Are Objectivists REALLY Atheists?

Over in the "Arranged Marriage" news topic discussion, I asked this, rhetotically:
If we Objectivists are really "atheists" and really "materialists" then why do we put Ayn Rand's picture on the homepages? Is it just to "honor" her? What does that mean, really?

Now, I am stuck with what I wrote. I think that it is a pretty good question.

1. Is it rational to have a "relationship" with a dead person?

2. Why do we care that we "honor" Ayn Rand? She doesn't care. She's dead.

2. A. The ideas live on, true, enough. Then, honor the ideas. Is honoring an idea a kind of anthropomorphism, like talking to your flowers or your cat? Actually, talking to your flowers or your cat makes much more sense than "honoring an idea." Living things are alive. Ideas are not.

2.B. Or are they? In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins suggested the construct of the meme, a self-replicating memory unit.

3. The ancient Mayan kings pierced their penises with stingray tails. The Spanish did not pick up on that, for some reason, but they did take to chocolate. So, you have to wonder about an idea like GOD. If it were like penis-piercing, it would be far less common than it is.

4. Ancestor worship is not some wierd Chinese thing. I have 1/3 of my Mom in a little box on the refrigerator. Whether Neanderthals intended anything by placing flowers in graves is not clear. What we intend by putting Ayn Rand's picture on the homepage is not clear, either. To me, it indicates that someone acknowledges that Ayn Rand's spirit continues to live even after her body has died.

Post 1

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 1:33am

We qua Objectivists are wasting our time studying Ayn Rand. We should be studying Objectivism instead! too much time dwelling on the woman at the expense of her lesson. That's what I said and said before.

As for symbols, icons, throwing salt over your shoulder, 'something borrowed, something blue' etc etc, that's all fun and well and good if you use it right- including the use of Ayn Rand herself as an icon. If such things come to us as memes and infect us, that's bad- but it doesn't mean the meme is bad. The bad part is letting memes take hold of us unchecked by our reason- this shows poverty of will and that is the sin.

I would say poking yourself with a stingray tail is a far better thing in itself than doing so for the sake of custom.

Or, better: Jumping off a cliff is bad. Jumping off a cliff because of peer pressure is worse.

Post 2

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 8:07am

Rick,

"That's what I said and said before."

I don't get it. Both of those links are to the Edward Said archives.

"poverty of will.. ..is the sin."

Agreed.

Post 3

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 6:50am

Holy frijoles!

http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0476.shtml#3
http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0476_1.shtml#29

All that jaz

Post 4

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 7:47am

Mr Marotta:

I think that it is quite normal to develop emotions towards other people, even if they are dead, and I don't think that this has anything to do with "living on after death". Remember what an emotion is and how it is originated: an emotion is an evaluation of a fact of reality; reality being evaluated via our values, our sense of life.

So, if we read Ayn Rand's essays and we find that they are true and that they correspond to what we believe is true, i.e. to our values etc. -- I then think that it is quite a normal thing to have positive feelings towards the woman who wrote these essays, who discovered these truths, even if she is already dead. And feeling grateful towards Ayn Rand, honoring her name, or just being happy and enthusiastically about her achievment and that she achieved it - does not imply that we beliefe in anything like ghosts or a life after death, etc.

Post 5

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 2:34pm

As to the original question, Are Objectivists REALLY Atheists? I'd say they should be, but that won't stop groups like this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianobjectivists/

Talk about eating your cake and having it too!

As to your second question, Is it rational to have a relationship with a dead person?

I'm wondering if you understand just how loaded this question is? It suggests that one's value for another is always a kind of reciprocal "relationship," which is, as you know, not at all true. We often admire people we've never met.

If your argument is true, it should then follow that we ought to dissuade our children from any kind of "relationship" with fictional characters, let alone long gone real heroes. Sounds awful close to nihilism to me.

"2. Why do we care that we "honor" Ayn Rand? She doesn't care. She's dead."

Well, yeah, she is, but that has nothing to do with what other people value. My sense of value is not dependent on what other people perceive, or don't perceive, of them. They're MY values, not theirs. If one's sense of value only had value if someone else valued it, what kind of system would that be? Haven't you ever valued someone who was either oblivious, neutral, or even negative toward your own existence? I know I have! If I like someone, I don't count on them liking me back to be of value to me.

Post 6

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 10:33am

"As to the original question, Are Objectivists REALLY Atheists? I'd say they should be, but that won't stop groups like this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianobjectivists/"

Looks like things didn't work out too well over there. 66 members total. For 2005, burning up the wires so far with 18 posts. I always get ginchy when I see something in the description like they have- "seeking refuge from a world full of idiots" or whatever it was- I never seem to get much traction out of folks with that kind of mindset.

I think the answer is "most likely". And if you're not, you better be able to talk coherently about individual religious experience. I view it as optional. To me, a good Objectivist lives very much as a good spiritualist does. When you talk about "sense of life", you are talking about how you walk on the earth, how it is to you. It is an evolved state.

I completely understand why most Objectivists scorn religion. For one thing, a lot of them have had extremely negative experiences with it, and its people. For two, once you are deep into Objectivism, you're likely to be looking at other things. That is why many Objectivists don't have a comprehensive understanding of religion- the fact is they do just fine without it, and by so doing avoid a huge bullshit factor.

On the other hand, if you are out looking at philosophy, you're likely going to run into psychology, right? And, if you look at psychology and philosophy, you might be interested in looking at things to do with religion- you might want to go under the covers a bit. If you look at religion, you really have to look at myth. This whole area is where writers like Joseph Campbell, Jung, William James, and others might benefit Objectivists who haven't gotten into them too much.

For sure, the standard argument that atheism is the only logical choice for an Objectivism is not one I agree with, because I disagree with the general treatment of and lack of in-depth understanding of religion that I generally believe represents what is being, um, "objected" to... Meaning, sure, agree if you are rejecting the guy in the sky, lion lies down with the lamb kind of thing. The literal taking of a myth or metaphor.

As I said- "most likely", and if not, be ready to discuss rationally (that can be done).

(Edited by Rich Engle on 7/09, 10:35am)

Post 7

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 4:37pm

I'm a bit surprised that more people on SOLO don't identify themselves as agnostic, rather than atheist. As Rich Engle says, many Objectivists probably declare themselves atheist in reaction to irrational mysticism. I don't find value in any religious mythology in as far as they fail, in my opinion, to add anything to serious philosophical or scientific inquiry into the nature of life and existence. Many religious people will disagree, of course, but their objections all amount to an appeal to faith; to unverifiable beliefs and to transparently anthropomorphic revelatory nonsense.

Having said that, I can't prove that some variety of vastly superior intelligence does not exist. Reading the literature of fantasy / science fiction, I have been entertained and amazed by the variety of novel ideas describing all kinds of alien intelligences, large and small scale. However improbable these ideas may seem, many have impressed me as more probable than the traditional Christian God and His Son, opposed by Lucifer, accompanied by angels and all the rest. In many ways, the universe is a strange place, but not nearly so strange as the Christian view of it.

If some kind of creator exists, it may be he/she/it is of a sufficiently subtle nature to, so far, escape our ability to perceive or understand it. I conjecture that our ignorance of nature far outstrips our current knowledge of it.

In an unrelated thread, I think it was Fred Seddon who remarked, "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." Perhaps that idea applies here.

Post 8

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 5:03pm

Randy,

Theism: a belief in the existence of a god or gods.
god: a supernatural being (and whatever attributes you want to apply to her)

Any being which interacts with our universe must be bound by our universe's laws; it must be natural.
A supernatural being is one that is free of natural laws.
Therefore, supernatural beings (gods) cannot exist in our universe or interact with it in any way.

Atheism rocks.

Sarah

Post 9

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 8:17pm

Addendum: Atheism is strictly a denial of theism, not mysticism. It's common for us Westerners to equate theism with religion and mysticism, but that is by no means the case. Many Eastern religions have no deities but plenty of mysticism.

I would say we need a word like 'amystic' to describe what Objectivists are, but 'rational' works just fine.

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 7/09, 8:17pm)

Post 10

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 8:19pm

Sarah,

I didn't use the word 'supernatural.' I think we agree that the word is meaningless. If something exists, it's natural. I was speculating on the possibility of a supreme creative entity. I don't pretend to know anything else about its attributes.

For all we know, this 'entity' may exist in some transfinite or transdimensional sense that we are not equipped to comprehend. By the way, I'm not advocating this idea. To (ab)use a colorful American phrase, 'I don't have a dog(ma) in this fight.' For all practical purposes, I look like an atheist. I think it's just as dogmatic to express a certainty that there cannot be a creator as to believe, without evidence, that there is one.

Post 11

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 8:38pm

Sarah,

I just saw the addendum that you posted as I was composing my last post. I get your point. In my first post on this thread, maybe I should have said 'theism' instead of 'mysticism' to be clearer. I still think agnosticism, meaning 'no knowledge', is the proper Objectivist position, though Ayn Rand may not have agreed.

Post 12

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 8:39pm

Randy,

The definitions I used are standard. When you walk into a religion department in a university and say (a)theism that is what you are implying. While some may be atheists for one reason or another, at its heart atheism is a realization that theism is irrational. Atheism is not hinged on evidence nor does it require any kind of confidence or faith.

Now you can talk about a being that orchestrated our evolution as a our "creator," but just let me pull out Occam's razor real quick like and... yep, that's just plain economically* improbable.

*"There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." ~Richard Feynman

I just felt like being nerdy and alluding to The Feynman.

Sarah

P.S. I checked out the Christian Objectivists and found this interesting post on their message board:
"I couldn't completely get through Rand's writings. There is just a cold feel towards selfless type actions in it, and Christ was about being selfless."

(Edited by Sarah House
on 7/09, 9:01pm)

Post 13

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 8:58pm

Sarah,

Let's see : Christian Objectivist - polar opposites - matter and antimatter - irreconcilable differences.

Thanks for the Feynman quote. He is welcome anytime. A brilliant and funny guy.

(Edited by Randy Mahoney
on 7/09, 8:59pm)

(Edited by Randy Mahoney
on 7/09, 9:01pm)

Post 14

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 9:46pm

Christian Objectivist

It just completely blows my mind. How can they delude themselves to that extent? How!? Words cannot describe amazingly incomprehensible this is to me.

Sarah

Post 15

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 12:39am

In the name of Ecumenicalism?

Post 16

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 8:27am

@Sarah:

But what exactly is god? Sometimes, people describe god-like values to men engaged in extreme sports, because they manage things they couldn't even dream of. Or, if an inventor constructs a machine that has never before seen, he is almost seen as a god.
It is the old analogy that if you take a heli and fly onto an isolated island with natives on it, who have never seen our civilisation, they would regard you as a god.

So, what speaks against it that out there in space, we have creatures that would appear like gods to us? And just because there technology is so good to bend the laws of this universe (even if the backlash would be monsterous). Really, this is just speculative, but everything about the term god is speculative.
If we regard this, isn't theism than something that could be rational?

I don't want to argue in favor of gods (because I am an atheist at heart), but I think that the point of view always defines god differently. :)

Post 17

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 9:47am

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

Regardless of how technologically advanced a species is it will still be subject to natural laws. To an ignorant, our airplanes might seem like chariots of the gods, but they exist completely within the realm of nature.

Theism is irrational any way you want to look at it.

Sarah

Post 18

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 11:50am

Randy,

Since the prefix "a-" means "without" and the root "theism" means "belief in the existence of a god or gods" (as Sarah pointed out earlier), I am perfectly content to be an atheist, since I lack any such belief.

I understand your objection: that the term is often taken to mean denial of anything beyond our species's ken. This confusion is somewhat deliberate, I think (on the part of those who wish to characterize atheism as itself a statement about the supernatural), and inaccurate, regardless. Even so, I think most Objectivists would rather be associated with that than with the wishy-washy "How am I to know whether or not to believe?" attitude that many agnostics espouse.

Technically, I suppose I am both agnostic (by your "no knowledge" interpretation) and atheistic. But by definition, we can't know about that which is beyond our ability to know (which even most theists claim their Gods to be), so identifying myself as such seems somewhat superfluous. Thus, I stand by the stronger statement of the two.

Post 19

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 2:43pm