Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Objectivism compatible with religion?
Objectivist Center ^ | 1/5/02 | David Kelley

Posted on 04/24/2003 4:39:15 PM PDT by RJCogburn

Most major religions have believed in the existence of a supernatural realm, a realm beyond the natural world of physical objects and bodies governed by causal laws, the world we perceive with our senses and can study by rational methods. Some religions posit a personal god (or gods); others believe in impersonal supernatural forces. (See George Walsh, The Role of Religion in History, chapter 1.) Objectivism rejects any notion of the supernatural as incompatible with the objectivity and regularity of nature as identified by reason. There is no credible evidence of miracles, magic, or other supernatural phenomena in nature.

The dominant forms of religion in our culture posit a personal god, a Supreme Being, who created the world, is omnipotent and omniscient, imposes moral duties on man, and expects worship. Those who accept this idea have the burden of showing why such a hypothesis is necessary. In this regard, Objectivists are atheists because the arguments for the existence of such a being are not sound. Objectivists reject the existence of God for the same reason they reject the existence of elves, leprechauns, and unicorns: because there is no credible evidence of such beings.

It is said that we need to posit God as a creator in order to explain the existence of the natural world. But there is no reason to think that the existence of this world requires an explanation by anything outside itself. While individual things in the natural world come and go, as a result of specific causes within that world, it does not follow that the world itself must have a cause. It is said that we need to posit God as a designer in order to explain the complex order within the natural world, including the adaptation of living things to their environments. But the existence of order as such does not require an explanation. Any existing thing must have some identity and obey causal laws. It is only with the natural realm that we can explain how a particular type of order arises from natural causes. That includes the particular order we find among living things, for which the best current explanation is the operation of evolutionary processes. Of course these brief summaries cannot do justice to the arguments, which have been discussed by philosophers for centuries. For further discussion and references, see George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God.

There is a profound difference, then, between Objectivism and traditional religions in their respective views of the world. But this is not the primary conflict. The primary conflict is reason versus faith as methods of adopting one's worldview in the first place.

Objectivism regards reason as an absolute. It holds that all knowledge is based on the evidence of the senses. It holds that all beliefs, conclusions, and convictions must be established by logical methods of inquiry and tested by logical methods of verification. In short, it holds that the scientific approach applies to all areas of knowledge. Blind faith, by contrast, consists in belief not based on evidence, or based on such spurious forms of "evidence" as revelation and authority. Faith is essentially an arbitrary exercise of the mind, a willful credulity based on subjective emotions rather than objective evidence, a desire for certainty without the scrupulous cognitive effort required to achieve rational certainty. Faith cannot substitute for reason as a means of knowledge, nor can it supplement reason. Reason is incompatible with arbitrary procedures of any kind.

If we accept reason as a method, then the substantive issues that differentiate Objectivism from most religions can be debated openly and rationally, and Objectivists can respect those who differ about what the evidence proves. But there can be no compromise about reason itself as a method.

For some people, religion is not primarily a belief about the world but rather a belief in spiritual values: a belief that a meaningful human life requires more than material possessions and achievements. Objectivism holds that "spiritual values" can be defined in secular terms, and on that basis agrees that they are of vital importance to fulfillment and happiness. Spiritual values are those pertaining to the needs of human consciousness, arising from the human capacity for reason, creativity, free will, and self-awareness. These needs include self-esteem, love, art, and philosophy (a comprehensive view of existence), among others. Achieving these values in one's life is no less important than providing for one's material needs and achieving worldly success.

Objectivism is an idealistic philosophy that affirms and celebrates the grandeur of the human capacity for achievement and heroism. In this respect, as Ayn Rand noted, it provides a secular meaning for such religious concepts as exaltation, worship, reverence, and the sacred. "Such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling.… What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal."


TOPICS: Philosophy
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-270 next last
Can one be a Catholic and not abstain from birth control ? Can one be a Jew and not be Kosher? Can one be a Protestant and not tithe?

I think that for all but the very most orthodox, the answer is yes.

Similarly, can one appreciate objectivist thought and not be an atheist? Again, I would say, except for the most orthodox, the answer is yes.

As before, for those interested in the subject of Objectivism click on the link above.

1 posted on 04/24/2003 4:39:15 PM PDT by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn; Jim Robinson; Alamo-Girl; B-Chan
Jim, these daily Objectivist threads are becoming soapboxes for the malicious slamming of Christianity and conservatism, and are of interest to only a tiny fraction of the News forum. Shouldn't these types of threads appear in a philosophy, religion, chat, or RLC forum rather than in the News/Activism?
2 posted on 04/24/2003 4:46:38 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
A religious Objectivist does some industrial strength compartmentalizing, I would think. If one truly follows where reason leads, I don't see how the destination can be anything but existentialism.
3 posted on 04/24/2003 4:50:11 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Well, I'd leave it to Jim, of course, but a thread that gathers more than 700 responses and generates some serious discussion by a lot of posters seems appropriate where it is. There is, after all, a 'philosphy' topic for posts in this category.

I don't think these are intended to 'slam' Chistianity but they do generate discussion. As for conservatism, well, there are a lot of principles, productive effort for an easy one, that are quite conservative, whether economic or social conservative.
4 posted on 04/24/2003 4:51:53 PM PDT by RJCogburn (Yes, I will call it bold talk for a......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
One God. One morality for all humanity. Decency toward others. Deed over creed.
5 posted on 04/24/2003 4:53:32 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Well, one need not be a "religious Objectivist" to be other than an atheist. And, as I said, 'appreciate Objectivist thought' is possible. There are certainly differences even between the most determined Objectivists, as the existence of both the Any Rand Institute and the Objectivist Center demonstrates.
6 posted on 04/24/2003 4:56:59 PM PDT by RJCogburn (Yes, I will call it bold talk for a......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
You may find this of interest.
7 posted on 04/24/2003 4:58:14 PM PDT by RJCogburn (Yes, I will call it bold talk for a......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
The problem with so called "objectivism" is it is anything but objective that is....
Ignoring the eye wittness testimony of thousands of objective eye witnesses...and millions more whose lives
have been miracuoulsy changed...
Instead this so called objectivism seeks to prove its own already established conclusion
that it wont accept certain "kinds of proof"
8 posted on 04/24/2003 4:59:16 PM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Someone seeing an image of Mary in an oil slick is objective but meaningless.
9 posted on 04/24/2003 5:04:47 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Is Objectivism compatible with religion?

PHILOSOPHY PING

(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)

Hank

10 posted on 04/24/2003 5:11:30 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief (Fzob; P.O.E.; PeterPrinciple; MWS; reflecting; DannyTN; FourtySeven; x; dyed_in_the_wool; Zon; galt-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Objectivism is a system of religious (faith-based) thought centered upon the writings and teachings of novelist Ayn Rand, which teachings are held to be infallible by those who subscribe to the Objectivist creed. As a Christian, I of course disagree with the system of belief established by Miss Rand, and I will continue to eagerly point out the flawed principles upon which it is founded. That being said, I have no problem with Objectivists proselytizing for their faith here on FR, so long as the rest of us are free to engage its missionaries in a mutually respectful debate on the merits of their case.

I do think that a single thread dedicated to the discussion of Objectivism would be preferable to multiple threads covering essentially identical topics.

11 posted on 04/24/2003 5:12:10 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Then I wonder why there are no threads allowed in the news forum for the purpose of proselytizing valid religions?
12 posted on 04/24/2003 5:14:08 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Objectivism is also incompatible with non-arbitrary ethics.
13 posted on 04/24/2003 5:22:41 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Tolerance is a necessary evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
popular thread placemarker
14 posted on 04/24/2003 5:24:10 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Whenever an Objectivst thread is posted, please ping me.

I will be more than happy to demolish this idiotic 'philosophy' over and over again.

15 posted on 04/24/2003 5:24:44 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Tolerance is a necessary evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
I think you'd do better to argue the questions rather than just whining to the authorities.

Just my opinion.
16 posted on 04/24/2003 5:27:32 PM PDT by RJCogburn (Yes, I will call it bold talk for a......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
I will be more than happy to demolish this idiotic 'philosophy' over and over again.

You'll have to bring something more impressive than that ethical rubber chicken you're waving around.

(and no, the seltzer bottle won't help either)

17 posted on 04/24/2003 5:27:53 PM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Then I wonder why there are no threads allowed in the news forum for the purpose of proselytizing valid religions?

Mommy.... Billy's touching me...

18 posted on 04/24/2003 5:28:41 PM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
Actually, I'll just post it. It's the second article from the bottom of the page, by Patrick M. O'Neil. Something like 23 pages in PDF. I would have linked the PDF, but PDF links can be annoying. See for yourself.

Ayn Rand and The Ought-Is Problem

19 posted on 04/24/2003 5:29:40 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Tolerance is a necessary evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Above is your rubber chicken.
20 posted on 04/24/2003 5:30:04 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Tolerance is a necessary evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-270 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson