Does anyone here agree with Ayn Rand and her supporter's version of objective reality?
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
Metaphysics, Objective Reality: Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
http://www.atlassociety.org/religion_objectivism
Question: Is Objectivism compatible with religion?
Answer: Most major religions have believed in the existence of a supernatural realm, a realm beyond the natural world of physical objects and bodies governed by causal laws, the world we perceive with our senses and can study by rational methods. Some religions posit a personal god (or gods); others believe in impersonal supernatural forces. (See George Walsh, The Role of Religion in History, chapter 1.) Objectivism rejects any notion of the supernatural as incompatible with the objectivity and regularity of nature as identified by reason. There is no credible evidence of miracles, magic, or other supernatural phenomena in nature.
The dominant forms of religion in our culture posit a personal god, a Supreme Being, who created the world, is omnipotent and omniscient, imposes moral duties on man, and expects worship. Those who accept this idea have the burden of showing why such a hypothesis is necessary. In this regard, Objectivists are atheists because the arguments for the existence of such a being are not sound. Objectivists reject the existence of God for the same reason they reject the existence of elves, leprechauns, and unicorns: because there is no credible evidence of such beings.
- It is said that we need to posit God as a creator in order to explain the existence of the natural world. But there is no reason to think that the existence of this world requires an explanation by anything outside itself. While individual things in the natural world come and go, as a result of specific causes within that world, it does not follow that the world itself must have a cause.
- It is said that we need to posit God as a designer in order to explain the complex order within the natural world, including the adaptation of living things to their environments. But the existence of order as such does not require an explanation. Any existing thing must have some identity and obey causal laws. It is only with the natural realm that we can explain how a particular type of order arises from natural causes. That includes the particular order we find among living things, for which the best current explanation is the operation of evolutionary processes.
Of course these brief summaries cannot do justice to the arguments, which have been discussed by philosophers for centuries. For further discussion and references, see George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God.
There is a profound difference, then, between Objectivism and traditional religions in their respective views of the world. But this is not the primary conflict. The primary conflict is reason versus faith as methods of adopting one's worldview in the first place.
Objectivism regards reason as an absolute. It holds that all knowledge is based on the evidence of the senses. It holds that all beliefs, conclusions, and convictions must be established by logical methods of inquiry and tested by logical methods of verification. In short, it holds that the scientific approach applies to all areas of knowledge. Blind faith, by contrast, consists in belief not based on evidence, or based on such spurious forms of "evidence" as revelation and authority. Faith is essentially an arbitrary exercise of the mind, a willful credulity based on subjective emotions rather than objective evidence, a desire for certainty without the scrupulous cognitive effort required to achieve rational certainty. Faith cannot substitute for reason as a means of knowledge, nor can it supplement reason. Reason is incompatible with arbitrary procedures of any kind.