interesting thread
I stumbled across this thread on a Facebook group dedicated to Ayn Rand and her teachings, namely the Objectivist philosophy. The discussion was started by a guy who is a practicing Catholic, but who also admires the philosophical teachings of Ayn Rand. Since Objectivists are almost exclusively atheists, the follow up has been extensive and, in many cases, heatedly condemning. I found it all to be exceedingly fascinating. Read it for yourself:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2204657931&topic=1939
It seems that Rand and her followers are convinced that Objectivism and theism are totally incompatible on the sole basis that the latter requires the believer to defy natural logic and reason in order to believe it. Richard Dawkins quotes were brandished like Bible verses in response to those who said otherwise. However, I fail to be convinced of some things (and really, they are some of the key things that prevent me from really taking belief systems like Objectivism and atheism seriously).
How does belief in God require abandonment of all logic and reason? Simply because no one can see him? Let's take Santa Clause, for example. I do not believe in Santa Clause because there aren't, in fact, stockings full of coal that appear for the naughty children and little bicycles or dolls for the nice ones. The claims made by all the folklore and stories simply are not fulfilled. Disbelief in Santa Clause, therefore, does not totally rest on our ability to observe the actual person, but the lack of evidence for his existence (i.e. no naughty or nice list!)
I'm not saying there aren't people who mindlessly accept religion without looking at the evidence for themselves, or who know of the evidence but purposefully choose to ignore it in favor of their emotional response (see: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), but it's terribly unfair to generalize every religious person under that category. Truly, there are many things in our world that do not have a physical explanation: morality, the human condition, a basic sense of right and wrong, the need for justice, and so on. There are plenty of religious people who not only know the scientific data, but embrace it and study it and love it, but also maintain their beliefs in a religion which, they believe, provides the best explanation for all those things which science fails to address.
Atheists love to point out how many horrible things religious people have done, but in turn shoot themselves in the foot, as they have merely been distracted from the equally brutal human crimes committed by atheists around the world. An Objectivist is just as prone to make a mistake as any religious follower is, and you don't have to be a Christian to observe that. No Objectivist will ever perfectly adhere to his beliefs--they will, once in a while, succumb to the temptation to violate the rights of others in order to fulfill their own desires. In the same way Christians will never fully be able to represent the teachings and attitude of Christ (and indeed, if they could, there would be no need for a Christ in the first place). It is not, therefore, religion or a lack thereof which determines man's general "default-drive" behavior; rather, it is the very framework of mankind as a whole which is to blame for the corruption and evil that has always existed in the world as we know it.
Atheism and its many branches of philosophical thought, including Objectivism, may (and probably do) have valid, legitimate answers to these questions, and who knows, they may even be right! But thusfar, they have failed to take these matters seriously, which makes it exceedingly difficult for me to treat their beliefs any differently.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this!
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2204657931&topic=1939
It seems that Rand and her followers are convinced that Objectivism and theism are totally incompatible on the sole basis that the latter requires the believer to defy natural logic and reason in order to believe it. Richard Dawkins quotes were brandished like Bible verses in response to those who said otherwise. However, I fail to be convinced of some things (and really, they are some of the key things that prevent me from really taking belief systems like Objectivism and atheism seriously).
How does belief in God require abandonment of all logic and reason? Simply because no one can see him? Let's take Santa Clause, for example. I do not believe in Santa Clause because there aren't, in fact, stockings full of coal that appear for the naughty children and little bicycles or dolls for the nice ones. The claims made by all the folklore and stories simply are not fulfilled. Disbelief in Santa Clause, therefore, does not totally rest on our ability to observe the actual person, but the lack of evidence for his existence (i.e. no naughty or nice list!)
I'm not saying there aren't people who mindlessly accept religion without looking at the evidence for themselves, or who know of the evidence but purposefully choose to ignore it in favor of their emotional response (see: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), but it's terribly unfair to generalize every religious person under that category. Truly, there are many things in our world that do not have a physical explanation: morality, the human condition, a basic sense of right and wrong, the need for justice, and so on. There are plenty of religious people who not only know the scientific data, but embrace it and study it and love it, but also maintain their beliefs in a religion which, they believe, provides the best explanation for all those things which science fails to address.
Atheists love to point out how many horrible things religious people have done, but in turn shoot themselves in the foot, as they have merely been distracted from the equally brutal human crimes committed by atheists around the world. An Objectivist is just as prone to make a mistake as any religious follower is, and you don't have to be a Christian to observe that. No Objectivist will ever perfectly adhere to his beliefs--they will, once in a while, succumb to the temptation to violate the rights of others in order to fulfill their own desires. In the same way Christians will never fully be able to represent the teachings and attitude of Christ (and indeed, if they could, there would be no need for a Christ in the first place). It is not, therefore, religion or a lack thereof which determines man's general "default-drive" behavior; rather, it is the very framework of mankind as a whole which is to blame for the corruption and evil that has always existed in the world as we know it.
Atheism and its many branches of philosophical thought, including Objectivism, may (and probably do) have valid, legitimate answers to these questions, and who knows, they may even be right! But thusfar, they have failed to take these matters seriously, which makes it exceedingly difficult for me to treat their beliefs any differently.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this!
posted by John Mark at 2:14 PM
2 Comments:
Really, the reason that Objectivism is incompatible with theism is not because it has to do with "defying logic," it has to do with the axioms of the philosophy.
The assumption from the very beginning of thinking about Objectivism is that things are OBJECTIVE. This means that only things that are observable are real. There is reality, and that is it. If you cannot observe something, it is not real. As such, you cannot observe God, and so, god is not real. God cannot fit within an objective philosophy, ever.
It's like saying, "Well, come on, I really think that Baal is pretty cool, and, Judaism has sacrifices, and Baal requires sacrifices, so, they can incorporate nicely." No, they can't, as Judaism is diametrically opposed to having gods other than Yahweh.
Also, I really don't know any sane person who would say, "Religion has done bad things so it is bad." It's just as easy to say, "Atheism has done bad things, so it is bad."
I heartily agree with your closing statement, however, I'm afraid we find a wealth of opposition in the Richard Dawkins camp.
Though I disagree with your philosophy, what you're saying makes much more sense than what the people on that forum were saying.
Post a Comment
<< Home