Why is Objectivism against religion?

Question

Why is Objectivism against religion?

Answer 1

I was reading a book about religion and this what was said:

A recent tabulation concluded that there are 10 main religions and some 10,000 sects. Of these, some 6,000 exist in Africa, 1,200 in the United States, and hundreds in other lands.

Many factors have contributed to the development of new religious groups. Some have said that the various religions all represent different ways of presenting religious truth. But a comparison of their teachings and practices with the Bible indicates, rather, that the diversity of religions is because people have become followers of men instead of listening to God. It is noteworthy that, to a large extent, teachings they hold in common, but that differ from the Bible, originated in ancient Babylon. (See pages 50, 51, under the heading “Babylon the Great.” How vitally important, then, to make sure that we really are worshiping the true God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and that our worship is pleasing to him!

So  not  all religions  are acceptable to God.

THERE IS  TOO MUCH HYPOCRISY

Mark 7:6, 7: “He [Jesus] said to them [the Jewish Pharisees and scribes]: ‘Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, “This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me,...

Most religions do teach that a person should not lie or steal, and so forth. But is that sufficient? Would you be happy to drink a glass of poisoned water because someone assured you that most of what you were getting was water?

2 Cor. 11:14, 15: “Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness.” (Here we are cautioned that not everything that originates with Satan may appear hideous. One of his chief methods of deceiving mankind has been false religion of all kinds, to some of which he gives a righteous appearance.)

2 Tim. 3:2, 5: “Men will be . . . having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.” (Regardless of their outward

Most religious organizations have produced bad fruitage. It is not the fact that groups are organized that is bad. But many have promoted forms of worship that are based on false teachings and are largely ritualistic instead of providing genuine spiritual guidance; they have been misused to control the lives of people for selfish objectives; they have been overly concerned with money collections and ornate houses of worship instead of spiritual values; their members are often hypocritical. Obviously no one who loves righteousness would want to belong to such an organization. But true religion is a refreshing contrast to all of that. Nevertheless, to fulfill the Bible’s requirements, it must be organized

 IS THE MEMBERS REALLY LOVE ONE ANOTHER  Jesus said: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:35) Such love reaches across racial, social, and national boundaries, drawing people together in genuine brotherhood. So strong is this love that it sets them apart as being truly different. When the nations go to war, who have enough love for their Christian brothers in other lands that they refuse to take up arms and kill them? That is what early Christians did

Answer 2

Objectivism is examination of objects which is material... transitory things and transitory body.

Spiritual, on the other hand is about the immortal aspect which is in some sense is opposed to matter... although the two co-exist. And this co-existence of the two generates the dynamism of the whole creation.

Pardon me for changing the word from religion to spiritual, since many religions have moved away from spiritual life. More on my bio.

Answer 3

I presume you're using 'objectivism' in the sense of the ideas Ayn Rand promulgated?

Rand insisted that her ideas were absolutely logical and based entirely on empirical evidence.  Therefore 'objective'-ism; based entirely on objective information.

Any kind of supernatural deity, therefore, cannot be a part of objectivism, since that deity's existence cannot be verified by objective means.

Now, here's where Rand parts company with her own standards; she upheld an economic theory that an entirely unregulated free market and absolute laissez-faire capitalism was objectively the best system.  Those conclusions fly in the face of data, but anyway:

Religion--even those that don't demand adherance to a deity, like Unitarianism or organized Secular Humanism, involve a degree of groupness and communitarian spirit that Rand would find objectionable, and especially so as it applied toward endeavors that were neither mercantilistic nor hedonistic.

Answer 4

The problem is that religion is against Objectivism.

Answer 5

Because despite the preachings, religions are not tolerant.

Answer 6

Religion is pre-philosophy in terms of epistemology.

In terms of metaphysics, it is practices which admit of self-abnegation, such as kneeling or genuflecting or praying. But she was not a "basher" in the same vein as Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason." Religion was not all that important a subject to her. What was important was getting the answers right.

"There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul)."

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/jesus...

"PLAYBOY: Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?

RAND: Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very—how should I say it?—dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith.

“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964.

"Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used."

“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964.