Christianity and Objectivism. Are these compatible in America?

[Devil's Advocate]

Is there a difference? Even though the catalyst is obviously nonsense rationalization? Is nonsense rationalization really better than just accepting something without reason and admitting that that's what you're doing?

 

Yes, and it depends on the reality of the catalyst and the veracity of the witness.  A real event occurs, or it doesn't.  That one cannot readily explain or reproduce an event makes it no less real to the person who experienced it.  Whatever meaning one then assigns to the event is an expression of faith based on personal experience that something real happened.  If one hears of and accepts the reality of some event without the corroboration of others or any personal experience in the matter, then their expression of faith is blind; blind meaning unsupported by any real evidence, personal or otherwise.

 

The description of faith backed by personal experience or the veracity of a reliable witness, as a nonsensical rationalization, can only be borne out by proof which has yet to be determined.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Just one final point about the issue of revelation...  We can agree with Thomas Paine that revelation is only valid from the source; that second hand accounts are hearsay at best.  Therefore a valid distinction exists between having faith (synonym belief) in something greater than Man based on some catalyst in the form of personal experience, and having blind faith (total submission) to hearsay that one cannot corroborate.

 Firsthand revelation. . . You mean direct communication with God?

 

I believe we have a special place for people who do that, and I assert it's for a good reason.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

That one cannot readily explain or reproduce an event makes it no less real to the person who experienced it.  Whatever meaning one then assigns to the event is an expression of faith based on personal experience that something real happened.

 Faith and reason are opposites and they ARE NOT compatible; this is why Christianity and Objectivism are fundamentally contradictory.

If and when someone experiences something, faith isn't necessary to express reality; reason is.

 

If someone took the theory of atoms as self-evident, as on FAITH, they would be wrong to do so- because they cannot understand what makes it true.

 

To accept a logical contradiction, such as the concept of God, on faith, is to obliterate oneself.

 

 

 

Faith based on personal experience is a contradiction in terms and the distinction between firsthand versus secondhand revelation is, AT BEST, a sanction of every psycho that God has ever instructed to "go forth and fill them with lead."

Edited June 14, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Devil's Advocate]

 Firsthand revelation. . . You mean direct communication with God?

 

I believe we have a special place for people who do that, and I assert it's for a good reason.

A close encounter of the 1st kind would cross the threshold of faith into personal knowledge...  and there's a difference between reason and faith, and reason and belief, but differences in conviction about what is likely to be true, based on whatever evidence is available, is the only difference between belief and faith.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

A close encounter of the 1st kind would cross the threshold of faith into personal knowledge...  and there's a difference between reason and faith, and reason and belief, but differences in conviction about what is likely to be true, based on whatever evidence is available, is the only difference between belief and faith.

 I will believe in aliens, and God, when I can see AND QUANTIFY them; when they are subject to the scientific method.

 

A vision doesn't mean anything if you can't apply reason to it, meaningfully; this is how people implicitly tell the difference between dreams and reality.

To reject such a distinction is to destroy reason and evict oneself from reality.

 

In short: I will believe in God, absolutely and wholeheartedly, when you can explain to me how to reconcile Him with the laws of physics; how he relates to them and why, in terms of relationships and equations.

 

Until then it's all smoke and mirrors and monsters under the bed.

[Spiral Architect]

@ Spiral Architect - Ethical reciprocity is the common essential to religious philosophy, i.e. empathy based action:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

 

The Golden Rule, while certainly valid if you squint your eyes and only see it applied to good values, is nothing that great when you realize it also apples to bad values id the user rationalizes it.  For instance I will not judge your bad behavior if you do not judge mine. 

 

 

 

The ethical evaluation of "doing unto others" responds to the exercise of justice, i.e. what is a reasonable way to interact with others, and hold each other accountable?

Don't kill if you value your own life.  Don't commit adultery if you value commitment.  Don't steal if you value your own property.  Don't lie if you value hearing the truth.

 

 As above but to quantify it is not justice but the demand for others to not judge but just treat you the same. 

 

But to disregard that as I have no desire to go down that hole I'll just point out that all of what you listed are logical deductions from the principle, which means you had to think to get them.  They are deductions of your a priori which comes from... ???

 

Remember, thinking = bad and non-thinking = good according to faith.  You have to proudly claim  knowledge without deductive reasoning (i.e. no proof) as a badge of honor.  If you use you reasoning faculty you have just walked outside the domain of God(s). 

 

And THAT is the unifying essential that makes religion incompatible with human life, let alone Objectivism.  The fact Objectivism tells people that life is good and use your mind to do so to be happy in this world just makes the question moot. 

 

 

 

It is appropriate to view transgressions of these ethical imperatives...

 

Whoa, hold on there man. 

 

Imperative? 

 

There is nothing "imperative" about ethical ideas.  That is why religion fails at being about human life.  Ethical principles are essentialized facts of reality that are proven by reference to reality and exist within a context which is man's life.  Ethics is a very important science and it is one of the reasons I took to Objectivism two decades ago precisely because it is principled but real. 

 

An "imperative"  is a pre-existing duty to do something without reason or justification, as in the classic non-answer "because it is".  In this case a moral imperative, one that simply imposes itself on you and you are compelled to do it.  Instead of claiming you have to do X because God(s) said you have to do it you are simply saying that principles pre-exist and are right "because they are" and we have some compelling reason to obey. 

 

Notice the theme referring back to my original post?  Obedience? Accept on faith?

 

The problem is not religion, but the method of thinking religion imposes by necessity.  You have to accept a supernatural a priori unquestioningly in order for it to work, and if you don't you're voted out of God(s) privative garden.  Or the proletariat.  Or the tribe.  Or the race.  Or... you get the idea. 

 

Religion did it first and it's only virtue is it's honesty in telling you to stop thinking and obey unquestioningly. 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Kantian Christianity ("Kantianity"), i.e., the anti-intellectual, faith-based, altruistic, humility mongering, Scriptural cherry-picking Christianity of the modern west is certainly not compatible with Objectivism...or reason...or life...or Capitalism...or Christ.

How does the moral ideal of Jesus Christ, who threw his life away for people who despised him, relate to Capitalism?  And how is it different from Kant?

There is no way to see Jesus Christ as a selfish, Capitalistic and LIFE-loving kinda guy without self-deception on at least one level.

 

 

1) Start by being an individual determined to figure out the truth for yourself

 Like Satan?  Or how about Eve?

Doubting Thomas?

 

How about the moral ideal of Job; how's that for RATIONAL?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Prytell, Jacob86, what are the irrational parts of Objectivism? 

3) Understand that, just like with any other text or teaching, there are proper and improper ways to "interpret" the Bible and teachings of Jesus, etc.. There are contexts which must be understood, and philosophical hierarchies which must be obeyed.

This is the definition of cherry-picking

 

One could easily "derive" altruism or nihilism or any other irrational ideology from cherry-picking random lines or actions from characters (even heroes!) in Atlas Shrugged. Objectivists wouldn't tolerate such irrational "interpretation" with Rand's writing. Don't allow it with others either. A text or teaching must be read through the context and intent of the author. 

 Prove it.

 

WHYnot, what are you trying to say?

 

No, Moralist, virtues are not zero-sum; people absolutely can mutually benefit each other.  It happens every single day.

 

But you cannot seriously sit here and deny that Christianity is specifically based on self-sacrifice, selflessness and self-negation.  Again, Job?  Jesus?

 

Each and every saint and martyr in the bible?

[Nicky]

Yes, and it depends on the reality of the catalyst and the veracity of the witness.  A real event occurs, or it doesn't.  That one cannot readily explain or reproduce an event makes it no less real to the person who experienced it.  Whatever meaning one then assigns to the event is an expression of faith based on personal experience that something real happened.  If one hears of and accepts the reality of some event without the corroboration of others or any personal experience in the matter, then their expression of faith is blind; blind meaning unsupported by any real evidence, personal or otherwise.

 

The description of faith backed by personal experience or the veracity of a reliable witness, as a nonsensical rationalization, can only be borne out by proof which has yet to be determined.

So saying that there is a God because I once saw a moose eat a carrot is more valid than saying there is a God. Got you. Real logical.

[Devil's Advocate]

The Golden Rule, while certainly valid if you squint your eyes and only see it applied to good values, is nothing that great when you realize it also apples to bad values id the user rationalizes it.  For instance I will not judge your bad behavior if you do not judge mine.

The user who applies it to bad values invites being killed, robbed, lied to, cheated on, etc... In  any case it only validates the truism that one reaps what one sows, which means there are consequences to behavior.

 

But to disregard that as I have no desire to go down that hole I'll just point out that all of what you listed are logical deductions from the principle, which means you had to think to get them.  They are deductions of your a priori which comes from... ???

Experience.

 

Remember, thinking = bad and non-thinking = good according to faith.  You have to proudly claim  knowledge without deductive reasoning (i.e. no proof) as a badge of honor.  If you use you reasoning faculty you have just walked outside the domain of God(s). 

 

And THAT is the unifying essential that makes religion incompatible with human life, let alone Objectivism.  The fact Objectivism tells people that life is good and use your mind to do so to be happy in this world just makes the question moot. 

So how does thinking bad thoughts calculate into your equation?  Contemplation of murder is good??  I think it's a mistake to catagorize all faith as blind in order to elevate belief as uniquely supported by evidence.  Faith is simply firm belief; and having the conviction that what appears to be the case really is.  Neither faith nor belief can be maintained where proof contradicts them.

 

Imperative? 

 

There is nothing "imperative" about ethical ideas.  That is why religion fails at being about human life.  Ethical principles are essentialized facts of reality that are proven by reference to reality and exist within a context which is man's life.  Ethics is a very important science and it is one of the reasons I took to Objectivism two decades ago precisely because it is principled but real. 

 

An "imperative"  is a pre-existing duty to do something without reason or justification, as in the classic non-answer "because it is".  In this case a moral imperative, one that simply imposes itself on you and you are compelled to do it.  Instead of claiming you have to do X because God(s) said you have to do it you are simply saying that principles pre-exist and are right "because they are" and we have some compelling reason to obey. 

Religious imperatives work within the context of freewill; they are rules to live by when life is the highest value.  The compelling reason to obey the imperative not to kill, is to recognize life as a value shared by everyone who chooses to live.

 

The problem is not religion, but the method of thinking religion imposes by necessity.  You have to accept a supernatural a priori unquestioningly in order for it to work, and if you don't you're voted out of God(s) privative garden.  Or the proletariat.  Or the tribe.  Or the race.  Or... you get the idea.

Every choice is the result of thinking; nonthinking = nonchoice = nothing.  In the context of compatability in America, the liberty to choose without diminishing anothers liberty to choose is the test.  Religious freedom means freedom of choice, including the choice to reject religion.  Freewill defined by Objectivism is the freedom to think, or not to.  That establishes liberty as a compatible goal, and so long as one respects the liberty of others to disagree, Objectivists will get along just fine with Christians.

[Devil's Advocate]

So saying that there is a God because I once saw a moose eat a carrot is more valid than saying there is a God. Got you. Real logical.

Ok you lost me...  God has a preference for carrots??

[Harrison Danneskjold]

So how does thinking bad thoughts calculate into your equation?  Contemplation of murder is good??  I think it's a mistake to catagorize all faith as blind in order to elevate belief as uniquely supported by evidence.  Faith is simply firm belief; and having the conviction that what appears to be the case really is.  Neither faith nor belief can be maintained where proof contradicts them

 Contemplation of murder, as to why it's wrong and what can be done about it, IS good.  Even as to WHETHER it's wrong.

 

You're confusing faith in the super-natural, the unreal and the unintelligible with axiomatic knowledge.  Read ITOE.

Religious faith and belief that things are what they are, are not the same thing.  They are antithetical, mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed.

 

Axiomatic knowledge is the understanding that you exist, that reality exists and that both have a specific identity; it is the root of reason.

Faith consists of denying existence (or declaring that more than existence actually exists), denying that you exist and declaring that you can have any identity you please.

 

Opposites. 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Every choice is the result of thinking; nonthinking = nonchoice = nothing.  In the context of compatability in America, the liberty to choose without diminishing anothers liberty to choose is the test.  Religious freedom means freedom of choice, including the choice to reject religion.  Freewill defined by Objectivism is the freedom to think, or not to.  That establishes liberty as a compatible goal, and so long as one respects the liberty of others to disagree, Objectivists will get along just fine with Christians.

 Absolutely.

Until the Christians realize their own contradictions, resolve them the wrong way and blow everyone up.

 

Does your God strike you as a freedom and liberty kinda guy?  Really?  The God who slaughters entire cities at a time because one of its inhabitants spoke to a woman during her "unclean" time of the month?

The God who promises to torture people with permanent agony for having sex?  This is really a God who is compatible with freedom?

 

This is where reason comes in.

But then, if having one identity is the same as believing in whichever identities you please, then I guess not.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Devil's Advocate]

 Absolutely.

Until the Christians realize their own contradictions, resolve them the wrong way and blow everyone up.

OK, I'll respond to this as it speaks to the primary issue of incompatibility by reason of contradiction...

 

Blowing everyone up is incompatible with thou shall not kill.  The contradicition would be for a Christian (or anyone) to resolve that killing is consistent with not killing.  In that event you have my permission to take them out, not as a result of their religious belief, but as a result of being a clear and present danger to everyone.

 

For that matter, Yaron Brook advocates preemptive military strikes as a legitimate use of retaliatory force <http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp>...  Any contradiction there to be resolved?

 

Edited June 15, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[Nicky]

Ok you lost me...  God has a preference for carrots??

No, the moose has. That's my catalyst for believing in God. I don't accept his existence on blind faith, I accept it based on something that is a part of reality: the moose ate the carrot.

If you don't like my example of what you claimed was a superior method for finding God, please, feel free to provide a better one.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Nicky

[Spiral Architect]

The user who applies it to bad values invites being killed, robbed, lied to, cheated on, etc... In  any case it only validates the truism that one reaps what one sows, which means there are consequences to behavior.

 

And to learn this you would have to think by observing proof.  Proof = bad because the absence of proof (faith) = good.

 

Experience.

 

Experience gives you facts which in turn are reasoned (in this case integrated) into principles, which again is thinking.  Proof = Bad because the absence of proof = good according to religion. 

 

I like how you are counting on reason to prove something when religion tells you to do the opposite.  You want to justify what is supposed to be unjustifiable by definition. 

 

 

 

So how does thinking bad thoughts calculate into your equation?  Contemplation of murder is good??  I think it's a mistake to catagorize all faith as blind in order to elevate belief as uniquely supported by evidence.  Faith is simply firm belief; and having the conviction that what appears to be the case really is.  Neither faith nor belief can be maintained where proof contradicts them.

 

 

The whole point of faith is to ignore proof and wear ignorance by choice as a badge of honor.  Faith is blind by choice. 

 

People may not practice it because they want to live, but that is them smuggling real values into the system so they can live then feeling guilty enough to go to church on Sunday.

 

Make no mistake, religion as a system asks you to accept things without proof as a point of virtue. 

 

That is why Christianity has Saints - They were the human suicidal enough to be consistent with obeying the Bible on faith and they are treated as arch-type heroes for doing so.  Those of us who smuggle in enough reason to live should look up to those suicidal enough not to do so. 

 

Religious imperatives work within the context of freewill; they are rules to live by when life is the highest value. 

 

OK, stop right there.  There is no "moral imperative within a context".  An imperative is treated as something that exists outside of us and before the entire field of cognition.  That is why it is an a priori.   

 

 

You are simply going back and justifying it by results and I doubt your intention it pragmatism. 

 

A moral Imperative denies the existence of freewill since it pre-exists and we have to act according to what it imposes on us.  Sound familiar?  It should since it is simply the idealistic version of God(s), only now it is the idea instead of an omnipotent being that imposes rules on us. 

Edited June 15, 2013 by Spiral Architect

[mdegges]

OK, I'll respond to this as it speaks to the primary issue of incompatibility by reason of contradiction...

 

Blowing everyone up is incompatible with thou shall not kill.  The contradicition would be for a Christian (or anyone) to resolve that killing is consistent with not killing.

 

And now we are back to this religious interpretation conflict...

 

There are multiple 'justified' deaths in the bible that conflict with 'thou shall not kill.' Off the top of my head, God himself (ie: an unnamed supernatural power that caused plague, fire, disease, etc) killed a bunch of people, including Lot's wife, the ammorites, Isrealites.. the list is pretty long. Further, there are many instances where murder and robbery is portrayed as being justified by God (ie: the writers of the stories in the bible who were divinely inspired by God's word)- for an example, see the story of Dinah.

Edited June 15, 2013 by mdegges

[Devil's Advocate]

No, the moose has. That's my catalyst for believing in God. I don't accept his existence on blind faith, I accept it based on something that is a part of reality: the moose ate the carrot.

If you don't like my example of what you claimed was a superior method for finding God, please, feel free to provide a better one.

If your carrot eating moose spoke to me about a God named Rocky I'd have something to work with...  A better example might be something like divine intervention in response to prayer.

 

Drawing off a recent event, an elderly woman and her dog take refuge in her bathroom as a tornado rips through the neigborhood taking lives and demolishing everything in its path.  She prays for the survival of herself and her pet as the house comes down around her, and survives the event in spite of the fact that every wall of her home fell with the roof, but her dog is gone.  The following day, while talking about her experience with a reporter, she returns to where the bathroon was to show how amazing it was that she survived; there's simply nothing left but debris.  She tells about praying for herself and her pet's survival and considers the fact that she's living, even though her dog is gone, to be evidence of divine intervention...  and then her dog craws out from under the debris.

 

Taken objectively, the entire event can be attributed to a random bit of good fortune.  To the woman, a prayer answered is evidence of divine intervention. Now let me take the first shot by saying that I don't believe God is a help desk.  How many prayers go unanswered?  But I'm willing to accept her faith as sincere and based on personal experience.  I doubt that an Objectivist could convince her otherwise, but does her faith make her incompatible?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

OK, I'll respond to this as it speaks to the primary issue of incompatibility by reason of contradiction...

 

Blowing everyone up is incompatible with thou shall not kill.  The contradicition would be for a Christian (or anyone) to resolve that killing is consistent with not killing.  In that event you have my permission to take them out, not as a result of their religious belief, but as a result of being a clear and present danger to everyone.

 

 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.  City of Ai.

For that matter, the entire book of Exodus is one giant commandment to commit genocide.  Would you like chapter and verse?

 

Preemptive military force is not retaliatory force; that's a contradiction.  It IS self-defense.  Just ask anyone who, staring down the barrel of some thug's gun, decided to shoot them first.

ALL violence of self-defense must come BEFORE force is actually initiated against you; it's ALL preemptive.

This is a logical necessity because there is no way for a corpse to avenge itself.

 

Mdegges- you surprise me.  In a good way.

 

DA, try this contradiction on for size:

 

1:  God is omnipotent; whatever he wants to happen, happens

2:  God loves all of his children equally and wants everyone to go to heaven

3:  Sinners burn in Hell for all of eternity

C:  !

 

One of these must be false.  Any given pair of them may be true, but all three cannot simultaneously be true.  So pick one; which one of these things is false?

 

Your choices are a negation of Hell (and no Earthly reason for anyone to obey God, at all), a negation of God's omnipotence (which, since that's your choice, I'll soon explain is a negation of the law of identity) or the fire-and-brimstone omnipotent sadist of the Old Testament.

 

Would you like some more?

[Devil's Advocate]

I like how you are counting on reason to prove something when religion tells you to do the opposite.  You want to justify what is supposed to be unjustifiable by definition.

Let me reiterate that faith is not proof and belief is not proof; neither are required when proof has been established.  To claim that you know something means that knowledge is supported by objective facts.  Since we are arguing over definitions, let me offer the two I'm working with (obtained by Googling definitions for faith and belief)...

 

Faith: 1) Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2) Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Synonym: belief.

 

Belief: 1) An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. 2) Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Synonym: faith.

 

In terms of social compatibility, a person of faith would only conflict with an Objectivist if one were to force the other into submission.  In that case, the issue would be the use of force, which if initiated by faith or belief, contradicts the laws of country founded on religious freedom and supported by the 1st Amendment.  So long as both are at liberty to maintain their own view, no harm, no foul.

 

Now if you're arguing that the faith of a religious person is incompatible with the belief of an Objectivist, I would say that falls outside the topic.  The issue is whether diverse systems of belief necessarily create conflicts that effect the security of others.  Those kind of conflicts result from anti-social behavior, which persons of faith (according to the 10 Commandments) and Objectivists (according to reason) ought not to promote.

[Devil's Advocate]

Preemptive military force is not retaliatory force; that's a contradiction.  It IS self-defense.  Just ask anyone who, staring down the barrel of some thug's gun, decided to shoot them first.

ALL violence of self-defense must come BEFORE force is actually initiated against you; it's ALL preemptive.

This is a logical necessity because there is no way for a corpse to avenge itself.

A preemptive military strike means to initiate physical force in order to prevent something from happening.  The contradiction comes from an Objectivist bound by philosophy not to initiate physical force, proceeding to advocate the initiation of physical force in any circumstance.

 

"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others." ~ ARL

 

If one country shoots at another country, they have initiated the use of physical force, and whatever follows responds to that use of force.  But preemption means to strike first and cannot logically precede a first strilke; cause and effect.  As the use of force is only tangential to this topic, I'll let it go at that.

[Devil's Advocate]

And now we are back to this religious interpretation conflict...

 

There are multiple 'justified' deaths in the bible that conflict with 'thou shall not kill.' Off the top of my head, God himself (ie: an unnamed supernatural power that caused plague, fire, disease, etc) killed a bunch of people, including Lot's wife, the ammorites, Isrealites.. the list is pretty long. Further, there are many instances where murder and robbery is portrayed as being justified by God (ie: the writers of the stories in the bible who were divinely inspired by God's word)- for an example, see the story of Dinah.

Yes, the Bible is filled with apparent contridictions, and if you're accusing me of cherry picking 1 of the 10 Commandments, then I yield.  I refer to the bottom 6 primarily to demonstrate compatibility with social norms, and which if practiced consistently wouldn't lead to justifying acts of violence.

[Devil's Advocate]

... one more comment before I break for a bit...

 

The Unitarian Universalists are a kind of halfway house for those who identify themselves as spiritual, but who are unsatisfied with traditional religious organizations.

 

"As Unitarian Universalists, many of you have likely arrived here because of your dissatisfaction with the status quo of institutionalized religions. The inflexibility, the irrationality, the dogma, the focus on so-called 'Higher Causes' at the expense of individual freedom--these and many other factors have likely driven a substantial number of you away from traditional churches."

http://attitudeadjustment.tripod.com/Essays/WhyUUs.htm

 

The linked speech by Luke Setzer (an Objectivist) is interesting as an example of identifying compatible values between UUs and Objectivists.  Cherry picking again perhaps, but interesting nonetheless.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[dream_weaver]

Funny. I consider myself as spiritual, and am also unsatisfied with traditional (or even untraditional) religious organizations. Nor is a focus on 'Higher Causes' required beyond a more thourough understanding of causality as it established by the relationship between identity and action.

 

Analogies can be constructed between many systems of apparent compatible values without establishing the veracity thereof. An analogy is not a substitute for the application of logic to the process of reasoning.

 

The distinction between faith and belief might be better served as the distinction between faith and reason. Beliefs can be established by faith or reason. To the extent beliefs are established by reason, faith is powerless to undermine them. To the degree beliefs are based on faith, reason may or may not undermine them depending on the practitioner's understanding or disregard for a logic based process of reasoning.

[Nicky]

Drawing off a recent event, an elderly woman and her dog take refuge in her bathroom as a tornado rips through the neigborhood taking lives and demolishing everything in its path.  She prays for the survival of herself and her pet as the house comes down around her, and survives the event in spite of the fact that every wall of her home fell with the roof, but her dog is gone.  The following day, while talking about her experience with a reporter, she returns to where the bathroon was to show how amazing it was that she survived; there's simply nothing left but debris.  She tells about praying for herself and her pet's survival and considers the fact that she's living, even though her dog is gone, to be evidence of divine intervention...  and then her dog craws out from under the debris.

 

Taken objectively, the entire event can be attributed to a random bit of good fortune. To the woman, a prayer answered is evidence of divine intervention.

That's because she's irrational. Just as irrational as someone accepting God on blind faith, or me accepting God because a moose ate a carrot. There is no extra use of logic or reason in your example, compared to either mine or blind faith. If you're claiming there is, please point out the logical connections I missed in your example.

The only reason why that blatantly illogical line of reasoning might seem to be more believable, to an average person, is because it's been repeated so much, and many people fail to distinguish between reason and catch phrases. If, instead of the occasional prayer coming true - God connection priests had spent the last 2000 years repeating the mantra moose love carrots therefor God, that would probably seem the more convincing argument to you.

But I'm willing to accept her faith as sincere and based on personal experience. I doubt that an Objectivist could convince her otherwise, but does her faith make her incompatible?

Yes, all irrationality and rationality are incompatible. Furthermore, they are all incompatible for the same reason. Her faith is incompatible with Objectivism the same way everybody else's is. Edited June 15, 2013 by Nicky