To be an O'ist, do you have to be an Atheist?

[CelticCapitalist]

Ok, I am new to objectivism having just recently finished Atlas Shrugged (so please be kind! ) but I was wondering, to be an Objectivist do you have to be an atheist? Can you believe in some sort of higher power and still be an objectivist?

I ask because my mother, who introduced me to Ayn Rand, is catholic and still considers herself an objectivist, yet Rand herself was an atheist along with most other objectivist.

[Scott_Connery]

Being an atheist is one of the core requirements for being an Objectivist. A non-atheist calling themselves an Objectivist is dishonest at best.

[MisterSwig]

[T]o be an Objectivist do you have to be an atheist? Can you believe in some sort of higher power and still be an objectivist?

Objectivists don't believe in the supernatural. If your theism includes a supernatural entity, then it is not compatible with Objectivist metaphysics.

Also, Objectivists reject faith. If you believe in a god based on faith, then your epistemology is not in line with Objectivism. And if you cling to the arbitrary in the face of irrefutable logic against your god's existence, then you reject reason as your only source of knowledge, which is also contrary to Objectivism.

Edited February 21, 2005 by MisterSwig

[The Trendy Cynic]

Belief in the Catholic God requires the acceptance of a number of logical incongruities; eventually, every good Catholic will tell you that logic doesn't always apply to the divine, that God isn't limited by logic like other things are. But logic is a necessary corollary of the basic axioms at the very heart of Objectivism, all of which are undeniable and without exception. Something that exists but is not limited by logic is a 'something' whose very possibility of existence is obliterated by its own internal contradictions.

[non-contradictor]

Being an atheist is one of the core requirements for being an Objectivist. A non-atheist calling themselves an Objectivist is dishonest at best.

I think its a bit unfair of you to accuse her of being dishonest for not accepting one of the "core requirements for being an Objectivist" without explaining why it is a requirement and asking whether the person in question understands why. For example, a person might read Atlas Shrugged and not understand the case against religion, but still consider themselves an "Objectivist." If such a person did not understand the case against religion, then they ceratinly would not be expected to accept it on faith. It is an issue of integration. I suppose the real question is: Does CelticCapitalist's mother understand Ayn Rand's case against religion? It is only if the answer is yes, that she could be considered dishonest. If the answer is no, and she is trying to understand it, then it is merely a question of integration. Even in this case however, I think the term "student of Objectivism" would be preferrable.

Now to the topic at hand. I would say that true Objectivists are atheists. However, one does not become a "true" Objectivist overnight. I would still consider myself a student of the philosophy. It takes a great deal of integration to become a "true" Objectivist. You have to understand the philosophy, and be able to apply it consistently. But Objectivism is wonderful in that you do not accept anything on faith, so you do not have to be an atheist to be a student of Objectivism. However, once you have integrated the philosophy and fully understand why Objectivists are atheists, then you can't use the failed integration excuse anymore. All in all, becoming an Objectivist is a process of learning, it will not come without some thinking. Replacing faith that God exists with faith that he doesn't isn't going to do anyone any good. On that note, here is a thread which discusses why the concept of God is arbitrary:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2907

[Cole]

It's important to remember what the (capitalized) term "Objectivist" means. It means: the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Calling yourself an "Objectivist" means that your own philosophy is the same as that which was created by Ayn Rand. Being that theism contradicts the nature of reality as she proved it to be, you cannot be both a theist and an Objectivist.

Which aspect of Objectivism does your mother disagree with, as would be necessary for her to hold a belief in God?

[Hugh Akston]

I was an atheist long before I read Ayn Rand

[AwakeAndFree]

Being an atheist is one of the core requirements for being an Objectivist. A non-atheist calling themselves an Objectivist is dishonest at best.

He could also be an ignoramus, which is arguably better than dishonest. But YES - Objectivism is an Atheistic philosophy.

You can say you agree with MOST of Objectivism, but you can't be an Objectivist and still believe in God.

[ex_banana-eater]

Eran

Can one really agree with 'most' of Objectivism if they believe in God? I say that because I've heard people say that they agree with most of Objectivism except for atheism--which means except for reason. Can someone logically support capitalism without reason, or practice the virtue of rationality while being a theist? I would think that being a theist collapses the rest of the 'philosophical structure' that creates Objectivism.

[scottkursk]

Ok, I am new to objectivism having just recently finished Atlas Shrugged (so please be kind! ) but I was wondering, to be an Objectivist do you have to be an atheist? Can you believe in some sort of higher power and still be an objectivist?

I ask because my mother, who introduced me to Ayn Rand, is catholic and still considers herself an objectivist, yet Rand herself was an atheist along with most other objectivist.

A fair question would be can you be a Catholic and not believe in God? Catholic jokes aside, it's pretty much at the basis of the belief system. The best thing you can do is keep reading Rand and keep an open mind to all the new ideas you'll be exposed to.

edit: for spelling

Edited February 22, 2005 by scottkursk

[Free Capitalist]

Celtic:

There actually two parts to your question:

Do you have to be an atheist to be a happy person?

Do you have to be an atheist to be a consistent student of Objectivism?

The answer to the first question is yes. In fact right now in America, it is the atheists who spread the nihilism and the cynicism throughout the culture. Atheism does not equal virtue by any stretch of the imagination.

As to your second question, yes you have to be an atheist to be part of the Objectivist movement, because the word "Objectivist" denotes a specific philosophy, part of which is the rejection of the supernatural in all of its forms.

But Objectivism does not have a monopoly on happiness (though it's your absolutely best and invaluable bet). So the moral of the post is: don't worry about atheism/theism. Worry about rational happiness and how to lead a successful and personally fulfilling life. Some of the most heroic people in history, such as the Founding Fathers, were not entirely atheistic, so theism in itself is not a terrible problem. Modern theism, however, is highly poisonous, so you'll probably find it very difficult to remain optimistic in the modern religious environment. Back in the Enlightenment and the Rennaissance, it'd be no problem.

Objectivism allows you to combine secular reality with hero-worship and morality usually reserved for the religious people. So in that sense, atheism is good, but only because Ayn Rand had solved its ancient problem of determinism. Only her philosophy successfully unites atheism and happiness; in a very real sense, atheism does not interfere with happiness only in Objectivism. Outside of the philosophy, don't expect to find happy atheists; chances are they'll be very bitter and highly cynical.

Edited February 22, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[TomL]

I would think that being a theist collapses the rest of the 'philosophical structure' that creates Objectivism.

Indeed it does. At the very core of Objectivism, the very basis upon which all Objectivist principles are derived is "existence exists", meaning it exists whether or not it is being perceived or created by a consciousness. To anyone believing in God, they do so only because they reject this principle; because they believe that consciousness creates existence, either directly through a supreme consciousness (God) or through the fact of perceiving it, i.e. that nothing is real unless it is being seen/felt/smelled/tasted/heard by a consciousness capable of being aware of it.

Since this one idea is at the basis of all Objectivist conclusions, it is impossible to claim that God also exists without first ignoring this axiom.

You cannot agree that the law of identity is true (that A is A) without first grasping that existence exists (and not because of consciousness). (See chapter 1 of OPAR for why). To claim that you agree that the law of identity is true and that there is also a God is a direct contradiction which can be accomplished only by compartmentalization; the evasion of one fact or the other when one focuses on the opposite.

For the above paragraph, you may insert any Objectivist axiom or premise in place of the law of identity (and its corresponding chapter in OPAR), and that is all of them.

To say this another way: assume that existence exists on its own and without regard to consciousness; what purpose could God then have in the universe? When you see that there is none, you see that the very idea of God is arbitrary, and must be disregarded without further consideration.

[JMeganSnow]

Celtic:

There actually two parts to your question:

Do you have to be an atheist to be a happy person?

Do you have to be an atheist to be a consistent student of Objectivism?

The answer to the first question is yes. In fact right now in America, it is the atheists who spread the nihilism and the cynicism throughout the culture. Atheism does not equal virtue by any stretch of the imagination.

What? You mean, you have to be an atheist to be happy, but most atheists are unhappy? Or did you mean to say "no"? The second part of your statement doesn't support your answer. It's TRUE, it just seems like a non sequitor.

As to your second question, yes you have to be an atheist to be part of the Objectivist movement, because the word "Objectivist" denotes a specific philosophy, part of which is the rejection of the supernatural in all of its forms.

But Objectivism does not have a monopoly on happiness (though it's your absolutely best and invaluable bet). So the moral of the post is: don't worry about atheism/theism. Worry about rational happiness and how to lead a successful and personally fulfilling life.

It would be more accurate to say that Objectivists don't have a monopoly on happiness. Objectivism was the first (and only) philosophy to define the purpose of reason and the role of rationality in procuring happiness. It is not the "best bet" for happiness, it is, in fact, the only fully integrated philosophical method for pursuing happiness, as well as any other values desirable to men on earth.

Pursuing happiness, i.e. one's rational self-interest, under any other philosophical system is fraught with contradictions and confusions. By any other means, happiness is an accident, a temporary abberation that occurs with no understanding of how it was acheived or how to duplicate it. Under Objectivism, happiness is the norm, the natural condition of man, and disaster, pain, and difficulty are the temporary abberations.

Objectivism allows you to combine secular reality with hero-worship and morality usually reserved for the religious people. So in that sense, atheism is good, but only because Ayn Rand had solved its ancient problem of determinism. Only her philosophy successfully unites atheism and happiness; in a very real sense, atheism does not interfere with happiness only in Objectivism. Outside of the philosophy, don't expect to find happy atheists; chances are they'll be very bitter and highly cynical.

Objectivism defines morality as that which supports man's life on this earth, which means it is the only way both to live AND to be happy. Other philosophical systems divorce morality and life, meaning that if you act morally (which is required for you to be happy!) you are operating on the goal and principle of DEATH.

*cough* Sorry, FC, I wasn't meaning to criticize your post, I just think you went off in left field a bit. Please don't take it as a personal criticism; it was not meant as such.

[Tom Robinson]

Objectivism was the first (and only) philosophy to define the purpose of reason and the role of rationality in procuring happiness. 

I believe Aristotle addressed both points in his Ethics.

[Free Capitalist]

What? You mean, you have to be an atheist to be happy, but most atheists are unhappy? Or did you mean to say "no"? The second part of your statement doesn't support your answer. It's TRUE, it just seems like a non sequitor.

Historically speaking, religious people have been the happier lot. Objectivism is the only philosophy, that I'm aware of, that finally divorces determinism from atheism; previous atheists in history have all inevitably accepted determinism and therefore skepticism, and therefore cynicism; that's why in history they've usually been found out to be pretty rotten individuals.

The whole point behind me saying that atheism in and of itself does not equal virtue is that some people, especially the younger ones, like to go around parading their atheism as a mark of an advanced mind not overtaken by superstition. What they don't show is the cynicism that rots their soul, but which I've always inevitably encountered when dealing with them. Religious people are usually less intellectually vigorous, and more plain and simple-minded, but they are also happier on a fundamental level, because they don't have to suffer from the baggage that atheism has picked up in its long history as an idea.

That's why all the outstanding men of heroic caliber, especially in the Enlightenment, treaded that very very fine line between the baggage of atheism and the superstition of Christianity; it is not an accident that they were not full blown atheists, nor something to lament and be upset about. In fact it makes a lot of sense, if the history of atheism, and atheists, is taken into consideration.

It would be more accurate to say that Objectivists don't have a monopoly on happiness. Objectivism was the first (and only) philosophy to define the purpose of reason and the role of rationality in procuring happiness.

Wow, you're making extremely sweeping generalizations there. I'd like to know what other philosophies you have studied.

It is not the "best bet" for happiness, it is, in fact, the only fully integrated philosophical method for pursuing happiness, as well as any other values desirable to men on earth.

Pursuing happiness, i.e. one's rational self-interest, under any other philosophical system is fraught with contradictions and confusions.  By any other means, happiness is an accident, a temporary abberation that occurs with no understanding of how it was acheived or how to duplicate it.

Well, with all due respect JMegan, that's just plain ignorance. If I were to take what you said here seriously, I'd have to accept the notion that everyone, in the entire five thousand year history of human civilization, has been a miserable neurotic with few short glimpses of happiness scattered throughout their hopeless lives, from 4000BC until 1957 AD when Atlas Shrugged was published.

Aristotle and Cicero especially, but many other men too, would have a field day with you. Aristotle especially would be offended at your notion that Ayn Rand was the first one to link rationality to happiness. In fact she gave that honor (and many others) to him herself.

So again I ask, what other books have you read, and other philosophies have you studied, to back up anything you've said here? I'm being kinda harsh in return, but it's likewise not meant to be personal at all.

Edited February 22, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[JMeganSnow]

I had a response all typed up, but the internet ate it. I'll do another one later.

[CelticCapitalist]

I just wanted to say a quick thank you to all who replyed. I feel like I understand the issue better now then I did when I first posted! Thanks again!

[Cole]

Which aspect of Objectivism does your mother disagree with, as would be necessary for her to hold a belief in God?

[JMeganSnow]

Ooooookay, ready to tackle this one. *cracks knuckles*

Historically speaking, religious people have been the happier lot.

They have? Happier than whom? In what respect? I wasn't arguing that atheists are happy, I was arguing with your statement that you have to be an atheist TO be happy, after which you announced that most atheists are also unhappy. This would indicate that no one is happy, except maybe a small number of atheists.

Wow, you're making extremely sweeping generalizations there. I'd like to know what other philosophies you have studied.

Well, with all due respect JMegan, that's just plain ignorance. If I were to take what you said here seriously, I'd have to accept the notion that everyone, in the entire five thousand year history of human civilization, has been a miserable neurotic with few short glimpses of happiness scattered throughout their hopeless lives, from 4000BC until 1957 AD when Atlas Shrugged was published.

Aristotle and Cicero especially, but many other men too, would have a field day with you. Aristotle especially would be offended at your notion that Ayn Rand was the first one to link rationality to happiness. In fact she gave that honor (and many others) to him herself.

So again I ask, what other books have you read, and other philosophies have you studied, to back up anything you've said here? I'm being kinda harsh in return, but it's likewise not meant to be personal at all.

First off, the determinor of whether or not I know what I'm talking about is not how many books I've read, it's whether my words conform to the facts of reality.

4000 + 1957 does not equal 5000, either. That's just being obnoxious, but it's true.

I would have been more correct to say that Objectivism was the first philosophy to fully codify and defend the morality of happiness on earth. I discount earlier attempts, including those by Aristotle, much in the manner I would dismiss a bridge that failed to stand up.

It is not ignorant to state that, prior to Ayn Rand's creation of Objectivism, there was no proper codification and defense of an entire philosophical system based, without contradiction, on reason. Ayn Rand DID claim that title (or Dr. Peikoff claimed it for her, I don't know.)

I did not claim that everyone has been unhappy, merely that they didn't know the full basis of happiness and why it was moral, so that happiness was an accident. To the extent that they acted on the priciples held by Objectivism, they accomplished success and happiness (in general) . . . to the extent that they operated on the principles of Objectivism's opponents, they accomplished only misery and pain.

[acapier]

I did not claim that everyone has been unhappy, merely that they didn't know the full basis of happiness and why it was moral, so that happiness was an accident.

Or that it wasn't really "happiness" that they were experiencing (i.e. action taken on arbitrary whim translated as "This makes me happy").

[Free Capitalist]

JMegan, have you read anything by Aristotle? If not, as I suspect, then by what right do you say his bridge didn't hold up? You're alone on this, even Ayn Rand acknowledged most of her achievement as standing on Aristotle's shoulders. But even if we don't take into account her own admissions about the subject, you cannot go waving around her conclusions and claim them as your own. Whatever her conclusions were, she verified them so she has the right to speak of them with assertiveness. What have you done to verify your conclusions?

You draw the distinction between reading many books and drawing facts from reality - ignoring the enormously ominous deductive and dogmatic implications of that statement - in this discussion the books are the facts of reality. So what you're saying is that, while you admit you have examined facts pertaining to other issues, you did not examine the facts of reality pertaining to the discussion. Therefore, what you're saying is that you don't really know what you're talking about.

That's just being obnoxious, but it's true.

Edited February 23, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[Cole]

Free Capitalist, I think this is the statement in question here:

Do you have to be an atheist to be a happy person?

...

The answer to the first question is yes. In fact right now in America, it is the atheists who spread the nihilism and the cynicism throughout the culture. Atheism does not equal virtue by any stretch of the imagination.

followed by:

Historically speaking, religious people have been the happier lot.

When I first read this, I assumed that you made a typo and that you intended to type "The answer to the first question is no." However, when JMeganSnow pointed this contradiction out, you didn't simply say that it was a typo. Instead, you seemed to try to justify the statement as it is written.

So- why did you say that it is necessary to be an atheist in order to be a happy person, and then go on to say that religious people are not only happy, but that they are the "happier lot"?

Edited February 23, 2005 by Cole

[JMeganSnow]

JMegan, have you read anything by Aristotle? If not, as I suspect, then by what right do you say his bridge didn't hold up? You're alone on this, even Ayn Rand acknowledged most of her achievement as standing on Aristotle's shoulders.

IIRC Ayn Rand's major contribution was her creation of the Objectivist epistemology, which finally solved the huge, gaping contradictions in previous epistemologies.

The Objectivist metaphysics is almost entirely derivative (is, I believe, essentially identical to Aristotle's). However, that crucial flaw in epistemology has been IIRC, the point of attack for pretty much anyone seeking to deny Aristotolean thought.

If you thought Aristotle was absolutely, 100% correct in all respects, you'd be an Aristotlean (is that even a word?) and not an Objectivist. Likewise for any other philosophy. By what other means do you judge a philosophy? I can see judging an author as good if you agree with SOME of his ideas, or a politician as good if you agree with MOST of his policies, but I can't see calling a philosophical system good unless you agree with ALL of it.

Do you agree with EVERYTHING Aristotle wrote? Cicero? Aquinas? Then how do you judge their philosophy to "stand up"?

Oh, and that bridge analogy was awful, btw. I hate analogies, I shouldn't use them.

[Free Capitalist]

Ok sorry, big big typo, thanks for pointing it out to me!

To rephrase my rhetorical question:

Do you have to be an atheist to be happy? The answer for most of history has been: no. Today, people who are explicitly and avowedly religious are a long long way from the religious men of the Enlightenment (Founding Fathers, etc). So, as I said in a previous post in this thread, being religious in the modern environment will grant you all the benefits that the Founding Fathers derived from it, but will also burden you with the fundamentalism and the irrationalism that modern Christians engage in. Unfortunately there are no Deists any longer, and very few Unitarians. But on the other hand, opposite of empowering but highly dangerous superstition of religion, stands the intellectual and this-worldly but cynical and depressing atheism of determinism. Such has always been the dilemma.

Today, excluding Objectivism, the atheists are more interesting people to talk to, because they're usually more intellectually inclined, but the religious people are a lot less cynical and nihilistic lot, even if usually simple-minded.

Fortunately, as I said before, today you don't have to struggle in deciding which of the two will cause you less damage, because there's Objectivism which combines the positive aspects of both religion and atheism - the objective morality and hero-worship with this-worldliness and the rational mind.

---

Now about the discussion of Objectivism vs other philosophies.

I am still studying Aristotle's philosophy, and am currently focusing on the Nicomachean Ethics an Politics. These books are considerably different from Objectivism in their approach to ethical and political questions, not in the sense that they contradict AR's ideas, but that they approach them from wholly different angles that she did. Still, clearing all confusions and superficial differences away, the two philosophies at least in this respect seem entirely compatible.

So, as it stands now, I consider myself an adherent of both the Objectivist Ethics and the Aristotelian Ethics, at the same time.

The reason we are talking about this is that JMegan claims that until publication of Atlas Shrugged in 1957, the world has been wallowing in misery and neurotic depression for five thousand years of human civilization, and any contributions ancient philosophers like Aristotle and the Stoics made to ethics, and any rational happiness they managed to produce, were merely accidents and nothing that one could reliably reproduce.

This is a statement of enormous ignorance, because it shows complete lack of knowledge both the history and the lives of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and the ideas they adhered to.

Newsflash: the world before AR was not, at first, a mindless Stone Age of brutish men speaking like monkeys and fighting each other with stone clubs, superceded by the malevolent Middle Ages of hideous anti-life philosophy and stifling of everything human. History also records an existence of an ancient civilization which thrived for a THOUSAND years, filled with happy, self-confident, optimistic, heroic men and women whose hearts and minds were filled with moral concerns, hero-worship, and rational living.

Far from being an accidental and primitive state of mind, this view of life was so powerful and so life-giving that it was adopted wholesale by the Europeans in the Middle Ages, eventually resulting in the Rennaissance, and another 500 years of this same kind of noble and admirable existence. And then at the very end, only at the twilight of the West when the old flames were only fading glimmers, there came Ayn Rand and fixed whatever required fixing in order to preserve the fire.

Ayn Rand was not an originator of this sense of life, and she herself often confessed that her original motive fuel was the last remnant of the Western heroic ideal from the 19th and early 20 century, which was inherited from the Enlightenment, which emerged from the Rennaissance, which was sparked exclusively and without exception by the millenium of ancient civilization that by then had become just a memory. In fact Ayn Rand many times said that her primary intention in life was to be a transmission belt of this sense of life to the future generations.

Now, in the face of this historical context which was so sorely missing from this discussion, are you going to tell me that Aristotle was not really ever happy, and if so then only by accident; that George Washington was not really ever happy, and if so then only by accident, and that Ayn Rand invented the notion of reason, and of happiness, out of the blue?

Geez.

[acapier]

In fact Ayn Rand many times said that her primary intention in life was to be a transmission belt of this sense of life to the future generations.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but her primary intention in life was to be a fiction writer; she didn't really care too much for "future generations" as she didn't really care much for "past generations". She was primarily concerned with her own life for her own purposes in reference to the time of her own existence, and anyone who would benefit from that existence was only an afterthought.

Also, how exactly can you be "adherent" to the ethics of two different philosophies?