About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Objectivism

Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Religion (Part 2 of 4)
by Neil Parille

ATHEISM, RELIGION, AND MYSTICISM cont.

The Limited Value of Religion

In spite of Rand's hostility toward religion, she did see limited value to religion. It does raise important questions about the nature of man and reality.

Religion was the primitive form of philosophy: it provided man with a comprehensive view of existence. Observe that the art of those primitive cultures was a concretization of their religion's metaphysical and ethical abstractions. [Rand, RM, p. 20.]

Since religion is a primitive form of philosophy – an attempt to offer a comprehensive view of reality – many of its myths are distorted, dramatized allegories based on some element of truth, some actual, if profoundly elusive, aspect of man's existence. [Rand, RM, p. 25.]

In her Playboy interview, in response to the question "[h]as religion . . ever offered anything constructive value to human life?" she answered bluntly: "Qua religion, no." She went on to say that religion did attempt to give a "explain the universe" and even "may have good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very dangerous context . . . " [Binswanger, ARL, p. 411.] Even here, Rand appears to limit the benefit of religion to certain specific instances.

Rand came closest to praising religion in her 1968 edition of The Fountainhead. [Binswanger, ARL, pp. 414-15.] She noted that because of cultural and historical factors, religion had a "monopoly" on certain concepts such as "morality," "spirituality," and "worship." Religion had misdirected the positive emotions contained in and expressed by these terms. Secular philosophies such as pragmatism and logical positivism cannot engender such feelings in its followers in spite of their "humanistic" orientation. For this reason, some have found Rand a "religious" or even "mystical" writer. [Machan, AR, p. 91.]6

Mysticism – The Source of All Evil

Ayn Rand sees "altruism" as man's central ethical failing. The foundation of "altruism" is "mysticism." Mysticism takes on the central evil in Randian thought. As she states in her 1960 lecture, "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World":

It is only mysticism that can permit moralists to get away with it. It is mysticism, the unearthly, the supernatural, the irrational, that has always been called upon to justify it-or, to be exact, to escape the necessity of justification. One does not justify the irrational, one just takes it on faith. [Rand, PWNI, p. 62.]

Rand defines "mysticism" as follows:

What is mysticism? Mysticism is the acceptance of acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against, the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct," "intuition," "revelation," or any form of "just knowing."

Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity.

Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality-other than the one in which we live-whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means. [Rand, PWNI, pp. 62-63.]

It is obvious from this statement that Rand has an exceedingly broad definition of mysticism. It is any purported source of knowledge that is "apart from" or "against" reason.

Rand's definition of mysticism is non-traditional. Anglican theologian Alister McGrath defines mysticism as follows: "A multifaceted term, which can bear a variety of meanings. In its most important sense, the terms refer to the union with God which is seen as the ultimate goal of the Christian life. This union is not to be thought of in rational terms, but more in terms of a direct consciousness or experience of God." [McGrath, CS, p. 187.] Mysticism should therefore be limited to a psychological or experiential description of a person's relationship to the supernatural.

Traditionally, mysticism is seen as a branch or "type" of religion. For example, theologians discuss the "mystical" traditions within Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Within Christianity, certain strands of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy stress mysticism and mystical experience, and it is often associated with celibacy and extreme asceticism.

Not only does Rand utilize the term mysticism to describe all religions, but uses it to encompass theories that almost never fall within the common definition of religion. For example, she considers Marxism and racism to constitute forms of mysticism. Avowedly secular thinkers such as pragmatists and logical positivists are "neo-mystics." [Rand, FWNI, p. 64.] It might be hard to find a non-Objectivist system of thought that Rand did not consider mysticism or at least "neo-mysticism." Even Ludwig von Mises, a secular laissez-faire economist, was a "neo-mystic" who engaged in "whim-worship." [Mayhew, ARM, p. 147.]7

Readers whose first introduction to philosophy or religion is through the writings of Rand might find it surprising the limited use of the concept mysticism that most religious thinkers make in their writings. As one example, the index to the current Catechism of the Catholic Church does not contain a single entry for mysticism. Conservative Protestant theologians tend to ignore mysticism. Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology contains no reference to mysticism. Millard Erickson's Christian Theology contains one mention. Robert Reymond's A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith contains several references, all of which are negative. Each of these works is over 1200 pages.

It should be noted that in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam there exists an "anti-mystical" traditions. Within Christianity, it is probably Calvinists (such as Robert Reymond) who are the most opposed to mysticism. This is in part a reaction to Roman Catholicism, but also rests on a belief that the Bible is inerrant and "perspicuous" (easily understood). Hence, according to Calvinists, Roman Catholic mysticism – with its stress of the union of God and the believer -- discourages Christians from following the plain teaching of scripture. More significantly, in certain trends of mysticism, the union of God and the believer can approach pantheism, blurring the distinction between God and man.8

There are a few possibilities as to why Rand used mysticism in such an unusual way. First, it is possible that Rand was unaware of subtle use of the term within religion. Second, being dismissive of religion as a whole, it is unlikely that she saw much merit in distinguishing the various forms of religion. Third, Rand saw all religion – from the least rational to the most rational – to be ultimately irrational and therefore mystical. Mysticism is the "essence" of religion, notwithstanding the fact that some religions may be more congenial to a rational outlook. Finally, Rand was opposing not simply religion, but secular irrationalism as well; and, she considered both to be the denial of the primacy of existence and the law of identity. [Rand, PWNI, p. 24; Rand, ITOE, pp. 38-39.] Using a more neutral term such as "supernaturalism" would not accomplish her task of defending reason from its religious and secular enemies.9

In her definition of "mysticism" we see in Rand something similar to her uses of terms such as "altruism" and "selfishness." By using terms in her own way, she brings out certain contrasts: selfishness is opposed to altruism; reason is opposed to mysticism. Through the use of such contrasts the reader is forced to confront the ambiguity of the "middle of the road" position. There is a parallel here to her use of the term "capitalism." She refused to limit it to an economic system, but rather used it to denote a full-orbed political system. Her use of "romanticism" was highly idiosyncratic as well.

In light of the above, we can make a few observations about Rand's understanding of mysticism. Her use of the term "mysticism" is somewhat freewheeling, particularly in her attempt to corral avowedly secular systems of thought (such as logical positivism and Marxism) within her definition. While an author is entitled to give specialized meaning common term, he has an obligation to let the reader know that the use is non-traditional. Also, Rand makes very little effort to understand the teachings of the various religions or their appeal. Perhaps Rand would argue that such an investigation isn't necessary: all religions have an essential nature. While some religions may be more rational than others, they are all irrational to some extent. Catholics appeal to Scripture and Tradition, Protestants to Scripture alone, Moslems to the Koran, etc. However, Rand's caricature goes beyond attempting to reach the "essence" of religion.10

The Psychologizing of Religious Believers

As we have seen, Rand viewed atheism and agnosticism in psychological terms. It is therefore not surprising that she sees "mystics" to be the products of virtually "sick" minds. In "Galt Speaks," her denunciation of the psychology of religious believers is quite harsh:

A mystic is a man who surrendered his mind at its first encounter with the minds of others. Somewhere in the distant reaches of his childhood, when his own understanding of reality clashed with the assertions of others, with their arbitrary orders and contradictory demands, he gave in to so craven a fear that he renounced his rational faculty. . . . From then on, afraid to think, he is left at the mercy of unidentified feelings. His feelings become his only guide, his only remnant of personal identity, he clings to them with ferocious possessiveness-and whatever thinking he does is devoted to the struggle of hiding from himself that the nature of his feelings is terror. [Rand, FNI, pp. 160-61.]

This portrayal of religious believers (and for Rand, all religious believers are mystics) as mentally ill, if not insane, is somewhat shocking given that Atlas Shrugged was published in the 1950s, when everyone paid at least lip-service to religion.11 Although Rand is critical in her philosophical essays of religious believers, I am unaware of any attempt to support her portrayal of religious believers by empirical evidence.12 It should be noted that there are examples from Rand's writings in which she presents a more balanced picture of religious believers. For example, she could not have said that "the majority of people are not haters of the good" [Schwartz, ROP, p. 149] if she believed that the majority of Americans (who after all profess some version of "mysticism") were literal embodiments of all that she considered evil. She even considered using a "rational priest" as a character in Atlas Shrugged.

Rand's stereotyped approach to religious believers falls within a larger tradition of historical and sociological writing. As Robert Nisbet points out, nineteenth century writers such as Karl Marx and Max Weber used "ideal types" to describe certain groups or classes of people. "No living, performing individual in any of these categories will be exactly like the description supplied by the sociologist for his ideal-type, but the relation will be nonetheless sufficiently close to give clarifying value to the ideal-type." [Nisbet, SAF, p. 71.]

Nonetheless, Rand's psychologizing of unbelievers is unfair. Few people are psychologically of one type or another. Most people are a mix a various factors. From Rand's "either/or" perspective, it is difficult to understand how a religious believer could make contributions to science, yet such is obviously the case (consider Newton and Mendel). Rand's private life presents a particularly vivid example of how many people are a mix of conflicting forces. More importantly, as David Kelley notes, one cannot imply that all irrationalist thinkers are motivated by an anti-conceptual or whim-worshipping mentality. [Kelley, TT, p. 59.]


6 Interestingly, there is a parallel between Rand and Bertrand Russell. Russell's view of the effects of religion on culture is quite similar to Rand's. Like Rand, he saw the emotion behind mysticism as positive. [Greenspan & Andersson, ROR, p. 104.]

7 Rand's use of the term "mysticism" is not without precedent, however. William James pointed out in his classic The Varities of Religious Experience, that "[t]he words 'mysticism' and 'mystical' are often used as terms of mere reproach, to throw at any opinion which we regard as vague and vast and sentimental, and without a base in either facts or logic." [James, VORE, p. 370.] James rejected this use. [Id., p. 371.]

8 Catholic philosopher Thomas Molnar quotes the mystic Meister Eckhart as follows: "If I am to know God directly, I must become completely He and He I; so that this He and this I become and are one I." [Molnar, GKR, p. 34.] As Molnar states, the Islamic and Christian worlds both distinguish between "true" and "false" mysticism. [Id., p. 38.] The Spanish Inquisition persecuted extreme mystics in the sixteenth century. [Passmore, POM, pp. 191-93.]

9 As Objectivists stress, they are not such much anti-religion as pro reason.

10 The late George Walsh, an Objectivist philosopher, does not use the term mysticism in his The Role of Religion in History. This work is the only full-length treatment of religion from an Objectivist perspective.

11 President-elect Eisenhower allegedly stated in 1952 that "Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is." [Silk, SP, p. 40.] In her address to West Point graduates in 1974, "Philosophy: Who Needs It" Rand curiously omits any reference to religion or mysticism.

12 Similarly, later Randian essays contain considerable speculation about how the mind of young children and even animals operate, without any citation to psychological literature.

Sanction this ArticleEditMark as your favorite article

Discuss this Article (66 messages)