Apr
6
Recently I met some person who claimed that she is an Objectivist yet she is a Theist.
“I believe in the concept of cosmic energies (to which the concept of God-supernatural power, is a part.”
Well that’s an oxymoron. Only supernatural power can explain such type of objectivism.
Anyways, if one wants to objectify her mystical emotions towards her god/personal god etc, she can surely do that, would it be some kind of fetish?
Objectivism is atheistic rather than agnostic.
Agnosticism refuses to discard arbitrary propositions. That’s the idea of agnostics behind the existence of God (be it whatever cosmic or fetish or emotional). An agnostic holds that claims be supposed to be appraised on the foundation of substantiation and claims can not be discarded if there is no satisfactory proof against them. That is, a claim should not be thrown away and rejected and thrown away straightforward even if it has no confirmation in support of or against it.
That is an agnostic is not at all rational, because he let subjective claims to go through his cognition. A rational person doesn’t try to find evidences to prove or disprove subjective claims because he has no motive to prove such claims at any case. Why will a rational person even try to prove that it’s not Lord Ganesh (some cosmic god showing his cosmic powers) who is drinking the milk?
The agnostic will say how can you say that it is not true?
The rational person will say its wastage of time and effort to prove subjective claims as true or false. If there can be some supernatural power according to agnostics, then why cannot be unicorns and fairies and leprechauns and headless horse riders and ghosts and ghost riders too? The burden of proof rests on he who asserts a proposition. No worth is gained by going around objecting illogical claims—it is a misuse of time and endeavor. (And why will an objectivist waste his time and energy?).
Moreover, it is not only useless, it is impossible to disprove such arbitrary claims too. A subjective claimer never seeks or tries any effort to prove his claim, on the other hand, to justify his subjective claim, he keeps adding up furthermore illogical claims.
As for example, a cosmic soul supporter will say there’s a ghost in his room, you may search whole room and won’t find anything spooky, but that won’t confirm that ghost is just an illogical proposition for that irrational person and an agnostic will also not discard the idea of ghost because there is no evidence to disprove it as the subjective claimer will say that the ghost moved so swift from one place to other that it is impossible to see it or catch it. He will construct his story such that there could not be evidence that the ghost either exists or does not exist. Agnostics states that God can neither be proved nor be disproved.
And that is a truth god cannot be proved or disproved for two reasons. 1st> theists often adjusts their stories (as the arbitrary claimer can adjust the ghost story) to make it certain that there cannot be no contradiction for his existence, depicting and confirming the proposal that God exists but God’s existence cannot be tested, God exists without proof and no one can prove or disprove it. You can’t test god. You even cannot test soul then how can you test super soul?
2nd reason is theists generally exemplify God in illogical manner. First they will say God is formless and characterless (physical character) (Nirguna or Saguna) a being of infinite dimensions which exists in supernatural world and is away from the limits of cognizable reality. As a matter of fact, theism either have no meaning (because it is not provable or disprovable or even testable) or it is self-contradictory.
Now some people do have a lot of time and energy and they enjoys debates of theists and atheists etc. not all are interested in stories of Narnia Harry Potter, Ganesha, Krishna, Ghost Rider Spiderman etc.
For an objectivist atheism is not negation of god, but it is a confirmation of realism, of reason’s capability to know it, and of man’s aptitude to create sense for his own self.
Objectivism states that to attain knowledge, an individual should use an objective procedure of thought and usage of mind. The fundamental of objective thought is, 1st> integration of conceptual cognizable facts in agreement with reason and logic and, 2nd> a dedication to recognize all of the facts of reality by virtue of reason. Or, we can say that, the only thoughts to consider while forming acquaintance of reality are those which are reasonably derived from reality.
Now a person can put forward varied kind of statements. A few are conclusive, supporting evidence, such as the earth is round, or air is a mixture of gasses including oxygen hydrogen and nitrogen, or sun is not solid but a fluid ball of hydrogen and helium one it was Constantine because of which Christianity gained success as a political religion while Constantine himself was a Pagan and he used religion for political hold. No one can deny them.
Some claims are not so conclusively supported by evidences, like, Prithvi raj Chauhan actually killed Moh. Ghauri, or Dinosaurs faced extinction due to an asteroid fall, or “Jack the ripper” was royal physician. In such cases, one may say “I cannot say if the claim is true or not”.
9 Responses to “The Oxymoron of agnostic objectivism”
Leave a Reply
Wanderlust Says:
April 7th, 2008 at 2:03 pmSeemed like I’m reading a Reading comprehension passage in CAT.
By the time I reached the middle, I had to get back to the beginning.
Then I summoned my resources and read through it as if I was indeed reading a RC passage
And I got it…
Now..
I also sometime think along the same lines. I don’t really believe in God.
There’s this superpower which sometimes ascertains it’s supremity (if there’s such a word)!
And I’ll like to believe that I’m an objectivist only..
nice post..
but may prove a tad too difficult for any person who hasn’t an above average vocab and one who isn’t used to reading this sort of complicated readings..
anyway..
u presented ur thoughts really well..
And u really think on a diff plane in this regard..
nice blog
keep posting!
cheers!
Secret Reporter Says:
April 7th, 2008 at 2:12 pmThanks for commenting on my other blog. Will rectify it from the next time… Ive added u.. If u r interested add both ma blogs to ur favorites…
unpretentious_diva Says:
April 7th, 2008 at 6:03 pm@wanderlust
I don’t think the language is that difficult for this post.
Its simple english and I am no expert at grammar, so I remain open that if someone will look with keen eyes, he may find alot of mistakes!
Have a nice time.
Sushant Says:
April 7th, 2008 at 11:54 pmWe define reality with experience and we strive to find reason for our experiences. The falling of objects towards earth was an experience and the quest for it lead to gravity. It was always there even before we understood it the fact of the matter is we still have not understood it properly. The relativity showed us how gravity and nature act in ways so very different from our common experience. I am not sure if branding organized religions, based on promise of heaven and fear of persecution can be called holy and divine in any way.
God is an idea which respect the unknown. It is the acknowledgment that our senses are an evolutionary construct and will continue to perceive new things as they grow. Rejecting something only because our senses do not lead us there is flawed. The idea of god is not the fear of the supernatural but a path towards reality of looking beyond the obvious. Its a journey to the self and beyond. It is the quest of unknown. I will rather sit on the fence and watch the theist and atheist fight. At least I have my own God.
unpretentious_diva Says:
April 8th, 2008 at 12:00 am@sushant
what you are talking about is not reality but perceptions.
Perceptions are based on experiences, Reality is independent of your perceptions or experinces, reality is unique and to understand reality, you have only one way, and that is REASON.
reason are not dependent on your personal perceptions or experiences.
One more thing, we don’t define reality, we seek and find reality.
You can surely have your personal god, many children enjoys winnie pooh and bugbears, and stuffed toys as their special friends, you can enjoy your personal god.
About the unknown, the unknown becomes the inspiration for the rational person to seek further beyond the boundaries by the virtue of reason.
trishula Says:
April 9th, 2008 at 11:37 pmnice blog u got there. thanx for writing about me(the oxymoron agnostic objectivist);). Probably i havent got the term objectivist too well. heh.
Kumpal Madrasi Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 4:24 amwell.. nice post.. but doesn’t go into the heads of simpleton theist like me..
varun Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:53 amnICE BLOG ,good layout,very good language and vocabulary
mike Says:
July 18th, 2011 at 10:01 pmEinstein in my opinion made the most complete statement on god.
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”
– Einstein