Is Objectivism compatible with religion?

Objectivist Center ^ | 1/5/02 | David Kelley

[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."

[PatrickHenry]

I enjoy these threads. But I wish they could be spaced out a bit more. It's somewhat hectic to have more than one lively discussion going on at the same time.

[OWK]

Above is your rubber chicken.

No... that's the seltzer bottle.

[Grut]

From what I remember of Atlas Shrugged, Objectivism isn't even compatible with children!

[AAABEST]

I don't get why this author thinks being objective means you shouldn't have to believe in God. I think if you don't believe in God you're being illogical and un-objective.

What is this "(O)bjectivism", I don't get it. Why would anyone want to not be "objective".

[HumanaeVitae]

If you want the pie-in-the-face, I suggest you read the article.

[AAABEST]

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

I put up an Easter thread the other day in "Breaking News", I pinged you to it.

[Hank Kerchief]

Is Objectivism compatible with religion?

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

(Second Try)

Hank

[OWK]

If you want the pie-in-the-face, I suggest you read the article.

I've read the article.

I guess I was hoping for a rational critique of my position.

But if a pie-in-the-face is the best you can muster... It'll have to do.

[OWK]

Objectivism isn't even compatible with children!

I have children, and I'm an objectivist...

And I haven't eaten any of them.

Not even one..

Honest.

[HumanaeVitae]

Go ask a philosophy professor if the fact-value problem has been resolved.

Non-arbitrary ethics are unavailable to atheists. Because their ethics are necissarily arbitrary, atheists must make ad-hoc decisions on which behaviors to tolerate and which to not tolerate. Because there will be disagreement on these ethical decisions (because they are ad-hoc and relativistic), and there is no way to resolve these values questions with certainty, then someone's ad-hoc position must prevail over the other ad-hoc positions. If the other side refuses to go along with the winning side's ad-hoc decision, the only way to make this position truly prevail is to force the other side to comply.

Libertarianism, because of its inherent relativism, demands the initiation of force, thus refuting it's central tenet, the "non-initiation of force". QED.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..is Objectivism compatible with religion?...

Objectivism is a religion, RJ: self-worship.

[OWK]

READ THIS and get back to me.

[SubSailor]

If I were born blind, should I therefore conclude that it is impossible for a human being to see because I cannot personally see? A living faith in the one true God and a personal relationship with Him that is real and life changing (as opposed to mere "religion") is something that can only be experienced personally. The paradox is that one will never find the proof until he stops looking for it and simply surrenders himself to his faith. It is only then that the proof is freely given. In other words, "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind, but now I see." Just because you're blind, don't tell me I can't see.

[OWK]

Libertarianism, because of its inherent relativism, demands the initiation of force, thus refuting it's central tenet, the "non-initiation of force".

Non-initiation of force = initiation of force

Up = down

Black = white

War = Peace

Any other nonsense in your bag?

[nanomid]

Puerile comparisons of unicorns and miracles to God and faith does not address the proper magnitude of their subjects.

Because God is supposed to be infinite, all possible descriptions can be applied to Him.
Logic is essentially A=A or the concurrency of the equation; the identity in mathematics.
But we know that there are infinite descriptions that are true, but not provable in mathematics.
Mathematics will never be able to prove all descriptions.
This is what Goedels Incompleteness Theorem says.

Objectivism is essentially an information theory problem.
The essence of objectivism is empirical evidence, coherent data communicated between humans.
No set of descriptions will be absolute, and so there will always be some uncertainty.

Information is basically 2 parts:
I observed it, or I appeal to another persons authority that they observed it.
Appealing to your own authority on observations not completely tangible is 'revalation'.
Objectivism is essentially limiting revalation as much as possible.
But, all decisions will require appealing to your own authority at some point, so this is not strickly possible.

Faith is required for the data to become evidence.
If the data were to come from the 'revalation' of 100's of people, with no other typical Time/Length/Mass data,
then that is still acceptable, as long as it's coherent.
In this case, the human is the 'God sensor', much like our fingers are heat or pressure sensors.

But what about miracles? Why aren't there miracles on the 6 o'clock news everynight?
It would seem that the essence of faith and information are intertwined.
Worship of God would require Faith. Miracles would deny faith, for some.
Some people can see miracles, and still not believe.

Perfection is a self-evident proof of God.
So, by the faith requirement, no set of people would ever
agree on a sensed perfection without revalation.
This means no perfect observation or measurement.
No perfect circle, for example.
The circle depends on an irrational number of infinite precision.
Something we can't produce or measure.

so on and so forth....

[RJCogburn]

'I enjoy these threads. But I wish they could be spaced out a bit more'

I had just intended to post the first one, "About Objectivism"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/898307/posts

but there were so many responses I figured there was interest in the subject. It certainly has generated some interesting discussion which is what FR is supposed to do.

I'll take a break after today, though. ;^)

[f.Christian]

Ain't that the truth ...


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



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?

12 posted on 04/24/2003 5:14 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad

[Taft in '52]

In 1957, Whittaker Chambers wrote a scathing review of Atlas Shrugged, entitled "Big Sister is Watching You." This article was originally published in National Review and is available online at http://www.potomac-inc.org/aynrand.html.

[f.Christian]

OWK gospel --- bias !

[OWK]

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.

Translation... (best nasal whiney voice)

Jimmm... we're having problems holding our own in these threads with 700 or 800 responses, and we'd appreciate it if you could hide them so we don't have to think and stuff...