The Soul of Atlas- Ayn Rand, Christianity, a Quest for Common Ground


Mike82ARP

Recommended Posts

I just finished this new release and found Henderson’s unique perspective on Christianity and Objectivism very similar to mine. Henderson’s life story is quite different though. He was raised both by his father, a Christian and a step-father, a die-hard Objectivist. Both fathers shared their worldviews which to a young Henderson seemed contrary, but as he grew older he came to appreciate the positive values of both systems. A teen survivor of cancer (twice) Henderson completed undergraduate studies at Brown and a MBA from Columbia. He effectively intertwines his life story with his religious and philosophical struggles and comes to the understanding that the two system may never reconcile, but that they share much more in common than either Christians or Objectivists would admit.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-Atlas-Christianity-Common/dp/0988329506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365627523&sr=8-1&keywords=the+soul+of+atlas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I just finished this new release and found Henderson’s unique perspective on Christianity and Objectivism very similar to mine. Henderson’s life story is quite different though. He was raised both by his father, a Christian and a step-father, a die-hard Objectivist. Both fathers shared their worldviews which to a young Henderson seemed contrary, but as he grew older he came to appreciate the positive values of both systems. A teen survivor of cancer (twice) Henderson completed undergraduate studies at Brown and a MBA from Columbia. He effectively intertwines his life story with his religious and philosophical struggles and comes to the understanding that the two system may never reconcile, but that they share much more in common than either Christians or Objectivists would admit.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-Atlas-Christianity-Common/dp/0988329506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365627523&sr=8-1&keywords=the+soul+of+atlas

What they share is rectitude. Ditto in comparing Orthodox Judaism and Objectivism. By the way, it is no mere coincidence that the first generation Objectivists came largely from Jewish backgrounds even though they were not observant Jews.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished this new release and found Henderson’s unique perspective on Christianity and Objectivism very similar to mine. Henderson’s life story is quite different though. He was raised both by his father, a Christian and a step-father, a die-hard Objectivist. Both fathers shared their worldviews which to a young Henderson seemed contrary, but as he grew older he came to appreciate the positive values of both systems. A teen survivor of cancer (twice) Henderson completed undergraduate studies at Brown and a MBA from Columbia. He effectively intertwines his life story with his religious and philosophical struggles and comes to the understanding that the two system may never reconcile, but that they share much more in common than either Christians or Objectivists would admit.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-Atlas-Christianity-Common/dp/0988329506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365627523&sr=8-1&keywords=the+soul+of+atlas

What they share is rectitude. Ditto in comparing Orthodox Judaism and Objectivism. By the way, it is no mere coincidence that the first generation Objectivists came largely from Jewish backgrounds even though they were not observant Jews.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That’s an interesting point, Ba’al. I have to admit, I do not know much about the American Jews and their philosophy/theology outside of the conservative or orthodox sects. Maybe I need to read more Philip Roth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s an interesting point, Ba’al. I have to admit, I do not know much about the American Jews and their philosophy/theology outside of the conservative or orthodox sects. Maybe I need to read more Philip Roth?

Wherever 3 Jews meet 4 opinions emerge.

Here is a story. There were these two rich Jews who didn't like each other any too well. They got together and built three synagogues. One that each would attend and the third that neither would set foot in.

Think of that story as a Zen Cohen.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished this new release and found Henderson’s unique perspective on Christianity and Objectivism very similar to mine. Henderson’s life story is quite different though. He was raised both by his father, a Christian and a step-father, a die-hard Objectivist. Both fathers shared their worldviews which to a young Henderson seemed contrary, but as he grew older he came to appreciate the positive values of both systems. A teen survivor of cancer (twice) Henderson completed undergraduate studies at Brown and a MBA from Columbia. He effectively intertwines his life story with his religious and philosophical struggles and comes to the understanding that the two system may never reconcile, but that they share much more in common than either Christians or Objectivists would admit.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-Atlas-Christianity-Common/dp/0988329506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365627523&sr=8-1&keywords=the+soul+of+atlas

What they share is rectitude.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Rectitude about what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished this new release and found Henderson’s unique perspective on Christianity and Objectivism very similar to mine. Henderson’s life story is quite different though. He was raised both by his father, a Christian and a step-father, a die-hard Objectivist. Both fathers shared their worldviews which to a young Henderson seemed contrary, but as he grew older he came to appreciate the positive values of both systems. A teen survivor of cancer (twice) Henderson completed undergraduate studies at Brown and a MBA from Columbia. He effectively intertwines his life story with his religious and philosophical struggles and comes to the understanding that the two system may never reconcile, but that they share much more in common than either Christians or Objectivists would admit.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-Atlas-Christianity-Common/dp/0988329506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365627523&sr=8-1&keywords=the+soul+of+atlas

What they share is rectitude.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Rectitude about what?

Doing the right thing and not doing wrong things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished this new release and found Henderson’s unique perspective on Christianity and Objectivism very similar to mine. Henderson’s life story is quite different though. He was raised both by his father, a Christian and a step-father, a die-hard Objectivist. Both fathers shared their worldviews which to a young Henderson seemed contrary, but as he grew older he came to appreciate the positive values of both systems. A teen survivor of cancer (twice) Henderson completed undergraduate studies at Brown and a MBA from Columbia. He effectively intertwines his life story with his religious and philosophical struggles and comes to the understanding that the two system may never reconcile, but that they share much more in common than either Christians or Objectivists would admit.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-Atlas-Christianity-Common/dp/0988329506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365627523&sr=8-1&keywords=the+soul+of+atlas

What they share is rectitude.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Rectitude about what?

Doing the right thing and not doing wrong things.

The problem is that all ideologies are about doing "the right thing".

But given the fact that ideologies differ from each other, their ideas about the "right thing" differ as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I got this book.

I'll give my impressions after I read it.

As I am interested in encouraging people to work through their own thinking rather than preach to them, this topic--common ground--interests me a lot.

My own view of a mini-utopia is when people stand in freedom on common ground and point their different ways to each other without spite and with goodwill.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got this book.

I'll give my impressions after I read it.

As I am interested in encouraging people to work through their own thinking rather than preach to them, this topic--common ground--interests me a lot.

My own view of a mini-utopia is when people stand in freedom on common ground and point their different ways to each other without spite and with goodwill.

Michael

The in OL you have created something of a mini-utopia-- anomalies notwithstanding!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s an interesting point, Ba’al. I have to admit, I do not know much about the American Jews and their philosophy/theology outside of the conservative or orthodox sects. Maybe I need to read more Philip Roth?

Wherever 3 Jews meet 4 opinions emerge.

Here is a story. There were these two rich Jews who didn't like each other any too well. They got together and built three synagogues. One that each would attend and the third that neither would set foot in.

Think of that story as a Zen Cohen.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Robert, I thought that you meant to say Zen koan. But then realizing what the story was about, I guess you really did mean Zen Cohen. :-)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, I encourage you or anybody to read more Philip \Roth,and his Chicago especially the early stories, and his Chicago novel Letting Go. He is a master. My personal fave was his baseball book, The Great American |Novel featuring Gil Gamesh on the mound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, it is no mere coincidence that the first generation Objectivists came largely from Jewish backgrounds even though they were not observant Jews.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Whom do you mean by "first generation Objectivists"?

If you mean "The Class of '43," a/k/a the original "Collective," then, duh, yeah, it's "no mere coincidence" that all of them were from Jewish backgrounds, except possibly Mary Ann Rukavina (I'm not sure about her background). They were all relatives of or friends or friends of friends of Nathaniel and Barbara.

If you mean "students of" Objectivism, then your "largely" isn't true. There were people from Jewish backgrounds, yes, but also many people from Catholic backgrounds and many from Protestant backgrounds and some from none of the above.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rukavina in the US is usually a Jewish name. Joan Mitchell, latter Greenspan and then Blumenthal, is apparently not of Jewish ancestry. Robert and Beatrice Hessen probably don't qualify as "first generation."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started looking into Mark David Henderson, the author of The Soul of Atlas, to get a feel for him before digging into the book

 

Lo and behold...

 

My jaw dropped.

 

Henderson is the stepson of John Aglialoro, the producer of the Atlas Shrugged movies.

 

Dayaamm!

 

Here's an interview where Henderson discloses this, but without giving Aglialoro's last name. However he did say his step-dad owns the movie rights to AS and produced the first two installments.

 

 

It's funny. A while back I joined a Google group of Christian Objectivists to let them know I was not an enemy. I can't remember how I found out about them, but it had to do with some issue at the time. Over time, I drifted from reading it. But part of the discussions I did follow were about this book and posted by Henderson. I read quite a few of those. And I had no idea he was related to Aglialoro.

 

Here is Henderson's blog where I got the video: The Soul of Atlas Blog.

 

I can understand why neither is publicizing their connection to each other, but I believe the sooner it comes out, the better. It will eventually anyway. The earlier stuff like this is known in the subculture (both for and against Rand), the less people are able to accuse hypocrisy from trying to hide it. 

 

I'm a common ground person, so I see no problem with this whatsoever. In fact, I'm proud of both for keeping true to their own thinking, keeping a loving relationship with each other (I'm presuming based on Henderson's tone in discussing his stepfather), and producing substantive works based on it that are very different. I know the movies are good. I presume the book is, too, but I will only be able to say after I read it.

 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Henderson is the stepson of John Aglialoro, the producer of the Atlas Shrugged movies.

When I checked out the Amazon sample of the book it included the 'chapters' written by his two fathers, that come at (or near) the end. So I knew about it and have been meaning to mention it, I just haven't been active online lately.

What I saw of the book didn't interest me enough to pursue it further. I still haven't even finished George's new book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished this new release and found Henderson’s unique perspective on Christianity and Objectivism very similar to mine. Henderson’s life story is quite different though. He was raised both by his father, a Christian and a step-father, a die-hard Objectivist. Both fathers shared their worldviews which to a young Henderson seemed contrary, but as he grew older he came to appreciate the positive values of both systems. A teen survivor of cancer (twice) Henderson completed undergraduate studies at Brown and a MBA from Columbia. He effectively intertwines his life story with his religious and philosophical struggles and comes to the understanding that the two system may never reconcile, but that they share much more in common than either Christians or Objectivists would admit.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-Atlas-Christianity-Common/dp/0988329506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365627523&sr=8-1&keywords=the+soul+of+atlas

What they share is rectitude.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Rectitude about what?

Doing the right thing and not doing wrong things.

The problem is that all ideologies are about doing "the right thing".

But given the fact that ideologies differ from each other, their ideas about the "right thing" differ as well.

That's not a problem for rectitude. Do you have a problem with rectitude? Are you for it or agin it?

--Brant

I'm proud to say my ideology is wrong about everything but I have no rectitude so I'm never wrong about anything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I checked out the Amazon sample of the book it included the 'chapters' written by his two fathers, that come at (or near) the end.

Dennis,

I looked in my copy and sure enough. there it is. As the passage is not long, here it is in its entirety.

AFTERWARD

A LETTER FROM JOHN

Those close to Mark, as I am, know that he is the world master in the discussion of the very important topics of Faith and Reason. This book, The Soul of Atlas, demonstrates that. It is an enormous undertaking, and I take great pride in his accomplishment.

I believe this book can help us re-gain our civil society. The philosophy of the extreme left and others like Islamic militants have put America's values to the test. We have placed ourselves in a position where either our values win and live on, or where, frankly, we are vanquished.

Ayn Rand said that two groups with opposing principles can never live in the same space… The stronger, more consistent competitor, will win in the end, and their way of life will survive. There can be no common ground, or negotiation, with Marxist collectivism or extreme theocracy if we want to preserve a free society.

Rand also said that opposing groups with the same principle can accommodate a "coming together" within a society. Secularists and those of faith may disagree on the existence of God, but their alliance is based upon the common values of peace, family, individual responsibility, and a limited government. Their allegiance to the virtues of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" within a civil society is their common ground.

The Soul of Atlas is an articulation of the differing views of Faith and Reason with the same principles--the goal of a society that believes in the value of the individual.

Respectfully,

John Aglialoro

So I guess they are not hiding it. However, I don't think many people in O-Land know yet.

On Henderson's blog, he mentions he has been interviewed by Dennis Miller and others. Agree or disagree, I suspect this book will have legs over time.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rukavina in the US is usually a Jewish name. Joan Mitchell, latter Greenspan and then Blumenthal, is apparently not of Jewish ancestry. Robert and Beatrice Hessen probably don't qualify as "first generation."

Where do you get the statement about Joan? I'll frankly be quite surprised to learn - if you can document - that Joan didn't come from a Jewish background.

Robert and Beatrice Hessen were among post-Atlas additions. The original "Collective" - "The Class of '43" - were people who met on Saturday evenings at Ayn's and Frank's while Ayn was working on Atlas. A few of them didn't live in NYC and were only present occasionally on visits.

I should have said in post #12 "They were all relatives of or friends or friends of friends of Nathaniel or Barbara," not "Nathaniel and Barbara."

And actually there was just one "friend," Barbara's friend Joan, through whom "friends of friends" (Greenspan and Rukavina) were brought in. The others were relatives of Nathaniel or Barbara either directly or by marriage: Leonard Peikoff, Barbara's cousin; Allan Blumenthal, Nathaniel's cousin; and Elayne and Harry Kalberman, Reva and Sholey Fox, and Florence and Hans Hirschfeld, Nathaniel's sisters and their husbands (Elayne and Harry weren't yet married when the tradition of Collective meetings started). Barbara mentions, on pg. 268 of Passion, that her brother Sidney Weidman* and his wife Miriam were sometimes present, but that's the only time she mentions those two, so I think that they must have been there only very occasionally.

Ellen

* The last name is spelled "Weidmann" in the Index of Barbara's book. However, her nephew's name is listed as "Jim Weidman," and her name is spelled Weidman in other sources. I don't know if the extra "n" is a typo or if Barbara's brother spelled his name differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished this new release and found Henderson’s unique perspective on Christianity and Objectivism very similar to mine. Henderson’s life story is quite different though. He was raised both by his father, a Christian and a step-father, a die-hard Objectivist. Both fathers shared their worldviews which to a young Henderson seemed contrary, but as he grew older he came to appreciate the positive values of both systems. A teen survivor of cancer (twice) Henderson completed undergraduate studies at Brown and a MBA from Columbia. He effectively intertwines his life story with his religious and philosophical struggles and comes to the understanding that the two system may never reconcile, but that they share much more in common than either Christians or Objectivists would admit.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-Atlas-Christianity-Common/dp/0988329506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365627523&sr=8-1&keywords=the+soul+of+atlas

What they share is rectitude.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Rectitude about what?

Doing the right thing and not doing wrong things.

The problem is that all ideologies are about doing "the right thing".

But given the fact that ideologies differ from each other, their ideas about the "right thing" differ as well.

That's not a problem for rectitude. Do you have a problem with rectitude? Are you for it or agin it?

--Brant

I'm proud to say my ideology is wrong about everything but I have no rectitude so I'm never wrong about anything

Brant,

You're right!

-Some of the People Some of the Time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh-huh,...okay...here we go again. Once again with the oxymoronic term, "christian Objectivism."

Well, sure, why not? Kick-out the foundations - throw out her metaphysics and epistemolgy,that's not really needed. We can use faith. Hell, it worked for christianity and look how long it's been around. A big success. A self-consistent system where major differences in doctrine have been peacefully resolved through prayer..

Then, re-interpret Rand's ethics so that it reads like,...oh, say, the Sermon on the Mount. Anyone can see the striking similarity between Galt's speech and christianity. You see, they're really saying the same thing!. No, really! Let's not quibble about minor differences.

And now, comes a book by an earnest and bright young author with a fascinating story of how he resolved the whole thing.Too bad he wasn't around to explain it all to Ayn, and to Bill Buckley, too. I'm sure that they would both be fascinated with his explanations.. All those mean-spirited things that they said about each other - and for nothing.. If only they could have talked over their differences with Henderson so that he could show them how they really had no disagreement. Maybe taking communion at St. Patrick's Cathedral to seal their new alliance.

And, most importantly, no one has ever said this before! Oh, well, there was John Robbins' Without A Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System, published in the 1990s and actually an expansion of his earlier Christianity versus Objectivism, from the late 1960s. And the Reverand Howard Kershner's essays in the 1960s. along the same lines, but trying to show similarities.

Repeating what I included in a post in another thread on OL:

,.

One can choose to believe whatever one wants, but whether that belief conforms to reality - and to a particular philosophy, such as Objectivism - is an entirely different matter.

No conflict between Christianity and belief in God, and Objectivism? I'm afraid that there is. Big time. (see the quote below).

But why stop with Christianity? How about Buddhism and Objectivism?. I cannot think of a more diametrically opposed set of philosophies. Try the Dalai Lama, who sees no trouble at all with reconciling communism as an politico-economic system with his brand of Buddhism. How about "Islamic Objectivism?" Or "Jainist Objectivism?" For that matter, why not "Marxist-Leninist philosophy and Objectivism?" After all, if you pick and chose bits and parts of selected philosophies, you can most likely find some areas of agreement - all you have to do is throw out everything else about the philosophy that makes it distinctive. This might be intellectual "fun," but it is hardly a worthwhile endeavor.

Philosophies like Objectivism, Comtean Positivism, and Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy, are systems. That means each part is supposed to be compatible with the rest. If a rational epistemology and metaphysics (in the case of Objectivism) is discarded, then the whole system begins to fall apart. To critique a philosophy - finding internal inconsistencies in any philosophical system, is a legitimate enterprise. But, attempting to "marry" two philosophies, both of which hold entirely different premises and derivations from each other, damages the integrity of each.

But, what do I know about Objectivism? Let's choose a real expert. Such as the originator,Ayn Rand - and its chief proselytizers Branden and Peikoff (both of whom agree on this issue). Here's one:

Nathaniel Branden - On the attempt to combine or reconcile faith in God with Objectivism:

.

Now, it is sometimes asked: what is wrong with believing in God, if a man holds the belief as a purely subjective matter, and always acts on the basis of reason? The answer is that it cannot be done. It is not possible psychologically. It would mean that a man attempts to hold two diametrically opposed views, two irreconcilable premises, and to sincerely believe them both—which means that he will not believe either, and that he will be certain of nothing, that all of his convictions will be reduced to the state of the approximate, the relative, the questionable, the "maybe."

Any attempt to combine reason and faith will damage a man’s thinking processes and his self-esteem. At best, only his self-esteem will suffer. He will know that he is a hypocrite, who does not practice or take seriously that which he professes to believe. At worst, it will have a hampering, shrinking effect on his mind. The mere fact of accepting something on faith, without evidence, without proof, undercuts the absolutism of a man’s mind and his confidence in his own judgment. How can he trust his judgment, if he knows that he was willing to suspend it, and may do so again?

Let there be no misunderstanding about it: the belief in God and the philosophy of Objectivism are opposites that cannot be reconciled in anyone’s mind. No intellectual meeting-ground, no compromise, and no middle-of-the-road is possible between the belief in God and Objectivism. Or, putting the issue more broadly and fundamentally: no middle-of-the-road is possible between mysticism and reason. You cannot combine them.

In a free society, men must be left free to believe whatever sort of ideas they wish, however irrational. Therefore, there can be no question of forbidding religious belief. That’s not the point. The context in which I’m speaking here is philosophical, not social or political.

In philosophical terms, no intellectual meeting-ground, no compromise, no middle-of-the-road is possible between a belief in God and Objectivism—or, more widely: between a belief in God and a philosophy of reason—or, more widely still: between any form of mysticism, on the one hand, and reason, on the other. You cannot combine them.

The belief in God is the rejection of the foremost premise of Objectivism, namely, the supremacy of reason as man’s sole means of understanding and grasping reality

. It is one or the other. You can have faith in God, or you can have man, reason, and this earth, but you can’t have both. Don’t deceive yourselves. The choice is yours to make—but know that a choice is involved here.

(Excerpt from Chapter 4,"The Concept of God," The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism, by Nathaniel Branden [2009, Laissez Faire Books/Cobden Press]) Italics added

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry, Branden's under-Rand 1960s' statement is somewhat too much. It makes no reference to epistemological compartmentalization. Thus the greatest scientist of all time, Newton, spent a lot of time in God-land. We can have schizo Christian-Objectivists who are Objectivists as long as they don't try to mix up the two. It's the old honor god-honor king thing, or religion-secular bifurcation. This is a prime example of ideological as opposed to thinking Objectivism. Imagine jamming this kind of stuff into your brain instead of looking for the actual truth of the matter. It's only part of the Objectivist catechism but objectively wrong taken in its entirety as stated, for too much is excluded. We can call his statement a "revealed truth" and ironically religious in itself albeit well-dressed out with lots of rigorous logic. Now I do think Christian-Objectivists are playing with dynamite, for I strongly suspect they tend to lack this level of lucidity, for if they had this level they'd drop the Christianity if they had the courage. Simply getting away with some kind of irrationality is not optional functioning, not even for a Newton. That message from Branden is quite true.

--Brant

the power of deductive ideology can get you way out ahead of yourself and enough of a factual foundation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry, he specifically said sometime in the '80s that whether a person was Christian or Atheist told him nothing as to whether he could get along with that person. (paraphrasing)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ginny,

By "he," I presume you mean Branden. Your paraphrased quote is correct. But nothing in the selection that I quoted above would imply otherwise.

There are obnoxious atheists (including of course Objectivists). And there are Christians, including those that think - somehow - that Rand and Jesus are saying the same thing, that are really nice people. And vice-versa.

Despite many claims to the contrary from Christians and Objectivists tha tadopting or applying (or more correctly in my view , trying to apply) their respective philosophies wil: l change your life- make you a better person - make you successful in your career - improve your marriage - save the world, etc., etc., it is unlikely any or all of those consequences will follow from your conversion.

Even if you pray a lot, consult the Bible, go to church, teach Sunday school, tithe generously,

OR - work-out all the "correct" answers to the "Objectivist Catechism," attend NBI/ARI/TAS meetings, watch your friends closely for signs of deviationism, tolerationism,and memorize Atlas Shrugged - all of these things are unlikely to make everything better in all ways in your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry, Branden's under-Rand 1960s' statement is somewhat too much. It makes no reference to epistemological compartmentalization. Thus the greatest scientist of all time, Newton, spent a lot of time in God-land. We can have schizo Christian-Objectivists who are Objectivists as long as they don't try to mix up the two. It's the old honor god-honor king thing, or religion-secular bifurcation. This is a prime example of ideological as opposed to thinking Objectivism. Imagine jamming this kind of stuff into your brain instead of looking for the actual truth of the matter. It's only part of the Objectivist catechism but objectively wrong taken in its entirety as stated, for too much is excluded. We can call his statement a "revealed truth" and ironically religious in itself albeit well-dressed out with lots of rigorous logic. Now I do think Christian-Objectivists are playing with dynamite, for I strongly suspect they tend to lack this level of lucidity, for if they had this level they'd drop the Christianity if they had the courage. Simply getting away with some kind of irrationality is not optional functioning, not even for a Newton. That message from Branden is quite true.

--Brant

the power of deductive ideology can get you way out ahead of yourself and enough of a factual foundation

Brant,

Correct. Epistemological or psychological compartmentalism is not discussed, other than to imply that "you can't get away with contradictions ".

Yes, you can. Everyone does, to some degree.. Many people believe "ten impossible things before breakfast" and appear to get away with it without any disastrous consequences. At least, in the short run. In the long run, such compartmentalization tends to break down, and unpleasant consequences follow.

But as I said, at least a couple of times above, prefacing the quote from Branden, one cannot get away with mixing philosophies that are diametrically opposed to each other, without suffering some consequences. To combine the two, you have to ignore or downplay crucial differences, and that tends to create a philosophical jumble which does no credit to either position.

Re your comment on Newton. Newton believed in some sort of God, (he was a deist, I think). Einstein was an atheist. So is Stephen Hawking. People can believe all sorts of things, but whether they can prove them to others that are skeptical, is another question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now