One problem that Objectivism runs into right from the start is the near universality of religion. We find it nearly everywhere, even among isolated peoples. If religion were merely a product of premises, we would expect to find more variety in the world at large, as some cultures would choose religious premises and hence become religious, while other cultures would choose non-religious premises and hence become secular. Moreover, since religion (at least according to Objectivism) is "irrational," and since the irrational is impractical and even "evil," we would expect non-religious cultures to have a competitive advantage over religious cultures, so that over time, the non-religious, through a kind of natural selection, would triumph over and replace the religious. Oddly enough, this has not happened.
There is one major exception to the universality of religion: contemporary Europe. Soviet Russia and communist China could also be seen as exceptions as well, except for the fact that religion was brutally repressed in those countries, and that communism itself is a sort of secular religion. Europe, however, is one example that might fit within Rand's theory. The problem is, it might not fit. There may exist special circumstances in Europe which enable the natural proclivities toward religion to be supressed. After all, if Europeans have chosen non-religious premises, there must be a reason for this. While Objectivism often ignores the whole issue of why individuals in a special set of circumstances might choose one premise rather than another, it nonetheless would appear an important question to address if one is interested in discovering the truth of the matter.
In the United States, religion still remains a fairly strong force. More than half of Americans attend church at least once a month, and more than a third attend church once a week. Over three-quarters of Americans identify themselves as Christian. Nonetheless, 20% of Americans never attend church, and another 25% "seldom" attend church. Oddly, church attendance rose in the weeks following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but returned to pre-9/11 levels within two months. This suggests that religiousity increases, not as a result of any inexplicable or causeless acceptance of "religious" premises, but because many (perhaps even most) people are hardwired to turn to religious constructs when they feel seriously threatened. It might very well be that Europe is predominantly secular and non-religious because Europeans are wealthy and they feel safe. Take away the wealth and the safety, and Europe would return to religion (or the secular equivalent thereof).
Further evidence that a proclivity towards religion is a built-in feature of many individuals can be gleaned from an experiment devised by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Subjects were offered $2 if they would sign a peice of paper that said: I, ______, hereby sell my soul, after my death, to Scott Murphy, for the sum of $2. Below the signature line was the following: This form is part of a psychology experiment. It is MNS a legal or binding contract, in any way. Despite the non-binding nature of the contract, many of Haidt's subjects refused to sign the paper:
Only 23 percent of subjects were willing to sign the paper without goading from [Haidt's assistant Scott Murphy]. ... A few people confessed that they were atheists, didn't believe in souls, and yet still felt uncomfortable about signing.... People felt like it was ultimately their own choice whether or not to ... sign the paper, so most subjects seemed comfortable saying, "I just don't want to do it, even though I can't give you a reason." [The Righteous Mind, 37-8]
If this evidence is evaluated in the context of what psychologists already know about the human emotional system, it testifies strongly in favor of the thesis that there exist innate drives in many people that predispose them toward extra-empirical/religious beliefs. Given the widespread, nearly universal belief in mythical entities, it's difficult believe that there is nothing innate behind it all: because even if belief in myths arises from the acceptance of some premise, the fact that nearly everyone has accepted that premise provides strong indication that a natural proclivity exists behind the whole business. For if there were no natural proclivity, how does one explain why so many accept that one premise, regardless of culture, circumstances, or exposure to contrary premises? Man tends to be a myth believing creature. If he rejects one set of myths (say, religious myths), instead of eschewing all myths, he adopts a new set. If he doesn't believe in God, he believes in "the people," or "the ideal man," or "Nature," or "the environment," or "reason," or "progress," or "love," or some other myth comparably fanciful. If he claims to believe "only in science," further investigation will show that it is not science per se that he believes in, but a mythical version of science: "Science" with a capital S. As H. L. Mencken noted, "The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind."
The fact that an atheist feels uncomfortable selling his soul (via a non-binding contract, no less!) shows the power of the innate drives. Despite all the reconditioning in a predominantly secular educational system, these propensities still persist. Many people have a desire to hold something sacred, no matter how trivial. Rand held her "ideal man" as a sacred object, the holiest of holies, and resented any work of art which, like the comic operas of Gilbert and Sullivan, laughed "at everything about man." Yet Rand's conception of the ideal man is every bit as mythical as the most extravagent theological absurdity. It is a religious sensibility applied to a non-religious object. It demonstrates that even Rand suffered from an innate drive to believe in mythical representations.
I disagree to an extent. And note I almost completly against objectivism. I am an european existentialist and atheist.
ReplyDeleteThere are some cultures with no to very little religous ideas or belifes.
For an example the Pirahã people they do not have a word for a deity nor any complex myths or stories they share from one generation to the other.
Critic of organised religion and/or mythical and/or theistic belifes have existed throuout the ages more or less take in ancient and medival times Epikurus,Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Nāgārjuna,Al-Maʿarri and Ibn al-Rawandi
Just to name a few. On the other hand because non-belivers have often been opressed many people who where none-belivers often shut up about it and pretend to be a beliver.
This is not uncommon in the Arab world where being an open unbeliver will give you both social and legal problems. In the US you cannot even get elected if you are an atheist.
Also religion is mythical belife system with rituals and dogma etc.
Often in a organised form.
On the other hand secular belifes and convictions are not the same thing if you ask me.
They may be from a similear drive religion comes into place to find order and meaning to this if you ask me absurd and meaningles existence.
And they often give quick fix awnser to the complex questions that do not have any awnsers. They give often a sence belonging and community they give people a sence of hope especialy in despair or as you pointed out if people feel safe and are in prosperity there is a higher chance for them not being religous or at least very moderate about it.
But as you point out . Being for an example an atheist does not prevent one from holding irational belifes. As people are guided more by emotions,values and predjuce who they often try to rationalise.
In some case what we might call secular religion arises like extreme scientism or marxism-leninism or Randian objectivism.
Randian Objectivism in my experience often like the most dogmatic interpitations of the abrahamic faiths give the objectivist a absolute sense of meaning and morality that is ''objective'' it gives the objectivists awsners to the tough questions.
And I have noticed that when one critic Ayn Rand in front of an objectivist then the reaction is similear to the reaction one gets when insults a deity one holds dear.
Anyway good post
Religion basically derives from a defect in our theory of mind. We can see a microcosm of religious thinking when people have conversations with the Siri app on their iPhones.
ReplyDeleteAnd, ironically, we also see this in science, namely in all the fruitless theorizing since the 1950's about "extraterrestrial intelligence." The scientists who fall into this trap apparently lack the self-awareness to see the absurdity of the idea that evolution would produce species on other planets whose individuals would have geeky interests like theirs.
There are some cultures with no to very little religous ideas or belifes.
ReplyDeleteFor an example the Pirahã people they do not have a word for a deity nor any complex myths or stories they share from one generation to the other.
Wikipedia: "However, [the Pirahã people] do believe in spirits that can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things including people."
It's merely a matter of semantics whether to consider belief in spirits as "religious." There is a theory that goes back at least to Pareto that the various drives or sentiments that motivate behavior are not content specific within various defined parameters. The actual drives that incline people toward believing in what Pareto ironically labeled "non-empirical realities" may lead to a whole variety of dogmatic "faith" convictions, including credulous acceptance (or dogmatic rejection) of spirits, ghosts, astrology, prophecy, numerology, communism, solidarity, sentimental humanitarianism, Objectivism, etc. What they won't lead to is the cautious "academic skepticism" or "critical rationalism" of a Hume, Popper, Mencken, Santayana, etc.
On the other hand secular belifes and convictions are not the same thing if you ask me.
They may be from a similear drive religion comes into place to find order and meaning
I think the "drive" for religion arises out of a great deal more than merely the desire to find order and meaning. It also derives from the sense for keeping sacred things pure and avoiding contamination. A sentiment of asceticism may be involved as well. These things will tend to lead to belief in spirits and all sorts of rigid taboos in primitive peoples; to "organized" religions in civilized people; and to secular ideologies in "advanced" civilizations. Regardless of how the drives manifest themselves, they propel many (perhaps even most) individuals away from the sort of sterile rationality advocated (but not practiced!) by Rand and her disciples.
I am not certain about this point. If you look at Western Europe since the 19th Century, religion, at least in terms of attendance at major churches and the like, went into decline and did not really revive after the totalitarian-collectivist madness of Hitler and the rest (Nazism had its religious features).
ReplyDeleteThe arrival of large numbers of Muslim immigrants to the West in more recent years may point in a different trend, of course. I wonder what Rand would have made of radical Islam.
Whether the "success" or "failure" of a particular culture or society can be mapped with religious belief or atheism is hard to say without looking at specific doctrines, and looking at the severity, or looseness, of the sort of belief structure in place. I have heard some people say that there are aspects of Catholicism that are highly congenial to a liberal order, but then again, there is the whole "Protestant ethic" argument. This is as much an issue for sociology as anything else.
If Rand were alive, she might have responded to your point on why no successful society has been atheist for long by pointing to how, say, the US Founders' insistence on not establishing a state religion, coupled with the sheer openness and relative freedom of the US, was a crucial driver of that country's success.
I could add that in the UK, after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the country was, by previous standards, a relatively (I stress this is relative!) tolerant place. Persecution of non-Christians declined, although bigotries remained.
As a sort of non-official Objectivist myself, I can certainly understand the continuing emotional hold that religion has, and I can include under the term religion such enthusiasms as environmentalism, etc. I personally believe that what humans will always need is a strong spiritual dimension to their lives, and no doubt religion, at its best, nourishes this.
Rgds
I would also add some other points. First, Greg, I note, asserts that objectivism (the idea that there is such a thing as objective, measurable reality) is akin to a religion. It certainly does not need to be (certainly not in my opinion, as someone who has his own problems with some of the cultists in the O movement). Just because you disagree with a particular philosophy or body of ideas does not mean that idea is "religious".
ReplyDeleteAs for the prevalence of religion, I would argue that religion has been dominant in recorded human history in many cultures, albeit with crucial variations in terms of strength, because until the great scientific breakthroughs of recent centuries, religion provided people with what appeared to be the most coherent explanation of how things worked and came to be, Man's place in the Universe, and so on. But Newton, Darwin and all the rest of them have chipped away at this, and in the societies in which the scientific/philosophical changes have had most impact, religion has gone into decline. It is even declining in the US, from what I read anecdotally.
In fact, during WW2, there was no clear sign that church attendance in the UK increased significantly. In fact, the horrors of WW2 may have convinced many people that the idea of an omniscient, benevolent Creator was a poor joke. Far from strengthening religious belief, it is just as plausible to argue that horrifying events can undermine belief in the Divine.
I should also argue (but being a fan of Rand, I would!) that if you give up on the idea that it is possible to achieve some level of certainty in what we know about the world as it exists, then all kinds of arbitrary ideas will fill the gap. And for centuries, that gap got filled by religion.
I also think it is a strawman to suggest that Rand and her supporters have not addressed why religion has been prevalent for so long. I am sure she noted that for a long time, religion was an early philosophical system that Man used to make sense of reality. She did not even mean that in a scornful way, in fact.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteThe US Founders were not against establishing state religion.
The First Amendment didn't apply to the states, so most states had established or quasi-established churches. I don't think Mass got rid of Congregationalism until 1830 or so.
-Neil Parille
Greg, I note, asserts that objectivism (the idea that there is such a thing as objective, measurable reality) is akin to a religion.
ReplyDeleteWell, that isn't quite what I assert. The fact that Objectivism asserts the idea of an "objective" and "measurable" reality is irrelevant to the point at hand. My post is about what causes religion. I suspect that even Rand would admit that many people have an emotional proclivity toward believing in religion. Where we would disagree is whether this emotional proclivity is entirely the product of integrated (or "misintegrated") premises or partially produced by various innate proclivities. In short, I'm attacking Rand's theory of human nature as it relates to religion. I think the theory that religion (or religious-like belief and behavior) is at least partially hard-wired is far more plausible than Rand's theory. From this I conclude that religion will continue to serve as a solace (and/or a curse) to mankind for a very long time to come.
I also think it is a strawman to suggest that Rand and her supporters have not addressed why religion has been prevalent for so long.
I have not said that Rand hasn't addressed the problem, I merely noted that she provided no evidence that religion derives from bad premises human knowledge. (In fact, the case is even worse that: she doesn't seem to have understand what sort evidence would be required to back up such an assertion and make it something more than mere speculation.)
I would argue that religion has been dominant ... because until the great scientific breakthroughs of recent centuries, religion provided people with what appeared to be the most coherent explanation of how things worked and came to be...
This is an explanation that is plausible under the old "man is a rational being" hypothesis; a hypothesis which, in the light of evidence brought forward by Le Bon, Pareto, second generation cognitive science, and social psychologists like Haidt, is no longer fully credible. Rationality turns out to be much more difficult to attain that thinkers like Rand assume; nor are non-rational thought processes nearly as bad as champions of classical "reason" assume. Man is not a rational animal, but merely an animal who, under certain conditions, can create, as a social output, rational assessments about certain scientific matters. Much of man's conduct is non-logical (more evidence of this confronts us every day). "Reason" does not provide the necessary motivation to persuade people to make families, social circles, cultures, polities, nations, etc. The non-rational side of human nature is at least partially hard-wired, and it will continue religious (or the secular equivalent thereof) beliefs and conduct. Hence, even after Newton and Darwin, religious type-thought continues to flourish (even if it's no longer called religion). When people stop believing in angels and demons, they don't suddenly become rational; rather, they usually find something comparable to believe in, such as UFO aliens or Sasquatch. "Religious" motivations continue to work within them, even when directed at what is nominally not religious. The substance (i.e., the "religious" drives or sentiments) remain the same, only the form through which they are manifested changes.
If Rand were alive, she might have responded to your point on why no successful society has been atheist for long by pointing to how, say, the US Founders' insistence on not establishing a state religion, coupled with the sheer openness and relative freedom of the US, was a crucial driver of that country's success.
ReplyDeleteRand probably would argue something along these lines. But the insistence on the Founding Fathers on not establishing a national religion (as Neil has correctly noted, Mass. had an established church until 1826) only tells half the story. Preventing a national establishment religion, far from giving the country a secular tradition, created conditions under which religion has flourished. America remains the most religious of the advanced industrial countries. And this seems to have been as much the desire of the Founding Fathers as the lack of an established national church. As George Washington put it (in his Farewell Address): "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Greg writes:
ReplyDelete"Man is not a rational animal, but merely an animal who, under certain conditions, can create, as a social output, rational assessments about certain scientific matters."
I think that is wrong, or at least not wholly right. Of course Man has certain innate qualities and characteristics (opposable thumbs, a large brain etc), but an objectivist would (rightly) respond by pointing out that what is distinctive about Man is that he has the ability to reason, to think about those innate qualities, and where necessary, to realise their limitations and benefits. We are, as far as I know, the first species to actually ask what sort of creatures are we? Self knowledge being the start of wisdom, etc.
And although she is dead and cannot ask her, I doubt Rand would have been vexed by all the sort of ideas you mention. Instead, she might (!) have responded by pointing out that we may be influenced by our genetic/environmental background, but we are not caught in a deterministic web (which is where, to a certain extent, I think you are going with this sort of argument if you are not careful).
I am sure that Darwinian ideas can partly explain the hold of religions and other forms of belief systems and behaviours, but they do not explain some of the enormous variations in beliefs, or explain for that matter why some countries have moved significantly away from religions, so much so that the cultural worriers in our society are bleating about the dangers of "secularism", etc.
As for the point about the Founders, I am aware that one of the paradoxes of the separation of church and state has been that many religions have flourished in America. Then again, it is also, remember, a country in which non-belief in religion has been tolerated (well, mostly), and if you look at Europe, that is certainly the case. And even during wartime and other periods of stress, the trend away from dogmatic theism seems to be continuing.
Sorry, but I don't think you have quite made the point that Rand was completely mistaken on this. At most, it looks as if she did not give enough credence to certain ideas or was just not interested in them.
There is one major exception to the universality of religion: contemporary Europe.
ReplyDeleteNonsense. First of all, Europe is not a monolith. There are countries with state religion, there are countries without one, but where evening prayers are broadcast on public radio. There are countries where by law, stores have to close down on Sunday and yet churches are empty, but there are also countries where on Sunday, supermarkets are open and full and so are the churches. Half of the governments in the EU are led by parties which explicitly invoke religious traditions, concepts and symbols.
if Europeans have chosen non-religious premises
What does that even mean? It couldn't mean the separation of church and state, because in most European countries, there is no such thing. It can't refer to the secular nature of European legal and political systems, because then the same would be true of the US. It can't mean that people in Europe have all abandoned religion, because that's simply not true.
Europe is predominantly secular and non-religious
Now I'm even more confused - aren't "secular" and "non-religious" the same thing? If they are, why list them both? If they're not, what's the distinction?
Europe is undoubtedly more secular than it once was, but I would bet there is still widespread interest in "spirituality." This is different from organized religion but involves some of the same teachings. Essentially it's an attempt to return to what Aldous Huxley called "the perennial philosophy," though it takes many different (sometimes wildly eccentric) forms.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I suspect there's a simple explanation for the persistence of religious and spiritual beliefs across cultures and eras. I think it's likely that there actually is a spirit world, and that our present earthly incarnation is only one phase of a much larger ongoing life cycle. As New Agers say, you are a spiritual being having a human experience.
If essential, ecumenical religious/spiritual teachings are true (even if obscured by accretions of mythology, dogma, and ritual), and if most people are able to grasp these teachings intuitively, then it's no great mystery why religion or spirituality has always been central to human life.