Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 12:02 AM Jan 2014

Can 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, wasn’t the genuine article.

That’s 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 Rand’s 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/

40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Can you be an atheist without being a Randian objectivist? (Original Post) rug Jan 2014 OP
I agree. It is a dreadfully foolish question....nt Walk away Jan 2014 #1
Yup! R&K nt longship Jan 2014 #2
Not just foolish, horribly offensive...nt uriel1972 Jan 2014 #3
That, too! And I'll raise you an idiotic. nt longship Jan 2014 #4
Did you read the end of the article? rug Jan 2014 #24
In a manner that will be lost on people who didn't read the whole thing. AtheistCrusader Jan 2014 #32
Reading 8 paragraphs isn't hard unless wallowing in preconceptions is preferred. rug Jan 2014 #40
You've often expressed anxiety about whether atheists are compassionate Brettongarcia Jan 2014 #5
But what you describe is not altruism. It is then just another selfish act, is it not? cbayer Jan 2014 #7
Extreme self-interest leads to community spirit; since communities help us Brettongarcia Jan 2014 #20
I think true altruism is very rare. cbayer Jan 2014 #21
Are you addressing that to me? rug Jan 2014 #23
From earlier posts on say, the pastor turned atheist; wondering what support he would have> Brettongarcia Jan 2014 #26
Oh, it's "implied". rug Jan 2014 #27
At times you seem rather supportive of Atheism; other times not. Brettongarcia Jan 2014 #29
Neither atheism nor religious ideas require support. They will stand or fall on their own merits. rug Jan 2014 #30
Of course you can be. Ayn Rand was wrong about this, as cbayer Jan 2014 #6
I think the point of this essay edhopper Jan 2014 #8
I think you are absolutely right. cbayer Jan 2014 #9
Other atheists edhopper Jan 2014 #10
See, I get told all the time that there is only one thing that atheists cbayer Jan 2014 #11
Well this article is aimed at atheists in general, edhopper Jan 2014 #12
Actually, I think this article is aimed at two atheists who took a position cbayer Jan 2014 #13
I see that now edhopper Jan 2014 #14
It was your post that got me to look further. cbayer Jan 2014 #15
Yeah edhopper Jan 2014 #16
rug posted the original article that started off this discussion last week. cbayer Jan 2014 #17
He is right to point out edhopper Jan 2014 #18
Agree on all counts. cbayer Jan 2014 #19
But when a person identifies him/herself as a "Christian," doesn't that imply solidarity? Brettongarcia Jan 2014 #22
I don't think it necessarily implies anything at all, except cbayer Jan 2014 #25
Atheists are only just emerging as a strong group in America; group identity is fairly high Brettongarcia Jan 2014 #28
Yes and isn't it the same kind of group identity that some religious people experience? cbayer Jan 2014 #31
Religion SamKnause Jan 2014 #33
That is, in the end, exactly the author's point. cbayer Jan 2014 #34
Of course you can. The fact that most atheists aren't Randian objectivists settles that rather Larsonb Jan 2014 #35
I think that without being able to see the H.M. and D.M. links, most people are missing what cbayer Jan 2014 #36
I would recommend they read our sub-thread edhopper Jan 2014 #37
If they aren't going to open the article, I doubt they are going to read our subthread. cbayer Jan 2014 #38
Ours has a lot less words edhopper Jan 2014 #39
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
24. Did you read the end of the article?
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:14 PM
Jan 2014
It would also be kind of dickish. In at least two ways. First, it would involve a laughably misplaced condescension. I would need to look down my nose at all non-Objectivist atheists and Randsplain to them that it doesn’t matter what they say or what they think — they’re not really atheists at all — not Real, True Atheists. I would be arrogating to myself, as an outsider, a competence I could not possibly justify claiming. And I would be denying to them any such competence.

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 “You’re either a selfish Randian, and you’re just too stupid to realize it yet, or else you’re not really an atheist at all, and you’re too stupid to realize that yet. But either way, it’s not for you to say. It’s 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 let’s value those values. OK?


He's employing a literary device.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
32. In a manner that will be lost on people who didn't read the whole thing.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 02:10 PM
Jan 2014

Which is one way to promulgate misconceptions itself.

Brettongarcia

(2,262 posts)
5. You've often expressed anxiety about whether atheists are compassionate
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 07:38 AM
Jan 2014

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.

Brettongarcia

(2,262 posts)
20. Extreme self-interest leads to community spirit; since communities help us
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 12:53 PM
Jan 2014

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)
21. I think true altruism is very rare.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 12:57 PM
Jan 2014

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)
23. Are you addressing that to me?
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:12 PM
Jan 2014

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)
26. From earlier posts on say, the pastor turned atheist; wondering what support he would have>
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:38 PM
Jan 2014

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)
27. Oh, it's "implied".
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:44 PM
Jan 2014

Then you should have no problem inferring what I am implying about your post.

Brettongarcia

(2,262 posts)
29. At times you seem rather supportive of Atheism; other times not.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:54 PM
Jan 2014

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)
30. Neither atheism nor religious ideas require support. They will stand or fall on their own merits.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:58 PM
Jan 2014

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)
6. Of course you can be. Ayn Rand was wrong about this, as
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 10:47 AM
Jan 2014

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)
8. I think the point of this essay
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 10:59 AM
Jan 2014

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.

edhopper

(33,164 posts)
10. Other atheists
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 11:18 AM
Jan 2014

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)
11. See, I get told all the time that there is only one thing that atheists
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 11:30 AM
Jan 2014

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)
12. Well this article is aimed at atheists in general,
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 11:35 AM
Jan 2014

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)
13. Actually, I think this article is aimed at two atheists who took a position
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 11:49 AM
Jan 2014

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)
14. I see that now
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 11:53 AM
Jan 2014

don't agree with them either.
Two atheists who are trying to be too clever as well.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
15. It was your post that got me to look further.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 11:55 AM
Jan 2014

As it stands, the article made no sense to me, but once I saw what he was doing, it did.

edhopper

(33,164 posts)
16. Yeah
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 12:01 PM
Jan 2014

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)
17. rug posted the original article that started off this discussion last week.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 12:10 PM
Jan 2014

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)
18. He is right to point out
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 12:17 PM
Jan 2014

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.

Brettongarcia

(2,262 posts)
22. But when a person identifies him/herself as a "Christian," doesn't that imply solidarity?
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:08 PM
Jan 2014

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)
25. I don't think it necessarily implies anything at all, except
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:23 PM
Jan 2014

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)
28. Atheists are only just emerging as a strong group in America; group identity is fairly high
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:46 PM
Jan 2014

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)
31. Yes and isn't it the same kind of group identity that some religious people experience?
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:59 PM
Jan 2014

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)
33. Religion
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 02:12 PM
Jan 2014

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)
34. That is, in the end, exactly the author's point.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 02:25 PM
Jan 2014

Making broad brushed assumptions about groups of people based on their beliefs or lack of beliefs is a mistake.

 

Larsonb

(40 posts)
35. Of course you can. The fact that most atheists aren't Randian objectivists settles that rather
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 02:37 PM
Jan 2014

conclusively.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
36. I think that without being able to see the H.M. and D.M. links, most people are missing what
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 02:46 PM
Jan 2014

this article is really about.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
38. If they aren't going to open the article, I doubt they are going to read our subthread.
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 04:07 PM
Jan 2014

Hey, it's the internet, That's how it rolls.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Can you be an atheist wit...