Reason vs. Faith, Question 4 of 8 - Ayn Rand Institute

http://www.aynrand.org

Dr. Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute discusses why Objectivism is fundamentally incompatible with mysticism.

See more at http://www.aynrand.org/reg_ls_index

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• reason
• faith
• mysticism
• science
• Onkar
• Ghate
• philosophy
• Ayn
• Rand
• atheism
• atheist
• Objectivist
• Objectivism
• God

[InFromTheVoid]

It's not that obejectivism is OUT to destroy religion...it's just that it is a consequence of thinking objectively lol

[jprational]

The churches (and non-affiliated "spiritualists") are constantly defending their turf by besmirching science and attempting to spin/twist scientific evidence (observations of the real world) to justify their fantastic beliefs in bizarre arbitrary stories about the "true" nature of the universe.

I think that the questioner fell in to that trap.

[epicn2l]

Objectivism does believe and recognize an omnipresent "God" they just call it Reality, The Universe or All that was, is and ever will be. Just as religion say that we are all part of "God", Objectivism can say we are all part of "Reality" or "The Universe". Religion says we should obey the laws of God, Objectivism says we should obey the laws of Reality. Objectivist should be more specific about God (The Universe) compared to God (Being in Heaven with angels).

[koss121]

the point of a philosophy isn't to get people to follow it, while it's on the agenda

[platinum014]

i don't understand why people are not getting this. the only world we see is reality and all the laws of reality thats it. theres nothing less nothing more. never has been. never will be. god was created from mans mind. without man there is no god to be thought of. without man. there is no religion written down. it was created by man and now it must be destroyed by man.

[Radeo]

@MrChirpsky

Ideas are a product of society? From whence came society and its structure?

You are package-dealing the notion of "society" with very premise you are arguing against.

Current "points of contact" exist only because secular ideas and laws of civilization act as a moderator, i.e., facilitating discussion by outlawing coercion.

[MrChirpsky]

One of the flaws in Objectivists' standard approach, not just to religion but to all schools of thought, is to treat society as a product of ideas rather than the other way around. For instance, Christianity today is at a vast remove (along a continuum) from what it was even a couple hundred years ago, and there are more points of contact between seemingly opposite schools of thought today and their own origins of hundreds or thousands of years past.

[WarVideo]

@hyobel

It doesn't deal with it.

For more details look up Leonard Peikoffs podcats #14, time 8:10.

[Torrriate]

@CipherMind117

Well to me such "weak" claims are irrelevant.

In regions of this gravity we should first agree on definitions, like what is logic or what does it mean to be objective in a certain sense.

And this brings me to your objection to my critique about the Ayn Rand

Institute's  member's statement - unless we agree on those definitions they will remain just statements to one party at least.

[CipherMind117]

It is the only logical assumption that can be made. The claim is still weak, but it is the most logical choice, because it doesn't require anything which we have never observed. Also, saying it isn't logic to "go for the realm of infinity" is rather arbitrary.

My first post was in response to you saying "And this is the realm of philosophy and not science. It's up for everybody to decide on his own." Objectivism is a philosophy so it is in its purview to say what is moral.