It is reasonable, I think, to realize that we, the human race, do not know everything about the Universe; there may very well be forces in the Universe that we cannot see, measure and understand. The understanding and acceptance of one's own limitations is not in conflict with Objectivism. However, a belief in God as a cop out for everything that we do not understand is very much in conflict with Objectivism; in fact, it is the polar opposite. A belief that a super-diety will solve real world problems for us, if we pray hard enough, is not Objectivism. One can certainly be religious and be friends with Objectivists, but the two philosophies cannot merge.

No. Objectivism is an integrated philosophy and there is literally no room in it for religion.

Certainly you can be religious and adhere to many principles of Objectivism. But you would almost certainly have to ignore part of its metaphysics (I say "almost" because it depends on your concept of what God is), part of its epistemology, and you get into real trouble with some of its ethics.

You could, however, be religious and adhere to other parts of it, including its politics and aesthetics; and for that matter, significant parts of the rest.

However that makes you a partial Objectivism-sympathiser, not an Objectivist. Mind you, I have nothing against Objectivism-sympathisers as long as they really do hew to reason (albeit, of necessity, having made a rather large error) and full respect for the rights of others.

I was raised in a southern baptist family. . I read Rand
when I was 15 and immediately became atheist. . my mom
nearly had me committed. . I did not care.

I stayed atheist until I worked through the possibility
of a philosophical bridge, in my 30s. . when I became
confident that the bridge was legitimate, I married
a Christian woman and tried to make a family. . no kids,
the the marriage is solid. . so is the bridge. -- j

p.s. my bridge is roundly rejected in the gulch, but
a whole lot of people responded positively when I asked
if a Christian might be welcome in the gulch. . we had
over 700 comments on that post.
.

well, she is a mom! -- j
.

an objectivist might say that you take the distance
to the sun in confidence, not with faith. -- j
.

Please reread what has been said. I never specifically said that I was, "hedging my bets," and do not view it as such. Though someone viewing me might consider it that way. I truly do believe and pray on a very regular basis. I can also see that as I did say,"Worst case I get some psychological comfort from my faith."

The Merriam-Webster definition I quoted was one of three...the first two talking about worshipping a God or higher being. I avoided those particular definitions, for the very reason you state that Objectivism can't be a religion. Therefore, that part of your response is moot.
As for proven "facts", I've been taught that the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth, but I've never proven it for myself...I just take it on faith, at this point. That's why I stated that "we can't truly know everything".

I am well aware of Pascal's Wager and came up with it myself before I ever heard of it. Thought I had an original idea for a few years. Then found out that I just had to work through it the hard way.

My, that's presumptuous.

You did say "hedging your bets." Pascal's Wager is a particularly famous case of such in this context.

The problem is extremism, not the religion itself per se.

Objectivism is founded on absolute metaphysics of reality and an epistemology of reason. No compromise is possible either psychologically or in textual analysis. Don't try.

Well...I learned my lesson. If I want ghost stories I'll read Lovecraft.

LOL!

One brother and I were not asked if we wanted to be altar boys but were kinda conscripted like when I was later drafted.
We both resented it.
We are both ex-Catholics but not solely for that altar boy reason. Even our individual reasons differed.

Something that can have an effect must exist. There are no causeless effects. Gravity is the name we apply to the specific effects observed within the appropriate context.

Here here! This is an excellent suggestion!

I was raised a Catholic but I'm now a nondenominational Protestant.
I have four younger brothers.
#2 became an atheist who now believes there is a God but I think that's about as far as that goes. By the way, he's a libtard.
#3 became a nondenominational Protestant, who introduced me to Ayn Rand with the AS1 DVD for a Christmas present. He followed up with AS2 and AS3 as Christmas presents but I had already rented them via Netflix. A lot of Christian respect Ayn Rand's philosophy and writings despite her being an atheist.
#4 and his family are members of the United Methodist Church. He's the only one not retired.
#5 became agnostic for at least a decade but now calls himself a "reconvert" for a Catholic. He is the only one who knelt at the appropriate times during Dad's funeral mass and took communion.

Not a gambler.

Same here. And those experiences trump beliefs to the contrary - let others believe what they may.

There are many in society that have a reflexive desire to fight organized religion. I think many of them are this way because their parents dragged them out of bead one too many times on a Sunday and made them go to Church when they didn't want to. As a result they have a deep fear that some day they will be forced by some evil Christian oligarchy to get up early on Sunday and go to Church again. They are so practiced at this that they do not realize that almost no government in a predominantly Christian country requires this. What many of these same people seem to fail to realize, is that there ate many Muslim countries that do require this and that the "religion of peace" [the Muslim Religion] is the one to fear...not the Christian religion.

Well said - and my point as well.