Amazing Grace

[galtgulch]

It took him twenty years to succeed in having the Parliament in Britain abolish slavery by vote without having to fight a Civil War to do it. William Wilberforce was a religious man but one of the more rational humane ones who was moved to devote himself to his cause throughout his career.

One can hope that those of us in the Objectivist movement are as successful in our endeavor to lay the foundation for a truly free society based on a rational view of man and Nature. I would say we have our work cut out for us but at least the antidote is known.

galt

[Robert Jones]

It took him twenty years to succeed in having the Parliament in Britain abolish slavery by vote without having to fight a Civil War to do it. William Wilberforce was a religious man but one of the more rational humane ones who was moved to devote himself to his cause throughout his career.

One can hope that those of us in the Objectivist movement are as successful in our endeavor to lay the foundation for a truly free society based on a rational view of man and Nature. I would say we have our work cut out for us but at least the antidote is known.

galt

I saw "Amazing Grace" and liked it very much. Wilberforce was a man who figured prominently in the Enlightenment and among English evangelical reformers. I would like to suggest, however, that if we want to work for the "truly free society based on a rational view of man and Nature," it would be more practical to do so by forging alliances with those who may be otherwise religious, but quite this-worldly, than waiting around for that day that will never come, when the human race is both atheistical AND rational. I just saw a news story of a recent Gallup poll, which found that 92% of Americans believe in God. Take that as you will, but I agree with Mark Steyn on two points from his book "America Alone": 1). That we cannot count on largely secular, but largely passive, Europe to grow a spine in fighting the Islamist takeover of Europe, and, 2). That you cannot fight something with nothing, that it is the religious (read: Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc.) in America who will take up the fight against the Islamist radicals who want to trash Western society.

Remember: It was CATHOLIC Crusaders who saved Western society from the clutches of Islam the last go-around, and that any dreams we may have for the society you want (which I do share) are contingent FIRST on secularists and religious people together beating back the barbarians already within our gates. Then, we can sort out the secondary issues of religion versus reason (which, I believe, is a false dichotomy).

[Brant Gaede]

The reason I am not a militant atheist is because I believe in the epistemological not the metaphysical God. For me "God" is inside, not out there. A God out there is psychological and social genius. Getting Him out of politics was political, philosophical genius. Don't make the mistake of coming to my house to evangelicize me, however; I will impolitely run you off, just like the last guys who thought I might have some interest in their Jehovah Witless garbage.

--Brant

[Robert Jones]

The reason I am not a militant atheist is because I believe in the epistemological not the metaphysical God. For me "God" is inside, not out there. A God out there is psychological and social genius. Getting Him out of politics was political, philosophical genius. Don't make the mistake of coming to my house to evangelicize me, however; I will impolitely run you off, just like the last guys who thought I might have some interest in their Jehovah Witless garbage.

--Brant

Exactly! Well said, Brant. While I believe it is proper for those who are motivated by the sacred impulse to actively engage in political *issues* (e.g., Abolition, civil rights, abortion), there is a limit to the arguments they can make with credibility. That is, how do they *know* God is for or against this or that? No one cam claim such gnostic knowledge, and thus the religiously motivated must therefore make their case using extrareligious (i.e., fact, logic, evidence, reason) arguments. Further, I am wary of anybody who enters politics (particularly political office) in order to enact the will of God.

When I was a atheist for about ten years, it bewildered me how anyone could be a *militant* atheist. After all, what was the worst that could happen to believers when they died? To go to hell? Then, as now, I gauge a man's moral worth on his *actions,* not on what's in his head. The world is too large and life is too short to get all "clubby" about these things, making a clicque out of whom we will accept and respect, based upon their philosophical beliefs. I especially have this dilemma, as (unbeknownst to him), it was the writings of atheist Nat Hentoff (a writer for the Village Voice for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration) that primarily impelled me to believe in God. I had come to the conclusion that God works in mysterious ways, and that if there is proof there is a benign force in the universe, it is men such as Nat Hentoff, who -- despite his lack of theology -- are moral exemplars because of their superior exercise of free will and intellect. Contast him with religious demagogues and charlatans such as Falwell, Robertson, Oral Roberts, etc., who could easily be used as proof that God doesn't exist, or at worst, that the Devil is in charge.

So, it's true that Nat Hentoff made a Catholic out of me (this was also the most acceptable choice for me, intellectually, as Catholicism--as opposed to such Protestant creeds as Calvinism--places great emphasis on the role of free will in human decision). I don't believe in God as some "puppet master," but subscribe to, as Kurt Vonnegut called it, the concept of "God the utterly indifferent." I don't go quite to that extreme, as I believe He cares deeply, but rather that it's up to humanity, not Him, what the course of history will be.

As for the Jehovah's Witnesses, they would accost me all the time. I lived in Red Hook Brooklyn for a long time, and their world HQ is in Brooklyn Heights, right next door. That's another benefit of being Catholic: When they'd invariably hector me for Mary statue worship, I'd say something along the lines of "shut up: we were here first." ;)

Edited April 10, 2007 by Robert Jones

[Brant Gaede]

I am an atheist. An epistemological God is the idea of God, not the reality. To believe God is real is to put part of yourself "out there," including moral authority. This makes God a kind of disowned self.

--Brant

Edited April 11, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Robert Jones]

I am an atheist. An epistemological God is the idea of God, not the reality. To believe God is real is to put part of yourself "out there," including moral authority. This makes God a kind of disowned self.

--Brant

Do not grok. That is, I don't quite get your reasoning for espousing a theoretical, but not actual belief in God. Or the idea that belief in God is putting oneself "out there," or any of the rest. That is, I *could* infer a whole lot of things that maybe you did not intend, but I'd rather not go that route, because I don't want to put words in your mouth. Please elaborate, not because I'm debating this, but because I'm interested to see where your reasoning is going. Thanks, Rob't

[Brant Gaede]

I am an atheist. An epistemological God is the idea of God, not the reality. To believe God is real is to put part of yourself "out there," including moral authority. This makes God a kind of disowned self.

--Brant

Do not grok. That is, I don't quite get your reasoning for espousing a theoretical, but not actual belief in God. Or the idea that belief in God is putting oneself "out there," or any of the rest. That is, I *could* infer a whole lot of things that maybe you did not intend, but I'd rather not go that route, because I don't want to put words in your mouth. Please elaborate, not because I'm debating this, but because I'm interested to see where your reasoning is going. Thanks, Rob't

The idea of God is the epistemological God--that is, who disbelieves that? Who would disbelieve in the existence of this idea?

God within me is the idea that I am God, but only a God that is unto myself, not unto any others. And I am not omnipotent. It is only a claim of my identity that I refuse to relinquish to any other.

God "out there" is the worshipped and believed God common to the three great monotheistic religions. I am an atheist in regard to this. To believe in this is to separate the God within oneself from oneself and give that to another--a preacher, an evangelist, a pope, a dictator. Joan of Arc claimed that God spoke directly to her pissing off the powers (brokers of God) that be (were then). Why? She was denying the existence of the metaphysical God while affirming the existence, in effect, of the God within (her). Or, she was competing with the Pope in Rome and the King of England (and lost). Or both.

--Brant

Edited April 12, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Chris Grieb]

This weekend on Book TV there will be discussion of a new book on Wilburforce entitled Amazing Grace. BookTV.org for the times this weekend. There will also be a discussion of the on the present day slave trade.

[John Dailey]

Brant:

~ You posit the idea of 'god' as being part (or, the 'whole'? Unclear here) of your self; you stress the 'idea' of god as, because it's there (whenever it shows up in one's development...which raises the question: would a child get such without the 'idea' being transmitted by an 'authority figure'?), ergo must have some kind of...meaning...ergo, 'reality'.

~ Roark was considered to be, in his own way, 'religious.' Yet, he certainly was never hinted at that he thought himself (or others), or was regarded by the author, as, because being human ergo some kind of (special-elitist, or common-egalitarian?) 'god.'

~ Where are you coming from with this? Sounds like a variation on Anselm's Ontological Argument...minus the 'out there' concern.

~ I agree with RJ: THIS does not 'grok.'

LLAP

J:D

[Brant Gaede]

It might help to think of the God within as ego and the God without as anti-ego or the subtraction of ego.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Robert,

Along the lines of what you were discussing in a previous post, I find religious people to often be potential allies of Objectivists not just in the political sphere but in the educational. In my teaching career, the people who have been most sympathetic to classic, self-disciplined, back to basics education tend to be religious people. And your point about secular Europe not being a very good ally is well-taken as well.

The way I'd put the point is that if someone is against values as such against solid, unchanging knowledge and principles as such . . . in other words, if they are thorough relativists or subjectivists, there is no chance of working with them if one is an advocate of reason and freedom or other 'absolutes'.

You can't argue for a principle with them when they don't believe in the validity or existence of principles.

Whereas if they believe in values, principles, proof, logic, then one can at least have a basis for discussion of what those principles should be. One can present evidence and have it considered--or at least there is that potential.

[Robert Jones]

Robert,

Along the lines of what you were discussing in a previous post, I find religious people to often be potential allies of Objectivists not just in the political sphere but in the educational. In my teaching career, the people who have been most sympathetic to classic, self-disciplined, back to basics education tend to be religious people. And your point about secular Europe not being a very good ally is well-taken as well.

The way I'd put the point is that if someone is against values as such against solid, unchanging knowledge and principles as such . . . in other words, if they are thorough relativists or subjectivists, there is no chance of working with them if one is an advocate of reason and freedom or other 'absolutes'.

You can't argue for a principle with them when they don't believe in the validity or existence of principles.

Whereas if they believe in values, principles, proof, logic, then one can at least have a basis for discussion of what those principles should be. One can present evidence and have it considered--or at least there is that potential.

You are right about the educational arena: I taught U.S. History and World History A.P. at a Catholic school here in San Antonio, and I had many parents giving me kudos on an article from The Objectivist I used in my lectures, "Metaphysics in Marble," which I think was written either by Joan Mitchell Blumenthal or Mary Ann Sures. Most people are religious, I believe, based on what I call "Scarlett O'Hara Metaphysics." That is they believe in God because they believe in God and any thought beyond that point is difficult for them -- they'll think about that tomorrow. Most people in this country are more than nominally religious, but they still have that "show me" mentality grounded in good common horse sense.

Now that I've digested the entire Objectivist canon, I find myself too tired and busy to give more than a passing glance at epistemology, or metaphysics, or ethical conundrums. I get excited, however, by Robert Rodriguez's and Quentin Tarrantino's latest double bill. I think this is a healthy attitude: After all, Objectivism is supposed to be a "philosophy for living on this Earth," and if I'm pretty rusty on "The Teleological Basis for Biology," it's because I'm busy living life on this Earth.

I think that the IOS/TOC/TAS has a realistic approach to the religious among us. While I may disagree from time to time with them, and vice-versa, they are not secular bigots or militant atheists. Proof of this can be seen in two of my upcoming movie reviews for TNI. Even a recent book review on a pro-atheistic book by Richard Dawkins by Hugo Schmidt, a frequenter over at the Bidinotto Blog, makes observations similar to yours Philip about religious folks. A few years ago, both Robert Bidinotto and David Kelley -- while not espousing religion per se -- made overtures towards the religious along the lines of finding common ground amongst "Enlightenment" religionists.

And, although I haven't noticed religious people flocking over to TAS in huge numbers, it is through no fault of TAS -- they've put out the welcome mat to an astonishing degree.

The fact that I find myself more comfortable among you guys and the people at TAS (in particular Robert and Ed as well as Iraida Botshteyn and her husband Igor) than I am at Mass in my own parish speaks volumes in that David Kelley put his money where his mouth is on the issue of toleration.

Edited April 14, 2007 by Robert Jones

[Chris Grieb]

Robert; The article Metaphysics in Marble is by Mary Ann Sures. Miss Rand had a brief correspondence with a Catholic priest that is reprinted in Letters.

[John Dailey]

~ I am raising a Down Syndrome on the lower-end of The Bell Curve, who has Diabetes Type-2, a heart prob needing surgery when he was 2 with a prognostication of 1 more before he's 20, a neck-vertebrae prob (non-completion-closure of it's circumference) prohibiting otherwise 'necessary' physical activities which is taken for granted (obviously by too many!), thereby affecting his whole muscle-tone and inhibiting his otherwise expectable exploratory phases, keeping him even more 'retarded' in learning.

~ Can one say "Born behind the 8-ball?"

~ Spare me about a 'benevolent force' in the universe, whatever in hell you wish to label it.

~ There is definitely a better way to 'run' this cosmos-of-a-railroad, were there anyone 'running' it.!

~ Whatever 'force' there may be, I have absolutely NO 'Reverence' for it at all. Spare me this new-ageish 'religiosity.'

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

~ AMAZING GRACE is an inspiring 'documentary.' Yes, I saw it.

~ But, let's not confuse aspirations or inspiration-sources, wherever or however founded, with literal beliefs.

LLAP

J:D

Edited April 14, 2007 by John Dailey

[Robert Jones]

~ I am raising a Down Syndrome on the lower-end of The Bell Curve, who has Diabetes Type-2, a heart prob needing surgery when he was 2 with a prognostication of 1 more before he's 20, a neck-vertebrae prob (non-completion-closure of it's circumference) prohibiting otherwise 'necessary' physical activities which is taken for granted (obviously by too many!), thereby affecting his whole muscle-tone and inhibiting his otherwise expectable exploratory phases, keeping him even more 'retarded' in learning.

~ Can one say "Born behind the 8-ball?"

~ Spare me about a 'benevolent force' in the universe, whatever in hell you wish to label it.

~ There is definitely a better way to 'run' this cosmos-of-a-railroad, were there anyone 'running' it.!

~ Whatever 'force' there may be, I have absolutely NO 'Reverence' for it at all. Spare me this new-ageish 'religiosity.'

LLAP

J:D

John, all my sympathy for your child and you and your family. What can I say? I probably would have the same exact views as you theologically, if my own son were dealt such a bad hand. All I can say is this: You oughn't be judged harshly, or at all.

As I have never heard from God directly, I have no hard proof He exists, or if there is an afterlife. For me, Faith is more her sister, Hope. Maybe it's the Irish in me, but every time I find a penny, I make a wish on it. The older I get, the more I realise things are out of my hands, and if there isn't a God, I sure hope there is. I believe in these things because I feel incredibly blessed. Even the littlest things make me realize how fortunate I am just to be alive and (relatively) healthy. Perhaps it's because I've been knocked off my bicycle twice by SUV drivers and not only lived to tell the tale, but got up within weeks of both wrecks, and did a 1,000 mile ride.

I love Frank Sinatra's attitude on life: When an acquaintance made some offhand comment, for example, "that's a nice watch you're wearing," Sinatra would give the watch to the guy. I think he even gave a car to someone, just because they complimented him on it. Sinatra's reasoning was that God had blessed him with these things temporarily, that all Earthly things were just "on loan" from God, so he didn't feel tied to them. Now that's a great capitalistic attitude, rather than the stereotypical miserly "Scrooge" characterisation traditionally associated with the rich. Not so much that Sinatra was being generous, or even altruistic, but that he got an especial pleasure from spreading good cheer.

A side issue: I am not a new ager; I chose my particular faith because it was one of the more traditional ones out there.

However you slice it, and while I totally sympathise with you on this one, know that to your child there IS a benevolent force in the universe, and that that force is you. Remember that always.

Edited April 14, 2007 by Robert Jones

[Philip Coates]

> The fact that I find myself more comfortable among you guys and the people at TAS (in particular Robert and Ed as well as Iraida Botshteyn and her husband Igor) than I am at Mass in my own parish speaks volumes in that David Kelley put his money where his mouth is on the issue of toleration.

I'm glad to hear that, Robert. I also want to add that your movie reviews are one of the parts of The New Individualist I actively look forward to. While I don't agree with all of them (so be prepared for a letter to the editor of disagreement occasionally!) I find your perspective and sense of life on films to be better than many secular Oists with whom I'd agree more on metaphysics, etc.

"Rocky" rules.

[Robert Jones]

> The fact that I find myself more comfortable among you guys and the people at TAS (in particular Robert and Ed as well as Iraida Botshteyn and her husband Igor) than I am at Mass in my own parish speaks volumes in that David Kelley put his money where his mouth is on the issue of toleration.

I'm glad to hear that, Robert. I also want to add that your movie reviews are one of the parts of The New Individualist I actively look forward to. While I don't agree with all of them (so be prepared for a letter to the editor of disagreement occasionally!) I find your perspective and sense of life on films to be better than many secular Oists with whom I'd agree more on metaphysics, etc.

"Rocky" rules.

Thanks, Philip, for that. I very much appreciate that you derive enjoyment from my reviews -- by all means, whether you agree or disagree, write a letter to Robert. Sometimes it seems that I am writing for an audience of one (me), if I were to just go by the letters column. Most of the letters tend to be "in-crowd" arguments over the finer points of Objectivism, very technically-oriented debates. What I've tried to do with my corner of the magazine is create exactly the kind of place you mention, one in which Rand's overwhelmingly "benevolent universe" sense of life reigns supreme. (Of course, if I find a movie appallingly bad, then I go into full H.L. Mencken cynic mode). Nonetheless, I'm grateful for your comments.

I've got some reviews of some great movies coming up, so I hope you enjoy those too.

Ever since I wrote that review of "Rocky Balboa," I've gotten the boxed set of the other five, and last night I watched "Rocky III" with my son Evan, who is 19 months old. He is so smart -- he was shadow-boxing to it!

Cheers,

Rob't