Objectivism and religion are mutually exclusive. The metaphysics are polar opposites

KS, thanks for bringing up the question. There are very strong opinions on this. I believe it helps to learn as much as possible and base our opinions on facts when possible. However, if we are honest we have to admit that humans really are not anywhere remotely close to understanding how everything came about. Science learns more and more but with each wrapper unfolded it simply leads to another one. Maybe one day we will truly understand, but I suspect that will be thousands or millions of years off. I remember viewing one show where the scientist talked about how the answers could be staring us in the face but we simply are not smart enough to figure it out. They compared it to trying to teach a gorilla algebra or something like that. Gorillas are smart animals but you could spend his entire life teaching him but he will never be able to grasp it.

I do not claim to have any idea what the real story is behind existence. My ideas are probably different than yours but I can not credibly argue there is no God. There simply is no hard proof one way or the other (though personally I feel I have enough evidence to be somewhat confident that the current religions have filled in gaps to "create" false answers).

Who knows what we will find if some day we actually do learn to understand. This probably will not be comforting to you but my current train of thought is that there is something that explains our existence and you might call it God or Creator, but that can be taken many ways since we might be considered Gods if we went back to the Stone age. In comparison to all of existence, I figure we are like bacteria living in a human body. We have countless millions of bacteria living in our body but we have no conscience knowledge of them other than science telling us they are there. To the universe (and/or creative force) we are probably bacteria. But like I said, I do not know anything for sure. And I hope I am wrong!!!!

Absolutely no problem for me, as most of you probably know.

If reading carefully into the use of Religion as a tool of the looters than I can see Rand's point clearly. Whoever not all established religions handle the idea of sacrifice the same. The individualism of The Gultch did not exempt morality. Indeed living in The Gultch requires the moral conviction that each member of The Gultch had a value and a responsibility to contribute for their own existence. I do not find this far from many core beliefs from established religion and therefore not exclusive. It is not the tool, but how it is used.

To answer this I will first give a bit of background. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints. I share this with Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney and Harry Reid.

Glenn Beck is a small government guy and would largely fit into a Objectivist concept as well.

Mitt Romney is a moderate that would drive a mixed economy between small and large government.

Harry Reid is an embarrassment that he shares my religion and I really cannot understand how he does and has the views he has.

About the only thing I share with Harry Reid is a belief that their is a god. We are alike about at much as two atheist with the furthermost apart political views you could have.

Atheism is a religion. Like myself and Harry Reid there are atheists with only the belief their is no god in common.

Religion is not a factor as a person who uses reason and rational thought to govern their belief/confidence/faith is doing what objectivity suggests.

The fact is I have far more in common with an atheist here than I would ever have with Harry Reid.

For an example, many religious people would make the assumption that Christ taught Altruism when he said we should take care of the poor. You will note that by his example he healed those who exercised faith they would be healed. Gave sight to those who followed instructions to receive their site... all of his help required action on the part of the receiver. Even in the old testament the followers had to look up at the serpent in order to be healed of the venomous bites they had received. He helps those who help themselves. He is not saying he will swoop in a save the day, but that god has put a system in place that if you take action to help yourself and will find a way to do it.

Others like Harry Reid interpret those events differently. Outside of the reality of life that says "by the sweat of your own brow shall thy eat all the days of thy life."

Fact is both viewpoints can be argued from the bible. There are reasons for that, but that's another topic. At the end of the day it only the mind and its ability to reason that can be used to determine faith/belief/confidence in the unknown and work towards making it known. This viewpoint works very well with the religion I practice. It would not work with the religion Harry Reid practices even thought we both belong to the same Christan religion.

well said. Thank you

Bravo, coaldigger. Dig deep enough and you come up with diamonds. "Learn to think instead of only learning about the thoughts of others." yes! Of course, no one exists in a vacuum. Each mind has to put the pieces together under its own power.from the real world we live in.

Even Rand had antecedents, but her full philosophy she built out of her own original insights. And she didn't want disciples who would just parrot her words; the truth belongs to all who find it through their own effort.

I sometimes wonder how many people who quote her as though she were the Bible actually understand the full depth of her wisdom.

Ayn Rand didn't think it was important to spend a lot of time or effort arguing about it either. Rejection of religion is a simple, unalterable consequence of a philosophy of reason, which has much more important topics to pursue. The emphasis on religion on gg has been due to those stubbornly trying to promote it without understanding Ayn Rand's philosophy or to oppose her philosophy or both, They do this obsessively, in complete disregard for the purpose of the forum. It doesn't belong here. But that is in contrast to occasional intellectually honest questions such as by KSilver in this thread -- and in that context it is important to address them.

I grew up RC in Tennessee in the '60s, left that "religion" in the '70s and pretty much became a spiritualist. Since I was not around in any of the "religious" times (i.e. when Jesus, Mohammed, etc. where alive) I don't know of who or what, if any, are any more true than I know what I'm going to want to eat for lunch in a week. I do, however, believe that there has to be some sort of intelligence design to the universe, because in nature, there tends to be chaos. Perhaps I am using spirituality for my limited intellect trying to comprehend an unlimited universe. For all I know, there could have been a few older cavemen sitting around a fire saying to themselves, "all kids want to do is eat and f*ck, and nothing is getting done. Perhaps we should give them something to keep them busy." Perhaps it's because we are the only animals on the planet that learn from a fairly young age that we are going to die. Perhaps it was teachings from long ago that were passed on from generation to generation that we must build on our accomplishments. I don't consider my spiritualistic side to hold me back, but more to help me focus and prioritize the things I want to accomplish.

I am one of that number of people.
I do not call myself religious but a believer.
I also believe in the evidence of evolution.
I'm quite comfortable with both beliefs.
If some wish to consider me a nonconformist here, I'm quite comfortable with that.
Ayn Rand was a nonconformist.
Not my way. Her way, bless her brain and the heart that pumped blood into it..

Ayn Rand rejected all forms of the supernatural because it is contrary to reason, not because of financial corruption in the established church or differences between sects. Reason is based on what is observed, integrated into objective conceptual knowledge, not "rationalization" and not what you _feel_ "must" be regardless of lack of evidence or observation. Faith and feelings based on years of indoctrination are not rational evidence and not perception of reality.

Objectivism does not hold that if something can't be directly experienced it must not exist. You can't directly perceive electrons and atoms because they are too small to see; that doesn't mean we can't infer their existence. That inference, however, is based on painstaking rational science based on objective conceptual knowledge and carefully designed experiments, with all knowledge ultimately based on what we experience from the 5 senses. To understand how scientific knowledge is obtained, from evolutionary biology to physics, requires understanding the history of how the sciences developed.

All of the problems and tendencies you describe are easily answered, but not in one paragraph and not unsystematically.Your most immediate problem seems to be a lack of knowledge in specific fields of science and philosophy. There is a very straightforward way to address this, but only in the context of what you already know. You haven't said what you have read about Ayn Rand's Philosophy or evolutionary biology or any other relevant subject in your quest to understand. What have you read and how long have you been at it?

I thought I could add to what you wrote Z, but I just erased it. I Couldn't say it better.

Yes, I agree. Very good.

Zen
the first statement from KS that Ayn Rand thought that "most religious institutions etc" if factually incorrect. Ayn Rand did not give any credibility to "religion" as a valid institution to begin with. If one is an objectivist then religion is not recognized as being valid.

Let me add that I would never ask a person to have faith as it insults their intelligence. It demands that a person claim something is true in spite of it contradicting the evidence of they eyes and brain. What rules of evidence are proper? Certainly not what faith demands.

And it gets worse - that is claiming that a person's moral worth is tied to claiming something is true without evidence - formally, guilt mongering - a deadly and evil practice.

Consider the story of Adam and Eve. What is the message explicitly? Isn't it that seeking knowledge is to be punished and blind obedience is rewarded? And then there's the guilt dimension. Now add to that universal-mets-guilt the idea of a savior to save us from that unearned, arbitrary guilt. And finally the duty to worship this construct.

I can't imagine a more destructive pile of ideas that undermine everything that is healthy and good in human existence.

The most comprehensive and integrated answer to this history of ideas is Ayn Rand's body of work which compare to what Newton did for physics - laying a solid foundation for further work as Aristotle did for her.

Philosophy doesn't provide all the answers, but it does provide boundary conditions such as non-contradiction and objectivity.

I love the fact that the term Objectivism has a dual meaning. First, objective vs subjective - there's a real world out there. Second, in terms of human objectives or purpose: Value is the coincidence of facts of reality and our purposes, our goals. How we can operate in reality to achieve our life, liberty and pursue happiness? Rand said Objectivism is a philosophy for living on earth.

Oh, puhleeze

KS -
You indicate that in spite of the advances in science, we are no closer to finding out how complex life came into being - and therefore divine intervention is required.

There are 4 questions that are generally proposed to validate religion in the light of scientific inadequecy:
1. The existence of the universe per se
2. The existence of life
3. The presence of complex life
4. The nature of consciousness

Cosmology, Abiogenesis, Evolution, and Neurophysiology have made - and are making - great advances in these areas. There is nothing 'proven' yet. (To my mind, there is nothing in science that is ever proven, just a hypothesis with a large weight of evidence!) Science does have information that allows a scientific approach to the answers to these questions. The important thing is that these questions are 'addressable' by science, and do not of themselves require the intervention of a deity to explain them.

This does not however exclude a deity. One cannot logically establish that a deity does not exist. If someone wants to begin with that as a postulate and use the Bible (or other document) as the 'cliffsnotes' for how that premise works out, then as long as their 'bottom line' is rational and supports personal freedom, I do not have trouble interacting with them on any topic other than religion. On religion, we must agree to differ.

Jan

Zenphamy, you state "it is more of a quest for me to find a way to reconcile two conflicting views that I hold dear."

I had the same conflict but accepted this: If there is a "god" of any kind, he gave me the power of rational thought and rational thought has led me to conclude that there is no "god."

KS, There is no way to prove that something does not exist. What I will say is that Science has come very far to explain the creation of the universe. Everything that is discovered, tested, and proven leads us further away from the traditional teachings of any religion. Just because we do not know all the answers does not mean that we will not at some point, and it does not mean that we should create our own answers to fill the void. Please take time to read "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss. This book explains in terms that are easy to understand what science has been able to discover about our existence. Do we have all the answers. No, but we know more now than ever.

KSilver3:
THAT, is the really thing that needs clarified at the beginning of a discussion such as this. Religion, Belief in God "Intelligent Design", Philosophy, they are all very much different, even though in many ways share some of the same core principals. Analogy would be like saying "vehicles." Well a Car and Truck have many of the same principals and can serve some of the same functions, but are no the same at all. Too often people lump "Belief in God" with religion and that is not always the case.

Hasn't anyone ever read 2 Thessalonians 3? Especially verses 6-12?

"My issue is that, in my heart, I do feel that I experience the existence of God. "
This does not anti-objectivist IMHO, as long as the feelings don't lead to assertions about the universe. Feeling god in one's heart is not scientifically falsifiable. If you say that god answers prayers, the evidence disproves that.

"There is as much proof that God created the earth as there is that it was a random cataclysmic event (no proof in either case, only theories). "
We should not to let our ignorance about the origin of the universe (or about anything) act as evidence for one particular explanation.

"I have a hard time believing that this perfect child for me ended up in my life purely by physical chance. "
I feel the exact same way, but this is argument from personal incredulity. Some things seem incredible and are still true.

Regarding altruism, IMHO the "god" in your heart means you're good, and if you pursue what *you* want, you're pursuing good. It's the Biblical pharisees who go around with pained looks on their faces suffering for others.

I recall a recent discussion I had with a gentleman on whether there is a God or not. His argument was we are so complex that there must be a God. That was the basis of his argument. It was not based on anything rational, but that there just must be a higher power, because how else could a human have been “created”. Of course science has identified that the earth is millions of years old (not the thousands the creationists believe), and over those years humans developed into the form they are today. Science has proved that we evolved from very simple living things. Religion relies on “faith” to justify their beliefs and I expect it does so because science cannot support their views (don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up).
I am not anti-religion, any more than I want to push my atheism. As had been said earlier, Objectivism is not anti anything, but it clearly identifies what it is. It is fact driven and science based, and A is not equal to B but to A.

Dear K Silver

There are a number of religious people who have read Rand, love her novels, agree with many of her ideas, but will not abandon their faith. I used to receive visits from a devout Jesuit priest who would drool over Ayn Rand manuscripts and signed first editions I buy and sell. (Having taken a vow of poverty, he couldn't afford to buy, but he was delightful for discussion and thoroughly aquainted with Rand's writings.)
Indeed, in the Objectivist Newsletter (March, 62), Barbara Branden, under Rand's editorship, writes that "a rational advocate of capitalism can cooperate with religious people who share his political principles, but only in a strictly secular movement, that is: only in a movement that does not claim religion as the base and justification of its political principles".
As I say, BB wrote this in 1962, so clearly, religious admirers of Rand are not new.
Best, Michael