Objectivist Fundamentalism,

[Neil Parille]

As I understand it, the term "fundamentalism," at least in its more recent usage, comes from a series of publications around 100 years ago that stressed the "fundamentals" of Christian faith such as the Virgin Birth, the inspiration of scripture, etc. One of the contribitors was the theologian Benjiman Warfield who was, or so I've read, a theistic evolutionist.

The media started applying fundamentalist years ago to anyone it didn't like, perhaps to make a guilt by association with mine run conservative protestants. I don't think the term is helpful any more.

I'd just say that orthodox Objectivism is something of a religion --

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-orthodox-objectivism-religion.html

-Neil Parille

Edited May 5, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neil,

I do think the term fundamentalist is useful for a certain kind of ortho-Objectivist. And I don't think it has anything to do with Christianity.

People seem to understand it. I have yet to meet a person who does not understand it in terms of the following: Dogmatic. Hermetic. Scapegoating dissenters. Deifying the high prophets. Treating fictional stories and lore as if they were reality, or better than reality. Ignoring the parts of reality that do not fit the dogma. And so on.

I, for one, will continue to use this term.

Fundies has a nice ring to it, too. And maybe a nice sting...

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> [in] a Peikoff podcast...how much he enjoyed attending Catholic confirmation services...like marriage ceremonies, it is a rite that can have a secular base. One of the most excruciating experiences I endured as a teenager was catechesis...strictly supervised instruction in..the Bible consisting of mind-numbing rote memorization [Dennis]

Dennis, I suspect by his comparison with the idea of a marriage ceremony that he was referring to the solemnity, the seriousness of the 'ceremonial'. I can well understand how to someone scarred by Catholicism or perhaps other strongly religious indoctrination, any exposure might be off-putting and inappropriate.

It would be distasteful to attend.

But there is no suggestion in what you mentioned (or other times when Bidinotto or Peikoff talk about the dignity of solemn ceremonies - think of Memorial Day or the Fourth of July for secular versions) that he was advocating rote memorization or religion itself.

Or strict supervision of every minute step one takes.

Don't make the mistake of putting your former Catholic feet in his shoes. Don't make the frequent mistake of going from valid, selective criticism of a thinker to trying to pounce on his every idea (or mannerism?) or rip them out of their intent and context.

Some TASians always do that with Leonard Peikoff.

Just as some ARIans always do it with David Kelley.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

What I find disturbing is that the puritanical form of Christianity has taken on secular garb, as we see in various PC movements where the mere use of certain words is condemned as a kind of blasphemy. It's this puritanical strain, in whatever form it manifests itself, that constitutes the biggest threat to a free society. There are other forms of Christianity that are more hospitable to libertarian values, and I have no real problem with those, despite my philosophical objections.

George,

Would you include apocalyptic environmentalism as a secular outgrowth of one of the more pernicious strains of Christian belief?

Robert Campbell

It might be an exaggeration to call it an "outgrowth," since it tends to be more pagan than Christian, but it is certainly a manifestation of the same puritanical mentality.

I am reminded of Mencken's definition of puritanism as the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might be happy. I am also reminded of the historian T.B. Macaulay's observation that 17th century English puritans condemned bear-baiting not because of the pain it inflicted on the bear but because of the pleasure it gave to the spectators.

Ghs

[Dennis Hardin]

> [in] a Peikoff podcast...how much he enjoyed attending Catholic confirmation services...like marriage ceremonies, it is a rite that can have a secular base. One of the most excruciating experiences I endured as a teenager was catechesis...strictly supervised instruction in..the Bible consisting of mind-numbing rote memorization [Dennis]

Dennis, I suspect by his comparison with the idea of a marriage ceremony that he was referring to the solemnity, the seriousness of the 'ceremonial'. I can well understand how to someone scarred by Catholicism or perhaps other strongly religious indoctrination, any exposure might be off-putting and inappropriate.

It would be distasteful to attend.

But there is no suggestion in what you mentioned (or other times when Bidinotto or Peikoff talk about the dignity of solemn ceremonies - think of Memorial Day or the Fourth of July for secular versions) that he was advocating rote memorization or religion itself.

Or strict supervision of every minute step one takes.

Don't make the mistake of putting your former Catholic feet in his shoes. Don't make the frequent mistake of going from valid, selective criticism of a thinker to trying to pounce on his every idea (or mannerism?) or rip them out of their intent and context.

Some TASians always do that with Leonard Peikoff.

Just as some ARIans always do it with David Kelley.

Why is it that every time I can remember upon reading any of your responses to a post I made, I always feel like taking a shower?

[Philip Coates]

Sounds like a personal problem. Too often the response to very harsh and direct criticism is rage at the critic. The "how dare you!!" response.

Excessive bathing is a new form of reaction to me, though

[Neil Parille]

George,

I think a fair amount of reseach has shown that the Puritans were not the kill joys they have been alleged to be.

-Neil Parille

[George H. Smith]

George,

I think a fair amount of research has shown that the Puritans were not the kill joys they have been alleged to be.

-Neil Parille

Such as?

Strictly speaking, the "Puritans" were those Calvinists who wished to remain within the Church of England while purifying it of what they saw as its Catholic remnants, especially in matters of ritual. In this respect, 16th and 17th Century English Puritans differed from Independents, who wished to break from the Anglican Church altogether and form their own voluntary congregations.

The term "puritan" has since taken on a broader meaning, viz: "One who lives in accordance with Protestant precepts, especially one who regards pleasure or luxury as sinful." (American Heritage.)This is what I had in mind when speaking of a puritanical attitude.

As for the original meaning, I've read a lot of Puritan theological works over the years and, with rare exceptions, I have found them extremely distasteful. The Calvinist stress on original sin permeates everything and gets very tiresome; they are replete with condemnations of the theater and many other forms of recreation. Generally speaking, pleasurable activities were endorsed by Puritans only to the extent that they glorified God in some manner.

Although Calvin's Geneva was not "Puritan" in the strict historical sense, it's rigorous enforcement of a moral code, resulting in a mini-police state, is typical of early Calvinism in its various forms.

Ghs

[Chris Grieb]

Ghs: I am very happy I don't live in a Purtain country. Iran or Taliban Afghanistan doesn't sound like a lot of laughs either.

[Neil Parille]

George,

I believe I once read a review of this issue by Perry Miller on the New England Puritans. It was a while ago, so I could be wrong.

I find the doctrine of original sin comforting. Why expect more of people than they can deliver?

But I'm just a humanity-diminisher.

-Neil

[9thdoctor]

Why is it that every time I can remember upon reading any of your responses to a post I made, I always feel like taking a shower?

Sounds like a personal problem.

Now hang on, are you sure he didn’t mean it as a compliment? A thank you? It could be read as an inversion of The Emperor’s New Clothes, and you’re the honest child pointing out that his prose is soiled and he needs to wash up.

I think if you’d omitted the following from your original post, your points would have been made, without injecting the eau de schoolmarm into the proceedings:

Don't make the mistake of putting your former Catholic feet in his shoes. Don't make the frequent mistake of going from valid, selective criticism of a thinker to trying to pounce on his every idea (or mannerism?) or rip them out of their intent and context.

Some TASians always do that with Leonard Peikoff.

Just as some ARIans always do it with David Kelley.

Writing critiques are a two way street.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I find the doctrine of original sin comforting. Why expect more of people than they can deliver?

Neil,

Original Sin?

Good Lord!

Blind obedience, a talking snake and pointless killing?

The Doctrine of Original Sin Paraphrased from Several Different Christian Versions

In the beginning, after God had created the Angels with rational awareness, He was not satisfied because some of the Angels rebelled. He wanted blind obedience and it didn't happen with that go around.

Enter Attempt No. 2: Humans.

This time He created more physical beings and put them into a place so cool (the Garden of Eden) that only a fool would step outside the mental realm of blind obedience. But to make sure that it was really blind obedience He was getting, He also included the forbidden Tree of Knowledge (rational awareness). And wouldn't you know it, a talking snake appeared (an Angel at that) and the fools no longer blindly obeyed Him? They ate the damn fruit.

Thus the Original Sin came to pass: disobedience.

Well, Adam and Eve got their rational faculty and knowledge of good and evil, although how this played out was somewhat weird. Apparently, to rationally aware minds, being naked is evil while it is OK to be bare-assed for blindly obedient, non-rational folks--and animals, of course. Adam and Eve, suddenly rational and ashamed, covered their evil--i.e., put some clothes on--and this was how they got caught.

Out on their no longer bare butts they went. They got death along with it for good measure. And painful birth for women since Eve was the one who did the evil deed first.

But that wasn't enough. God was royally ticked off. He condemned the descendants of Adam and Eve for sinning as if they had done what Adam and Eve had done. After all, they had that galling rational awareness, didn't they? Later, some of the more savage offspring would try to be like God and condemn children for the acts of their parents. They would even wipe out entire bloodlines to ensure those darned guilty babies were properly punished.

But God is merciful and He didn't do that. He only demanded constant apologies from all babies until the end of time.

And to make sure the Guilty Ones were sincere, He demanded that humans kill animals when they apologized to Him for the outrage Adam and Eve committed. The sight of humans slaughtering His own animal creations--usually by slitting their throats and hanging them upside down--didn't make any sense, but it somehow pleased Him. By the very fact that it didn't make any sense to apologize that way, it was a form of blind obedience.

Time passed. The bleating of animals in desperate agony lost its excitement after a bunch of centuries and The Flood didn't do any good. So God came up with another idea. He decided to give humans a creation of His that was really, really, really worth wasting and stringing up. So worthwhile, in fact, that He threw in torture for good measure. He gave mankind His own Son to execute and had them take their jolly good time doing it.

The torment and death of God's own Son greatly pleased Him as due apology from humans for the abominable transgression of Adam and Eve. He was so pleased, in fact, He didn't need any more of those boring animal sacrifices.

But there was still that nagging Tree of Knowledge thing. The apology wasn't yet complete unless rational awareness was addressed. He could let the Guilty Ones off the hook from killing anything else to please Him, but He still wanted blind obedience. And He didn't want to keep pumping out Sons to sacrifice over and over.

So He just had folks think about the horrible suffering and murder of His beloved Son and claim that this was good--that this was the path to their own righteousness. If they would do that, if they would accept A as not A, the apology would be complete. If people would suspend their knowledge of good and evil--the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge--and accept raw evil as good just because someone said so in His name, what greater proof of blind obedience did He need?

It was perfect.

Thus the Original Sin became atoned for without God losing face and without any more slaughter of His creations.

People merely give up their minds and their apology is accepted--but they have to do it over and over just to make sure they mean it.

That's Original Sin.

What an inheritance!

And you find it comforting?

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; You really make "orginial sin" sound pretty stupid. Is that the idea?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

Was I inaccurate, despite the stylistic excess?

If not, then the idea speaks for itself.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Neil,

There's a lot more to Original Sin than the acknowledgment that human beings are morally imperfect.

As the New England Primer put it, under A:

In Adam's fall

We sinned all

And this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Michael and Robert,

I didn't say that I accepted everything associated with the doctrine. I think the "upshot" of the doctrine that there is something flawed with human nature is correct. A Darwinian approach leads to a similar conclusion as Freud taught.

-Neil Parille

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neil,

It depends on the standard, which is why I don't like oversimplified language.

For example, human beings are perfect as human beings--they cannot be otherwise. They are not anything but human beings...

A flawed human being according to that standard would be, say, part human being and part rock.

As to being born morally imperfect, human beings aren't born morally anything, if moral means exercising conceptual volition.

I'm not defending the morally perfect thing. I am criticizing the entire language used, including the insinuations. I hold that the "morally perfect versus morally imperfect" state of human beings is a non-issue. It's not even a false dichotomy since neither exist.

Only specific acts and choices can be morally perfect or morally imperfect, and even then, a standard needs to be stipulated to gauge the perfect or imperfect alignment.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

"Something flawed with human nature" sounds desirable from and to some. It's not human nature, but how humans use their nature.

--Brant

natch

[Dennis Hardin]

Why is it that every time I can remember upon reading any of your responses to a post I made, I always feel like taking a shower?

Sounds like a personal problem.

Now hang on, are you sure he didn’t mean it as a compliment? A thank you? It could be read as an inversion of The Emperor’s New Clothes, and you’re the honest child pointing out that his prose is soiled and he needs to wash up.

Yes, of course you’re right. What was I thinking? Condemning Peikoff for sanctioning a religious ritual that sanctifies membership in the church and subverts a young person’s mind by forcing him to swallow and retain the worst kind of mystical drivel at a time when he is struggling to understand the world. How petty of me!

How can I ever repay you and Phil for showing me how terribly unjust my criticism was?

The only thing more astonishing than Peikoff’s public approval of Catholic confirmation services is so-called Objectivists who think it’s no big deal.

[9thdoctor]

How can I ever repay you and Phil for showing me how terribly unjust my criticism was?

I was only teasing Phil, I didn’t comment on your Catholic confirmation views.

In spite of what he says, Phil likes being teased, especially by Jeff Riggenbach and George H. Smith. He’s also a Kantian, again in contradiction to his explicit statements. http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8595&view=findpost&p=98557

Also, you don’t need to worry about getting him really angry, here’s a clip depicting the last time that happenned (Phil’s the one in the bear suit):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6v2ydIkmII&feature=related

See? He’s all talk, couldn’t hurt a fly.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis H,

You might be interested in a principle I uncovered back in the 70's when I went to Brazil. I wanted to use this in a work of fiction back then, and now that I am learning to write for real, I just might still do it.

It goes something like this. Wherever there is a country with Catholicism at its main religion, notice that the level of political corruption is much higher than other similar countries, and it's economy is usually worse, especially in terms of bribery and the gap between the rich and the poor. This is particularly true of Latin American countries.

I boiled the reason for this down to the Catholic ritual of confession. If you get a person to accept a contradictory morality--one that they have to violate periodically by default because it violates human nature (like certain elements of Christianity)--you induce periodic guilt. Then if you devise an exclusive system where a person can cleanse himself/herself of that guilt, you have a strong motivating draw for repeat customers. Now, in order to keep the draw in place, you have to make the purging system easy to do and very cheap, something like saying X number of Ave Marias, or lighting X number of candles, etc.

However, here is the covert part. You also teach people a very valuable lesson for the benefit of politicians and ruling classes. You teach them that (1) morality is not practical, and (2) morality is also not something to take seriously. Anything you do wrong--knowing you were doing wrong when you did it--can be written off the books by some little ritual or other. So morality is like an itch to be scratched, but nothing more serious for living. In one respect, you automatically and effortlessly create a corrupt person with this system.

People in these countries usually say about politicians, "What can you do? All politicians are corrupt." They usually say it halfheartedly, or at times with a touch of envy in their eyes. I've seen this. The ones with envy dream about getting their hands on the bribe moneys or, at best, dream about getting a government job. Underneath, they approve of the corrupt politicians because they are the same.

In their favor, the common sense level of plain old decency is high in people in these countries. They are good people, but ones who have been taught a nasty little lesson about morality--not that immoral stuff is moral, but that morality itself is basically trivial. Obedience gets put into its place, but that's for another analysis involving other factors beyond the Confessional. I think that lesson ultimately needs to be exposed.

Anyway, just a thought from my past...

Michael

[Rich Engle]

MSK (Maestro):

Oh, my, where shall I start? I think your entree alone should suffice, simple as it is, and the best that followed:

Wherever there is a country with Catholicism at its main religion, notice that the level of political corruption is much higher than other similar countries, and it's economy is usually worse, especially in terms of bribery and the gap between the rich and the poor. This is particularly true of Latin American countries.

It is the nature of inception. How does infection occur? By the time you know it, it has infected.

And it is true--that is the convenient (brilliant) nature of Catholocism, at its core. Meaning, you can do whatever you wish, and get an EZ Pass for the following week.

Ah, if True Redemption were only so simple.

One of the most pregnantly-interesting aspects of the Catholic Church (were a man to make study of it, as, it seems, he must in order to defend) is their incessant habit of borrowing. It is like going down to New Orleans and using your credit card to purchase food that, in the end, is just a bunch of mud-bugs cooked in Good Sauce<tm>.

There are so many sexually sick things that the Catholic Church self-generated since its inception that I nearly cringe at such thought.

But nearly is a funny thing, in that you can say no to it. Still, I appreciate their cunning business style, and marketing techniques, though, like any decent roll-out, it starts smelling funny after a few years.

Still, though, I think that was a great innovation, as MSK said--to make a weekly pass-thru. Awesome.

It's just the whole thing that goes in the back story that is sickening. The hoarding. The young boys. And that's just lately.

rde

[Philip Coates]

Michael, that's a very interesting theory about corruption in Catholic countries [post #71]. I'll have to think about that one...

In this country, Louisiana is a very corrupt state. Other than that, it would be interesting to identify which are the most Catholic states and if the numbers are statistically significant enough to do a correlation.

[Brant Gaede]

Dennis H,

You might be interested in a principle I uncovered back in the 70's when I went to Brazil. I wanted to use this in a work of fiction back then, and now that I am learning to write for real, I just might still do it.

It goes something like this. Wherever there is a country with Catholicism at its main religion, notice that the level of political corruption is much higher than other similar countries, and it's economy is usually worse, especially in terms of bribery and the gap between the rich and the poor. This is particularly true of Latin American countries.

I boiled the reason for this down to the Catholic ritual of confession. If you get a person to accept a contradictory morality--one that they have to violate periodically by default because it violates human nature (like certain elements of Christianity)--you induce periodic guilt. Then if you devise an exclusive system where a person can cleanse himself/herself of that guilt, you have a strong motivating draw for repeat customers. Now, in order to keep the draw in place, you have to make the purging system easy to do and very cheap, something like saying X number of Ave Marias, or lighting X number of candles, etc.

Maybe. How about the country's proximity to the equator?

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

I don't think that applies to France, Italy, and Spain or most Catholic countries.