Religion
Related: About this forumCan you be an atheist without being a Randian objectivist?
January 18, 2014
By Fred Clark
(For H.M. and D.M., who are usually better than this.)
Ayn Rand claimed that her philosophy was the One True Faith for anyone who does not subscribe to religious faith. She said that what she called Objectivism the virtue of selfishness and a vehement rejection of altruism was the only Real, True Atheism. Anyone who claimed to be an atheist, but refused to follow her particular program, therefore, wasnt the genuine article.
Thats malarkey, though.
And it would be dreadfully foolish for me, as a Christian, to accept this Randian assertion as the One True Definition of Atheism. It would be foolish and wrong for me to think that I could turn around and use this definition in the same way that Rands Randiest disciples do as a means of separating the wheat from the chaff and of making pronouncements about who is and who is not really, truly a legitimate atheist, or about what atheism really entails, or what all real atheists do and must really believe.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/01/18/can-you-be-an-atheist-without-being-a-randian-objectivist/
Walk away
(9,494 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)uriel1972
(4,261 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)And it would also be kind of dickish because Randian Objectivism is an ugly, stunted, disreputable philosophy. By holding up this hideous thing as the epitome of all Real, True, Atheism, I would be tarring all atheists with an ugly Randian brush. I would be telling every atheist in the world Youre either a selfish Randian, and youre just too stupid to realize it yet, or else youre not really an atheist at all, and youre too stupid to realize that yet. But either way, its not for you to say. Its for me to say, on the basis of this parochial, disreputable fringe character and her flimsy indefensible assertions. That would be kind of dickish.
Facts matter. History and the bigger, global context matters. Logic matters. And not being condescending and insulting matters. These things are all important. They are values I share with many of my fellow Christians and with many of my atheist neighbors.
So lets value those values. OK?
He's employing a literary device.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Which is one way to promulgate misconceptions itself.
rug
(82,333 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Ayn Rand's atheism of course, is her own extreme idea. And it does not characterize atheism in general. Yet in recent years, many atheists themselves to be sure, have addressed the possible problem of lack of compassion for the poor and so forth among rational people; most recently, in feminism, in "Care Ethics." There the assertion however is that there are good reasons even for atheists, to "care" for others.
And by the way for that matter? It is possible to carry even Ayn/Ann Rand's extreme selfishness, one step further; and to transform it into a more compassionate teaching. Briefly, it is possible to argue that in the end, helping others even serves one's self. If you help others, they can help you.
Thus even an extreme, selfish egotist, would do well to help others.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Being very selfish, finally leads outside of itself. And can eventually lead to a truer altruism perhaps. It is useful to show this to egotistical people, to show them a halfway house that leads outside themselves.
By the way, arguably, "Christian" altruism, good deeds, are actually selfish, and have not moved out of self-interest. In this way: when Christians do something good to "go to heaven" when they die, they do good deeds, out of selfish greed; for heaven. (As Nietzsche began to suggest).
Probably selfish people in either case, can move past this halfway mark; learning to progress to a truer selflessness.
I'm not convinced that most Christians have done that as much as they should. In which case this paradigm, still describes much of "Christian" "love" and idealism.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It doesn't come easily and one needs to ask themselves some very hard questions when they feel they are being altruistic.
Even if you take it all the way down to altruism just making you feel good, there is a secondary gain.
Personally, I am a long way away from being truly altruistic.
But I do try not to be particularly selfish.
rug
(82,333 posts)If so, there is nothing posted in this group that causes m to express anxiety.
Second, kindly show a single post that questions whether atheists can be compassionate.
Perhaps you're confused from another incarnation on DU.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Seldom do you directly express anxiety about it. But it seems implied perhaps in posts in other forums, on atheists feeling "privilege," and neglecting to support minorities.... Etc.
Granted, this is from indirect inference.
rug
(82,333 posts)Then you should have no problem inferring what I am implying about your post.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)I'm reading two opposite connotations, a kind of equivocality, in most of your posts on Atheism v. Christianity.
Which I suppose is fine: you are questioning both sides.
Yet it would not seem right for you to claim unequivocal allegiance to one side, or the other.
rug
(82,333 posts)Since you are asking about my thoughts, both ideas interest me greatly, both for their premises and, more importantly, how they play out in social interactions.
Personally, I am a piss-poor Catholic which ipso facto makes me neither pro- nor anti-atheist, any more than a self-declaration of atheism makes anyone anti-theist or anti- or pro- anything else.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)she was wrong about so many things.
Still, she remains fascinating to me and reading her books at the stage in life that I did had a rather profound effect on me.
edhopper
(33,164 posts)is the old canard that we paint all Christians with the same brush of the worst of the fundamentalists. We don't, period. We engage in what the believers actually believe all the time.
Now, we do point out some of the more abusive aspects of religion to show that religion is not benign and that at times the believers can be flat out wrong.
But no, we don't think all Christians are young earth, anti-abortion terrorists. We think they all believe a myth written over two millennium ago is real.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I went back to take a second look.
That's when I noticed this:
Which links to these:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/17/can-you-be-christian-and-an-lgbt-rights-advocate/
http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/01/16/atheists-debate-can-christians-support-lgbtq-rights-part-one/
Now it makes a lot more sense.
Who is this "we" you refer to?
edhopper
(33,164 posts)on this forum and writers like Dawkins, Kurtz Russell even Ingersol.
A false charge aimed at atheists. I believe i have read enough and talked with enough atheists to make this generalized statement.
I could use the third person and say "atheists" but I use the plural since I number myself in the ranks. Do you disagree with my assessment?
It is a sensible usage, why does it bother you so?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)have in common - a lack of belief in a diety.
Then I get all confused when I see atheists speaking in the first person plural.
In fact, I see this occur a lot more than I see believers in this group do it.
I find that curious, but no one has really been able to explain to me what this means.
And it's interesting that you would use it in the context of this article. Once I reconsidered the article after reading your post, I understood it to be a rhetorical piece that was calling out those that broad brush believers.
His whole point seems to be that doing that is wrong in the context of describing both believers and non-believers.
And no, I don't think you are in the position to make generalized statements about atheists. There is such a variety even in this group, that "we" statements make little to no sense.
edhopper
(33,164 posts)so I don't think responding about atheists in general is problematic.
"His whole point seems to be that doing that is wrong in the context of describing both believers and non-believers. "
No, I think his point is to call out atheists for something THEY don't really do. He thinks he is being clever, when all he is doing is being inacurate.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that painted all christians with the same, erroneous brush.
He used hyperbole to specifically call out two people.
Of course he is being inaccurate. He means to be.
edhopper
(33,164 posts)don't agree with them either.
Two atheists who are trying to be too clever as well.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)As it stands, the article made no sense to me, but once I saw what he was doing, it did.
the claim Christians have to accept OT stuff about homosexuality is nonsense.
Christians accept Jesus is the Lord and rose from the dead, and that's all. (or maybe not even that)
The rest is too varied to say "if you're Christian..."
So I actually agree with the author in reference to those two, he isn't trying to paint all atheists, just responding to the blunder by these two.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I am glad that he responded to it in this way.
And i think it's unfortunate that the public relations director for American Atheists would take such an extreme and prejudiced position (Dave Muscato).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218107980
edhopper
(33,164 posts)that the main objection to Gay Rights in this country comes from people because of their Christian religion and the role Christian Churches have in this agenda.
He did it in a very flawed way.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)To some extent, all of us are in various groups, and share some traits, and not others.
Yet often declaring yourself to be "a Christian," or to "follow Christ," is taken as a huge benchmark; one that differentiates you from all others. It is widely accepted as uniting you to some extent, to a powerful group. With strong kinship ties. Proclaiming a kind of alliance with it.
Is it honest, consistent, to sometimes emphasize solidarity this alliance ... and then other times, secretly or partially disavow it?
It is all too convenient to hide behind the label, to garner support from this person or that.
Jesus noted that, by the way; condemning those "hypocrites" who confess him with their "lips," but not fully, with their hearts.
How could you call yourself a Christian, and ignore that saying by Christ? Is that consistent and good?
Christianity by the way, is different. It is rather carefully defined, most would say, in a document; the Bible. A great deal of common territory, even adherence to a document and certainly a character in it (Christ) is thereby implied in the term. The term "atheist" is different; no one should assert, nor assume, such commonality.
It is therefore more accurate to speak of "Christians" in general, than "Atheists."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)a belief in the christ and a wish to follow his teachings. For some solidarity may play a role, but that was not a concept that was ever included in my christian upbringing.
If anything, we were taught that everyone was equal and deserving of inclusion, civil rights, respect and justice.
The whole alliance thing that you describe is completely foreign to me.
But then, I recognize that the church I was raised in does not represent all churches.
I guess I could say that my upbringing was in the "heart" area and not at all in the "lips" area.
So, I don't fully agree with your conclusion.
I just had an exchange with a member here who uses "we" when talking about atheists. That's not uncommon for some of our atheist members, but I rarely see the christians here do that.
What do you make of that?
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)There is currently a sense of "we" therefore. Though most Atheists are aware of differences between them.
Christians often don't say "we"; more often they just identify as "Christians." Using the noun, not the pronoun. Which if anything, is even stronger identification with the group.
And many pastors explicitly say, that the main thing is to "accept Christ," and use the word, the label. Just the label is ... almost everything, it often seems. And much importance is put on group meetings: churches.
Christians, I continue to suggest therefore, are normally far more group-minded. The very idea of group activities for atheists - Atheist meeting houses or churches, and so forth - was often attacked by atheists on DU, earlier.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think most christians, for example, are also acutely aware of the differences between them.
When it comes to the christian right and the christian left, they really see very little in common.
Again, I rarely if ever see christians in this group use the term as an inclusive noun. Not saying it doesn't happen elsewhere.
And while the "idea" of group activities for atheists is often rejected, the fact is that organized groups and activities are growing rapidly.
To me all that means is that people like to be with like minded people. Churches can provide that for some, interfaith groups for others and atheist organizations for still others.
I don't think that's a bad thing at all. But you can't have it both ways.
You can't very narrowly define atheism as only meaning a lack of belief, then speak in the first person plural while talking about all kinds of other things.
SamKnause
(13,037 posts)I am a Socialist Atheist.
I do not agree with anything associated with Ayn Rand's philosophy.
Being uncaring and selfish has no equation to Atheism.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Making broad brushed assumptions about groups of people based on their beliefs or lack of beliefs is a mistake.
Larsonb
(40 posts)conclusively.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)this article is really about.
edhopper
(33,164 posts)for clarity. #6-#15
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Hey, it's the internet, That's how it rolls.