Christian Objectivist

[Mike82ARP]

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'.

It doesn’t matter whether Rand was “clear as a bell” when she made her proclamation “ex cathedra". What matters is, “was she correct?” How can one say with certainty that something which cannot be proven one way or the other is in fact, true?

Rand had at best a sophomoric understanding of Christianity as do the ARI and TOS gang. Her comments on the ‘sacrificial lamb” makes that clear.

[Mike82ARP]

I used to think atheism was critical to Objectivism. But over the years, I've only seen this stance used as a litmus test to demarcate territory--them over there as opposed to us over here.

The takeaway here is that, in my experience, when a person adopts Objectivism, atheism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any of it, this is not a guarantee of good (or bad) character. Often, it is not even a good rule-of-thumb indicator. I. at least, need to know more about the person to make an evaluation I feel comfortable with.

So I've gone back to my roots on this one, a lesson I was taught as a kid: Compare a person's words with his or her actions. When they don't align, the deeds are a far better indicator of character than the words.

Michael

Thanks for your comments. In the many discussion I’ve had with Objectivists elsewhere I’ve made it clear that I understand their atheism on the basis of the “supernatural” realm ascribed to it , however I do not accept their objections based on their attitudes toward altruism and mysticism which are not universal practices. Heck, even I don’t accept those as integral to Christianity and view professing Christians who espouse those behaviors as self righteous ascetics.

[tmj]

Rand did say her philosophy/morality was for life here on earth. Rather this worldly oriented.

[BaalChatzaf]

Belief in God runs too deep in the psyche, in earlier years especially, to just be rationalized out of oneself.

Could it be (it's appeared sometimes) that Objectivism is a useful vehicle away from religion, towards atheism for some?

It explains some anomalies among O'ists - if it is a transfer of loyalties, simply

Anyhow, the philosophy is exclusively pro-mind pro-reality, and less anti-god-concept - as I see it.

And Rand is its prophet.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

It doesn’t matter whether Rand was “clear as a bell” when she made her proclamation “ex cathedra". What matters is, “was she correct?” How can one say with certainty that something which cannot be proven one way or the other is in fact, true?

My focus here was on whether Objectivism and Christianity are compatible (not whether their premises are (in)correct).

They are incompatible because the statement 'No supernatural dimension exists' leaves no room for the idea of a supernatural being and his son.

Discussing whether Rand was correct is another issue. Since there is no proof either way, epistemologically speaking, agnosticism is the only position which avoids the fallacy of claiming knowledge of something which cannot be known.

As for ethics - since there is no scintilla of evidence indicating that a god exists, deriving a code of ethics from a 'god's will' would be an epistemological fallacy.

[Xray]

In the many discussion I’ve had with Objectivists elsewhere I’ve made it clear that I understand their atheism on the basis of the “supernatural” realm ascribed to it , however I do not accept their objections based on their attitudes toward altruism and mysticism which are not universal practices. Heck, even I don’t accept those as integral to Christianity and view professing Christians who espouse those behaviors as self righteous ascetics.

Still, both mysticism and altruism do have a long tradition in Christianity.

[Mike82ARP]

It doesn’t matter whether Rand was “clear as a bell” when she made her proclamation “ex cathedra". What matters is, “was she correct?” How can one say with certainty that something which cannot be proven one way or the other is in fact, true?

My focus here was on whether Objectivism and Christianity are compatible (not whether their premises are (in)correct).

They are incompatible because the statement 'No supernatural dimension exists' leaves no room for the idea of a supernatural being and his son.

Discussing whether Rand was correct is another issue. Since there is no proof either way, epistemologically speaking, agnosticism is the only position which avoids the fallacy of claiming knowledge of something which cannot be known.

As for ethics - since there is no scintilla of evidence indicating that a god exists, deriving a code of ethics from a 'god's will' would be an epistemological fallacy.

I disagree. One cannot simply proclaim “x” and expect everyone to believe it just because someone says it. in this case one would have to determine whether Rand’s proclamation is actually true before using it make a determination of whether O’ism and X-nity are compatible. I suppose if you view Rand as some sort of omniscient goddess you might just accept whatever she says. I don’t.

I said nothing about ethics.

[Mike82ARP]

In the many discussion I’ve had with Objectivists elsewhere I’ve made it clear that I understand their atheism on the basis of the “supernatural” realm ascribed to it , however I do not accept their objections based on their attitudes toward altruism and mysticism which are not universal practices. Heck, even I don’t accept those as integral to Christianity and view professing Christians who espouse those behaviors as self righteous ascetics.

Still, both mysticism and altruism do have a long tradition in Christianity.

You’re correct, but the mysticism and altruism are not universal tenets of Christianity. You commit a composition fallacy to use that line of argumentation. I could say that atheism ultimately leads to socialist/communist/collectivist societies and cite examples such as China, USSR, East Germany, the socialist countries on Europe where only a small fraction of the population could be classified as religious.

Would you find that objectionable?

[anthony]

In the many discussion I’ve had with Objectivists elsewhere I’ve made it clear that I understand their atheism on the basis of the “supernatural” realm ascribed to it , however I do not accept their objections based on their attitudes toward altruism and mysticism which are not universal practices. Heck, even I don’t accept those as integral to Christianity and view professing Christians who espouse those behaviors as self righteous ascetics.

Still, both mysticism and altruism do have a long tradition in Christianity.

You’re correct, but the mysticism and altruism are not universal tenets of Christianity. You commit a composition fallacy to use that line of argumentation. I could say that atheism ultimately leads to socialist/communist/collectivist societies and cite examples such as China, USSR, East Germany, the socialist countries on Europe where only a small fraction of the population could be classified as religious.

Would you find that objectionable?

Following the metaphysical question of supernatural or - reality? the primary epistemic question is - independence of mind (or not). Any compromise in not possible for long.

I think the largest false dichotomy which Rand exposed is the mystic-intrinsic's ideology, contra the atheist-skeptic's.

i.e. Authority of God - or authority of the Collective. "God knows" - or "the People know". Epistemologically, one and the same thing.

Given that, the 'third way' becomes evident and feeds directly in to the Objectivist ethics.

For all their apparent difference, for this reason religion and communism share the same altruist-collectivist roots.

How do I know this? Because *I* know this.

(An "ex cathedra" moment.)

[Mike82ARP]

You set up false dichotomy when you write "supernatural or- reality” since at this time you cannot disprove the supernatural. You may choose not to believe in the supernatural, but as you are aware, belief does not create truth.

Additionally, your comment “independence of mind (or not)” is also unjustified.

Your final comment seems to delve into solipsism.

[anthony]

You set up false dichotomy when you write "supernatural or- reality” since at this time you cannot disprove the supernatural. You may choose not to believe in the supernatural, but as you are aware, belief does not create truth.

Additionally, your comment “independence of mind (or not)” is also unjustified.

Your final comment seems to delve into solipsism.

1. Are you going to prove the unprovable? Nor will I. You know where the burden of proof lies - yes?

It's not for me to prove the positive. It seems your arguments here and there ask for atheists

to validate the non- existence of... nothing.

2. Independence of mind is central to Objectivism: only one element of it requires not sharing one's

consciousness with a deity. That's a justification enough.

3. The solipsism remark shows your knowledge of each individual's concept-formation is not as complete as an earlier impression I had. To say nothing of, and its link with, rational egoism.

[BaalChatzaf]

A consistent atheist need not assert the non-existence of God. It is sufficient for him to point out that no sound evidence proves the existence of God. Why should anyone believe a proposition for which there is not a shred, a dight, a crumb of evidence?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mike82ARP]

A consistent atheist need not assert the non-existence of God. It is sufficient for him to point out that no sound evidence proves the existence of God. Why should anyone believe a proposition for which there is not a shred, a dight, a crumb of evidence?

Ba'al Chatzaf

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I understand this objection.

You then wrote, "not a shred, a dight, a crumb of evidence”.

I would then ask, how did this stuff all get here?

[Mike82ARP]

You set up false dichotomy when you write "supernatural or- reality” since at this time you cannot disprove the supernatural. You may choose not to believe in the supernatural, but as you are aware, belief does not create truth.

Additionally, your comment “independence of mind (or not)” is also unjustified.

Your final comment seems to delve into solipsism.

1. Are you going to prove the unprovable? Nor will I. You know where the burden of proof lies - yes?

It's not for me to prove the positive. It seems your arguments here and there ask for atheists

to validate the non- existence of... nothing.

2. Independence of mind is central to Objectivism: only one element of it requires not sharing one's

consciousness with a deity. That's a justification enough.

3. The solipsism remark shows your knowledge of each individual's concept-formation is not as complete as an earlier impression I had. To say nothing of, and its link with, rational egoism.

RE #1. I am not seeking to prove anything. I am only pointing out that certain O-ists seem to think they have “proven” that the supernatural cannot/does not exist. The main point I am arguing against is the “prove” part. There is no proof, yet they act certain that this is the case.

RE: #2 I don’t know how or where you get the idea that one “[shares] one’s consciousness with a deity."

RE: #3 My remark was in response to yours, "For all their apparent difference, for this reason religion and communism share the same altruist-collectivist roots...” Well, you’re wrong.

Then you wrote, "How do I know this? Because *I* know this.” Well, you can believe you “know” whatever you want to. It’s a free country.

[Selene]

It’s a free country.

Really? I do not think that is a position that is defensible today.

[Mike82ARP]

It’s a free country.

Really? I do not think that is a position that is defensible today.

In the context of free speech. We’re here, aren’t we?

[anthony]

You set up false dichotomy when you write "supernatural or- reality” since at this time you cannot disprove the supernatural. You may choose not to believe in the supernatural, but as you are aware, belief does not create truth.

Additionally, your comment “independence of mind (or not)” is also unjustified.

Your final comment seems to delve into solipsism.

1. Are you going to prove the unprovable? Nor will I. You know where the burden of proof lies - yes?

It's not for me to prove the positive. It seems your arguments here and there ask for atheists

to validate the non- existence of... nothing.

2. Independence of mind is central to Objectivism: only one element of it requires not sharing one's

consciousness with a deity. That's a justification enough.

3. The solipsism remark shows your knowledge of each individual's concept-formation is not as complete as an earlier impression I had. To say nothing of, and its link with, rational egoism.

RE #1. I am not seeking to prove anything. I am only pointing out that certain O-ists seem to think they have “proven” that the supernatural cannot/does not exist. The main point I am arguing against is the “prove” part. There is no proof, yet they act certain that this is the case.

RE: #2 I don’t know how or where you get the idea that one “[shares] one’s consciousness with a deity."

RE: #3 My remark was in response to yours, "For all their apparent difference, for this reason religion and communism share the same altruist-collectivist roots...” Well, you’re wrong.

Then you wrote, "How do I know this? Because *I* know this.” Well, you can believe you “know” whatever you want to. It’s a free country.

Mike: For clarity would you be more forthcoming on your reasoning, rather than simply negating

my interpretations of O'ism - or go on repeating that atheists have a "belief" which they cannot

justify?

The metaphysics of Objectivism posits that man is an autonomous, volitional, rational being. Then because he has to gain his knowledge, independently, by creating his own concepts

and integrating fresh knowledge constantly, and acting on that, the virtues and the principles he holds, he is deserving of all the benefits he accrues. So, must live for his own survival and thriving, with no innate duty or demanded obligation to others.

From that, where does one find a commonality between Xian ethics and O'ist?

If you criticise rational egoism as "solipsist" - not acknowledging that you or I have had to work for every step of knowledge ourselves (*you* know, *I* know) making our own mistakes, and then implementing it in action, and correcting it as we go - well, it's possible you don't understand rational selfishness in its full sense.

If not, how do you view altruism?

Where can a supernatural being fit into a philosophy of reason?

If you contend that you are NOT "sharing your consciousness" with a deity, then consider these:

Do you believe God is omniscient/omnipotent?

Does he have a purpose for each man and woman?

Does he know what's in each mind and heart?

Does he expect/demand reverence from you?

Do you seek him for guidance and support?

Do you sense he responds in any way?

How do you imagine him to be?

Do you believe in the immortal soul?

Please don't consider this a grilling - I'm making a point about mind-independence. You really don't need reply to these rhetorical questions, but talking with thoughtful and honest religionists, (and my early experiences) indicates to me that possessing a "consciousness of God" intrudes deeply on one's mind and existence.

Last, I was going on about communism and religion as being altruist/collectivist. I don't think they have the same cultural roots - although early religion, Judaism, was tribalist with much pragmatism for the survival of the community - but I was trying to say they have the same epistemological root in Primacy of Consciousness - and psychologically, authoritarian.

Mystic intrinsicism (religion) and secular skepticism (social-progressivism) being two sides of the same coin - "ultimately interchangeable" according to Rand. [Consciousness and Identity, IToE].

(Hell, that's long. It just grew bigger on me...)

[Mike82ARP]

You set up false dichotomy when you write "supernatural or- reality” since at this time you cannot disprove the supernatural. You may choose not to believe in the supernatural, but as you are aware, belief does not create truth.

Additionally, your comment “independence of mind (or not)” is also unjustified.

Your final comment seems to delve into solipsism.

1. Are you going to prove the unprovable? Nor will I. You know where the burden of proof lies - yes?

It's not for me to prove the positive. It seems your arguments here and there ask for atheists

to validate the non- existence of... nothing.

2. Independence of mind is central to Objectivism: only one element of it requires not sharing one's

consciousness with a deity. That's a justification enough.

3. The solipsism remark shows your knowledge of each individual's concept-formation is not as complete as an earlier impression I had. To say nothing of, and its link with, rational egoism.

RE #1. I am not seeking to prove anything. I am only pointing out that certain O-ists seem to think they have “proven” that the supernatural cannot/does not exist. The main point I am arguing against is the “prove” part. There is no proof, yet they act certain that this is the case.

RE: #2 I don’t know how or where you get the idea that one “[shares] one’s consciousness with a deity."

RE: #3 My remark was in response to yours, "For all their apparent difference, for this reason religion and communism share the same altruist-collectivist roots...” Well, you’re wrong.

Then you wrote, "How do I know this? Because *I* know this.” Well, you can believe you “know” whatever you want to. It’s a free country.

Mike: For clarity would you be more forthcoming on your reasoning, rather than simply negating

my interpretations of O'ism - or go on repeating that atheists have a "belief" which they cannot

justify?

The metaphysics of Objectivism posits that man is an autonomous, volitional, rational being. Then because he has to gain his knowledge, independently, by creating his own concepts

and integrating fresh knowledge constantly, and acting on that, the virtues and the principles he holds, he is deserving of all the benefits he accrues. So, must live for his own survival and thriving, with no innate duty or demanded obligation to others.

From that, where does one find a commonality between Xian ethics and O'ist?

If you criticise rational egoism as "solipsist" - not acknowledging that you or I have had to work for every step of knowledge ourselves (*you* know, *I* know) making our own mistakes, and then implementing it in action, and correcting it as we go - well, it's possible you don't understand rational selfishness in its full sense.

If not, how do you view altruism?

Where can a supernatural being fit into a philosophy of reason?

If you contend that you are NOT "sharing your consciousness" with a deity, then consider these:

Do you believe God is omniscient/omnipotent?

Does he have a purpose for each man and woman?

Does he know what's in each mind and heart?

Does he expect/demand reverence from you?

Do you seek him for guidance and support?

Do you sense he responds in any way?

How do you imagine him to be?

Do you believe in the immortal soul?

Please don't consider this a grilling - I'm making a point about mind-independence. You really don't need reply to these rhetorical questions, but talking with thoughtful and honest religionists, (and my early experiences) indicates to me that possessing a "consciousness of God" intrudes deeply on one's mind and existence.

Last, I was going on about communism and religion as being altruist/collectivist. I don't think they have the same cultural roots - although early religion, Judaism, was tribalist with much pragmatism for the survival of the community - but I was trying to say they have the same epistemological root in Primacy of Consciousness - and psychologically, authoritarian.

Mystic intrinsicism (religion) and secular skepticism (social-progressivism) being two sides of the same coin - "ultimately interchangeable" according to Rand. [Consciousness and Identity, IToE].

(Hell, that's long. It just grew bigger on me...)

To attempt this would be like explaining color to a blind person. Just be content with what you wrote, ""How do I know this? Because *I* know this.”

In the meantime, ponder this:

It is not contrary to Christianity that a man should love himself, or, which is the same thing, should love his own happiness. If Christianity did indeed tend to destroy a man’s love to himself, and to his own happiness, it would therein tend to destroy the very spirit of humanity. . . That a man should love his own happiness, is as necessary to his nature as the faculty of the will is and it is impossible that such a love should be destroyed in any other way than by destroying his being. The saints love their own happiness. Yea, those that are perfect in happiness, the saints and angels in heaven, love their own happiness; otherwise that happiness which God hath given them would be no happiness to them.

-On Charity and It’s Fruits, by Jonathan Edwards

Peace.

[Xray]

In the many discussion I’ve had with Objectivists elsewhere I’ve made it clear that I understand their atheism on the basis of the “supernatural” realm ascribed to it , however I do not accept their objections based on their attitudes toward altruism and mysticism which are not universal practices. Heck, even I don’t accept those as integral to Christianity and view professing Christians who espouse those behaviors as self righteous ascetics.

Still, both mysticism and altruism do have a long tradition in Christianity.

You’re correct, but the mysticism and altruism are not universal tenets of Christianity. You commit a composition fallacy to use that line of argumentation.

I merely pointed out a fact: mysticism and altruism do have a long tradition in Christianity.

Whether a Christian individual views them as integral to the type of Christinaity he/she practises is a matter of personal preference.

People can be members of a church for many different reasons.

So the question I would ask you is: what universal practices do you accept as integral to your preferred variant of Christianity?

[Xray]

I disagree. One cannot simply proclaim “x” and expect everyone to believe it just because someone says it.

ITA.

in this case one would have to determine whether Rand’s proclamation is actually true before using it make a determination of whether O’ism and X-nity are compatible.

Compatibility in this case is independent of factual truth.

If for example Jim says that the capital of Romania is Budapest, but John says it is Sofia, their statetments are incompatible because they contradict each other.

The next step is whether it can be determined whose statement is correct. In the above example, both have got it wrong.

[We Erred Rand]

>>>If for example Jim says that the capital of Romania is Budapest, but John says it is Sofia, their statetments are incompatible because they contradict each other.

Wrong.

>>>The next step is whether it can be determined whose statement is correct. In the above example, both have got it wrong.

That they both have it wrong proves they are not contradictory. When two assertions contradict each other, one of them, by definition, must be true.

Actual contradictory statements would be the following:

Jim: "The capital of Romania is Budapest."

John: "The capital of Romania is not Budapest."

They cannot both be right, and they cannot both be wrong. They are "mutually exclusive AND jointly exhaustive." One of these two assertions must be right.

[BaalChatzaf]

Precisely the difference between -contrary- (both can't be true) and -contradictory- (one must be true and one must be false).

[Mike82ARP]

I disagree. One cannot simply proclaim “x” and expect everyone to believe it just because someone says it.

ITA.

>>>> in this case one would have to determine whether Rand’s proclamation is actually true before using it make a determination of whether O’ism and X-nity are compatible.

Compatibility in this case is independent of factual truth.

How so? I would think one would need to know if something were true before attempting to compare it to another thing (which should also be true) before evaluating their compatibility. For example, if I were going to compare apples and oranges and mistakenly used a lemon instead of an orange, would the resulting compatibility determination be correct?

Maybe there’s some O’ist philosophical gymnastics that can be proposed to support your point, but being relatively new here, I can’t think of any.

[Xray]

>>>If for example Jim says that the capital of Romania is Budapest, but John says it is Sofia, their statetments are incompatible because they contradict each other.

Wrong.

>>>The next step is whether it can be determined whose statement is correct. In the above example, both have got it wrong.

That they both have it wrong proves they are not contradictory. When two assertions contradict each other, one of them, by definition, must be true.

Actual contradictory statements would be the following:

Jim: "The capital of Romania is Budapest."

John: "The capital of Romania is not Budapest."

They cannot both be right, and they cannot both be wrong. They are "mutually exclusive AND jointly exhaustive." One of these two assertions must be right.

Would you explain why the statements:

Jim: "The capital of Romania is Budapest."

John: "The capital of Romania is Sofia."

are not mutually exclusive?

In criminal cases, one uses the term "contradictory statements" as well, but this does not necessarily mean that one of them must be true. They can all be false, for example when guilty suspects change elements of their 'story' several times.

[Xray]

Compatibility in this case is independent of factual truth.

How so? I would think one would need to know if something were true before attempting to compare it to another thing (which should also be true) before evaluating their compatibility. For example, if I were going to compare apples and oranges and mistakenly used a lemon instead of an orange, would the resulting compatibility determination be correct?

Maybe there’s some O’ist philosophical gymnastics that can be proposed to support your point, but being relatively new here, I can’t think of any.

I'm not an Objectivist, nor am I arguing from an Objectivist point of view here.

As for the 'truth' issue, I doubt this will get us very far in this debate because before long we will reach the realm of pure belief, with no empirical facts to back it up.

But I have the feeling that this issue is still very important to you, so I'll give it a try; I suggest a step by step approach

"A statement is true if it corresponds to fact". Could we agree on this as a common ground for the discussion?

I'll await your reply before continuing.