Homestead mailing list

[tvoivozhd <tvoivozd AT infionline.net>]

From /Skeptic/ vol. 2, no. 2, 1993, pp. 74-81.

The following article is copyright © 1993 by the Skeptics Society, P.O. 
Box 338, Altadena, CA 91001, (818) 794-3119. Permission has been granted 
for noncommercial electronic circulation of this article in its 
entirety, including this notice.


 THE UNLIKELIEST CULT IN HISTORY


   BY MICHAEL SHERMER <http://www.2think.org/quotes.html#shermer>

Contents:

   * Introduction <http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml#intro>
   * Bibliography <http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml#biblio>

Freudian projection is the process of attributing one's own ideas, 
feelings, or attitudes to other people or objects--the guilt-laden 
adulterer accuses his spouse of adultery, the homophobe actually harbors 
latent homosexual tendencies. A subtle form of projection can be seen in 
the accusation by Christians that secular humanism and evolution are 
"religions"; or by cultists and paranormalists that skeptics are 
themselves a cult and that reason and science have cultic properties. 
For skeptics, the idea that reason can lead to a cult is absurd. The 
characteristics of a cult are 180 degrees out of phase with reason. But 
as I will demonstrate, not only can it happen, it has happened, and to a 
group that would have to be considered the unlikeliest cult in history. 
It is a lesson in what happens when the truth becomes more important 
than the /search/ for truth, when final results of inquiry become more 
important than the /process/ of inquiry, and especially when reason 
leads to an absolute certainty about one's beliefs such that those who 
are not for the group are against it.

The story begins in 1943 when an obscure Russian immigrant published her 
first successful novel after two consecutive failures. It was not an 
instant success. In fact, the reviews were harsh and initial sales 
sluggish. But slowly a following grew around the novel, word of mouth 
became the most effective marketing tool, and the author began to 
develop what could, with hindsight, be called a "cult following." The 
initial print-run of 7,500 copies was followed by multiples of five and 
10,000 until by 1950 half a million copies were circulating the country. 
The book was /The Fountainhead/ and the author Ayn Rand. Her commercial 
success allowed her the time and freedom to write her magnum opus, 
/Atlas Shrugged/, published in 1957 after ten years in the making. It is 
a murder mystery, not about the murder of a human body, but of the 
murder of a human spirit. It is a broad and sweeping story of a man who 
said he would stop the ideological motor of the world. When he did, 
there was a panoramic collapse of civilization, with its flame kept 
burning by a small handful of heroic individuals whose reason and morals 
directed both the fall and the subsequent return of culture.

As they did to /The Fountainhead/, reviewers panned /Atlas/ with a 
savage brutality that, incredibly, only seemed to reinforce followers' 
belief in the book, its author, and her ideas. And, like /The 
Fountainhead/, sales of /Atlas/ sputtered and clawed their way forward 
as the following grew, to the point where the book presently sells over 
300,000 copies a year. "In all my years of publishing," recalled Random 
House's owner, Bennett Cerf, "I've never seen anything like it. To break 
through against such enormous opposition!" (Branden, 1986, p. 298). Such 
is the power of an individual hero . . . and a cult-like following.

What is it about Rand's philosophy that so emotionally stimulates 
proponents and opponents alike? Before /Atlas Shrugged/ was published, 
at a sales conference at Random House a salesman asked Rand if she could 
summarize the essence of her philosophy, called Objectivism, while 
standing on one foot. She did so as follows (1962):

  1. /Metaphysics/: Objective Reality
  2. /Epistemology/: Reason
  3. /Ethics/: Self-interest
  4. /Politics/: Capitalism

In other words, nature exists independent of human thought. Reason is 
the only method of perceiving this reality. All humans seek personal 
happiness and exist for their own sake, and should not sacrifice 
themselves to or be sacrificed by others. And /laissez-faire/ capitalism 
is the best political-economic system for the first three to flourish, 
where "men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor 
as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to 
mutual benefit," and where "no man may initiate the use of physical 
force against others" (p. 1). Ringing throughout Rand's works is the 
philosophy of individualism, personal responsibility, the power of 
reason, and the importance of morality. One should think for one's self 
and never allow an authority to dictate truth, especially the authority 
of government, religion, and other such groups. Success, happiness, and 
unrestrained upward mobility will accrue to those who use reason to act 
in the highest moral fashion, and who never demand favors or handouts. 
Objectivism is the ultimate philosophy of unsullied reason and 
unadulterated individualism, as expressed by Rand through her primary 
character in /Atlas Shrugged/, John Galt:

   Man cannot survive except by gaining knowledge, and reason is his
   only means to gain it. Reason is the faculty that perceives,
   identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses. The
   task of his senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the
   task of identifying it belongs to his reason, his senses tell him
   only that something is, but what it is must be learned by his mind
   (p. 1012).

   In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to
   those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you
   alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the
   cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title.
   Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright
   posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited
   roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in
   the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet,
   the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely
   frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to
   reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you
   desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's
   yours (p. 1069).

How, then, could such a philosophy become the basis of a cult, which is 
the antithesis of reason and individualism? A cult, however it is 
defined, depends on faith and deindividuation--that is, remove the power 
of reason in followers and make them dependent upon the group and/or the 
leader. The last thing a cult leader wants is for followers to think for 
themselves and become individuals apart from the group.

The cultic flaw in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is not in the 
use of reason, or in the emphasis on individuality, or in the belief 
that humans are self motivated, or in the conviction that capitalism is 
the ideal system. The fallacy in Objectivism is the belief that absolute 
knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore 
there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge, and absolute moral and 
immoral thought and action. For Objectivists, once a principle has been 
discovered through reason to be True, that is the end of the discussion. 
If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed. If 
your reasoning is flawed it can be corrected, but if it is not, you 
remain flawed and do not belong in the group. Excommunication is the 
final step for such unreformed heretics.

If you find it hard to believe that such a line of reasoning could lead 
a rational, well-intentioned group down the road to culthood, history 
demonstrates how it can happen. The 1960s were years of 
anti-establishment, anti-government, find-yourself individualism, so 
Rand's philosophy exploded across the nation, particularly on college 
campuses. /Atlas Shrugged/ became the book to read. Though it is a 
massive 1,168 pages long, readers devoured the characters, the plot, and 
most importantly, the philosophy. It stirred emotions and evoked action. 
Ayn Rand clubs were founded at hundreds of colleges. Professors taught 
courses in the philosophy of Objectivism and the literary works of Rand. 
Rand's inner circle of friends began to grow and one of them, Nathaniel 
Branden, founded the Nathaniel Branden Institute (NBI), sponsoring 
lectures and courses on Objectivism, first in New York, and then 
nationally.

As the seminars increased in size and Rand's popularity shot skyward, so 
too did the confidence in her philosophy, both for Rand and her 
followers. Hundreds of people attended classes, thousands of letters 
poured into the office, and millions of books were being sold. Movie 
rights for /Atlas/ were being negotiated (/The Fountainhead/ had already 
been made into a film 
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/6301969294/rpcman>). Her rise to 
intellectual power and influence was nothing short of miraculous, and 
readers of her novels, especially /Atlas Shrugged/, told Rand it had 
changed their lives and their way of thinking. Their comments ring of 
the enthusiasm of the followers of a religious cult (Branden, 1986, pp. 
407-415):

   * After reading /Atlas/ a young woman in the Peace Corps wrote: "I
     had undergone the loneliest, most inspiring, and heartrending
     psycho-intellectual transformation, and all my plans upon
     returning to the United States had changed."
   * A 24-year old "traditional housewife" (her own label) read /Atlas/
     and said: "Dagny Taggart [the book's principle heroine] was an
     inspiration to me; she is a great feminist role model. Ayn Rand's
     works gave me the courage to be and to do what I had dreamed of."
   * A businessman began reading /Atlas/ and said "Within a few hundred
     pages I sensed clearly that I had ventured upon a lifetime of
     meaning. The philosophy of Ayn Rand nurtured growth, stability and
     integrity in my life. Her ideas permeated every aspect of my
     business, family and creative life."
   * A law school graduate said of Objectivism: "Dealing with Ayn Rand
     was like taking a post-doctoral course in mental functioning. The
     universe she created in her work holds out hope, and appeals to
     the best in man. Her lucidity and brilliance was a light so strong
     I don't think anything will ever be able to put it out."
   * An economics professor recalled: "After you read /Atlas Shrugged/
     you don't look at the world with the same perspective."
   * A philosophy professor concluded: "Ayn Rand was one of the most
     original thinkers I have ever met. There is no escape from facing
     the issues she raised. . . . At a time in my life when I thought I
     had learned at least the essentials of most philosophical views,
     being confronted with her . . . suddenly changed the entire
     direction of my intellectual life, and placed every other thinker
     in a new perspective."
   * Another philosophy professor, this one disliking Rand and
     disagreeing with Objectivism, recalled after an all-night
     discussion with the philosopher-novelist: "She's found gaping
     holes in every philosophical position I've maintained for the
     whole of my life--positions I teach my students, positions on
     which I'm a recognized authority--and I can't answer her
     arguments! I don't know what to do!" (p. 247).

There are thousands more just like these, many from people who are now 
quite successful and well-known, and give credit to Rand. But to the 
inner circle surrounding and protecting Rand (in ironic humor they 
called themselves the "Collective"), their leader soon became more than 
just extremely influential. She was venerated as their leader. Her 
seemingly omniscient ideas were inerrant. The power of her personality 
made her so persuasive that no one dared to challenge her. And her 
philosophy of Objectivism, since it was derived through pure reason, 
revealed final Truth and dictated absolute morality.

One of the closest to Rand was Nathaniel Branden, a young philosophy 
student who joined the Collective in the early days before /Atlas 
Shrugged/ was published. In his autobiographical memoirs entitled 
/Judgment Day/ (1989), Branden recalled: "There were implicit premises 
in our world to which everyone in our circle subscribed, and which we 
transmitted to our students at NBI." Incredibly, and here is where the 
philosophical movement became a cult, they came to believe that (pp. 
255-256):

   * Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived.
   * /Atlas Shrugged/ is the greatest human achievement in the history
     of the world.
   * Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme
     arbiter in any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral, or
     appropriate to man's life on earth.
   * Once one is acquainted with Ayn Rand and/or her work, the measure
     of one's virtue is intrinsically tied to the position one takes
     regarding her and/or it.
   * No one can be a good Objectivist who does not admire what Ayn Rand
     admires and condemn what Ayn Rand condemns.
   * No one can be a fully consistent individualist who disagrees with
     Ayn Rand on any fundamental issue.
   * Since Ayn Rand has designated Nathaniel Branden as her
     "intellectual heir," and has repeatedly proclaimed him to be an
     ideal exponent of her philosophy, he is to be accorded only
     marginally less reverence than Ayn Rand herself.
   * But it is best not to say most of these things explicitly
     (excepting, perhaps, the first two items). One must always
     maintain that one arrives at one's beliefs solely by reason.

It is important to note that my critique of Rand and Objectivism as a 
cult is not original. Rand and her followers were, in their time, 
accused of being a cult which, of course, they denied. "My following is 
not a cult. I am not a cult figure," Rand once told an interviewer. 
Barbara Branden, in her biography, /The Passion of Ayn Rand/, recalls: 
"Although the Objectivist movement clearly had many of the trappings of 
a cult--the aggrandizement of the person of Ayn Rand, the too ready 
acceptance of her personal opinions on a host of subjects, the incessant 
moralizing--it is nevertheless significant that the fundamental 
attraction of Objectivism . . . was the precise opposite of religious 
worship" (p. 371). And Nathaniel Branden addressed the issue this way: 
"We were not a cult in the literal, dictionary sense of the word, but 
certainly there was a cultish aspect to our world . . . . We were a 
group organized around a charismatic leader, whose members judged one 
another's character chiefly by loyalty to that leader and to her ideas" 
(p. 256).

But if you leave the "religious" component out of the definition, thus 
broadening the word's usage, it becomes clear that Objectivism was (and 
is) a cult, as are many other, non-religious groups. In this context, 
then, a cult may be characterized by:

   * /Veneration of the Leader/: Excessive glorification to the point
     of virtual sainthood or divinity.
   * /Inerrancy of the Leader/: Belief that he or she cannot be wrong.
   * /Omniscience of the Leader/: Acceptance of beliefs and
     pronouncements on virtually all subjects, from the philosophical
     to the trivial.
   * /Persuasive Techniques/: Methods used to recruit new followers and
     reinforce current beliefs.
   * /Hidden Agendas/: Potential recruits and the public are not given
     a full disclosure of the true nature of the group's beliefs and plans.
   * /Deceit/: Recruits and followers are not told everything about the
     leader and the group's inner circle, particularly flaws or
     potentially embarrassing events or circumstances.
   * /Financial and/or Sexual Exploitation/: Recruits and followers are
     persuaded to invest in the group, and the leader may develop
     sexual relations with one or more of the followers.
   * /Absolute Truth/: Belief that the leader and/or group has a method
     of discovering final knowledge on any number of subjects.
   * /Absolute Morality/: Belief that the leader and/or the group have
     developed a system of right and wrong thought and action
     applicable to members and nonmembers alike. Those who strictly
     follow the moral code may become and remain members, those who do
     not are dismissed or punished.

The ultimate statement of Rand's absolute morality heads the title page 
of Nathaniel Brandon's book. Says Rand:

   The precept: "Judge not, that ye be not judged" . . . is an
   abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one
   gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for
   oneself.

   There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices; so
   long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral
   values; so long as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is
   possible. To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become an
   accessory to the torture and murder of his victims.

   The moral principle to adopt . . . is: "Judge, and be prepared to be
   judged."

The absurd lengths to which such thinking can go is demonstrated by 
Rand's pronounced judgements on her followers of even the most trivial 
things. Rand had argued, for example, that musical taste could not be 
objectively defined, yet, as Barbara Branden observed, "if one of her 
young friends responded as she did to Rachmaninoff . . . she attached 
deep significance to their affinity." By contrast, if a friend did not 
respond as she did to a certain piece or composer, Rand "left no doubt 
that she considered that person morally and psychologically 
reprehensible." Branden recalled an evening when a friend of Rand's 
remarked that he enjoyed the music of Richard Strauss. "When he left at 
the end of the evening, Ayn said, in a reaction becoming increasingly 
typical, 'Now I understand why he and I can never be real soul mates. 
The distance in our sense of life is too great.' Often, she did not wait 
until a friend had left to make such remarks" (p. 268).

With this set of criteria it becomes possible to see that a rational 
philosophy can become a cult when most or all of these are met. This is 
true not only for philosophical movements, but in some scientific 
schools of thought as well. Many founding scientists have become almost 
deified in their own time, to the point where apprentices dare not 
challenge the master. As Max Planck observed about science in general, 
only after the founders and elder statesmen of a discipline are dead and 
gone can real change occur and revolutionary new ideas be accepted.

In both Barbara's and Nathaniel Branden's assessment, then, we see all 
the characteristics of a cult. But what about deceit and sexual 
exploitation? In this case, "exploitation" may be too strong of a word, 
but the act was present nonetheless, and deceit was rampant. In what has 
become the most scandalous (and now oft-told) story in the brief history 
of the Objectivist movement, starting in 1953 and lasting until 1958 
(and on and off for another decade after), Ayn Rand and her 
"intellectual heir" Nathaniel Branden, 25 years her junior, carried on a 
secret love affair known only to their respective spouses. The falling 
in love was not planned, but it was ultimately "reasonable" since the 
two of them were, de facto, the two greatest humans on the planet. "By 
the total logic of who we are--by the total logic of what love and sex 
mean--we had to love each other," Rand told Barbara Branden and her own 
husband, Frank O'Connor. It was a classic display of a brilliant mind 
intellectualizing a purely emotional response, and another example of 
reason carried to absurd heights. "Whatever the two of you may be 
feeling," Rand rationalized, "I know your intelligence, I know you 
recognize the rationality of what we feel for each other, and that you 
hold no value higher than reason" (B. Brandon, p. 258).

Unbelievably, both Barbara and Frank accepted the affair, and agreed to 
allow Ayn and Nathaniel an afternoon and evening of sex and love once a 
week. "And so," Barbara explained, "we all careened toward disaster." 
The "rational" justification and its consequences continued year after 
year, as the tale of interpersonal and group deceit grew broader and 
deeper. The disaster finally came in 1968 when it became known to Rand 
that Branden had fallen in love with yet another woman, and had begun an 
affair with her. Even though the affair between Rand and Branden had 
long since dwindled, the master of the absolutist moral double-standard 
would not tolerate such a breach of ethical conduct. "Get that bastard 
down here!," Rand screamed upon hearing the news, "or I'll drag him here 
myself!" Branden, according to Barbara, slunk into Rand's apartment to 
face the judgment day. "It's finished, your whole act!" she told him. 
"I'll tear down your facade as I built it up! I'll denounce you 
publicly, I'll destroy you as I created you! I don't even care what it 
does to me. You won't have the career I gave you, or the name, or the 
wealth, or the prestige. You'll have nothing . . . ." The barrage 
continued for several minutes until she pronounced her final curse: "If 
you have an ounce of morality left in you, an ounce of psychological 
health--you'll be impotent for the next twenty years!" (pp. 345-347).

Rand's verbal attack was followed by a six-page open letter to her 
followers in her publication /The Objectivist/ (May, 1968). It was 
entitled "To Whom It May Concern." After explaining that she had 
completely broken with the Brandens, Rand continued the deceit through 
lies of omission: "About two months ago . . . Mr. Branden presented me 
with a written statement which was so irrational and so offensive to me 
that I had to break my personal association with him." Without so much 
as a hint of the nature of the offense Rand continued: "About two months 
later Mrs. Branden suddenly confessed that Mr. Branden had been 
concealing from me certain ugly actions and irrational behavior in his 
private life, which was grossly contradictory to Objectivist morality . 
. . . " Branden's second affair was judged immoral, his first was not. 
This excommunication was followed by a reinforcing barrage from NBI's 
Associate Lecturers that sounds all too ecclesiastical in its 
denouncement (and written out of complete ignorance of what really 
happened): "Because Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, in a series 
of actions, have betrayed fundamental principles of Objectivism, we 
condemn and repudiate these two persons irrevocably, and have terminated 
all association with them . . . . " (Branden, 1986, pp. 353-354).

Confusion reigned supreme in both the Collective and in the 
rank-and-file membership. Mail poured into the office, most of it 
supporting Rand (naturally, since they knew nothing of the first 
affair). Nathaniel received angry responses and even Barbara's broker, 
an Objectivist, terminated her as his client. The group was in turmoil 
over the incident. What were they to think with such a formidable 
condemnation of unnamed sins? The ultimate extreme of such absolutist 
thinking was revealed several months later when, in the words of 
Barbara, "a half-demented former student of NBI had raised the question 
of whether or not it would be morally appropriate to assassinate 
Nathaniel because of the suffering he had caused Ayn; the man concluded 
that it should not be done on practical grounds, but would be morally 
legitimate. Fortunately, he was shouted down at once by a group of 
appalled students" (p. 356n).

It was the beginning of the long decline and fall of Rand's tight grip 
over the Collective. One by one they sinned, the transgressions becoming 
more minor as the condemnations grew in fierceness. And one by one they 
left, or were asked to leave. In the end (Rand died in 1982) there 
remained only a handful of friends, and the designated executor of her 
estate, Leonard Peikoff (who presently carries on the cause through the 
Southern California based Ayn Rand Institute, "The Center for the 
Advancement of Objectivism"). While the cultic qualities of the group 
sabotaged the inner circle, there remained (and remains) a huge 
following of those who choose to ignore the indiscretions, infidelities, 
and moral inconsistencies of the founder, and focus instead on the 
positive aspects of the philosophy. There is much in it from which to 
choose, if you do not have to accept the whole package. In this 
analysis, then, there are three important caveats about cults, 
skepticism, and reason:

  1. /Criticism of the founder of a philosophy does not, by itself,
     constitute a negation of any part of the philosophy/. The fact
     that Christians have been some of the worst violators of their own
     moral system does not mean that the ethical axioms of "thou shalt
     not kill," or "due unto others as you would have them do unto
     you," are negated. The components of a philosophy must stand or
     fall on their own internal consistency or empirical support,
     regardless of the founder's personality quirks or moral
     inconsistencies. By most accounts Newton was a cantankerous and
     relatively unpleasant person to be around. This fact has nothing
     at all to do with his principles of natural philosophy. With
     thinkers who proffer moral principles, as in the case of Rand,
     this caveat is more difficult to apply, but it is true
     nonetheless. It is good to know these things about Rand, but it
     does not nullify her philosophy. I reject her principles of final
     Truth and absolute morality not because Rand had feet of clay, but
     because I do not believe they are either logically or empirically
     tenable.
  2. /Criticism of part of a philosophy does not gainsay the whole/. In
     a similar analogy as above, one may reject parts of the Christian
     philosophy while embracing others. I might, for example, attempt
     to treat others as I would have them treat me, while at the same
     time renounce the belief that women should remain silent in church
     and be obedient to their husbands. One may disavow Rand's absolute
     morality, while accepting her metaphysics of objective reality,
     her epistemology of reason, and her political philosophy of
     capitalism (though Objectivists would say they all follow from her
     metaphysics). Which leads me to the third caveat.
  3. /The critic of part of a philosophy does not necessarily repudiate
     the whole philosophy/. This is a personal caveat to Objectivists
     and readers of /Skeptic/ alike. Rand critics come from all
     political positions--left, right, and middle. Professional
     novelists generally disdain her style. Professional philosophers
     generally refuse to take her work seriously (both because she
     wrote for popular audiences and because her work is not considered
     a complete philosophy). There are more Rand critics than
     followers. I am not one of them. Ayn Rand has probably influenced
     my thinking more than any other author. I have read all of her
     works, including her newsletters, early works, and the two major
     biographies. I have even read the Brobdingnagian /Atlas Shrugged/
     no less than three times, plus once on audio tape for good
     measure. Thus I am not a blind critic. (Some of Rand's critics
     have attacked /Atlas/ without ever reading it, and Objectivism,
     without ever knowing anything about it. I have encountered many of
     these myself. Even the pompously intellectual William Buckley
     spoke of the "desiccated philosophy" of /Atlas/, "the essential
     aridity of Miss Rand's philosophy," and the tone of /Atlas/ as
     "over-riding arrogance," yet later confessed: "I never read the
     book. When I read the review of it and saw the length of the book,
     I never picked it up." Nothing could be more irrational.) I accept
     most of Rand's philosophy, but not all of it. And despite my
     life-long commitment to many of Rand's most important beliefs,
     Objectivists would no doubt reject me from their group for not
     accepting /all/ of her precepts. This is ultimately what makes
     Objectivism a cult.

I believe (and here I speak strictly for myself and not for the Skeptics 
Society or any of its members) that reality exists and that reason and 
science are the best tools we have for understanding causality in the 
real world. We can achieve an ever-greater understanding of reality but 
we can never know if we have final Truth with regard to nature. Since 
reason and science are human activities, they will always be flawed and 
biased. I believe that humans are primarily driven to seek greater 
happiness, but the definition of such is /completely personal/ and 
cannot be dictated and should not be controlled by any group. (Even 
so-called selfless acts of charity can be perceived as directed toward 
self-fulfillment--the act of making someone else feel good, makes us 
feel good. This is not a falsifiable statement, but it is observable in 
people's actions and feelings.) I believe that the free market--and the 
freer the better--is the best system yet devised for allowing /all/ 
individuals to achieve greater levels of happiness. (This is not a 
defensible statement in this forum. I am just setting the stage for my 
critique of Rand.) I believe that individuals should take personal 
responsibility for their actions, buck up and quit whining when facing 
the usual array of life's problems, and cease this endless 
disease-of-the-month victimization. Finally, I wholeheartedly embrace 
Rand's passionate love of the heroic nature of humanity and of the 
ability of the human spirit to triumph over nature.

So far so good. I might have even made it into the Rand inner circle. 
But I would have been promptly excommunicated as an unreformed heretic 
(the worst kind, since reformed heretics can at least be retrained and 
forgiven), with my belief that no absolute morality is scientifically or 
rationally tenable, even that which claims to have been derived through 
pure reason, as in the case of Rand. The reason is straightforward. 
Morals do not exist in nature and thus cannot be discovered. In nature 
there are just actions--physical actions, biological actions, and human 
actions. Human actors act to increase their happiness, however they 
personally define it. Their actions become moral or immoral when someone 
else judges them as such. Thus, morality is a strictly human creation, 
subject to all the cultural influences and social constructions as other 
such human creations. Since virtually everyone and every group claims 
they know what right and wrong human action is, and since virtually all 
of these moralities are different from all others to a greater or lesser 
extent, then reason alone tells us they cannot all be correct Just as 
there is no absolute right type of human music, there is no absolute 
right type of human action. The broad range of human action is a rich 
continuum that precludes its pigeonholing into the unambiguous yeses and 
noes that political laws and moral codes require.

Does this mean that all human actions are morally equal? No. Not any 
more than all human music is equal. We create standards of what we like 
and dislike, desire or not, and make judgments against these standards. 
But the standards are themselves human creations and not discovered in 
nature. One group prefers classical music, and so judges Mozart to be 
superior to the Moody Blues. Similarly, one group prefers patriarchal 
dominance, and so judges male privileges to be morally honorable. 
Neither Mozart nor males are absolutely better, only so when compared to 
the group's standards. Thus, male ownership of females was once moral 
and is now immoral, not because we have discovered it as such, but 
because our society has realized that women also seek greater happiness 
and that they can achieve this more easily without being in bondage to 
males. A society that seeks greater happiness for its members by giving 
them greater freedom, will judge a Hitler or a Stalin as morally 
intolerable because his goal is the confiscation of human life, without 
which one can have no happiness.

As long as it is understood that morality is a human construction 
influenced by human cultures, one can become more tolerant of other 
human belief systems, and thus other humans. But as soon as a group sets 
itself up to be the final moral arbiter of other people's actions, 
especially when its members believe they have discovered absolute 
standards of right and wrong, it is the beginning of the end of 
tolerance and thus, reason and rationality. It is this characteristic 
more than any other that makes a cult, a religion, a nation, or any 
other group, dangerous to individual freedom. This was (and is) the 
biggest flaw in Ayn Rand's Objectivism, the unlikeliest cult in history. 
The historical development and ultimate destruction of her group and 
philosophy is the empirical evidence to support this logical analysis.

What separates science from all other human activities (and morality has 
never been successfully placed on a scientific basis), is its belief in 
the tentative nature of all conclusions. There are no final absolutes in 
science, only varying degrees of probability. Even scientific "facts" 
are just conclusions confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable 
to offer temporary agreement, but never final assent. Science is not the 
affirmation of a set of beliefs but a process of inquiry aimed at 
building a testable body of knowledge constantly open to rejection or 
confirmation. In science, knowledge is fluid and certainty fleeting. 
That is the heart of its limitation. It is also its greatest strength.