About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

38 Replies to “Peter Hitchens on Atheism and England-EU demise.”

  1. I dont agree at all on his take why some people dont believe in god. I no longer believe because there just isnt sufficient evidence to support the belief in the christian god, just as there isnt evidence of Allah, Buddha, Thor, or any other deity. I dont think we should confuse the breakdown of current society on simply the loss of belief. It more comes down to the assault on and replacement of the old judeo christian system with the new system of neomarxism and anti-western sentiment pushed by the hard left movements that sprang up in the 60’s.

  2. Brilliant. Sun should get Peter on as a regular. Pay ‘im. He never gets to appear in UK media without the usual gaggle of contemporary idiots squabbling and jeering all into confusion. A good interview like this one by Mike Coren is a gem.

  3. Adam wrote: It more comes down to the assault on and replacement of the old judeo christian system with the new system of neomarxism and anti-western sentiment pushed by the hard left movements that sprang up in the 60?s.

    If people dont believe in God, then it is hardly surprising that the ethos and values that arose from Christianity will be discarded.

    Belief in God and Jesus Christ does not require evidence.It is faith that matters. If emperical evidence is available for the existence of God, then not to believe would be obtuse.

  4. It was a very interesting clip, thank you!

    There is a tendency to confuse the concept of God/s with organized religion. It is mankind who carries the spark of divinity, or the supernatural or God/’s within the mind and heart of each individual. A higher ideal, so to speak, something to aspire to but yet never quite attain due to the limitations which are a part of the human condition. God is revealed through the excellence in the arts, music, science, medicine, literature, etc, etc which have advanced knowledge, have benefited and ennobled mankind. Look at the works of ; Morzart, Beethoven, Da Vinci, Michangelo, Einstein, Newton, Goethe, Thomas Jefferson, Socrates/Plato ect, ect. As such, organized religion can be a force for good only in so far as its creeds are compatible with the concept of God or higher ideal and reason.

  5. “If people dont believe in God, then it is hardly surprising that the ethos and values that arose from Christianity will be discarded. ”

    Objective values and virtues do not arise from god-belief, they are discovered by rational thinking – by applying the method of logic (the art or skill of non-contradictory identification) to the material provided by one’s senses (one’s windows on reality) in order to form valid concepts and propositions about reality.

    “Belief in God and Jesus Christ does not require evidence. It is faith that matters.”

    Faith, of course, is belief in the absence of evidence. All god-belief is based on faith, because there is no evidence for a god.

    “If emperical evidence is available for the existence of God, then not to believe would be obtuse.”

    Correct. However, there is as much chance of finding empirical evidence of an all-creative god as there is of finding empirical evidence of square-circles – which is no chance whatsoever. The reason for this is that the notion of an all-creative god contradicts reality. And when belief in this notion is examined logically, it is proved to be as self-contradictory as the notion of a square-circle. Thus, god-belief is not only belief in the absence of evidence, it is also belief in defiance of logic. But don’t take my word for this, discover it for yourself, by carefully working your way through this series of explanatory essays:

    http://www.reocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE.html

  6. The laws and culture of the West were founded on the Judeo/Christian traditions, when those traditions including right and wrong, good and evil are no longer taught and the place they came from is attacked as being mere superstition the laws and culture are easy to destroy.

  7. Atheism is a religion and it is being preached more then any other religion on the net and it really is getting annoying listening to them.

    Agnostic doesn’t know if there is a god. Atheism denies there is a god which means they claim there is no god and that takes faith.

    Religion needs to have a faith and to practice their faith. Since they are the number one most preached on the net they are obviously practicing their faith on the net.

    Every ethical religion is based on something very good such as love, spirituality, compassion and so on. Atheism is based on nothingness which is rather pathetic.

    Atheist scare my about as much as Islam because they often replace their nothingness with big government

  8. OxAO,

    Atheism isnt a religion. All it states is a lack of belief. The book of Atheism is one page, with one line that states: “I dont believe.”

    You yourself are an atheist in many other religions. Do you beleive in Allah? I take that as a no, and a no on the thousands of other gods that man has made up over the years. So why not discard one more?

    To say that atheists are scary… Thats just a non-starter. Theres nothing in “I dont beleive” that justifies violence or persecution that has been seen in the big three over the past 2000 years.

    Our current western government was founded on non-ideological atheist values. The founders of the US where atheists by todays standards, and the first amendment was a response to the abuses of power demonstrated by the church, and intended strictly to keep the church out of government, not the other way around. Much of our western tradition predates judeo christian culture, and has its roots in Greek philosophy. It was re-discovered and built upon further during the struggles with the church backed monarchy in England as well as in the renaissance.

    Now, as for the source of big government, thats as old as man-kind itself. Much of our current problems stem from Marxism and socialism, not from Atheism. Many so called “atheists” discover their atheism from Marxism.

  9. George

    With humility I know that far greater minds then mine, such as Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, and Einstein, believed in the existence of God. I cannot accept that such minds were irrational.

    Unless you think that the above were wasting their time, I feel that you should read this

    God Or Moral Nihilism: The Ending Of The Meno
    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4871

  10. China, India and Tibet as well as many other nations were/are atheist and managed to have a highly moral and ethical civilization all of which lasted considerably longer than European post Christian ones. Rome was also atheist. Their religion was basically a copy of the Greek Hellenism and wasn’t taken very seriously by anyone. It was more as a sort of cultural tie that binds. Archetypical devices if you like. It is of course highly possible to have a moral and ethical society which is atheistic. Examples are easy. But not to easy if you do not have a cultural tie, a set of principles that makes a people out of all within a nation. This is why multiculturalism is the death knell of civilization. Not because of a lack of faith, but because the attempt at a super-tribe fails once you stop having a set of values that all within feel is worth defending.

  11. Eeyore, what is the standard of value – the guage of all other values – and how do we know it? What is the principle that defines a proper (objectively moral) society and how do we know it?

  12. George:

    That is of course, the real question and the one I begged for in the rhetorical sense.

    I guess I can only anwer from a personal point of view. One could argue that POV comes from a Judeo-Christian background and I might agree if you throw in Buddhism (not a religion) and standard geopolitical-sociological thought.

    I would say:

    1. The reduction of suffering to all people
    2. Increasing the health, prosperity, and security of all people
    3. Increasing the individual liberty of those people.

    These are quantifiable although some might argue about suffering, but I mean it in the easy to quantify way, disease, starvation and so on.

  13. ‘With humility I know that far greater minds then mine, such as Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, and Einstein, believed in the existence of God ‘

    The fallacy you are committing here is known as the appeal to (alleged) authority. And possible implications of your appeal include these: that you believe in the existence of god because ‘greater minds’ than yours did; that your belief in the existence of god is buttressed by the same belief in ‘greater minds’ than yours.

    ‘I cannot accept that such minds were irrational.’

    Well, such minds believed in the existence of god in the absence of evidence. How is this not a prime example of irrational thought? (Man’s rational faculty has three elements: the senses – the start of reason; logic – the method of reason; and concepts – the form of reason. We are thinking rationally when we apply the method of logic (non-contradictory identification) to the material provided by the senses (our windows on reality) in the process of forming valid concepts about reality. Concepts are symbolized by words. We then organize concepts to make propositions about reality. A proposition is to a sentence what a concept is to a word. And when we organize our concepts into propositions we must do so using the method of logic.)

    So, does it really matter that world-renowned geniuses of science were also fervent believers in god? Of course not. What really matters is whether the notion ‘god’ or the assertion ‘god exists’ is valid or not. And logic (the method of rational thinking – man’s only means to knowledge) tells us that the notion ‘god’ and the assertion ‘god exists’ are invalid. If truth or objective knowledge (knowledge of reality) is your goal, you should endeavor to appeal primarily to the facts of reality – not to authority – and to think rationally.

    No one can deny that Newton, Maxwell, Faraday and Einstein were pre-eminent geniuses in their respective fields of science. However, not one of these geniuses was all-knowing and infallible. It is the nature of the corpus of human knowledge that it tends to increase with the passage of time and of generations. Pythagoras was a mathematical genius but he knew nothing of Newton’s laws of motion and gravity, and nothing of Faraday’s contributions in the field of electromagnetism. The point I’m trying to make here is that in order for one to understand why the notion of an all-creative god and the assertion ‘god exists’ are invalid, one first must have knowledge and understanding of the principle that invalidates them. One must have knowledge and understanding of the issue of metaphysical primacy – specifically, the validity of the principle of the primacy of existence, and the invalidity of the principle of the primacy of consciousness. Newton, Maxwell, Faraday and Einstein had no knowledge of the validity of the principle of the primacy of existence, because such knowledge in their times was not available; its discovery had to await the time of Ayn Rand. Had they had such knowledge and understanding, and were consistently rational in their thinking, they would have had to renounce all god-belief immediately. Currently, the principle of the primacy of existence and its implications for god-belief are far from widely known – but this is slowly changing.

    ‘Unless you think that the above [Newton et al] were wasting their time, I feel that you should read this:

    God Or Moral Nihilism: The Ending Of The Meno
    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4871

    Out of interest, I shall read the article to which you have provided a link. But if the article concludes that ‘god-exists’ (as I suspect it does), then I can tell you right now that the author has committed the fallacy of the stolen concept, because the notion ‘god’ (and therefore the assertion ‘god exists’) necessarily entails this fallacy – and there is no escape from it. You can learn about this fallacy in the ‘Important Terms’ section of the articles and essays to which I provided a link in my first post.

  14. Adam you are mistaken with many points.

    1. you said, “All it states is a lack of belief.” no, that isn’t atheism. Atheism goes farther then that it says, “denial of god.” or “I don’t believe.” Which you can not deny something scientifically without proof that makes atheism a faith.

    2. I discard Mohammad’s beliefs because it isn’t even a religion by Islam’s definition it is a social and economic ideology (which you are taking this off track by using Islam.) God maybe made up but they are based on good virtues thus I do not discard them such as Buddhism is based on Spirituality, there is nothing wrong with that.
    Is there a deity is the question not if your god is exactly right. Don’t get side tracked with the Atheist faith which loves to use double talk

    3. The concept of denial of something greater then ourselves leaves a large whole of “what are we doing here?” Often this hole is replaced with a large social order (such as Nazism and communism. Then you used Buddhism and Hinduism as an example of no deity which is technically correct but the “hole” is replaced by spirituality or which partially helps them answer the question “what are we doing here.” Which you can see the “hole” is the issue not the deity. Buddhism and Hinduism are not scary because they have been able to avoid using a social order with the use of Spirituality.

    4. I believe it was 54 out of the 56 signers of the deceleration of Independence had a theologian degree. That means almost all of them were ministers of their faiths. I am not sure how people get the idea they were not religious? Religion was the root of what made the USA.

  15. Look at how many posts there are on the faith of atheism. If it wasn’t a religion there wouldn’t be any posts.

    You don’t see Agnostics say, “I don’t know. I don’t know if there is a god, god? I don’t know. I can not prove one way or another…..”
    This doesn’t happen because being agnostic isn’t a faith or a religion.

  16. That it is a great post is without questions. The many comments testify to that.
    For those who say that ‘God’ is a matter of faith are partially right. Whether you believe in a ‘God’ or not, faith is what our western societies is losing.
    We don’t have faith in our leaders anymore. We don’t have faith in the way our political, economical and social systems are run. The assault on our faith is coming from all direction and we no longer know how to deal with it. Our faith has basically come down to ‘the survival of me, myself and I.

  17. In the book I advertise at the top of the site, ‘Allah is Dead’, they make the case that Islam is a fetish. They claim this because in Judaism and Christianity etc. people find the materials sacred because it holds meaning for them. A devout Christian holds the bible sacred because of it’s contents and how those contents help him understand his own existence or relate to his experience of life. Islam on the other hand, fetishizes it’s materials by claiming they are sacred and threatening the well being of anyone who refuses to treat them as such, or even act convincingly that they feel they are.

    This meets the criteria of a fetish. You imbue the object with sacredness for no particular reason and demand others do the same from fear. So no, Islam cannot really be compared to classical religions where there has to be some degree of free will on the part of the believer.

  18. By the way, the newest Southpark has a great bit about fundamentalist agnostics who torture their orphans if they profess any sort of belief they can’t empirically substantiate. It isn’t the best Southpark of all time but it’s amusing and relevant to this thread 🙂

  19. ” George:

    That is of course, the real question and the one I begged for in the rhetorical sense.

    I guess I can only anwer from a personal point of view.”

    Eeyore, with all due respect, this is your first mistake. How can you know that your personal point of view is the correct point of view? How can you know anything? And how can guessing avail you?

    The source of all knowledge (by which I mean objective knowledge) is reality – the sum total of that which exists out there in the universe, including the laws that orchestrate it – because all knowledge is knowledge of reality. And man’s only means of acquiring knowledge is his faculty of reason – his faculty for rational thinking.

    Therefore, the answers to the questions ‘What is man’s standard of value, and how do we know it?’ and ‘What is the principle that defines a proper (objectively moral) society (or social system or socio-political system), and how do we know it?’ can be discovered only by looking at reality – specifically, by the application of one’s faculty of reason. And since all knowledge is hierarchical (as well as contextual), one cannot correctly answer my second set of questions until one has correctly answered my first. Ayn Rand discovered the answers to these questions (and many, many more) over half a century ago and yet, regrettably, they are still so very narrowly known and understood (and there are reasons for this).

    Eeyore, in order fully for you to grasp and integrate the answers to my questions, you will require some basic knowledge and understanding of Objectivist philosophy. I also realize that your time is precious and quite probably very limited. I therefore recommend that you read carefully the following, relatively short, article, which, although far from full, should provide at least adequate answers to my questions within an overview of the philosophy that provides them; I think it is a good starting point:

    http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/introducing-the-objective-standard.asp

  20. To a degree I understand Rand. I would like to understand it better. But I don’t think that is the only way to interpret reality within the bounds of reason. For example, we can look at a living thing’s raw numbers as being the ultimate goal, and all ethics and morals etc. could be adjusted to inspire that result. This would be quite reasonable actually from an evolutionary biology point of view. But then you could look at the sustainability of a system. That would require the premise that things are great as they are, how can we maintain them? Then there is game theory. My favorite method of analysis for living things and even for that matter inanimate ones, as many thing seem to organize themselves in a manner which suggests the principles of game theory apply. (Moral Calculations Lazlo Mero)

    I chose instead to look at suffering as the premise from which I would derive ethical principles as one can measure it, and with very few exceptions, those who posses it would like less of it. Also, a historical approach. Which civilizations have been the most successful at the things that matter to me. Scientific advancement, greater understanding of the natural world, larger numbers of people cooperating to achieve greater things while still preserving individual liberty etc.

    Buddhism and Hinduism allowed civilizations to flourish, until Islam pretty much wiped out some of them (an argument against excessive domestication perhaps?) which are not religions. These are cognitive tools and while they, like every other complex system of thought including logic can deteriorate into mere ‘god bothering’ they were not written as such and are powerfully efficacious as cognitive tools leading to the advancement of civilization, itself the consequence of a specific gene.

    There being another premise. The notion of genetic determinism. Another factor which cannot be denied but argument may exist as to the extent of its influence.

    This, I hope, is a somewhat better answer than: ‘personal’ but is what I meant.

  21. “Atheism is a religion and it is being preached more then any other religion on the net and it really is getting annoying listening to them.”

    Rubbish. Atheism is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair colour.

  22. If atheism isn’t a religion why are so many atheist spending so much time and money trying to force people to believe their way? Note they aren’t trying to talk people into believing their way they are trying to get laws passed preventing people from voicing a belief in any thing but atheism.

  23. OxAO,

    Theres a difference between being a deist, and being a christian, or a muslim. I dont rule out the possibility of there being more to this universe, but I reject the old myths of the desert. I didnt become an atheist until I got serious about religion. The claims made simply dont hold water. Hence, its called “faith”, taken without reason. Theres a huge gap between “maybe something more” and the Bible, and an even larger one between that and the Quran.

    As far as the Nazi bit, the Nazis where religious, and Hitler was, at least in part, a catholic and also practiced odd occult type religious rituals. They where not atheists. Google “Nazi belt buckle” if you want an example.

    Communism is based on Marxism, again, another ideology. Nothing to do with atheism. The atheism is incidental to the fact that theyre following an ideology thats not based on supernatural beliefs. Humans are inclined to want to beleive in something bigger than themselves that unifies, which is why religion is pushed aside when these things take root in a society. They want access to the “god” center to push their own ideological system.

    As for the founding fathers, go read some of Jeffersons writings. Its clear that he was not a dyed in the wool christian, and neither where many of the others.

    Richard,

    Whos spending a lot of money? Most atheist groups are not well funded, and are just groups for those who dont beleive. I dont see any atheists going door to door to win converts, and many, like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, are doing it because of the damage that religion is doing. While Islam by far takes the cake on that one, Christianity isnt entirely blameless, either. When an atheist has a bill-board, its national news. Yet, I pass dozens of bill-boards for Christian and Catholic groups on a weekly basis. People dont bat an eye because theyre so conditioned to think religion is some harmless thing. While this isnt an issue with Christianity as much, its a huge problem with Islam and the useful idiots on the left pushing it for their own purposes. One that could be fatal to the west. I think its time we leave religion to the dustbin of history.

  24. Ian just who are you to tell free people how to believe and to force them to believe the way you want? What part of freedom don’t you understand?

  25. The ACLU at the instigation of the atheist groups is spending the money, lots of it. The law suits keep coming so why are they being filed if not to stop people from believing the way they want and force them to believe the way the atheists want? We are suppose to be free people who are citizens of free nations, how can any group justify using the law to force people to stop practicing a religion that is not harming others?

  26. Richard,
    All religions/cults harm people. It stops them free thinking. The mandate is faith over knowledge. Each and every one of them is a list of bigotry and hatred.
    Such people should be hounded back to the desert, whence they came.

  27. Thanks for your response, Eeyore.

    “To a degree I understand Rand. I would like to understand it better. But I don’t think that is the only way to interpret reality within the bounds of reason.”

    Your third statement is contradictory. Reality is what it is independent of any human desires, wishes or particular interpretations, and valid cognition entails not the interpretation of reality but merely its identification or discovery, and man can achieve this identification only by consistently applying his faculty of reason. Your second statement, however, I like very much.

    The defining essence of the philosophy of Objectivism is objectivity – the recognition that reality exists independent of any consciousness and that a man’s consciousness can acquire knowledge of reality only by means of his faculty of reason. All of its principles are dependent upon factual evidence, all of which reduces to the primary axioms of reality. This means that all of its principles integrate and interrelate without contradiction. Its principles are also hierarchical, which means that higher level truths are derived from more basic level truths, again all the way back to the primary axioms. This means that one cannot discover a truth until one has first discovered the truth upon which it depends.

    For example, one cannot discover the objective moral principles defining a proper government until one has discovered the objective moral principles defining a proper society, and one cannot discover the objective moral principles defining a proper society until one has discovered an objective system of ethics, and one cannot discover an objective system of ethics until one has discovered man’s standard of value (his standard of the good), and one cannot discover man’s standard of value until one has identified man’s nature, and one cannot identify man’s nature unless one looks at reality, and one’s only valid means of looking at and identifying reality is one’s faculty of reason.

    In other words, one must first identify man’s nature in the context of the rest of reality by one’s only valid means of doing so – one’s reason – before one can discover the requirements of man’s life and happiness and how he is to achieve them, and what the requirements for a proper society are and how they are to be protected. Objectivism identifies all of these requirements objectively (and therefore logically) and, necessarily, hierarchically.

    Ayn Rand summarized the essentials of her philosophy in this manner:

    Metaphysics: Objective Reality (Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed).
    Epistemology: Reason (You can’t eat your cake and have it, too).
    Ethics: Self-Interest (Man is an end in himself).
    Politics: Capitalism (Give me liberty or give me death).

    You might find value in this 75-minute lecture, which is a brief introduction to the philosophy of Objectivism:

    http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_peikoff_intro

  28. George:

    I will watch the lecture and read your response when I have a moment. But I had to stop and comment on something first.

    Reality is always interpreted. Always. Quantum mechanics and relativity are the two most tested theories in the world of science. Both are accurate and are mutually exclusive. They simply cannot both be true as they are fundamentally different models.
    To sugest that human beings are capable of understanding objective reality with certainty is not only hubris, but it is the kind of utopian thinking that creates genocides as the communists Nazis and Muslims do.

    Reason is a method. It has limitations. It is not perfect but it is the best thing we have in terms of the results it yields. But it is also a process.

    In any case I will re read your response when I get home from work as well as watch the lecture when I have time, hopefully soon.

  29. Dave:

    I look forward to the day when i hear the term, ‘Free thinking’ not used as a euphemism for, ‘thinking like me’.

  30. Ian Hepworth
    said, “Because having an imaginary friend has no place in the 21st Century.”

    So you use the force of government on those that want a subconscious?
    Isn’t that the ultimate tyranny? Using the power of government to stop those from thinking an dreaming?

  31. Dave I feel sorry for you and your twisted view of history and religion, all I can do is hope that someday you learn better.

  32. Adam, “Hitler was, at least in part, a catholic ”

    Isn’t that like saying Muslims are partly Jews?
    Just because he was born Catholic doesn’t make him one. Unless you think singling out Catholic ministers and killing them by the thousands makes him catholic?

    Yes, Hitler enter cycle was a occult group that wanted nothing to do with god and hated religion and was in the process of killing off all other religions literally.

    said, “Humans are inclined to want to beleive in something bigger than themselves that unifies”

    Good let them dream and leave them alone.

    Yes, Jefferson wasn’t a religious man. Isn’t it interesting a non-religious man can get along with so many religious people to create something so wonderful?
    I didn’t say all of them were religious only like +90% were.
    This should be proof Christians are the antithesis of Islam.

  33. For goodness sake, all you idiotic religion-obsessed atheist big-heads get back to your YouTube playpen where you belong. This thread is turning into a waste of time and space as you drone on and on. Shoo, back to your kiddy friends.

  34. Thanks for your response, Eeyore.

    “Reality is always interpreted. Always.”

    To sugest that human beings are capable of understanding objective reality with certainty is not only hubris, but it is the kind of utopian thinking that creates genocides as the communists Nazis and Muslims do.”

    I strongly disagree on all counts (bear with me):

    Existence exists (We can go no further unless we first agree upon this). And if a thing exists, it must exist as something, i.e., it must possess ‘identity’ (it must have a specific nature entailing specific attributes and actions). This is the law of identity (It is also the fundamental law of logic). Essentially, ‘identity’ is an inseparable aspect of ‘existence’ – to be is to be something. It is also a corollary of ‘existence’ – if a thing exists, it necessarily follows that it must exist as something. Fundamentally, consciousness is the faculty of perceiving, or being aware of, that which exists. To be conscious is to be conscious of something. If there is nothing to be conscious of, there can be no consciousness. The function of consciousness is to perceive (to grasp) that which exists, and consciousness does this by grasping the ‘identity’ of that which exists. Ayn Rand summarized this process in this way: Existence is identity; consciousness is identification.

    Reality exists and is knowable (although as yet by no means fully known) to man, and man’s only means to this knowledge is his faculty of reason – his faculty for thinking rationally, the method of which is logic. If a man is not thinking logically, he is not thinking rationally, and any ‘knowledge’ he acquires by this irrational means will be subjective in nature and almost invariably in error; it can be objective, and therefore factual, only by chance. Do you agree?

    The problem with interpreting reality, rather than merely identifying it for what it actually is, is this: How can you know that your interpretation is objective, i.e., factual, i.e., that it relates to reality. In other words, how would you validate your interpretation? Well, all the methods of validation open to you, such as proof and self-evidence, necessarily entail the method of non-contradictory identification, which is the method of logic, and logic is the method of reason. Thus, all knowledge (which is to say, objective knowledge) ultimately is non-contradictory identification – not interpretation – by means of reason.

    If one does not validate one’s interpretations logically, the result is highly likely to be a non-objective view of reality – which is to say, that one’s view of reality will be subjective. For example, if man’s interpretation of reality is that knowledge is acquired through revelation and that the universe was willfully created by an omniscient and omnipotent consciousness – a god – and that miracles are possible and angels, demons and devils exist among us and occasionally interact with us for the good or the bad, then he holds a subjective view of reality which is supernatural in nature. This view of reality is known as supernatural subjectivism, and its ultimate source is the philosopher Plato (Incidentally, the metaphysics identified here, in Objectivist terminology, is the primacy of consciousness in its supernatural variant). And in regard to man’s socio-political organization, I don’t need to tell you what the inevitable result of this view of reality is. Similarly, if man’s view of reality holds that reality is not knowable by any means, which essentially was Kant’s view, he ends up with a social form of subjectivism that leads inexorably down the road to statism, i.e., communism and fascism (The metaphysics, identified here, again in Objectivist terms, is the primacy of consciousness in its social variant).

    For much more clarity on all of this, I would urge you to read, when you have the time (and I realize that your free time must be very limited), Craig Biddle’s book ‘Loving Life’. It is an introduction to Objectivist ethics, is very lucidly written and will inform you far more fully than I ever could in the space of a comments board. And for a comprehensive account of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, I strongly recommend ‘Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand’ by Leonard Peikoff.

    “Quantum mechanics and relativity are the two most tested theories in the world of science. Both are accurate and are mutually exclusive. They simply cannot both be true as they are fundamentally different models.”

    Both quantum theory and relativity theory, although supremely excellent mathematical accounts of physical behavior, provide no underlying causal explanations for the phenomena they describe – because such causality has as yet not been identified (i.e., it awaits identification). If you have literally five minutes spare, read this short review of David Harriman’s book ‘The Logical Leap’ by David S. Ross:

    http://www.atlassociety.org/tni/quantum-mechanics-unworthy

    ‘Reason is a method. It has limitations. It is not perfect but it is the best thing we have in terms of the results it yields. But it is also a process.’

    How can you know that ‘reason has limitations’ and that ‘it is not perfect’ (I am presuming here that you are saying that reason has limitations and is not perfect as a means to acquiring knowledge) when your only means of validating these assertions is reason itself? Essentially, to attempt validation here would be to attempt to invalidate reason by means of reason, which is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept (the little known and less understood fallacy that has corrupted much of philosophical thought throughout history).

    “In any case I will re read your response when I get home from work as well as watch the lecture when I have time, hopefully soon.”

    I would urge that you also read Craig Biddle’s article ‘Introducing The Objective Standard’, to which I provided a link in an earlier post.

  35. Having just re-read my last post, Eeyore, I am thinking that there is a high probability that you have never encountered the ‘fallacy of the stolen concept’ before, and that my reference to it in regard to your comments concerning the efficacy of reason as a means to knowledge is likely to have confused you. In order to achieve a full grasp of the efficacy of reason and the validity of the primary axioms (re existence, identity and consciousness), it is crucial that you have a full grasp of the nature of this fallacy. The best essay elucidating the nature of this fundamental and most subtle of fallacies (which, incidentally, was identified by Ayn Rand) that I know of was written back in 1963 by Nathaniel Branden, and you can read it here:

    http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/6715

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*