Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

fundamentalist atheism?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

If you are defining Fundamentalism as strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles

Then I have no problem with that

That's how I took it as well - and if that's how its meant, I also thought I wouldn't object to the term. However - then I considered the term:

Fundamentalist Atheist...

...the antithesis would be Fundamentalist Christian

Thereby putting atheism on religious grounds, and thus irrational. The ardent belief that God Does Not Exist in a religious sense. Faith in the non existence, so to speak.

But rational atheism isn't religious. We don't *believe* God doesn't exist. We just don't believe God exists.

The former, emphasis on *believe*, is just like believing God exists - there's no reason for it.

The latter, however, is like not believing that 1 = 7. Mathematically, 1 = 7 makes no sense. Logically, its impossible. Likewise, Logically, the concept of God makes no rational sense. One cannot define "God" without creating some kind of contradiction, and since no contradictions exist in nature (at least that we can find), God, inherently contradictory, cannot exist.

So I don't think we should agree to put Objectivism in the religious sphere, because we're not *believing* - we're refusing to believe that for which there exists no logical support.

Edited by Greebo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that atheism is a religion is a tactic that the religious often use to bring atheism into the same category as their own beliefs, thereby (they think) showing that atheism has the same ultimate basis (faith) as their own beliefs.

The easiest way to debunk this overused argument is to point out that religion is a system of belief encompassing metaphysics, epistemology, and morals, and (according to some definitions) the supernatural. Atheism doesn't encompass any of these topics. It is a single belief...rather, it is the lack of a single belief--God.

Some people then point to people like Richard Dawkins and say "well, there is someone who treats atheism as a religion." My reply to that is...not really. If Dawkins treats anything like a religion, it is science and reason, because those things clearly define his comprehensive view of reality. He is extremely outspoken in his atheism, not because he is so passionate about the nonexistence of God, but because he thinks it is important to combat the people who are so passionate about the existence of God, to the point that it is destructive to society. Calling atheism a religion is like calling non-astrology or anti-psychicism a religion. And there are people, such as James Randi, who are every bit as outspoken against hucksters like Sylvia Brown and John Edward as Dawkins is outspoken against religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I wouldn't say "Objectivism = fundamentalist atheism" for a reason having nothing to do with the meaning or connotations of 'fundamentalist'. There's basically two ways to interpret that statement. It's either equating Objectivism with a form of atheism, or it's defining Objectivism as a form of atheism. The former is wrong because Objectivism is a philosophy containing many tenets that have nothing to do with the theism/atheism debate. The latter is wrong because atheism is not the defining characteristic of the philosophy. It's a derivative implication, not the central organizing principle that integrates the rest of the philosophy together.

Objectivists are atheists, and we take our atheism seriously, but the rejection of God isn't the motor driving the philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Fundamentalism refers to a Presbyterian controversy pf about 90 years ago, you can't call Objectivism fundamentalist anything. It is now used to refer to various religious movements, and in no sense is such a term applicable to Objectivism.

Right. This is what the dictionary has to say about the word:

1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs

2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>

While Objectivism entails accepting certain principles as absolute, atheism is not among the basic principles of Objectivism; as khaight said, it is a derivative implication. Also, even if it were somehow foundational, there would be no need to stress taking it literally, since no one has ever proposed taking atheism figuratively or metaphorically etc. It is also not something we adhere to, like a Muslim adheres to the words of the Koran, but rather simply a rejection of something we don't think is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Right. This is what the dictionary has to say about the word:

While Objectivism entails accepting certain principles as absolute, atheism is not among the basic principles of Objectivism; as khaight said, it is a derivative implication. Also, even if it were somehow foundational, there would be no need to stress taking it literally, since no one has ever proposed taking atheism figuratively or metaphorically etc. It is also not something we adhere to, like a Muslim adheres to the words of the Koran, but rather simply a rejection of something we don't think is true.

All depends on one's flexibility to accept a variety of definitions of the word religion.

Slippery slope.

Edited by watson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fundamentalist is exactly the term that religious people want you to use. This way they can refer to atheism and/or objectivism as just another religion.

Although I agree with you, Ralph, there are different shades of colour, like royal blue, navy blue, or fire engine red, or cherry red, it is important to realize that the words religion or fundamentalist have valid and true definitions that don't necessarily have to include god or mysticism. To throw out those definitions to satisfy one's own purpose may be perceived as self-serving. Blue may be blue, and red may be red, but there's no debating the shades of colour exist.

To hold Oism or any system close to yourself, one has to be able to be comfortable with how both yourself and the world sees it. Or not care one iota what the world thinks, and then just say "thanks", and move on, being comfortable with your own view of the world.

I can see how someone could refer to Oism as a religion, with fundamentalism atheism. I'm not saying it's accurate, I'm just seeing how others can see it. Additionally, keep in mind the origins of any argument - I believe that in order to critique or debate anything, one should always know more about their combatant than their advesary.

Just as there are people who call themselves Jewish, yet neither practice praying nor believe in god, it would be unfair to call them religious, but the majority of people would still label them as part of a religion.

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...