What is objectivism?

Answer

Objectivism can have various meanings, so understanding it relies on the specific definition being used. Some interpretations align with the teachings of the Bible, while others do not. Ayn Rand’s concept of objectivism leads to similar conclusions as Judeo-Christianity, albeit for different reasons. Certain aspects of Rand’s ideology clearly contradict biblical principles. It is crucial to discern the distinctions among these diverse perspectives. In general, there are four primary interpretations of objectivism.

General Concept of Objectivism

The first is logical objectivism, which posits that logic exists independently of the mind and that logical principles are concrete, universal rules that reflect the nature of the universe, akin to the laws of physics or chemistry. The notion that logic is inherent in the fabric of the universe does not necessarily conflict with the existence of God, as any deity capable of creating the universe could have established any set of laws desired.

The second is moral objectivism, asserting that certain moral judgments hold absolute validity universally and eternally. This perspective is also consistent with the teachings of the Bible. If there exists a singular moral standard—such as God—then moral objectivism becomes coherent. However, implying that God is bound by such moral standards misconstrues the essence of God and the foundation of morality.

The third interpretation is philosophical objectivism, emphasizing objectivity. This viewpoint maintains that reality exists independently of human cognition. Objectivity affirms that existence is an inherent reality. In contrast, philosophies like idealism, subjectivism, or specific forms of solipsism reject this notion. This form of objectivism aligns well with the God depicted in the Bible and best aligns with the Judeo-Christian worldview.

Nevertheless, some objectors argue that only what exists within the mind of God is real. This idealistic perspective rejects the concept of objectivism and is a form of denial of ob.jectivism, but not a rejection of God. In contrast, mainstream subjectivism erodes the concept of God by denying any such thing as absolute truth. This is a self-defeating position since it relies on an absolute claim.

Objectivism and Ayn Rand

The fourth definition of objectivism is a socio-political system commonly associated with Ayn Rand. Rand was a writer and atheist who emphasized individual freedom and critical thinking. Her form of objectivism is an assertively rationalist perspective, rejecting anything other than pure reason as a means to uncover truth.

Rand’s objectivism asserts that happiness is the sole legitimate foundation for all morality. To pursue happiness and the highest morality, according to objectivism, an individual must acknowledge the existence of certain objective principles. Thinking and acting in accordance with these fixed ideas is believed to provide each person with the best opportunity for success. As part of this approach, Rand’s objectivism strongly emphasizes personal freedom and responsibility as a form of libertarianism.

In practice, the complete range of Rand’s objectivism contradicts biblical concepts such as God as a moral guide, altruism, and the limits of human knowledge.

Ayn Rand’s work occupies intriguing positions in both politics and philosophy. Philosophers generally regard her work as ideology rather than genuine philosophy. Similarly, politicians see her stance as ideological rather than genuinely political. Consequently, there are various ways in which individuals might choose to apply or access her ideas. Since Rand’s concepts are broad in scope, her views sometimes overlap with ideologies that share certain assumptions.

Common themes are likely the reason why Westerners, including Christians, may find themselves engaging with Ayn Rand’s material. Her objectivism aligns with some assumptions of generic political conservatism. Therefore, some of her conclusions and arguments will resonate with those who have similar interests. Just because Rand was an atheist does not mean that all her beliefs were.e untrue; Christians can agree with Rand on the points where her ideology intersects with biblical truth. If Rand believed in an idea practically identical to a biblical precept, there is nothing wrong with a Christian benefiting from her insight, especially given the eloquent and persuasive way she had of explaining it.

That does not change the fact that Ayn Rand’s worldview was markedly different from biblical Christianity. We should be prepared to question and test what we hear and read from anyone (Acts 17:11;1 John 4:1). There is a distinction between using a particularly insightful quote from Rand and embracing her objectivist ideology as she would have intended.

For the believer, there’s nothing wrong with researching and understanding Rand’s views. Nor is there anything explicitly wrong with using some of her argumentation. Her version of objectivism is an illustration of how one might arrive at politically or socially conservative views without a Christian worldview. That’s a helpful perspective, at least, when seeking common ground with others. Strictly speaking, however, full-blown objectivism, vis-à-vis Ayn Rand, is not something a Christian should adopt. It does share some common themes with Christian thinking, but it directly contradicts the Bible’s stances on altruism and human purpose.