| | It's hard to tell whether O'ism is creed-based or covenant based. It seems to me to be creed-based. And with that, it shares challenges similar to creed-based religions. Objectivism teachings also intersect with a number of those found in doctrines like humanism, and yes, even religion. Objectivism says (I borrow from Branden's listing of basic principles):
- That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions — that existence exists, that A is A;
- That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality;
- That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected;
- That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality;
- That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being;
- That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others;
- That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships;
- That no individual — and no group — has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others;
- That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;
- That the organizing principle of a moral society is respect for individual rights and that the sole appropriate function of government is to act as guardian and protector of individual rights.
Let's take the God stuff out of there for a moment, and compare it to another set of principles. I'll use the Unitarian Universalist 7 principles and purposes:
- The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
- Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
- Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
- A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
- The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
- The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
- Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
Quite a bit of overlap, if you look at it.
As has been said here earlier, Objectivism is mainly pointed with how to live here, with what is, and each other, in responsible freedom.
It seems to me that where Objectivists often trip up is in their overly- literal and often incomplete understanding of spirituality, what mysticism really is about, and the nature of what faith is and where it comes from. A good place to start on that might be the lectures of William James, particularly "On the Varieties of Religious Experience." There's a number of places to read that work online, one is: http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/james.html .
I find (and I am speaking as a person that has been heavily influenced by Objectivism for about 25 years) that many O'ists are deficient in due dilligence as far as the area of spirituality. It is also worth noting that there is a very large contingent of "religious" folks who are in vigorous disagreement with dogma in general, and the threatening whitebread fundamentalist climate that currently enables majority politics.
It is equally difficult for the faithful and the pure rationalist when they set to argue with one another. More accurately, the faithful is less likely to mount an argument. I'll use James again for this (italics mine):
"Nevertheless, if we look on man's whole mental life as it exists, on the life of men that lies in them apart from their learning and science, and that they inwardly and privately follow, we have to confess that the part of it of which rationalism can give an account is relatively superficial. It is the part that has the prestige undoubtedly, for it has the loquacity, it can challenge you for proofs, and chop logic, and put you down with words. But it will fail to convince or convert you all the same, if your dumb intuitions are opposed to its conclusions. If you have intuitions at all, they come from a deeper level of your nature than the loquacious level which rationalism inhabits. Your whole subconscious life, your impulses, your faiths, your needs, your divinations, have prepared the premises, of which your consciousness now feels the weight of the result; and something in you absolutely knows that that result must be truer than any logic-chopping rationalistic talk, however clever, that may contradict it. This inferiority of the rationalistic level in founding belief is just as manifest when rationalism argues for religion as when it argues against it. That vast literature of proofs of God's existence drawn from the order of nature, which a century ago seemed so overwhelmingly convincing, to-day does little more than gather dust in libraries, for the simple reason that our generation has ceased to believe in the kind of God it argued for. Whatever sort of a being God may be, we know to-day that he is nevermore that mere external inventor of 'contrivances' intended to make manifest his 'glory' in which our great-grandfathers took such satisfaction, though just how we know this we cannot possibly make clear by words either to others or to ourselves. I defy any of you here fully to account for your persuasion that if a God exist he must be a more cosmic and tragic personage than that Being. The truth is that in the metaphysical and religious sphere, articulate reasons are cogent for us only when our inarticulate feelings of reality have already been impressed in favor of the same conclusion. Then, indeed, our intuitions and our reason work together, and great world-ruling systems, like that of the Buddhist or of the Catholic philosophy, may grow up. Our impulsive belief is here always what sets up the original body of truth, and our articulately verbalized philosophy is but its showy translation into formulas. The unreasoned and immediate assurance is the deep thing in us, the reasoned argument is but a surface exhibition. Instinct leads, intelligence does but follow. If a person feels the presence of a living God after the fashion shown by my quotations, your critical arguments, be they never so superior, will vainly set themselves to change his faith."
Often, as I have seen here, Objectivists advise Christians that the first and hardest thing to do is lose the fear. True enough, in the cases where they have been exposed to the dogmatic, the fear based, the fundamental, the misinterpreted. But that goes for just about anything, doesn't it?
When a person of faith comes into an Objectivist forum, they are often inexperienced and ill-prepared for the "state your premises" and "provide your evidence" world that they have entered. And, unfortunately, there are some O'ists that are quite impressed with their superiority, their finesse, in that area. That's true in a lot of places- you can find people like that in A.A. meetings- they've trading their addiction (or compulsive behavior, if you wish) for addiction to A.A. itself. That does not really diminish the system itself, though it may make it smell funny to newcomers.
|
|
