Re: Orjectivism and Religon

General Discussion

Orjectivism and Religon

mnichols1202 02-03-2009, 1:11 PM
Hello All,
This is my first post here. I'm quite new to the philosophy of Objectivism though I feel I’ve been am adherent all my life!
I’m about 2/3 of the way through Atlas Shrugged and I’m chewing through it like a sugar addict and a box of doughnuts! LOL!

Anyway – my first stab at a question here is, I’m hoping, not going to be too controversial. My greatest fear is to opening my mouth for the first time from an Objectivists point of view in an Objectivism forum, and going down in a barrage of flames. Be that as it may…here goes.

Question: Is Objectivism necessarily Atheist?
I don’t believe so!

Most adherents to any organized religion would hotly disagree with me. On this point I think I’m on solid ground. You see, I’m a Seventh Day Adventist….
ok, pick your jaws up off the floor.

Not just a Seventh Day Adventist, but I believe, a Thinking Adventist and while I’m very new to Objectivism, I don’t believe that any of Christ’s teachings contradicts any tenant of Objectivism.
Please don’t respond to me to refute this claim but presenting the view of most organized churches (including my own) of Jesus as a collectivist hippie, it’s just not there.

Anyway, I look forward to this post starting a raucous intellectual debate.

Cheers

Re: Orjectivism and Religon

Josh 02-05-2009, 12:35 PM
To answer your question, I think objectivism is based on the use of logic and reason. God can not be proved by logic or reason. And, as the famous Occam's Razor would suggest, there is no need to assume that everything around us was created by a being. Of course, the arguments go deeper than this, but this is pretty much the premise behind the atheist approach. If I claim that the Universe was created by a giant frog, the burden is on me to prove this statement. The burden is not on you to prove me wrong. The same goes for the claim that God created everything.
I know of people who claim to be objectivist and yet still wish to worship a Deity (Nick Otani would have even said that objectivist worship a god called Logic). At the end of the day, it's up to you to decide your values and create a sturdy foundation on which to live your life.

Re: Orjectivism and Religon

mike 02-05-2009, 8:00 PM
Hi mnichols
I've just joined but have been a fan of Ayn Rand's for about 40 years. About 15 years ago I became a Christian and like you don't have a problem with the dichotomy (if there is one). Rand completed most of her writing before big band theory was widely accepted around the mid 60's. Prior to that, the scientific community believed in an eternal universe model back to Aristotle. It's estimated that the age of the universe is about 16 billiion years. If we take the bible literaly it's about 6000 years (back to the kings then add 6 days of Genesis). However if we apply the mathmatics of the laws of relativity, the 6 days blows out to about 16 billion years. The phrase "and then there was evening and then there was morning" between each of the days of Genesis is often used to justify the 6 days of "creation". However the sun doesn't appear till about day 3 and the root of the Hebrew word for evening is chaos and the root for morning is order. It appears that the Genesis author is saying that between each stage of development the universe went from chaos to order.
Food for thought I think (incidentally I'm reading Atlas Shrugged for about the 18th time and still loving it!)
Cheers
Mike

Re: Orjectivism and Religon

Josh 02-06-2009, 2:06 PM
The earth is only about 4 billion years old. You are probably referring to the Universe, but at the time Genesis was written, the author assumed that the earth was flat and at the center of the known universe, which only included the sun and the moon. What you are describing is not really mathematics, but a way of bending a statement to fit reality. This tactic is often used by psychics and witch doctors and the like. They claim their statements are mere symbolism and the meanings are yet to be determined. Of course, regardless of what happens, the said psychic or witch doctor can distort the meaning of their words to fit whatever the actual outcome was.
It is usually not an accident that certain parts of the Bible are not correctly translated. A lot of changes have been made to the Bible over the years to attract the most followers and correct errors as the more intelligent members of our planet uncover the truth about reality and make it known to the masses.

Re: Orjectivism and Religon

mike 02-25-2009, 10:22 PM
I was quite clearly (I thought) refering to the universe. There is no specific reference to a flat earth in Genesis (as far as I know). It's also interesting that Genesis got it right in terms of the order of things - something which science has only truly established in the last century or so. A famous Christian writer once said "an open mind is like an open mouth, sooner or later it has to close shut on something." Unfortunately Josh, you appear to have taken this advice literaly. I prefer Ayn Rands advice ie to work within what you know but work continually to expand what you know. In other words, keep part of our minds open to debate and new ways of looking at things. (It's drawing a long bow to say the least to compare the rational processes of deduction of a rational Christian with a witch doctor). I would also suggest that since, I'm sure, both of us agree with the concept of seperation of church and state, that religion is a private choice. (I'm sure Rand would support this). While I love vigorous discussions on religious issues and validity, I don't want to dilute energies we could be putting into the furtherance of Objectivism as the basis for future systems of social order so will decline the temptation to enter into further discourse on the subject of God.
One thing you missed: my typo "big band theory". The Duke would love it!

Re: Orjectivism and Religon

Josh 02-26-2009, 9:21 AM
I consider myself pretty open minded. If you have evidence that the Universe was created by an omnipotent being, and this omnipotent being created us in his own likeness, etc. by all means, I am willing to scrutinize your evidence and judge for myself. I just buy into the old Occam's Razor that if something isn't supported by sufficient evidence, then it most likely isn't true. I know you want to believe there is a higher purpose than yourself, and that's fine. I was just expressing what I think the typical objectivist would think about Christianity. Objectivism isn't like a religion, though. People are free to think what they want, they simply have to deal with the consequences of reality. It's based on acknowledging reality and interacting with that reality. Objectivism always allows for new information and to adapt yourself accordingly. I just don't think there is sufficient evidence supporting the Christian theory of creation.
The witch doctor analogy has less to do with Christians and more to do with Christian leaders. I think Churches have a specific goal, and it clashes with everything objectivism means. If you don't want to debate religion, that's fine. The OP was asking if objectivism allows for Christianity, and objectivism uses facts to justify a theory, not the other way around. I definitely believe religion is a personal thing. I'm not telling anyone not to believe in a religion. And if you don't want someone commenting on your beliefs, then don't share them. As far as furthering objectivism, it's not like Christianity. Reality exists whether you believe it or not. We have to use our mind to learn it's nature and this is what objectivism is about. Christianity (and all religions) only exist if people agree they do. That is why religions have to be "furthered." Religions assume their holy book is right, and you have to adapt your perception of reality to fit what the book teaches.

Re: Orjectivism and Religon

mike 03-03-2009, 8:00 PM
You're right - if I didn't want to discuss it I shouldn't post an opinion. Fact is, I enjoy a lively discussion on all sorts of issues including religion. I was just suggesting our energies could be more usefully expended in other ways, since at this stage in our knowledge accumulation journey, no definitive outcome is possible, however let's have a look at it then. In terms of proving God exists and had a hand in the "creation" of the universe, there is no way of scientifically proving any historical event. A scientific theory may be proved by repeatable experiments such as "balsa wood floats on water?" easy: just put a piece of balsa wood repeatedly into water and the theory is proved by identical empirical results. Historical events need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt by the accounts of eye witnesses if possible and verified by testing the credibility of the witnesses. A lot of history must, of course, be pieced together by painstaking research in order to build a substantial circumstantial case. I spent several decades as a committed Randian atheist until I realised that my position was in fact a faith based position as much as a theist holds to a belief in God. It was over a 2 year period of investigation / research that I came to the conclusion that Christ's claims about Himself had the overwhelming weight of circumstantial evidence on His side. ( I have since discovered that many minds greater, I'm sure, than mine have walked the same path). I found myself reluctantly drawn to the conclusion that I had become a Christian. It has been suggested by Gerald Schroeder (Israeli nuclear physicist) that the mathmatical possibilities of life supporting conditions (which are very narrow) occuring by accident are so unlikely as to be regarded as impossible. Big Bang theory led to Big Crunch theory. Possibly we are in the expansion phase of an infinite number of phases in which case the math is supportive of the eventual lucky creation of life supporting conditions. However, it appears from fairly recent evidence that the universe is expanding at an accellerating rate. Perhaps Big Crunch is after all, scientific fantasy. Be that as it may, I agree with you that the bible has gone through several (often politically corrupted) translations. Any biblical scholar worth his salt is aware of that and allows for it in the pursuit of original meaning. I also agree with you that the established church (a man made institution) has done some appalling things. Jesus would (if He had one) turn in His grave many times over the things that have been done in His name. So, judge a system by its characteristics, not it's abuses!. It is also true that there are a number of discepencies in the four books of the New Testemant. Any police officer will tell you that witness accounts differ. The trick is not to look for the discrepencies but for the common elements. Example: witnesses may disagree about the colour of the get away car, the number of bank robbers, their ethnicity, etc but the policeman will simply record that there was a get away car containing a number of robbers and go from there. The discrepencies simply suggest that the accounts are the honest attempts by people doing their best to account for extraordinary events. The four books of the New Testemant were written within 80 years of the cruxifiction and Luke in particular (an educated man, a physician) is regarded as a first rate historian. The original forms of life on this planet were algae and protozoans which lay dormant in the soil for millions of years. Interesting that they had 100 times the genetic information of a modern mammal. During the Cambrian period, all the 30 + major phyla or body types exploded into being over a few million years. Even non theistic scientists now concede that we have to entertain the possibility that life was "seeded" on this planet. Ayn Rand's take on any aspect of theology was a pretty toxic one (although I love and admire her contribution to 20th century literature / philosophy / economics). Fact is, most Christians I know aren't wedded to the idea that "God is something we can never understand." In fact, I believe that science will eventually lead us to an understanding of this universal consciousness or force for good. The parable of Jeff Allen (the tramp in Dagney's private car) ie, we help those who are guiltless victims closely parallels the parable of the good Samaritan who helped a traveller who had been beaten by thieves. Most Christians I know would say that to throw money at a neighbour who refuses to make an effort to take responsibility for his existence is to deny him the opportunity to learn by cushioning him from the consequences of his choices. Also Rand's take on forgiveness was off the mark. Forgiveness is not the unconditional removal of guilt from a perpertrator: it is the removal of hate from the "heart" of the victim. (a clinically healthy thing to do most would agree). It is widely accepted that forgiveness must be preceeded by justice. The order of things is: catch the guy, bring him to justice then if he truly sees the light (sometimes difficult to tell) we help him change because it's in our interests to do so. It was the Rand ideals of loyalty, responsibility to respect the rights of others, responsibility for self, the rights of property, innovation, ethical business practices, wise investments and prudent use of money that attracted me to the Christian community where I observed these traits being practiced more diligently than in the "secular" community. Finally, we could go on and on throwing our private "God" views at each other. It can't be proved one way or the other. If there is a "God", whatever form "He" assumes, I expect He would simply want us to get on with the job of excercising our intellect to solve the problems of existence and to encourage, not discourage, people of all theistic persuasions to join the cause of rationality and its political manifestation, "hands-off" Capitalism.

Re: Orjectivism and Religon

Josh 03-06-2009, 1:35 PM
Mike wrote:
"....there is no way of scientifically proving any historical event."

I see what your getting at, but I don't want to let this part of the statement slide. We can prove historical events with science.

Mike wrote:
"Historical events need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt by the accounts of eye witnesses if possible and verified by testing the credibility of the witnesses."

We can scientifically prove the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and that it wiped out the town of Pompei. We don't need eye witnesses to prove this. There are many similar events in history we can use science to prove without depending on eye witnesses.

Mike wrote:
"I spent several decades as a committed Randian atheist until I realised that my position was in fact a faith based position as much as a theist holds to a belief in God."

I wouldn't mind going into details on the premises that require faith for a "Randian atheist" position. I think what you are referring to are the 3 self evident axioms Ayn Rand discusses. I don't think these axioms require faith, but more of an aknowledgement. They exist whether you accept them or not. These axioms are required to believe in an omnipotent being that created the Universe and that we were specifically created in his image. I think discussing this more will really start to show what objectivism is about. I'm not a certified objectivist or anything, but from what I've read these axioms are pretty much the basis for objectivism.

Re: Orjectivism and Religon

slacker00 03-08-2009, 3:11 PM
Hi guys. I'll throw my hat into the ring.

I've been asking the same question about God & Objectivism being incompatible.

I've read the Rand & the TAS Objectivist arguments about rejecting things which we cannot sense in an Objective sense. That opens a whole other discussion, because plenty of things seem to exist which are tough to sense, understand or explain. Take human emotions, for example. I can't touch a feeling, see it or objectively examine it, but it exists. We could also talk about stuff like scientific theories or mathematical structures, which have no concrete in reality, but simply explain stuff which may or may not have a ton of bearing on material reality. But, I'll digress off that subject, because it goes way beyond religion.

Right now, I'm interested in the Thomas Jefferson Bible, which takes out all of the mysticism from the life of Jesus Christ and tries to simply treat Jesus' life as a biography, but strictly using bible verses. I'm familiar with the Bible, so I get the gist of what Thomas Jefferson is trying to show, the moral virtues of Christ. I know they somewhat clash with Objectivist principals, but it's my next step of examination of Christ in a non-religious (objective?) way. I'll add more comments as I do my exploration.

Otherwise, I largely share the Objectivist skepticism regarding religion and religious traditions.

Re: Orjectivism and Religon

WhatCouldHaveBeen 03-09-2009, 4:21 PM

Objectivism and Christianity and I would say organized religion of any kind are definitely at odds. For one, the whole supernatural (something outside of this world that cannot be explained) is a contradiction of Objectivism, as recognition of and adherence to reality are fundemental objectivist tenets. Atheism means the the disbelief or denial of a god or supreme intelligent being. Since God is defined as a supreme being (implying a supernatural quality) then it stands to reason that an actual (not just self-proclaimed) Objectivist, i.e. an adherent to the rational and reality, would be an Atheist. Also please read some of AR's non-fiction as she clearly states again and again how her philosophy rejects all forms of self-sacrifice, which I believe is fundemental to Christianity. I could be wrong about Christianity since I am in no way an expert, but I do believe that I'm correct on assuming self-sacrifice/altruism is a major factor.

Here is one quote I found from Ayn Rand,

"It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master."

Re: Orjectivism and Religon

slacker00 03-10-2009, 1:47 PM
I agree that the differences almost define Christianity & Objectivism as polar opposites. In fact, I've considered the fact that Communism is rooted in Christianity. I've found biblical sounding phrases while reading Marx.

I'd still like to examine how Christianity might be modified to fit within an Objectivist context. Would Christianity be recognizable at all whatsoever after such an adaptation? Is there any overlap between Christianity & Objectivism at all? Maybe this type of examination is purely academic, but it certainly piques my interest.

Re: Orjectivism and Religon

WhatCouldHaveBeen 03-10-2009, 5:58 PM

I don't think it would be possible to modify Christianity to fit into an Objectivist context and still call in Christianity. Know what I'm saying? What are the main branches of philosophy?

Metaphysics- nature of reality/the universe

Epistemology - nature of knowledge

Ethics - moral principles/code of general behavior

Politics - how to deal with other people

Now these are the branches that Ayn Rand identifies and by just identifying the metaphysics and epistemology of both Christianity and Objectivism you will see that they are like oil and water and will not mix. Just by identifying the underlying premises on how each sees the world and human's part in it you will see the glaring differences.

Re: Orjectivism and Religon

slacker00 03-11-2009, 6:50 PM
I agree. In fact, I think Rand built her philosophy as an opposing reaction to Communism & Religion.

It might be more interesting to try to compare Communism with Christianity.

Here's an interesting article I found with a quick google.
http://atheism.about.com/od/thebible/a/communism.htm

One big difference is that Communism seems to promote authoritarian control whereas Christianity is more about (voluntary?) faith.

Re: Orjectivism and Religon

WhatCouldHaveBeen 03-12-2009, 1:59 PM

Slacker,

I would agree with that. Coming from a socialist Soviet Union and seeing how messed up a communist government/way of life could be helped to set Rand's path to define what would be the best way to live, by reason and with the freedom to choose for oneself.

Communism and religion are just two sides to the same coin. One wants complete obedience to a god's will and the other to the will of the people (collective). Both belief systems need to use fear and force in order to keep people obedient to the will (either of people or of a god). Fear of going to hell, fear of the wrath of the people, eternal damnation, a loaded gun. Considering how alike they are I can imagine it being difficult to follow both at once. The religion wants you to follow god's will, communism..the voice of the people. What if those 2 don't match up? I suppose one could say that the voice of god wants you to follow the will of the people. I think either group would still want you to be obedient only to one though.

Thinking about it really scares the hell out of me since America is headed down this path. I always here about the Majority, what the Majority wants. We are wiping out freedom slowly by vote of the majority. Which majority? That'd be everyone who votes, everyone who wants or allows one group of people to do or not do some certain thing and is willing to let the government force their belief on another human being. Don't worry it will come back on all of us. You violate one individual's rights, and there are no longer rights. Everyone's rights are up for being violated by any majority that is bigger than yours. Anyway, just a tangent.....

re: communism - authoritarion control vs. christianity -voluntary faith

I would agree that in these times that would be true since religion doesn't rule the government like it did in the dark ages but again they use arguments from force, i.e. if you don't believe you are going to hell/will be punished/have no morals and so on. Communism you get punished now for any transgressions, religion you get punished in the after life. I think that there would be small differences between a government ran by communism and one ran by a religion. Individual rights would definitely be non-existant either way. Who are you to have rights when the will of god/the people says otherwise? There are probably some things I am missing and don't have time at this point to explain so please feel free to argue/expand on any point I made.

Re: Orjectivism and Religon

slacker00 03-13-2009, 7:11 AM
Did you read about how Leonard Peikoff has advocated voting straight Democrat in the past several election cycles because dealing with socialism was better than dealing with a theocracy? This surprised me. I thought the Objectivist agenda would dictate voting Republican, in view of Republican talking points like "less government" & "capitalism" advocacy. Yet again, two sides of the same socialist coin, Republicans & Democrats. I have an idea that we need to rebuild our democratic system to allow for more legitimate political 3rd parties, which would increase competition & efficiency in politics, but nobody listens to me.

I'll concede that our framers of the U.S. Constitution saved our butts by seperating church & state. Unfortunately, Marx didn't write his Communist Manifesto until 50 years later. The framers didn't get enough of up heads-up to write Communism out of the Constitution as well.

A Randian society does intrigue me, but it can only be achieved by a grass roots movement. Thomas Jefferson had a similar vision, but if his vision didn't take hold, now over 200 years later, I'm not sure how much hope we can have for a Randian vision. Maybe we have to form small Randian communities and try to do what we can regarding the larger U.S.

Jefferson believed that individuals have an innate sense of morality that prescribes right from wrong when dealing with other individuals—that whether they choose to restrain themselves or not, they have an innate sense of the natural rights of others. He even believed that moral sense to be reliable enough that an anarchist society could function well, provided that it was reasonably small.

Page 1 of 2 (30 items)

1 2 >