Christian Objectivist

[Mike82ARP]

Additionally, you presume the rich young ruler amassed his fortune through laissez faire capitalism which didn’t exist in biblical days. :-)

But it was you who linked laissez faire capitalism to Christianity (see your post # 359).

Yes, it wasn’t around in biblical times. Its emergence can be traced to socio-economic changes occurring after the Reformation.

[Mike82ARP]

So according to embryologists, Adam would or would not have had nipples?

Yes, he must have had the requisite DNA since we still have them.

[Mike82ARP]

@PDS.

You wrote: "Your beliefs, for reasons that it might be fruitful for you to examine sometime, seem to compel you to believe that this act of suicide was only for you and those like you.

I won't subject the readers of an Objectivist website to a bunch of Bible verses. You can go read this book here if you are genuinely curious. Plenty of Bible versus in there for you to ponder. "

Do you really think that over the last 27 years of reading the Bible and broadly studying theology that universalism somehow slipped under the radar. It would be nice if it were true, but it fails when measured up against what the Bible teaches. That’s why there's a very small minority of X-ns who teach it.

[Mike82ARP]

@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.

"And if church leaders had not been hungry for political power over the centuries, and if no emperor had ever decided to impose the Christian belief on his subjects - I don't think Christianity would have survived at all."

"If" is a big word. I could posit that IF Rand had a different exposure to Christianity than she did (in Los Angeles with the like of Aimee Semple McPherson and the anti-intellectualism that was rampant at the time), she may have had a different view.

in some ways a Christ-like figure, but that’s another discussion for another day.

[tmj]

So according to embryologists, Adam would or would not have had nipples?

Yes, he must have had the requisite DNA since we still have them.

Does your church follow a literal interpretation of the Bible? Was the earth populated through incestual means, twice?

[Brant Gaede]

It's true that atheism isn't an essential part or any part of Objectivism save derivatively through reason. There is nothing rational about belief in a Supreme Being, of course, but it's the rationality that's essential to the philosophy. Now it may be rational to be a Christian if you're an atheist--I think many Popes have been atheists--for several reasons, but all religious doctrines are irrational. To make atheism basically part of Objectivism makes the philosophy dogma too for the same reason. Militant atheists, BTW, in gross contradiction, have made themselves into dogmatists with serious religious aspects. I dislike the word "atheist" applied to myself--I think it's an ugly word--useful but ugly--so I call myself a "pantheist" in so far as I equate "God" with reality and reality with it--or the god of reality, which I profoundly respect but do not worship. This gets rid of the irrationality and the old white man with a beard in the sky nonsense. As for Jesus, Jesus! No Christianity without him, but even if he ever actually existed he's only an idea, but one that makes Christianity much more viable and life-oriented for rational people than Islam, speaking about today, not bloody yesterday.

--Brant

[Leonid]

"-I think many Popes have been atheists--for several reasons,"-you mean hypocrites or simply fraudsters?

[Mike82ARP]

So according to embryologists, Adam would or would not have had nipples?

Yes, he must have had the requisite DNA since we still have them.

Does your church follow a literal interpretation of the Bible? Was the earth populated through incestual means, twice?

If you mean literal in the sense of the common meaning of the word, then no. Since the BIble has several different literary styles and tools like metaphor, symbolism, etc are used, we interpret the Bible in the literary style and context in which it was written.

Incest wasn’t prohibited until Leviticus 18.

[Mike82ARP]

It's true that atheism isn't an essential part or any part of Objectivism save derivatively through reason. There is nothing rational about belief in a Supreme Being, of course, but it's the rationality that's essential to the philosophy. Now it may be rational to be a Christian if you're an atheist--I think many Popes have been atheists--for several reasons, but all religious doctrines are irrational. To make atheism basically part of Objectivism makes the philosophy dogma too for the same reason. Militant atheists, BTW, in gross contradiction, have made themselves into dogmatists with serious religious aspects. I dislike the word "atheist" applied to myself--I think it's an ugly word--useful but ugly--so I call myself a "pantheist" in so far as I equate "God" with reality and reality with it--or the god of reality, which I profoundly respect but do not worship. This gets rid of the irrationality and the old white man with a beard in the sky nonsense. As for Jesus, Jesus! No Christianity without him, but even if he ever actually existed he's only an idea, but one that makes Christianity much more viable and life-oriented for rational people than Islam, speaking about today, not bloody yesterday.

--Brant

I think I can make a case as to whether it is "reasonable" to believe in a supreme being.

Stipulating the current BIg Bang theory as the origin of the universe, I would simply ask whether it is reasonable to believe that someone "built the bomb”? I’m not proposing a “proof”, but just whether it is reasonable view. Then, could than someone by god?

Given the scientific problems that exist regarding the nature of matter and time - eternally existing, big bang expansion/ contraction, energy/matter relationship, ex nihilo, nihil fit, etc., any other cosmology may be deemed irrational if one by fiat subscribes to one particular one.

[tmj]

I see the Big Bang as an event, perhaps an origin of the (current?) state of the Universe but not a creation event. Something banged. Science can describe how the things in reality work. Philosophy , metaphysics describes whether or what is.

[Brant Gaede]

Good luck with that, Mike.

I have no opinion on The Big Bang.

Non-existence doesn't exist save as an idea juxtaposed to existence, which does have tangible referents. Since non-existence cannot exist you are left with existence. If existence stops then time stops then if existence resumes then time resumes. Time is only a measurement of movement--of something. One existence could butt up against another or the next, I suppose, but there can't be a void to be crossed. That would be crossing nothing. The best would be a connecting breach. There is, BTW, no actual void within the universe unless you define it into existence. Wherever you go there is always something you are going through absent a stop, mostly electrical in nature.

--Brant

or, existence is eternal qua time or stops and goes or goes and stops and stays stopped (not yet)

[Jerry Biggers]

It's true that atheism isn't an essential part or any part of Objectivism save derivatively through reason. There is nothing rational about belief in a Supreme Being, of course, but it's the rationality that's essential to the philosophy. Now it may be rational to be a Christian if you're an atheist--I think many Popes have been atheists--for several reasons, but all religious doctrines are irrational. To make atheism basically part of Objectivism makes the philosophy dogma too for the same reason. Militant atheists, BTW, in gross contradiction, have made themselves into dogmatists with serious religious aspects. I dislike the word "atheist" applied to myself--I think it's an ugly word--useful but ugly--so I call myself a "pantheist" in so far as I equate "God" with reality and reality with it--or the god of reality, which I profoundly respect but do not worship. This gets rid of the irrationality and the old white man with a beard in the sky nonsense. As for Jesus, Jesus! No Christianity without him, but even if he ever actually existed he's only an idea, but one that makes Christianity much more viable and life-oriented for rational people than Islam, speaking about today, not bloody yesterday.

--Brant

One can choose to believe whatever one wants, but whether that belief conforms to reality - and to a particular philosophy, such as Objectivism - is an entirely different matter.

No conflict between Christianity and belief in God, and Objectivism? I'm afraid that there is. Big time. (see the quote below).

But why stop with Christianity? How about Buddhism and Objectivism?. I cannot think of a more diametrically opposed set of philosophies. Try the Dalai Lama, who sees no trouble at all with reconciling communism as an politico-economic system with his brand of Buddhism. How about "Islamic Objectivism?" Or "Jainist Objectivism?" For that matter, why not "Marxist-Leninist philosophy and Objectivism?" After all, if you pick and chose bits and parts of selected philosophies, you can most likely find some areas of agreement - all you have to do is throw out everything else about the philosophy that makes it distinctive. This might be intellectual "fun," but it is hardly a worthwhile endeavor.

Philosophies like Objectivism, Comtean Positivism, and Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy, are systems. That means each part is supposed to be compatible with the rest. If a rational epistemology and metaphysics (in the case of Objectivism) is discarded, then the whole system begins to fall apart. To critique a philosophy - finding internal inconsistencies in any philosophical system, is a legitimate enterprise.

But, attempting to "marry" two philosophies, both of which hold entirely different premises and derivations from each other, damages the integrity of each.

But, what do I know about Objectivism? Let's choose a real expert. Such as the originator,Ayn Rand - and its chief proselytizers Branden and Peikoff (both of whom agree on this issue). Here's one:

Nathaniel Branden - On the attempt to combine or reconcile faith in God with Objectivism:

.

Now, it is sometimes asked: what is wrong with believing in God, if a man holds the belief as a purely subjective matter, and always acts on the basis of reason? The answer is that it cannot be done. It is not possible psychologically. It would mean that a man attempts to hold two diametrically opposed views, two irreconcilable premises, and to sincerely believe them both—which means that he will not believe either, and that he will be certain of nothing, that all of his convictions will be reduced to the state of the approximate, the relative, the questionable, the "maybe."

Any attempt to combine reason and faith will damage a man’s thinking processes and his self-esteem. At best, only his self-esteem will suffer. He will know that he is a hypocrite, who does not practice or take seriously that which he professes to believe. At worst, it will have a hampering, shrinking effect on his mind. The mere fact of accepting something on faith, without evidence, without proof, undercuts the absolutism of a man’s mind and his confidence in his own judgment. How can he trust his judgment, if he knows that he was willing to suspend it, and may do so again?

Let there be no misunderstanding about it: the belief in God and the philosophy of Objectivism are opposites that cannot be reconciled in anyone’s mind. No intellectual meeting-ground, no compromise, and no middle-of-the-road is possible between the belief in God and Objectivism. Or, putting the issue more broadly and fundamentally: no middle-of-the-road is possible between mysticism and reason. You cannot combine them.

In a free society, men must be left free to believe whatever sort of ideas they wish, however irrational. Therefore, there can be no question of forbidding religious belief. That’s not the point. The context in which I’m speaking here is philosophical, not social or political.

In philosophical terms, no intellectual meeting-ground, no compromise, no middle-of-the-road is possible between a belief in God and Objectivism—or, more widely: between a belief in God and a philosophy of reason—or, more widely still: between any form of mysticism, on the one hand, and reason, on the other. You cannot combine them.

The belief in God is the rejection of the foremost premise of Objectivism, namely, the supremacy of reason as man’s sole means of understanding and grasping reality

. It is one or the other. You can have faith in God, or you can have man, reason, and this earth but, you can’t have both. Don’t deceive yourselves. The choice is yours to make—but know that a choice is involved here.

(Excerpt from Chapter 4,"The Concept of God," The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism, by Nathaniel Branden [2009, Laissez Faire Books/Cobden Press]) Italics added

[Brant Gaede]

It's true that atheism isn't an essential part or any part of Objectivism save derivatively through reason. There is nothing rational about belief in a Supreme Being, of course, but it's the rationality that's essential to the philosophy. Now it may be rational to be a Christian if you're an atheist--I think many Popes have been atheists--for several reasons, but all religious doctrines are irrational. To make atheism basically part of Objectivism makes the philosophy dogma too for the same reason. Militant atheists, BTW, in gross contradiction, have made themselves into dogmatists with serious religious aspects. I dislike the word "atheist" applied to myself--I think it's an ugly word--useful but ugly--so I call myself a "pantheist" in so far as I equate "God" with reality and reality with it--or the god of reality, which I profoundly respect but do not worship. This gets rid of the irrationality and the old white man with a beard in the sky nonsense. As for Jesus, Jesus! No Christianity without him, but even if he ever actually existed he's only an idea, but one that makes Christianity much more viable and life-oriented for rational people than Islam, speaking about today, not bloody yesterday.

--Brant

One can choose to believe whatever one wants, but whether that belief conforms to reality - and to a particular philosophy, such as Objectivism - is an entirely different matter.

No conflict between Christianity and belief in God, and Objectivism? I'm afraid that there is. Big time. (see the quote below).

But why stop with Christianity? How about Buddhism and Objectivism?. I cannot think of a more diametrically opposed set of philosophies. Try the Dalai Lama, who sees no trouble at all with reconciling communism as an politico-economic system with his brand of Buddhism. How about "Islamic Objectivism?" Or "Jainist Objectivism?" For that matter, why not "Marxist-Leninist philosophy and Objectivism?" After all, if you pick and chose bits and parts of selected philosophies, you can most likely find some areas of agreement - all you have to do is throw out everything else about the philosophy that makes it distinctive. This might be intellectual "fun," but it is hardly a worthwhile endeavor.

Philosophies like Objectivism, Comtean Positivism, and Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy, are systems. That means each part is supposed to be compatible with the rest. If a rational epistemology and metaphysics (in the case of Objectivism) is discarded, then the whole system begins to fall apart. To critique a philosophy - finding internal inconsistencies in any philosophical system, is a legitimate enterprise.

But, attempting to "marry" two philosophies, both of which hold entirely different premises and derivations from each other, damages the integrity of each.

But, what do I know about Objectivism? Let's choose a real expert. Such as the originator,Ayn Rand - and its chief proselytizers Branden and Peikoff (both of whom agree on this issue). Here's one:

Nathaniel Branden - On the attempt to combine or reconcile faith in God with Objectivism:

.

Now, it is sometimes asked: what is wrong with believing in God, if a man holds the belief as a purely subjective matter, and always acts on the basis of reason? The answer is that it cannot be done. It is not possible psychologically. It would mean that a man attempts to hold two diametrically opposed views, two irreconcilable premises, and to sincerely believe them both—which means that he will not believe either, and that he will be certain of nothing, that all of his convictions will be reduced to the state of the approximate, the relative, the questionable, the "maybe."

Any attempt to combine reason and faith will damage a man’s thinking processes and his self-esteem. At best, only his self-esteem will suffer. He will know that he is a hypocrite, who does not practice or take seriously that which he professes to believe. At worst, it will have a hampering, shrinking effect on his mind. The mere fact of accepting something on faith, without evidence, without proof, undercuts the absolutism of a man’s mind and his confidence in his own judgment. How can he trust his judgment, if he knows that he was willing to suspend it, and may do so again?

Let there be no misunderstanding about it: the belief in God and the philosophy of Objectivism are opposites that cannot be reconciled in anyone’s mind. No intellectual meeting-ground, no compromise, and no middle-of-the-road is possible between the belief in God and Objectivism. Or, putting the issue more broadly and fundamentally: no middle-of-the-road is possible between mysticism and reason. You cannot combine them.

In a free society, men must be left free to believe whatever sort of ideas they wish, however irrational. Therefore, there can be no question of forbidding religious belief. That’s not the point. The context in which I’m speaking here is philosophical, not social or political.

In philosophical terms, no intellectual meeting-ground, no compromise, no middle-of-the-road is possible between a belief in God and Objectivism—or, more widely: between a belief in God and a philosophy of reason—or, more widely still: between any form of mysticism, on the one hand, and reason, on the other. You cannot combine them.

The belief in God is the rejection of the foremost premise of Objectivism, namely, the supremacy of reason as man’s sole means of understanding and grasping reality

. It is one or the other. You can have faith in God, or you can have man, reason, and this earth but, you can’t have both. Don’t deceive yourselves. The choice is yours to make—but know that a choice is involved here.

(Excerpt from Chapter 4,"The Concept of God," The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism, by Nathaniel Branden [2009, Laissez Faire Books/Cobden Press]) Italics added

Oh, I agree with almost all this. I do take some exception to N.B.'s formulation for he discounts by not counting the human ability to compartmentalize. Hence you have the greatest scientist of all time, Newton, who had a profound belief in the existence of a Supreme Being.

--Brant

I wish you had read me more precisely

if an Objectivist does go religious there goes his Objectivism--not Objectivism

[Jerry Biggers]

Leonard Peikoff on this issue:

"Objectivism advocates reason as man's sole means of knowledge, and therefore, for the reasons I have already given, it is atheist."

(italics added)

from his "Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture series, lecture 2, 1976.

Amended or elaborated upon (adding a note of humor), in his book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (1991):

"Objectivism advocates reason as man's only means of knowledge, and, therefore, it does not accept God or any variant of the supernatural.. We are a-theist, as well as a-devilist, a-demonist, a-gremlinist. We reject every "spiritual" dimension, force, Form. Idea, entity, power, or whatnot alleged to transcend existence. We reject idealism. To put the point positively: we accept reality, and that's all."

- thus saith The Peikoff

[Jerry Biggers]

Brant,

My post was a comment or addendum, on what you said. We seem to be in basic agreement.

I agree that the issue of compartmentalization could have been added.

On Newton - how many actual atheists (I mean philosophers, men of science, etc.) were there in Newton's time? I believe deism was coming in vogue, but that is not atheism. It was basically a questioning of the established religions but stopped short of questioning the existence of God..

[We Erred Rand]

So according to embryologists, Adam would or would not have had nipples?

Yes, he must have had the requisite DNA since we still have them.

Nipples are part of an organism's overall body-plan or architectural shape.

Current understanding in biochemistry today is that DNA does not specify an organism's body-plan. DNA does not specify that a structure called an arm goes here, a structure shaped like a leg there, and a structure like a nipple somewhere in between. Those specifications appear to be done by something else, still unknown.

DNA is a macro-molecule that stores information on protein synthesis in a 4-symbol chemical code; the symbols are the four nucleotides (Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, Thymine, or AGCT), and the code is their sequential order along the sugar double-helix (composed of ribose). Each triplet of nucleotides (called a "codon") symbolically represents some amino acid in the cell cytoplasm.

Thus, DNA is a storage molecule — the "hard drive" of the cell — for storing and transmitting hereditable information regarding protein synthesis. But it appears not to have anything to do with questions regarding "phenotype", i.e., why is a human arm shaped the way it is? Why is there an opposable thumb? Why are there nipples? etc.

Botanist and biochemist Rupert Sheldrake has long claimed that the overall shape of an organism is determined by the biological equivalent of a "field" which he calls the "morphogenic field." The significance of his assertion — which has generated more heat than light in scientific circles — is mainly the admission by him, and by the majority now in biochemistry, that even a full understanding of DNA will not lead to a full understanding of living organisms. The important role of DNA is now seen as quite limited.

So even if we have the same DNA as Adam, that still doesn't explain why we or Adam have nipples, nor does it explain why nipples appear where they do, nor why they have the shape they do. It simply explains that the particular proteins necessary for nipples get stored and transmitted generation after generation.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stipulating the current BIg Bang theory as the origin of the universe, I would simply ask whether it is reasonable to believe that someone "built the bomb”? I’m not proposing a “proof”, but just whether it is reasonable view.

Mike,

Science always says we don't know what happened before the big bang, especially seeing as how time and space are not supposed to exist on the other side over yonder. And we have no evidence of that pre-state anyway. All we've got for now is the product (the universe), not the cause (what was before when there was no now and no place for it anyway).

So between one speculation and another, if that is the standard, I find your bomb builder notion perfectly reasonable.

Between not knowing what really happened and not knowing whether some supreme force made what we don't know happened happen, both are reasonable ideas. (Man, that sounded clunky. )

Neither are proven ideas, but within that context, both are reasonable. At least reasonable enough to merit exploration and not dismissal.

Others disagree with me here, but that's the good we have here on OL. We can disagree with each other and bicker about it in peace.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

WAR!

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

RASPBERRY!

Michael

[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.

Yesterday, in # 437, Jerry Biggers posted an interesting excerpt from Chapter 4,"The Concept of God," The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism, by Nathaniel Branden [2009, Laissez Faire Books/Cobden Press])

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7060&page=22

[N. Branden]: "Let there be no misunderstanding about it: the belief in God and the philosophy of Objectivism are opposites that cannot be reconciled in anyone’s mind. No intellectual meeting-ground, no compromise, and no middle-of-the-road is possible between the belief in God and Objectivism."

[Xray]

One can choose to believe whatever one wants, but whether that belief conforms to reality - and to a particular philosophy, such as Objectivism - is an entirely different matter.

No conflict between Christianity and belief in God, and Objectivism? I'm afraid that there is. Big time. (see the quote below).

But why stop with Christianity? How about Buddhism and Objectivism?. I cannot think of a more diametrically opposed set of philosophies. Try the Dalai Lama, who sees no trouble at all with reconciling communism as an politico-economic system with his brand of Buddhism. How about "Islamic Objectivism?" Or "Jainist Objectivism?" For that matter, why not "Marxist-Leninist philosophy and Objectivism?"

Reminds me of what Dragonfly wrote in post #14:

"Christian Objectivist" sounds to me a bit like "vegetarian tiger". Probably there also exist socialist Objectivists or communist Objectivists, nothing can surprise me anymore.

[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.

[Mike82ARP]

It's true that atheism isn't an essential part or any part of Objectivism save derivatively through reason. There is nothing rational about belief in a Supreme Being, of course, but it's the rationality that's essential to the philosophy. Now it may be rational to be a Christian if you're an atheist--I think many Popes have been atheists--for several reasons, but all religious doctrines are irrational. To make atheism basically part of Objectivism makes the philosophy dogma too for the same reason. Militant atheists, BTW, in gross contradiction, have made themselves into dogmatists with serious religious aspects. I dislike the word "atheist" applied to myself--I think it's an ugly word--useful but ugly--so I call myself a "pantheist" in so far as I equate "God" with reality and reality with it--or the god of reality, which I profoundly respect but do not worship. This gets rid of the irrationality and the old white man with a beard in the sky nonsense. As for Jesus, Jesus! No Christianity without him, but even if he ever actually existed he's only an idea, but one that makes Christianity much more viable and life-oriented for rational people than Islam, speaking about today, not bloody yesterday.

--Brant

One can choose to believe whatever one wants, but whether that belief conforms to reality - and to a particular philosophy, such as Objectivism - is an entirely different matter.

No conflict between Christianity and belief in God, and Objectivism? I'm afraid that there is. Big time. (see the quote below).

Nathaniel Branden - On the attempt to combine or reconcile faith in God with Objectivism:

.

Now, it is sometimes asked: what is wrong with believing in God, if a man holds the belief as a purely subjective matter, and always acts on the basis of reason? The answer is that it cannot be done. It is not possible psychologically. It would mean that a man attempts to hold two diametrically opposed views, two irreconcilable premises, and to sincerely believe them both—which means that he will not believe either, and that he will be certain of nothing, that all of his convictions will be reduced to the state of the approximate, the relative, the questionable, the "maybe."

Any attempt to combine reason and faith will damage a man’s thinking processes and his self-esteem. At best, only his self-esteem will suffer. He will know that he is a hypocrite, who does not practice or take seriously that which he professes to believe. At worst, it will have a hampering, shrinking effect on his mind. The mere fact of accepting something on faith, without evidence, without proof, undercuts the absolutism of a man’s mind and his confidence in his own judgment. How can he trust his judgment, if he knows that he was willing to suspend it, and may do so again?

Let there be no misunderstanding about it: the belief in God and the philosophy of Objectivism are opposites that cannot be reconciled in anyone’s mind. No intellectual meeting-ground, no compromise, and no middle-of-the-road is possible between the belief in God and Objectivism. Or, putting the issue more broadly and fundamentally: no middle-of-the-road is possible between mysticism and reason. You cannot combine them.

In a free society, men must be left free to believe whatever sort of ideas they wish, however irrational. Therefore, there can be no question of forbidding religious belief. That’s not the point. The context in which I’m speaking here is philosophical, not social or political.

In philosophical terms, no intellectual meeting-ground, no compromise, no middle-of-the-road is possible between a belief in God and Objectivism—or, more widely: between a belief in God and a philosophy of reason—or, more widely still: between any form of mysticism, on the one hand, and reason, on the other. You cannot combine them.

The belief in God is the rejection of the foremost premise of Objectivism, namely, the supremacy of reason as man’s sole means of understanding and grasping reality

. It is one or the other. You can have faith in God, or you can have man, reason, and this earth but, you can’t have both. Don’t deceive yourselves. The choice is yours to make—but know that a choice is involved here.

(Excerpt from Chapter 4,"The Concept of God," The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism, by Nathaniel Branden [2009, Laissez Faire Books/Cobden Press]) Italics added

Branden makes the same mistake that Rand made. He construct a straw nan based on a false dichotomy between faith and reason. While I accept the conflict between "mysticism and reason", mysticism is by no means a universal tenet within Christianity. This misunderstanding is painfully obvious.

The real enemy of Objectivism is post-modernism, yet outside of Stephen Hicks’ excellent, "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault”, little is written about this.

[Mike82ARP]

Stipulating the current BIg Bang theory as the origin of the universe, I would simply ask whether it is reasonable to believe that someone "built the bomb”? I’m not proposing a “proof”, but just whether it is reasonable view.

Mike,

Science always says we don't know what happened before the big bang, especially seeing as how time and space are not supposed to exist on the other side over yonder. And we have no evidence of that pre-state anyway. All we've got for now is the product (the universe), not the cause (what was before when there was no now and no place for it anyway).

So between one speculation and another, if that is the standard, I find your bomb builder notion perfectly reasonable.

Between not knowing what really happened and not knowing whether some supreme force made what we don't know happened happen, both are reasonable ideas. (Man, that sounded clunky. )

Neither are proven ideas, but within that context, both are reasonable. At least reasonable enough to merit exploration and not dismissal.

Others disagree with me here, but that's the good we have here on OL. We can disagree with each other and bicker about it in peace.

Michael

I agree. Each system has some degree of speculation involved and are reasonable within the context of their given tenets. I would be “irrational" if I claimed to be a Christian yet denied the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc. I would be irrational if i denied that things actually exist outside of my mind’s ability to perceive them. I would be irrational if I agreed that "A, therefore not A”.

[Mike82ARP]

@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.

Yesterday, in # 437, Jerry Biggers posted an interesting excerpt from Chapter 4,"The Concept of God," The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism, by Nathaniel Branden [2009, Laissez Faire Books/Cobden Press])

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7060&page=22

>[N. Branden]: "Let there be no misunderstanding about it: the belief in God and the philosophy of Objectivism are opposites that cannot be reconciled in anyone’s mind. No intellectual meeting-ground, no compromise, and no middle-of-the-road is possible between the belief in God and Objectivism."

Answered in #448. You obviously have a lot of faith in Branden....