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


Mike82ARP

Recommended Posts

Jerry, are you sure? I was an atheist a few years before Rand. But let's say someone's a good Christian. Doesn't kill, steal, or covet. Works hard and is totally honest. Ready to help people in need. Think the Waltons or the little house on the prairie folks. If I remember, neither family was fond of Big Brother infererence. So, if the Waltons and the other folks left god out of the equation, wouldn't they be living pretty much by Obj. ethics? As you probably know, the little house granddaughter was a libertarian. Rose Wilder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jerry, are you sure? I was an atheist a few years before Rand. But let's say someone's a good Christian. Doesn't kill, steal, or covet. Works hard and is totally honest. Ready to help people in need. Think the Waltons or the little house on the prairie folks. If I remember, neither family was fond of Big Brother infererence. So, if the Waltons and the other folks left god out of the equation, wouldn't they be living pretty much by Obj. ethics? As you probably know, the little house granddaughter was a libertarian. Rose Wilder?

Excellent points Ginny.

Jerry:

Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said an "attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views

This "issue" about Einstein has always perplexed me.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry, are you sure? I was an atheist a few years before Rand. But let's say someone's a good Christian. Doesn't kill, steal, or covet. Works hard and is totally honest. Ready to help people in need. Think the Waltons or the little house on the prairie folks. If I remember, neither family was fond of Big Brother infererence. So, if the Waltons and the other folks left god out of the equation, wouldn't they be living pretty much by Obj. ethics? As you probably know, the little house granddaughter was a libertarian. Rose Wilder?

Ginny,

Am I sure? Of what? I'm not sure what comment of mine above that you are referencing? I don't think I said, or Branden said, anything contrary to your statement....

Did "The Waltons," Laura Ingalls Wilder, Rose Wilder Lane, live by the Objectivist ethics? No, but they may have led lives that were not in any way proscribed by anything in the Objectvist ethics. Rose Wilder Lane was a libertarian. Nothing I said was critical of her beliefs.

- Jerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The statement Jerry quoted from Branden is a good example of why I concluded back then that Branden was up to no good and was playing to Rand's own lack of empiricism. I thought that Branden, as a psychologist, ought to know better than to make such sweeping, non-evidentially-based assertions.

--

Regarding "compartmentalization" and Newton - see Brant's post #22 - that's anachronistic. For Newton, his belief in God and his study of physics were all of a piece. He was studying God's ways of working in investigating the laws of physics.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes, the eternal dilemma...is reality the creation of an all powerful entity, or, is reality a natural state.

No one, can conclude, with certitude, which one may be valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen, Branden himself has admitted that he walked around with a stick up his butt during those years. From what I see, he's evolved for the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reason takes all of one's commitment, but so does keeping one's faith alive, I'm sure - and sooner or later a major crack must appear; it can't be possible to keep 'switch-hitting' between them indefinitely at one's convenience.

But what interests me is the similarity between Christian virtues and Objectivist ones: we share honesty, integrity (undeniable, if selective rationality too) and productiveness - and self-responsibility - with the religious.

As well as the value in life.

"Virtue is the act by which one gains and/or keeps [values]." Rand may have induced this from observing religious people!

Virtues require motivation and volition to attain.

That the religious might hold these virtues important due to "God is watching" or "Jesus said" isn't really material - the outcome is indistinguishable : adhering to the virtues forms strong character in theists and O'ists. So I've had a large respect and fondness for several of the less fundamental Christians and Jews I've known, who've even set me something of an example ( up to a point). Great character is such a biggie.

In another sense too, Objectivists hold as absolute (one might even say 'worship') reality, existence and truth - while the religious worship what they see as 'The Source' of those.

After these similarities - with metaphysics, epistemology and ethics - it all breaks down, and the parallels diverge, evidently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony:

In another sense too, Objectivists hold as absolute (one might even say 'worship') reality, existence and truth - while the religious worship what they see as 'The Source' of those.

Precisely. I have argued since the '60's the absolute stupidity, one might say the irrationality of Ayn's positions on not working with elements in the religious community on the real day to day political, social and economic issues that are very "real" to folks.

In my opinion, we missed an excellent opportunity to network with solid, ethical and moral individuals and essentially reduced Objectivism to a back seat and a cult.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony:

In another sense too, Objectivists hold as absolute (one might even say 'worship') reality, existence and truth - while the religious worship what they see as 'The Source' of those.

Precisely. I have argued since the '60's the absolute stupidity, one might say the irrationality of Ayn's positions on not working with elements in the religious community on the real day to day political, social and economic issues that are very "real" to folks.

In my opinion, we missed an excellent opportunity to network with solid, ethical and moral individuals and essentially reduced Objectivism to a back seat and a cult.

A...

Adam, Yes and no. From what I know, those were particularly conservative times in the US, and a theocratic State may have been a real danger. No? Also I am guessing, it was paramount to distinguish the ideologies ( opposing, in nearly all the critical areas) since another danger could have been the newly born Objectivism getting diluted into obscurity by the sheer number of religious conservatives.

Further, as Rand rightly predicted, capitalism is primarily a rationally selfish, moral system which conservatives would screw up (Uh, my words!)

But sustaining an amicable social/political relationship, while never compromising O'ist principles or autonomy?

And indeed, at a personal level appreciating those religious people - as friends or businessmen - who have admirable qualities?

I'd think so.

Stiil, easy perhaps from where I sit - you have 'been there' and saw it from the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly, from what I know, those were particularly conservative times in the US, and a theocratic State may have been a real danger. No?

Absolutely not Tony. At no point in time was a theocracy ever anything but a wet dream in America.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers, Adam - corrected, I stand.

:smile:

No problem Tony. I respect your observations as you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The statement Jerry quoted from Branden is a good example of why I concluded back then that Branden was up to no good and was playing to Rand's own lack of empiricism. I thought that Branden, as a psychologist, ought to know better than to make such sweeping, non-evidentially-based assertions.

--

Regarding "compartmentalization" and Newton - see Brant's post #22 - that's anachronistic. For Newton, his belief in God and his study of physics were all of a piece. He was studying God's ways of working in investigating the laws of physics.

Ellen

Now that's the most sophisticated and nuanced but wrong observation I've probably ever read. You see he was studying physics to find God's ways of working--as per your statement--but not studying God to find truth in physics. In any case, you have posited a hierarchy of values in that God is the subsuming category and physics the subsumed; therefore the hierarchy results in the aforesaid compartmentalization.

--Brant

pant, pant!

next!--round four!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

next!--round four!

First you have to make it to round one.

Speaking of how Newton saw things, here's an interview pertaining to Newton's alchemical investigations:

Newton the Alchemist.

Newton the Alchemist

Posted 11.15.05 NOVA

The revelation that Sir Isaac Newton, perhaps the greatest scientist of all time, practiced the covert art of alchemy may shock us today, but was this pursuit considered deviant in Newtons own era? To find out, we spoke to Bill Newman, an historian of science at Indiana University who spent years deciphering Newton's secret coded recipes.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newton the Alchemist

Posted 11.15.05 NOVA

The revelation that Sir Isaac Newton, perhaps the greatest scientist of all time, practiced the covert art of alchemy may shock us today, but was this pursuit considered deviant in Newtons own era? To find out, we spoke to Bill Newman, an historian of science at Indiana University who spent years deciphering Newton's secret coded recipes.

Ellen

Newton lived just a generation or two before chemistry finally gained traction. In a way his physics brought about the transition from alchemy to chemistry. He live just at the cusp between the old and the new way of knowing things. Some people regard Newton as the last wizard, more than the first scientist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the "judgments" of folks like Ellen, who I respect, to be a tad out there when they do not consider the place that a person like Newton was in, with the state of knowledge at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The statement Jerry quoted from Branden is a good example of why I concluded back then that Branden was up to no good and was playing to Rand's own lack of empiricism. I thought that Branden, as a psychologist, ought to know better than to make such sweeping, non-evidentially-based assertions.

--

Regarding "compartmentalization" and Newton - see Brant's post #22 - that's anachronistic. For Newton, his belief in God and his study of physics were all of a piece. He was studying God's ways of working in investigating the laws of physics.

Ellen

Ellen,

As you surely know, there is a long history of philosophers (and, of course, psychological theorists) making "non-evidentially-based asssertions," but that has not resulted in their being assigned to the trash bin.

.

And with psychologists,:some of the most famous, such as Freud (and practically the whole field of psychoanaysis), Jung - and most others in Analytical Psychology (one of your favorites, right?) did not base their theories on empirical research.Yet, most people don't throw their books into the trash bin because they have not based their theories on empirical research,

As far as that goes, empirical research can easily be manipulated to show the results that one wishes.

You appear to being using a different set of criteria when describing (judging?) Branden, than you probably would use for other philosophers and psychologists. Or were they all also "up to no good?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen, Branden himself has admitted that he walked around with a stick up his butt during those years. From what I see, he's evolved for the better.

Ginny,

Please provide a published citation for your alarming description of Branden's harrowing proctological dilemma :blush::o .

Or, is this another "non-evidentially-based assertion?"

You then assert that he has "evolved for the better"...this must be a great relief for him.. .. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No published citation, Jerry. But if you read both his and her biography, they both say that he walked around acting the role of lord enforcer. (want page numbers; don't have them.) I've heard him speak after the monumental break, and read his writing, and he certainly has change his attitude about a lot cof the rigitity. I consider that a positive evolution. Are you of a different opinion. By all means, tell us. No need to cite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ginny,

Somewhere on OL, I've written or dialogued about these issues extensively, probably in the Nathaniel Branden section in the threads about the publication of his course, Basic Principles of Objectivism, as a book, The Vision of Ayn Rand. I was part of the team that transcribed the audio lectures for publication. Since we did this gratis, I think that indicates that we considered the material valuable and worthy of publication.

The idea for publication in book format had been discussed with Branden on several occasions over the past decade or so. He had reservations about the book idea. On one occasion, I think it was the 2005 Atlas Society Summer seminar, I asked him about it in the Q&A session after his lecture. He replied that he thought that the forthcoming Logical Stucture of Objectivism, by David Kelley and William Thomas, would be a better idea. But after a decade had passed with LSO still languishing in beta format on the Atlas Society website, it was clear that it was not to be published soon. At that time, Roger Bissell persuaded Branden to go ahead with the transcription of Basic Principles.

My only regret regarding that project was that the publisher chosen, Laissez-Faire Books/Cobden Press, did not correct the Index pagination, resulting in likely confusion for any reader attemptintg to use the Index. Roger Bissell provided a corrected Index, which the publisher was to add as an insert and be available online. As far as I know, the publisher did not do this. Additionally, the corrected Index was to be added for the "second printing." This also has not happened.

For reasons that I find inexplicable, the publisher was very reluctant to make the book available on Amazon (because he did not agree to their fee structure), and only relented after the Brandens complained.. The publisher has chosen to sell the book primarily through his own book service and through Laissez-Faire Books (now a separate entity), and allow its iisting on Amazon. Therefore, it is not available through the national booksellers such as Barnes & Noble (according to the B&N database, there is no such book) or independent booksellers.

Excuse me, I got off on a rant about the book's distribution. Back to your question! Yes, I approve of the new improved "Branden 2.0." But as far as I know, he still agrees with most of his original BPO presentation, although with some qualifications, which he gives in some detail in the "Afterword" in the Vision book, in an updated version of a lecture that he originally gave in the 1970s, I think. "Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand".

In general, I agree with most of his analysis presented there.

I should add here, that I have had considerable personal interaction with Nathaniel Branden on several occasions. One, being his lecture at the university that I was attending, shortly after the publication of his book, The Psychology of Self-Esteem. He spoke to an overflow capacity of students in their largest auditorium. After the lecture, which was well received - he was given a standing ovation (Later, he confided to me that he was taken aback by the overwhelming positive response that his lecture received. I replied that they were likely also expressing the appreciation for his intellectual contributions at NBI and in The Objectivist) - he was bombarded with questions for several hours about his psychological theories, about Ayn Rand, and about Objectivism. Although this prolonged amount of grilling would try anyone's patience, he never replied out of anger. I was waiting to see the legendary arrogance that I had heard of. It was never displayed over the three days that he was our guest.

On earlier occasions, while attending some courses and lectures at NBI in New York City, I did not personally witness any display of discourteous behavior on Branden's part. I did, however, see one of Ayn Rand's outbursts when, during a Q&A, she was asked by a young woman what she thought of William F. Buckley's mayoral campaign. Her response, in a loud almost shreiking voice, "Do not mention the name of that despicable creature in my presence!" The audience erupted in nervous giggling or inaudible comments to each other. The questioner said nothing else. Rand, quickly recovering her composure, said in a lower, gentler-sounding voice, "I know you did not mean to be insulting, but find out from someone else after the lecture, what I meant."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen, Branden himself has admitted that he walked around with a stick up his butt during those years. From what I see, he's evolved for the better.

Ginny,

Please provide a published citation for your alarming description of Branden's harrowing proctological dilemma :blush::o .

Or, is this another "non-evidentially-based assertion?"

You then assert that he has "evolved for the better"...this must be a great relief for him.. .. :rolleyes:

In a public lecture NB described going for a proctological exam apropos, I think, his 50th birthday: "Picture, if you will, an instrument the size of The Empire State Building ...."

--Brant

approximate quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm guess gents are sensitive to stick up the butt jokes. Point taken. :cool:

Jerry, so you're saying that NB was nice before the split. That's good to hear, but my comment was based on many comments over the year, and he does admit in his books that he acted badly. Your view is a welcome change. Now, keep in mind I carry a wonderful stick the next time you ask me for citations! :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the "judgments" of folks like Ellen, who I respect, to be a tad out there when they do not consider the place that a person like Newton was in, with the state of knowledge at that time.

Hello?

What does that comment mean?

Exactly what I'm pointing out is "the place that a person like Newton was in, with the state of knowledge at that time," contrary folks who say he was "compartmentalizing," his physics pursuits in one compartment and then all the supposedly irrational activities as a different category. As I said, for Newton it was all of one piece. He was not afflicted by post-Newtonian conflicts.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the "judgments" of folks like Ellen, who I respect, to be a tad out there when they do not consider the place that a person like Newton was in, with the state of knowledge at that time.

Hello?

What does that comment mean?

Exactly what I'm pointing out is "the place that a person like Newton was in, with the state of knowledge at that time," contrary folks who say he was "compartmentalizing.," his physics pursuits in one compartment and then all the supposedly irrational activities as a different category. As I said, for Newton it was all of one piece. He was not afflicted by post-Newtonian conflicts.

Ellen

Agreed.

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