Christianity and Objectivism. Are these compatible in America?

[Devil's Advocate]

@ Nicky, Dream_weaver, Harrison Danneskjold, mdegges, et al,

 

I have been laboring to address this topic in terms of social rather than epistemological compatibility. The title and initial comments of the OP suggested the former rather than the latter to me.  In any case, I yield to arguments supporting irreconcilable epistemological differences.  I remain  less concerned about any serious social friction developing between the two groups.

 

According to a recent Gallup poll, over 50% of the American population remains Christian, while less than 15% are nonreligious.  There don't appear to be any figures available for Objectivism so it's hard to draw any conclusions as to the struggle for epistemological superiority.  In my own discussions with members of both groups, I've found the prevailing attitude to be that Christians find Objectivism a bleak philosophy, and Objectivists... well you know how you feel about Christians.

 

Until Christians begin burning their copies of Ayn Rand's work, I don't think you have anything to worry about.

[dream_weaver]

In the line of inquiry Christ was asked about taxes, Jesus replied, "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's". Thomas Aquinas introduced a paraphrased; render unto reason that which is reason's.

 

This establishes a dichotomy between faith and reason. Objectivism rejects the mind/body dichotomy, the analytic/synthetic dichotomy, or in essence any dichotomy as inherently contradictory. In matters which are clearly of reason, Christianity generally yields to facts. The fundamental difference applies in what faith and reason apply to. Politics is the application of ethics in a social setting. Ethics is derived from, or built upon epistemology.

 

Objectivism suggests that in the language of a 'moral commandment' there is but one, to think, and follows up directly that a moral commandment is a contradiction, that the moral is the chosen, not commanded. Capitalism as a moral system proper for man, has to be chosen. Is that choice to be based socially or epistemologically? To be implemented socially, it has to be won epistemologically. Does faith serve as a stepping stone or a stumbling block to that implementation?

 

An ad hominen fallacy about how Objectivist 'feel' about Christians contrasts nicely against how Christians might characterize Objectivism as a bleak philosophy. Imagine, no utopia to retire from this life into, or no divine justice to be delivered if defaulted upon in this world.

[Spiral Architect]

@ Nicky, Dream_weaver, Harrison Danneskjold, mdegges, et al,

 

I have been laboring to address this topic in terms of social rather than epistemological compatibility. The title and initial comments of the OP suggested the former rather than the latter to me.  In any case, I yield to arguments supporting irreconcilable epistemological differences.  I remain  less concerned about any serious social friction developing between the two groups.

 

According to a recent Gallup poll, over 50% of the American population remains Christian, while less than 15% are nonreligious.  There don't appear to be any figures available for Objectivism so it's hard to draw any conclusions as to the struggle for epistemological superiority.  In my own discussions with members of both groups, I've found the prevailing attitude to be that Christians find Objectivism a bleak philosophy, and Objectivists... well you know how you feel about Christians.

 

Until Christians begin burning their copies of Ayn Rand's work, I don't think you have anything to worry about.

 

OK, we can ditch the epistemological argument - I get were you are coming from but I do want to point out that is the reason I was saying that is because it demonstrates the systems are incompatible.

 

Socially, I'd say the systems can be compatible in the context of America today if two things stay consistent: 

 

1.  We have a common enemy, and that is the progressive movement. 

 

2.  Religion is "Westernized" for lack of a better term as Augustine's influence declined pre-Enlightenment. 

 

American's have ala carte style discarded religious teaching when they were incompatible with reason and living.  Thus, the Deism that was popular with the founding fathers.  To the extent that exists there is compatibility since reason is still the guiding force of thinking and a common ground to interact. 

 

The issue here is what would happen if the Progressive Movement losses the culture war and recedes into a minority influence.  Objectivism and Religion would cease having the common enemy and policy would then have to be determined by either reason or the dictates of a Book based on faith.  19th Century Religion could do it since  the trend was toward reason.  Today's trend is less positive as religion today is increasingly accepting the same style of thinking of the progressives, and the Augustine influence is returning and in come cases alarmingly so (Bachman, Westboro, etc.)  And while they are admittedly extreme cases they are also influential cases and the question is when progressive thinking recedes will reason suddenly insert itself or will people switch to a different philosophy that has enough similarities to progressivism. 

 

The lack of reason wholesale in education today tells me that if the progressive movement recedes another non-reason movement will take it's place.  Medieval styled religion is similar enough to progressivism, just substitute God for society as the justification for the "public good" and you can see how that would not be compatible with Objectivism. 

 

So I guess my answer is that yes, they are compatible as along as religion is similar to the one used by our Founding Fathers.  Considering how quickly modern Christians are trying to rewrite the ideas of those men as a product of faith and not reason, color me skeptical of the trend however. 

[Devil's Advocate]

In the line of inquiry Christ was asked about taxes, Jesus replied, "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's". Thomas Aquinas introduced a paraphrased; render unto reason that which is reason's.

 

This establishes a dichotomy between faith and reason. Objectivism rejects the mind/body dichotomy, the analytic/synthetic dichotomy, or in essence any dichotomy as inherently contradictory. In matters which are clearly of reason, Christianity generally yields to facts. The fundamental difference applies in what faith and reason apply to. Politics is the application of ethics in a social setting. Ethics is derived from, or built upon epistemology.

 

Objectivism suggests that in the language of a 'moral commandment' there is but one, to think, and follows up directly that a moral commandment is a contradiction, that the moral is the chosen, not commanded. Capitalism as a moral system proper for man, has to be chosen. Is that choice to be based socially or epistemologically? To be implemented socially, it has to be won epistemologically. Does faith serve as a stepping stone or a stumbling block to that implementation?

 

An ad hominen fallacy about how Objectivist 'feel' about Christians contrasts nicely against how Christians might characterize Objectivism as a bleak philosophy. Imagine, no utopia to retire from this life into, or no divine justice to be delivered if defaulted upon in this world.

I don't believe there's any fallacy in believing that Objectivists consider Christians to be irrational, and having ones soul dissipate at death is certainly a bleak  forecast.  I generally agree with the remainder of your comments, with some reservations regarding whether or not all faith is blind and without evidence. But we've probably gone around enough on that... although I admit to enjoying the discussion.

 

Looking back to one of your early comments...

Logically, the ideas that can be integrated without contradiction(s) will ultimately prevail. Christianity has the most contradictions to resolve. O'ism has the higher "hill to climb" in order to traverse the centuries of terrain 'required' to be climbed in order to be established by the years of precedence Christianity has ultimately precipitated them with.When reason is ultimately economized, this will be a non-issue.

This is very well put, and your conclusion about reason being ultimately economized interests me.  Can you elaborate a bit, or if that was covered later on perhaps point me to it??

 

EDIT: Just caught your following comment - give me a moment to read it, because I definitely want to reply.  BTW, what happened to the spell checker that used to be in the editor??

Edited June 16, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[dream_weaver]

Looking back to one of your early comments...

This is very well put, and your conclusion about reason being ultimately economized interests me.  Can you elaborate a bit, or if that was covered later on perhaps point me to it??

 

EDIT: Just caught your following comment - give me a moment to read it, because I definitely want to reply.  BTW, what happened to the spell checker that used to be in the editor??

What I meant was when reasoning is more widely recognized, expected, and adhered to. A 2^nd Renaissance, if you will.

 

For Internet Explorer, there is an addon called: ieSpell available.

Edited June 16, 2013 by dream_weaver

[Devil's Advocate]

OK, we can ditch the epistemological argument - I get were you are coming from but I do want to point out that is the reason I was saying that is because it demonstrates the systems are incompatible.

Point made, and I agree.

 

Socially, I'd say the systems can be compatible in the context of America today if two things stay consistent: 

 

1.  We have a common enemy, and that is the progressive movement. 

 

2.  Religion is "Westernized" for lack of a better term as Augustine's influence declined pre-Enlightenment. 

 

American's have ala carte style discarded religious teaching when they were incompatible with reason and living.  Thus, the Deism that was popular with the founding fathers.  To the extent that exists there is compatibility since reason is still the guiding force of thinking and a common ground to interact.

Agreed - we are two for two.

 

The issue here is what would happen if the Progressive Movement losses the culture war and recedes into a minority influence.  Objectivism and Religion would cease having the common enemy and policy would then have to be determined by either reason or the dictates of a Book based on faith.  19th Century Religion could do it since  the trend was toward reason.  Today's trend is less positive as religion today is increasingly accepting the same style of thinking of the progressives, and the Augustine influence is returning and in come cases alarmingly so (Bachman, Westboro, etc.)  And while they are admittedly extreme cases they are also influential cases and the question is when progressive thinking recedes will reason suddenly insert itself or will people switch to a different philosophy that has enough similarities to progressivism.

This may be the case, but Religion is waning too.  If anything, apathy appears to be on the rise... "Who is John Galt?"  Objectivism influence remains rather static and religion declines and "Nature abhors a vaccuum."  One possible scenerio is that religion reduces to a minority of fundamentalists and Objectivism never reaches any kind of large minority status.  An apathetic population caught between a small number of intellectuals and condensed fundamentalism becomes a nervous herd with the mentality of a herd that will stampede at the first spark.

 

So I guess my answer is that yes, they are compatible as along as religion is similar to the one used by our Founding Fathers.  Considering how quickly modern Christians are trying to rewrite the ideas of those men as a product of faith and not reason, color me skeptical of the trend however. 

Here we definately agree.  Revisionism is a concern, but today we have the internet, and there are several examples of technological tenacity in the face of efforts grab power and control the media.

 

I think Objectivism has done an adequate job of capturing the mind, but needs some work on capturing the heart.  It's not enough to say what amounts to, "Sink or swim by reason alone";  People have been swimming irrationally for ages.  The population needs to learn to swim with style, i.e. passion.

[AbA]

Despite having seen quite a bit of it, it still amazes me how much time, effort and convoluted verbage people of faith are willing to put in, in their attempts to raise the spectral reflectivity index number of that prolate spheroid of solid excretory matter that is commonly known as "Christianity".

I've come to view these attempts by people who some how think their "faith" constitutes a virtue as further proof that what Rand said about Faith (the alleged short cut to knowledge) being simply a short circuit that destroys the mind, was a highly astute observation on her part.

As to those who attempt to reconcile their religious beliefs with Objectivism, well personally I think that those people should be shunned and dissuaded from doing so where ever and when ever possible. Because as Rand also said, in any compromise between food and poison it is only poison that can triumph.

[Spiral Architect]

I think Objectivism has done an adequate job of capturing the mind, but needs some work on capturing the heart.  It's not enough to say what amounts to, "Sink or swim by reason alone";  People have been swimming irrationally for ages.  The population needs to learn to swim with style, i.e. passion.

 

Sadly, a society's cultural output is self-feeding.  Passion comes from things like art and entertainment and the values behind that is sorely lacking in today's world.  TV is a wasteland of the apathy you described. 

 

What we need is inspiration.  Rand provided in two amazing novels but two novels do not represent a cultural output.  There is other good books and movies but they are fighting in the teeth of a massive storm of crap. 

 

On a side note I've often wondered if the popularity of the Comic Books movies, like Iron Man, come from a decidedly lack of heroic uplifting material in normal day to day entertainment. 

[AbA]

I think Objectivism has done an adequate job of capturing the mind, but needs some work on capturing the heart.  It's not enough to say what amounts to, "Sink or swim by reason alone";  People have been swimming irrationally for ages.  The population needs to learn to swim with style, i.e. passion.

That first sentence reveals that the poster accepts the Soul-Body Dichotomy and is simply thrashing about looking for a way to justify or maintain the contradictions it entails. It's the product of a primacy of consciousness mentality.

As to "people having been swimming irrationally for ages", well I would assert that the major portion of the blame for that sad state of affairs rests with Christianity and by extension people such as this poster who go around trying to some how justify or gloss over the worst of it's essential characteristics.

[Devil's Advocate]

That first sentence reveals that the poster accepts the Soul-Body Dichotomy and is simply thrashing about looking for a way to justify or maintain the contradictions it entails. It's the product of a primacy of consciousness mentality.

As to "people having been swimming irrationally for ages", well I would assert that the major portion of the blame for that sad state of affairs rests with Christianity and by extension people such as this poster who go around trying to some how justify or gloss over the worst of it's essential characteristics.

As stated earlier, I'm addressing this topic in terms of social compatibility.  The "Soul-Body Dichotomy" is one of many contradictions that separate Objectivism from Religion that have little consequence socially unless used as a means of persecution.  As to your following comment, Christians can take some comfort that even Ayn Rand appreciated Aquinas for his efforts to return philosophy to its Aristotelian roots.  In general I'd say its not belief so much as persecution resulting from conflicts of belief that accounts for social incompatibility.

 

Dissent is a virtue.  Christianity was established by heretics and continues to be improved by them; as was this nation; as was Objectivism.  Your initial comments preference shunning dissenters, but you do so to your own disadvantage as a primary means of premise checking.  Knowledge cannot be undermined by irrational belief; only those who are insecure in their knowledge can.

[Spiral Architect]

That first sentence reveals that the poster accepts the Soul-Body Dichotomy and is simply thrashing about looking for a way to justify or maintain the contradictions it entails. It's the product of a primacy of consciousness mentality.

 

It reveals that the poster looks as concrets with elementry observation and can see that reason, let alone Objectivism, is not represented in arts and entertainment.  A scoiety's cultural output is indicitive of the ideas it has accepted, even if implicitly.  While I disgree with him on religion it is no small stretch to see he is right on this point.  If you disagree channel surf for five minutes.   Philosophy to arts today can be somed up simply as Garbage In - Garbage Out. 

 

People will not accept reason until they want to and as DA points out they are not passionate to do so as reflected in the choices they make. 

[Devil's Advocate]

Sadly, a society's cultural output is self-feeding.  Passion comes from things like art and entertainment and the values behind that is sorely lacking in today's world.  TV is a wasteland of the apathy you described. 

 

What we need is inspiration.  Rand provided in two amazing novels but two novels do not represent a cultural output.  There is other good books and movies but they are fighting in the teeth of a massive storm of crap. 

 

On a side note I've often wondered if the popularity of the Comic Books movies, like Iron Man, come from a decidedly lack of heroic uplifting material in normal day to day entertainment. 

Today's world includes a cultural record extending back to cave paintings and is accessible by simply logging on, althought I still prefer a trip to the gallery (or cave).  The two things I find disturbing about contemporary arts are antiheros and zombies (anti-life); it speaks to and profits from the prevailing sense of apathy.  Hopefully more vibrant and uplifting artists will reassert themselves over today's entertainment market.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

The two things I find disturbing about contemporary arts are antiheros and zombies (anti-life); it speaks to and profits from the prevailing sense of apathy.

 I was wonderfully surprised by Warm Bodies (and subsequently found its comparison to Twilight an affront to reason); zombies which, despite their urges to eat brains, still retain the choice to think- or not.  Wreck-It Ralph, too.

Sure, basically everything cinematic these days pays homage, in one degree or another, to mysticism-altruism-collectivism; some of them are even profoundly evil (The Lorax).

 

Still, if you can stomach the obligatory minute or two of lipservice, I think there's a surprising amount of rational selfishness to be found.

 

Also, isn't an antihero a protagonist who is meant to be a 'bad guy'?  Because if so (from the Wikipedia article about it) I would consider almost all of the ACTUALLY moral protagonists to be such:

Batman

Jason Borne

Rooster Cogburn

Sherlock Holmes

The Man with No Name ("Blondie" from Good, Bad & Ugly)

Shrek

Han Solo

Jack Sparrow

. . .

Edited June 18, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[AbA]

Aaaand, down the rabbit hole we go.....

[Devil's Advocate]

 I was wonderfully surprised by Warm Bodies (and subsequently found its comparison to Twilight an affront to reason); zombies which, despite their urges to eat brains, still retain the choice to think- or not.  Wreck-It Ralph, too.

Sure, basically everything cinematic these days pays homage, in one degree or another, to mysticism-altruism-collectivism; some of them are even profoundly evil (The Lorax).

 

Still, if you can stomach the obligatory minute or two of lipservice, I think there's a surprising amount of rational selfishness to be found.

Yes, I agree that there remains some wonderfully entertaining and thoughtful work being produced.  I'm a big fan of Star Trek and appreciate their use of characters with strong medical, engineering and leadership skills.

 

Also, isn't an antihero a protagonist who is meant to be a 'bad guy'?  Because if so (from the Wikipedia article about it) I would consider almost all of the ACTUALLY moral protagonists to be such...

An antihero by definition is one who is notably lacking in heroic qualities, and is generally used to blur the distinction between doing good for goodness sake, and doing good arbitrarily; the current trend being to portray everyone as being tortured by moral choices beyond their comprehension.  Their character is usually justified as a lesser of two evils, and therefore relatively good, or endearing.  You could add Dirty Harry and John McClane to your list.

[Spiral Architect]

Anti-heroic is basically non-heroic at best or anti-heroic at worse in essence. 

 

Instead of Batman you end up with Woody Allen.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Spiral Architect

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I'm a big fan of Star Trek and appreciate their use of characters with strong medical, engineering and leadership skills.

 

My son's name is JT; an abbreviation of William James Tiberius Jodeit.

Yes, this was my idea and no, I don't regret it at all.

 

Of course, he's still having trouble stringing multiple words together, but I figure if it's too unbearable he can just go by JT.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Devil's Advocate]

Trek on, Harrison Danneskjold...

 

Gene Roddenberry's work is primarily optimistic about the future, and JJ Abrams has done a good job so far of remaining true to the original.  Robert Heinlein is another wonderful source of intelligent and capable characters, and more appreciated by Objectivists, but there are others too.  As I'm writing this, it occurs to me that arts/entertainment and politics are the strongest general areas of compatibility between Objectivists and Christians.  Perhaps it's an attraction to strong and capable personalities over ones that appear weak and apologetic.  At least that's what first called out to me in Ayn Rand's fictional works, and it was some time before I came to realize the necessarily atheistic root of her philosophy;  it simply didn't appear as an issue early on.

 

There's a great line between JT and Spock in the latest film when Kirk states, "I don't know what a great captain would do.  I only know what I can do."  For me, that pretty well sums up the strength of a philosophy that enables individualism, and parallels another favorite quote...

 

"This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." ~ Polonius