Objectivism and Christianity

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Objectivism and Christianity

A Letter to a Christian Objectivist

Recently, while keeping on top of posts on another forum because of an issue presently being vented between the two forums, I came across this lettered example of philosophical erudition:

I'll be buggered ... The Christian Objectivists no less

The thread was in reference to a blog called Christian Objectivists, where a person called Lilybeth is working out her thoughts on God, Objectivism and the why of it all in general. I don't think I need to say that there was a bunch of mockery and pompous sanctimonious crap on the pseudo-Objectivist forum. They didn't even know this person, but apparently they knew enough about her to despise her or pity her or have contempt for her. Objectivism must have given them the wisdom to do that. Right?

Frankly, this kind of thing ticks me off.

I don't know Lilybeth either, but I bet if she is writing her thoughts on a blog, she is sincerely seeking to put the best in her soul on display. Starting from that default, I believe this merits an initial attitude of respect, not derision. If she turns out to be a bonehead, then there is always time for derision or whatever. But I saw no signs of boneheadedness. I saw a sincere person seeking wisdom. What's contemptible about that?

I clicked on a link on that blog and it led me to a Google Group called Christian Objectivists. It is not too active, but I saw a real spark of intelligence in a girl named Sarah.

The more I thought about all this, the more I began to wonder who I would trust my children in the care of. There was no contest. The Christians won that one hands down. (I would not be able to say the same thing if the forum were OL or a couple of other places in Objectivism-land, but it definitely holds true with respect to Solo Passion).

I seek the life of the benevolent universe and I will take it where I get it. Where I find it is where I want my children to go. It's that simple and I don't care what who says Ayn Rand wrote. Let the nasty folks stew in their own bile.

At any rate, I wrote Sarah a long letter out of the blue. I since received a reply and she is a marvelous person. Ditto for that group of Christian Objectivists. I found it interesting that she has received just as much persecution from Christians as she has Objectivists.

Of course I have philosophical differences with these people, but I simply cannot demonize them, imagine that their efforts will undermine Objectivism or cut short the saving of the world from orgies of God knows what or whatever. On the contrary, if there were more folks like these folks, the world would be a hell of a lot better place.

I don't think we have to agree with people like this to call them our friends. I think we would do well to look at them, see their manner of being and learn this aspect from them. That's a hell of a thing, to look at someone and say, "I disagree with you, but I want to be like you."

It's a premise. And it's a check. And it needs doing.

Here is my letter to Sarah.

Sarah,

Hi.

This is Michael Stuart Kelly writing. I run a discussion forum on Objectivism (and other matters) called Objectivist Living.

I came across your Chriatian Objectivist group because people in a very nasty online pseudo-Objectivist group (Solo Passion) were mocking you guys. I do not condone what they do.

I, myself, have been damned on all tribal sides in the Objectivist subculture because my own focus is to encourage people to think for themselves instead of singing a party line. I was perplexed and hurt at first, but I have since stopped caring. On the up side, through this attitude I did manage to attract some of the finest minds in what I call the renegade Objectivist world. For instance, Barbara Branden is a very dear friend of mine. There are many.

I strongly believe in one thing. When people think for themselves instead of preaching this or that about what OTHERS should think, I believe the good in the philosophy enriches their lives, irrespective of whether their focus is on religion or atheism.

I am not a Christian, but in your language, my thought could be expressed as we are all God's children and we should be grateful for that and try to reflect the Him that is in each of us. A very wise person (not an Objectivist) once told me that they can take everything away from you except for one thing: what you are going to experience. They can even take your memory of the past, but they cannot take from you what you are going to go through. That is yours and yours alone.

All the more reason to think for oneself and not be too worried about what others think.

My own standard is not whether people are Objectivists or not. It is whether they are good people or nasty bitter souls. I know many Objectivists and Christians of both stripes. Being good or nasty is a deep personal choice and, from what I observe, which philosophy or religion one professes does not seem to influence that much. Give me a good Christian any day over a bad Objectivist and vice-versa.

I suppose I have to say something about God to show where I stand, so here goes. God-wise, I have many thoughts on what might or might not be, but no certainties. (How's that for a different kind of Objectivist?) I simply don't know and I have found peace with my ignorance. In a very strong cathartic moment of doubt in my past, I concluded that (1) I don't know everything there is to know and will never know everything, and (2) the universe is a very big place. There's a lot not to know. So I keep my mind open to spiritual matters as well as cognitively rational ones. Strangely enough, I feel great strength in my doubts. I am using my own mind and no other. That's a top value in my world and it brings me deep comfort in a serene sense of metaphysical correctness (for lack of a better term).

Anyway, this is a long topic. Enough of my meandering on about metaphysics.

Like I said, I do not like nasty people. Unfortunately there seems to be many emotionally damaged people who are attracted to Objectivism. Some of the extreme ones border on autistic while other extreme ones are just plain nasty spiteful rotten little people who are bad because they like being bad. They think displays of arrogance, hatred and bad manners are sexy.

I have not read much of what your group discussed, but being Christians, I imagine you guys are good folks. And good folks are good enough for me. In sense of life terms, I feel much more aligned with Christians than I do with some of the alienated Objectivists I have run into online. (However, there are many wonderful, warm and caring people among them, too, so please don't think Objectivists are all warped.)

A heroic symbol can illustrate this better. The Objectivists I do not like are sanctimonious, ape Rand's heroes and get great pleasure out of stating Roark's line, "But I don't think of you." (I notice that they are usually looking out of the corner of their eye when they do that, too, thinking about the person they are not thinking about.)

In my vision, there are only facets of Rand's heroes that cause me to vibrate. Being fiction and selective recreations of reality, that actually is as it should be. For a complete heroic symbol, my kind is the typical American good guy of the Old West: a bit rugged, self-reliant, extremely competent, but polite, helps old ladies cross the street and smacks down bullies when he sees them maligning the weak. Pure Hollywood, maybe, but that's what's inside me.

Regardless of whether I ever agree or disagree with you, I admire the fact that you have the courage of your convictions and do not try to hide what you think. (I am speaking to you because the Google group said you were the most active poster, but in my mind I am actually speaking to all the like minded people around you as well. Please feel free to share this email with them if you so desire.)

It just occurred to me that I don't know you from Adam and I have written this long-winded email. Ain't that something? I didn't plan on it being this long, but when I get on a roll, off I go.

I am actually writing to you—the thought that prompted me—because I want you to know that there are good people out here in the Objectivist world, Sarah. Good people who believe you have a right to try to integrate Christianity with Objectivism if you think you can. Good people who say, "Go for it." Good people who will face down bullies who mock you (so long as you are good people and not a bully yourself) for no other reason than being a good guy. Good guys do not admit crap like bullying and spite to be held up in public as the good in their world.

I don't have to agree with you nor vice-versa for my kind of world to be, either. Or, as you would say, God's kind of world. If I were to believe in your religion, I would still feel the identical preverbal conviction I presently feel at the deepest level of my being. Words don't matter down there. Objectivism certainly doesn't matter.

The very act of feeling sincere—almost innocent—reverence and gratitude for life and this marvelous universe we live in brings what you would call God's presence to my soul. All the rest, to me, is nothing but words so I don't really care what someone else calls that inner sense of completeness. Some call it Jesus. Others call it Allah. Others call it Oneness of Being. Others call it metaphysical serenity. There are almost as many names as there are cultures. But it's still the same universe, still the same earth, and still the same species (human beings).

I hope to see you around somewhere sometime. I am certain you have a precious mind and soul. Please give my regards to the good folks among you.

Best,

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Applause, Michael. Thanks for sharing it.

Ellen

___

[Paul Mawdsley]

The most important thing is the authentic exploration, the personal adventure, and the independent making sense of it all. There is no single right path to growth, discovery and enlightenment. Following the path prescribed by some authority at the expense of your own evolving view is definitely the wrong path though. This is true whether it is a Christian or an Objectivist path.

Paul

[Chris Grieb]

During the middle 70ths a man named James Kieffer presented an argument for the existence of God. He debated some prominent libertarians on the question and addressed various Libertarian groups usually along with Nathaniel Branden's lecture # 4 from the Basic Principles of Objectivism. He also led some people to become Christians and in at least one case to become in communion with Rome. Mr. Kieffer is alive and has a web site. Goggle his name.

There was a brief exchange of correspondence in "Books for Libertarians" and in that newsletter that was a claim of a magazine called "The Christian Objectivist" by the late Roy A Childs. A subsequent letter from Mr. Kieffer to Mr. Childs were Mr. Kieffer asked Mr Childs he had a copy of "Christian Objectivist". Mr Childs indicated he did not have a copy of the publication. The "Christian Objectivist" sounds like an urban legend to me but if anyone out in OL land can give any information I for one would appreciate it.

Mr. Kieffer's argument is as I remember was intriguing but does not get around some of the arguments presented by Dr. Branden.

Finally Michael I must comment your willingness to look at the sewer that Solo Passion.

[Brant Gaede]

A "Christian Objectivist" is a contradiction in terms.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

A "Christian Objectivist" is a contradiction in terms.

--Brant

How would you classify a Christian (or Deist) who believes the reality is really real and exists independent of his will or wishes? Who believes that things in the world have a specific nature? How would you classify Isaac Newton, to whom the above applies?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

People are walking contradictions in terms. I haven't seen Objectivism straighten that part out yet.

(It's just a body of thought for people...)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

A "Christian Objectivist" is a contradiction in terms.

--Brant

How would you classify a Christian (or Deist) who believes the reality is really real and exists independent of his will or wishes? Who believes that things in the world have a specific nature? How would you classify Isaac Newton, to whom the above applies?

A scientist.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

People are walking contradictions in terms. I haven't seen Objectivism straighten that part out yet.

(It's just a body of thought for people...)

A Christian is a mystic and altruist. That viates three core positions of Objectivism leaving its politics without an Objectivist leg to stand on. A "Christian Objectivist" is most likely a conservative. Objectivism has no power to do anything. It's people who do or not do the doing.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So Christian Objectivists must be irrational in everything in their lives, right Brant?

They are probably evil and corrupted right down to the core and will not hesitate to enslave and kill you on the drop of a dime.

Did I get that right?

Michael

[Dragonfly]

So Christian Objectivists must be irrational in everything in their lives, right Brant?

They are probably evil and corrupted right down to the core and will not hesitate to enslave and kill you on the drop of a dime.

Brant didn't say or suggest anything like that. He just pointed out that in terms of fundamental principles you cannot be a christian and an objectivist at the same time, just as you cannot be an atheist and a christian at the same time.

[Alfonso Jones]

So Christian Objectivists must be irrational in everything in their lives, right Brant?

They are probably evil and corrupted right down to the core and will not hesitate to enslave and kill you on the drop of a dime.

Did I get that right?

Michael

Michael:

Do you really think this is a fair interpretation of what Brant said?

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

If Brant is going to ignore and/or miss my point in such a glaring way, why shouldn't I do the same?

I have already played the repeat-until-you-are-blue-in-the-face game on Objectivist forums when people refuse to acknowledge my point (even to disagree with it) in their posts. Maybe Brant's case is different, but in my experience, when it starts like that—by ignoring what the issue is and insinuating that it is something else or that I am saying something else—things usually get ugly after a while.

My point is that people should think with their own minds and not bow down to dogma, Objectivist or Christian. Dogma is dogma and it is a BAD THING. The insinuation usually is that I am trying to sneak Christianity into Objectivism.

btw - Where does it say that Objectivism is founded on the principle of atheism, anyway? I have only read that since there is no rational evidence, His existence is not accepted as a fact. The problem is epistemological, not metaphysical. The idea of God is not accepted on faith. This implies that if rational evidence of a God should appear, Objectivism would allow for the concept.

I can provide quotes to back that up, too. But regardless, that is my position, quote or no quote. I cannot conceive of the exercise of reason being different.

Michael

[rush242]

So Christian Objectivists must be irrational in everything in their lives, right Brant?

They are probably evil and corrupted right down to the core and will not hesitate to enslave and kill you on the drop of a dime.

Did I get that right?

No, he made the point that the two are diametrically opposed.

Where the hell did you get the rest of that?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bill,

There's some history there. Brant himself once called me the most evil man in Objectivism or something to that nature because I was examining Christian concepts against Objectivist ones. I am not saying he is doing it again. I just want matters to be clear.

I like things out in the open.

EDIT TO RUSH: Ditto.

FURTHER EDIT: Here is the post:

Michael, Turning is a way to get inside of Objectivism and rot it. You are an enemy of Objectivism; the worst kind. I have focused and particular disagreements with James Valliant and Casey Fahy, but they are incredibly clean compared to what you are doing here, which you continue to deny. You are sticking knives into Objectivism while kissing it on the lips. I am disgusted, completely and unalterably disgusted. If I owned SOLO I'd kick you out. I'd rather have William Buckley posting here. What is a newbie to think about an article like Turning? It's much worse than anything the Brandens are alleged to have done to the reputation of Ayn Rand by the ARI crowd save the audience is much smaller. Most enemies of Objectivism come at it head on or stupidly, they don't have the brains and knowledge to do what you have done and continue to do. You can prove me wrong by repudiating Turning and starting over with your original, innocent intent, if that's what it was. Fat chance.

--Brant

This was in 2005 and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. But since that time, Christianity per se has not been discussed much between Brant and me. I want to make sure this kind of thing does not repeat.

Back then, the spirit was a mission to save the world in the name of Objectivism. I no longer share that spirit. I vastly prefer checking premises and people thinking for themselves.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Bill,

There's some history there. Brant himself once called me the most evil man in Objectivism or something to that nature because I was examining Christian concepts against Objectivist ones. I am not saying he is doing it again. I just want matters to be clear.

I like things out in the open.

EDIT TO RUSH: Ditto.

Michael

Today I'd say "Evul."

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

You're cool.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Bill,

There's some history there. Brant himself once called me the most evil man in Objectivism or something to that nature because I was examining Christian concepts against Objectivist ones. I am not saying he is doing it again. I just want matters to be clear.

I like things out in the open.

EDIT TO RUSH: Ditto.

FURTHER EDIT: Here is the post:

Michael, Turning is a way to get inside of Objectivism and rot it. You are an enemy of Objectivism; the worst kind. I have focused and particular disagreements with James Valliant and Casey Fahy, but they are incredibly clean compared to what you are doing here, which you continue to deny. You are sticking knives into Objectivism while kissing it on the lips. I am disgusted, completely and unalterably disgusted. If I owned SOLO I'd kick you out. I'd rather have William Buckley posting here. What is a newbie to think about an article like Turning? It's much worse than anything the Brandens are alleged to have done to the reputation of Ayn Rand by the ARI crowd save the audience is much smaller. Most enemies of Objectivism come at it head on or stupidly, they don't have the brains and knowledge to do what you have done and continue to do. You can prove me wrong by repudiating Turning and starting over with your original, innocent intent, if that's what it was. Fat chance.

--Brant

This was in 2005 and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. But since that time, Christianity per se has not been discussed much between Brant and me. I want to make sure this kind of thing does not repeat.

Back then, the spirit was a mission to save the world in the name of Objectivism. I no longer share that spirit. I vastly prefer checking premises and people thinking for themselves.

Michael

Good, God! Has to be one of the worse things I ever wrote. Did I ever go off the rationalistic irrational deep end. I'm actually glad to see it again to see what real nonsense looks like.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

So Christian Objectivists must be irrational in everything in their lives, right Brant?

They are probably evil and corrupted right down to the core and will not hesitate to enslave and kill you on the drop of a dime.

Did I get that right?

Michael

Uh, no.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I appreciate that more than you could possibly imagine.

(And on the second post, I am happy to stand corrected. I was being a smart-ass anyway. )

Michael

[rush242]

EDIT TO RUSH: Ditto.

Heh heh. Thanks for the clarification. 8^]

[Brant Gaede]

Dragonfly,

If Brant is going to ignore and/or miss my point in such a glaring way, why shouldn't I do the same?

I have already played the repeat-until-you-are-blue-in-the-face game on Objectivist forums when people refuse to acknowledge my point (even to disagree with it) in their posts. Maybe Brant's case is different, but in my experience, when it starts like that—by ignoring what the issue is and insinuating that it is something else or that I am saying something else—things usually get ugly after a while.

My point is that people should think with their own minds and not bow down to dogma, Objectivist or Christian. Dogma is dogma and it is a BAD THING. The insinuation usually is that I am trying to sneak Christianity into Objectivism.

btw - Where does it say that Objectivism is founded on the principle of atheism, anyway? I have only read that since there is no rational evidence, His existence is not accepted as a fact. The problem is epistemological, not metaphysical. The idea of God is not accepted on faith. This implies that if rational evidence of a God should appear, Objectivism would allow for the concept.

I can provide quotes to back that up, too. But regardless, that is my position, quote or no quote. I cannot conceive of the exercise of reason being different.

Michael

I have no objection to reaching out to people who call themselves "Christian Objectivists." I wasn't commenting on that. I'd like to hear what they have to say about this and that and their philosophy and how they get Objectivism into it. Jack Wheeler was heavily influenced by Ayn Rand, but is an avowed Christian, anti-abortionist, advocate of foreign interventionism as in Iraq, favors strict immigation controls and enforcement and calls himself a "rational conservative." I pay about ten bucks a month to read his www.tothepointnews.com.

Atheism is rational. Belief in a supreme being is faith. An aspect of the mystical.

I think it's pretty obvious that my comments on this thread brought back some old memories that still piss you off--it is embarrassing to read that old post again--otherwise I don't think you would have reacted as strongly as you did. I can't say you aren't entitled in spite of my apologies to you, Kat and Barbara when I came here almost two years ago. I erased everything I could of that nature from SOLOP shortly thereafter--it took weeks to go through all the threads, some of it I couldn't touch--primarily on behalf of Barbara. Anything left is extremely hard to find. If you find any post of mine there now, aside from several I made on a recent visit or two, and it is not signed "--Brant," that post was deleted by me in whole or part. If it's still signed it either means it was innocuous to my intent or I could no longer edit it because someone had replied to it.

--Brant

Edited July 21, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[regi]

Hi Michael,

I do not get around here very often, but did see this thread and thought you might be interested in this article which I think addresses many of the issues here, particularly with reference to Objectivism and Rand's view toward religion.

http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/articles/article80.php

"Three Books--An Atheist's Defence of Christianity"

Regi

[Paul Mawdsley]

Atheism is rational. Belief in a supreme being is faith.

--Brant

Is this true? It strikes me that both are theories intended to fill in the blanks that occur beyond the limits of what we can observe. In fact, these are both causal theories that try to explain why things are what they are and why they behave as they do. This sounds rational to me.

A commitment to a particular theory of existence takes us past the point of what the evidence can directly support. According to the evidence alone I cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am atheist! Why?

Metaphysics is all about big picture thinking. It is all about taking the observed parts, the evidence, and building a picture of the whole that fits the evidence and is internally consistent. It is a very rational (though not necessarily linear and deductive) enterprise. Whatever the big picture you arrive at, whether it is one that requires a god or one that excludes a god, it is a theory about existence. Making the commitment to claim that one is true and the other is false, in the absence of any conclusive evidence, is faith. For myself, I consider it to be faith (or self-confidence) in my ability to generate a picture that fits with all the evidence and is internally consistent, and faith in my judgement that this is so, that makes me atheist. I am an atheist because I have confidence in my thought processes and my judgement and these have led me to conclude that there is no god.

Where I have a problem is with a different kind of faith. The kind that requires a commitment to a picture generated by some higher authority. A faith that requires the suspension of my own judgement and a commitment to someone else's judgement. I consider anything that demands the suspension of one's own judgement to be the root of all evil. I see elements of this in the practice of both Christianity and Objectivism.

So I can't agree that "atheism is rational" and "belief in a supreme being is faith." They can both be the result of rational thought, even if the commitment to one or the other is an act of self-confidence or faith. Both beliefs can also be practiced blindly by adopting the images and models of the universe proclaimed by some authority, who cannot be contradicted without fear of exile, and who demands the suspension of one's judgement (at least on those occasions when you contradict them). This is the faith of a cult.

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hey Regi!

Welcome aboard. Good to see you.

I'll read your essay and get back to you.

Michael