RoR: Forum

support incarceration for prostitution simply because it is currently illegal

Yikes! Sounds like the attitude a lot of NAZI's displayed after the war (well, I know it was wrong, but those were the rules!)

Post 21

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 3:00pm

Robert and Deanna,

Perhaps I wasn�t clear in my post when I stated the following:

�Well, from a practical standpoint (and just off the top of my head), I can think of the following political areas that fanatical religious individuals wish to change:�

The statement was never intended to paint with a broad brush the large group of people who either keep their religious beliefs to themselves or who claim to belong to a religion but rarely or never practice that religion. The point I was making was that there are individuals who truly believe that their religious beliefs are and should be both followed and codified into law.

Robert says:

�The purpose of my comment was to point out that the Objectivist case against "religion" -- which I wholeheartedly endorse -- is constantly being morphed into assaults on the religious, as if each person who nominally accepts a religious designation buys into all the moral-philosophical agenda outlined by Joe and Dennis.

Am I wrong? Just go reread posts #4 and #6, above, where specific onerous views are attributed to "religious people" generally, as a collective.�

Well, I don�t believe that I stated that in my post number six (no mention of �religious people� whatsoever), and I hope that it was not implied. Likewise, to deny that there are people who want to limit or eliminate certain individual rights through the political process, basing these wishes solely on their religious beliefs, would be to blind to the realities of America today. Like Deanna, most of the people I encounter on a day-to-day basis are fairly rational people and also religious people, to some extent. How I came to that conclusion was by engaging each of them in discussion on any number of topics.

In short, to be wary of �religious people� who wish to destroy individual rights does not equate to the immediate identification of every person who is religious as deserving of scorn, ridicule, or contempt. It also does not discount the potentiality that that person could be someone who is actively involved in treating "faith" as a substitute for reason and wants to force that belief on everyone else.

Having said that, I agree wholeheartedly with the following:

�By focusing our general critique of religion on its arbitrariness (and the consequences), rather than attributing to "it" a laundry list of presumed content, we avoid the problem of having our arguments dismissed as setting up straw men. Moreover, we begin to engage each religious person we encounter as an individual, confronting and addressing his specific personal beliefs in a way that is far more direct, responsive, and persuasive...a way in keeping with our own individualist philosophy.�

Why would I want to act any other way?

(Edited by Rick Pritchett on 10/17, 3:13pm)

Post 22

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 4:42pm

Rick, thanks for the clarification. Glad you didn't mean to paint with a broad brush, as you say.

You write, "Likewise, to deny that there are people who want to limit or eliminate certain individual rights through the political process, basing these wishes solely on their religious beliefs, would be to blind to the realities of America today." Absolutely correct, and I would be the last to deny those realities. Such people exist, in abundance. (Others root their coercive views in secular philosophies, too.)

But that is very different from saying that having a religion -- any religion, or religion as such -- necessitates a belief in or the practice of coercion and aggression. Or belief in and practice of altruism.

There are a multitude of ways to come to a belief system. Blind, obsequious obedience to some authority figure is one. Social conformity is another. Reason is another. An error in thinking is yet another. In the case of religion, examples of this last could be an erroneous understanding of causality, i.e., the "first cause argument," or the "argument from design."

About a million years ago, when I was a Catholic teenager, I was simultaneously an adherent of the ideas of Frederic Bastiat, and a consistent defender of individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism. I also opposed the ethics of self-sacrifice. Apparently, my mistaken belief in the existence of God -- stemming from my mistaken view of the "first cause argument" -- didn't compel me to become either an altruist or a collectivist. I was also independent-minded enough to be at odds with my parents, relatives, and peers on a multitude of moral-political issues; apparently, my religion didn't make me a second-hander, either.

I don't think that my story is unique in the history of ideas.

Post 23

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 5:53pm

We need to maintain the distinction between mysticism, altruism and faith on one hand, and religiosity on the other. My religion as a Catholic consisted of the belief in an objective standard of morality; God posited as the prime mover, able to work through Evolution rather than special creation; the Church as a community of benevolent people sharing a commitment to ethics and personal meaning; and a much better alternative to Marxism, Madeline Murray O'Hair, isl*m, cynical agnosticism, the puritanism of the secular left, and simple nihilism.

Catholic theology most certainly does not posit "An all-powerful, incomprehensible God who must be appeased and obeyed, and man as a creature who is evil and corrupt by nature, who is prevented from using reason to guide his most fundamental choices and actions." [Dennis] This view of God is true for m*slims and this view of man is true for certain Protestant theologians. I can't defend the positive teachings of the Catholic Church. But the Church does hold that God's creation is entirely good, and that man is fallen accidentally through his choice, not because he was created essentially evil. (Most Catholics I know either dismiss "original sin," or interpret it as meaning that all men do sometimes fail to do what they know to be the right thing.) Catholicism teaches that God's omnipotence does not mean that he can do whatever he wants in the way that a human might try to realize a contradiction. But isl*m does teach God's transcendence of morality and identity. Catholicism teaches that God acts in accordance with his identity. I cannot defend the coherence of these ideas. I ceased being a theist or a Catholic one week after reading the Objectivist Ethics in TVOS. I proselytize constantly for reason and freedom and Rand's writings. But attacking a cherry-picked straw man will not convince a religious person otherwise open to persuasion to change his mind.

Simply dismissing religion per se also ignores the fact that some sort of belief system and mythology is a human universal. There have been secular and atheistic religions, such as Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Buddhism. No religion has ever been replaced by a vacuum. Marxists did not end religion, they replaced it with a cult of the state and of Lenin, Mao, Che, Kim Il-Sung and so on. Objectivism needs to offer an alternative to religious faith and mysticism, not to act as if religion as an expression of spirituality can be abolished like small-pox.

Ted Keer, 17 October, 2006, NYC

Post 24

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 12:43am

Dennis,

Interesting quote from Rand -- "Religion rests on faith�on an acceptance of certain beliefs apart from reason, That is why it must be private. When it�s a private matter, it�s fine�it can even be a kind of inspiration to people�� (Robert Mayhew, Ayn Rand Answers, p. 63).

It is indeed difficult to reconcile this statement with Rand's anti-faith positions. You mentioned her essay (and talk) entitled "Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World," as well as her statement, a la John Galt, that �The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind.� How does Rand square these positions with her claim that when it's a private matter, the acceptance of certain beliefs on faith is fine and can even be a kind of inspiration? Curious and a bit disconcerting, to say the least.

- Bill

Post 25

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 12:52am

Dennis, you're welcome. And excellent summation of some problems with Christianity. It's surprising to find disagreement here.

Robert Bidinotto, this is one of those times where I read your posts and think "he can't really mean it!".

Here I am wondering what the point of all of this is. I think I understand Dennis. We do live in a world where religion is dominant and destructive. It varies from murderous and deadly, to simply stultifying and distracting. There's a worldwide war going on with it's roots in religion. We live in a country where laws are passed to promote "God's will". Mysticism and "spirituality" are seen as a refreshing alternative to cold reason and logic. Altruism is nearly universally endorsed as the only moral standard. And on and on and on.

This is an enemy to our lives, to civilization, and to the best in man. It's a fight of epic proportions, and one that doesn't look like we're winning. This article claims, and gives some evidence for the belief that Ayn Rand underestimated this enemy. And of course that we should be taking this absolutely seriously. It actually is a matter of life and death. I wholeheartedly agree.

But from this, you've gone and argued a minimalist view of religion. You argue against clearly identifying this enemy, and say that it's "anything goes". Deanna argues that nutcases would by that way anyway. The overall effect is that you appear to be dismissing religion as a serious problem in the world today. I really hope you're only phrasing it this way in order to argue that we should judge people as individuals, for their individual ideas, and not necessarily based on what their religion actually promotes, since they may individually disagree. But the effect of your posts is to minimize the evils of religion.

You argue that we should only focus on how arbitrary it is. But doesn't that mean we'd have to argue that Islam is no worse than Christianity? Do we have to avoid arguing against Islam because some adherents of it have their own interpretations for everything? Is that really as far as we can go? You do allow that we can talk about the consequences, but how can we do that if we're to ignore the content?

I think to make your argument for judging individuals, all you really need to say is that you need to focus on what individuals actually believe, not what they would believe if they were consistent Christians or whatever. Then you can judge their ideas, their actions, the consequences of them, etc. And that would be all fine. Nowhere in there do we need to ignore the fact that religions do exist, they do have a nature, they do influence the world, and they are destructive.

We can accept all of that, argue against religion of every type, and still understand that some people are going to be inconsistent. We can even accept that some people are able to distort things like the Sermon on the Mount to preach whatever they happen to want to believe. Rand said that bad philosophy was rationalization, and religion is the ultimate opportunity for that kind of rationalization. But just because some people manage to distort the meaning does not destroy that meaning.

So again, while I find that I agree with some very specific points in your posts, the net effect of your posts makes me need to strongly disagree. Religion certainly is a problem in the world today, and even if you don't mean to minimize that problem, your posts end up having that effect. And it's unnecessary. It doesn't help your case at all.

Post 26

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 3:02am

Joe said:

We do live in a world where religion is dominant and destructive. It varies from murderous and deadly, to simply stultifying and distracting. There's a worldwide war going on with it's roots in religion. We live in a country where laws are passed to promote "God's will". Mysticism and "spirituality" are seen as a refreshing alternative to cold reason and logic. Altruism is nearly universally endorsed as the only moral standard. And on and on and on.

This is an enemy to our lives, to civilization, and to the best in man. It's a fight of epic proportions, and one that doesn't look like we're winning.

Well said, Joe. We are of one mind on this critical issue. And I am pleased that you see my point about Ayn Rand�s apparent oversight.

Bill:

I am as bewildered as you are. And astonished that Mayhew would include that quote in a volume subtitled �The Best of Her Q & A.� I can�t help but wonder if Peikoff saw that before the presses started to roll.

There are a number of worthwhile points made by Robert, but I have to agree with Joe that he seems to want to focus on irrelevancies that divert attention from the primary issue. Let me add a few notes for clarification.

The historical point made by George Walsh about the decline of Protestant belief in the supernatural before 1950 was cited to help explain why Ayn Rand felt she did not have to confront religious ideas as an ideological enemy. She felt the appeal of religion was in decline and would eventually fall of its own irrational weight. But the fact is, we have plenty of evidence today that she was wrong.

Mystical religious ideas were beginning to decline as they were subjected to modern scientific questioning. Doubt and skepticism were, in fact, beginning to erode their influence. The problem is that skepticism is often a precursor to dogmatism. Eventually people tend to get uncomfortable with skepticism�they want something to believe in--and the door is opened to fanaticism and intolerance once again. That has been the pattern throughout human history. The skepticism spawned by the European Renaissance was a major factor leading to the Protestant Reformation. And now observe the alarming rise in evangelical and born-again Christianity in America today.

Robert:

Try an experiment: pick about five American Christians at random, and go down your list of onerous "religious" beliefs with them, asking, "Do you believe that...[fill in the blank]?" See what happens.

How many of them do you suppose would say that the Bible is the word of God? That by itself is enough. I would never argue that any given religious person would necessarily endorse those ideas in their entirety. Just paying lip service to a choice few is all it takes. The damage is done. Moreover, many of the beliefs cited in my prior post are often held implicitly�but this does not mean that they are rejected. They remain as unchallenged premises in that person�s mind.

And I don�t have to ask. I listen to talk radio�and I hear the teachings of the Bible endorsed constantly by the hosts and callers. If confronted in person, many might deny holding specific beliefs, mainly out of embarrassment. But they do not take the mental effort to explicitly reject them. Michael Medved, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Dennis Prager, Dr. Laura, Hugh Hewitt�all hugely popular, all huge exponents of the Bible and the Ten Commandments. Only God knows what other mystical nonsense any one of them might throw into the mix.

Look at many of today�s best-sellers: Godless, by Ann Coulter, argues against evolution and in favor of the book of Genesis. William J. Bennett�s Book of Virtues is rife with Biblical references to support a variety of virtues (some good, some not so good) including faith. The Purpose-Driven Life by Rick Warren, argues that devoting yourself to five God-ordained purposes--worship, community, discipleship, ministry and evangelism--is the key to effective living. Of 800-plus footnotes, only 18 don't refer to Christian Scripture.

Limbaugh, in particular, is a huge proponent of Pascal�s Wager. If I accept what the church teaches and live like a good Christian, then, if the church is right, I will reap an eternal reward. If I disbelieve, and the church is right, I will have earned a fiery furnace for eternity. And if the church is wrong, all I will have lost is a finite amount of earthly goodies.

Here�s what Walsh has to say about that:

If you doubt what I am saying about people�s motivations, about people accepting religion on Pascal�s wager, try this: Note the number of cars parked in front of the churches that preach hell and damnation as opposed to those who are more liberal on the subject.

Robert:

Joe complains to me, "You talk about religion as if anything goes, and people take it to mean almost anything." Yes, Joe. In religion, ANYTHING GOES -- precisely because religious beliefs are so utterly arbitrary in source and content.

But, Robert, the wholesale arbitrariness of religion is the whole point. That�s the key that makes it all so utterly destructive. I never said that the religious ideas I mentioned are �inherent� to any given believer�s worldview�just adopting a few of them is enough to wreck anyone�s rational epistemological functioning. God, faith, the afterlife and prayer will do the job nicely. And more often than not the person will also retain several of those other ideas in an implicit, subconscious form. That is precisely why we need to challenge them on it�to help them to see and to understand their fundamental arbitrariness and flagrant irrationality. As it stands, as Joe says, they are winning the battle--but they do not see the consequences.

As Objectivists, we should be able to see the consequences all too clearly. Unlike Ayn Rand, we have no right to claim that the evidence is not staring us in the face.

Dennis

Post 27

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 4:43am

Robert Bidinotto said: "Most religious people I know "cherry pick" from their sacred texts those doctrines they find most palatable. Often, their existing sense of life determines what doctrines (and religions) they are attracted to in the first place. Most of them also compartmentalize the role of various doctrines in their lives. There are many millions of self-described Catholics who do NOT accept -- or practice -- the Church's views on birth control and abortion, for example."

That applies to Objectivists, as well. I believe that people are born with personalities and that this predisposition colors their interactions with their environments. People can have epiphanies. Near-death experiences make us reevaluate our lives. Still, people believe what they do for chemical reasons, and then find the words to explain themselves in their own terms to themselves.

As a political analogy, I offer the secular-religious alliance of the leftwing "progressives" that sprang up in the 1960s as a result of civil rights and opposition to the war in Vietnam. Previously, the classical left saw religion as the opiate of the people. The old versions of "A Band of Working Men" had a line about living in a shack while being promised a mansion in the sky -- and your boss has a mansion here and now. Nominally sharing a collectivist economics, the religionists opposed popular political rule and worker control of the factories.

It is possible to find good things in communism -- women could be doctors and lawyers, for instance -- but, basically, communism is bad. Always was; always will be. So,too, with religion. Yes, you can glory in the fact that we were created in God's "image" of Himself: rational beings and creators. That, however, depends on your own view of yourself first. What you find in religion -- or philosophy -- is reflection.

Being "nice" comes from who you are, not what you "believe." Again, for a political analogy, sometimes a Libertarian will say that they met the local Republican or Democratic congressman or legislator and the person seemed intelligent and interested in the issues, and not all evil or hostile. That comes from being a poltician. If they were not likeable they would never get elected. So, we all know "nice" people who are Christians or Communists or whatever. That they are capable of living in a city without getting themselves killed for being obnoxious says nothing about the validity of their ideas.

Post 28

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 8:29am

This is the quote from Rand:

quote�Religion rests on faith�on an acceptance of certain beliefs apart from reason, That is why it must be private. When it�s a private matter, it�s fine�it can even be a kind of inspiration to people�� (Robert Mayhew, Ayn Rand Answers, p. 63)

Now we are going to be led to the conclusion that she really didn't mean it? Or better yet that had Peikoff spotted it before publication of Ayn Rand answers it would have been edited or would the more useful word here be *censored*, as evidenced in this statement by Dennis:

I am as bewildered as you are. And astonished that Mayhew would include that quote in a volume subtitled �The Best of Her Q & A.� I can�t help but wonder if Peikoff saw that before the presses started to roll.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Rand meant exactly what she said here, and did not need others to come behind her and make apologies for her "perceived" errors.

Instead of saying he simply disagrees with Rand, Dennis goes off on the tangential track of saying she was either 'brain-frozen or better yet didn't really mean it, and then feels free to state what she really meant by his writing of the following where he has no doubt as to what she really meant:

The only sense I can make out of that quote is to say that apparently even Ayn Rand had moments when PR was more important to her to than truth. It is hard to believe that Mayhew thought that such an anti-Objectivist remark was appropriate for inclusion in his book. What else can this be attributed to but total brain freeze? On the other hand, it is fascinating to know that Ayn Rand permitted herself such moments.

No doubt she was operating on the premise that the supernatural or �mystical� element in religion had largely died out. As the late George Walsh states:

Thanks Dennis; from now on I am going to quit reading my books by Rand, and just spend my time reading your posts where you can tell us exactly what Rand really meant.

L W

Post 29

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 9:15am

My hunch (based purely on published material) is that Rand in later years saw two of her predictions failing and so, quite correctly, hedged a bit.

The first is that religion will always, necessarily, have the toxic effects that some of the parties to this thread are claiming (and that Galt's speech claims). Seeing too many exceptions, she pulled back, as in the remark before us.

The second is that, as of the late 1950s, the world, the U.S. in particular, was careening out of control down the totalitarian abyss and that an Atlas Shrugged-style collapse was only a few years off. When this didn't happen, she figured that the "American sense of life" had mitigated what the high culture caused us to deserve.

Peter

Post 30

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 11:04am

Robert, you suggest we can better question religion by �focusing our general critique of religion on its arbitrariness.� One could do the same with any form of subjectivism. As a matter of fact, I�d define religious as fixated subjectivism. Unlike the garden variety subjectivist, who blows which way the wind blows, the religionist nails his arbitrary beliefs to a cross of parchment (for the major monotheistic religions) � declaring them immutable and fixed for eternity (and issued by God, himself.)

It�s the belief in the safety of fixed ideas (eternal truths) that attracts the religious. You believe you can convince them that they really are subjectivists? I�d like to see that. You mention how specific religious people will recoil at the straw man of a �Calvinistic/Augustinian� Christianity. But you want me be to believe they�ll accept the description of a hippy-dippy anything goes Christianity? Call me a skeptic.

Post 31

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 12:47pm

Joseph, maybe I don't understand what you mean by "nutcase". Can you define, please?

Post 32

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 4:18pm

Equivocations on Religion and Faith

I find it interesting that certain posters here are not drawing any distinction between religion and faith, and are attacking religion as if the term itself were identical with faith.
So I ask explicitly, does all religion equal faith, and does all faith equal religion?

The premise of Coulter's book [Godless] (which [as a book] was abominable and undercut her own cause in its ludicrous attacks on Evolution and other extraneous issues) was that P.C. is in effect a faith, and, by default and judicial fiat, the established religion of this country.

The discussion as it is being conducted on this topic is almost absurd given the tendency not to address the objections of the non-knee-jerk anti-religionists and the anecdotal points they are raising, except to express disbelief/discomfort (the argument from incredulity) and to revert to quoting Rand (the argument from authority). Was the topic raised as a mere rhetorical device, without a sincere desire to hear the views of those who are willing to say that they see either some value in a religious sensibility or that they don't find that all religious people are ipso facto beneath contempt?

I would suggest that posters give their own pre-objectivist backgrounds / experiences with religion in the barest outline, that they clarify whether they are speaking about faith, religion, Christianity, or a specific sect like Catholicism (and stop equating all with each other), and that we stop simply quoting Rand's text like some revealed holy book and trying to interpret her psychology / intention as if she were some prophet whose every [recorded] word needs apologia or Talmudic scrutiny. She is not here; none of us has her brain in a jar by the door. She gave us a methodology and told us to use it and to think things out for ourselves, not to quote her chapter and verse and to see her opinions and her every pronouncement as unquestionable dogma and the last word on any possible topic.

I realize that this post is going to rub a number of people the wrong way. I asked another poster in another string on RoR to give the personal context from which he was making his comments and was told that the only thing anyone needed to know about him was that he was an Objectivist, and that the personal was irrelevant. I can't think of any better exemplar of a statement by a collectivist cult member than that. In so far as what I am saying here may be read as questioning the motives of those posting on one side, don't take it personally, or at least no more personally than we who are trying to explain our own thoughts in good faith might take questions of our motives. To repeat my theses:

Religion, faith, and mysticism are separate, if not often related phenomena.
There has never been a religion free society on earth; Religion may be replaced with a secular ideology that addresses the spiritual needs of a people;
Perhaps Objectivism can be that, perhaps not;
But a vacuum cannot replace religion;
See the cults of Volk, class and personality, and the pageantry of Nazism, Communism, etc.
Self identified individual religious people are not necessarily any more or less happy, productive or rational people than individual self-identified Objectivists.
Rand used the concepts sacred, religious, & worship and did not concede them to the mystics.
Rand did not call for a Jacobin/Maoist purge of all traditions such as Christmas and expressions such as "God bless you" from our culture.

Do we need to destroy all the icons, burn down the churches, ransack our Literature and purge English of all terms with religious origins or connotations like Tuesday or goodbye or January and replace them with sanitized secular neologisms like Market-day, Gesundheit or Brumaire before men can achieve happiness on earth? Or can Objectivism or some form of rational egoist ideology not offer a spiritual alternative to religion, rather than trying to remove a longing for spiritual satisfaction from human nature?

Ted Keer, 18 October, 2006, NYC

[added edits are in brackets]

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 10/18, 4:20pm)

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 10/18, 6:32pm)

Post 33

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 7:15pm

But a vacuum cannot replace religion;

This is an excellent point Ted, and one worth expanding on. I believe overall you would find much agreement here with the proposition that all men need a philosophy(or belief system) in life, and within Objectivist circles it would need to be one based on truth and facts rather than the arbitrary.

With this in mind simply taking the tack that religion is evil and that people who practice it are practicing evil beliefs falls way short of what would be a successful way to spread Objectivism if that is a persons intention.

If we try to strip another person of a belief system by telling them it is irrational and founded on falsehoods this basically will accomplish nothing in and of itself. Most people will react to this by going on the defense because they view it as an attack on everything they stand for, and too often the person doing the attacking will be tuned out.

On the other hand by promoting our own belief system which is based on truth and logic, careful explanation of how we arrived at it and how it is beneficial to us through the implementation of it in our everyday lives, we may lead others in the direction we would have them take by a systematic approach presented in a positive rather than a negative way. I myself have no use for those who sole purpose(and I am not referring to anyone on here) is to spread hate with no positive aim whatsoever. I have seen this on many atheist sites and it has no redeeming value at all as far as I can tell.

L W

Post 34

Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 1:32am

Michael,

You offer some worthwhile insights into why people believe what they believe, but the general theme of your post seems to imply that external factors, such as life experience, play a larger role in determining a person�s beliefs than independent thought�i.e., the choice to think or not to think. Do you reject the Objectivist view of volition?

L.W.,

Thanks for assuring everyone that Rand really meant to say that there�s nothing wrong with accepting beliefs �apart from reason� as long as it�s done in private, and that this does not conflict with John Galt�s statement that �faith� is a �short-circuit destroying the mind.� That�s really helpful. I will look forward to your next lecture on whose contradictory statements I am allowed to analyze and interpret. Perhaps you could post some guidelines for those of us who lack your genius.

Surprisingly, your second post�in response to Ted�actually made sense. For the most part, I agree with it, especially your statement that we should try to �� lead others in the direction we would have them take by a systematic approach presented in a positive rather than a negative way.� You�re the perfect role model for that approach.

Peter,

You said that, in her later years, Rand saw her prediction about the toxic effects of religion failing, and that the conciliatory remarks she made about religion amounted to a �hedge� or �pulling back.�

It is important to note�and I did my best to emphasize this�those semi-complimentary remarks about religion were made in 1961.

Jason,

�Fixated subjectivism� aptly describes the extent to which so many religious people are absolutely impervious to any questioning of their beliefs. That is one of the major obstacles we are faced with. Our best hope is to reach people in their formative years, before their ideas become ossified.

Ted,

You make some excellent points. I agree with most of what you say, and you�re right that Objectivism should attempt to offer �a spiritual alternative to religion.� I love the fact that Rand wanted to reclaim concepts like exaltation, reverence and worship for a rational approach to life.

As far as my personal background is concerned, I have no problem telling you that I was born in Tennessee�the middle of the �Bible Belt��and that my family was Episcopalian. I despised the stultifying, life-killing elements of religion from a very young age. But I dearly love Christmas and always have.

Dennis

Post 35

Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 7:50am

Dennis:

In reply as to why I posted that Rand meant exactly what she said I'll say this: If there was a latter day statement by her in which she said she had revisited her thoughts on the matter as she spelled them out in the quote we are dealing with, and that she changed her mind, I then would have no problem with your interpretation. However this does not seem to be the case as far as I can tell, and we are left (imo) with having to take her at face value and that she meant precisely what her statement says.

With this in mind, and due to the fact that she can no longer be asked, is it possible that she could have meant faith was not that dangerous if a person kept it personal and made no attempt to force it on others. You may believe this to be impossible and perhaps it is, yet I would think it to be beneficial to try and read what she said in another light rather than starting to say what she didn't mean by it.

I understand that this becomes hard to reconcile with other writings and statements by her, but I believe it is dangerous waters for people to start reinterpreting her words to fit the mold they believe is proper. In future instances what would keep any other Dennis, L W, or Ted from doing the same with her other writings.

As far as the last line in post 28, it was meant lightheartedly and I should have put a smiley face by it.

L W

Post 36

Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 2:34pm

Rand and Faith as a Private Matter

In the quote with which Dennis began this string:
"Religion rests on faith�on an acceptance of certain beliefs apart from reason, That is why it must be private. When it�s a private matter, it�s fine�it can even be a kind of inspiration to people�"
I think we can two make two assumptions. First, she was either friends or familiar with many Jews and Christians (presumably not of the fundamentalist stripe) whom she respected and had to therefore induce that, in so far as their apparent religious beliefs did not contradict reason in their public lives, the religion was in itself more of a strange matter of taste to her than a fundamental flaw. I am quite sure that this must have been the case with Isabel Paterson, the notorious Aquinist, and with her Jewish acquaintances.

Rand was originally going to include a character "Father Amadeus" in Atlas Shrugged who would presumably have been the one who made the "Sign of the Dollar" at the novel's close. She had to cut the character out given that she didn't feel she could present him in a believable way. Likewise, Adam Reed once posted what I viewed as perhaps the most insightful bit of Randiana I have ever read on Kirez Korgan's Cornell Objectivism list back in the late 1990's about the Jewish origins of Francisco D'Anconia. I have asked him to post that essay once again, and would ask that if anyone has it archived and can persuade Adam to release it that they do so. I will not give out Adam's email address, but can relay any message to him.

As for "Faith short-circuiting the Mind" as per Galt's speech, you won't get any disagreement out of me on this matter. My only comment from personal experience with Catholics is that most reserve their faith for what happens after death. They live their lives little different from any others, save attending mass and donating to the Church, and, to quote another, Cherry-Picking their beliefs. Fundamentalist biblical literalists are a scary bunch in so far as they wish to impose creationism in the schools. But again, if there were no public schools, this would not be a major issue. The better Catholics teach the validity of reason, the necessity of developing one's "God given gifts" - i.e., living life to the fullest, and very few, at least nowadays, accept unearned guilt as a burden.

Watching the new Discovery Atlas HD series on cable, with its current run on Brazil, the largest Catholic country in the world, I am struck by the positive and almost pagan sense of life of that nation, especially the incredible beauty and celebration of life that is Carnivale. One cannot watch this spectacle without gaping. The colors, rhythms, the sheer joy expressed makes the stultifying holiday parades held in America look more like funeral marches, and the "pageantry" of North Korea needs no comment.

As for Fauth's formulation of "fixated subjectivism," this is quite an apt term to apply to the paraphrenalia of fundamentalism and evangelism. Compulsive and repetitive prayer, flagellation, head swaying, crossing oneself in sporting matches, and other such set behaviors would be defined as Tourette's syndrome or Obsessive-Compulsive Syndrome if the behaviours were not couched within a religious context. We should consider that engaging in this type of behaviour serves as a neurological crutch.

Those who engage in religious activity from (perhaps mis-reasoned) belief can be approached with friendly reasoned arguments, such as, "Do you believe that God would condemn an otherwise good man who simply could not truly profess that he had faith in God?"

Those whose identity is wrapped up in outward shows of belief in concrete repetitive motions or in attacks on others - like the vile Phelp's cult that protests at funerals claiming that God is killing innocent people to punish our country for its equal political treatment of homosexuals - are monsters no different in kind than the Taliban. If these monsters came to political power then we would have something to fear.

Dennis, thanks for your comments. I always feel funny about Episcopalianism, given its origins in the whims of Henry VIII. I read recently (from A.N. Wilson) that less than 1.5% of Britains are C.O.E. I get a hearty laugh from Monty Python's Meaning of Life, where they sing "O, Please Lord do not crush us..." The parody of the Irish Catholics is also mordant, but given the fecundity of the throat-cutters in Britain, a little more Christian births might not be a bad thing.

I would repeat that it was in the same week that I explicitly identified my own bisexuality, and then heard at Mass the inherent evil of homosexuals (the priest could not even bring himself to use the word, but made his intent clear through innuendo) that I explicitly decided that since I knew that I was most certainly not evil, that I could not accept the mere assertions of the priest as having authority. I noticed many times at Mass how many people were zoning out and going through the motions, and wondered why they were even there. I attended every Sunday until I left home at 18, even though my parents knew of my atheism at 16. I always paid strict attention, and used the Mass as an opportunity for "philosophical detection." I have only returned since for a few Christmas Masses, and for funeral and weddings. In those contexts, I cannot say that I regret having been raised within the Church.

Ted Keer, 19 October, 2006, NYC
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 10/19, 2:37pm)

Post 37

Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 3:14pm

There is no question about the absurdity of either Christianity and Islam. I would never get over the shock at how vulgar, cruel, aggressive, malevolent, and irrational it appeared when I first acquainted with the main tenets of Christianity. The more interesting question is why so many people are still buying into it?

On the other hand I always have a soft spot for the Eastern religions and even Judaism. I don't consider Islam eastern because it has a similar root as Judaism and Christianity, or at least originated from the same geological location. However, Judaism is a lot more benevolent and receptive (or revisionist) than the other two, and as such it has not done as much damage to civilization as Christianity and Islam (Dark Age, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Jihads, etc.).

But, there is no point at this time to declare a war on religion because it would mean declaring wars on 95% of people in the world. I think Rand of course must know it.

Post 38

Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 6:46pm

As for Fauth's formulation of "fixated subjectivism,"

I don't recall saying that...?

(Edited by Jonathan Fauth on 10/19, 6:48pm)

Post 39

Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 7:43pm