Christian Objectivist

[Brant Gaede]

There is no explanation yet of how a single-celled organism could be created in its actual complexity out of mere energy and matter. Now there is a missing link to beat all missing links. The additional complexity of multi-celled organisms is next to nothing compared to that. The investigation of matter with super-colliders is comparatively simple and therefore doable. There are no colliders for life, at least not yet.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

There is no explanation yet of how a single-celled organism could be created in its actual complexity out of mere energy and matter. Now there is a missing link to beat all missing links. The additional complexity of multi-celled organisms is next to nothing compared to that. The investigation of matter with super-colliders is comparatively simple and therefore doable. There are no colliders for life, at least not yet.

--Brant

Did single celled living replicators come into the world by magic or miracle. Every living thing is made up of atoms. Every last one. Every living thing is a physical entity whose operations are well described by the known physical laws. Somehow matter organized itself into things that replicate and use energy from their surroundings to maintain their internal order.

If we don't know how there may be physical processes we need to find out about. Or earlier in the history of our planet there were physical processes that no longer occur.

But the idea of life arising miraculously is beyond reason.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[We Erred Rand]

>>>> Every living thing is made up of atoms.

But so is every non-living thing. There's no evidence that the difference between "living" and "non-living" is some sort of as-yet-undiscovered law, or propensity, for dead matter to generate into living matter under the right conditions. In any case, Pasteur debunked that long ago in his "swan-neck" tube demonstration, and formulated his Law of Biogenesis: living things only come from other living things.

We could just as truthfully say that every piece of written music is made of ink-spots on parchment. That's certainly true. What makes one set of ink-spots music, and another set merely a bunch of random ink-spots on parchment is the order, or sequence, of the former set. And it's quite obvious that this order is not the result of some hidden chemical process or as-yet-undiscovered physical law residing in ink or parchment itself.

If you want to understand how words get formed in a game of Scrabble, you don't study the chemistry of ink and the physical properties of wood chips. You study English orthography . . . which takes the entire problem out of the realm of deterministic physics and chemistry and into the realm of linguistic convention.

[We Erred Rand]

Yeah, probably the same cause as “existence”.

Correct.

Materialists always insist that matter need not have a cause of its own existence: matter has simply always existed.

Yet when you broach the same argument in relation to a Prime Mover or First Cause such as God, they object.

Their usual argument is that, if one is willing to grant both that "God has always existed" and "matter has always existed" are the same sort of argument, the former is, at best, superfluous, because all we need to do (in principle) is discover all of the laws governing the ways in which this eternally-existing matter can combine with itself and we'll understand (and eventually control) everything in the universe. If that's the case (they aver), why push the analysis back another step and bring in a concept like God?

The reason is that there are things about matter that cannot, even in principle, be explained by reference only to matter. That's why, at the very least, reference to the non-material must be made.

Of course, to go from something like "the non-material realm" to something like "an intentional, personal, conscious God" is a big step. Many scientists and philosophers who have at least been able to get past the dead-end of material reductionism and conceded the necessity — philosophical and scientific — of "the non-material" in order to explain much of the universe, do not take the next step into actual theism. A few of them have (Michael Collins of the Human Genome Project, for example, as well as Dean Kenyon, who had co-authored one of the major books on biochemical determinism). Some are perfectly content to remain in the "realm of the non-material": Thomas Nagel (see his new book, "Mind & Cosmos"), Antony Flew, Fred Hoyle, to name just a few.

[We Erred Rand]

>>>But the idea of life arising miraculously is beyond reason.

But the idea of life arising from merely chemical and physical properties inherent in matter (perpetually "as yet undiscovered") is beyond chemistry and physics, specifically, the 2nd law.

[tmj]

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?

Why would it need a god to get it here?

Because matter doesn’t appear out of nothing without cause.

If you argue on the basis of a causality chain, then god must have a 'cause' too.

Yeah, probably the same cause as “existence”.

If you stipulate that all the stuff is in fact there(here), on what basis does one posit an alternative?

If you subscribe to the idea that matter can not come from nothing, or that matter is indestrcutible, how would a word that means all the matter there is gain a quality that its constituent parts do not have. Existence means everything that "is".

[Mike82ARP]

>>>But the idea of life arising miraculously is beyond reason.

But the idea of life arising from merely chemical and physical properties inherent in matter (perpetually "as yet undiscovered") is beyond chemistry and physics, specifically, the 2nd law.

That is correct, never mind the astronomical improbability.

I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.

Uh oh ...

This is going to get interesting ...

Michael

[Xray]

I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.

But you have enough faith to believe in the 'resurrection of the flesh'?

[Mike82ARP]

I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.

But you have enough faith to believe in the 'resurrection of the flesh'?

I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.

But you have enough faith to believe in the 'resurrection of the flesh'?

Wrong question. Think about it some more and get back to me.

Here’s mine. Do you have enough faith to believe in the eternality of matter in spite of recent scientific discoveries?

[Brant Gaede]

The "idea of life arising miraculously" isn't necessarily beyond reason if we use that idea as a holding area until further investigation--i.e., as a description of ignorance labeled as such. I think that'd be sardonic. That's not how religion uses the idea, of course.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

The "eternally of matter" encompasses all forms of physicality including energy--that's always been for the alternative is the supremacy of non-existence which is nothing. That's a contradiction. There has never been nothing for nothing only exists conceptually in juxtaposition to something really there . That's the role of zero in arithmetic.The only logical questions are what is something, was something and will be something? Maybe it's all electrical, at the base. No something no time, which is the measurement of something's motion. Note that that's the nature of non-reality. Now: something exists so time exists. Nothing exists so time stops. It then doesn't exist. If nothing ever existed time never stopped therefore. The bridge betwen something and something is nothing. One somethng must always butt up against another something. It's not a question of whether matter is eternal, but whether existence is eternal and existence is not nothing. Nothing is eternal--that's for something. Bow down before nothing you nothings!

--Brant

love a little ad hominem--salt on the steak!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Man, am I glad I don't profess to know with certainty things I cannot know or verify.

It gives me a peace of mind that is like nothing I ever experienced before adopting that commitment to myself, and it frees me to speculate without guilt.

The different stories suit me just fine for this. It doesn't matter which, either. Religion, science, philosophy... What's more, the stories are entertaining.

Michael

[We Erred Rand]

Brant Gaede wrote:

>>>>>>No something no time, which is the measurement of something's motion

Sorry, but if all matter is coalesced into a single point (as is claimed by Big Bang Theory), there is no motion to measure. By your own definition, therefore, time wouldn't exist.

Since according to you, time is a measurement of motion — i.e., motion of entity A relative to entity B — it requires at least two entities. If there's only one entity comprising the universe, there's nothing to measure, and therefore, no time.

And by your own terms, there would also be no space.

[Brant Gaede]

Yes there is no space there is only something thereby creating ~space~ for things need room.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

If all matter is at a single point a la Big Bang who's to measure what?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I guess agree with you, my critic, but I'll have to re-evaluate tomorrow when sober after I buy some puts on the NYSE.

--Brant

game but lame

[Xray]

I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.

But you have enough faith to believe in the 'resurrection of the flesh'?

Wrong question. Think about it some more and get back to me.

I have thought about it and think you have evaded answering my question.

[Xray]

Here’s mine. Do you have enough faith to believe in the eternality of matter in spite of recent scientific discoveries?

I'm not a 'faith' type. What recent scientfic discoveries do you have in mind as alleged evidence of matter not being eternal?

[Xray]

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?

Yes.

For it would be a non-sequitur to conclude from the fact that atheism is an integral part of the communist ideology that all forms of atheism will automatically result in a communist society.

[PDS]

Did anyone actually read the blog, or are you merely providing vapid blurbs?

Easy, now. Surely you know that many a truth is told in jest.

Your friend has been blogging for 4 months. This thread has been going on since May 2009. No offense, but your friend is not exactly breaking new ground with his insights, and, so far at least, he has not delivered on the promise of reconciling Rand and Christ, unless coming off as more curmudgeonly than Rand circa 1952 on the subject of gay marriage is his idea of such reconciliation.

Until your friend is willing to write a "blog" reconciling the concept of everlasting torment for non-believers with the Objectivist concept of justice, to name just one example, it would seem the label vapid should be used rather more sparingly. All of us have loved ones roasting in hell right now, according to Orthodox Christianity, and they were predestined to be there, according to John Calvin. This would seem to be a topic of some importance, maybe even at the top of the list. In fact, it almost seems vapid not to address this important issue, and instead write posts on the likes of Jonathan Edwards, who was fond of comparing human beings to spiders, held by God over a flame.

Maybe your friend has no loved ones roasting in hell right now, and/or that topic is not his cup of tea.

Perhaps instead he can write a post on how Christ eliminates the law of identity problem which atheists such as George H. Smith (who has participated in this very thread) have long held to be a major stumbling block to speaking intelligently about God. When he does that, I will be the first to applaud him, rather than making fun of his pictures of Hollywood Jesus.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm interested in finding common ground between Rand's ideas and Christianity.

I think it's a mistake, however, to imagine this will alter either in a fundamental way.

But that word, "fundamental," is a fundamental problem on it's own here. There are fundamental disagreements within different denominations of Christianity and within the different denominations of Objectivism, So we have to be careful to not attribute the beliefs of one denomination to the other as a device to "prove them wrong" or "win the argument" or whatever. This goes for both sides.

Here's where I see things ultimately leading. The Christian fundamentalist sort will fall away from this common ground (and good riddance) as will the Objectivist fundamentalist (ditto good riddance).

Those left (and I include Rand's general readers here) will embrace specific commonalities--especially those involving freedom, capitalism, achieving great things, integrity, etc.--in a spirit of goodwill and they will respect each other enough to know there will not be agreement on their differences, but openly have no problem with the right for this to exist in each other.

Utopia?

I don't think so.

It's more like common sense to me.

The real enemies are power mongers and crony capitalists. You can find both all over Christianity and Objectivism, just as you can find those who oppose them.

I would rather unite in a freedom march with a Christian who thinks that way than sanction a nation-building war policy with an Objectivist who thinks that way. Any day of the week.

I have no doubt there are a lot of Christians who think the same, but coming from their direction.

I believe a huge segment of the general public on the conservative side will ultimately move in this direction. Actually, it has already started, and in a major way at that.

Michael

[Mike82ARP]

Your friend has been blogging for 4 months. This thread has been going on for since May 2009. No offense, but your friend is not exactly breaking new ground with his insights, and, so far at least, he has not delivered on the promise of reconciling Rand and Christ, unless coming off as more curmudgeonly than Rand circa 1952 on the subject of gay marriage is his idea of such reconciliation.

Until your friend is willing to write a "blog" reconciling the concept of everlasting torment for non-believers with the Objectivist concept of justice, to name just one example, it would seem the label vapid should be used rather more sparingly.

Perhaps instead he can write a post on how Christ eliminates the law of identity problem which atheists such as George H. Smith (who has participated in this very thread) have long held to be a major stumbling block to speaking intelligently about God. When he does that, I will be the first to applaud him, rather than making fun of his pictures of Hollywood Jesus.

First, the Hollywood Jesus picture was not his making was meant for only for illustrative purposes.

Christian Egoist is not necessarily trying to "reconcile" Rand and Christianity, but he is trying to show (as one who subscribes to much of what Rand taught) that the two have more on common than what one might think after breaking through the superficialities. His blog is meant more for Christians than it is for Objectivists in that he also views self-sacrifice, altruism, mysticism and postmodernity as ideological opponents and seeks to show why these are also anti-Biblical positions. I have to deal with other Christians whose theologies are mystical and altruistic, but I get along with them anyway. However, if asked, I will tell them where I believe they err.

It is pointless to discuss topics like resurrection, hell, etc., with an atheist as one need to grasp the concept of God first. But then it breaks down to at what unproved tenets you begin? Eternality of the universe, big-bang, creation? Everyone picks one and hopefully has rational reasons for believing that. I get along well with atheists as we have many other commonalities

I guess my point is whether Objectivism seeks to gain popularity or remain an insular philosophical club? Can it be a big tent? Was atheism the prime tenet of Rand, or was it things like laissez-faire capitalism, small government, individualism, and reason? People of faith are a huge, untapped source for Objectivism. In your face, straw man objections such as those coming from TOS aren't going to help.

I appreciate the dialogue we can have here.

[PDS]

Your friend has been blogging for 4 months. This thread has been going on for since May 2009. No offense, but your friend is not exactly breaking new ground with his insights, and, so far at least, he has not delivered on the promise of reconciling Rand and Christ, unless coming off as more curmudgeonly than Rand circa 1952 on the subject of gay marriage is his idea of such reconciliation.

Until your friend is willing to write a "blog" reconciling the concept of everlasting torment for non-believers with the Objectivist concept of justice, to name just one example, it would seem the label vapid should be used rather more sparingly.

Perhaps instead he can write a post on how Christ eliminates the law of identity problem which atheists such as George H. Smith (who has participated in this very thread) have long held to be a major stumbling block to speaking intelligently about God. When he does that, I will be the first to applaud him, rather than making fun of his pictures of Hollywood Jesus.

First, the Hollywood Jesus picture was not his making was meant for only for illustrative purposes.

Christian Egoist is not necessarily trying to "reconcile" Rand and Christianity, but he is trying to show (as one who subscribes to much of what Rand taught) that the two have more on common than what one might think after breaking through the superficialities. His blog is meant more for Christians than it is for Objectivists in that he also views self-sacrifice, altruism, mysticism and postmodernity as ideological opponents and seeks to show why these are also anti-Biblical positions.

It is pointless to discuss topics like resurrection, hell, etc., with an atheist as one need to grasp the concept of God first. But then it breaks down to at what unproved tenets you begin? Eternality of the universe, big-bang, creation? Everyone picks one and hopefully has rational reasons for believing that. I get along well with atheists as we have many other commonalities

I guess my point is whether Objectivism seeks to gain popularity or remain an insular philosophical club? Can it be a big tent? Was atheism the prime tenet of Rand, or was it things like laissez-faire capitalism, small government, individualism, and reason? People of faith are a huge, untapped source for Objectivism. In your face, straw man objections such as those coming from TOS aren't going to help.

I don't agree with you on the pointlessness factor. You assume a top down method of persuasion/argument, and perhaps underestimate how repulsive the Jonathan Edwards description of God actually is to those not singing in the choir.

The Early Church fathers were, by and large, Universalists, i.e., they believed that Christ died for everybody, not just those who signed onto a dotted line of doctrinal beliefs. Then a couple of generations of organized Church types got involved and won the "interpretation" narrative, to use MSK's lens for looking at social issues. Coincidentally, that narrative helped them control people and build an organization that has lasted 1500 years. Why Christians find it alarming that God would save everybody, as opposed to some, is beyond my ability to comprehend. It is almost as though they would be upset if God dispensed His grace to all.

I actually think "justice" would be among the very best openings in the forest for a person devoted to both Rand and Christ. Nearly everybody has an innate sense of justice, and those who don't are not worth talking to.

[anthony]

Your friend has been blogging for 4 months. This thread has been going on for since May 2009. No offense, but your friend is not exactly breaking new ground with his insights, and, so far at least, he has not delivered on the promise of reconciling Rand and Christ, unless coming off as more curmudgeonly than Rand circa 1952 on the subject of gay marriage is his idea of such reconciliation.

Until your friend is willing to write a "blog" reconciling the concept of everlasting torment for non-believers with the Objectivist concept of justice, to name just one example, it would seem the label vapid should be used rather more sparingly.

Perhaps instead he can write a post on how Christ eliminates the law of identity problem which atheists such as George H. Smith (who has participated in this very thread) have long held to be a major stumbling block to speaking intelligently about God. When he does that, I will be the first to applaud him, rather than making fun of his pictures of Hollywood Jesus.

First, the Hollywood Jesus picture was not his making was meant for only for illustrative purposes.

Christian Egoist is not necessarily trying to "reconcile" Rand and Christianity, but he is trying to show (as one who subscribes to much of what Rand taught) that the two have more on common than what one might think after breaking through the superficialities. His blog is meant more for Christians than it is for Objectivists in that he also views self-sacrifice, altruism, mysticism and postmodernity as ideological opponents and seeks to show why these are also anti-Biblical positions. I have to deal with other Christians whose theologies are mystical and altruistic, but I get along with them anyway. However, if asked, I will tell them where I believe they err.

It is pointless to discuss topics like resurrection, hell, etc., with an atheist as one need to grasp the concept of God first. But then it breaks down to at what unproved tenets you begin? Eternality of the universe, big-bang, creation? Everyone picks one and hopefully has rational reasons for believing that. I get along well with atheists as we have many other commonalities

I guess my point is whether Objectivism seeks to gain popularity or remain an insular philosophical club? Can it be a big tent? Was atheism the prime tenet of Rand, or was it things like laissez-faire capitalism, small government, individualism, and reason? People of faith are a huge, untapped source for Objectivism. In your face, straw man objections such as those coming from TOS aren't going to help.

I appreciate the dialogue we can have here.

Mike, there was a philosophy that was once no more than an idea among a few men -

and it went on to conquer the Western world. Numbers arent everything. I say that as one

who doesn't think that O'ism will sweep the world - but it will grow, and its influence in combating the stale, old ideas will grow exponentially, I also think. To Christian individualists everywhere I

wish more power to you in squashing Statism and upholding individual rights. I gather that several O'ists consider that alone a worthy battle( and I believe it would be a courageous one).

Please appreciate that the unbreachable obstacle to any sort of cross-over between Christians and Objectivism is not only the metaphysical conflict of existence/non-existence of God, but epistemological, psycho-epistemological and moral. There just can't be any authority over the O'ist egoist's mind (not even Rand herself, ultimately) simply because only his mind can select and integrate its own content. Here is a critical distinction: he not only *won't* accept any authority, he *can't*. It's a cognitive impossibility, a

self-contradiction.