Old and New

[jack9f]

I have been a member here for some time, but not really active. Recently I started to check the message boards and found them interesting. In 1966 I read the Fountainhead and some of Ayn Rand’s other works and became an Objectivist. For 30 years I was an atheist and then I was touched by something the religious types would call “the hand of God”. Now I remain anti-dogma and still consider myself an Objectivist, but I believe in a higher being.

Since I was a member here, I was invited to join a discussion group in Lansing, MI and I have been attending meetings for about 6 months. Some of the people in this group have implied that I can not be an Objectivist and believe in God, but most have been open and willing to discuss other issues and accept my beliefs.

So I would like to ask this group: “Can an Objectivist believe in God?”

Secondly: “Does anyone know more details about Ayn Rand’s birthplace?”

I’m going to St. Petersburg in May and I would like to visit her birthplace. I'm already planning to visit the birthplace of Emanual Kant.

[Rich Engle]

I will offer to question 1.

If you look at Objectivism like joining a club, you can't be other than atheist. That's how I view it officially. ARI is the official body. But, it's not a government, so it can't enforce rules.

You can, however, be a person who has studied Rand's work and integrated it into your life. If others (Orthodox types, mainly) tell you you are a hypocrite, or irrational, or evading, or whatever, you can do certain things. You can engage in discussion with them, if they are civilized enough, many are. Or, if they are attacking you, invalidating you, you can ignore them.

Heck, consider the Roman Catholic Church. I know a ton of great Roman Catholics who consistently defy official policy, most of it involving how you have sex and for why.

If you're in an army, like the US Marine Corps, you have to do what they say to the letter, or you're in deep trouble. If you are affilliated with like-minded individuals who follow a philosopher, there are no repercussions.

At least that's my perspective, which you might find useful because I'm not (by Objectivist terms, anyway, which are confused ones) an atheist. Buddhists are atheists and they get dumped into the same hopper. A little work to be done there.

It's called being free.

Edited January 15, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Chris Grieb]

Ivan; I'll tackle the second question. I believe that you can find the address for Ayn Rand's birthplace. I wish I could give you a web site but I remember a few years ago ISIL had a meeting in St Petersburg and went to her birthplace. It sounds like you and I became interested at the same time. Did you take NBI courses? If so where? How did the Split affect you? I want to reread the first part of your post before I comment further on the higher power question.

[Reidy]

You could contact ARI (aynrand.org) for the address of her childhood home.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ivan (John),

I see nothing at all wrong with the following formulation:

"I am an Objectivist in everything except atheism."

All you are doing is identifying yourself with a body of thought and qualifying it. There are several purported "owners" and "keepers" of this body of thought, but what they really own and keep is pretty vague. They are anything but consistent about it. Look at all the schisms and bickering over the years.

One thing is clear, though. They do not own you. You own your own life, they do not. So you are free to identify with whomever and whatever you wish and proclaim it to all mankind. That is your right.

When I call myself an Objectivist, I am saying that I, Michael—the individual, follow this body of thought more than any other. I am very clear on doubts and differences I have, too. I am certainly not saying that I belong to some entity called "Objectivism." I do not belong to anything but me. My life is not negotiable, especially to guru-wannabes.

If anyone tries to block you from using the title of Objectivist (even in the case where that designation proves to be inaccurate), think about slaves and masters and what he might really want to own...

Atheism is not fundamental to Objectivism anyway. It is secondary and derives from the fundamental principle that knowledge is derived from abstracting the evidence of the senses. As no such evidence is available for the existence of God, the postulation of God is arbitrary, not factual. If one day God becomes available for verification by the senses, He would have to be recognized under Objectivism by adherence to this same principle.

The best that can be said in light of the huge volume of reports of intense mental experiences over mankind's history is that perception of the existence of God is a subjective matter for now. It should be kept subjective in human affairs, too, until it is understood enough by scientific investigation to become objective (if that ever happens). Separation of church and state is a perfect example of a proper implementation of this idea.

(Incidentally, I use capital "G" and "H" as a personal gesture of respect for the people who are believers, not to indicate this or that concept of God.)

Michael

[jack9f]

Thank you all for answering some of my questions. As I recall Ayn Rand said she was an atheist and then went on to explain how people should relate to each other. It all made sense to me at the time and I began to refer to myself as an atheist, but looking back, I don’t see any reason to give up on Objectivism after my experience with souls from outside this world. I freely admit that my thoughts about God are emotional, subjective, and cannot be proved in any reasonable way. When asked to prove the existence of God I simply reply that “I can no more prove there is a God than you can prove there is not a God, and I don’t suggest that you should believe.”

I saved the Nevsky Prospekt at Znamenskaya Square from the ARI site. I’ll try to find it when I’m there.

I’m not familiar with NBI.

“Buddhists are atheists”?

Not from what I’ve heard. I have a friend who is Buddhist and he tells me they are both. If fact he says there are 10,000 different types of Buddhists. Some beleive and some don't.

One thing I find attractive in the idea of God and politics (such as the USA) is the concept that all laws have a higher authority than man alone. It seems to me that Atheistic governments have no higher power and therefore what ever the top guy says is valid (I.e. Hitler & Stalin).

[jack9f]

Ivan (John),

I see nothing at all wrong with the following formulation:

"I am an Objectivist in everything except atheism."

Michael

Very good Michael. Not may people know about the Ivan/John connection. I picked up that handle from a book called Lenin's Tomb where it was explained that people on the lamb would use the name Ivan Ivanovich when ever they went somewhere, much like people here sign into a motel under John Smith or such. I truely am John son of John, so it works for me. You can call me Vanya, Vanka, or Vanechka, but ya doesn't have to call me Johnson.

Thanks also for validating my belief.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thanks also for validating my belief.

Ivan (John),

Not your belief. Your right to hold your belief and to own your own life.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Do you mind my asking where you were living when you got interested in Objectivism? I recognize that NBI was mainly in larger cities and was reaching more places. Did you hear about the Objectivist magazine?

[jack9f]

Thanks also for validating my belief.

Ivan (John),

Not your belief. Your right to hold your belief and to own your own life.

Michael

Yes, I sorry for my imprecision. Not my belief in God, but my belief that I can remain an Objectivist in spite of my spritual beliefs.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Not my belief in God, but my belief that I can remain an Objectivist in spite of my spritual beliefs.

Ivan,

That's part of what living Objectivism means (as in "Objectivist Living").

Michael

[jack9f]

Do you mind my asking where you were living when you got interested in Objectivism? I recognize that NBI was mainly in larger cities and was reaching more places. Did you hear about the Objectivist magazine?

I don't mind at all. I was living in the west suburbs of Detroit. I was raised in a family of inertial religion. That is to say that we were Baptists because my Granny was Baptist. Not the rolling in the aisles type, but American Baptist, which seemed to promote the idea of making up your own mind about things. I don’t recall how I got a hold of Ayn Rand, but I already had leanings toward the individualist bent, and her words made sense to me. Interestingly, Isabel Meyers, of MBTI fame, labels me from birth as a ENTJ who is living out my inheritance. I’ve tried to raise this subject with my group, without success.

[Chris Grieb]

I gather you didn't hear about the Objectivist magazine or newsletter. This is off the track but maybe somebody can tell wether's Emmanual or Immanual Kant?

[Dragonfly]

I gather you didn't hear about the Objectivist magazine or newsletter. This is off the track but maybe somebody can tell wether's Emmanual or Immanual Kant?

Neither, it's "Immanuel".

[Guyau]

Mr. Ivanovitch,

You write:

I don't see any reason to give up on Objectivism after my experience with souls from outside this world. I freely admit that my thoughts about God are emotional, subjective, and cannot be proved in any reasonable way. When asked to prove the existence of God I simply reply that I can no more prove there is a God than you can prove there is not a God, and I don't suggest that you should believe.

Considering Objectivism the philosophy, as distinct from Objectivist sociology, the views you express in the preceding quote are contrary to Objectivism. They are easily sufficient to warrant the conclusion that your philosophy is not an Objectivist one. Big deal. Neither is mine. Neither is that of Ellen Stuttle.

I hang out with Objectivist friends here and in person just fine. We enjoy each other very much. You don't need to be an Objectivist to appreciate and be appreciated by Objectivists. Be yourself, and be happy to be a non-Objectivist.

I wrote a note on this (at the RoR site) which others have found true, and you may like it too. Here it is:

"It is my eyes which see, and the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth. It is my ears which hear, and the hearing of my ears gives its song to the world. It is my mind which thinks, and the judgment of my mind is the only searchlight that can find the truth." Those are the words of the hero in Rand's Anthem (1946). They should be the standpoint for every one of us.

No one should be striving to be or to become an Objectivist. It is the verdicts of one's own mind upon the world that should be given pride of place. The judgments of Ayn Rand, her expositors, or anyone not oneself should be secondary. From Rand, as from any other mind, one should keep and integrate what one judges true, bracket and remember what one finds false.

To keep things clear and clean, one should not fall into equating Objectivism with "whatever is the truth of the matter." Charity of interpretation of Rand's texts is always in order, but not a presumption that "somehow" Objectivism must always be correct or can always be supplemented, without alteration, so as to make it correct. One should not regard one's own philosophy (or moral character) as in some sort of deficiency insofar as it departs from Objectivism. The deficiency is rather in Objectivism, insofar as it departs from what one judges to be the truth.

Edited January 16, 2007 by Stephen Boydstun

[Mikee]

Mr Boydstun,

I missed this on RoR, I don't know how. I am sometimes very busy.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Boydst..._of_Place.shtml

I am in wholehearted agreement.

[jack9f]

Emanual or Emmanual or Immanual or Immanuel?

The only one that MSWord likes is the last one. But whatever. I don’t get worked up by spelling of peoples names, especially when they are foreign born. My granny was a Mc from Scotland and everyone always said it should be Mac, but she didn’t care. She was a Scot and that’s all there was to it. My other grandmother spelled her name Scheffler and we always thought we were German. Then about 4 years ago I found her father’s signature and it was Sefler, a Lithuanian name. Besides the borders change over there all the time. Kant was born in Königsberg in East Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia) and I’m going to visit there and see his statue no matter how his name is spelled. I can’t say I know a lot about him or his works, but I appreciate his brain.

I don’t go in much for newletters or mags anymore since I spend my time on the web and how much crap I get in the mail everyday.

Thank you Mr. Boydstun. I like the way you put it. I never had much doubt about myself. It was you and my Objectivist friends I was checking on. Some of them are more Atheist than Objectivist and they like others to comply. Screw that!