Why the Tolerance?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why the Tolerance and Support?

I have been asked off line over these last few months from several quarters why I not only tolerate some opinions on religion or even determinism, reductionism, etc., but why I actively defend people who hold ideas that are not Objectivist, or support "problematic" people at times.

All I could answer at the time, and what I answer now, is that I seek independent minds. If a person's honest independent thinking led him to where he is today, and that position is false, his own honest independent thinking will lead him out over time, especially if he is constantly exposed to good ideas and encouraged to do his own thinking in an environment where others do likewise. If his ideas are better, then the honest independent minds who read what he posts will change. This can only be win-win. But this can only happen in an environment where basic respect for each other is the norm. I have sought people based more on how they think, than on what they think, in their interest in Objectivism, and I have tried to base respect for others on this same approach.

I was delighted to find Ayn Rand state grounds for doing this quite eloquently, but indirectly, in talking about religious people in America. If her evaluation is taken seriously, she implied that it is more than worthwhile to engage first-hand minds, even religious ones (or determinist ones or reductionist ones), so long as they are individualists and first-hand minds. Of course, the quote is one from the beginning of the formal Objectivist movment and Rand drastically changed her opinion over time about how and with whom she wanted to spend her own time. But I don't ever recall her repudiating the conclusions she gave here.

The following quote is from Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, edited by Robert Mayhew, 2005, p. 63. It is from the Q&A of her lecture, "Political Vacuum of Our Age," presented to a group of women in journalism in Indiana in 1961.

Q: If religion is instrumental in spreading altruism, can we fight altruism in America without fighting religion?

AR: In America, religion is relatively nonmystical. Religious teachers here are predominantly good, healthy materialists. They follow common sense. They would not stand in our way. The majority of religious people in this country do not accept on faith the idea of jumping into a cannibal’s pot and giving away their last shirt to the backward people of the world. Many religious leaders preach this today, because of their own leftist politics; it’s not inherent in being religious. There are many historical and philosophical connections between altruism and religion, but the function of religion in this country is not altruism. You would not find too much opposition to Objectivism among religious Americans. There are rational religious people. In fact I was pleased and astonished to discover that some religious people support Objectivism. If you want to be a full Objectivist, you cannot reconcile that with religion; but that doesn’t mean religious people cannot be individualists and fight for freedom. They can, and this country is the best proof of it.

The people I seek to attract are individualists first and Objectivists second. This follows David Kelley's statement, "An Objectivist thinker must be a thinker first, an Objectivist second." (The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, p. 77.) I think we have a wonderful group of people who have shown up. All our main posters are individualists and people of honor, regardless of what else is in the mix.

I do hope we will eventually attract another brand of religious individualist - those who follow Islam, but who are, or become, interested in Objectivism. Like Christianity, Islam also needs to become "relatively nonmystical." Muslims need to realize that they too are and/or can be "predominantly good, healthy materialists." They need to "follow common sense." We need to learn how to talk to them - both with a minimum understanding of who they are and as individualists, not as enemies.

I have seen rejection and even paranoia on other sites about how to tolerate views that are not Objectivist ones. I have often heard the claim that they don't want bad ideas to undermine the philosophy. Well, I am an Objectivist. Others here on OL are Objectivists (although some call themselves that and others don't, even though they are in everything but name). I don't think anyone will mistake any of us for Christians, determinists or reductionists, etc., so I find this fear to be unfounded. On the contrary, I find respectful interaction of different views among first-hand minds to be attention-getting, educational and entertaining.

I am very proud to be a part of this little group of first-rate minds of goodwill that exists on OL. I know Kat is too.

I want to say, "Bless you all," but that would be too religious in this context. So let me just say, "May only good things happen to all of you and may you all realize your dreams."

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Why the Tolerance and Support?I have seen rejection and even paranoia on other sites about how to tolerate views that are not Objectivist ones. I have often heard the claim that they don't want bad ideas to undermine the philosophy.

I have seen this "Objectivism as hot-house orchid" attitude and behavior over the years, too. As I wrote a few years ago in my review of Chris Sciabarra's "Russian Radical" book:

t must be noted that certain Objectivists often voice another nagging concern (and, unfortunately, not always in a calm, civil manner), namely, that linking Rand and Objectivism in any way, even methodologically, with thinkers she so despised as Marx and Hegel, will ultimately cause serious harm to the Objectivist movement and philosophy. But as Rand herself was fond of saying about allegedly fragile situations, "A boat that cannot stand rocking, had better be rocked fast and hard." Surely this dictum applies no less to her own system of ideas. And aside from those with a vested interest in the pristine isolation of Objectivism from rigorous academic scrutiny, it is difficult to imagine who could find fault with Sciabarra's masterful efforts to garner more mainstream attention to (not to mention respect for) Rand's philosophy. The truth will out.

Why the Tolerance and Support?I am very proud to be a part of this little group of first-rate minds of goodwill that exists on OL. I know Kat is too. I want to say, "Bless you all," but that would be too religious in this context. So let me just say, "May only good things happen to all of you and may you all realize your dreams."

"Bless you" is simply a benediction -- may your life be filled with happiness and fulfillment, and may you be safe from harm -- and there is nothing wrong, or even particularly religious, with offering one to such a deserving group as this. :-)

Just after 9/11, I wrote the following piece, offering my understanding of the powerful, spiritual, and fundamentally non-religious meaning of the intense affinity at that point in time for the Irving Berlin song "God Bless America" and the sentiment that attached to it. Best to everyone, REB

==========================================================

God Bless America!--an Atheist's Perspective (9/27/01)

I don't think it's a "lose-lose" proposition to address the meaning of "God Bless America" from an atheist's standpoint. If you take the assignment on its own terms and don't turn it into a critique of religion, I think you can still accomplish a great deal.

Above all, though, I think what should be avoided is any kind of strained secularization of the term "bless," along the lines of "praise," as some have suggested. This is most emphatically not what is meant by the word in the phrase "God bless America." But what does it mean, if not "praise"?

First, it's obvious that word is meant to convey the sentiment contained in the song by Irving Berlin, so a good place to start is with the lyrics of that song -- and not just the lyrics of the chorus, but those in the verse that set it up:

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea, Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free, Let us all be grateful for a land so fair, As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.

God Bless America, land that I love. Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam, God bless America, My home sweet home."

Clearly, the song is not asking God to praise America, nor is the song itself even singing the praises of America, except incidentally. The essence of the song is a call to national unity (pledging allegiance to the land of America) and a request (prayer) to God that He watch over America and guide us "through the night" (i.e., the dark period of war that lies ahead). It's my observation and impression that this is exactly how people mean it when they sing the song publicly, and when the President closes his speeches with the phrase. My Webster's New World Dictionary (3rd College Edition) gives a number of meanings for "bless," but the only one that seems to exactly fit the present context is #8: "to keep or protect from harm, evil, etc.; obsolete, except in prayers, exclamations, etc."

Given this interpretation of "God bless America," the best thing an atheist can do is to remind Christians that having uttered a prayer for God to protect them does not absolve them of further effort on their own behalf. "The Lord helps him who helps himself." Applying it to the present context: if you want God to protect you from the evil Bin Laden terrorists, you must work together with your fellow Americans as effectively as you can. Which means using your mind and body in rational, purposeful action aimed at self-defense, which allows the Lord to do it through you, rather than passively sitting around, waiting for the Lord to do it for you.

At this point, a good atheist would point out that the secular version of this is: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." If you want to accomplish your goals, you have to acknowledge reality and what it requires of you, not idly wait for it to provide what you want. And if you, and your nation, are more consistent and more effective at doing what reality requires, not only militarily but also socially, economically, legally, etc., then you are doing what you must do in order to prevail against the evil forces in the world. The nature of the world, as it operates through your actions, will protect you from harm -- far better than if you block it from doing so by cowardice, sloth, etc.

It also wouldn't hurt to point out that "the light from above" is a metaphor for the illumination of what direction we should take in the coming conflict. Again, rather than passively waiting for the light to shine on us, we should exercise our own native abilities of wisdom, strength, and serenity to determine which way to go. If there were a God, that is what he would want us to do (helping us because we help ourselves). And if there is not a God, then there sure as heck isn't anyone else who's going to do it for us! In either case, we should engage in rational purposeful action aimed at self-defense.

So, how should an atheist interpret or respond to "God bless America"? Pretty much the same way that everyone else does, in essence: Let us "bless" America. Let us work together to protect America from harm or evil -- and fervently hope that our efforts are enough to do the job.

Now, there is nothing wrong with praising America, of course! Nor with praising whomever (and/or Whomever) you think is responsible for its being so praiseworthy.

But, again, "God Bless America" is not an expression of praise for America. Instead, it is roughly equivalent to "God Save the Queen [or King]". Or, "Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep." It's saying that what happens to America, or the Queen, or my soul is going to be (at least partly) out of my hands, and I hope for favorable divine intervention. Obviously, atheists don't count on any such thing! But for compactness, you can hardly beat it. If I were to fully express the sentiment in my terms, but to which theists could probably agree, I'd say something benedictive like:

May the cumulative effects of our adherence to proper moral and practical principles be sufficient to result in our country's being safe from (further) harm by those who would seek to hurt or destroy us, and let us continue to persevere along those lines, just to be on the safe side!

But I fear that most people, even if they would agree to the thought, would just say "huh" if they heard it expressed in that form. :-)

[Chris Grieb]

Roger & Michael; Thank you for both of these posts. I can remember being very touched when I watched the members of Congress singing God Bless America right after the attacks of 9-11. It was the more approiate respose to the event then the singing of Star Splanged Banner would have been.

[sujane]

I just want to say thanks for your thoughtful post Michael. I have often wondered how to address the issue of religion versus objectivism since many look at all objectivists as atheists and therefore if they hold any spiritual beliefs they could not possibly be an objectivist. I like the phrase "an objectivist thinker must be a thinker first and an objectivist second". I would have to say that at this point I am more of an agnostic - I'm willing to acknowledge that while the idea of "God" makes no logical sense (how does a "something" create "something" from "nothing" and how did the first "something" become "something"?), and I don't think there is a "Father" who watches over all of us, judging us, or that there is a heaven or hell (nonsense), I am also willing to wait until the end of my life to make the final decision on it. Actually, my leanings are more in the direction of Buddhism than anything else, but even on that I am a just a curious, investigative, independent thinker.

[Judith]

Beautifully said, Michael. YOU are a man of honor!

And Roger, "Objectivism as hot-house orchid" is a perfect metaphor for the attitude of so many. Truth is truth. There's no better way for the truth to come out than in open, fearless debate and discussion. Rand's writings will always be out there to show people the "original Objectivism" if anyone is concerned about later people "contaminating the philosophy", for heaven's sake.

Judith

[Barbara Branden]

Michael, a wonderful post -- especially: "I have sought people based more on how they think, than on what they think." The "how" one thinks is everything.

You wrote:"Of course, the quote [from Rand] is one from the beginning of the formal Objectivist movment and Rand drastically changed her opinion over time about how and with whom she wanted to spend her own time. But I don't ever recall her repudiating the conclusions she gave here. " She didn't repudiate them in so many words, but her attitude towawrd religion grew much harsher over time. In 1961, when she spoke those lines, she was acknowledging a religious attitude that was real, but there has since then been a greater trend toward the glorification of faith and altruism among many religious people in America. (I don't mean you, Rich, and I don't mean all religious people.) But this does not invalidate the important point of your post nor the fact that independent minds can be found among religious people.

Further, an "independent mind" is rarely, if ever, all of a piece. People to tend think independently in some areas and not in others, about some issues and not others, with great differences among them in the range and extent of areas and issues in which they are independent. We see the spectacle of a Thomas Aquinas who was profoundly religious but profoundly independent in other areas of his thinking. We see the spectacle of a Thomas Jefferson whose political thinking was a model of first-handedness, yet who kept slaves. We see a Bill Clinton who is profoundly damaged psycho-epistemologically, yet whom I must grant (painfully!) had the independence to grasp the importance of changing our welfare laws. We see men and woman with the intellectual independence required to reject their allegiance to religion, to altruism and collectivism and to embrace the unpopular philosophy of Objectivism, yet who succumb to group-think in the savagery and irrationality of their moral judgments. We need to seek out people of predominantly first-hand minds, and not shun them because they have, like ourselves, not yet learned to be totally consistent.

Chris, I, too, was deeply moved when the members of Congress sang "God Bless America" after 9/11. I sang along with them.

Roger, I like your post very much, and I agree with Judith that "Objectivism as hot-house orchid" is a perfect metaphor.

You wrote: "If you want to accomplish your goals, you have to acknowledge reality and what it requires of you, not idly wait for it to provide what you want. And if you, and your nation, are more consistent and more effective at doing what reality requires, not only militarily but also socially, economically, legally, etc., then you are doing what you must do in order to prevail against the evil forces in the world. The nature of the world, as it operates through your actions, will protect you from harm -- far better than if you block it from doing so by cowardice, sloth, etc."

If I may say this -- and by your judgment, I may: "Amen." This, by the way, is precisely what Rand meant by saying that the universe is "benevolent." She did not mean the sort of nonsense often attributed to her: that "virtue is always rewarded" or that some kind of force in the world is well-disposed toward man. She meant simply that A is A. That is, because the world operates according to knowable natural laws, then if we act according to those laws, we are following a path that can lead to the achievement of our purposes. If the universe were what she called "Hegelian," if A were not A and the universe were only constant flux and change, there would be no unchanging laws to discover and no way to fit our actions to reality; the universe would be "malevolent" and our goals unachievable.

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert Bidinotto just made good use of the Rand quote on a blog entry: Objectivism and religion.

He linked to this OL thread. I am very pleased when I see this side of Objectivism spreading.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the rest of the reply by Rand to that question for those who are interested (from the Q&A book, same place). I find it a bit off-key to read Rand quoting Christ benevolently, but there it is.

Of course, one should not forbid religion. Today’s culture is such that the moment you oppose something, people believe you want to forbid it by law. If we get that, we return to the dark ages. Leave people the right to be wrong in their own way. So long as they don’t force their ideas on you, you cannot forbid religion to anyone. Further, it’s not difficult to fight religion when you have a good philosophy.

In America, you would not find it difficult to divorce religion from altruism. After all, Christ said: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” So you must love yourself. After that, you can argue about your neighbors.

Michael

[seeker]

I am pleased to read about the openess of this forum and the reasoning behind the "tolerence" give to those who are not atheists. I have not joined nor have I been on any other Objectivists web sites but from what I have read here most other sites are not so open to religious or spiritual postings that stray very far from atheism or for what they have defined as the objectivist philosphy.

As I am very new to philosphy in general and to objectivism in particualar it is comforting to know that I can post questions that might challenge atheism in an effort to understand the entire philosphy, In my reading so far I find myself very much in accord with what I have understood and come to know about Objectivism. I had a very through and nurturing conservative evangelical Christian up bringing. I never felt coerced into believing what was taught. I never felt that Christians were living their lives out of fear of punishment for sin but out of love and respect for God. The Christians I have known all my life were never out to "force or coerce" their bliefs on others but also were never hesitant or ashamed to share thier beliefs with others who were interested. I have spent many years in studying the Bible and believe I have a through underestanding of it and its history. To me the Bible and its message is not nearly as difficult to understand as is philosphy. But both realms require much study to understand. I am therefore a seeker.

As I study and read more about Objectivism, I can see reasons for challenging religion and spirituality in general. Or that the very least examining Christian precepts more closely. And I am doing just that. I know and realize that this takes much time and can not be done in days, weeks, months or maybe even years. I think that some of the critisim of religion I have seen in readings realted ot Objectivism have been based on ignorance and/or missunderstanding -- often it seems things are taken out of context. While I have no desire to evangelize people here on this site nor do I desire to be evangelized (so to speak) by athiests, I do have the desire to engage in rational discourses regarding both atheism and religion in genreal and Christianity in specific by posting questions relating to these topics.

My question to you Michael, is can there be a Sub Forum established specificallty for the purpose of examining spirituality, religion, atheisim? Where questions and topics can be posted that allow for the free interchange of thought on this vital arena. I ask this because while I can accept that altruism and objectiveism are mutually exclusive, I am still struggling with questions like "What is wrong with having faith?" I do not yet fully understand why a belief in supreme being even thought there is no concete evidence of the existance of a supreme being is considered so condtradictory to Objectrivism" I am not sure I am explaining myself adequately but I do think that it would be helpful to post these sorts of things in a sub forum where thoughts and ideas can be analyzed, challenged and discussed in a rational manner.

Your thoughts on this would be most welcome.

\\Chuck

Edited October 11, 2006 by seeker

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chuck,

Thank you for that post. We already have such a forum, although it is not limited to spiritual matters. It is called "Chewing on Ideas." Feel free to post or open a thread or look at some of the other threads. (Please forgive some of the clutter there. There was an overly-enthusiastic poster who liked to open lots of threads at the same time and now there are a number of topics open without discussion. I may condense them.)

One thing you should be advised. Atheism is not a fundamental premise of Objectivism. It is derivative of the Objectivist theory of knowledge. All concepts in Objectivism boil down in the end to grasping reality through the senses. As God is not present in a form open to such knowledge, there is no way to propose His existence without contradicting this fundamental principle.

But there are those like Rich Engle here on the site. He in particular has had intense subjective experiences that converted him to accepting another form of knowledge (added to rational knowledge) after being a lifelong Objectivist. Without fully understanding or even accepting his affirmations, I do not doubt his sincerity for an instant. We can only learn from those of good will who are not afraid to discuss their issues with people who think differently.

Also, I did open a new forum called "Mideast." I intend to use it to understand Islam and Judaism further, in addition to the cultures and politics found in the Mideast. The purpose is to prepare for an intellectual effort against terrorism and fanaticism. I have no doubt that some issues about faith will cross over there.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; Doesn't atheism also come from the fact that only exisistence exists. You can go outside of exsistence. Outside of exsistence is nothing. The posting on this topic have been very good. Thanks again for Objectivist Living

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

Thank you for the well wishes.

Since the axiom "Existence exists" itself comes from the conceptual integrations we make (which all boil down to the senses at the root), I mentioned epistemology as the reason for concluding against the existence of God. Objectivist metaphysics does not even consider the matter. It merely starts with the three fundamental axioms (four including causality) and there is no room at all for the supernatural among them. It does not start by saying there is no God. It simply does not deal with the issue because it is not pertinent.

These axioms are primary or fundamental. So is the fact that our knowledge of reality is integrated from sensory input.

Denying the existence of God depends on all this. That is why the conclusion is called derivative or secondary.

So in this sense (on the fundamental level), it is wrong to call Objectivism a philosophy of atheism. The correct manner is to call it a philosophy of reason.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

OOPS! As I was reading the last few posts, I happened to see something in my own post that is hopelessly ambiguous. I wrote: "We need to seek out people of predominantly first-hand minds, and not shun them because they have, like ourselves, not yet learned to be totally consistent."

That could be taken as ridiculously boastful -- as if I meant that we wonderfully rational people on Objectivist Living are all totally consistent. That isn't what I meant. I meant that we shouldn't shun people who have not achieved total consistency --and that we haven't achieved it either.

Where was my editor when I needed her?

Barbara

[Chris Grieb]

Barbara and Michael; Thanks for your posts. Michael I get the point and I agree. Atheism is really a very smalll part of Objectivism and sometimes the larger epistomologal point is missed. Atheism is a big issue because a huge number of people profess to believe in God. Barbara thanks for recognizing that we are not all John Galts.

[Brant Gaede]

OOPS! As I was reading the last few posts, I happened to see something in my own post that is hopelessly ambiguous. I wrote: "We need to seek out people of predominantly first-hand minds, and not shun them because they have, like ourselves, not yet learned to be totally consistent."

That could be taken as ridiculously boastful -- as if I meant that we wonderfully rational people on Objectivist Living are all totally consistent. That isn't what I meant. I meant that we shouldn't shun people who have not achieved total consistency --and that we haven't achieved it either.

Where was my editor when I needed her?

This is a false issue. One is consistently consistent or consistently inconsistent or consistently consistent/inconsistent. Notice that in all three cases one is consistent! :logik:

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

OOPS! As I was reading the last few posts, I happened to see something in my own post that is hopelessly ambiguous. I wrote: "We need to seek out people of predominantly first-hand minds, and not shun them because they have, like ourselves, not yet learned to be totally consistent."

That could be taken as ridiculously boastful -- as if I meant that we wonderfully rational people on Objectivist Living are all totally consistent. That isn't what I meant. I meant that we shouldn't shun people who have not achieved total consistency --and that we haven't achieved it either.

Where was my editor when I needed her?

Barbara

Barbara -

I read your original post and assumed you were being sarcastic in the "like ourselves." As one might say, in another context, "Those who are not perfectly full of insight, like ourselves." With tongue planted firmly in cheek.

Alfonso

[Wolf DeVoon]

Atheism is really a very smalll part of Objectivism

All these good vibes have me backed into a corner, a very small one apparently. If anyone here says he/she can square revelation with reason, or de-contradict "life after death," or attempts to boot Galt's speech over the "body and blood" goalposts of Thomist transubstantiation -- well, then

Phooey. No offense. Nothing personal. Phooey in spades.

Wolf DeVoon

[studiodekadent]

Atheism is really a very smalll part of Objectivism

All these good vibes have me backed into a corner, a very small one apparently. If anyone here says he/she can square revelation with reason, or de-contradict "life after death," or attempts to boot Galt's speech over the "body and blood" goalposts of Thomist transubstantiation -- well, then

Phooey. No offense. Nothing personal. Phooey in spades.

Wolf DeVoon

Wolf,

I agree that one cannot be a fully consistent Objectivist whilst being a religionist. Ayn Rand said much the same thing in her quote. However, MSK and Rand are both discussing a real phenomena: people with mixed premises who are morally good (or at least not evil Tooheys). At least one Christian I know is a de facto Deist (i.e. he came to believe in the existence of a god from empirical-deist arguments, fallacious as they are to someone with philosophy training), and not all Christians are filled with bitterness and hate towards reality.

Its true, quite a lot of them are insane (particularly evangelicals). I know one Christian who is so utterly selfless it makes me sick. He is like the abstraction of selflessness made visible and it makes me want to vomit. However not all Christians are like him (thankfully). Not all Christians are consistent fundamentalists.

So as such I am happy to work through issues with individual Christians, trying to convice them to re-evaluate their beliefs, in a way that doesn't base itself on "you are a moral monster." They may be. They may not be. Its also more likely to work if you dont come accross as a persecuting Roman.

Of course, I still hate Christianity. But there is a difference between Christianity and Christians.