Bitch-Slapping Statists For Fun & Profit Based On The Non-Aggression Principle
HomePortalGalleryCalendarFAQRegisterLog in

 Martin McPhillips on Atheism and Objectivism

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
RR Phantom


Location : Wabbit Hole
Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary

PostSubject: Martin McPhillips on Atheism and Objectivism   Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:50 pm

Having been a vigorous, reductive atheist for over a decade, all I can say about it is that there is no philosophical justification for it. Put a bit differently: There is no philosophical justification for a conclusion to atheism. This is what brings most of Ayn Rand's philosophy into question: Her insistence that reason itself, apparently working on its own, as an abstract process independent of the human mind, concludes to atheism. She attempts to put a "romantic" dress on Objectivism, but all that it comes down to is a low metaphysical ceiling and another lame horse in the materialism stakes. Again, she attributes her "romantic" view of man to reason, as though it reaches her conclusion on its own. You use reason to make arguments, not to base your conclusion on reason itself. Aristotle understood that the material stream of cause and effect had to lead back to an uncaused cause -- the Prime Mover. *That* is philosophy. Now, where does the question of the Prime Mover lead you? It leads you to something by definition super-natural -- that is, outside of the material stream of cause and effect and far greater than it. One doesn't, for instance, believe in science. Science is short for natural science, the science of fact. One looks to understand natural phenomena, not believe in them. God, if I may be so bold, is outside of nature though nature is infused with the immediacy of God because God is its creator. There is no stark "it's just nature and nature is all that there is." Nature is an expression of its creator, which is outside of it.

A philosopher can, of course, not deal with the question of what nature is and why it exists. But there is no valid conclusion to atheism. None. Atheism is a conclusion to nothing. From a philosophical standpoint what Aristotle called the Prime Mover, I call God, and a proper reading of nature is to read it as the expression of the Prime Mover or of God. Nature does not come from nothing. Nothing is not the cause of all that there is or of anything. Existence is not an absurd happenstance that simply popped out of nothing, and it has nothing to do with any sort of "materialistic naturalism." Of which Objectivism is one version.

Now, there is a leap of faith involved in making the move from a Prime Mover to believing in Christianity, as I do. But there is also philosophy in that, as well. C.S. Lewis and I, for instance, share much in common in being dragged kicking and screaming against our will from being atheists to Christians, but there was no absence of philosophical thinking for either of us. "Atheism" is cool and has been since the French Revolution, at least. But it is a low-ceiling metaphysics that accounts for nothing, with nothing. It, not the world, is absurd. It simply projects its absurdity onto the world.

Anthony Flew, the late great godfather of modern 20th century atheism, made his transition to believing in some sort of god (he specifically said *not* the Christian God), from his study of the impossibly complex without a design structure of the DNA molecule. And I dare say he had that part right.

Norbert Weiner, in "The Human Use of Human Beings," explains the nature of *information* in terms of high and low probability, using the term "entropy" borrowed from thermodynamics. High probablility (high entropy) information is diffuse and can be found, essentially, everywhere. It's level of complexity is low. Low probability (low entropy) information, like the clear image transmitted from a studio to a television, indicates a message sent and received. Now, the coded information in DNA is far beyond a television image in its complexity -- it might be the lowest probability *information* that there is. And, so, it is not philosophical, as Anthony Flew figured out, as did C.S. Lewis, to conclude to *nothing," which is what materialist naturalism is, a conclusion to nothing.

The most immediate proof of God is the immediate and astonishing presence of the world itself. The impact of that gets lost in what? In the natural standpoint and in the trivialities of everydayness.

(FB post)
Anarcho Capitalists Retail , Molyneux Cult Watch Souvenir Mall , OZschwitz Downunder BoutiqueAnarcho-Capitalists,AnCaps Forum,Anti-State,Anti-Statist,Inalienable Rights Defenders,Non-Aggression Principle,Non-Initiation of Force Principle,Rothbardians,Anarchist,Capitalist,objectivism,Ayn Rand,Anarcho-Capitalism,Anarcho-Capitalist,politics,libertarianism,Ancap Forum,Anarchist Forum,Vulgar Libertarians,Hippies of The Right,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalist,Forum for Anarcho-Capitalists,Forum for AnCap,Forum for AnCaps,Libertarian,Anarcho-Objectivist,Freedom, Laissez Faire, Free Trade, Black Market, Randroid, Randroids, Rothbardian, AynArchist, Anarcho-Capitalist Forum, Anarchism, Anarchy, Free Market Anarchism, Free Market Anarchy, Market Anarchy
Back to top Go down


Female Location : Ether-Sphere
Job/hobbies : Irrationality Exterminator
Humor : Über Serious

PostSubject: Re: Martin McPhillips on Atheism and Objectivism   Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:59 pm


Quote :

Her insistence that reason itself, apparently working on its own, as an abstract process independent of the human mind, concludes to atheism.

This retard understands neither Rand nor Atheism.

Fuck the schmuck.

Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis, The Dark Side, Post-Apocalypse, OZschwitz Contraband
Back to top Go down

Martin McPhillips on Atheism and Objectivism

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: Anarcho-Capitalist Categorical Imperatives :: Philosophy and Religion The AnCaps' Way-