Objectivism as religion?

[Shinokamen]

I have found no where that Ayn Rand specifically advances or denounces any specific Religion, only the ideas behind most of the major world Religions. So my question is, could Objectivism be used as a Religion, teaching faith in oneself?

Perhaps I am confused as to the definition of Religion. "Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning a ... system of thought considered to be ... highest truth, and the moral codes... [and] values ... associated with such ... system of thought.

[aleph_0]

Issue could be made with your definition of "religion", but even running with it, Objectivism is a belief system and not a system of social coherence. While people may identify with it and so identify with others who share the beliefs, people may also cohere over a belief that marshmallow fluff is the tastiest confection man has ever produced and yet fluffionites who identify with each other's beliefs do not constitute a religion.

[BrassDragon]

I have found no where that Ayn Rand specifically advances or denounces any specific Religion, only the ideas behind most of the major world Religions. So my question is, could Objectivism be used as a Religion, teaching faith in oneself?

Perhaps I am confused as to the definition of Religion. "Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning a ... system of thought considered to be ... highest truth, and the moral codes... [and] values ... associated with such ... system of thought.

Any proper definition of religion includes the word "faith" - irrational, causeless belief - and it is faith that Rand denounces. Since all religion includes faith, she denounces all religion (and all religions) as well.

When people talk about "faith in oneself" or "faith in someone else" they're talking about confidence in oneself, or trust of someone - not faith in the conventional sense of irrational, "revealed" belief without proof.

There is no reason to call Objectivism a religion - it is a philosophy. There is some overlap between philosophy and religion - both makes claims about truth and morality - which is why your butchered definition of religion might seem applicable to Objectivism in some confused way.

[Bold Standard]

Issue could be made with your definition of "religion", but even running with it, Objectivism is a belief system and not a system of social coherence. While people may identify with it and so identify with others who share the beliefs, people may also cohere over a belief that marshmallow fluff is the tastiest confection man has ever produced and yet fluffionites who identify with each other's beliefs do not constitute a religion.

Mmmm, tasty communion.

So my question is, could Objectivism be used as a Religion, teaching faith in oneself?

The exact definition of faith is "belief in the absence of, or in contradiction to the evidence of the senses." So what Objectivism advocates is not faith in oneself, taken literally, but rather genuine self-esteem, which depends on reason and the evidence of a good reputation one has developed with oneself.

Ayn Rand uses the term "religion" to mean "the primitive form of philosophy" (she discusses this in the first chapter of The Romantic Manifesto, and in other places). That means an early attempt for man to explain existence, but always with elements of mysticism, faith, and arbitrary dogmas.

Any benefits that could be had from religion can be found in a more consistent and potent form in a rational philosophy. There are a few benefits to traditional religion.. Such as social interaction with like minded individuals. But there's no reason that can't be found in Objectivist clubs and organizations, and in fact, in my experience the quality of such groups is far superior to any church gatherings I've ever encountered.

[Edit: and even that is not an essential element of "religion" as such, but merely a cultural consequence of the longstanding dominance and popularity of religious beliefs.]

Edited November 16, 2006 by Bold Standard

[Shinokamen]

So I had more than one definition wrong. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

So would a true Objectivist not have any religion?

[DavidOdden]

So would a true Objectivist not have any religion?

Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand; an Objectivist is a person who accepts the philosophy of Ayn Rand; Ayn Rand philosophically rejected faith as a means of acquiring knowledge; all religions require faith as a means of acquiring (certain) knowledge; therefore Ayn Rand philosophically rejected religion; therefore all Objectivists reject religion; therefore all Objectivists have no religion. Therefore, anyone claiming to be an Objectivist but also having a religion is not in fact an Objectivist. However, TOC is accepting applications from any and all.

[aleph_0]

Mmmm, tasty communion.

If you think the fluffionites have good communion, you should join the peanut butterians when they make raids on the chocolatiers.

"You got peanut butter on my god!"

"You got chocolate on my god!"

*yummy religious war ensues*

[Inspector]

However, TOC is accepting applications from any and all.

Hahaha! Good one.

[Bold Standard]

So would a true Objectivist not have any religion?

Strictly speaking, that's right. But, Ayn Rand did sometimes use religious terminology figuratively to stand for things she believed in.

One example is from a very interesting and inspiring letter that she wrote to an actor named Colin Clive, in 1934. If you ever get a chance to look at Letters of Ayn Rand, I suggest you read the whole thing sometime, because it's one of my favorites and it seems like you'd be interested. But here's an excerpt:

You see, I am an atheist and I have only one religion: the sublime in human nature. There is nothing to approach the sanctity of the highest type of man possible and there is nothing that gives me the same reverent feeling, the feeling when one's spirit wants to kneel, bareheaded. Do not call it hero-worship, because it is more than that. It is a kind of strange and improbable white heat where admiration becomes religion, and religion becomes philosophy, and philosophy—the whole of one's life.

She uses similar language in certain places in The Fountainhead. Here is an interesting excerpt from the introduction that Ayn Rand wrote to the 25th Anniversary Edition of The Fountainhead in 1968 in which she elaborates on her approach:

[A] possibly misleading sentence is in Roark's speech: "From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man—the function of his reasoning mind."

This could be misinterpreted to mean an endorsement of religion or religious ideas. I remember hesitating over that sentence, when I wrote it, and deciding that Roark's and my atheism, as well as the overall spirit of the book, were so clearly established that no one would misunderstand it, particularly since I said that religious abstractions are the product of man's mind, not of supernatural revelation.

But an issue of this sort should not be left to implications. What I was referring to was not religion as such, but a special category of abstractions, the most exalted one, which, for centuries, had been the near-monopoly of religion: ethics—not the particular content of religious ethics, but the abstraction "ethics," the realm of values, man's code of good and evil, with the emotional connotations of height, uplift, nobility, reverence, grandeur, which pertain to the realm of man's values, but which religion has arrogated to itself.

The same meaning and considerations were intended and are applicable to another passage of the book, a brief dialogue between Roark and Hopton Stoddard, which may be misunderstood if taken out of context:

" 'You're a profoundly religious man, Mr. Roark—in your own way. I can see that in your buildings.'

" 'That's true,' said Roark."

In the context of that scene, however, the meaning is clear: it is Roark's profound dedication to values, to the highest and best, to the ideal, that Stoddard is referring to (see his explanation of the nature of the proposed temple). The erection of the Stoddard Temple and the subsequent trial state the issue explicitly.

She goes on to discuss religion, ethics, language, and her reasons for using words like "exaltation," "worship," "reverence," and "sacred" in a non-religious sense. It's a very interesting introduction that makes some important philosophical points, so I'd recommend that, too, for anyone interested in this topic.

[edited to change "metaphorically" to "figuratively" in the second sentence.]

Edited November 17, 2006 by Bold Standard

[Alon Tsin]

As people on this thread said, Objectivism is not faith as such by definition, since it encourages one to think for oneself and use logic and solid evidence as the basis for decisions. (In contrast to religion that encourages you to have faith and act on the basis of it).

There is a different problem in that context, and that is that some Objectivists treat Ayn rand as prophet - they quote her words without really understanding them , and live by them exactly as Jewish orthodox man would live by the word of Moses. That's the real problem.

To clarify - I think that Ayn Rand was illuminatingly right in a vast majority of the things she wrote about, however the correct way to really absorb her words is by critically and logically analyzing her words by yourself , rather than treating every sentence she ever uttered as God-given.

Alon

Edited November 17, 2006 by Alon Tsin

[Shinokamen]

My thanks to everyone for responses.

I had always used "faith" as a synonym for "trust." That, I think is the root of my problem.

Also, I can't think of where I saw it, but I seem to remember a definition of religion that read something like this: "Religion is how a man describes his relationship to the universe." If that definition were the accepted one, then could Objectivism be considered a religion?

[Inspector]

Also, I can't think of where I saw it, but I seem to remember a definition of religion that read something like this: "Religion is how a man describes his relationship to the universe." If that definition were the accepted one, then could Objectivism be considered a religion?

Well, yes, but if you define "murder" as "living a good, happy life," then you could consider Objectivism "murderous." But that ISN'T the definition of "muder," so Objectivism is most certainly not murderous. And thus, Objectivism most certainly can not be considered a religion.

[The Wrath]

That's a poor example, I think. Murder, while not having a unanimous definition, is much more easily defined than religion. I'm not saying I think Objectivism is a religion, because I don't think the proper definition of religion would apply to it. What I am saying is that "religion" is not a word that is easily defined and has been hotly contested for centuries. By some definitions, Objectivism would be a religion. By the one that I use, it is not.

[DavidOdden]

By some definitions, Objectivism would be a religion.

What definition are you referring to? I'm sort of looking for page numbers.

[BrassDragon]

Also, I can't think of where I saw it, but I seem to remember a definition of religion that read something like this: "Religion is how a man describes his relationship to the universe." If that definition were the accepted one, then could Objectivism be considered a religion?

Not exactly, because Objectivism is not technically a description of man's relationship to the universe. Rather, it is " ... in essence ... the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." (Rand, obviously) In other words, a description of man's nature qua man, or a conceptual definition of what it means to be human. Also known as a philosophy.

So, only if you defined religion as a description of man's nature qua man could you say that Objectivism is a religion.

Well, yes, but if you define "murder" as "living a good, happy life," then you could consider Objectivism "murderous." But that ISN'T the definition of "muder," so Objectivism is most certainly not murderous. And thus, Objectivism most certainly can not be considered a religion.

Not technically, because Objectivism is not defined as "living a good, happy life" or a prescription thereof. It is a framework from within which to pursue happiness. (I realize you were just giving an example and not getting into the technicalities, but I wanted to point this out while we're on the topic for anyone who doesn't know.)

[Bold Standard]

I had always used "faith" as a synonym for "trust." That, I think is the root of my problem.

I think this is largely an issue of context. There are some contexts in which it would be entirely appropriate to use "faith" as pretty much synonymous with "trust." For example, people often say, "I've got faith in you," to someone, when what they really mean is, "You've earned my trust," or something to that effect.

But faith in the religious context usually means trusting someone else's judgment above your own. The classic example is the story of Abraham choosing to sacrifice his son Isaac on the alter (Genesis 22). In this myth, all of Abraham's reason and desires tell him not to sacrifice his son, but he chooses to do so anyway, (as it is normally interpreted) because of his faith in the superiority of God's commands over his own mind. This is the sort of context in which religious people will often say, "I don't know it, but I have faith." Which is different from trust, because if you trust someone, it should be because you know that they are trustworthy, not because you simply choose to believe it.

Also, I can't think of where I saw it, but I seem to remember a definition of religion that read something like this: "Religion is how a man describes his relationship to the universe." If that definition were the accepted one, then could Objectivism be considered a religion?

Again, there could be contexts in which it would be appropriate to use the term "religion" in this sense. For example, someone might say of a great professional athlete, "Sports are his religion." This simply means that his fundamental orientation to life and the universe is centered around his passion for sports.

But in most contexts, "religion" is meant to be a particular type philosophical approach, which relies on mysticism, dogma, and faith. Defining it as "how a man describes his relationship to the universe" would be too broad, because then how would one distinguish religion from philosophy, or from "central purpose," (as in career) etc.

Not to mention, most religions denounce "This World," or "the material realm," so depending on how you define "the universe," (i.e., if you mean the physical universe) many religions might be seen to denounce any proper relationship between it and men altogether.

[Bold Standard]

Not exactly, because Objectivism is not technically a description of man's relationship to the universe.

Although that's not the totality of what Objectivism is, I would say it's fair to claim that Objectivism contains a description of man's relationship to the universe.. The "relationship" being found in epistemology (study of knowledge, which is gained from perceiving the universe) and ethics (codes of behavior, which is, in a certain sense, man's effects on the universe), and "the universe" and "man" being found in metaphysics (the study of the fundamental nature of the universe, "man" being part of the universe under consideration).

[Bold Standard]

There is a different problem in that context, and that is that some Objectivists treat Ayn rand as prophet - they quote her words without really understanding them , and live by them exactly as Jewish orthodox man would live by the word of Moses. [...] treating every sentence she ever uttered as God-given.

I disagree with your claim that there are Objectivists who do this. What you're describing is philosophical "rationalism," and since Objectivism explicitly rejects rationalism, someone who does this would not be an Objectivist, strictly speaking.