Objectivism and Atheism

I have a question about Objectivism. But, let me set it up first. I have been on this forum for a short while and I have noticed that everyone I have read seems to be an atheist. I have also noted that there is a lot of other issues that I seem to either outright agree on or tend to agree on with the Objectivists here. So, my question is as follows: Is atheism necessarily part of Objectivism? In other words, if atheism were proven false, then Objectivism would be false too?

Thanks in advance for your replies,

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 1

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 2:15pm

"Is atheism necessarily part of Objectivism?"

Yes. Objective reality necessarily entails no supernatural entities.

"In other words, if atheism were proven false, then Objectivism would be false too?"

Atheism being proven false would mean that a supernatural being exists - i.e. something which could arbitrarily suspend/change reality at its whim. Objectivism or really any other philosophy would be meaningless in face of such a beast.

Post 2

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 2:48pm

Objective reality necessarily entails no supernatural entities.

Why?

Atheism being proven false would mean that a supernatural being exists - i.e. something which could arbitrarily suspend/change reality at its whim.

Not exactly. It could not, for instance, make a square circle. In any case, what do you mean by 'reality'? And what would it mean to suspend or change it?

Post 3

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 2:48pm

Hello Aaron,

Thanks for your response.

Yes. Objective reality necessarily entails no supernatural entities.

The word "necessary" implies a deductive certitude. Can you give the argument that shows it to be necessary. Perhaps you can also define what you mean by Objective reality.

Atheism being proven false would mean that a supernatural being exists - i.e. something which could arbitrarily suspend/change reality at its whim. Objectivism or really any other philosophy would be meaningless in face of such a beast.

I am not sure I understand all of this. I understand and agree with the statement, "Atheism being proven false would mean that a supernatural being exists," but I am not sure I get all the logical connections between, "something which could arbitrarily suspend/change reality at its whim" and "Objectivism or really any other philosophy would be meaningless in face of such a beast."

Could you expound on that and show why you believe that to be the case?

Regards,

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 4

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 2:53pm

Hi GWL,

We just crossed posts. I see we have similar questions. I guess what they say is true: Great minds think alike; or is that: Like minds think their great. I can never remember which way that goes.

Regards,

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 5

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 3:31pm

I think that Everyone has a lot to benefit from learning Objectivism, whether one is atheist or not. You can learn a lot about what you can know, what surely exists, how to learn, what is necessary for morality to exist, and how to act after you decide on your primary goals. You can learn about what government is, and what it should be to most benefit yourself as well.

One of the ideas is that you should not accept an idea unless it is consistent with evidence, and that there is no strong contradictory evidence. Also, that an idea should not be accepted merely with no evidence. This is learning by the scientific method.

Faith is the opposite of the scientific method. With faith, you accept an idea without evidence, or even when there is strong contradictory evidence.

So I would ask the question: have you accepted that a God is true by means of faith or science? The former is absolutely contradictory to Objectivism, while the latter is consistent. To think that God exists yet still be an Objectivist? I guess it could be possible, but don't expect most Objectivists to give you much respect on it... because if it was science... than surely you could reproduce your evidence and convince us all! : )

If you have accepted God by means of science, I would surely disagree with either your premises or disagree that your premises lead to your conclusion. I say "surely" not because I am absolutely sure, but because I'm extremely confident that no "God" exists. What do you mean by "God" anyways? I usually assume one is referring to a supernatural being that is described in the Christian or Muslim bible.

Post 6

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 4:04pm

I guess what they say is true: Great minds think alike; or is that: Like minds think their great. I can never remember which way that goes.

Hi, Brady. Hopefully it's the former. ;)

Dean Michael Gores wrote:

I think that Everyone has a lot to benefit from learning Objectivism, whether one is atheist or not. You can learn a lot about what you can know, what surely exists, how to learn, what is necessary for morality to exist, and how to act after you decide on your primary goals. You can learn about what government is, and what it should be to most benefit yourself as well.

For the philosophically ignorant, objectivism is like the fuel tank of a space shuttle; it helps to get off the ground, but after that it's just ballast, and ought to be jettisoned.

One of the ideas is that you should not accept an idea unless it is consistent with evidence, and that there is no strong contradictory evidence. Also, that an idea should not be accepted merely with no evidence. This is learning by the scientific method.

More accurately, it's simply a way to form reasonable beliefs.

Faith is the opposite of the scientific method.

Faith is just intellectual assent.

With faith, you accept an idea without evidence, or even when there is strong contradictory evidence.

Belief can be either justified or unjustified.

So I would ask the question: have you accepted that a God is true by means of faith or science?

I've accepted God's existence based on reasons. 'Science' is a very limited methodological discipline.

To think that God exists yet still be an Objectivist? I guess it could be possible, but don't expect most Objectivists to give you much respect on it... because if it was science... than surely you could reproduce your evidence and convince us all!

There are a number of scientific theories which do not convince all scientists.

If you have accepted God by means of science, I would surely disagree with either your premises or disagree that your premises lead to your conclusion. I say "surely" not because I am absolutely sure, but because I'm extremely confident that no "God" exists.

Why?

What do you mean by "God" anyways?

Roughly, the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good uncreated Creator of the universe.

(Edited by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz on 3/27, 5:07pm)

Post 7

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 5:19pm

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, I am a scientist through and through. I think that sufficiently answers your questions. You are wasting your own time coming up with nitpicking responses such as "There are a number of scientific theories which do not convince all scientists." Farewell.

Post 8

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 5:23pm

Did you hear about the dyslectic atheist?

He doesn�t believe in Dog.

Post 9

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 5:33pm

Why should he - is all a mutt theory anyway....;-)

Post 10

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 9:00pm

Dean wrote:

I think that Everyone has a lot to benefit from learning Objectivism, whether one is atheist or not. You can learn a lot about what you can know, what surely exists, how to learn, what is necessary for morality to exist, and how to act after you decide on your primary goals. You can learn about what government is, and what it should be to most benefit yourself as well.

Thanks Dean,

This is what I am looking for. So, can we agree that atheism is not a necessary tenet of Objectivism? In other words, one could just as well be a Christian, holding a theistic worldview, and still be an Objectivist, rather than having to hold to an atheistic woeldview and be an Objectivist. Right?

Do other Objectivists here agree with this too?

Regards,

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 11

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 9:25pm

Brady,

This is what I am looking for. So, can we agree that atheism is not a necessary tenet of Objectivism?

That might well be the case. But this...

In other words, one could just as well be a Christian, holding a theistic worldview, and still be an Objectivist, rather than having to hold to an atheistic woeldview and be an Objectivist. Right?

...I think might go too far. Being a Christian is more than merely being theistic. While there might be some overlap, I think the basic tenets of Christianity and Objectivism clash.

Jordan

Post 12

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 10:42pm

Hi Jordan,

Thanks for your input.

I think the basic tenets of Christianity and Objectivism clash.

Could you please explain this further? Perhaps some examples?

Also, what types of theism do you think would be compatible with Objectivism?

Thanks,

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 13

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 11:07pm

"Objective reality necessarily entails no supernatural entities."

"Why?"

Supernatural doesn't just mean something impressive enough that people may mistake it for magic - say if alien technology existed that could be found to fit natural laws with more study. It really means not being bound by laws of nature, by definition being outside objective reality.

"The word "necessary" implies a deductive certitude. Can you give the argument that shows it to be necessary. Perhaps you can also define what you mean by Objective reality."

That which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

"...I am not sure I get all the logical connections between, "something which could arbitrarily suspend/change reality at its whim" and "Objectivism or really any other philosophy would be meaningless in face of such a beast."

Could you expound on that and show why you believe that to be the case?"

If something can arbitrarily change and does anything in reality at its whim - i.e. is omnipotent - then all of our existence and lives would be purely subject to its capricious actions. How would you construct philosophies such as of knowledge or ethics in such a situation?

"One could just as well be a Christian, holding a theistic worldview, and still be an Objectivist, rather than having to hold to an atheistic woeldview and be an Objectivist. Right?"

No. A theist who adopts rational self-interest ethics and laissez-faire capitalism will still be better off than an altruistic Christian. But those beliefs would lack solid grounding if still held in conjunction with mystical metaphysics, and likely not be truly grasped or stably held.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you (GBL - I know GWL is a lost cause) are a theist (likely specifically Christian) and want to mix it with other ideas from Objectivism. Can you elaborate on what you'd like to try to merge together?

Post 14

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 11:46pm

G. Brady Lenardos,

If we are talking about Protestant Christianity - Objectivism:
Metephysics: Earth, Universe, Heaven & Hell - Earth, Universe, Reality
Epistemology: Believe what the Bible and authority tell you is true - Determine what to believe yourself with use of logic and science
Ethics: Do whatever "God" wants, make "God" your greatest value, giving away your possessions is "good", in justice: retribution against an attacker is "bad" because that is only what "God" should do, give little priority to your own goals and desires, achieve other's goals. - Your own life and enjoyment of it is your greatest goal, acquiring possessions, means of production, and creating values are virtues, in justice: making sure that an attacker looses more in a conflict, also a positive justice: reward people for doing things that are in line with your goals and values. morality
Politics: A whole slew of laws that prevent people from doing what they want to their own bodies and their own property (drug laws), irrational value of unborn humans (abortion & stem cell laws), taxing the rich to give people enough to survive on - Capitalism

I think the main issue is that Christians think there is life beyond earth, that humans have spirits or souls, vs this is the only life you have, and that nothing exists beyond one's body and nervous system. With this, a Christians moral system departs from making choices on behavior that will effect their life in Reality here on Earth, and they begin weighing how their choices will effect their believed afterlife.

Did you follow my link on morality up there? I really like that website, and I'd recommend looking it over and considering what you agree with and what you disagree with, maybe take notes.

Enough for now. Cheers,
Dean

Post 15

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 9:06am

G. Brady Lenardos

If you Google 'Buddhism Objectivism' you will find a lot of discussion on the correspondence and dissonance between the them, two of which are cited below. You can judge for yourself whether Buddhism is a theistic religion or not.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0087.shtml

http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/buddhjectivism.html

Cheers

Sam

Post 16

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 10:05am

Hi Brady,

...what types of theism do you think would be compatible with Objectivism?

The theism that is arrived at through reasoning is compatible with Objectivism. The reasoned theism might still be mistaken, but avoiding mistakes is not a prerequisite for Objectivism.

Could you please explain [the clash between Christianity and Objectivism] further? Perhaps some examples?

Dean pretty much did answered this. At base, Objectivism extolls selfishness, not sacrifice.

Jordan

Post 17

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 11:42am

Objectivism is an integrated philosophical system, which comprises five major branches of philosophy -- metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics. It can best be understood by its answer to three fundamental philosophical questions, which correspond to the first three major branches of philosophy:

1) What exists?
2) How do you know?
3) So what?

1) METAPHYSICS: Objectivism's answer to the first question -- "What exists?" -- is that there is an objective reality -- a reality external to and independent of consciousness. Accordingly, it holds that in order for consciousness to exist, reality must exist, which means that Objectivism is founded on a "primacy-of-existence" metaphysics. Existence can get along without consciousness, but consciousness cannot get along without existence. Insofar as theism endorses a divine consciousness as the creator of the universe, it holds that consciousness does not depend on existence, but rather that existence depends on consciousness. Theism is thus founded on a "primacy-of-consciousness" metaphysics and is, therefore, at odds with a key tenet of the Objectivist metaphysics.

Objectivism also holds that consciousness is a faculty of a living organism -- an attribute of an entity -- and that there is no such thing as an attribute without an entity -- a consciousness without a body. While one can consider an attribute in abstraction from an entity, there is no such thing in reality as a pure, floating, abstraction. Abstractions reside only in the mind. Insofar as theism endorses a pure consciousness, one that exists independently of a physical body, it is at odds with the Objectivist metaphysics.

Moreover, according to Objectivist metaphysics, everything is limited by its nature or its identity, since to exist is to possess identity; accordingly, nothing has unlimited abilities or powers. I.e., nothing is omnipotent, and there are no miracles, which are seen as a violation of the laws of nature. Insofar as theism endorses an omnipotent God who is capable of performing miracles, it is at odds with the Objectivist metaphysics.

2) EPISTEMOLOGY: Objectivism answers the second question -- "How do you know?" -- by saying that knowledge is based on the application of reason to the evidence of the senses. Reason "is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses." Since, according to Objectivism, all knowledge is based on sensory evidence, there are no innate ideas. Insofar as theism holds that man is born with innate ideas that transcend sensory evidence, it is at odds with the Objectivist epistemology.

3) ETHICS: Objectivism answers the third question -- "So what?" -- by saying that the purpose of life is happiness on earth. Accordingly, it prescribes a life lived in accordance with the requirements of human survival -- survival as "man qua man" -- which means in accordance with the particular needs of human beings. This means that what is good for one's life also serves one's happiness, because happiness is a consequence of life-serving actions. Insofar as theism holds that the ultimate purpose of life is not to serve one's own happiness here on earth, but to obey the commandments of God for the sake of a life hereafter, it is at odds with the Objectivist ethics.

POLITICS: The fourth branch of philosophy, politics, prescribes the best kind of society or government. Objectivism endorses a politico-economic system of laissez-faire capitalism based on a theory of individual rights, which are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Accordingly, each individual is entitled to make his or her own decisions free from interference by others. Insofar as theism denies individuals that right by legally prohibiting certain actions that it regards as unethical -- such as birth control, abortion, prostitution, pornography and gay marriage -- it is at odds with the Objectivist politics.

AESTHETICS: The fifth branch of philosophy prescribes artistic standards. Objectivism endorses romanticism in art, which means that it sees the purpose of art is the celebration of pro-life values. Insofar as theism endorses art that celebrates religious values, it is at odds with the Objectivist aesthetics.

To sum up: Since Objectivism and theism are at odds in virtually every fundamental branch of philosophy, and on virtually every major philosophical issue, there is no way that a theist can be considered an Objectivist.

- Bill

Post 18

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 12:35pm

Hi Bill,

I want to thank you for your very thought provoking answer to my question. However, you seem to be at odds with some of your fellow Objectivists, who have indicated that some sort of theism would be acceptable.

Perhaps they could further explain their assertion, or you could yours (although I think you have clearly and eloquently made your point), in order to gain some consensus among the Objectivists on this forum?

Perhaps in light of your answer those who suggested the possibility of a theist Objectivist would like to concede to your point?

Dean? Jordan? Anyone else?

Regards,

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 19

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 2:11pm