REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Valandil]

Dave,

You generally seem much more versed in philosophy than me, but in case you're not aware of it, there's a particular philosophy called "Objectivism" (capital 'O') based on the writings of author Ayn Rand. It tries to be very strictly logical, rational, capitalistic...(ED: oh - and centers on the importance of THE INDIVIDUAL!!) here my knowledge of it breaks down.

Most of us architects are somewhat aware of her and her ideals because she has written one of the few novels starring an architect ("The Fountainhead" - made into a semi-silly movie w/ Gary Cooper). If you see somebody reading it in public, 10-to-1 they're an architect or architecture student.

Curious, I took the deeper plunge and read "Atlas Shrugged" - great reading for anyone who thinks they want to be a liberal, but in my opinion you have to take her with a major grain of salt. It's also over 1,000 pages - so you have to psych up for it.

Anyway, her atheism is apparent - along with hedonism, but all justified by achievement, success, production, etc. Her own life ended up in shambles, which was sad, but maybe to be expected.

My apologies if you're aware of all this and were simply posting way over my head on the subject!

ED: On the other hand, if you look into it, you might be much more capable of seeing its flaws and picking it apart than I would.

[Starr Polish]

o.O Ayn Rand...oi. I'm going to start reading "The Fountainhead" for a scholarship soon. I read Anthem years ago, and I'm a bit worried about tackling this work as well.

[Valandil]

I also read "Anthem" - actually at one sitting in a library some years back - so I've read those three. "Fountainhead" is a lot longer than "Anthem" - I think about 700+ pages. Like I said... take her with a grain of salt! Uh... also, you may need to close your eyes when you read some of the more graphic parts.

(EDIT: PS - does it have to be "Fountainhead" or are there other things you could read for it? What is it... scholarship to an architecture school? )

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

LOL, I should have started that post with “I have no idea who Ayn Rand is, but...� Actually, I have heard the name, though I was under the sexist impression that it was a guy. I believe it was a general admonition against paying the name any attention, and it appears from your words:

Anyway, her atheism is apparent - along with hedonism, but all justified by achievement, success, production, etc.

... that such an admonition was an accurate one. It sounds to me from this that her ends justify her means, and what’s more her ends are that same old “self-reliance/self-interest illusions� that have plagued modern American thought for too long. Of course, I should suspend all judgement until I’ve actually taken the time to read her work... but I suppose that will be never given my already long reading list.

--Dave

[Valandil]

You're quite close to the mark, Dave. She is originally from Ukraine, and when communism arose, she saw it as a great evil - even as a little girl. Her response was to create a 'godless capitalism' - one might say a totally UNcompassionate conservatism (or discompassionate - if that's more accurate... ?). (EDIT: She ended up coming to America and writing here. My older brother is a Libertarian - and somewhat into her ideas.)

Some good thoughts... butcha gotta weedem out!

[Insidious Rex]

http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/essentials.html

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Ah, so it comes full circle... Marx reacts to economic liberalism, Lenin instutionalizes Marxism, Stalin makes the system work the only way it can, and Rand in disgust plays the role of Marx in reverse. Sounds to me like she should have read some Charles Dickens before deciding that a return to economic liberalism would be a good idea.

[Ruinel]

I'm not that familiar with Ayn Rand as you seem to be Valandil. A godless capitalism... I'm for the godless part if it's more for what's good for the people and not for the individual only. I just don't think that pure capitalism would work, with or without a god. Neither will pure communism work either. People are corruptable, and corrupting. I don't see any way that either would work with human beings.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
I must disagree. There are many atheists who, from their own premises, would totally reject that.

The followers of Ayn Rand certainly would. They call themselves Objectivists because they think that their beliefs are as logically valid as 1+1=2.

Amongst which is the idea that belief in God is necessarily Evil.

Mr. Mouser - I would love to take up this discussion after we're done on the Gay/Lesbian thread - can't manage it now

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Mr. Mouser - I would love to take up this discussion after we're done on the Gay/Lesbian thread - can't manage it now

Rian, you quit that spamming. I know you're just trying to get more posts than me.

[Falagar]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Falagar - I wish I knew how you were asking this, but I'll go ahead and treat it as a serious question, since at one point in my life, the question troubled me.

I don't like to quote from books too often, because I think it's more valuable for people to be able to put things into their own words, but I think C. S. Lewis has such an excellent answer to this, and it makes such sense, that I'll quote him:

Sorry this response is so late - let me know if you see it - I'll PM you if I don't see a response from you

Thanks for the reply (and quote).

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Today, Dec. 11th, Catholics observe the memorial of Pope Saint Damasus I, who was bishop of Rome from AD 366 to 384. Among many things, Damasus promoted the veneration of saints and martyrs and adorned their burial places in Rome. The veneration of martyrs and saints was an extremely early development in Christianity, as can be seen by the dates of Damasus’ pontificate, and there is every indication that his activities were based on long established tradition; for example, the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (martyred c. AD 115), Clement of Rome (late first century AD) and Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-200) all make reference to the cult of martyrs or particular veneration of the apostles. A passage from Saint Augustine’s Treatise Against Faustus (5th century) from today’s Liturgy of the Hours, Office of Readings, might help to highlight the points made by Gwaimir Windgem in his already excellent explanation of the communion of saints and the intercession, and veneration thereof. I’ve reproduced it here for anyone interested:

We, the Christian community, assemble to celebrate the memory of the martyrs with ritual solemnity because we want to be inspried to follow their example, share in their merits, and be helped by their prayers. Yet we erect no altars to any of the martyrs, even in the martyrs’ burial chapels themselves.

No bishop, when celebrating at an altar where these holy bodies rest, has ever said, “Peter, we make this offering to you,� or “Paul, to you,� or “Cyprian, to you.� No, what is offered is offered always to God, who crowned the martyrs. We offer in the chapels where the bodies of those he crowned rest, so the memories that cling to those places will stir our emotions and encourage us to greater love both for the martyrs whom we can imitate and for God whose grace enables us to do so.

So we venerate the martyrs with the same veneration of love and fellowship that we give to the holy men of God still with us. We sense that the hearts of these latter are just as ready to suffer death for the sake of the Gospel, and yet we feel more devotion toward those who have already emerged victorious from the struggle. We honor those who are fighting on the battlefield of this life here below, but we honor more confidently those who have already achieved the victor’s crown and live in heaven.

But the veneration strictly called “worship,� or latria, that is, the special homage belonging only to the divinity, is something we give and teach others to give to God alone. The offering of a sacrifice belongs to worship in this sense (that is why those who sacrifice to idols are called idol-worshipers), and we neither make nor tell others to make any such offering to any martyr, any holy soul, or any angel. If anyone among us falls into this error, his is corrected with words of sound doctrine and must then either mend his ways or else be shunned.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I'm not that familiar with Ayn Rand as you seem to be Valandil. A godless capitalism... I'm for the godless part if it's more for what's good for the people and not for the individual only. I just don't think that pure capitalism would work, with or without a god. Neither will pure communism work either. People are corruptable, and corrupting. I don't see any way that either would work with human beings.

You are quite right. In fact, (don't slap me for this ) the portion I left in bold is on the verge of Christian doctrine... as regarding the 'sinful nature' of mankind.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Rian, you quit that spamming. I know you're just trying to get more posts than me.

Who, me? O:-)

[Rían]

Who, me? O:-)

*edit* oh gee, an "accidental" double post - oh my!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Valandil
You are quite right. In fact, (don't slap me for this ) the portion I left in bold is on the verge of Christian doctrine... as regarding the 'sinful nature' of mankind.

I noticed that too, Valandil ...

(and THIS post was not a spam! )

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Who, me? O:-)

*edit* oh gee, an "accidental" double post - oh my!

Yeah right.
Post post as fast as you can, you can catch me I'm the ginerbread woman.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Valandil
You are quite right. In fact, (don't slap me for this ) the portion I left in bold is on the verge of Christian doctrine... as regarding the 'sinful nature' of mankind.

It human nature. We are creatures of desire and wants. That's who we are.

And I suppose you noticed that Christian doctrine is on the verge of Atheist and Pagan doctrine as well.

Those that believe in a deity
Islam: god has given to the humans clear orders of how to live, but according to the Coran humans tend to become evil and needs god's mercy to come back on track.

Aristotle: "The identity of the objects of knowledge and opinion is similar. Knowledge is the apprehension of, e.g. the attribute 'animal' as incapable of being otherwise, opinion the apprehension of 'animal' as capable of being otherwise-e.g. the apprehension that animal is an element in the essential nature of man is knowledge; the apprehension of animal as predicable of man but not as an element in man's essential nature is opinion: man is the subject in both judgements, but the mode of inherence differs."

and...
"Man is a rational animal. He is animal in his possession of a body With its physical needs and appetites. "

more....

[Ruinel]

Confucianism: humans should be considered good beings - if they are evil, that is due to lack of insight. Insight is morals and ethics.

Man as innately evil
Hsün Tzu: "a warped piece of wood must wait until it has been laid against the straightening board, steamed, and forced into shape before it can become straight, because by nature it is warped. Similarly, since man's nature is evil, he must wait for the ordering power of the sage kings and the transforming power of ritual principles; only then can he achieve order and conform to goodness."

Would anyone else wish to add to this? I don't want to hog all the passages.

[brownjenkins]

Buddhism:

The only thing that is real is that we have six roots within us. Three roots of good and three roots of evil. The latter are greed, hate and delusion, but we also have their opposites: generosity, loving-kindness and wisdom. Take an interest in this matter. If one investigates this and doesn't get anxious about it, then one can easily accept these six roots in everybody. No difficulty at all, when one has seen them in oneself. They are the underlying roots of everyone's behavior. Then we can look at ourselves a little more realistically, namely not blaming ourselves for the unwholesome roots, not patting ourselves on the back for the wholesome ones, but rather accepting their existence within us. We can also accept others more clear-sightedly and have a much easier time relating to them.

from this site