Is Objectivism a Religion?

[Colanth]

There is more than one definition of religion. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. So Objectivism and Atheism are religions by that definition.

So are Capitalism and tokenism (using tokens, like money, instead of direct barter).  So, in fact, are most of the underpinnings of any civilization.

When a definition ends up defining almost everything under a single word, what you have is a useless definition.

[Colanth]

My idea is that if you apply Atheism directly to society, you will end up with something vaguely resembling socialism, where private charities have been removed and replaced with NHS type healthcare system, etc.

Socialism is a socioeconomic system in which the government owns the means of production.  I think you're confusing "socialism" and "Great Britain".

[Colanth]

My idea is that if you apply Atheism directly to society, you will end up with something vaguely resembling socialism, where private charities have been removed and replaced with NHS type healthcare system, etc.

Socialism is a socioeconomic system in which the government owns the means of production.  I think you're confusing "socialism" and "Great Britain".

I wrote "vaguely resembling socialism" in my original post.

Since socialism is SOLELY government ownership of production, "vaguely resembling socialism" is about the same as "the moral equivalency of pregnancy".

I want the government to monopolise a lot of commodities.

Well ... aside from the monopolizing part, and the commodities part, it's just like socialism - it involves the government.

For instance, the Swedish government has a liquor monopoly called Systembolaget.  It's operated in a socialist manner

Not unless the government owns the factory that produces the liquor.

I see many things which you call Socialism as being logical or useful and reasonable.

The only thing I call socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.

Why should a dangerous intoxicant be in private business hands? In the USA, private liquor resellers almost always sell it abusively in poor areas or Indian reservations.

Unless you're talking about those places in the US, and there are many, in which liquor is sold in government stores.  But that's still not socialism.

And I still don't see how to "apply atheism (it's only capitalized if it's the first word in the sentence) directly to society".  Unless you mean making belief illegal?  Or brainwashing everyone into  not believing?  That's all atheism is - not believing in any god.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

My idea is that if you apply Atheism directly to society, you will end up with something vaguely resembling socialism, where private charities have been removed and replaced with NHS type healthcare system, etc.

Socialism is a socioeconomic system in which the government owns the means of production.  I think you're confusing "socialism" and "Great Britain".

I wrote "vaguely resembling socialism" in my original post. I want the government to monopolise a lot of commodities. For instance, the Swedish government has a liquor monopoly called Systembolaget.  It's operated in a socialist manner, but no Swede I think would say that the origins of Systembolaget are socialist. It came from a need to control alcoholism in a small town in Sweden, the spread to the rest.

I see many things which you call Socialism as being logical or useful and reasonable. Why should a dangerous intoxicant be in private business hands? In the USA, private liquor resellers almost always sell it abusively in poor areas or Indian reservations.

But that has nothing to do with atheism.

One is a metaphysical position - God does not exist.  The other is a political position - government ownership of the means of production.  Nothing in the first implies the second, nothing in the second implies the first.  There are many people who embrace both ideas, but there is no intrinsic connection between the two ideas.

No wonder you want to consider Objectivism to be a religion - you see an intrinsic connection between atheism and socialism in spite of there not being one, and since Objecitivism is anti-Socialism then it must be a religion in spite of it being very atheistic.

You've created quite a morass of contradictions that you have to work through, and as Ayn Rand wrote, if you encounter a contradiction then you should check your premises because one of them is false.

In your case the false premise is that there is some intrinsic connection between your metaphysical position with regards to the existence of God and your political position that makes Objectivism so offensive to you.  That connection doesn't exist, and true hardcore Objectivists are atheists just as you are.

[SGOS]

But that has nothing to do with atheism.

One is a metaphysical position - God does not exist.  The other is a political position - government ownership of the means of production.  Nothing in the first implies the second, nothing in the second implies the first.  There are many people who embrace both ideas, but there is no intrinsic connection between the two ideas.

No wonder you want to consider Objectivism to be a religion - you see an intrinsic connection between atheism and socialism in spite of there not being one, and since Objecitivism is anti-Socialism then it must be a religion in spite of it being very atheistic.

You've created quite a morass of contradictions that you have to work through, and as Ayn Rand wrote, if you encounter a contradiction then you should check your premises because one of them is false.

In your case the false premise is that there is some intrinsic connection between your metaphysical position with regards to the existence of God and your political position that makes Objectivism so offensive to you.  That connection doesn't exist, and true hardcore Objectivists are atheists just as you are.

This is a good response.  Whether you approve of socialism or not, the fact is that atheism has nothing to do with socialism.  I was actually surprised at the claim that an atheistic government would look like socialism, and I wondered about the thought process that would come to that conclusion.

[Jack89]

My idea is that if you apply Atheism directly to society, you will end up with something vaguely resembling socialism, where private charities have been removed and replaced with NHS type healthcare system, etc. So, to me all of these other philosophies are easily comparable without any threat to me, even if it is a conservative magazine that calls them out.

There is one idea of atheism - that there is no deity.  The rest is baggage that you bring to it, where you replace worship of god with worship of government.  And any philosophy that threatens the divine government is therefore something you would consider a "threat to you", or in other words a heresy.

I was primed and ready with a similar response, but you beat me to it.

[zarus tathra]

According to Oswald Spengler, all moral ideas derive from fundamentally religious ideas. If you cling to a moral idea or philosophy independent of explicitly spiritual ideas, it's because you want to cling to the sense of safety that religion brings but are too devoid of faith to have any spirituality. I actually agree with this. People make up morals the same way and for the same reason they make up religion.

And honestly, if real-life industrialists were like the good guys from Atlas Shrugged, the world would be an AWESOME place. Machines wouldn't break because the bosses were actually competent, classical music would still be a thing, there would be no more foreign wars that happen for "humanitarian" reasons, and the trains would fucking run on time. It would basically be the same as Technocracy, but with a different secular religion underpinning it.

Also, there'd be no cops, which would be an interesting thing to see.

[Colanth]

People don't "make up morals".  Societies that use morals that work succeed.  Societies that use morals that don't work fail.  That's why we don't see many societies that consider random murder to be moral - it wouldn't work.

[zarus tathra]

Right, and religion is useful because it makes people more docile and receptive to authority while at the same time eager to kill the "right" people.

And to expound on the "Objectivism would actually be okay" idea, if we had a truly free market, the distribution of income would be a lot more equal. The main reason behind income inequality is massive corporate profits in a time of high unemployment, and the main reason behind THAT is the bailouts. Tens of trillions of dollars just given out, easily dwarfing all the money that has ever been given out as welfare to the lower classes by ALL the world's countries.

In an actual free market, you don't just automatically get to collect on debts that are owed to you. If you lend out too much money, you go out of business, and if you go out of business, the government doesn't rush in to save you and harden the system of obligation you have created and allowed to collapse. A free market has a natural balance of power that a system of blind, omnipresent authority (government) does not.

[josephpalazzo]

According to Oswald Spengler, all moral ideas derive from fundamentally religious ideas. If you cling to a moral idea or philosophy independent of explicitly spiritual ideas, it's because you want to cling to the sense of safety that religion brings but are too devoid of faith to have any spirituality. I actually agree with this. People make up morals the same way and for the same reason they make up religion.

An atheistic society would still have to determine what is right (acceptable) and what is wrong (unacceptable). It has nothing to do with religion but survival of that society as any society needs some form of law and order. Otherwise it becomes self-destructive.

Also,there'd be no cops, which would be an interesting thing to see.

Such a society would be quickly overtaken by thugs and gangs, who are going to be less civilized than your local cops.

[zarus tathra]

If people would grow a pair and protect themselves from the thugs, then the thugs and gangs would starve without welfare or crime to support them.

[Plu]

You mean if they would form a sort of organized professional force of people who oppose the thugs?

Because I think we have one of those. Pretty sure we call them "the police".

[zarus tathra]

It'd still be interesting to see what would happen if the middle/upper classes armed themselves and the cops disappeared a la Atlas Shrugged.

[Plu]

One has to merely look at some of the less pleasant african and middle eastern countries if one wants to know what would happen. But it's not pretty in the slightest.

[Colanth]

The thugs just go after the less-well-able-to-protect-themselves.  That's why burglar alarm stickers work - burglars look for homes that don't have them.