I think the issue here with this group of "Objectivists" is not just a simple "atheism is a rational conclusion based on rejection of the arbitrary." Rather that Christianity does not merely represent a "theistic" religion with a default kind of deity that doesn't happen to have any evidence in favor of its existence. The Christian God is a very specific thing, with very defined and specific attributes, which if taken all together as making up the whole that is God, are mutually exclusive and render the existence of a being with all those attributes impossible. Christianity is not deism, nor even theism with an agnostic flavoring. Christianity is the active belief in a being who can not possibly exist, and whose incomprehensibility is one of its attributes(if you take "ineffable" as one of its descriptors.) Belief in a professed contradiction is an active attack on the thinking mind, and renders those with the belief just the way the preachers of Christianity want them: ready to take everything on faith and authority. Once one conclusion is allowed to be taken on faith and without reason, whether its the acceptance of the arbitrary as true or the contradictory as true, then there is no standard left to decide what must be accepted and what must be rejected. If a contradiction is possible, then integration of all knowledge is rendered arbitrary and meaningless; if apples ARE oranges, then the meaning of "fruit" is lost, along with the meaning of everything else, since fruit and non-fruit are one in the same. This is where the contradiction between being a Christian and being an Objectivist lies. Its either reason or authority, there is no middle ground, and while some Xian O'ists may be or may seem to be exercising their independent judgment in trying to synthesize Objectivism with the existence of the Christian God, they are simply trying to synthesize whim with understanding, reason with faith, existence with non-existence, A with non-A. They aren't exercising independent judgment, they are simply substituting some of the authority of Ayn Rand's with Jesus'. They see everything as dogma, and are simply trying to mix and match, missing the contradictions involved because they aren't trying to have an integrated understanding of reality; their conceptual hierarchy is a mish-mash of disparate beliefs sometimes filed under "things that make sense" and sometimes filed under "things that feel right, or ought to be right." There is no integrating dogma with dogma, only rationalizing the possibilty of coexisting contradictory dogmas. If "Objectivism" is to have any meaning, it must include the tenet that there is no room for faith in the human mind, whether it be faith in the arbitrary or in the possibility of contradictions existing. If "Christianity" is to have any meaning it must include the tenet that faith in the words of Jesus Christ and his disciples, and belief in an all knowing, all good and all powerful god is mandatory. If these are the meanings of these two terms, then there can be no such thing as a "Chrsitian Objectivist." In as much as they are Christian they aren't Objectivists and vice-versa.
