Objectivism and Atheism

Hi Brady,

Dwyer qualifies which is the theism that clashes with Objectivism. He says "insofar as theism..." I basically agree with Dwyer's bit if we define Objectivism a certain way (see below), and I maintain my view: it's possible for a theist to be an Objectivist. Through reasoning, people conclude all sorts of weird stuff, including stuff that, as it turns out, is mistaken.

Things get complicated when someone, through reasoning, concludes that consciousness precedes existence, that there're innate ideas, that political invasion of the individual is peachy, or that sacrificial values are aesthetically desirable. I do think people, theists and otherwise, can reasonably come to these conclusions. I also think theists can come to those conclusions that align with Objectivism.

The question is: can someone be Objectivist with conclusions so antithetical to those Dwyer listed? If we say Objectivism entails a set of conclusions -- e.g., those that Dwyer listed -- then no. If we hold that Objectivism is essentially an adherance to reasoning, then sure. It depends on what Objectivism is, which is by no means a settled issue.

Jordan

Post 21

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 4:41pm

Brady,

Those who say that Objectivism is compatible with the theism are probably not very familiar with the philosophy. A lot of people have only a passing familiarity with Objectivism and may find themselves in agreement with certain of its principles, but be largely ignorant of the rest or of the reasons behind them. If they were more familiar with the philosophy, they definitely would not say that Objectivism is compatible with theism.

I don't think what Jordan says is correct. Objectivism is not just a philosophy which says that one should use reason as one's guide to thought and action. Using reason is a necessary condition for subscribing to the philosophy, but it's not a sufficient condition. One cannot be an Objectivist if one is an advocate of the primacy of consciousness, which is one of the bedrocks of theism. One cannot be an Objectivist if one is living for the sake of a life beyond the grave, and obeying the commandments of a supernatural authority. One cannot be an Objectivist if one believes in disembodied spirits, angels, devils and divine miracles. These ideas are so alien to the philosophy that they preclude any alliance with it.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 3/28, 4:52pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 3/28, 4:54pm)

Post 22

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 4:49pm

Hi Jordan,

Thanks for the reply.

The impression I am getting is that there are two views here.

The first (Bill's), is that Objectivism and metaphysics are like a mountain and a valley. The Objectivist valley exists because of the existence of the naturalism mountain. If the mountain did not exist, then the valley would not exist.

The second is that objectivism is like the topping on a ice cream sunday. We can put the chocolate sauce, the nuts and whipped cream on several possible flavors of metaphysical ice cream and it really doesn't matter that much. One Objectivist may not like the flavor that another Objectivist likes, but they are both Objectivists in good standing.

Does anyone know if Rand had a take on this? I think that may be of help here and I don't really know the answer.

Regards,

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 23

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 4:52pm

The only theistic view that resonates with Objectivism is pantheism (which, ultimately, reduces to naturalism). All other theisms (or proponents thereof) don't.

Ed

Post 24

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 4:55pm

Hi Ed,

What about other atheisms?

Brady

Post 25

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 5:06pm

Brady,

Rand would have characterized any departure from the basic principles of Objectivism as non-Objectivist. She definitely would not have regarded theists or those who believed in the supernatural as Objectivists. There is no question about this. She viewed her philosophy as a hierarchically integrated system, not a grab-bag of disconnected ideas from which one can pick and choose, accepting some and rejecting others.

Of course, she would say that one should use one's own judgment in deciding what to accept -- that one should never accept Objectivism on faith or on anyone's say-so, but only on the basis of one's own rational judgment.

What about other atheisms? Well, atheism is not so much a position as it is the absence of one. To say that someone is an atheist simply tells you what he does not believe in; it doesn't tell you what he does believe. Marxists are atheists, but they are as far from Objectivists as one could get. Atheism qua atheism is simply the absence of a belief in God -- a-theism. In that respect, all "atheisms" are the same. It's the other aspects of an atheist's philosophy that are critical.

Barbara Branden once characterized Objectivists as "intransigent" atheists, not "militant" atheists. Objectivists are not out there beating the drums for the absence of a belief in God, even though they are uncompromising on that score. They're focused more on the ideas that they do support -- reason, objective reality, self-interest, freedom of choice -- than on the ones that they don't.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 3/28, 5:23pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 3/28, 5:24pm)

Post 26

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 5:36pm

"God, as Christians conceive of him, is bound by nature, viz. his own nature. For example, because God is by nature all-good, it follows that it is impossible for him to commit anything evil in his actions."

That doesn't serve as a limit on omnipotence or change what I said about it. It just means that Christians also become willing to rationalize acts such as drowning everyone as somehow not evil.

"Does something not exist unless it is perceived to exist?"

If there is not at least indirect evidence of something that at some point builds upon perceptions, then there is no reason to believe it exists.

"Christian ethics are founded on the idea that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good-- and that he acts accordingly."

I simply do not understand how Christians hold such beliefs blatantly in contradiction with reality.

"You obviously don't know what 'mystical metaphysics' (as you pejoratively call them) are. I suggest you educate yourself."

Been there, done that. Raised Christian, but tossed its mystical metaphysics (and the rest) aside decades ago.

Post 27

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 6:10pm

Interesting take on Causation:

If the mountain did not exist, then the valley would not exist.

But the battle continues over this one:

One Objectivist may not like the flavor that another Objectivist likes, but they are both Objectivists in good standing.

Personally, I agree with Bill. I almost always agree with Bill.

Living consciously is pretty big deal in Objectivism. Conscious errors aren't viewed too kindly. Avoiding conscious mistakes is most definitely an Objectivist tenet, or dictum. Faith is considered a conscious error because it actively flies in the face of reason.

How to deal with those making this, and other conscious errors is a question still being argued over by scholars. Accept them? Reject them? Tolerate them?

Its an interesting debate with a long history.

To be honest with you, I don't think it's possible to be a Christian, and an Objectivist. The idea is an oxymoron to me. A total contradiction, but that's not to say that Christians can't accept many Objectivist ideas.

But if those ideas have to be argued to the ground, a Christian is going to have a hard time doing that because the fundamentals haven't been properly grasped and understood. The fundamentals are directly at odds with Christianity.

At any rate, I would suggest learning all you can about the discipline, maybe join a study group or club if one exists in your area.

Does anyone know if Rand had a take on this? I think that may be of help here and I don't really know the answer.

Rand said somewhere, "Thou shall think!" or something similar. That would be her one, all encompassing commandment. She's no longer with us, so we're left to discover the answers ourselves. May the best formulation win!

Post 28

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 6:18pm

Bill wrote:

Rand would have characterized any departure from the basic principles of Objectivism as non-Objectivist. She definitely would not have regarded theists or those who believed in the supernatural as Objectivists. There is no question about this. She viewed her philosophy as a hierarchically integrated system, not a grab-bag of disconnected ideas from which one can pick and choose, accepting some and rejecting others.

Bill, thank you for your insight on this issue. Is there perhaps some passage in Rand's writings that could be offered to the other Objectivists here? Not that it is necessary, but perhaps it could be of help to them and me, as well. If you don't have one off hand, please don't feel that you have to go rummaging thru a bunch of books to find one.

What about other atheisms? Well, atheism is not so much a position as it is the absence of one. To say that someone is an atheist simply tells you what he does not believe in; it doesn't tell you what he does believe. Marxists are atheists, but they are as far from Objectivists as one could get. Atheism qua atheism is simply the absence of a belief in God -- a-theism. In that respect, all "atheisms" are the same. It's the other aspects of an atheist's philosophy that are critical

There is a difference in metaphysical atheism (a statement about what reality consists of) and psychological atheism (what one personally believes). I think you will agree, that for the psychological atheism you cite above to have any value, at least one metaphysical form of atheism must at least have the possibility of being true. There are two cosmologies that assert atheism:

The first is called �Negationism.� It is found in a few eastern philosophies and religions. It states that reality consists of no God and no universe. Everything is just illusion.

The second Atheistic cosmology is �Naturism� or "Naturalism," depending on how technical you want to get with the terms. This is the form of western atheism. In cosmological Naturalism, reality consists of only nature, i.e. our universe. We have discussed this in another thread.

I don't think that Objectivism would work very well with Negationism.

Let me make a statement and see if you would agree with it:

If Objectivism is true, then cosmological naturalism must be true.

What do you think?

Regards,

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 29

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 6:37pm

Brady, you wrote,

If Objectivism is true, then cosmological naturalism must be true.

What do you think?

Yeah, that's right. As for a quotation from Rand to back up my statement on her view of what constitutes an Objectivist, I don't have one offhand, but in the early years of the philosophy's promulgation, she said that people shouldn't call themselves "Objectivists" until they fully grasped and understood the philosophy. Until then, they should call themselves "students of Objectivism." She was also careful to dissociate herself from latter-day libertarians, whom she despised, because they had "rushed into" politics without a well-integrated philosophy. She held that a political revolution was impossible without a moral or philosophical revolution -- without a broad based rejection of the altruist morality.

- Bill

Post 30

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 6:50pm

Hi Teresa,

Welcome to the thread. It is good to have your input.

Personally, I agree with Bill. I almost always agree with Bill.

Yes, Bill presents a very strong case.

But if those ideas have to be argued to the ground, a Christian is going to have a hard time doing that because the fundamentals haven't been properly grasped and understood. The fundamentals are directly at odds with Christianity.

Yes, I am beginning to agree with you on this.

Who you agree with Bill that if Objectivism is true, then cosmological naturalism must be true?

Regards,

Brady

Post 31

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 6:52pm

Bill wrote:

Brady, you wrote,
If Objectivism is true, then cosmological naturalism must be true.

What do you think?
Yeah, that's right.

Would you also agree to the bi-conditional: If cosmological naturalism is true, then Objectivism is true?

Regards,

Brady

Post 32

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 7:14pm

Faith is incompatible with Objectivism. If your religion includes that, then there is a strong contradiction between it and Objectivism. If you discovered "God" through the scientific method, then I'd say well maybe you could be a poor Objectivist with problems using the scientific method, just like any other poor Objectivist that isn't a perfect Objectivist in some other area. : ) But I don't think discovering "God" through science is possible, since I'm so confident no "God" exists. Rand surely drew believing in God as a line that separates a person from being an Objectivist.

But I think this conversation is becoming extremely impractical, way to abstract. Why instead don't we discuss various points that we may disagree on?

Practically, I agree that a person who believes in a "God" could not be an Objectivist. Yet surely a person who believes in a "God" could agree with many Objectivist ideas.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 3/28, 9:30pm)

Post 33

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 7:19pm

Let's be clear. I agree with Bill's take on Objectivism, that it's just a set of (integrated) conclusions. I put out the view that Objectivism is adherance to reasoning because I've seen other self-described Objectivists, albeit a small minority, espouse this view. The debate as to what Objectivism is is a bit more complicated. Do searches for Leonard Peikoff and David Kelley if you want to see details to that war.

Where I disagree with Bill is with his constrictive view of theism. There're lots of theisms out there. An obvious Objectivist friendly theism is pantheism, as Ed pointed out. Perhaps Sam hinted that Buddhism might be compatible. Regardless of whether you take the Objectivism-is-adherance-to-reasoning view or the Objectivism-is-a-set-of-conclusions view, I think it's possible for a theist to fold into it.

As per this:

In cosmological Naturalism, reality consists of only nature, i.e. our universe.

if Objectivism is true, then cosmological naturalism must be true?

I agree with Bill and Teresa. However, you might be interested to know that many Objectivists reject the physicalist's view of nature or the universe.

Jordan

Post 34

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 7:28pm

FYI, the Ayn Rand Institute has a slew of Rand quotes in response to your question, Brady. It's not complete, but it might give you what you want. See
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index#obj_q6

Jordan

P.S. Rand mentions the "militant" versus "intransigent" atheist that Dwyer says Barbara Brandon talk about.

Post 35

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 9:04pm

Dean,

Faith is compatible with Objectivism

Did you mean Faith is INcompatible with Objectivism?

Brady

Post 36

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 9:15pm

Jordan, on the answer link that you provided, I saw this:

What was Ayn Rand's view on capital punishment?
She thought it was morally just, but legally dangerous�because of the possibility of jury errors which could not be rectified after the death of the innocent man. She had no position on whether there should be a death penalty or not.

The first sentence is correct; but the second sentence would seem to contradict it. If she thought capital punishment was legally dangerous, then how could she not have a position on the death penalty?! Capital punishment IS the death penalty, and she was definitely opposed to it at the present stage of our forensic knowledge, with its obvious fallibility.

- Bill

Post 37

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 9:32pm

Randy: A horrifying spelling mistake. Fixed, thanks.

Post 38

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 9:37pm

Dean,

I wasn't pointing out a spelling mistake, I just wanted to be sure I understood you properly.

Brady

(Edited by G. Brady Lenardos on 3/28, 9:37pm)

Post 39

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 11:11pm