The Objectivist Critique of Christianity—Does it Apply to Mormonism?

Objectivism and Mormonism share the same critiques of classical Christianity

Many latter-day saints were drawn to ideas of laissez-faire capitalism after reading Ayn Rand’s best-selling novel Atlas Shrugged. While Rand’s views are foundational to her fiction works, it is in her non-fiction works, and particularly those of Founder of the Ayn Rand Institute Leonard Peikoff, where her philosophy—Objectivism—is delineated and developed into a more coherent framework. While Objectivism heavily criticizes Christianity as nothing more than mysticism, the more relevant discussion for this article regards whether this criticism applies to Mormonism. It is meant to answer whether the Objectivist judgment of Christianity in general, including faith and the nature of God, also applies to Mormonism.[1]

In order to answer the question it becomes necessary to understand how Christianity is defined in the Objectivist system. The answer is neither simple nor straightforward because of revealed Mormon doctrine regarding the Apostasy, or the general falling away from the Truth that occurred over time. Additional complexity arises because Mormons, who also consider themselves Christians, employ the same, or at least similar, terminology as other Christians, but sometimes with sharply different definitions.

Faith and Reason

It is well known that Miss Rand was an Atheist who viewed faith—which she placed beneath the heading “mysticism”—as fundamentally and diametrically opposed to reason. According to Objectivist doctrine, reason is man’s sole method of coming to know and understand reality and of his survival. This unfortunate dichotomous positioning has led to the (fallacious) idea that man must choose between either faith or reason, indicating they are somehow mutually exclusive positions. The argument is skewed from the beginning, since anything pitted against reason may be viewed as unreason—a very unreasonable assertion.

Nevertheless, we know from the scriptures that God does not unnecessarily circumscribe truth-revealing means, and instead uses multiple methods to communicate with his children. These methods vary according to individual differences in the manner of understanding of his children, appreciating that even an individual’s comprehension changes due to spatial-temporal circumstances. While revelation certainly may be regarded as the sine qua non of the restored gospel, the Lord’s utilization of reason as a method of communication, and hence as one epistemological tool for man to gain Knowledge, is demonstrated by the following scriptures (emphasis added): 

“Come now, and let us reason together saith the Lord.” (Isaiah 1: 18)

 

“And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand.” (D&C 50:10)

“Wherefore, come ye unto it, and with him that cometh I will reason as with men in days of old, and I will show unto you my strong reasoning.” (D&C 45:10)

In addition, Rand’s view of faith as mysticism is naive and artificially confined, amounting to more of a straw-man argument than an intellectual or religious threat. Faith as defined in the scriptures is inextricably linked to works; it is through works that faith is demonstrated (James 2:18, 20, 26). This definition of faith facilitates the view that it is possible for individuals to exercise faith in things other than God. This would mean that on the Sabbath, when one individual enters a chapel and the other a casino, both individuals can have faith, but in something or someone very different. The question then becomes not merely one of faith but of who or what that faith is in. As the LDS Fourth Article of Faith states, Mormons believe it is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that matters, i.e., faith in what is True counts. Unfortunately—although somewhat understandably—Ayn Rand viewed faith as some arbitrary, homogeneous, exclusively religious lump, as if all religions meant and understood the same thing by faith.  

The Trinity and Creation ex nihilo

However, while Rand was entirely incorrect in her critique of faith vis-à-vis reason, she was almost entirely correct in her critique of the God of Classical, or Trinitarian, Christianity. Objectivism’s fundamental critique of the nature of God stems from the Objectivist view of the nature of reality, which consists of three axioms:

1) Existence exists.

2) To perceive that which exists requires consciousness.

3) The law of identity: to be something is to possess identity, to have a nature.

These three axioms can be summed up in the sentence, “There is something I am aware of” (Peikoff, 1991, p. 4-7).  On the face of it, these three axioms are perfectly congruent with LDS thought, although not with the classical view of God and existence. (In this article, I will only have space to take up axiom one.) Peikoff later on further explains the Objectivist criticism of mainstream Christianity: 

“In [the supernatural] view, existence is a product of cosmic consciousness, God. This idea is implicit in Plato’s theory of Forms and became explicit with the Christian development from Plato. According to Christianity (and Judaism), God is an infinite consciousness who created existence, sustains it, makes it lawful, then periodically subjects it to decrees that flout the regular order, thereby producing ‘miracles.’ 

“The religious view of the world, though it has been abandoned by most philosophers, is still entrenched in the public mind. Witness the popular question ‘Who created the universe?’—which presupposes that the universe is not eternal, but has a source beyond itself, in some cosmic personality or will.” (Peikoff, 1991, p. 4-7)

A latter-day saint reading this should recognize immediately this could have been written by a Mormon criticizing modern-day Christianity, i.e., this is not the LDS view of God. The Objectivist critique of the nature of God comes from the classical tradition of the idea of creatio ex nihilo, or creation out of nothing. In other words, nothing (except God) existed before God created it. In contrast, Mormon doctrine states that matter cannot be created out of nothing, but only organized from existing matter. In other words, existence exists regardless of a “cosmic consciousness”—not because of it.

In addition, LDS doctrine shows that the worlds were organized out of existing matter (e.g., Abraham 4:1, 12-16) just as existing materials on earth can be organized to construct a house. Joseph Smith pointed out numerous times the false view of creation ex nihilo, a view with fundamental problems, e.g., Did God then create evil? How can we have free will? In the Mormon view these situations are not particularly problematic; in contrast, for the classical Christian these are insurmountable challenges to their foundational doctrines, and Objectivism is correct to criticize them for their shortcomings. In short, Mormons believe, along with Objectivists, that existence exists, thus fulfilling axiom one. In fact, it could be argued that latter-day saints may believe it even more so, as it is fundamental to their doctrine and understanding of the immortality of individuals. In other words, whereas Objectivists may believe that matter and physical reality eternally exist as “things,” Mormons believe even individuals eternally exist, with or without tangible—at least visibly tangible—bodies. For example, Doctrine and Covenants states that “[individuals] were in the beginning with the Father” (D&C 93:23). Scriptures from Doctrine and Covenants are also clear regarding the existence of matter, seen and unseen:

“There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.” (D&C 131:7-8) 

Objectivists, ever contra Plato, should recognize that the LDS view is not the equivalent of Platonic Forms. Instead, the Mormon interpretation of the scriptures—humbly the correct view, pace Classical Christianity—is that matter exists eternally and cannot be created or uncreated, that it exists in both seen and unseen (i.e., “more fine”) forms.  As seen from the Peikoff excerpt above, the Objectivist critique of classical Christianity is roughly the same as their critique of Platonism. Thus, latter-day saints again agree with Objectivists, demonstrated by the LDS view of the Apostasy, which describes how Christianity became corrupted through the adoption of certain Platonic ideas, and then mingled them with scripture.    

Omnipotence and Infinity God

Finally, one more related Objectivist critique of God (Peikoff, 1991, p. 31):

“. . . let us confine the discussion here to the popular notion of God

“Is God the creator of the universe? Not if existence has primacy over consciousness.

“Is God the designer of the universe? Not if A is A. The alternative to ‘design’ is not ‘chance.’ It is causality. 

“Is God omnipotent? Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given.

“Is God infinite? ‘Infinite’ does not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity, i.e., of no specific quantity. An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. But A is A. Every entity, accordingly, is finite.”

Having discussed above Peikoff’s initial critiques, I will very briefly answer the omnipotent and infinite arguments.  

God is omnipotent, although this needs clarification. This does not mean, as Peikoff writes, that He “alter[s] the metaphysically given,” but that he acts in accordance with physical (or natural) laws; whether they are in ways we do not yet understand is another matter. This (again) is more difficult for the classical Christian because of their view of creation from nothing, i.e., not from existing materials since, according to their doctrine, such materials did not exist.

In addition, God is not “infinite” in terms of quantity or space in the LDS view. Instead, LDS doctrine states that God has a body of flesh and bone (D&C 130:22), and is fixed in one location in space. Of course, it is His influence, carried through the power of the Holy Ghost—who does not have a body of flesh and bone—that can be felt throughout space, similar to the sun being in one place, yet felt throughout the entire earth.

The classical infinity view of God as an incorporeal mass of substance comes from the views of men found in various creeds (e.g., Nicene, Athanasian), and not from the scriptures. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, a Mormon Apostle wrote the following concerning this issue: 

“Our first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is ‘We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.’ We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.”

Conclusion

To sum up, Objectivism takes a naive view of faith and glorifies reason at the unnecessary expense of other Truth-obtaining means. However, it is absolutely correct in its critique of the classical, apostate views of God. When taking into account the LDS view of God there is nothing incompatible between the two, at least according to the three axioms above. It turns out the Objectivist critique of Christianity is not inaccurate but—according to the Mormon view of the apostasy and in light of restored truth—warranted and proper. In other words, the Objectivist argument above is neither opposed or a threat to Mormonism; they actually share the same fundamental critiques of classical Christianity.

References

Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Dutton, 1991.

Chris Brown is a lecturer and management consultant at the Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship. He also centrally plans a blog at http://www.austro-libertarian.com. Send him email at austrolibertarian@gmail.com.