DonAthos Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 "Is there any question that religion can answer that Objectivism can not ?" There are a few that religion will consider that Objectivism won't. Do you really want to compete with a church?? If there's any sensible question to answer, I believe that it is done via philosophy. Whatever it is that makes religion "religion" -- mystical claims to knowledge, a belief in the supernatural, etc. -- are mistaken. Whatever is left over that is good about religious institutions, including a sense of community, artistic inspiration, charitable organization, etc., is no less available to the secular and the rational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Not a necessary human need ... But I need to be comforted. Life is scary and lots of bad things happen all the time. Rituals calm me, because I know what to do, and it feels good to sing. Going to church makes me feel safe and the people there care about me. I can count on my church to be there for me in times of crisis. Are there Objectivist places that shelter and feed people when they are afraid? Do Objectivists take care of the poor?? ... Nothing, a "soul" is matter that shuts down when a person dies. Are you trying to say that people have a need to not understand that this has been proven? Ditto for the other questions. ... Well that's not very comforting, is it? If a soul is just matter that shuts down, how come Ayn Rand has a grave? Are bad Objectivists made of dark matter?? ... Name them? As for competing with a church, I refer you to the endless internet sites which gleefully tear down the endless contradictions and silliness found inside churches. How come you're so mean? You hurt my feelings. I was just asking questions and you hurt my feelings. Are all Objectivists mean like you?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 But I need to be comforted. You need something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Objectivism is competing with a church? To put it in business model terms, Objectivism simply provides a superior product. What people are shopping for can be observed by what they buy into. Christian businesses give back to their community. That's why I shop there Do Objectivist businesses give back to their community, or do they just keep all the profit for themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 You need something. Yes, something to fill the vacuum. I already have enough harsh realities do deal with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Yes, something to fill the vacuum. Speak for yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Christian businesses give back to their community. That's why I shop there Of course you do. Is this thread about you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) Today's available knowledge remains incomplete;... This is a rationalization, not a reason for religion. It is illogical to say that "I don't know X, so I'll simply make something up or believe something ridiculous that my parents believed" As for its socio-cultural role, on the cultural front, religion has been playing catch-up for centuries in the west, and decades elsewhere. On the social aspect, less than 20% of people in France and U.K. and less than 40% in the U.S. attend church regularly. They're obviously socializing elsewhere. Indeed, in Hindu culture, the temple has never played the social role that a church does; so, even historically there have been better alternatives. Prayer and meditation calms the mind and slows the heart-rate? Well there are better alternatives (e.g. Instead of an hour or two in church, go for a jog down a nature trail. Soak up the quiet, or listen to enjoyable music... whatever relaxes you.) So, we're left with the philosophical core: meaning, purpose, ethics. This is where religions still compete effectively, because the more secular, mainstream intellectuals have not offered a comprehensive alternative. It is not that the latter are ineffective. Far from it. These secular intellectuals are responsible for chipping away at the irrationality of religion. They're responsible for religions "adapting to the times" -- accepting evolution, rehabilitating Galileo, accepting homosexuality -- so as not to lose more adherents. The only reason so many westerners are still Christian is that they have redefined what it means to be Christian. If you examine their beliefs and attitudes, they have adopted so much from the secular intellectuals... yet, there's no term for that part of their thinking, so they use the term "Christian" which really describes only a portion of their philosophy (and ever smaller portion). This might seem like a puzzle: why do all these people call themselves Christians when more than half their principles and even more of their actions are pretty Pagan? I think this reflects the fact that the secular intellectuals have not offered a good, comprehensive alternative. There's a milieu of ideas... paeans to altruism, to individualism, to nature, to science, ... without any popular "-ism" putting it all together. We've seen a couple of movements -- Fascism and Marxism -- compete to offer a comprehensive view. After they ended in disaster, people are probably even more encouraged to make do with a mish-mash. And, in doing so, they cling to some God too. Not quite Christian. Perhaps better described as 20% Marx, 20% Aristotle, 10% Buddha, 20% Jesus, 10% Old Testament, 20% Environmentalist... and similar mixtures. Edited February 26, 2015 by softwareNerd Repairman, JASKN and DonAthos 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted February 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Christian businesses give back to their community. That's why I shop there Do Objectivist businesses give back to their community, or do they just keep all the profit for themselves? Do you consider this another reason/rationalization the religion persists? Objectivism acknowledges that profits earned belong to the profit producer (religiously oriented or not), and that the disposal of those profits are at the discretion of the profiteer. Capitalism in general, to the extent it is permitted to operate (i.e., pre-Objectivism capitalism), has made the world a better place for Objectivists and non-Objectivists alike. Production, as the application of reason to the problem of survival, has done far more to improve living conditions across the board than religion's opposition to reason, or acceptance of reason in compartmentalized areas of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Repairman Posted February 26, 2015 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 "In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created he him."-from the liner notes of Jethro Tull's Aqualung. Throw in some rituals, sermons, a goto meetin' hall with regular servings of wine and crackers, special holidays (rational-daze?), and swap A=A with A=AMEN, and you might begin to fill the vacuum. There are a few that religion will consider that Objectivism won't. Do you really want to compete with a church?? As the JASKN and dream_weaver have responded so well to these charges, I see no reason to address the inference that Objective is competing with a church. I wish to address the suggestion that religion holds a psychological grip on some people. Some have rationalized a "need" to fill that spiritual gap, and I will concur with Devil's Advocate, in that that "need" can be filled no other way for them. I think this is a pity, but it is what it is. While many of these people are highly-functional people, valuable and worthy of all they have earned, they prefer to hold the image of God tightly integrated with their motives, reasons, and morals. Other members of society are not so valuable. Aside from children of the religious, who are not fully cognitive of reality, their are the criminally minded and the substance-abusive types for whom the "powers of a super-invisible-friend" may be necessary to reform them from their weaknesses. I raised this subject of weaker members of society in an earlier post, and wish to clarify that I do not believe religion is the best solution for them, only that some people have had success in its application. I thought it worth mentioning after seeing DA invoke the Serenity Prayer. And the "Like This" option on our post serves as a fine alternative to "Amen," just as this forum provides as fine "meeting hall." Anuj, dream_weaver, softwareNerd and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anuj Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) But it may also worth considering, "If religion isn't logical, why do people still practice it?" Yes! It is worth considering. It is important to understand the psychology of religion before attacking it; before asking the question "what is the need ?" Following are some of the reasons, I found over net as to "Why religion still exists and why people still follow it?" as opposed to the original question "is there a need in the current century ?" Man is/was pleasure-seeking, weak and seeks forgiveness - Man seeks pleasure. Desires led men to fight against each-other. Religion preached altruism; that every-other man is one's brother. "Freud regards God as an illusion, based on the infantile need for a powerful father figure; religion, necessary to help us restrain violent impulses earlier in the development of civilization, can now be set aside in favor of reason and science." "Freud adds the explanation that the adoption of religion is a reversion to childish patterns of thought in response to feelings of helplessness and guilt. We feel a need for security and forgiveness, and so invent a source of security and forgiveness: God." Religion answers questions, is pro-society and morality : Norenzayan says : “Religion is one of the big ways that human societies have hit on us a solution to induce unrelated individuals to be nice to each other. As the saying goes, "watched people are nice people." It follows that people play nice when they think Gods are watching them, even when no one else is". "Religion, in a sense, outsources social monitoring to a supernatural agent,” says Norenzayan. “If you believe in a monitoring God, even if no one is watching you, you still have to be pro-social because God is watching you.” Besides Man needed a method; a guide to life; Religion held the role of answering questions : Who am I and why am I here? How shall I live? What happens after death ? Also as religiosity was highly respected, religious individuals had higher self-esteem thinking of themselves as noble men. Agent Detection : "Agent detection is the inclination for animals and humans to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent in situations that may or may not involve one." "In cases of ordinary agency, we are able to correct our initial attributions: we hear rustling in the grass and turn around expecting to be met by an agent, but when we fail to see an agent and instead observe wind moving the grass around, we typically correct our initial over-attribution. In contrast, it seems that attributions of supernatural agents are highly resilient and rarely corrected". Edited February 26, 2015 by Anuj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anuj Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) But I need to be comforted. Life is scary and lots of bad things happen all the time. Rituals calm me, because I know what to do, and it feels good to sing. Going to church makes me feel safe and the people there care about me. I can count on my church to be there for me in times of crisis. Are there Objectivist places that shelter and feed people when they are afraid? Do Objectivists take care of the poor?? How come you're so mean? You hurt my feelings. I was just asking questions and you hurt my feelings. [..] I already have enough harsh realities do deal with. I don't think an 'Objectivist' would ever use such words. Statements made above reeks with the stench of 'weakness', a total lack of 'Pride' and a general deficit in 'Self-Esteem'. Precisely opposite of how an ideal Man should be. Edited February 26, 2015 by Anuj Plasmatic 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 "This is a rationalization, not a reason for religion. It is illogical to say that "I don't know X, so I'll simply make something up or believe something ridiculous that my parents believed" ~ softwareNerd You're splitting hairs. No religious person would say, "I don't know God, so I'll simply make something up or believe something ridiculous that my parents believed." You, et al, want to keep arguing that Objectivism can fill the vacuum with rational reasons, e.g., that people are just bits of matter that have no afterlife; ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Was Ayn Rand just bits of matter, or was she more than the sum of her chemical base? Is she gone now, or does she live on in the memory of those who survive her?? These are the kind of questions religion responds to, not to provide cold, hard facts, but to cope with harsh realities. Objectivism can provide more logical facts about life, but that's not the point and never has been. The statement, "Everything happens for a reason", has a different meaning for a religious person than an Objectivist. If a tornado levels their home, they don't care about why meterological events happen; they care about why those events happen to them personally. Can Objectivism answer that? Would an Objectivist even seriously consider that kind of question?? LOL, a religious person will dust themselves off and have faith that tornados are God's way of leading them to a better home. That kind of illogical optimism won't be satisfied with impersonal facts about random weather events that cause them to rebuild their lives for no apparent reason. Go ahead and try to fill emotional vacuums with impersonal facts. I'm stepping out for a breath of fresh air and to enjoy the sunrise for how it makes me feel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) Two words: fools hope.... I haven't read much of this thread yet but Ms. Rand's point about religion being a primitive form of philosophy comes to mind. The problem is the return of the primitive by willful regression to the philosophy of savages. Edited February 26, 2015 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig24 Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 "This is a rationalization, not a reason for religion. It is illogical to say that "I don't know X, so I'll simply make something up or believe something ridiculous that my parents believed" ~ softwareNerd You're splitting hairs. No religious person would say, "I don't know God, so I'll simply make something up or believe something ridiculous that my parents believed." You, et al, want to keep arguing that Objectivism can fill the vacuum with rational reasons, e.g., that people are just bits of matter that have no afterlife; ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Was Ayn Rand just bits of matter, or was she more than the sum of her chemical base? Is she gone now, or does she live on in the memory of those who survive her?? These are the kind of questions religion responds to, not to provide cold, hard facts, but to cope with harsh realities. Objectivism can provide more logical facts about life, but that's not the point and never has been. The statement, "Everything happens for a reason", has a different meaning for a religious person than an Objectivist. If a tornado levels their home, they don't care about why meterological events happen; they care about why those events happen to them personally. Can Objectivism answer that? Would an Objectivist even seriously consider that kind of question?? LOL, a religious person will dust themselves off and have faith that tornados are God's way of leading them to a better home. That kind of illogical optimism won't be satisfied with impersonal facts about random weather events that cause them to rebuild their lives for no apparent reason. Go ahead and try to fill emotional vacuums with impersonal facts. I'm stepping out for a breath of fresh air and to enjoy the sunrise for how it makes me feel. I'm a bit confused. You raise the issue of an afterlife and then ask us if Ayn Rand lives on in our memories but you know very well that the religious concept of an afterlife has nothing to do with remembering those who have died. It is, instead, a reference to eternal souls that survive physical death. Also, you restrict the concept of Objectivism, limiting it to statements of facts about the world. Have you studied Objectivism? Do you really think it's just a list of facts about reality? It's a philosophy, a comprehensive view of existence, a theory of knowledge, a guide to moral action and an inspiration to achieve the highest possible to you. That sounds like a lot more than just some boring list of facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 And to add ^^: To anyone who is disappointed in the factual nature of reality, I say, "Grow up." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anuj Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) "This is a rationalization, not a reason for religion. It is illogical to say that "I don't know X, so I'll simply make something up or believe something ridiculous that my parents believed" ~ softwareNerd You're splitting hairs. No religious person would say, "I don't know God, so I'll simply make something up or believe something ridiculous that my parents believed." You, et al, want to keep arguing that Objectivism can fill the vacuum with rational reasons, e.g., that people are just bits of matter that have no afterlife; ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Was Ayn Rand just bits of matter, or was she more than the sum of her chemical base? Is she gone now, or does she live on in the memory of those who survive her?? These are the kind of questions religion responds to, not to provide cold, hard facts, but to cope with harsh realities. Objectivism can provide more logical facts about life, but that's not the point and never has been. The statement, "Everything happens for a reason", has a different meaning for a religious person than an Objectivist. If a tornado levels their home, they don't care about why meterological events happen; they care about why those events happen to them personally. Can Objectivism answer that? Would an Objectivist even seriously consider that kind of question?? LOL, a religious person will dust themselves off and have faith that tornados are God's way of leading them to a better home. That kind of illogical optimism won't be satisfied with impersonal facts about random weather events that cause them to rebuild their lives for no apparent reason. Go ahead and try to fill emotional vacuums with impersonal facts. I'm stepping out for a breath of fresh air and to enjoy the sunrise for how it makes me feel. Emotional Vacuums ? Objectivism is more about filling yourself with 'Happiness' than any religion ever was or could ever be. Edited February 26, 2015 by Anuj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repairman Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I've had conversations with religious friends, and every one of them lumps philosophy and philosophers into one great big proverbial kettle. I would not have expected this from someone who frequently contributes to this forum: You, et al, want to keep arguing that Objectivism can fill the vacuum with rational reasons, e.g., that people are just bits of matter that have no afterlife; ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Was Ayn Rand just bits of matter, or was she more than the sum of her chemical base? Is she gone now, or does she live on in the memory of those who survive her?? These are the kind of questions religion responds to, not to provide cold, hard facts, but to cope with harsh realities. Objectivism can provide more logical facts about life, but that's not the point and never has been. Ayn Rand distinguishes her philosophy as one that celebrates the cerebral; she acknowledged man's mind as the ultimate source of man's achievement. Your statement suggest that she regarded man as mere flesh, a meat-puppet. I had devised my own form of eudaemonism early in life, but it was nothing as completely comprehensive as Objectivism. Ayn Rand's convictions rely on man's mind, his consciousness, as an entity of value integrated with man's body. To be sure, we are comprised of our chemical components, but more than that, I am greater than the sum of the whole, because of the added value of my mind. The statement, "Everything happens for a reason", has a different meaning for a religious person than an Objectivist. If a tornado levels their home, they don't care about why meterological events happen; they care about why those events happen to them personally. Can Objectivism answer that? Would an Objectivist even seriously consider that kind of question?? LOL, a religious person will dust themselves off and have faith that tornados are God's way of leading them to a better home. That kind of illogical optimism won't be satisfied with impersonal facts about random weather events that cause them to rebuild their lives for no apparent reason. As for tornadoes, I'll repeat from an earlier post: Random probability taken personally is another definition for luck. Reason cannot defy chance, especially highly improbable chance. If you believe the destruction of your home is anyone's way of leading them to a better home, feel free to destroy your home, rather than wait for the tornado. The tornado is not an intelligent force; it has no way of knowing what you should have or desire in your life. But, I understand how enough stress and repeated misfortunes can make one question the rationally obvious facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I've had conversations with religious friends, and every one of them lumps philosophy and philosophers into one great big proverbial kettle. I would not have expected this from someone who frequently contributes to this forum... ... and so you should not expect the religious views of a heretic to be the same as those he represents based on personal knowledge of arguing from the other side of the pew. Personally I'm more Jeffersonian in my view... "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." ... and Franklin... "God helps those who help themselves." In that respect I think Objectivism has a great deal to offer a religious person, that person already having come to question what has been revealed to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 DA You speak much about filling voids, loving life, being comforted, having hope, living with Joy. An Objectivist knows all of these things are possible and holds them as cherished goals. He also knows that they do not come from a non-existent God, a mystical realm, nor do they require fictional eternal life. Instead these are for Man on Earth to be, create, and achieve. It's no more complicated than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Emotional Vacuums ? Objectivism is more about filling yourself with 'Happiness' than any religion ever was or could ever be. And yet the most common term I hear from religious friends I argue with is, "bleak", when used to describe the outlook presented in Atlas Shrugged, so I think there are some better approaches to dealing with the issue of religion, and what it responds to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 DA You speak much about filling voids, loving life, being comforted, having hope, living with Joy. An Objectivist knows all of these things are possible and holds them as cherished goals. He also knows that they do not come from a non-existent God, a mystical realm, nor do they require fictional eternal life. Instead these are for Man on Earth to be, create, and achieve. It's no more complicated than that. The complication arises from translating that to a POV that sees the world around them as the creation of a Creator. Killing God creates the vacuum softwareNerd refers to. Substituting him with a heroic being is a step in the right direction, but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 To clarify, are you arguing that this vacuum will exist for the presently religious if they were to consider changing their views, or that this vacuum will exist for anyone who is not religious, forever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anuj Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 so I think there are some better approaches to dealing with the issue of religion, and what it responds to. Please do tell what the better approaches are and what it responds to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Order. Meaning. Purpose. I think there is the genesis of all philosophies, early religious, or lately secular. When I contrast my thoughtful religious friends with atheist-agnostics I know, I'm sometimes tempted to ask the latter why they bother, why not return to religion, rather? These are not generally content or happy individuals (but then, clearly, they are not Objectivists). There IS something bleak about knowledge without conviction. I'm thinking that to believe in a Creator who is the source - partially* - of those above absolutely essential certainties to one's life isn't, paradoxically, the most irrational thing to do, by comparison. This looks a good discussion, I must read it from the beginning. *("God helps those who help themselves" - is the most rational credo to emerge from religion, imo) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.