway. I agree that, at a certain age anyway,

the individual should be the arbiter of the rightness or wrongness of his/her actions. But this can end disastrously unless a consciousness of ethics has been an integral part of the education and upbringing.

I would bring yout attention to something I illustrated earlier about Nazi rationality. Of course their premises were wrong but they weren't aware of that. Neither were the eugenics proponents. Many take

"scientific truths" at face value becaue they purport to be rational. After much damage (and these are only two examples among a host) the results are debunked. Of course reaon is important - we'd get nowhere without it. But if you're going to err, sometimes it's better to err on the side of being humane. Does Objectivism allow for that?

bala
30 September 2007 at 06:46

Eartoground,

Objectivism rejects any form of government control on individuals and economic activities run by individuals, unless of course they violate the rights of other individuals. Objectivism rejects taxes and tariffs of all kinds simply because they are extracted by the initiation of force against individuals who did no wrong except live their lives.

You are mistaking what you see around you for Capitalism. For your information, there is NO country in the world where Capitalism operates. A simple yardstick to see if a country follows Capitalism is to ask "Do citizens have to pay taxes?". If the answer is yes, you know that the country has rejected capitalism and embraced what can be called Statism - a term that stands for the supremacy of the State over the Individual. Under Statism, Individual Rights can be over-ridden for the sake of the State. People can be forced to act in specific ways if it brings benefit to he State. Statism is philosophically no different from Socialism or Communism or Fascism (just as these 3 are no different from each other).

The problem is not with Capitalism, but with the premise that the State ought to be empowered to transgress upon the (conceptually) inalienable Rights of the individual. In a pure Capitalistic system, government would have no power over individuals. It cannot force people to pay taxes or account for how they earned their money. It cannot prevent people from doing anything as long as they do not violate other people's Rights. When individuals are free to act as per their own rationality and governments (and their minions) have no coercive power over ordinary people, there is no scope for corruption, except the corruption of the morality of the individual.

When you say "No one should be a slave but it seems reasonable and inevitable that everyone makes some concessions.", you should not make the mistake of saying that since it is inevitable that everyone should make concessions, it is alright for the State to force individuals to make the concessions that IT demands of them.

Even by your own admission, the "concessions" you make for your children are made because those makes YOU happy. If the concessions made you unhappy, i doubt if you would do it for too long. The fact of the matter is that individuals ought to be free to decide on the concessions they would like to make. These cannot be stuffed down their throats.

Talking of spending money at a pub while your children go without having essentials.....If you did so, you will have to face the consequences. Your children would starve and maybe even die and you would know fully well that it was entirely in your power that they do not go hungry but made the choice of blowing your money at a pub. Because I know that I cannot live a happy life if that outcome occured, I take the selfish decision of feeding my children rather than spend my money at a pub. This is how Rational Selfishness works.

I suggest hat you read the following books to get a better understanding of Objectivism - Atlas Shrugged, Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Ergo
02 October 2007 at 00:00

I have read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and found them as simplistic and full of contradictions as I find your answers. I liken them to Wagner - without the music.

"People should be good" . That is your solution to the question of the inevitable oppression of the disadvantaged by the advantaged in a free-for-all system. If no one pays taxes, how are roads, highways, bridges, schools and their teachers to be paid for? If parents become ill or are irresponsible, it is right that their children suffer for it? As well as being revoltingly unjust, would not such a policy automatically eliminate much potential talent?. Johann Sebastian Bach was orphaned at an early age, and was considered only musically mediocre. He was merely lucky to have obtained a position that enabled him to compose the music that so enriches the world. Is there such a thing as common responsibility in your system of beliefs?There is quite a difference between statism and a functioning democracy ( an ideal we will hopefully approach more closely in future).

Apart from all this, Ayn Rand had some strange ideas

concerning gender and sex, and she made some rather nasty remarks about gays. All very retrograde ideas although she considered them "self-evident" - a rather contradictory position for an "objectivist".

bala
02 October 2007 at 10:32

A contradiction, by a very simple definition, is a conflict between 2 different parts of an argument. By that simple definition, I am unable to see where I (or Ayn Rand in Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged) have contradicted myself. I may not have answered some questions that were on your mind, but that does not make my response contradictory.

The crux of the matter is that you have made some assumptions which are quite untenable and can be justified only in an environment where it is alright to infringe upon individual rights.

For instance, when you ask "If no one pays taxes, how are roads, highways, bridges, schools and their teachers to be paid for?", you are conveniently ignoring the point that when you justify tax, you are justifying a system where I am being forced to fork out a part of my wealth (which rightfully belongs to me) to pay for YOUR roads or education or healthcare. By forcing me to part with my wealth for your benefit, would clearly be violating my individual rights and your action would qualify (in a framework based on logic) for the title Robbery.

Incidentally, where do you or anyone else for that matter derive the diviine right to force me to pay to foster someone else's talent? If you are really worried about talent going untapped, you are free to go ahead and pay for it. If I don't share your enthusiasm for the same, I don't see what makes it right for me to be robbed to pay for the satisfaction of your whims.

If a particular parent becomes irresponsible, it is the problem of that child and that parent. How does that justify using force on anyone else using that possibility as a pretext?

Talking of responsibility, I would like to see a logical justification of any responsibility I have towards anyone else except the non-violation of their rights by me. The whole concept of common or Social Responsibility is bunkum and logically indefensible unless you assume that selfless is the noblest trait of a human being and that people should their lives not for themselves but for the sake of others. Put in simple terms, I owe you (or any one else) nothing more than I consented to pay. You (or anyone else) have no business thrusting any responsibility on my shoulders.

Your comparison of democracy and Statism does not in anyway deny that all countries in the world today are run under the system of Statism. In any case, the existence of a democracy does not eliminate the possibility of Statism. The 2 most-talked-of democracies in the world - the USA and India - are also the most Statist, with individual rights already curtailed by a wide variety of legislations, notably the ones forcing some individuals to pay for the welfare of some others. The inherent flaw of democracy is that it is, by its very nature, prone to degenerate into populism and playing to the gallery. Democracy is no guarantee for individual rights. If you have any doubts, come over to India and I will be able to show you the absolute ineffectiveness of democracy in defending individual rights. It helps to remember that logic is a device that operates on the GIGO principle. If you feed it false premises such as the one that individual rights may be sacrificed for the common good, it will not be long before you see the natural and logical product of that premise - Fascism. Do not forget that even Hitler was democratically elected.

bala
02 October 2007 at 10:33

Sorry all!!! My previous post was meant as a response to eartoground.

haider
04 October 2007 at 12:25

Dear Roger,

You raised some very interesting points in your last post, and I apologise for taking such a long time to reply.

You said that there is no need for the chain of causality to be linear. However, I don't understand how a circular chain would function in reality. It may seem feasible theoretically to accept that a circular model can go on indefinitely, but does such a model exist in reality? Are we able to say that time is linear by nature and not circular?

I don't understand what the circular model even means in this world: that my grandparents give birth to my parents, who give birth to me, and I then give birth to my grandparents?

Even if the circular model does exist, and we assume that the universe explodes, then implodes, then explodes again, indefinitely, can we still say that the universe has exploded/imploded X number of times? If we can say that, then the circular model falls in the same trap as the linear model (i.e. it's not completely circular but a spiral, because time is linear).

In any case, Ayn Rand asserted that infinite progression is a metaphysical impossibility, so I don't see how she can defend the idea that the universe has always existed.

It is interesting that you can accept the existence of other dimensions and universes tampering with our own, and sending "energy" to our universe, but find it difficult to accept the idea of God - a non-physical entity - creating our universe. You don't have to accept the idea that God exists, but the idea that the universe has always existed cannot be rationally asserted, which is why Dr Ghate said that we must accept it without explanation (i.e. it can neither be proven or reasoned rationally, and maybe because it's an irrational belief?)

You also seem to consider scientific discoveries a fun venture, but "fun" isn't the determinant of what is true and what is false. Neither is the application of "falsifiability." Falsifiability is an important criteria for approving hypotheses, because without it they cannot be empirically proven. However, this does not mean that if an idea is not falsifiable, then it must be false. We have five senses, but if we were deprived of one of them, it does not mean that what we would be able to sense with it simply disappears. Visible light is only a snippet of a vastly larger spectrum, but we cannot deny the rest of the spectrum simply because it's not visible to us.

As long as the proof is absent, we cannot assert something to be true, but it does not mean that we can deny its existence (unless it contradicts the evidence we have).

I said that the belief in God "completes rationality" because it would mean that the world is finite, and, therefore, we wouldn't assert that the universe has always existed, which clashes with both the law of causality and the law of non-contradiction, thus making both non-absolutes.

Roger
05 October 2007 at 01:22

Haider: Interesting! You come across confused. I think, this confusion stems from confounding the metaphysical with the physical, and that may even have been in part my fault. If so, sorry!

"Belief in God" can not "complete rationality". It is beyond it, by your own definition: "...one God, [who is] absolute (i.e. not bound by space or time, does not possess a body, does not undergo change, etc), ..." Belief in (acceptance of, would be a better proposition) such an "entity", given all that we know about our physical world, as well as how we came to know it, I would liken to a form of "Deus ex machina": You know, the theatrical device that dramatists sometimes use to overcome an impasse in the logical progression of dramatic events, which, by the way, works for the audience only because of its "willing suspension of disbelief".

To the point: If there were some entity beyond apprehendable physical reality, as you describe it, how would we know ? By revelation ? Whose revelation ? To whom ? How to chose among the many which were or the many likely still to come ? By what method ? In any case, how would a "Ghost", in the true sense of this concept, go about revealing him/her self in physical reality? Either it is a part of reality, and then it must have discoverable (real) attributes, so it is no longer a ghost, and subject to discovery, or it "exists" outside of reality and possesses (un)discoverable (imaginary) attributes, is beyond discovery, proof, or disproof --- in short, is irrelevant. Kant, Hegel, and Marx notwithstanding, a thing cannot be simultaneously itself and its opposite.

On another level: The term "belief" is itself a concept, by definition beyond reality, not requiring proof, therefore unfalsifiable, but also unprovable. Although each of us humans has incomplete knowledge about many things, and thus must function on partial evidence, in effect "believing" many things in the world around us without rigorous proof in each instance, to be effective we strive, in the long run, to gather and evaluate evidence about the things we see and do. Your concept of "God" would rather interfere with seeking such evidence which can only be of a real kind, i.e. physical, else the whole concept of "evidence" would be meaningless. I, for one, should not be willing to suspend my disbelief.

Enter metaphysics: We hold many theories, incurring the risk that they may be wrong. So, also, regarding any model of cause and effect. It is metaphysics which provides a method and structure to our necessary investigation of any theory. How? By discovering attributes of entities which are invariant to any given class. Where do we obtain the entities? From reality, by perception, at the most primitive level, at higher levels by forming concepts. Where do we obtain the attributes? Also, ultimately, from reality, namely from the known or discoverable properties of entities.

Concepts, however, do not exist in a vacuum, are not arbitrary. At their most abstract level they are the result of scientific investigation, in the sense that even the most abstract attribute must be reducible to a testable proposition; else, it becomes meaningless. Rather banal, we become able to distinguish between apples and oranges. Not so banal, between linear space and curved space/time. Apples and oranges belong to the class of fruits, but are distinct from one another due to certain unique properties. A Euclidean space-metric and a Riemannian space-metric belong to the class of models of space/time, but each also has uniquely distinguishing properties. The concept of cause and effect exists on both levels, once as a real phenomenon of daily observation, but also as an abstraction claiming unique properties. It may be linear, circular, or convoluted. One cause, one effect. One cause, many effects. Many effects causing nothing further, some becoming the cause of further effects, some may even loop back, affecting the original cause. Causes and effects may form a "net" of interactions, and so on. What we can't have is a cause without effects, or effects without causes. The concept of cause and effect would become meaningless. Thus the Objectivist metaphysical limit on an infinite progression of abstraction or concretisation of concepts: Any entity has only a finite number of attributes distinguishing it from others. Now to how this relates to your construct of "God".

To your real (I hope) question. Does the "universe" cause itself? We don't know, nor do we know the opposite, because anything outside of it is inaccessible to investigation if it leaves no trace, but if it does, becomes part of the universe. This necessarily holds true in physics as well as in metaphysics. If it's part of the universe, it must be (in principle) verifiable by the investigative means at our (future) disposal. But then, the question must become: what caused IT? And so on, infinitely. If it's outside, leaving no trace, it's unknowable. Then, we can say anything about it we like, but everything we say becomes but a collation of imaginary attributes having no referents in reality. In other words, if this imaginary something is what you call "God", you'll be unable to say that "He" created the universe, or rather you shall be able to say so, but your dictum becomes meaningless. The obverse holds true for me. I should forever be able to assert that he did not create the universe, but my assertion is for the same reason (imaginary attributes) as untenable as yours! The difference between you and me is, however, that I don't care, because the issue does not trouble me. I'm rather content with an imperfect universe which I'm not likely ever to fully "understand". Maybe, because I'm willing to accept the logical and conceptual (metaphysical, epistemological) limitations reality (including my human nature) imposes, the latter just maybe because I think it a good bargain -- the ability to make testable, real, statements and decisions about existence to guide my actions, as opposed to wasting energy on imaginary constructs leading to moot conclusions.

Therefore, I (continue to) maintain, that the belief in God, by definition of the term "belief", as well as by logical demonstration of the consequences of the supposed "nature" of "God", is beyond reason, and can not and does not "complete rationality." It interferes with it.

haider
06 October 2007 at 22:56

Dear Roger,

I don't think I explained my position properly.

First of all, I'm using the word "belief" to mean conviction, and not that I'm asserting something as fact, without proof. You can't simply refute my arguments simply because I've chosen to use the word "belief." Besides, it's a word usually used to respect the other party in a discussion. So rather than say: "I know that God exists," I say: "I believe that God exists" so you can have a say in changing my opinion. We can't both be asserting statements as facts when they're contradictory.

My belief in a creator stems from the understanding of cause and effect and time as being linear phenomena. People can come up with as many theories as they like to imagine causality in different modes. However, the cause and effect that we observe in reality seems to be linear. Attempts to explain it off as circular don't seem to make sense. For example, the idea that the universe keeps on exploding then imploding - thereby repeating the same pattern (i.e. is a circular model) - is also linear, or a spiral at best, because we can still say that the universe has exploded and imploded X number of times. If this X is infinite, then it becomes metaphysically impossible. An infinite number, by definition, doesn't have an end. If we are a result of a long chain of cause and effect, then we exist because the chain has a beginning. We cannot exist, and the start of the chain of cause and effect that brought us into existence is indefinite and has no ending! The two cannot exist together. It's a contradiction to accept both an infinite chain of cause and effect, and that we also exist. Since we know that we exist (existence exists :P) then we cannot accept that the causal chain is infinite.

You don't have to believe that a "god" brought this world into existence, but the belief in an always existing universe, I "believe," is irrational.

As for me, when it comes to understanding what possible entity brought the universe into being, then "it" would have to posses certain characteristics that avoids the problem of an infinite chain of cause and effect. The description of God as a person that walks the heavens doesn't suit this description, because a body is bound by time and, therefore, must have a beginning (due to our infinity problem).

Therefore, the creator must be absolute, in the sense that "it" does not have limits or undergoes any change. I wouldn't like to get into the characteristics of God, because this rests on the acceptance that the universe is created and did not always exist. If you don't accept this idea, then it's going to be difficult for you to accept the concept of God or a creator.

Do you see why it's impossible for the causal chain to be infinite? Do you have any evidence, or can rationally accept that the causal chain of our universe is circular?

Roger
06 October 2007 at 23:38

Haider: Evidently your reply to my reply got ahead of the second part of my response. The issues I thought you raised had me confused, as well, and I found my answer getting to be much more long-winded than I would have preferred. Also, I was running out of time on that day, as I am now, so I'll add my second half here, and address your response, including any necessary corrections to my own, just as soon as I can. Until then, all the best.....

Haider: The rest of my reply: I hadn't the time to address all issues of your last posting at once. Moreover, the nature of this complex subject causes some lengthiness which might be tedious to other users of this forum. If so, my sincere apologies !

Anyway, I thought that the context of discussion had made it unnecessary to emphasize that my notion of a "circular" universe was just one of a great variety of possible models. Not to get stuck in "concrete(s)", the point was to illustrate the requirement for physical investigation of any model after forming each into a theory which might be verified or disproved. A model is only a potential theory. It is an abstraction needing to be related to some real referent(s) in a formal way before it may be proved or disproved. This relationship is what turns it into a theory. The ability to make verifiable or deniable claims about reality is what makes a theory falsifiable. More about that later.

Your own example of the "Big-Bang" theory in cosmology is a good case in point: By the very definition of this particular version (there are other variants of "Big-Bang") we should never be able to say that "the universe has exploded/imploded X number of times" (unless X=1) because by definition (of this particular model) the implosion obliterates evidence of any previous cycle. By the way, is "time linear"? The Lorenz equations of Special Relativity demand that it is not, but around the early 1900's scientists thought so, and also thought that space had a Euclidean metric. The equations of General Relativity (the model) gave us the chance to investigate the theory that space may have a Non-Euclidean metric. The theory that space is not rectilinear became falsifiable only when paired with the equations to make specific predictions which might be observed, -- or not! This and only this "pairing" made the theory useful for obtaining an answer to the question "is space curved, and if so, in what manner". Speaking of which, what, exactly, IS space, or time?

However our answer, the above illustrates that the question becomes meaningful only if it can be related to real referents by a theory whose conceptual abstraction is the model. The theory (not necessarily the model) is then subject to disproof if the real referents do not behave as predicted. The model, by itself, may be neither true nor false so long as it is intrinsically consistent and logical. It may even be "beautiful" (in a mathematical sense), nonetheless it may be unrelatable to real referents, in which case we obtain a nonfalsifiable theory, namely one which cannot be disproved. Then our theory becomes useless as a potential description of reality. Only a falsifiable theory can help us to decide if the underlying model is capable of making true statements about reality. By the way, a true statement in this context can as readily mean that the theory is false as that it's true. Either way, we shall have increased our knowledge. A non-falsifiable theory would leave the issue undecided. It can make exactly NO TRUE statements about reality. This necessarily includes true statements about the model, which is why a positive outcome by itself does not prove a theory, nor a negative outcome disprove it. (The model might be deficient in some significant way, including any premises on which it was based.) Theories are best investigated based on a number of different models, before a scientist becomes willing to assign them what I like to call a high TQ (truth quotient).

"Falsifiability" is, therefore, not just an "important criteria for approving hypotheses." This assertion is about as wrong as it could ever be! To the contrary, falsifiability is the most important criterium for accepting a theory as even worthy of further consideration. A falsifiable theory is the only sort amenable to the tests of reality. Although an unfalsifiable theory may not necessarily be false, it cannot be tested in a meaningful way; which was exactly my objection to "God" as you describe, as well as, by extension, to any religion of faith. I'll provide an "everyday" example:

"Faith", or"belief in a supernatural entity", to me, however worded or embellished, is like writing an exam where somebody steals the "blue-books" just as soon as the test is over. Every student's dream, you might say. You studied hard, were attentive at all lectures, got your roomies to quiz you until you were sure you knew all the answers, then took the test. So you have good reason to think you got an "A", or even the best grade in the class. Anyway, who would prove otherwise? Better think twice, and think again, because you got nothing of the kind. In fact, you got no grade at all, and you'll be taking the test forever --- or until someone returns the answer sheets! Your belief in the kind of god you describe is like an exam whose answer sheets are missing --- a non-falsifiable theory.

Thus, my contention that the notion of the sort of "God" you posited "spoils all the fun". Here I consider you intelligent enough to realize that "fun" was not meant as a criterium of truth, but is as much a good description of the dominant feeling in scientific investigation, as it is metaphorically accurate in terms of my conclusion regarding this "God". As a scientist, I take great pleasure theorizing about the composition of nature. As someone interested in philosophy, I take the same sort of pleasure examining metaphysical / epistemological constructs. As a human being who needs to be able to check the validity of perceived reality, this "play" becomes in due course a serious matter, which by no means eliminates the "fun" aspect.

Your example of the missing sense is a good case in point, where you admit that reality is independent of our perception. Sensory deprivation doesn't make reality disappear; nonetheless, our ability to perceive it becomes diminished and distorted. Since our existence was predicated upon a full sensory complement, to make sense of reality we would have to rely much more than usual upon our cognitive faculty of abstraction. This is exactly what we do in practicing inductive science, once we get beyond the level of percepts directly related to everyday experience, and begin formulating abstractions (concepts). It is the principal reason for insisting that models of reality, however abstract, must result in falsifiable theories related either to direct experience, or to concepts whose general validity has been been proved (high TQ if you will), what I earlier termed "physical" referents. Had we not done so, we would not to this very day know that e.g. visible light and x-rays are electromagnetic radiation, and therefore of the same kind as ultaviolet and infrared light. A "conceptual" leap to the supernatural would not have produced any form of reliable knowledge about the nature of light, the essential "sameness" of different kinds of light, let alone about its dual nature as wave or particle. ( Meaning? No -- X-ray equipment, MRI's, LED's, Radar, Radio Telescopes, Lasers, TV's, Radio's, electr(on)ic thermometers, etc.) (It's been a long reach since Isaac Newton began to get curious about the intrinsic properties of light, performing experiments to show that its "whiteness" was not an intrinsic property, but caused by the mixing of colors, the first evidence of what turned out to be the electromagnetic spectrum.) Returning to the issue of a missing sense, let's turn it around: To wit, in this context, I find myself sneakily assailed by the suspicion that you might secretly "bemoan" the absence of a sixth sense, namely one specializing in "supernatural detection." ? Let's assume so, just for "fun". Could such a sense provide an answer? No ! Because ... such a sense would have to be a part of yourself, who is physically real and therefore incapable of crossing that boundary, so neither could any part of you. Any perception by such a sense would either result from its "malfunction" or would instantly become a part of nature and be no longer "supernatural."

You evidently prefer, as you say, your description of "God", because it 'would make the world finite'. Leaving aside the fact that it would result in exactly the opposite (see my last posting), what I find implicit to this wish is a seeming desire to have it all neat and tidy, all questions resolved, no disturbing paradoxes, apparent contradictions, lose ends, fuss, or risk. But, the world is as it is, in complete disregard of your wish(es), and a correct explanation of the origin of our present universe is still to be found. One reason is that so far we have only a very sketchy description of its nature. The statement "God made it", or inferentially, "God made it so, so that's why it is and why it is as it is", remains meaningless, because it is at best a tautology, and at worst can never be a testable proposition in any way advancing our knowledge of anything. In such a context, the "law of causality" remains absolute with respect to any known "natural" referents and is irrelevant to imaginary "supernatural" referents. In a similar sense, the rule of non-contradiction isn't violated, because it is actually an axiom: any statement about reality must implicitly presume its truth: Either an entity is natural or it is supernatural. It cannot be both at the same time. Thank Aristotle for being the first to so formally establish that a natural cause and a supernatural cause cannot be the same thing causing the same thing in the same way! Were it otherwise, statements about reality would become meaningless. It follows as a corollary that they cannot both and at the same time and in the same sense bear the same real referent, purporting to explain the same thing.

Roger
10 October 2007 at 21:35

Haider: In your last posting you said you were using the term "belief" to mean "conviction", but respondents might be inhibited in challenging conviction, less inhibited in challenging belief. I'd see it the other way around. "Belief" without reasons, is simply "unreasonable", unfit for discussion! "Conviction" presumes reasoning and the possibility of error, becoming disputable, so they are very different.

You meant to say ' "I know that God exists", because....' . When I used the term "belief", however, I did mean it as stated: From your first posting, you were saying: '... I believe in God and, by the way, I just found what I consider good reason to turn belief into conviction, because Ayn Rand and Dr. Ghate have made the following error in reasoning...', and so on. Then, however, you proceeded to define this "creator" in terms of his attributes:" 'one,' 'absolute i.e. not bound by space or time, does not possess a body, does not undergo change, etc.'" Significant to me in this context, these attributions to the concept "absolute" are all in a negative voice, the 'not ...'. You never define what this entity IS, while the "nots" define, strictly speaking, "nothing", negating any of the common attributes of earthly existence without replacing them with actual properties. What else is the negation of something real, if not something unreal? I fail to see how one can be convinced of something like this, although one might believe it!

Including the attribute, "not bound by space and time", which might someday turn out to be an apt description of the interior of a "Black Hole" (see below), your "definition" involves defining something by its opposite, which is useless if the primary is a real concept, i.e. "body", "change", "time", etc., which is denied. BUT, even here you err, because although "no body" could be set equal to "no mass", leaving in the real world energy, "no change" could pertain to it, or to time, or to existence itself, so long as you propose no means of distinction. Respecting the context of all we know of the universe, these "anti-concepts" must be seen as imaginary. But even here Aristotelian metaphysics would hold: If you create a system of imaginary entity with imaginary attributes, you'd still be required to propose a means of attaching the attributes to their entities in an unambiguous way! You don't !

Which brings to mind the next to last paragraph of your posting, where you claim it would be useless to get into the (presumably positive) characteristics of God, unless respondent first accepted "that the universe is created and did not always exist". ::: "If you don't accept this idea, then it's going to be difficult for you to accept the concept of God or a Creator." ---- Quite so. I "accept" none of it, certainly not without proof, where "proof" cannot be based upon a definition simply denying known real attributes otherwise valid in reality. You might (have) fare(d) better, had you stated positive attributes describing "God" and what he actually does, did, will, or can and cannot do! Barring this, your "conviction" ultimately becomes a "belief" and must be treated as such. ---- An imaginary primary defined only in terms of the absence of real attributes does not thereby become real.

You go on to say, "my belief in a creator stems from my understanding of cause and effect and time as being linear phenomena. People can come up with as many theories as they like to imagine causality in different modes. However, the cause and effect that we observe in reality SEEMS to be linear..." My answer: Better check your understanding! Everyday appearances are not a good guide to understanding the nature of the universe! "Seems" isn't necessarily so. The universe's structure and functioning are subject to scientific investigation and until we learn a lot more, we'd be well advised to distrust appearances in this context.

Everyday experience regarding time and space is not a reliable guide when dealing with the very small, very large, very light, very heavy, or very distant, all of which are REAL aspects of the universe. Centuries of science have proved this much reliably. Relativistic effects predominate in many places such as the microcosm of atomic interactions, as well as in inertial systems near stars and galaxies. For example, "Black holes" exist and have what is called an "event horizon", beyond which we have only a vague idea what becomes of the matter and energy gravitating into it. What might happen to "time" inside or near a black hole? We don't know. Possibly it just ceases to be a meaningful concept in that environment. Whatever we may discover, we will be dealing with the special-relativistic effect of time-dilation and space-contraction, as well as with the general-relativistic effect of space/time curving near large masses, i.e. non-linear time and space such as "frame-dragging". (If space curves "slightly" near a comparatively "small" mass like our sun, bending light, how will it curve near a black hole "swallowing" whole galaxies?! Q.: Could time, assuming it remains a meaningful concept, then and there effectively stand still? Turn backward? Questions like this will likely lead to some stark surprises!) We are literally surrounded by non-linear time and space !!! --- A small, yet titillating thought: Signals from the farthest reaches of our universe (starlight, background radiation, etc.) reaching us today are likely to have emanated from structures which no longer exist (given our knowlege of the average lifespan of a star), so what has taken their place?!!? What happens to radiation from our own galaxy reaching this region?

As for cause and effect, traditional notions of "occurrence", "antecedence", and "contiguity" are not exact statements of what happens at the most fundamental levels in relativity and quantum mechanics. For example, the "fluctuation theorem(s)" of statistical mechanics have led to new insights regarding the 2cnd law of thermodynamics: Although typically an isolated system out of equilibrium will increase entropy, and can do nothing else (the traditional view), we now know that there is a non-zero probability that entropy decreases toward a new equilibrium, and that this is not merely a "mathematical artifact". On the scale of a universe, this small probability becomes a near certainty! Its ultimate effect on that scale? Unknown, so far. But, it's likely to have a "non-obvious" effect!

"...when it comes to understanding what possible entity brought the universe into being, then 'it' would have to possess certain characteristics that avoid the problem of an infinite chain of cause and effect..." ---- Where's the problem?! Your posited version of "Big-Bang" avoids it brilliantly! Each cycle is finite onto itself. Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved. The time-clock is reset. Momentum is conserved into the next "explosion". Would satisfy me. Not you (?), because you would have to remain concerned about how the initial, "infinitely" dense "blob" of subatomic particles got there? Would the idea that this cycling continues "forever" disturb you? It shouldn't, because time "begins" only after the initial explosion and ceases and ends just before the final increase in energy/density. What about the idea that in the universe at large this "recycling" function is accomplished by black holes, the entire universe possessing something like a gravitational event-horizon? Who knows, so far? Before you answer 'No, unacceptable' because time would be infinite, stop! Which time, where, would be infinite???!!! If that were the mechanism, and we do know that our sun will destroy earth in about 4 billion years, then it is possible that what remains of the sun, probably a white dwarf, will likely join parts of the galaxy in some "foreseeable" future in a black hole, becoming finite! Does it get "reborn" after that? Maybe, but as something else than what was. All speculation, but metaphysically tenable, and possibly someday knowable!

If I granted your postulate that an "infinite" universe is a metaphysical impossibility, that it had to have had a singular starting point and will have a definite end, and you answer, "Aha, enter the "Creator"", I can still answer "Wow, where did "He" come from ?" "Where did he get subatomic particles?" Most important: "Why should "He" "want" it to end?" And if it doesn't, then "Wouldn't it continue "forever"?" So, try as I might, I cannot but regard this issue as contrived.

As I stated in a previous posting, it becomes irrelevant to inquire about this form of "eternity". Moreover, by the variant of "Big Bang" cited by you, we cannot make any statements about the past or future number of cycles, let alone that they should be infinite. All we know puts us in the midst of X=n. n could be any positive integer up to but not including infinity, and we could never know the difference !

Yet does it matter? Humanity is indefinitely finite. Meaning, we are the result of a relatively short "chain", better: "network", of "cause and effect". (Evolution by natural selection is never linear on those terms: many external causes combine with an organism's intrinsic qualities to favor a relatively greater number of surviving progeny through many generations.) We cannot say that we have a unique and closely defined beginning. The universe was here long before our arrival. You wrote: "If we are a result of a long chain of cause and effect, then we exist because the chain has a beginning" True, but only as I describe above: paleontological research proves significant "fuzziness" of this beginning! Not a "chain" ! Rather, a "net"!

"We cannot exist, and the start of the chain of cause and effect that brought us into existence is indefinite and has no ending!" ---- Why not ? Obviously, we exist, while our actual start is indefinite, and our ending is in the future. It's a safe bet that the universe wasn't "made for us" and couldn't care less about our presence! Existence exists, with or without us.

"Since we know that we exist ...then we cannot accept that the causal chain is infinite." ---- We don't really, but actually we could, and it would make no difference!!! It isn't "for" any individual, nor "for" our species that the Universe exists! Which says little that's useful about the referents "Universe" and its "causal chain", nor the referent "Creator" and his "causal chain". We know too little about the universe, and nothing about a hypothetical Creator. The universe is the "efficient cause" but not the "sufficient cause" of our existence. So in this context, I consider the concept of "causal chain" to be more like an "anti-concept" born of context-dropping. Concepts like 'causal-chain', 'start', 'end', 'infinity', etc., don't even exist until humans evolved with a consciousness capable of defining them, or the science to validate them in some very specific ways! Additional validations are conceivable, in specific ways!

Neither finiteness nor infinity could tempt me to require, a priory, a "Creator", in lieu of first investigating to the maximum extent possible the nature of this universe. After all, there's a real probability that the "infinity problem" does not exist at all, because either the universe as a whole is subject to an "infinite number" (we'll never know) of finite cycles or is constantly recycling (finite) parts of itself by some mechanism. At least such propositions are capable of being investigated in principle in a rational manner, instead of becoming subsumed in some imaginary, unique, and special, act of creation.

"...the belief in an always existing universe, I 'believe', is irrational."

No more irrational than belief in a "Creator". Actually, I "believe" in neither, because I don't consider either proposition knowable, but were I forced to chose, I'd chose "infinity", if only because it provides the "larger playground" to know. --- So, for the record and the last time: I don't know and neither do you! I'm convinced that it is a question which cannot be answered. I'm "most" convinced that any attempted answer getting into imaginary entities with imaginary attributes outside of the universe, but real referents in it (which they must have to be applicable to the universe, let alone humans) is metaphysically as untenable as it is unprovable in reality! It follows that it cannot be the proper concern either of science or of a philosophy of reason!