Christian Objectivist

[BaalChatzaf]

To theist free will means no mortal can predict one's decisions in advance. However that does not stop God from knowing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a quick hypnosis example so you know what I am talking about. "As you relax, you will find that you are becoming more interested." The person will focus on the focus statement: "you will find that you are becoming more interested" and think, "Oh really? Let's see if you can make me, big shot." Meanwhile, he is relaxing because he accepted the presupposition that he is doing precisely that. "As you relax" snuck in under the radar.

There are many ways to do presuppositions, and many uses for them, but this is a topic for another day.

I can't resist one comment. There are Internet marketers who call each other to practice these techniques. They are always goofing on each other and saying things like, "As you worry about your lack of sexual energy, I actually agree with your search engine optimization technique. That's one of the coolest ideas I have seen!"

In delivery, they say the first part quickly and blandly, then pour on the emotion about agreeing with him. If this gets the guy enthusiastic about discussing his SEO idea without laughing, they then watch to see if he starts falling out with this girlfriend after a few days.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Here's a quick hypnosis example so you know what I am talking about. "As you relax, you will find that you are becoming more interested." The person will focus on the focus statement: "you will find that you are becoming more interested" and think, "Oh really? Let's see if you can make me, big shot." Meanwhile, he is relaxing because he accepted the presupposition that he is doing precisely that. "As you relax" snuck in under the radar.

There are many ways to do presuppositions, and many uses for them, but this is a topic for another day.

I can't resist one comment. There are Internet marketers who call each other to practice these techniques. They are always goofing on each other and saying things like, "As you worry about your lack of sexual energy, I actually agree with your search engine optimization technique. That's one of the coolest ideas I have seen!"

In delivery, they say the first part quickly and blandly, then pour on the emotion about agreeing with him. If this gets the guy enthusiastic about discussing his SEO idea without laughing, they then watch to see if he starts falling out with this girlfriend after a few days.

Michael

You keep strange company, Michael.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I have a ball.

But here's a serious statement. I don't do these things here on OL. On the contrary, one of the reasons I am learning them is to be able to keep the forum clear of them--to recognize when people are trying to manipulate others and me.

And to learn propaganda techniques to be able to discuss them in analyzing issues, etc.

But I do love a good laugh, especially when practical jokers start goofing on each other,

Michael

[Mike82ARP]

@whYNOT

You wrote: "Reality, aligned with a supernatural Existence is a contradiction in terms.

To claim both, is having one's cake, and eating it. What's next? Does 'reality'
become a "sub-category" of 'meta-reality'?

A contradiction would be, “Reality, therefore non-reality” I would opine that natural and supernatural are not contradictions, but subsets of reality. For example CO₂. It can exist as a solid or a gas. One can be detected by sight and touch while the gas, barring lab equipment cannot be detected.

Reason, founded upon the autonomous, inviolable mind - along with an omniscient Being who knows what you're going to think before you think it, attacks man's certainty of consciousness. The core tenets of Objectivism, as you must know - both eliminated.

I don’t understand how God’s omniscience “attacks man’s certainty of consciousness”. If you’re referring to determinism, I’d agree, but I don’t subscribe to determinism.

Socially and economically, may Christians and Objectivists have a cordial relationship. But Objectivism needs nothing from Christianity, while seemingly Christianity requires the credibilty O'ism (or any rational ideology) offers. Bring them together, by force or compromise, and one will be wiped out. I can guess which.

Neither needs anything from the other. However, their common ground can be used to unite them against the real enemies of reason, namely post-modernism and secondly, freedom, namely collectivism. Hope I got the commas right.

[anthony]

deleted

[Xray]

@Xray. You wrote; “"Have you asked him how he builds in Rand's pronounced atheism into his recent conversion to Christianity? "

Well, he, like myself, thinks atheism is not an essential part of Objectivism. He also came to disagree with part of Rand’s metaphysics.

You are both practising a form of eclecticism then, i. e. picking those parts of a philosophy that you agree with.

I personally am in favor of eclecticism, of 'patchworking'.

From Rand I have picked "Check your premises", which imo is one of the best pieces of philosophical advice one can give, but it would be wrong and cause misunderstandings if I called myself an Objectivist since I disagree with many other Objectivist tenets.

I also think that eclectism is an effective tool to poke holes into ossified doctrines and dogma.

In addition, eclecticism is in harmony with a universal cosmic phenomenon: permanent transformation. There is no standstill.

That's why all attempts by orthodox grailkeepers (like e. g. Peikoff, orhodox Marxists, dogmatic religionists etc) to keep a doctrine pure and unaltered, and never allowing to question any part of the doctrine/ dogma must fail in the end.

There are no absolutes? Or only in certain contexts, categories?

It depends on what kind of 'absolutes' you have in mind.

I personally would restrict the use of the term 'absolute' to facts, where the function of 'absolute' is really no more than pure emphasis: "It is absolutely true that [insert any known fact]."

When it comes to 'absolute moral values' though, independent of context, imo such values don't exist.

[tmj]

_{"It is absolutely true that [insert any known fact]."}

It is absolutely true that murder is the denial of one's own humanity. ? an absolute , yes?

[Brant Gaede]

_{"It is absolutely true that [insert any known fact]."}

It is absolutely true that murder is the denial of one's own humanity. ? an absolute , yes?

You must be talking murder in the moral sense for killing someone may be moral and only murder legally.

--Brant

blood of tyrants

[Selene]

Angela:

Thanks, nothing like the ole intellectual "bump and grind!"

Your post is an excellent window into several exceptionally intriguing issues of the individual's relationship to a secular reality and the individual's non-secular relationship to reality. Many have struggled with this issue from Martin Buber, the Jesuits and a lone individual sitting on the shores of great oceans, or, the tops of great mountain ranges.

Wondering how, and why, this immense panorama relates to them.

Angela's statement has validity, in, an "Objectivist" context, or, any other context:

For Rand was clear as a bell when she said "No supernatural dimension exists."

With such a clear position, how can the Jesus character (the product of a supernatural being) be integrated into Objectivist thought without arriving at a substantial contradiction?

Not to mention that the Jesus figure is also the classic case of the 'sacrificial lamb', in a type of sacrifice which Rand spent a lifetime in attacking as 'irrational' and therefore 'immoral'.

However, Mike's statement that:

"I've read enough Rand to see that her views on Christianity are wrong mainly because she paints Christianity with a broad brush and commits a composition fallacy/straw man. As I read her works and specific criticisms on religion/Christianity I thought, I've never heard of what she is talking about preached or taught in my church."

I have been exposed to both "camps."

The Quaker "church" that my lady and I attended in Virginia was completely comfortable with my expressions of Ayn's philosophy.

My father was excommunicated from the Catholic "Church" in the late 1930's for being a Mason.

So be it.

This is about personal integrity and, frankly, Angela, you did not have a "positive" experience in the "religious" schools that you were forced to attend.

Nor did I have any kind of "positve" experience with the Catholic "church."

However, I have had exceptional relationships, and, acceptances, with Quakers, fundamentalist christians and other seekers, both secular, and, non-secular.

I would hope that it is because I do not have a closed mind.

Great thread.

A...

Ryan you might want to look at this thread - it was quite good..

[moralist]

Is it an oxymoron for one to identify themselves as a Christian Objectivist?

Yes it is.

As a Christian, it would be silly for me to claim to be an Objectivist. However, I acknowledge that Objectivism shares values in common with Christianity. So, being more of a behaviorist than a dogmatist allows me to enjoy the commonalities rather than to become obsessed with black hooded decrees of ideological purity or of heresy.

Ideals are that to which a person aspires.

Greg

[moralist]

I hear that man has 99% of the DNA of a chimpanzee.

...and most behave like it, too.

Greg

[deanwins]

However, I acknowledge that Objectivism shares values in common with Christianity.

Your results may vary, depending on which version of the bible, which parts of the bible are accepted literally and which are ignored, and which denomination you follow. But at the fundamental, there is contradiction at the most highly valued thing in Objectivism: Objectivity.

Greg, I ignored your admission that you are a Christian on the Bitcoin thread... but here I am to destroy your position on Christianity in this thread. Not that I will be here for long... there is only so much time I can be entertained by talking about nonsense.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son. Whoever shall believe in him shall not perish, but instead have eternal life." Accepting that, you can't get any further from objectivity. Ever see or talk to God? What are his properties that you have observed? His son? Do you have any kind of evidence beyond the bible that Jesus existed or did such miracles, such from Romans who wrote so much back then? Surely such miracles would have been recorded?!? Eternal life? Looks to me like people who believe that "Jesus died in their stead for their sins" die just the same as other people who don't believe it. Where is the observable evidence?

[Jules Troy]

Oh this should be good!

"breaks out the popcorn and grabs a chair."

[Selene]

Ever see or talk to God?

Now there is an interesting question, we have a significant thread on OL about that entire question because one of our contributors stated that he was in communication with God.

I will have to search for it...

Do you have any kind of evidence beyond the bible that Jesus existed...

The historical existence of a man called Jesus is, at a minimum, clear and convincing, and, approaching beyond a shadow of a doubt [70 to 95%].

[Selene]

Got it...

Jon Stewart

Is J. Neil Schulman justified (logically) in believing in...

[moralist]

However, I acknowledge that Objectivism shares values in common with Christianity.

Your results may vary, depending on which version of the bible, which parts of the bible are accepted literally and which are ignored, and which denomination you follow.

We're each talking about two different things. I'm talking about behavior while you're talking about dogma. Neither you nor I could tell the difference between the behavior of a decent honest ethical Objectivist and a decent honest ethical Christian. Both would be fair and equitable in business, neither would betray the trust of others who are worthy of their trust. Neither would prey upon others, just as neither could be preyed upon by others. Both would have the happiness and peace of a clear conscience because both love what's right enough to do it.

But at the fundamental, there is contradiction at the most highly valued thing in Objectivism: Objectivity.

Only the real life consequences of our actions render the final verdict on whether we are living in objective reality or living in virtual intellectual fantasies.

Greg, I ignored your admission that you are a Christian on the Bitcoin thread... but here I am to destroy your position on Christianity in this thread. Not that I will be here for long... there is only so much time I can be entertained by talking about nonsense.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son. Whoever shall believe in him shall not perish, but instead have eternal life." Accepting that, you can't get any further from objectivity.

Acknowledging reality is a personal experience, and as such it is non-transferrable to others. So In your view as a secularist, my view will naturally appear to not be objective. After all, it's a view you didn't choose. And I'm ok with your choice because no matter what you choose, you get what you deserve, just as I do no matter what I choose.

Ever see or talk to God?

Personally, no. Because I can't tell God anything He doesn't already know... but I can honestly state that I do say "thank you" a lot. And I don't see God, but I do become aware of being shown what's morally right and wrong. And that is priceless guidance beyond anything in this world, because doing what's morally right is what makes for a happy productive prosperous life. And you don't even need to believe in God to enjoy the benefits of doing what's right.

What are his properties that you have observed?

That's basically it: objective moral guidance

That's all I need to fulfill my duties in this life. I'm on a need to know basis, and that's all I need to know:

what's right and what's wrong

His son?

He's the Connection.

Do you have any kind of evidence beyond the bible that Jesus existed or did such miracles, such from Romans who wrote so much back then?

I have nothing of any value for you. You already have the life you deserve just as I do.

Surely such miracles would have been recorded?!? Eternal life? Looks to me like people who believe that "Jesus died in their stead for their sins" die just the same as other people who don't believe it. Where is the observable evidence?

There is nothing for you.

Greg

[Jules Troy]

Demmit I didn't even get to butter my popcorn!

[Brant Gaede]

Demmit I didn't even get to butter my popcorn!

I'd show up if water could be turned into wine (did you know wine can be turned into water?)

--Brant

if religion is primitive philosophy then our friend is intellectually primitive as are most conservatives who have been forever out of the idea cauldron, which is mostly why Buckley hated Rand, IMHO (Greg has a much better disposition, however; regretfully, I don't think Rand bugs him so he's not as much fun)

[PDS]

Demmit I didn't even get to butter my popcorn!

I'd show up if water could be turned into wine (did you know wine can be turned into water?)

--Brant

if religion is primitive philosophy then our friend is intellectually primitive as are most conservatives who have been forever out of the idea cauldron, which is mostly why Buckley hated Rand, IMHO (Greg has a much better disposition, however; regretfully, I don't think Rand bugs him so he's not as much fun)

Don't mistake our friends' argument for Christianity as the best argument that can be offered.

The beginnings of a reasonable defense of Christianity would begin with an acknowledgment of certain historical facts relating to the lives of Jesus and Paul and inferences relating to those facts, an acknowledgment of long-standing traditions of Christianity (such as communion, which was clearly an established tradition even before Paul penned his various letters) and what they imply about Christ's teachings, lessons (and additional inferences) that can be drawn from lives of early martyrs who lived and died and were seemingly transformed by what they witnessed at the founding of the Church, and, among other things, a number of theological conclusions about God's love that might be drawn from the writings of the early Church fathers--most of which are contrary to (or inconsistent with) notions of limited salvation, eternal damnation, and elaborate church hierarchies.

[moralist]

if religion is primitive philosophy then our friend is intellectually primitive as are most conservatives who have been forever out of the idea cauldron, which is mostly why Buckley hated Rand, IMHO (Greg has a much better disposition, however; regretfully, I don't think Rand bugs him so he's not as much fun)

Intellectual sophistication is not necessary to living a good life.

Just doing what's right.

In fact I'd even go so far as to say that the intellect works against people. In my opinion, intellect and emotions are not trustworthy. Neither are objective moral guides, as the intellect can be as deceitful as emotions can be irrational. Only what you actually see in the present moment can be trusted.

What defines a man is his unique ability to choose to act contrary to his intellect and emotions.

This is why I love Ayn Rand's ideas. She had a really strong sense of the moral consequences of right and wrong, and I also resonate with many of her complaints about religion. She accurately sensed how weak limpwristed sissy-feminized liberal religion was already becoming, even back in her time.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

In fact I'd even go so far as to say that the intellect works against people. In my opinion, intellect and emotions are not trustworthy. Neither are objective moral guides, as the intellect can be as deceitful as emotions can be irrational. Only what you actually see in the present moment can be trusted.

Greg

(1) Emotions are not rational. They are non-rational. Since they just happen, irrational emotion is a contradiction in terms. Doesn't mean they aren't useful.

If you don't use because you don't trust your intellect, what did God give you one for?

--Brant

(2) Mind and body becomes mind-body dichotomy becomes, with you, stimulus-response.

--Brant

(3) [anyone else?] ________________________________________________________

--The Great Unwashed

[moralist]

Don't mistake our friends' argument for Christianity as the best argument that can be offered.

You've already mistaken my description as an argument, for I'm not defending Christianity. And the reason is that I already understand that you (as well as many of the other folks here) have already chosen your path and will follow it straight to your grave, just as I'm following the path I already chose straight to my grave.

The beginnings of a reasonable defense of Christianity would begin with an acknowledgment of certain historical facts relating to the lives of Jesus and Paul and inferences relating to those facts, an acknowledgment of long-standing traditions of Christianity (such as communion, which was clearly an established tradition even before Paul penned his various letters) and what they imply about Christ's teachings, lessons (and additional inferences) that can be drawn from lives of early martyrs who lived and died and were seemingly transformed by what they witnessed at the founding of the Church, and, among other things, a number of theological conclusions about God's love that might be drawn from the writings of the early Church fathers--most of which are contrary to (or inconsistent with) notions of limited salvation, eternal damnation, and elaborate church hierarchies.

There is a difference between the virtual intellectual study of Christianity...

...and the personal experience of actually living it.

Greg

[moralist]

(1) Emotions are not rational. They are non-rational. Since they just happen...

As long as emotions remain unexamined, they will seem to just happen. But if you were to examine them in the light, you would discover their cause. And it is discovering their cause which makes for the morally sound choice either to act on them... or to just let them pass by unresponded.

Greg

Doesn't mean they aren't useful.

[Selene]

As long as emotions remain unexamined, they will seem to just happen. But if you were to examine them in the light, you would discover their cause. And it is discovering their cause which makes for the morally sound choice either to act on them... or to just let them pass by unresponded.

Doesn't mean they aren't useful.

I agree, conditionally with this point.

If you do not understand and examine, as objectively as you can, what triggered that emotion, you will be a captive to it.

I was raised with that understanding. Rand reinforced it. Tai Chi re-confirmed it.

Being in dangerous and at times potentially deadly situations, had I let my emotions take over, I would more than likely not have survived.

A...