Let me also say, even though I know it annoys a lot of people when I say anything nice about the objectivists, that even at their worst the objectivists and libertarians are better for religion than the radical revolutionaries. The revolutionaries want to destroy religion, suppress it and promote what is contrary to it. Libertarians, as with most things, simply take a “hands-off” attitude toward religion, neither favoring nor opposing it. Undoubtedly, Ayn Rand was an adamant atheist who was not bashful in her opinions toward any religion including Christianity. In fact, she openly stated that she considered the very concept of “faith” to be immoral. However, though neither her friends nor foes talk about it much, she was also adamant that she was not a “militant atheist”. She stated clearly that she was not trying to fight against religion, she was fighting for pure laissez-faire capitalism. Remember that one of her fundamental principles of objectivism was a total rejection of force or coercion. She adamantly opposed denying anyone the right to be religious just as much as she adamantly opposed denying anyone the right not to be religious at all.
However, the objectivists are not saying that. If you look at what they say closely, they are, again, actually agreeing with the socialists that one must choose between Ayn Rand or Christ. The socialists are saying this because they are portraying Christ as a socialist and what Christians to reject anything Ayn Rand or her modern disciples say. The objectivists are saying it because, well, they think Christianity is basically socialist as well and are hoping you choose Ayn Rand and her philosophy instead. They are not that blatant about it but, keep them talking on the subject long enough and they will admit eventually that, yes, they think ultimately one would have to choose between the two and of course they think objectivism is the superior philosophy to Christianity. They are both, essentially, accepting the same lie: that Christ was a socialist.
That is what is at the heart of socialism; using force to take what one person has to give it to someone else. That never happened in the New Testament, Christ never did it, nor did He ever advocate or command anyone to do it. Jesus did give to the poor and afflicted, and a good Christian is supposed to be “Christ-like” but we do have one serious roadblock to doing exactly “what Jesus would have done” which is that we are not God. Christ could work miracles, He healed the sick, fed the hungry and so on by performing miracles. I suppose I should not speak for everyone but I certainly cannot do that. If I could work miracles there would be crowned heads ruling over the world, I would have perfect health, be living in a villa in Costa Rica and married to Alessandra Ambrosio. In short -not going to happen. Look, instead, to the example of Christ and the rich, young nobleman who asked what he had to do to obtain salvation. Christ told him to give away all of his wealth and follow Him. ‘Aha!’ the socialists exclaim, ‘see, he was one of us!’ Uh, no, because there was no coercion. Now, if Christ had seized the young man, robbed him of all his riches and then, after pocketing a bit for Himself, gave the rest to the poor, THEN Christ would have been a socialist. He didn’t do that. He advised people to be compassionate and charitable, He never advocated using force to take from one and give to another.
As the great William Shakespeare so famously wrote, “The quality of mercy is not strain’d, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:” Compassion and charity cannot be forced. When it flows naturally, as Shakespeare said, it rewards both parties in the transaction. Socialism is, at best, coerced charity which simply replaces one possible injustice with another definite one. Besides which, at the end of the day, we all know Jesus was a monarchist. To see objectivists and socialists, two essentially atheist groups, arguing over what economic system the son of God would have preferred, neither adhering to the facts, makes me an extremely … Mad Monarchist.
I really do wish we as a culture would stop assuming we even have a struggle between Religious people and people of no religion at all. I’ve said it before and will say it again, there is no such thing as someone who has no Religion.
ReplyDeleteThose who say hey are not Religious because they are Atheists seem to conflate Religion with Theism. However, the very things they complain about that they say Religion Causes are not the direct result in believing a god exists, but rather exist in any system of thought we can provide. EG, conflict didn’t exist between Muslims and Christians because they both believed God existed, or even simply because they disagreed over God. Even on the simplistic ( and wrong) view that the crusades were Evil Christians who did not like Muslims living in e Holy land so went off to conquer it, its more because of disagreement and personal and cultural Identity than mere Theism. But its not like disagreements over Atheistic Philosophy never caused any Wars or problems. Look at the problems between Maoist China and Stalinist Russia. The assumption that belief in God somehow makes problems far worse is simply nonsense. People have more often fought wars and killed one another over economics or territory, and quiet frankly in the short Time modern Atheism has existed ( since the late 17th Century) the Philosophies it has inspired (mainly from the 18th Century and 19th) have caused far more wars and social disintegration than has “Religion”.
Religion is in quotation marks above because I still maintain that both Ayn Rands objectivism and the Humanism developed in the 19th Century are themselves Religions, not Non-Religious Philosophies that serve as Alternatives to Religion. The very fact that these Philosophies cover the same ground as Religion and ultimately serve he same basic purpose that Religion serves would cause me to wonder why we think of them as distinct from Religion, as if Religion is this force that effects some and not others and as if we have to sue a separate model to understand Atheists as Religious People.
Religion is not all about believe in a god or gods. If it were, then how do many sects of Buddhism remain Religions? Of course some claim they aren’t, but are more like philosophies, however they are traditionally classified as such. Still, the point remains, what is Religion?
Religion is a Philosophical Model that serves to explain the basic nature of our existence, and thus establish the basic framework by which we can then understand the world around us and who we are. It is the overarching Narrative built from Philosophical Tetents that explain the basis of our fundamental natures and tells us who we are and how we should Live. It is indistinguishable from the modern concept of “Worldview” which was created to allow people to say they have no Religion but to still comment on how their not-a-religion effects them. But I still say we should even drop that. Ones World View is ultimately dependant upon ones beliefs about the fundamental nature of the world and how best to live in it is derived equally from that understanding.
Objectivism and Humanism both strive to explain the world by a series of overarching narrative structures that tell the Story of who we are and how we should live. Conflict exists between the Two just like it does between Christianity and Islam, or between different Churches in Christianity. If “Religion” died, the supposed Peace that would transpire would not really occur because the primary reason for conflict is disagreement. The assumption that they both seem to make is that if everyone gave up Religion then they would just automatically agree with them; But the very existence of conflicting Atheistic Philosophies ultimately proves this wrong. Some would admit this and then say that Religion makes conflicts ten Times worse as the adherent believes so strongly he will die for his Cause, and it becomes all Consuming. Well, Objectivism and Humanism do that too. In fact, thee is more Ideology in both Objectivism and Humanism than in any Religion except Islam. Most Religions, such as Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism actually Function passively in Philosophy and allow for examination of their basic tenets. Yes I know some claim they don’t, but they do.
ReplyDeleteHumanists, I know from experience, are rooted so heavily in the Enlightenments praise of Reason and conflating Reason with their own beliefs that to challenge Humanism is to Challenge Reason itself. They basically define Reason as anything that agrees with the central Tenets of Humanism. The reason Democracy is Rational and Monarchy is Irrational is because they Favour Democracy given how their Philosophy emerged, for instance. The same basically exists in Ayn Rand’s Philosophy. Her adherents have more than just foundational beliefs, they have actual specific Political Goals.
While Christian Monarchs in the Middle Ages wanted to maintain a Christian Culture, the Christian Faith did not outline specific planned Goals for the society to live up to. Buddhist kingdoms tended to focus on implementing Buddhist Principals in Law s situations emerged, not in setting up long term social reform plans.
The basis of most cultural internal strife though is Ideologically driven and the refusal to compromise on positions or work with opposing forces ultimately leads to far greater and more extensive Social Strife than “Religion” ever did except in times of Great upheaval like the Protestant Reformation. The difference is, the Reformation Era was over with after about a Century, but we are Two Centuries into the Enlightenments glorious new Era, and the struggles only Intensify as people try to engage in an ongoing and never-ending social conflict based on attempting to coerce all to do things their own way.
Ironically, Thomas Jefferson wanted this: Eternal Revolution.
more after this.
My point above is only this: Objectivism and Humanism are both Philosophies that explain both the nature and origins of our world, and who we are as people, and are then used to explain what Values we should hold and what you Morals should be, and how we should live. This understanding is Derived from the understanding of our Natures and what works best.
ReplyDeleteHumanism and Objectivism are both competing forces as well, trying to secure the Hearts ad Minds of the people, and win over adherents. They both Proselytise, just like Religion.
Both also operate in the Real of Narrative. They both tell us stories of the world, how it was, how it is, and how it should be, and use those stories to give life to the Abstract Ideals they preach and to inspire the building of the world of the Future.
Both Objectivism and Humanism also have Fiercely devout Adherents, who Zealously promote them. Those who see them as the plain and obvious Truth! Just like Religion.
I would say they are both Religions, and The bet way to understand them is not to view both essentially Atheistic Philosophies as distinct from Religion, but as Rival Religions trying to gain power.
One last after this:
My point above is only this: Objectivism and Humanism are both Philosophies that explain both the nature and origins of our world, and who we are as people, and are then used to explain what Values we should hold and what you Morals should be, and how we should live. This understanding is Derived from the understanding of our Natures and what works best.
ReplyDeleteHumanism and Objectivism are both competing forces as well, trying to secure the Hearts ad Minds of the people, and win over adherents. They both Proselytise, just like Religion.
Both also operate in the Real of Narrative. They both tell us stories of the world, how it was, how it is, and how it should be, and use those stories to give life to the Abstract Ideals they preach and to inspire the building of the world of the Future.
Both Objectivism and Humanism also have Fiercely devout Adherents, who Zealously promote them. Those who see them as the plain and obvious Truth! Just like Religion.
I would say they are both Religions, and The best way to understand them is not to view both essentially Atheistic Philosophies as distinct from Religion, but as Rival Religions trying to gain power.
One last after this:
As to the Left saying Jesus was a Socialist, they are just using the same old routine we have always seen in Politics, of using something beloved by the people or of Great Significance and Authority, and draping themselves in it to gain that Authority for themselves.
ReplyDeleteIs it really any different than today’s TEA Partiers saying God hates Monarchy and quoting 1 Samuel Chapter 8 to prove America’s Founders were inspired by the Bible? Or either the Right or the Left comparing someone to Hitler? Or how people say that this or that action will lead us back into being Governed by a Monarchy and thus have no Freedoms?
Lets not forget how the Middle Ages are called “The Dark Ages”…
Both sides latched onto the Jesus As A Socialist Narrative as it advances their own Ends. The Socialists want to depict Jesus as a Socialist to gain his Authority for their own Cause, and hopefully win over those who Identify as Christian but can’t stomach the current “Conservatives” who purportedly speak for them, or who are neutral or on the fence. it’s a way to use the same weapon the Right uses, Affiliation with Jesus would bring in, hopefully, more Christian Voters.
As to this being Hypocritical as they also stand for things Christians oppose, keep in mind, so does the Right. Christianity opposes Revolution, yet Revolutionary Values still motivate today’s So-Called Conservatives. Christianity doesn’t support banning other Religions, even Hostile Ones, yet this is what Many in the TEA Party Wing want, including Herman Cain and Michel Bachman. Modern Evangelical Christianity often contradicts the Holy Bible. Its more them reading into the Bible Neo-Conservative Political and Economic Values and Social Order than it is True Studying it, and the Result is that they have the Names and Symbols, and some aspects of the Teachings covering up an essentially Political Ideology. They then justify this by saying its always been a part of Christianity. The left will do the same, and there are already Churches that are open to Homosexuality, support Abortion Rights, and Promote the Welfare State.
Both rely upon reinterpreting the Bible and creating a new Narrative to justify why their Political Ideologies are the core of True Christianity.
In the end, the Rank and File Socialist Christians aren’t so much Dishonest as Confused. They will accept the New retelling of History and Theology that supports Socialism like the Average Evangelical will believe that America’s Founding Fathers based America on Biblical Principals and that the Bible supports everything the Neo-Cons say it does. They aren’t so much dishonest as ignorant.
Of course those who cook these things up are Dishonest, but tis just them trying to use a pre-existing cultural item that is highly revered but that most don’t really study in depth and then usurp it for their own ends.
As for the Objectivists, they accept the Jesus-As-Socialist Model because it promotes their own Agenda. They hope the fear and hatred of Socialism will trump the Love and Affection of Jesus, and that people will move way from Jesus to their own Atheistic position. They want to appeal to the Crowd to, not just to achieve Economic and Political Ends, but social ends as well, and they know full well that Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is incompatible with Christianity. They don’t want to simply end the Nanny State, they want to Proselytise people into their own Religious Faith,. And for far more people to become Objectivists. They want to, in the end, become the prevailing social Philosophy.
ReplyDeleteHumanists don’t need that. Humanism has been the prevailing Social Ideology since the 1960’s, and has, like Christianity before it, become Watered down. While Many Humanists are Militant Atheists like Richard Dawkins, most Humanists have become rather baize about the whole thing and even mix and match the Enlightened Ideals with other things like Buddhism, or Shinto, or Christianity.
Christianity as a comprehensive Religion fully understood is a Threat to Actual fully Understood Humanism. But Humanism is not Fully Understood, or if it is no longer fully adhered to. Humanists tend to focus on Social Justice nowadays and not worry as much about Theology, effectively divorcing “Religion” from pragmatic social endeavours. The Average Humanist thus doesn’t care if you attend Church or Pray and believe in God, so long as you are for a Woman’s Right to Choose an Abortion and for Same Sex Marriage.
They have effectively divorced Theology from Practical Living and made what you believe about God, the Afterlife, and Ritual distinct from daily living. To that extent, a watered down Christianity that is nothing more than occasional Prayer, attending Church, a few Rituals, and some nice platitudes about Social Justice and Helping the Poor is completely compatible with the Humanistic Culture they have managed to create.
They can thus freely use the image of Jesus as he is not going to undermine the basis of Humanism. People don’t understand enough about who Jesus was and what he taught to really see the disconnect, and by linking him to a few Parables and verses about helping the poor and the infamous “Judge not” they can mould how Jesus is understood so that it reflects their own Values then use the Pre-existing regard Jesus has to promote their own Ideals.
They’ve done those for so long that people just accept it. Objectivists have been Purely motivated to destroy Christianity and never softened up like the Average Humanist did.
I recall reading this by Ann Barnhardt. Have a read and see if you like it.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking on the matter of quoting Christ out of context, let's also have a look at that famous one: "turn the other cheek". You'd never know this guy took a whip to the moneychangers in the Temple and called the Pharisees of his days the children of Satan (though Nicodemus proved Him wrong, much, I'm sure, to His pleasure).
It's fascinating that they bring out these glib phrases. I mean, it's like judging the movie Serenity by its first five minutes, or Star Trek: The Next Generation by a single scene.
It's totality that people seem to have forgotten, and it's well worth reminding people of it, I should think.
It makes sense to me. Of course, I've always said that the existence of God can be proven or at least has to my satisfaction. One I know I have mentioned before is examples like King Baldwin the Leper or St Joan of Arc -to me there is simply no other explanation for their lives other than divine intervention. The "turn the other cheek" has also, I agree, been vastly misinterpreted.
ReplyDeleteTaking your lumps is not the same thing as to be so pacificic that you lay down and die. They often tie it to Christ accepting His own death -but that was what He was supposed to do, had to do and was a rather unqiue situation to say the least.