Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is there any reason, any religion should still exist?

Rate this topic


dream_weaver

Recommended Posts

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?

 

I'm arguing that in terms of human nature (man qua man), Voltaire's observation that man will create God to fill the void is true.  Whether man creates God in his image, or vice versa, is essentially a chicken and the egg paradox.  Philosophically, the goal remains to meet the need for an object worth looking up to, or within for.  To paraphrase a similar expression:  Of a God (or heroic being), there is no doubt.  But is he outside us trying to get in, or inside us trying to get out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get what this void is that Objectivism or whatever is trying to fill.

 

Whatever it is, the idea that religion, something unreal and un-provable, is the answer is certainly not valid. 

 

If such a void exists then what the person would need is something of real value to fill "the void".  Religion, by definition, is not real and makes a virtue of the lack of unreal.  Anything religion can provide that is real, like a local community center or even an ethic system, can be done via methods in the real world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please note that the above is also a rejection of Voltaire.  

 

Man will only look to the sky for answers and say "it's magic" if he is either unaware (before the scientific method) or to lazy (after the scientific method).  Looking for magical answers to hard questions is not a virtue let alone and philosophic primary.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get what this void is that Objectivism or whatever is trying to fill... 

 

My reference to a void points back to the vacuum softwareNerd spoke of in post #42.  I agree with him, but he may object to what I'm saying creates it.  In any case I'm not trying to speak for him, and invite you to draw your own conclusions.

 

Please note that the above is also a rejection of Voltaire...  

 

It is fine to assert that man is good enough as is, without the need for a God to aspire to.  That being the case, one needn't elevate man to the status of a heroic being either.  I think Ayn Rand's concept aims in the same direction as Voltaire's, if not towards the same object, with some legitimate debate as to whether this heroic being  is derived from the greek origin of heroes, or aspires towards some elevated form of humanity. 

 

Either way it's clear that whether you're Objectivist or religious, you're pursuing something other than the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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, ...

Not sure if you've read it, but the book depicts an increasingly dystopian world.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil's Advocate,

 May I assume your choice of creed is deism? As you've sited the quotes of Jefferson and Franklin, I wish it to be understood that I have no conflict with anyone adapting their views. However, I've met at least one young self-identifying Christian who assumed that, because the Founders were men who believed in God, that they must have wished the United States to be a Christian nation. I am not accusing you of failing to draw that distinction. Having read many of your postings, I know better.

 

... 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.   

If you are to assume that I am addressing you from one pew to another, let it be known that my pew has been long removed from the church, and has serves as a bench in the backyard of my own property. I hope your advocacy of Atlas Shrugged results in a more thorough discussion than that which leaves others with a "bleak" impression. Objectivism, as I understand it, provides the most rational answer any void of faith, or for that matter, any misguided modern or ancient philosophical study. I have met those who self-identify as Buddhist, merely because it is not Christianity, and because it is represented by such as vast array of varying and vague tenets, thus allowing them freedom from guilt under a Christian God. This is one popular example of merely "filling a void."

 

I realize this may be an entirely separate subject from this thread, but watching the United States become increasingly influenced by Christ-centered politics troubles me. The dystopian future depicted in Atlas Shrugged becomes more easily imaginable. And it is for this reason that I dread the fact that so few people I've met have ever even heard of Ayn Rand, let alone have enough understanding of her work to make a judgement about it. So, please, try not to make Objectivism seem "bleak." Taking control of your life while it lasts beats that hell out of wishing for an after-life that may not ever exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Repairman,

 

In as much as a heretic can be linked to any creed(s), deism and pantheism are the least objectionable to me.

 

If I wasn't clear, I've heard others describe the outlook presented in Atlas Shrugged as bleak, which surprised me initially since it seemed quite the opposite to me.  Over time, and through many discussions I came to understand how the story could be interpreted as an act of betrayal from the POV of those who identified with all the Eddie Willers of the world who were left behind.  I've even heard it described as Mad Max without a happy ending :unsure:

 

I think the positive aspects of Objectivism are sometimes obscured by efforts to portray it as necessarily atheistic.  There is a deep seated mistrust projected towards those who like myself enter this forum with spiritual baggage.  Something akin to the reception smokers get from those who've kicked the habit.  Oddly enough, I never got that vibe from reading or listening to Ayn Rand.

 

Everyone needs to believe in something, which I think is underscored by intentionally substituting heroic beings for the Gods they are derived from.  Perhaps that represents an adaptation religion might follow to become more responsive to the reality of mortal beings?

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone needs to believe in something, which I think is underscored by intentionally substituting heroic beings for the Gods they are derived from. 

 

Heroic beings are derived from Gods ?

 

Having a desire and striving towards perfection: 'A heroic being' is much closer to reality than believing in Gods.

 

 

Perhaps that represents an adaptation religion might follow to become more responsive to the reality of mortal beings?

 

 

Most religions are based on the supposedly unquestionable scriptures and principles : Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, etc. For the religious, the "truth" is primarily in these books. I'm not really sure that the concept of 'a heroic being' as described by Ayn Rand, would ever be appended to such books.

Edited by Anuj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil's Advocate,

 I will certainly accept you as a rational person, with or without your faith. I can accept the fact that there are rational people with whom I may disagree. On a matter of personal preference, in this case, your beliefs, there is nothing with which to disagree. It's your personal choice. However, I get an impression that you struggle with internal conflict, e.g. self-identifying as a heretic.

 

To what belief do you practice your heresy? Certainly it can't be Objectivism; your statements in defense of and identification with religion suggest that you are willing to suspend objectivity on matters of the existence of supernatural phenomenon. The very term, "heresy" wouldn't even apply in this sense, because Objectivism isn't based on belief, rather it is based on Objective reality. While I can't speak for all Objectivists, supernatural events or beings are a contradiction to metaphysical reality. Believing in such things is not rational. This is not to say that you are not a rational person under normal conditions. But I would not consider you to be Objectivist.

 

If pantheism or deism are your choices, you have not stated this explicitly; you have implied that they are "least objectionable." I have always had an admiration for those who speak truth to power, or those exercising expression of an advance of the truth against those in power. But Objectivists are not in power, far from it. If anything, our present-day order is dominated by altruistic hypocrites of both the secular and religious varieties. What is it that you are objecting to? Are you considered a heretic among your more religious associate? Against what standards of metaphysics or ethics do you protest? And, in keeping with this thread, is it really necessary to you to hold these beliefs?

 

I hope this does not seem to be a false dichotomy, choosing between Objectivism and faith. I assume you are familiar enough with Ayn Rand and her works and those of others to know that there are many other philosophical options of an atheist or secular nature, but that Rand's is the one that most respects rational thought and individual rights. As for Atlas Shrugged, I agree that it is a bleak portrait of the ultimate outcome of Western civilization on its present course. But Objectivism, as far as I know, is the only proper course correction. It is for this reason that I hope it is represented with respect.

Edited by Repairman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heroic beings are derived from Gods ?

 

...

 

Greek heroes were essentially Gods in human form, either by pairing gods with humans (sound familiar?), or transformed as the result of extraordinary actions.  In Poetics, Aristotle recognized the effacy of heroes in greek tragedies as a means of providing catharsis, i.e., an emotional release leading to a sprirtual renewal, for the audience.  Considering her interest in Aristotle, it's hardly a leap of faith to presume Ayn Rand would find the same beneficial use of heroic beings in her literature and philosophy.  I don't expect this to be well recieved here, but what Ayn Rands does with her use of man as a heroic being is essentially substitute an inaccessible and unimpeachable God with one in human form; one that can be judged (man qua man).  To understand why, I looked to her intial motivation to become an atheist...

 

"... According to her one-time associate Barbara Branden, Rand became an atheist at age thirteen. Branden records Rand writing in her diary at that age: 'Today I decided to be an atheist.' Branden then reports her as later explaining, 'I had decided that the concept of God is degrading to men. Since they say that God is perfect, man can never be that perfect, then man is low and imperfect and there is something above him – which is wrong.' [branden, PAR, p. 35.] Branden continues that Rand's 'second reason' is that 'no proof of the existence of God exists.'"

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Parille/Ayn_Rand,_Objectivism,_and_Religion_%28Part_1_of_4%29.shtml

 

This combined with her following statement about religion...

 

"I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one. This means that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I am fighting for reason, not against religion. I must also mention that I do respect religion in its philosophical aspects, in the sense that it represents an early form of philosophy."

 

... suggest to me that she not so much turned her back on God (a potentially important ally) as turned to face him mano a mano in order to wrestle him away from the mystics and return God to his philosophical roots as a study of man at his best and worst;  something real that we can all relate to.

 

I'm not presenting this as an insult to Objectivism; far from it.  Actually I think it was a brilliant move on her part in recognition of a very human need to believe in something we can actually aspire to become.  Religion attempts to monopolize this need, and fighting religion head on only fuels an emotional need to defend it;  one that dangerous groups like ISIS count on to draw rebels to "God's cause" (which of course they define).  The real danger religion poses is a political one - it must be disarmed.

 

OMG, what an elegant solution!  Render any future appeal to cruel and distant God impotent by transforming ourselves into God, i.e., become the image we represent.

 

So said the Devil.  Enjoy your weekend :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you be willing to speculate would happen if religion was not here serving that purpose?

 

Sorry for the delay - Wanted to mull this one over.

 

It would be illegitimate to claim that the parallels are equal.  We are certainly not at the level of the Dark Ages so religion is not the only default entity providing glimmers of reason such as it can be when done on intristicism and faith.  Today we have many other examples with religion, but certainly not on the level of religion.  Objectivism for example provides a source Certainty and Principled thinking.  Libertarianism provides this in various diluted forms in politics is another.  

 

I think one of the reasons we have the "Polarization of America" as pundits wring their hands over is not really about politics but the fact people are gravitating back and forth between Intrinsic and subjective thinking.  It's just the deep ends of the parties are basically represented by those (but certainly not consistently).  People realize that there are principles or that they can know something, but on the other hand pointing to the sky and calling it magic or just pulling the parents credo of "because" doesn't cut it and they drift back to subjectivism.  

 

Today, the loudest voice for Certainty and Principles is religion unfortunately.  Without them the weight would pull them towards the subjective realm by default until fracturing and splitting in subjective camps (which now that I think about it would represent their epistemology).  Without reason alternatives like Objectivism is just "extremism" to such a mindset.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiral Architect,

 I'm not so sure I can accept your reasoning on this. Religion is not performing very well as an institution of Certainty and Principle in modern times. It would be easy enough to point at the changes happening in the majority world religions, Christianity and Islam. Judaism, (while not a major religion, certainly a significant one), holds a high-profile in world affairs, but mostly as a factor in the complex of  conflicts in the Middle East. Perhaps for the average individual believer, religion helps to provide a form of therapy or family cohesion. But with Christianity and Islam in such a state of disarray, I would feel more embarrassed than proud to identify as a member of either of the two. Christians are confronted with schisms that are dividing denominations that have survived for hundreds of years, to say nothing of the scandals exposing the high-profile leaders as frauds. Islam, while being mostly represented by industrious people, are unfortunately associated with fanatics striving for a return to the medieval past. This is what happens when religion is taken to its extremes. The Koran is the holy scripture of Muslims, and in order to follow its tenets and live in the modern age, most Muslims must disregard selected passages that advise bloodshed. And Christians have to moderate their instructions to disregard worldly pleasures. As I've mentioned before, I'm perfectly happy to live with hypocrites, if the only alternative is to live with religious fanatics. (Incidentally, I don't believe this is the only alternative.)

 

So, Spiral Architect, I can't call any of this Certainty and Principled living. Admittedly, skepticism provides no comfort to those of uncertain and dysfunctional mentalities. I have met people who (English being their first language) have no idea what the word "ethics" means. For these people, I have no hope, other than that they do not reproduce very often. But that fact that they do, you can bet some religious adviser is waiting to lay the rap on them and their offspring. Talk about your bleak prospects!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DA,

 

Your post #113 is quite difficult to agree or argue with, because much of it sounds like a conspiracy theory. Yet I will give it a shot. Your point is people need to believe in something. And that's why Rand put the God back into Man; To make him heroic; Something more realistic to believe.

 

By saying that Rand put the God back into man, you are suggesting that she held some form of pantheism (?). And further sounds like God who existed in some form, was wrapped up and shoved into Man, by which Man became heroic. God exists as a notion; An idea. But not as something metaphysically real.

 

So no, I don't think Rand shoved anything into Man. What she did do was project how an ideal man should be. What values an ideal man should hold. She further went on to describe those values; Those which are grounded on reality and necessary in order to happily survive and flourish. Further she did not force or proclaim that John Galt is your God; Somebody whom Objectivists should "believe in" or literally "worship". Believing in John Galt is not going to get anybody anywhere; holding rational objective values will.

 

This is an aside, but allow me to also point out something which I think is negative.

 

Over time, and through many discussions I came to understand how the story could be interpreted as an act of betrayal from the POV of those who identified with all the Eddie Willers of the world who were left behind.  I've even heard it described as Mad Max without a happy ending :unsure:

 

Man's Identity depends on the values he holds. And man can change over time depending on the values he adopts. Eddie Willers was not the best of characters in TAS. So to the people who identified themselves as the Eddies Willers of world, I would suggest not to limit yourself and to hold better values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiral Architect,

 I'm not so sure I can accept your reasoning on this. Religion is not performing very well as an institution of Certainty and Principle in modern times. It would be easy enough to point at the changes happening in the majority world religions, Christianity and Islam. Judaism, (while not a major religion, certainly a significant one), holds a high-profile in world affairs, but mostly as a factor in the complex of  conflicts in the Middle East. Perhaps for the average individual believer, religion helps to provide a form of therapy or family cohesion. But with Christianity and Islam in such a state of disarray, I would feel more embarrassed than proud to identify as a member of either of the two. Christians are confronted with schisms that are dividing denominations that have survived for hundreds of years, to say nothing of the scandals exposing the high-profile leaders as frauds. Islam, while being mostly represented by industrious people, are unfortunately associated with fanatics striving for a return to the medieval past. This is what happens when religion is taken to its extremes. The Koran is the holy scripture of Muslims, and in order to follow its tenets and live in the modern age, most Muslims must disregard selected passages that advise bloodshed. And Christians have to moderate their instructions to disregard worldly pleasures. As I've mentioned before, I'm perfectly happy to live with hypocrites, if the only alternative is to live with religious fanatics. (Incidentally, I don't believe this is the only alternative.)

 

So, Spiral Architect, I can't call any of this Certainty and Principled living. Admittedly, skepticism provides no comfort to those of uncertain and dysfunctional mentalities. I have met people who (English being their first language) have no idea what the word "ethics" means. For these people, I have no hope, other than that they do not reproduce very often. But that fact that they do, you can bet some religious adviser is waiting to lay the rap on them and their offspring. Talk about your bleak prospects!

 

I think your over thinking what I meant by it, which is understandable from how I presented it actually.  I was speaking in generalized forms of fundamentals.   Post modern thinking is the home of skeptical and subjective thinking.  Religion at least accepts that you can know something and that there are principles to be followed.  How well or consistent they do that is another story.  Trust me, I've made a career out of pointing out how badly they do it.  For the purposes of my post I'm saying at least they acknowledge it which is better than the alternative which dominates thinking today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DA,

 

Your post #113 is quite difficult to agree or argue with...

 

As I said, I don't expect it to be well received here.  I only suggest her choice of a heroic being has the effect of substituting a irrational belief in God with a rational version, but that version still retains divine roots and a positive link to the use of heroes to satisfy the need for them.  Objectivists don't need God, but apparently do need heroes, and that provides a reason, if not the reason, religion still exists and adapts to compete for something worthy to believe in.

 

Is Objectivism a religion?  Absolutely not.

 

Is atheism derived from Objectivism a viable alternative to religion?

No, because you cannot satisfy a faith in God with a belief that no God exists.

 

"If faith depends upon the measure of doubt left available to us when knowledge eludes us, then faith in God seems to me to be the far superior option to faith in no God." ~ Rabbi Jeret

 

 

Devil's Advocate,

 I will certainly accept you as a rational person, with or without your faith. I can accept the fact that there are rational people with whom I may disagree. On a matter of personal preference, in this case, your beliefs, there is nothing with which to disagree. It's your personal choice. However, I get an impression that you struggle with internal conflict, e.g. self-identifying as a heretic.

...

 

Thankee sai.

 

I believe in Nature's God (in that order) and identify with historical characters like Jesus and Luther who were considered heretics in their day too.

 

--

 

I would also like to share comments by Leonard Nimoy, aka Spock, that speak to the continuing use of religion to shape positive ideas:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153937029607316

 

As a fellow trekker, I mourn his loss.  The United Federation of Planets suffered a great loss yesterday.  His character in Star Trek played an important role in examining the human spirit from a most logical perspective.

 

--

 

And one final thought, when all other efforts to dismiss religion fail, you can still cling to the faith that Rapture will one day solve the problem for you :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Objectivism a religion?  Absolutely not.

 

Is atheism derived from Objectivism a viable alternative to religion?

No, because you cannot satisfy a faith in God with a belief that no God exists.

Cryptic.

Does a solid foundation grounded on objective reality require a belief in religion, apart from the acknowledgement that religions persist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A solid foundation grounded on objective reality does not get in the way of acknowledgement that religions persist, but neither does it respond to why religions persist.

 

Equally cryptic?

 

BTW, CNN will premier a program titled, Finding Jesus: Faith Fact Forgery, on Sunday evening at 9pm.  I'm going to try to catch it and may have a better answer to offer later on...

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A solid foundation grounded on objective reality does not get in the way of acknowledgement that religions persist, but neither does it respond to why religions persist.

When folks go to their local ministries for the diversity of reasons for which they do, how often are they subjected to the notion of how to check and crosscheck their premises? How often does the man behind the pulpit spend time chewing over the methodology required to check the validity of a premise, much less a concept, to identify how they relate to reality, how to crosscheck them with other known facts which have also been validated by the same rigorous process?

 

How many congregations are even aware that such notions exist out in the world about them or understand them well enough to implement and utilize the principles within and among themselves?

 

How many teachers, mentors, parents and other authoritarian positions are spreading this type of approach to life?

 

This is the approach necessary to answering questions which have not yet been answered, albeit, it does not grant instant gratification or even guarantee answers to all questions. The diversity of religions and philosophical approaches readily demonstrates what can arise in the absence of such methodology.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, religion persists.

 


I believe in Nature's God (in that order) and identify with historical characters like Jesus and Luther who were considered heretics in their day too.

 

 

 

If you're posturing as a heretic, against what set of standards do you wish to reform or oppose?

 

We could digress into a discussion of the history of Christianity and its influence of Western civilization, but to the point, there is little to oppose or reform in Christianity that hasn't already been done. If you wish to be a part of like-minded group of worshipers, I'm sure there's a church with exactly the right set of standards for you. Acknowledging the "godliness" of everything, as in the case of pantheism, or the existence of a Newtonian Clockwork god relieves anyone choosing such a belief of having to engage in any form of heresy. There is nothing rebellious about deism or pantheism. Nonetheless, believing in such theories does not make them so; it merely gives the believer a sense of "Certainty" (as I understand Spiral Architect to imply).

 

Is it necessary to hold such beliefs? No. It satisfies a psychological dependency of the believer. And I can certainly understand the social needs of an individual, but I have found that conforming one's opinion to the expectations of others is not going to end well. But you can be sure that it will end. If the interpretations of God's will are merely the interpretations of one's consciousness, then the ravings of any control-freak can become the "Word of God."

 

DA, while I trust that you are strong enough to make your own rational decisions, there are many more "believers" who are not, and they put their trust in the "All Mighty" and become social liabilities,i.e. reckless and irrational, possibly dangerous people. They see no reason to seek and discover reason, nor the morality in reality. And it is for this possible result of misshaped-minds (and the politics they reenforce) that I hope one day that religion is rendered insignificant, obsolete, and a subject for future generations to ponder as a ancient study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is atheism derived from Objectivism a viable alternative to religion?

No, because you cannot satisfy a faith in God with a belief that no God exists.

 

Speak for yourself. Your answer is not an absolute with every person alive. You think like that; you value supernaturalism, therefore you say "No!". I and probably many others in this forum will argue otherwise; that whatever satisfaction you receive from faith in God, can be replaced (not by the belief that no God exists but) by far better values: Productive work, Human relationships, Romantic love, Art, etc. Values that are rational and more importantly real

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is atheism derived from Objectivism a viable alternative to religion?

No, because you cannot satisfy a faith in God with a belief that no God exists.

 

 

 

You cannot satisfy a fantasy with reason?

 

I agree.  If a person wants to believe in a Walt Disney Fantasy Land any kind of attempt to bring them back to earth will fail unless they look at reality.

 

 

And one final thought, when all other efforts to dismiss religion fail, you can still cling to the faith that Rapture will one day solve the problem for you :devil:

 

When all other attempts to dismiss a fantasy fail, I can cling a fantasy to solve the problem for me?

 

Here we disagree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...