Provide details for Forum posts

[Cometmaker 0]

I suggest that posts which crusade for ideas opposed to Objectivism (rather than posts created out of mistaken or less than cohesive thought, which are later retracted, corrected, etc.), even though phrased with great politeness and civility, is still trolling and should be deleted, in keeping with Forum guidelines. This includes requests to review materials which promote ideas opposed to Objectivism by long-standing Forum members when their positions have been made clear in agreeing with the content of those materials in existing threads.

2. The main focus is on Objectivism and its applications, but posts that convey other interesting information or discuss personal values are welcome too. Ayn Rand fans have a wide variety of personal interests and accomplishments and almost anything might be important to at least some of us. The only thing really off-topic is crusading for, or trolling with, ideas that are opposed to Objectivism. If you are not sure what those might be, ask.

[Free Capitalist 0]

It already is the case. Posts or statements in contradiction to Objectivism and not retracted by the author aren't around for long, and in general don't pass the muster of Moderation.

[Cometmaker 0]

From the Metaphysics & Epistemology subforum, R.M. Alger wrote:

The second link you posted was a suggestion to review a book; a book on mathematics called the Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories. It is an interesting book, and it might make for an interesting discussion.

...

It does claim that Christianity was important to the advances of the sciences, a claim I don’t necessarily agree with; though there is some truth to that.

...

It is so wrong to admire Christianity for the good things it has done?

...

I think this is a good book, for anybody interested in mathematics (as a layperson) and in the relationship between the sciences and the church; I don’t agree with it (I think the church’s promotion of faith did more to cripple the science then there financial support of some fields promoted it) but it is interesting none-the-less.

What I see is so wrong is that this is an age when Churchill's words applies to the one and only United States of America, a home which I have returned to after many years abroad:

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

In this time, when so much is against us, I suggest not leaving the Forum to lesser things. The Forum is a rampart. It is unseemly (to say the least) to entertain on the Forum for Ayn Rand Fans the "goodness" of the idea that that which prevents otherwise good and decent men from understanding the importance of that one word, "I", is worth any space on the Forum. Any positive review of the book amounts to an equivocation between Objectivism and religion.

If there is a desire to see a good, interesting book for a layperson's interest in mathematics, why is Écrits et Mémoires Mathématiques by Galois not chosen instead? The presence of the Church in daily life helped to prevent the wide adoption of his work until a few centuries after he died. Interspersed amidst the basis of group theory which uses are too numerous to write of here, he wrote repeatedly the night before the duel that ended his life, knowing he would lose: "Je n'ai pas de temps." (I have no time). He was twenty years old. What "relationship between the sciences and the church" saved this young man's life or gave him the recognition he deserved (at least within two generations)? The book Free Capitalist suggested has been discussed in the thread I linked to; there is no need to give any additional significance or positive review to a book that is diametrically opposed to Objectivism on, I repeat, the Forum for Ayn Rand Fans. In fact, the value of referring to and linking to the book is precisely in providing contrast; one values Objectivism all the more as a result, but that is its only value. If a book that promotes religion as a rational good is of interest, one can read and write all the positive reviews one desires on amazon.com.

[bborg 0]

It is unseemly (to say the least) to entertain on the Forum for Ayn Rand Fans the "goodness" of the idea that that which prevents otherwise good and decent men from understanding the importance of that one word, "I", is worth any space on the Forum.

Especially when posted alongside books like this. It's completely inappropriate, in my opinion.

[JRoberts 0]

It is unseemly (to say the least) to entertain on the Forum for Ayn Rand Fans the "goodness" of the idea that that which prevents otherwise good and decent men from understanding the importance of that one word, "I", is worth any space on the Forum.

Especially when posted alongside books like this. It's completely inappropriate, in my opinion.

A book published by an immoral, depressed drunkard?

"Innappropriate" indeed.

[RayK 0]

It is unseemly (to say the least) to entertain on the Forum for Ayn Rand Fans the "goodness" of the idea that that which prevents otherwise good and decent men from understanding the importance of that one word, "I", is worth any space on the Forum.

Especially when posted alongside books like this. It's completely inappropriate, in my opinion.

A book published by an immoral, depressed drunkard?

"Innappropriate" indeed.

Is not this a personal attack that has nothing to do with his book?

But, I think you need to question your premise on Christopher Hitchens. He is not an Objectivist, but, he is far from being immoral. He is a supporter of the U.S.'s actions of war. He once accused Bill Clinton of being a rapist and a liar. He recanted his statements about the first President Bush as the cause of the first Gulf War. So, I do not think he is the most consistent nor an Objectivist, but he is definitely not immoral.

[bborg 0]

A book published by an immoral, depressed drunkard?

"Innappropriate" indeed.

I know nothing about the book or the author except for the title, and based on the title alone I think it's worth reviewing here even just to see if it lives up. A book defending Christianity, on the other hand, does not belong here because Christianity is opposed to Objectivism. You can go virtually anywhere else on the net to read about people making excuses for religion. I don't think that crap belongs here anymore than books on Marxism.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

A book defending Christianity, on the other hand, does not belong here because Christianity is opposed to Objectivism. You can go virtually anywhere else on the net to read about people making excuses for religion. I don't think that crap belongs here anymore than books on Marxism.

As FORUM administrator, I would say books that advocate Christianity and Marxism are appropriate for review and rating. In fact, we had an interesting and enlightening discussion and analysis of Stark's Victory of Reason here, a book that attributes the accomplishments of Western Civilization to Christianity.

What I will not allow is someone coming here to advocate or argue for anti-Objectivist ideas. Discussing anti-Objectivist works and ideas, and those who advocate them, is appropriate and welcome.

[Free Capitalist 0]

A book defending Christianity, on the other hand, does not belong here because Christianity is opposed to Objectivism. You can go virtually anywhere else on the net to read about people making excuses for religion. I don't think that crap belongs here anymore than books on Marxism.

As FORUM administrator, I would say books that advocate Christianity and Marxism are appropriate for review and rating. In fact, we had an interesting and enlightening discussion and analysis of Stark's Victory of Reason here, a book that attributes the accomplishments of Western Civilization to Christianity.

What I will not allow is someone coming here to advocate or argue for anti-Objectivist ideas. Discussing anti-Objectivist works and ideas, and those who advocate them, is appropriate and welcome.

Very wonderfully said, Betsy. I don't understand this desire to outright ignore certain books that are not found to be liked. First of all, if a book deals with facts, then one not liking those facts or feeling unsettled by them should figure in no way in the decision on whether to consider the book seriously. Secondly a discussion is not advocacy. Thirdly, the book is not even biased for the church, for goodness sakes! Its pages are filled with incompetent Church officials and endless stifling and idiotic policies. I'll write on the book's contents in its own thread, but I wonder if Cometmaker has read it in the first place.

[Cometmaker 0]

A book defending Christianity, on the other hand, does not belong here because Christianity is opposed to Objectivism. You can go virtually anywhere else on the net to read about people making excuses for religion. I don't think that crap belongs here anymore than books on Marxism.

As FORUM administrator, I would say books that advocate Christianity and Marxism are appropriate for review and rating. In fact, we had an interesting and enlightening discussion and analysis of Stark's Victory of Reason here, a book that attributes the accomplishments of Western Civilization to Christianity.

What I will not allow is someone coming here to advocate or argue for anti-Objectivist ideas. Discussing anti-Objectivist works and ideas, and those who advocate them, is appropriate and welcome.

Very wonderfully said, Betsy. I don't understand this desire to outright ignore certain books that are not found to be liked. First of all, if a book deals with facts, then one not liking those facts or feeling unsettled by them should figure in no way in the decision on whether to consider the book seriously.

Firstly, ignoring, liking and emotion generally have nothing to do with my suggestion in this thread.

Secondly a discussion is not advocacy. Thirdly, the book is not even biased for the church, for goodness sakes! Its pages are filled with incompetent Church officials and endless stifling and idiotic policies. I'll write on the book's contents in its own thread, but I wonder if Cometmaker has read it in the first place.

So is it the case, then, that Free Capitalist's wishes to amend his statements that the Church supported astronomy in the right thread due to the inference I see here that the Church did not or could not have supported the advancement of science? If I am not reading the words correctly, and the book "is not even biased for the church", can I find out the actual reason for its inclusion in Free Capitalist's Post #127:

I'm still talking about the Renaissance and Enlightenment era that is the focus of our debate. Only by the end of the latter period did secular scientific organizations begin to be established, by which time all of the groundwork had already been accomplished. Newton, in pursuit of divinity in nature already discovered the laws of nature, and in pursuit of Pythagorean divinity of the universe invented Calculus. As for Church dramatically supporting astronomy, one scholarly survey is this one.

Free Capitalist opinion is that religion gives a man reason. Free Capitalist's opinion is that "reason got its foothold" due to religion. Free Capitalist links to the amazon.com catalogue entry for the book in support of his statement that "As for Church dramatically supporting astronomy, one scholarly survey is this one [the book]." Taking into account the definition of "religion" and the definition of "astronomy", I fail to see an error in my definition of advocacy as the act of arguing in favour of an idea.

Could I find out the Forum's definition of advocacy?

[Free Capitalist 0]

Free Capitalist opinion is that religion gives a man reason. Free Capitalist's opinion is that "reason got its foothold" due to religion. Free Capitalist links to the amazon.com catalogue entry for the book in support of his statement that "As for Church dramatically supporting astronomy, one scholarly survey is this one [the book]." Taking into account the definition of "religion" and the definition of "astronomy", I fail to see an error in my definition of advocacy as the act of arguing in favour of an idea.

Cometmaker -- this is an issue of facts, facts which you did not refute in the thread specifically allocated for the subject. If you have additional factual means to bear on the matter, by all means I welcome to see them them there. Either way there is where it belongs, and going around this responsibility by trying to ban even the possibility of its discussion here, is not the most responsible way to address the matter. This thread is about Betsy's policy towards discussing ideas. It is clear that she said that as long as the ideas aren't anti-Objectivist, by which I presume the virulence of TOC and the like, then it's open to discussion as long as it's done in a respectful and honest way. The question of the nature of religion throughout history falls outside of Objectivism; but even if it fell within, Ayn Rand was clear on the possibility of its good influence; Betsy too has recently made a related comment on the matter (click) (which should not be misconstrued as a sanction of my opinion in any way). The point is that responsible and honest people can have differing opinions on the matter, and two very respectable views have inveighed with a perspective entirely opposite to yours. So I would suggest you check your premises. Nor is my error is so large and anti-Objectivist as you would imply. If you'd like to discuss it further, let's take it to the thread where it belongs.

If you have questions on why I cited the book, it's better suited for the Renaissance religion thread, or for my review post of the book, when I post it shortly.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Free Capitalist opinion is that religion gives a man reason. Free Capitalist's opinion is that "reason got its foothold" due to religion.

I am very wary about statements such as these because these are not established facts but, instead, inferred conclusions about someone else's views and/or motivation.

If one sees evidence for such opinions, a better approach would be to

1. Provide the evidence

2. Ask the other person why he said or wrote what he did

3. Ask the other person if he holds the views that might be inferred from what he said or wrote.

Free Capitalist links to the amazon.com catalogue entry for the book in support of his statement that "As for Church dramatically supporting astronomy, one scholarly survey is this one [the book]."

This is a good, factual statement and an example of my point 1 -- providing evidence. So are the links to Free Capitalist's original posts.

Taking into account the definition of "religion" and the definition of "astronomy", I fail to see an error in my definition of advocacy as the act of arguing in favour of an idea.

There's quite a gap here between Free Capitalist's linked posts and his recommending a book that deals with the history of astronomy and the Church and the conclusions Cometmaker presented, above. Maybe they do mean what Cometmaker thinks or, given all the possibililities free will allows for, they might mean something quite different. The next step should be reality checking, i.e., asking Free Capitalist:

1. Is it your opinion that religion gives a man reason?

2. Is it your opinion that "reason got its foothold" due to religion?

If Cometmaker's inferences were correct, this would confirm it. If not, it would provide an opportunity for Free Capitalist to state what his views actually are.

[Cometmaker 0]

If one sees evidence for such opinions, a better approach would be to

1. Provide the evidence

2. Ask the other person why he said or wrote what he did

3. Ask the other person if he holds the views that might be inferred from what he said or wrote.

Taking into account the definition of "religion" and the definition of "astronomy", I fail to see an error in my definition of advocacy as the act of arguing in favour of an idea.

There's quite a gap here between Free Capitalist's linked posts and his recommending a book that deals with the history of astronomy and the Church and the conclusions Cometmaker presented, above. Maybe they do mean what Cometmaker thinks or, given all the possibililities free will allows for, they might mean something quite different.

Betsy, my view is that objectivity is the relationship between my own knowledge and real things. There are daily cases when one is unsure that one's analysis of another's views or statements is accurate, and one does give the other person the benefit of the doubt, especially given variances in quality of written/any communication and the likelihood of the other person's desire to better his thinking. I don't think in this case an explicit response (obtained by asking a posting Forum member), be it positive or negative in relation to my inference, is the logical step in reality-checking, or a better method of verification when I have my observations and reading of pages of real evidence made by a posting Forum member on a particular topic, and across several different threads despite several Forum members pointing out errors in that person's thinking. If an explicit statement of intent of anti-Objectivism advocacy is required before one forms a judgement of another's motivations and intentions, it is my opinion the Forum will suffer for it.

Also in this case, I reject any alternative ad hoc justification one may come up with for a review of a book that was initially pointed to as "yet more" positive evidence that religion/faith/faith-based postulate has a/some/some sort of role in scientific thought. I opine that Free Capitalist's statements in the Hitchens vs. D'Souza thread regarding Heilbron's book and through several different threads gave every indication that, without my public suggestion in this thread, his review would contain more of the same arguments in favour of his view of the role of religion, which I maintain would not refer to the book for discussion, but advocacy as can be seen from the use of propositions, and would be very different in content and opinion (again, as can be seen from the use of propositions) from the discussion thread reviewing the Voice of Reason by Stark.

I do, however, keep your innumerated response in mind and use this process generally.