If you wish to call a philosophy a religion, that's fine. It's a free country, you can use language any way you wish, even incorrectly. Objectivism is only a philosophy. See Post #83
By religion I mean any of the varieties of beliefs people hold that are in part or entirely comprised of teachings not based on clear objective reason from observable evidence. That is what Objectivism repudiates. If you are going to call all philosophies or world views religion, then we need another word for that which I just defined as religion. Maybe we can call them credulities, or simply organized irrationalities, or, what they really are, superstitions.
Hank
Christianity is a belief held entirely comprised of teachings based on clear objective reason from observable evidence.
Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Hundreds observed this fact and bore witness to it. The fact that you or I did not bear witness to it (owing to a timing problem) does not make it any less observable to those who were there.
Likewise the teachings in the Bible (at least from Genesis 12 on) are based on verifiable evidence.
Some philosophies are only philosophies. Others presume to describe the nature of the universe. Those become religions since the nature of the universe is, ultimately, unknowable to the human mind.
Shalom.
Interesting criteria, especially since the philosopher many consider the father of modern conservatism (though he hated that term... and considered himself a "classic liberal" or an "old Whig"), F. A. Hayek, demonstrated very clearly in his writings (The Fatal Conceit being the shortest explication of the proof) that such a standard is not feasible. In fact, he was very adamant about the fact that most of the "useful" rules in society were not only non-rational (in the sense that any individual can accurately predict the outcome of them or rationally design them), but that Cartesian rationality was the fundamental basis of communism and modern liberalism. He explained that the rules/laws/institutions of a society evolved, rather than were somehow designed by rational means and according to strict universal principles, and that many semmingly "arbitrary" or "subjective" rules to an individual observer were in fact far more effective in maintining a free and prosperous society.
So it seems to me that the standard you have proposed is very much associated with leftist ideology, including communism, and rightly so. I am curious as to your rebuttal of Hayek's arguments (if you have read him)...
Please bear with me as "Objectivism" is new to me. And I'm new to Free Republic. What is it that counts as teachings that are "based on clear objective reason from observable evidence" ??? For example, is there, on your view, clear objective reason from observable evidence that theft is wrong? What, on your view, is the evidence?
Is my love for my wife based on clear objective reason from observable evidence?