Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Christianity and Objectivism. Are these compatible in America?

Rate this topic


Reddog

Recommended Posts

The OP's question doesn't ask about her attitude or level of civility, it asks about her philosophical beliefs. Ayn Rand may have been less antagonistic, but she was 100% against religion. Can't be more against religion than Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

I believe it's more accurate to say Ayn Rand identified herself as an atheist, but not a militant one, and she certainly wasn't 100% against Saint Thomas Aquinas. Likewise there are many who identify themselves as Christian, but not militantly Christian. There's also a distinction to be made between the philosophic aspects of religion, and revealed religion, which has more to do with ones sense of personal responsibility for their beliefs and actions as opposed to the blind acceptance of someone else's. In that respect, Objectivism has its share of faithful followers too.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can and do, and will likely continue so long as a credible separation of church and state is maintained. Having been raised Christian and discovered Objectivism, I remain more impressed by the philosophic similarities than differences, and somewhat comforted by the arguments on ideology that arise within each camp independently of one another. As softwareNerd suggested earlier, I suspect people tend to adopt and reject aspects of both ideologies based on the trueness of their own individual experience. I believe in Nature's God, but I don't rely on faith to balance my checkbook.

That's very well put. Whenever I see completely independent parallels they are evidence of the trustworthiness of a basic principle. Just one small example.

Ayn Rand said: "Existence exists."

God said to moses: "I am that I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm as much against liberalized religion as she was.

She was against the beliefs of Christians. Specifically, against the notion that there is such a thing as God. She called it mysticism. If you really read Atlas Shrugged, you should already know her exact opinion about mysticism. There is no reconciling what she has to say about mysticism and the notion that she was tolerant or even so much as neutral towards religion.

I believe it's more accurate to say Ayn Rand identified herself as an atheist, but not a militant one

Using the misleading term "militant atheist" is most certainly not more accurate than what I said.

A militant atheist, if the word "militant" is to be taken seriously, would be someone who engages in military conflict against non-atheists. There are no such people. I can't imagine what else you could mean by it. If you just mean speaking out against religion and expecting the government to be secular, then 1. Ayn Rand did all that. 2. you should pick a more appropriate term. This one is already in use, to refer to people such as abortion clinic bombers.

, and she certainly wasn't 100% against Saint Thomas Aquinas. Likewise there are many who identify themselves as Christian, but not militantly Christian. There's also a distinction to be made between the philosophic aspects of religion, and revealed religion, which has more to do with ones sense of personal responsibility for their beliefs and actions as opposed to the blind acceptance of someone else's. In that respect, Objectivism has its share of faithful followers too.

No, a person who accepts Objectivism, or any other philosophy or political ideology, without fully understanding it, is not a mystic. There is no comparison between such a person and someone who accepts the Bible and its principal claim that the Ten Commandments are an almighty God's condition for getting into Heaven.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

God said to moses: "I am that I am."

And His Noodliness said onto his disciple Nicky: "Pasta al Pommodoro is probably the best. Hmmm, actually, I think it's even better with bolognese sauce. And for fuck's sake, if you're gonna use cheese, make it Parmegiano."

One thing is a little weird though: His Noodliness the Spaghetti Monster seems to have the same exact tastes in Italian food I do. Is it possible that my quote is fake too?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was against the beliefs of Christians. Specifically, against the notion that there is such a thing as God. She called it mysticism. If you really read Atlas Shrugged, you should already know her exact opinion about mysticism. There is no reconciling what she has to say about mysticism and the notion that she was tolerant or even so much as neutral towards religion.

Her opinion regarding God was consistent with the position of an atheist. As to the remainder of your comments I can only refer you to her actual statement on the issue which is included below.

Using the misleading term "militant atheist" is most certainly not more accurate than what I said.

A militant atheist, if the word "militant" is to be taken seriously, would be someone who engages in military conflict against non-atheists. There are no such people. I can't imagine what else you could mean by it. If you just mean speaking out against religion and expecting the government to be secular, then 1. Ayn Rand did all that. 2. you should pick a more appropriate term. This one is already in use, to refer to people such as abortion clinic bombers.

The following adequately describes Ayn Rand's use of the word militant and her actual opinion on religion:

"I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one. This means that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I am fighting for reason, not against religion. I must also mention that I do respect religion in its philosophical aspects, in the sense that it represents an early form of philosophy.” ~ Ayn Rand, Letters of Ayn Rand, March 20, 1965

From the same source (Ayn Rand responding to a reader):

"I have the impression that you are a follower of Thomas Aquinas, whose position, in essence, is that since reason is a gift of God, man must use it. I regard this as the best of all the attempts to reconcile reason and religion - but it is only an attempt, which cannot succeed. It may work in a limited way in a given individuals life, but it cannot be validated philosophically. However, I regard Aquinas as the greatest philosopher next to Aristotle, in the purely philosophical, not theological. aspects of his work. If you are a Thomist, we may have a great deal in common, but we would still have an irreconcilable basic conflict which is, primarily. an epistemological conflict."

Responding to this topic, compatible doesn't mean identical. Atheism isn't compatible with Christianity (or Theism) on the issue of God, however Objectivism is certainly compatible with Christian values in a number of areas. It hardly matters if not murdering or not stealing is attributed to God, the Spaghetti Monster, or Ayn Rand; both Objectivists and Christians can agree that murder and theft are morally wrong. Religious freedom in America includes the freedom to reject religion entirely. That has little to do with the compatibility of those who define themselves as Objectivist or Christian on various political and ethical issues facing all Americans.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems a good place to bring up the Dudley letter again.

http://forum.objecti...00

I missed this earlier and am glad you provided it. It certainly responds to the topic.

Yet the early Christian communities were certainly communistic. See the Acts of the Apostles, and especially note the part where someone sells some of their property then fails to hand over all the proceeds to the group.

But ultimately the tenets of Christianity are vague enough to permit many interpretations.

Yes, vague and contradictory. The consistency of revealed religion is remarkably inconsistent. While in high school I attended a similarly inconsistent translation of original statements in the form of a line of 10 students. The 1st student was given a short paragraph to whisper to the next in line, and likewise passed onward until the last student spoke it aloud. Something as simple as "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" would end up becoming, "bird hands are too bushy". There's a similarity of disparity in most witness accounts.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It hardly matters if not murdering or not stealing is attributed to God, the Spaghetti Monster, or Ayn Rand; both Objectivists and Christians can agree that murder and theft are morally wrong.

No. It does matter. Objectivists don't agree that murder and theft are morally wrong on the basis of face, Christians who attribute those moral laws to God do. Ayn Rand was a great mind, but there was nothing divine about her. We agree with Objectivism, not because of Ayn Rand, but because of the reasoning behind her ideas.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It does matter. Objectivists don't agree that murder and theft are morally wrong on the basis of face, Christians who attribute those moral laws to God do. Ayn Rand was a great mind, but there was nothing divine about her. We agree with Objectivism, not because of Ayn Rand, but because of the reasoning behind her ideas.

Would an Objectivist object to not being murdered by a Christian because of his faith?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the same source (Ayn Rand responding to a reader):

"I have the impression that you are a follower of Thomas Aquinas, whose position, in essence, is that since reason is a gift of God, man must use it. I regard this as the best of all the attempts to reconcile reason and religion - but it is only an attempt, which cannot succeed. It may work in a limited way in a given individuals life, but it cannot be validated philosophically. However, I regard Aquinas as the greatest philosopher next to Aristotle, in the purely philosophical, not theological. aspects of his work. If you are a Thomist, we may have a great deal in common, but we would still have an irreconcilable basic conflict which is, primarily. an epistemological conflict."

Responding to this topic, compatible doesn't mean identical. Atheism isn't compatible with Christianity (or Theism) on the issue of God, however Objectivism is certainly compatible with Christian values in a number of areas. It hardly matters if not murdering or not stealing is attributed to God, the Spaghetti Monster, or Ayn Rand; both Objectivists and Christians can agree that murder and theft are morally wrong. Religious freedom in America includes the freedom to reject religion entirely. That has little to do with the compatibility of those who define themselves as Objectivist or Christian on various political and ethical issues facing all Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would an Objectivist object to not being murdered by a Christian because of his faith?

No. But that doesn't make their reasoning behind the moral principle of "it is wrong to murder" on the same level as Objectivist reasoning. It is merely coincidental when Christians that attribute moral laws to God share some of the same principles of Objectivism.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the same source (Ayn Rand responding to a reader):

"I have the impression that you are a follower of Thomas Aquinas, whose position, in essence, is that since reason is a gift of God, man must use it.

There’s a nice irony here, and that’s that Aquinas’s opponents, such as Duns Scotus, argued that Faith can’t be reconciled with Reason. Which we all know is the Objectivist position. Yet it’s Aquinas who gets the praise. This is because he did much to get the camel nose under the tent, improving the status of Reason and Aristotle during the Middle Ages. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that I feel Frederick II deserves even more credit, though there’s no good way to quantify this kind of thing.

There's a similarity of disparity in most witness accounts.

True, but not what I was thinking of. Notice certain evangelists on TV today, who preach the “prosperity gospel”. Joel Osteen seems to be the face of it nowadays, but there used to be the Reverend Ike, who Rand praised here:

A religion represented by both Stylites and by the “Jesus wants you to be rich” types has issues with the law of non-contradiction, methinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s a nice irony here, and that’s that Aquinas’s opponents, such as Duns Scotus, argued that Faith can’t be reconciled with Reason. Which we all know is the Objectivist position. Yet it’s Aquinas who gets the praise. This is because he did much to get the camel nose under the tent, improving the status of Reason and Aristotle during the Middle Ages. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that I feel Frederick II deserves even more credit, though there’s no good way to quantify this kind of thing.

Thank you for pointing out Frederick II. I had never read antying on him but his wiki page is facinating:

"Frederick II was a religious skeptic. He is said to have denounced Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad as all being frauds and deceivers of mankind. He delighted in uttering blasphemies and making mocking remarks directed toward Christian sacraments and beliefs. Frederick's religious skepticism was unusual for the era in which he lived, and to his contemporaries, highly shocking and scandalous, and his papal enemies used it against him at every turn."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. But that doesn't make their reasoning behind the moral principle of "it is wrong to murder" on the same level as Objectivist reasoning. It is merely coincidental when Christians that attribute moral laws to God share some of the same principles of Objectivism.

Fair enough, however compatibility often relies on such happy coincidences regardless of which level or reasoning is used. If it makes you feel better, I'm sure many Christians appreciate Objectivism for providing a rational foundation for their faith in not murdering ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for pointing out Frederick II. I had never read antying on him but his wiki page is facinating:

He delighted in uttering blasphemies and making mocking remarks directed toward Christian sacraments and beliefs.

That's where I would tend to disagree.

"The man doth protest too much" comes to mind.

If God does not exist let him be irrelevent.

People who spend their lives in vicious mockery of a thing often give that thing almost as much power as those that worship it.

It seems to me the earliest recorded form of Alinsky tactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is said to have denounced Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad as all being frauds and deceivers of mankind.

Careful, there's a piece attributed to him, The Three Imposters, that he certainly didn't write and that has to be the source for that line in the Wiki article.

Frederick II was certainly a colorful character, but the main reason for my noting him here is that as a result of his good relations with the Muslims, he was able to import manuscripts of Aristotle from Baghdad, and then he employed translators, mainly in Sicily. Look at the dates, and remember that Baghdad was utterly destroyed by the Mongols very soon after. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether he's responsible for saving any particular works, but it seems likely.

Also, Aquinas's father was a military leader under him, and Aquinas studied at the University of Naples, which was founded by him.

Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's where I would tend to disagree.

"The man doth protest too much" comes to mind.

If God does not exist let him be irrelevent.

People who spend their lives in vicious mockery of a thing often give that thing almost as much power as those that worship it.

It seems to me the earliest recorded form of Alinsky tactic.

Wow. No. I think you need to immerse yourself in the period, try to get into the medieval mindset, and then read his bio. Let me suggest Umberto Eco's novel The Name of the Rose, he really communicates the sense of the period, even though it's set decades later. Or, try Dante's Inferno, F2 makes an appearance there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. No. I think you need to immerse yourself in the period, try to get into the medieval mindset, and then read his bio. Let me suggest Umberto Eco's novel The Name of the Rose, he really communicates the sense of the period, even though it's set decades later. Or, try Dante's Inferno, F2 makes an appearance there.

I've read the above and more and can appreciate the art without delighting in the mockery of the beliefs of others.

A matter of personal taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read the above and more and can appreciate the art without delighting in the mockery of the beliefs of others.

A matter of personal taste.

Very well, now bear in mind that Frederick II had bitter enemies, and that this material comes from them. If you want a good exercise in the challenges of historical research, look up Frederick’s letter to Henry III of England concerning the Sixth Crusade, then read the Patriarch of Jerusalem’s account. I think the only facts they agree on are that the Muslims turned over Jerusalem and there was no fighting. It’s shocking how his enemies heaped scorn on him for achieving this supposed ultimate goal of the Crusades peacefully. He allowed them to maintain control of the Temple Mount, and this was the original headquarters of the Knights Templar (hence the name), and they were none too happy about it. And don’t even get me started on the Popes. Maybe you saw the Al Sharpton segment on Ayn Rand I posted on another thread a day or two ago? Imagine if that were one of the few sources for information about her. Southern Italy had a Muslim minority, and he gave them a place at court, even using them as bodyguards. He brought Jews in too. He was centuries ahead of his time.

Christianity and Objectivism have some items in common:

1. Respect for a person's life.

2. Respect for a person's property.

I can’t agree, certainly not if one considers Christianity in history. For how many of the say, 17 centuries of Christianity since it first came to be "in power" did 1 or 2 apply to Jews?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... there used to be the Reverend Ike, who Rand praised here:

Man, Reverend Ike was a genuine entertainer!

Reverend_Ike_on_throne.jpg

One of his favorite sayings was:

"Why wait for pie in the sky by and by when you die?... when you can have it right now with ice cream on top."

While he is likely to be far from the best of examples... nevertheless, the principles of moral goodness and prosperity should be linked together for one leads to the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her opinion regarding God was consistent with the position of an atheist. As to the remainder of your comments I can only refer you to her actual statement on the issue which is included below.

The following adequately describes Ayn Rand's use of the word militant and her actual opinion on religion:

"I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one. This means that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I am fighting for reason, not against religion. I must also mention that I do respect religion in its philosophical aspects, in the sense that it represents an early form of philosophy.” ~ Ayn Rand, Letters of Ayn Rand, March 20, 1965

From the same source (Ayn Rand responding to a reader):

"I have the impression that you are a follower of Thomas Aquinas, whose position, in essence, is that since reason is a gift of God, man must use it. I regard this as the best of all the attempts to reconcile reason and religion - but it is only an attempt, which cannot succeed. It may work in a limited way in a given individuals life, but it cannot be validated philosophically. However, I regard Aquinas as the greatest philosopher next to Aristotle, in the purely philosophical, not theological. aspects of his work. If you are a Thomist, we may have a great deal in common, but we would still have an irreconcilable basic conflict which is, primarily. an epistemological conflict."

Responding to this topic, compatible doesn't mean identical.

No. It means that there are no irreconcilable conflicts. Oups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity and Objectivism have some items in common:

1. Respect for a person's life.

2. Respect for a person's property.

Bald faced lie.

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” -- Leviticus 20:13

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...