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."

[tpaine]

CJ, you seem to be having serious delusions that 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 you stop reading these types of threads rather than insisting that they appear in a philosophy, religion, chat, or RLC forum rather than in the News/Activism?

If nothing else, aside from your own mental health, have pity on your fellow freepers..
Do the enlightend thing, and stop these irrational posts.

[f.Christian]

OWK gospel --- bias ... do your own thing --- don't hurt the flowers !

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

"...What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal."

Dedication to a "moral ideal" is idolatry.

Plato's Euthyphro is a great illustration.

Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible.

Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols, used most often by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin. If a person believes in a God, it is the conviction of the Holy Ghost by which they are guided and not by the idolatrous vanities of morals constructed by others...

"...to worship for gods those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream.

"...the thing which they honored or feared in the image, and held for a god, was a mere figment, without place, habitation, motion, or existence, but in the motions of the brain. (Hobbes)

While I agree with much of what Ayn Rand said, she got a lot of her philosophy from Thomas Hobbes, she was just too obstinate and polemic to talk about it in Biblical terms, unlike Hobbes.

There are three ways people are influenced according to the school of behavioral psychology - - visual (sight), auditory (sound), kinesthetic (emotion). The kinesthetic or 'feeling' is also based on olfactory and tactile sense, much like Pavlov's salivating dogs. Visual images and sound portrayed can be used to anchor emotional and/or conditioned responses desired by those that present them, which in the case of television, is the Leftist television media, actors who create phantastical images in film, and Leftist politicians who pander to symbolism over substance (like Rush always says about them).

Considering that 90% of people tend to be more influenced by the visual, television has become a new religion. It is analagous to Plato's cave allegory. Television as a propaganda tool helps create visual phantasms (or as Thomas Hobbes called them, 'phantastical images') of the brain.

Like the necromancy of the Wellstone funerally, the use of Martin Luther King Day, or constantly invoking the "spirit of the '60's," the Left attempts to raise spirits of the dead as a totem for worship.

Marxism and their forms of Cultural Marxism are a religion, a collection of cults. In many cases they worship a dead Karl Marx like some (and I stress some) Christians worship a dead Jesus, and not a living God. This is no more apparent than in the practice of enshrinement and regular grooming of Lenin's corpse in the former Soviet Union.

It is the religious fervor associated with the pro-abortion advocacy. The societal practice of abortion is ritual mass murder upon the altars dedicated to idolatrous vanities, a collective human sacrifice to pagan idols. It has a similitude to the Teutonic paganism of Adolph Hitler, whose idolatry was the idea of a "master race." In effect, this genocide was a mass human sacrifice to those pagan idols.

The Left is properly identified with a 'confederacy of decievers that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavour, by obscure and erroneous doctrines.'

Now, I will also say again, I really like Ayn Rand's philosophy.

I just don't buy into the cult of personality that has arisen around it...

[HumanaeVitae]

It's all in your bag, my man. Regarding the book, I'll surf the net for info on it. But, suffice to say, if this guy solved the problem, he'd be a lot more well-known. I highly doubt it.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Hank, tell me what you think of post #43...

[Bob J]

---

UNSPUN! With AnnaZ and Guest Co-host FINESWINESUKSASS!

ON NOW! Listen while you Freep!

Join Anna and Finey as they talk with Larry Pratt from the Gun Owners of America! Also, CRBs and Bone-Headed Lie-Beral Quotes

 

Click the ON AIR sign or here at broadcast time to start listening live!

Click here for the broadband feed (when and where available)

Click here for the Radio Freerepublic Chat Room

Radio FreeRepublic shows archives are available here!

---

To be notified of upcoming shows and announcements, join the Radio FreeRepublic mailing list!

To Subscribe to this list send a blank email to:

RadioFreeRepublic-Subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net

To Unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to:

RadioFreeRepublic-Unsubscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net

---

[SubSailor]

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.

Where did the author get this list of "spiritual values" from? Fulfillment and happiness? These are selfish pursuits that are totally contrary to the unselfishness called for by my God.

"He who loves his life will lose it..."

"I am crucified with Christ..."

"I must decrease that he may increase"

"Take up your cross and follow me..."

A peace that surpasses all understanding is the reward for a faithful and righteous life. Happiness is not the goal, but it is the result.

[Grut]

I have children, and I'm an objectivist... And I haven't eaten any of them. Not even one.. Honest.

That's OK, so long as you don't use garlic-and-fennel sauce when you do.

Actually, all I meant is that none of the characters in Atlas Shrugged has children, which strikes me as odd and maybe indicates a weak area in Rand's argument that she was careful to avoid.

[PatrickHenry]

none of the characters in Atlas Shrugged has children, which strikes me as odd

There was a woman with children in Galt's Gulch, and her sole occupation was caring for them. Rand treated this as an honorable role. But I don't know what kids in the main plot line would have contributed. Rand tried to stick to the essentials for making her points. Diaper-changing wouldn't have added much to the novel.

[Theophilus]

Objectivists, the Anarchists' Mensheviks

If the Revolution Without A Cause ever happened, their throats would be cut first. You ask why? Why not?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Jim, these daily Objectivist threads are becoming soapboxes for the malicious slamming of Christianity and conservatism,...

I think you are only marginally correct. The intent of the posting is not something we can determine. However, I think you will like my response in #43...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Weakest area of Ayn Rand's philosophy? See #43...

[Prov3456]

"If we accept reason as a method...."

"These needs include self-esteem, love, art, and philosophy...."

Whose "reason?" Who is to say what "reason" is? Who decides: the ruler, the Congress, a toss of the dice, you?

And who decided that the needs are those stated? A hermit may say he/she doesn't need love or art or philosophy, for example. What is self-esteem, and according to whom? Again, according to whom?

It seems to me that the entire article/discussion comes at religion/objectivist thinking from a "religious" perspective all your own. I simply reject your religion.

[beckett]

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

Question from the audience at the Nathaniel Branden Institute circa 1965, a place where the word "God," pronounced aloud, provoked paroxysms of laughter, the only humor in and otherwise humorless lecture hall:

Audience Member: "Might not religious faith play a useful role in helping one endure tribulations?"
Rand: "What sort of inadequate and corrupt psychology would lead someone to ask that?"

Had Rand had children and stayed off pills, she might have experienced real human connection, enjoyed better mental health and therefore had something interesting to contribute to philosophy. As it is, her hopelessly stunted and paranoid worldview and unwarranted boundless faith in reason make her only a thinker of minor interest, not the "greatest philosopher since Aristotle" her cult followers make her out to be.

[bereanway]

What does the Objectivist turn to when reality and reason break down? I'm not very familiar with Rand but from what little I've read there appear to be some real problems with her adherents worship of reason.

For instance reality appears to break down in the sub-atomic world. We can't explain how sub-atomic particles exhibit the characteristics of both a particle and wave, however, this is well documented and remains a real paradox. Or how particles appear to communicate at speeds exceeding that of the speed of light which results in numerous problems with our understanding of reality.

Niels Bohr stated that anyone who isn't troubled by the findings of quantum mechanics hasn't understood these findings. Daivd Boehm (a protege of Einsteins) who did a great deal of work in plasma physics at the University of London and later at Princeton went so far as to state that the dimensions we exist in are actually a reflection of a deeper and more primal reality. BTW we can prove these other dimensions (at least 4) exist.

My purpose in all of this is to point out that exalting reason as the final arbiter of truth is very risky business. Reality may not at all be what it appears to our tactile senses.

[realpatriot71]

I'm personally Christian, and therefore have beliefs based not on objective evidence. However, I can appreciate most of the objectivist positions, because, in the end, if you're honest, there is no objective edvidence for the supernatural, so when discussing topics of morals and ethics, I think that often the religious and the pure objectivist can at least agree that we do generally approach the world objectively. From that point, I think one can get to principles that both can agree.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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.

I thought the Article presented a reasonable critique of Rand's failing as an apologist for her phulosophy.

Take this little gem. After skirting past the introductory remarks (definition of Terms, definition of the Grounds under Contention, etc. -- the usual boilerplate necessary to Formal Debate), the Author brings us to Rand's response to Hume:

"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between 'is' and 'ought'" -- Ayn Rand

The Author goes on to critique Ayn Rand's argumentation.

Well, Bravo and bon mot. Ayn Rand's argumentation was bad argumentation. She attempted to resolve the "Is-Ought" Fact-Value gap with a toss-off one-liner. It doesn't hold water... I would agree that you can't resolve the "Is-Ought" Fact-Value gap so easily -- or indeed, perhaps, at all -- for the idea of "Ought", by it's very nature, implies an external Metaphysical Morality.

But as I have said before, I don't think it is even necessary for Objectivists to resolve the Fact-Value gap. You don't need to resolve the "Is-Ought" Fact-Value question at all, if you simply deny the existence of "ought" and "values."

To arrive at Nessitarian Behavioral Maxims, one need not invoke "Ought" at all.

• Suppose a visitor to the Teotihuacan Pyramid of the Sun wishes to reach the top of the Pyramid in the minimum number of steps -- and due to his length of stride, may only cover one step per stride. In such a case, he reasons that it is a necessitarian behavioral maxim that he climb 240 steps to the top of the Pyramid of the Sun -- no more, no less, for the Pyramid rises 240 steps above the base. He is assigning no Moral Value to the proposition; there is no Metaphysical Morality which commands that he must climb to the top of the Pyramid; it is simply his Desire to do so (his recognition of his desire is a statement of Fact -- IS, not OUGHT). And yet, in order to reach the top of the Pyramid in the minimum number of steps, he reasons that it is a necessitarian behavioral maxim that he climb 240 steps to the top of the Pyramid of the Sun -- no more, no less.
• As such, the Behavioral Maxim derived as necessary to the accomplishment of the Objective requires no resolution of the "Fact-Value" gap at all, for no metaphysical Value has been introduced -- the Behavioral Maxim is simply the OBJECTIVE FACTUAL REQUIREMENT necessary to the accomplishment of the Goal.

In like manner, a Man who wishes to enjoy Life without the Threat of Aggression from his fellow Man, may reasonably derive that it is a necessitarian behavioral maxim that he conclude a Compact of Non-Aggression with his fellow Men in order to accomplish his Goal. He is assigning no Moral Value to the proposition; there is no Metaphysical Morality which commands that he must enjoy Life without the Threat of Aggression from his fellow Man; He simply desires to do so.

And yet, in order to Life without the Threat of Aggression from his fellow Man, he reasons that it is a necessitarian behavioral maxim that he conclude a Compact of Non-Aggression with his fellow Men in order to accomplish his Goal.

Ergo, the "Fact-Value" gap does not even apply, for the Man is not attempting to resolve the relationship of "Is" and "Ought" (if he is a strict Atheist, he may even deny the concept of Metaphysical "Ought", thus eliminating the entire Question). Rather, he is simply deducing the OBJECTIVE FACTUAL REQUIREMENT necessary to the accomplishment of the Goal.

Just as it is an objective physical requirement that he climb 240 steps to the top of the Pyramid of the Sun -- no more, no less -- in order to reach the top of the Pyramid in the minimum number of steps.

If you imagine that Hume's "Fact-Value" gap even applies to questions of OBJECTIVE FACTUAL REQUIREMENTS.... then Hume is laughing as heartily at your frankly-hilarious misunderstanding of his argument, as he is laughing at Rand's poor attempt to resolve it.

[Zon]

Is Objectivism compatible with religion?

Is life compatible with death?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

phulosophy Philosophy.

A thousand curses on minitiarized Laptop keyboards.

Not that I am complaining overmuch about a free Dell, courtesy of the Boss....

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

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,...

Socrates' argument with Euthyphro. Read on my friends, I want to know your thoughts...

From the article:

"...What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal."

My response:

Dedication to a "moral ideal" is idolatry.

Plato's Euthyphro is a great illustration.

Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible.

Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols, used most often by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin. If a person believes in a God, it is the conviction of the Holy Ghost by which they are guided and not by the idolatrous vanities of morals constructed by others...

"...to worship for gods those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream."

"...the thing which they honored or feared in the image, and held for a god, was a mere figment, without place, habitation, motion, or existence, but in the motions of the brain. (Hobbes)

While I may agree with much of what Ayn Rand said, she got a lot of her philosophy from Thomas Hobbes, she was just too obstinate and polemic to talk about it in Biblical terms, unlike Hobbes.

There are three ways people are influenced according to the school of behavioral psychology - - visual (sight), auditory (sound), kinesthetic (emotion). The kinesthetic or 'feeling' is also based on olfactory and tactile sense, much like Pavlov's salivating dogs. Visual images and sound portrayed can be used to anchor emotional and/or conditioned responses desired by those that present them, which in the case of television, is the Leftist television media, actors who create phantastical images in film, and Leftist politicians who pander to symbolism over substance (like Rush always says about them).

Considering that 90% of people tend to be more influenced by the visual, television has become a new religion. It is analagous to Plato's cave allegory. Television as a propaganda tool helps create visual phantasms (or as Thomas Hobbes called them, 'phantastical images') of the brain.

Like the necromancy of the Wellstone funerally, the use of Martin Luther King Day, or constantly invoking the "spirit of the '60's," the Left attempts to raise spirits of the dead as a totem for worship.

Marxism and their forms of Cultural Marxism are a religion, a collection of cults. In many cases they worship a dead Karl Marx like some (and I stress some) Christians worship a dead Jesus, and not a living God. This is no more apparent than in the practice of enshrinement and regular grooming of Lenin's corpse in the former Soviet Union.

It is the religious fervor associated with the pro-abortion advocacy. The societal practice of abortion is ritual mass murder upon the altars dedicated to idolatrous vanities, a collective human sacrifice to pagan idols. It has a similitude to the Teutonic paganism of Adolph Hitler, whose idolatry was the idea of a "master race." In effect, this genocide was a mass human sacrifice to those pagan idols.

The Left is properly identified with a 'confederacy of decievers that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavour, by obscure and erroneous doctrines.'

I do like some of Ayn Rand's philosopy...

I just don't buy into the cult of personality that has arisen around it.