It might seem odd to many (especially Muslims), but I am deeply intrigued by Ayn Rand. Up until recently, I only knew small bits of information about her and the views she espoused. Lately though, I find myself getting acquainted better and the more I read, the more I’m fascinated.
The woman was tough and confidently outspoken. In this video she makes a number of solid points.
Her words left me wondering though.
As a Muslim I have trouble accepting human reason purely and solely as my guiding compass. Our intellect isn’t perfect. Reducing our existence within the elaborate order of our universe to mere coincidence seems far-fetched to me. I don’t believe it’s all some random accident.
In comes revelation. In too (and along with it) come numerous questions and hence the need to use human intellect in order to attempt to answer those questions - some of which are highly troublesome. Many get answered. A few others - Free Will Vs Predestination for example - have no intellectually satisfying answers. In comes faith.
The Question is, on which do we rely more, faith or reason? By default the answer to me is most definitely reason but that may change sometimes depending on what exactly we’re discussing. I however certainly prefer to rely on reason more than faith. One thing is for sure though, I don’t exclusively subscribe to either one or the other and I’m definitely not in favor of faith being the dominant factor in matters of the state.
Let’s do this and that because God said so? Hmm… No thanks. I prefer a strict system of Shura in place resulting in a representative democracy. Of course it would be completely useless if the majority relied excessively on faith anyway and there were no constitutional limits to protect peoples’ rights.
The aforementioned is related to ideas of mine written in a previous post:
What constitutes knowledge and what doesn’t to a particular society? In the West there is a higher emphasis on empiricism rather than revelation. In the Muslim world, the emphasis is instead generally on revelation.
Epistemology (let alone Islamic Epistemology) can be both fun and a headache.
I don’t believe I’ll ever reach a satisfying answer to the Free Will Vs Predestination issue. Philosophers have wondered about it and debated it for thousands of years to no true avail. I don’t expect to have better luck (ah, don’t even get me started about the idea of luck).
I have two choices. Give up. Or have faith.
I choose a third option. To have faith while I simultaneously delve deeper in hopeful pursuit of satisfying answers and “aha” moments.
And for now… Some Ayn Rand.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
I can’t watch the video at the moment, but I will say the following regarding Free Will Vs. Predestination.
Discussing predestination implies that we comprehend what it means. This further implies that we understand just what it means to know everything that has happened, happens, and will happen.
In short, discussing predestination is built on the assumption that we are equal in intellectual potential to a being so outside our comprehension that we can, at best, discuss this being through reductionist comparisons.
This is an inherently false assumption, but it is deeply rooted in the arrogance and egocentrics of mankind.
My conclusion? Free Will and Predestination both exist at the same time. Free Will is something that we can largely understand, predestination is something that we have reduced to something far more simplistic than it really is. From *our* point of view, we have free will, and this is the point of view that matters to us.
From Divine Infinity’s point of view, everything is known, but we’re never going to reach that level of understanding to comprehend what that means. Endless debate on this matter did little more than make a lot of people very confused.
Incidentally, the above is based on the answer given by Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon in his Misheh Torah, approximately 800 years ago, who later wrote an entire book on the matter called Guide to the Perplexed, in an attempt to help learned people comprehend what ‘infinite’ means when speaking of the Almighty.
The book is incredibly difficult, but I found one line helpful and memorable: “For Man, the thought of a deed, he who commits the deed, and the deed itself, are three separates. For the Infinite, Blessed Be, the thought and the deed and the doer are all One.”
I just bought the Guide to the Perplexed.
I read parts of it before and was impressed.
There is also the cheap wager:
1. If we believe in free will and free will exists, we win, because we are not wasting our free will.
2. If we believe in free will and free will does NOT exist, we couldn’t help believing what we do anyway.
3. If we don’t believe in free will and there is no free will, we cannot help not believing in free will.
4. But if we don’t believe in free will and there is free will, we have given up something valuable.
Hence I better believe in free will.
What a surprise
my BBF, who is a staunch Muslim, did her master’s and is doing her PhD now on Ayn Rand.
I will forward this post to her, I am certain she will have two pence to add to your post.
Roman and Andrew, we are using different semantics but the conclusions you two have reached are pretty much like mine. I choose Free Will.
I cannot accept the notion that all is written and already determined by The One. It implies I have zero control over my own life. Plus it contradicts that notion that life itself is a test.
Oh and btw, apparently Ayn Rand was critical of Zionism.
Rara Avis, please do. I’ve been fascinated by Ayn Rand’s philosophical views ever since two Objectivist friends of mine told me to dig up info on her. I agree with many of her political positions although not necessarily with the reasoning behind them.
Sudanese blogger, Rihab shared some thoughts of her own on predestination and free will in a post from a few months ago.
well, this appeals to philosophical knowledges ;
free will implies consciousness
consciousness depends on causal incidences…
a vast discussion !
I find this philosopher near what I perceive :
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/private/flanagan_lectures/Spirituality_Naturalized.pdf
“A few others - Free Will Vs Predestination for example - have no intellectually satisfying answers. In comes faith.”
Isn’t “Faith” here just a fancy name for guessing? If it is impossible for the human mind to work out the answer to some problem, why not accept that there is no answer?
Certainly this has implications for legal systems, but then the systems will have to be worked out accordingly. In real life, one criminal is sent to jail and another is locked up in a mental hospital. The treatment should depend on whatever has been found to give the best results with this type of criminal, and not on “Faith”.
You also neglect the possibility that we have Will, but not Free Will. Our will to survive may drive us forward, but it can be a built in structure like legs, which everyone is provided with.
Isn’t “Faith” here just a fancy name for guessing? If it is impossible for the human mind to work out the answer to some problem, why not accept that there is no answer?
Extremely difficult for the human mind to deal with, as a matter of fact. The mere ability to ask a question urges people to seek an answer. That no answer is available merely makes people believe that they do not have sufficient information to solve the issue.
Certainly this has implications for legal systems, but then the systems will have to be worked out accordingly. In real life, one criminal is sent to jail and another is locked up in a mental hospital. The treatment should depend on whatever has been found to give the best results with this type of criminal, and not on “Faith”.
The implications go beyond legal systems, but step deep into our wish to understand what we have around us, as well as what we can’t see. Matters become important simply because enough people seek an answer and want the matter resolved.
You also neglect the possibility that we have Will, but not Free Will. Our will to survive may drive us forward, but it can be a built in structure like legs, which everyone is provided with.
Guide to the Perplexed mentions this animal instinct, as a matter of fact. In it, Rabbi Maimon argues that one of the distinct differences between human and animal is mankind’s ability to go fully against that instinct, and other instincts that man is born with.
I choose Free Will - which sort of begs the question, doesn’t it … ?
“Rabbi Maimon argues that one of the distinct differences between human and animal is mankind’s ability to go fully against that instinct, and other instincts that man is born with.”
Yes, I completely agree with him. That is exactly how I understand it.
yeah, unless the chimps get the same consciousness, may-be they are superior some way :
http://www.nature.com/nature/newsvideo/news.2007.317.1.mpg
In the absence of total understanding of God - which no human being has the right to claim - I have no other choice than free will. Faith is both a crutch for the weak and a stick with which others can beat you.
“mankind’s ability to go fully against that instinct,”
I see no evidence of that supposed ability (except as a symptom of insanity, such as when a man murders his wife and children). One of our strongest instincts is the social instinct, and examples of self sacrifice are not examples of going against our basic behaviour as social mammals.
Nor can I see any good reason why one would want to go against one’s built in instincts, any more than one would want to not have arms and legs.
Drima-
I live with a paradox…
Intellectually…I believe primarily in free will, but man I can mess that up even more for you if you delve into my field (Head trauma, mental illness and many genetically based disorders…really messes with free will).
Intuitively, I can’t help but FEEL…not THINK…but feel that the whole thing is already determined from beginning to end, no conincidences, and we pretty much just have some decisions about how we think and react to the movie that has already been filmed and edited.
Probably does not make intellectual sense…but this concept really developed in independently…it is like I can’t help but see things that way.
Eva
Welcome!
It is wonderful to learn a bit aboot your ideas…aayyee
Michael Shermer greatly admires Ayn Rand’s philosophy, but despises certain cult-like aspects of Randism. I think Shermer made a number of points here worth your consideration.
I don’t believe in God, but my opinion is that if there was a God, then a denial of his ability to grant free will must constitute a denial of God’s omnipotence. Of course, whether God actually chooses to grant free will to humans is another matter entirely. Still, denying God the choice isn’t an option. I believe omnipotence must necessarily transcend omniscience in a supreme being.
That a cult can form around the concept of free will is the height of irony. From what I remember from Ayn Rand’s biography, she more or less enjoyed it. How very human!
Don Cox, your definition of what constitutes an instinct is far too broad, especially when it comes to the “social instinct” - into which you seem to file just about anything that can’t be easily explained. Furthermore, as the many loners of the world would tell you (if they’d bother to speak with you, that is), not everyone is interested in social contact, and neither do people who grew up wholly in the wild (Mowgli-esque) or the poor kids grown in isolation by insane parents display social interest - and by its very defintion an instinct is inborn.
Anything that can be learned is not an instinct, Don Cox, by its very definition. And we can learn a great deal, many of them different and wholly contradictory. You can’t just file all that under a “social instinct” label.
Hmmm. I agree with RAMBA”M on the issue of Free Will vs. Predestination… only I don’t believe in God, but then again, his arguments do not necessarily involve God as such (”infinity” doesn’t cut it).
Drima - a very interesting link. I mostly agree with Yaron Brook. But, uhm, there is no criticism of Zionism there, really - there is criticism of Israel’s unwillingness to defend herself (which I find as abominable as Dr. Brook) and the peculiar religious convictions of some settlers (which I find less repulsive but still bizzare and unhelpful).
Oh, and Socialist Zionism was a big fat mistake. Fortunately, we’re getting rid of the socialist bit very very quickly… long live Capitalist Zionism!
Sorry if I’m always on the run and don’t have time to read the comments or engage in any discussions! I just want to say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”.I even bought the book last month to read it again.I admire her philosophy on certain aspects about life, although I didn’t quite agree with one of the main characters’ reference to the insignificance of mystical issues/spirituality:)
A special shout out to Raccoon,Andrew and Roman Kalik.I miss you guys.My mom has been in the hospital since Sep and I have been busy with her since.Hope to get back to blogging when her condition stabilizes and everything is back to normal.Need to do some Raccoon-bashing to add some spice to my life:P
Hipster -
Sorry about your mom… may she get better soon
And the Raccoons are around if you want to engage in Raccoon-bashing
Yowsers, I didn’t know that your mom was ill, Hipster! She has my prayers, and I hope that things get back to normal ASAP.
Hipster,
What Roman said.
All the best.
Knew about Hipster’s story for a while now. Glad she’s finally sharing it here with everyone so I don’t have to.
Good luck with things girl.
Salaam Drima.
On the Free-will vs. Predestination question. I have some insight to share. (I need to brush up on it, but to tell you as I’m recalling it, being too lazy to research into the details.)
The Mutizilites were working from a Greek “X or Y” paradigm. For them, to affirm God’s Justice, they maintained that His servants must have autonomy, since how can a just God be the cause of evil and sin?
The Asharites worked from a Bhuddist “X and Y” paradigm. (Bhuddists converted to Islam in the Afghan region and got involved into the debate.) Therefore they affirmed both the free-will and predestination of man while maintaining the God is Just in His decrees.
That is the general idea, which I heard from a sentence of Hamza Yusuf’s lecture… on-line some where.
But the whole Asharite vs. Mutazilite discourse is a headache. Too much logic. Even al-Ghazali criticized it and said too much of it isn’t healthy.
A better approach is through understanding it using the Names of God. I highly recommend reading William C. Chittick’s Vision of Islam after familiarizing yourself with kalaam, because it makes !@#$ sense and is beautiful. But in a nutshell, Islam is closer to Bhuddism in its “X & Y” logic in that we affirm a God who is both Just and Merciful. He is completely other than us, but yet we partake of His names — Just, Merciful, Knowing, Seeing, etc. He is Transcendent and He is closer to us than our jugular veins. His Will is absolute, but we partake of that Will. If we didn’t have free will, then some Koranic commandments would be useless, like ordering a stone to fly.
But I recommend the book. Read its reviews on Amazon when you have the chance. Wasalaam.
Thanks for the comment Omar. Will certainly check out those books you recommend.
Leave a Comment