Selfish Christians Citing Ayn Rand

[monart]

Christians are many, Objectivists are few. But a very few Christians are friendly to Ayn Rand, studying and citing her work, along with Peikoff's. Are they the better or the worse Christians? Are they to be scoffed away as deluded walking contradictions and exploitive hypocrites, or be regarded with some serious respect and be shown how to go all the way?

 

Selfish Christians Citing Ayn Rand

Apparently, not all Christians are altruistic. There are the very few who advocate rational egoism, studying and citing Ayn Rand’s proofs and formulations as justification and corroboration of “the Classical Christian principles of reason, rational self-interest, individualism, and individual rights” [!] – yet, not accepting full autonomy, believe in the need for God, “the Galt-Like…Egoist God”.

As an example of Christian Egoism, the following excerpts are from a website, For the New Christian Intellectual (the name adapted from the title of an early essay of Ayn Rand's and the Atlas logo refers to Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged).

=======

Why Christians Should Reconsider Ayn Rand https://christianintellectual.com/reconsider/

Everyone loves to hate Ayn Rand—even, and sometimes especially, Christians. …

Whatever the cause of the animosity, I want to suggest that it is unwarranted. In fact, I want to present 6 reasons that Christians should reconsider Ayn Rand.

1. She Had a High View of the Mind . . .

2. She Promoted Spiritual Values—Even Above Material Ones . . .

3. She Worked Hard at Integrating the Spiritual & the Physical . . .

4. She’s Had a Lasting & Growing Influence on the Culture . . .

5. She Is Our Best Ally Against the Rising Tides of Postmodernism & Marxism . . .

6. She Will Help You Worship God More Fully . . .

It’s no secret that Rand raged against the morality of altruism. It’s one of the primary reasons she is so maligned—especially by Christians, who think that the Bible teaches the morality of altruism unequivocally. While I think a closer reading of both Rand and the Bible would reveal more similarity on this issue than most expect, I don’t think you have to be convinced about Rand’s morality of rational self-interest—for human beings—in order to see the value of it when it comes to thinking about God.

Scripture is absolutely unambiguous when it comes to God’s ultimate motivation for everything He does:

“For my name’s sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.” —Isaiah 48:9-11 (emphasis added)

There’s simply no getting around the fact that the God of the Bible is an unabashed egoist. But when egoism is seen as the prime example of evil, that causes problems for Christians. Is God evil for being an egoist? Is the God of the Bible a moral monster? Many have concluded that He is, and have rejected Christianity as a result. Most Christians, however, find themselves with a severe case of cognitive dissonance. They want to affirm that God can do whatever He pleases (that sort of comes with the territory of being God), but they avoid like the plague the follow up question: why is God pleased by the things He is pleased by—namely, His glory? And is it morally right for Him to have His pleasure rooted in such a self-oriented, egoistic, fashion? Most Christians do not have a satisfactory answer to this question, because they believe that self-interest, as such, is inherently evil. The result is a hesitation to look too closely at the nature and character of God, in order not to discover how much of a moral monster He really is—or, a hesitation to think too consistently about moral principles, in order not to discover that it really is one or the other: either God is a moral monster, or egoism—as such—is not inherently evil.

The good news is that egoism is not inherently evil, and Ayn Rand is the best resource for seeing how and why that is so. More than explaining, philosophically, why egoism is moral, she painted vivid portraits of the beauty and glory of egoism in the characters of her novels. I challenge any Christian to read Anthem, The Fountainhead, or Atlas Shrugged, and not to see glorious pictures of the moral character of the God of the Bible reflected through the heroes of those stories.

Our culture is overrun with reasons to think that God’s egoistic moral character is ugly, twisted, and evil. In order to look at God in full, worshipful, adoration, Christians must learn to see the staggering glory of God’s moral character—of His egoism. And the writings of Ayn Rand—particularly her novels—are the best resources available to help the Christian do just that.

Join Us in Reconsidering Rand

Believe it or not, there are a lot of Christians who have benefited from reconsidering Rand—but many of them feel the need to hide it. We’re working to change that. And we’re working to help Christians understand Rand’s thought in order to take full advantage of the potential value hinted at above. In fact, we’re starting a course to explore Rand’s ideas from a Christian perspective.

------

Jacob Brunton: Bachelor of Theology, Bethlehem College & Seminary in Minneapolis, MN. M.A. in Philosophy, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, TX.

-----------------

Ayn Rand and Christianity? https://christianintellectual.com/ayn-rand/

…

So we want to be very clear: Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, as an integrated philosophy, is not compatible with Christianity. We do not call ourselves “Christian Objectivists.” We do not believe that such a thing is possible. Nor do we select which parts of her philosophy we accept by arbitrary whim.

Our commitment is first and foremost to the truth, discovered and validated by reason. We are convinced, on the basis of reason, that historically orthodox, Protestant, Christianity is true. We are also convinced, on the basis of the same reason, that Ayn Rand got a lot of really important things right about the nature of Man and his life on earth. We don’t think those things are in conflict.

We are fully convinced that those ideas in Rand’s philosophy which are truly incompatible with Christianity are also incompatible with reason. The things which we embrace in her philosophy, we embrace both because we are rationally convinced of their validity and because they are taught (or assumed) by Scripture.

In summary: We are orthodox, Protestant Christians with a great appreciation for Ayn Rand’s thought. Rand has done more than any other philosopher (Christian or otherwise) to point out key categories, questions, and concepts needed for a rational philosophy. We do not agree with all of Rand’s ideas. But we believe Rand was onto something important. (See John Piper’s article The Ethics of Ayn Rand.)

To make our own viewpoint clear, we found it helpful to title our project For the New Christian Intellectual. This is a reference to Rand’s first non-fiction book. Anyone familiar with Rand’s work will also recognize the Atlas figure in our logo. It is a nod to Rand’s masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged.

While we believe that our perspective is fully Christian, we give credit to Ayn Rand for her role in helping us develop our own philosophical perspective. While there are some similarities, the views we express are not the same as Rand’s. We speak only for ourselves. We encourage our readers to explore Ayn Rand in her own words, starting with her novels.

Rand did not invent political freedom. But she has been its best defender. The same is true for other topics of importance, including the four ideals we explicitly advocate:

Reason—Rational Self-interest—Individualism—Individual Rights

…

Many within the Christian tradition will view our project with skepticism. That can be a good thing. Let the skepticism lead to careful questions of discernment.

Find out why we believe as we do. If we are mistaken, make sure you know why. If you find dissonance within your own ideas, do the work. Do the thinking.

As Ayn Rand would say, “Check your premises.”

Cody Libolt: M.A. in Worship Leadership, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville KY.
Marketing Consultant & Copywriter (For business inquiries, email [email protected])

 

[Boydstun]

Augustine had it that to embrace God is to turn away from oneself. Rand had it that to suspend one’s critical rationality in any question, including the existence of God, is a sacrifice of one’s mind, which is one’s self, and I agree.

I think the standpoint of the author Mr. Brunton is like one of those exercise platforms with a hemisphere as its underside. His standpoint is unstable and a frame of cognitive dissonance. At least he is an independent thinker. Thanks for the notice.

That egoism of God on display in the Isaiah passage seems overly concerned with social image. More importantly: Is the kind of love traditionally attributed to God, traditionally called agape, is it, when shorn of a Christian sacrificial cast, is such purely outgoing love egoistic? As a matter of fact, it is (though not in the sense of being for benefit firstly to oneself). It was stolen from man and placed in God, just as in truth the making and control of fire was stolen from man and credited to the gods in the setup for the myth of Prometheus. Nonsacrificial agape is our fundamental love, the human-level experience and instantiation of outward striving, the joy in agency and dance, an essential of life itself in the human. Such agape in oneself is because one is a living self. I'm speaking of mortal life, which is to say, real life.

[EC]

Do Christians really think that self-interest is immoral? That literally makes no sense whatsoever. They couldn't even live beyond a week thinking something so blatantly irrational/immoral. If they actually "believed" such a irrational thing they would all hold their breath,  not eat, not drink water, do absolutely not and just die.

Edited March 24 by EC

[tadmjones]

Is that to mean Rand and Augustine agree that embracing God is a negation of the self or the mind? both? or are they one and the same?

I've long thought that mind and self were the same, but lately I'm perplexed with the notion that self contains the mind as an aspect. That the more fundamental self is consciousness as such. The underlying awareness of the functioning of the mind and its contents are objects to the self.

Edited March 24 by tadmjones

[Boydstun]

25 minutes ago, EC said:

Do Christians really think that self-interest is immoral? 

Love yourself! strongly suggests that self-interest cannot be entirely immoral in a consistent Christianity.

[Boydstun]

22 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Is that to mean Rand and Augustine agree that embracing God is a negation of the self or the mind? both? or are they one and the same?

I've long thought that mind and self were the same, but lately I'm perplexed with the notion that self contains the mind as an aspect. That the more fundamental self is consciousness as such. The underlying awareness of the functioning of the mind and its contents are objects to the self.

Whether embracing God is negation of self would depend on one's conception of God. Spinoza certainly would embrace God, but his does not entail negation of his self nor suspension of reason.

I think of mind as the instrumentation and control system of some higher animal bodies, including the human case. There is just an ambiguity in "self". Sometimes it mean mind and body, and sometimes only one's mind. If a Christian sect arose that preached resurrection of one's body, but without any memory of one's previous existence, experiences, thoughts or other minded persons, I don't think they'd win many clients. The mind of a human is the precious self.

[tadmjones]

37 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

 If a Christian sect arose that preached resurrection of one's body, but without any memory of one's previous existence, experiences, thoughts or other minded persons, I don't think they'd win many clients.

I suppose Hindus are better salesmen then , lol.

[DavidOdden]

As far as I understand, a person is not to sacrifice himself to another person sua sponte, he is supposed to sacrifice himself to God. Of course one may believe that what God wants you to do is die so that some other people may live, or perhaps to live and kill those who oppose him, for the greater glory of God. Since God doesn’t have a Twitter account, it’s anyone’s guess what God really wants you to do. Knowledge is hierarchical, including moral knowledge. For the Christian, God is the highest value and all is to be sacrificed for his sake. Self is to be be sacrificed only when commanded by a higher value – God.

[EC]

2 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

Self is to be be sacrificed only when commanded by a higher value – God.

Does He whisper in their ears that is time to sacrifice the self? I know many, many people who claim to believe in sacrifice but can't believe that they actually do because of it's blatant evil. I just figure most, except for the truly insane or evil, are just acting in a second-handed way because they falsely must think it's what others want to hear. I just can't actually ever bring myself to believe that billions of people actually believe in the blatantly evil and it must just be an act.

[Doug Morris]

Could it also be that they are interpreting "sacrifice" in a watered-down way that makes it less blatantly anti-life?

 

[necrovore]

The important questions are, where do you get your abstractions from, and how do you know they are correct?

The Christian answer is that you get them from God (sometimes indirectly) and that you know they are correct by means of faith.

The Objectivist answer is that you get them by reasoning from reality, and that you have to check them against reality.

These are very different. It is one thing to reach, for example, egoism, from facts and reasoning, and it's another to reach it from God and faith.

If a Christian's faith causes him to happen to wander into an Objectivist idea, what could make it "stick?" Bible verses? He could wander out of those ideas again just as easily. It's just a question of what seems to be coming from God at any given time. So it becomes completely ungrounded (or grounded, ultimately, only in their faith, only in their feelings).

Some Christians can smuggle in bits of reason and reality (they have to, to survive), but enough of that causes God to wither away. The Objectivist perspective would seem to say, "rightfully so!" but that scares many Christians.

--

There is also a skeptical pair of answers, that you make up abstractions arbitrarily, and there's no way of ever knowing if they're correct. Christians and skeptics are usually good at finding the holes in each other's theories, but Christians usually evade the holes in their own theories. Skeptics will claim that all theories have holes, including their own, so they claim the holes as proof that their theory is correct.

Objectivism is the first philosophy that reality can't poke any holes in, although Aristotle's main ideas came close to that and helped make Objectivism possible. Skeptics say such a philosophy is impossible; Christians may say it's a sin, because it leaves out God, but then they want God to be necessary, so then they say Objectivism is impossible, too.

Instead of asking "what could make an Objectivist idea stick in a Christian's mind," you could ask the flip-side, "what could make a Christian drop an Objectivist idea?" Reality can't poke holes in Objectivist ideas even if you hold the Objectivist ideas for the wrong reasons.

But if you don't know why an idea is correct, there are still consequences, such as when the idea ends up contradicting another idea. How do you resolve the conflict if you rely on faith instead of facts? Facts may show that one idea is true and the other false, but if you hold ideas based on faith, ideas that might be clearly different in light of the facts end up being on an "equal footing" with each other. With no reference to reality, you could pick either. Usually people decide based on still other ideas, which themselves may not be correct. For example, some theologians say that, if there's a conflict between reality and God, side with God. What would a Christian do with his Objectivist ideas, then?

[EC]

The thing is I don't believe that the non-crazy religious people actually believe in any of that nonsense any more than they believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.  In reality,  they are mostly claiming what they know is nonsense because of secondhanded reasons such as trying to "fit in" or because they falsely "believe" that others "believe". I just can't force myself to accept that the vast majority of humanity is actually insane and truly believes in the imaginary any more than they believe in unicorns or gremlins or ancient Greek gods.  The vast majority of people can't truly be insane in this manner. If they actually are then humanity is doomed.

It's a sad state of affairs that this still exists in modern times, and if they truly "believe" in the imaginary on the scale it is put out there while we essentially all live in a very technological "distant future" (seriously, the 2020's+ where always settings for sci-fi) then humanity is simply doomed and it will be a very short time before they either wipe everyone out or take us back to the Dark Ages. And Dark Ages II is a heck of a lot worse given the path we were on after the Enlightment and the creation of the United States of America. 

Edited March 25 by EC

[EC]

Well guys, it looks like I'm out of options anyway, I've reached out to everyone possible to try to get help for my situation. I even had Dr. Craig Biddle call me yesterday. Seems like no one can help and I'm out of options and completely destroyed by whoever the evil group actually is. My guess is they are coming for all other Objectivists and lovers of freedom next and when they finish with them they will destroy one another.

The evil destroyers of my life and all the good in the world have essentially won and are now a path to destroy everyone and the entire world in the process.  Well, nobody will help me and stop these evil people from having essentially taken my entire life and now they will come for everyone until every living person is destroyed with the whole entire planet with it. This is what evil does and has done myself.

Edited March 25 by EC

[monart]

22 hours ago, Boydstun said:

...

I think the standpoint of the author Mr. Brunton is like one of those exercise platforms with a hemisphere as its underside. His standpoint is unstable and a frame of cognitive dissonance. At least he is an independent thinker. Thanks for the notice.

... Nonsacrificial agape is our fundamental love, the human-level experience and instantiation of outward striving, the joy in agency and dance, an essential of life itself in the human. Such agape in oneself is because one is a living self. I'm speaking of mortal life, which is to say, real life.

Could Mr. Brunton be trying to maintain his balance on his unstable platform by regarding "God", like some Christians sometimes do, as if it were like "Existence", the axiomatic concept of Objectivism, but personalized (esthetically) into a "Galt-like" figure? His belief in Jesus Christ (and his sacrifice) as the incarnation of God is another part of his unstable hemisphere.

Yes, the radiance of "nonsacrificial agape" love has its source and meaning in the human self's striving for joyful life, and not in God, as the Christians believe. Christians believe in sacrificial ,which they call agape, as theologically and morally superior to eros, the love of oneself.

[monart]

22 hours ago, EC said:

Do Christians really think that self-interest is immoral? That literally makes no sense whatsoever. They couldn't even live beyond a week thinking something so blatantly irrational/immoral. If they actually "believed" such a irrational thing they would all hold their breath,  not eat, not drink water, do absolutely not and just die.

As Bishop Baron voices it (referenced in my previous post "speaking of God"): "We are all sinners". Christians don't believe they can live in perfect selflessness. Guilt from their unavoidable selfishness is their proof of their devoutness. So in practice, they strike a "balance" between selfishness and selflessness, moralizing that their selfishness is in the service of selflessness, as reason is placed in the service of faith.

[monart]

22 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I've long thought that mind and self were the same, but lately I'm perplexed with the notion that self contains the mind as an aspect. That the more fundamental self is consciousness as such. The underlying awareness of the functioning of the mind and its contents are objects to the self.

I see how you regard "self" as that which thinks (and that which chooses). Do you include any aspect of the body as part of the self? Or is the self strictly a consciousness? Is there "consciousness as such", apart from the objects of its consciousness?

[monart]

22 hours ago, Boydstun said:

Love yourself! strongly suggests that self-interest cannot be entirely immoral in a consistent Christianity.

It's not "entirely immoral", if loving yourself is in order to better love God and serve others.

[monart]

14 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Could it also be that they are interpreting "sacrifice" in a watered-down way that makes it less blatantly anti-life?

 

As people like Jordan Peterson interprets it, when it suits their rationalization, "sacrifice" is giving up short-term pain for long-term gains, or giving up petty feelings for higher ones, and so on, but avoid acknowledging that "self-sacrifice" can only mean giving up one's life to serve the other (God, Society, Nation, Environment, etc.)

[monart]

14 hours ago, necrovore said:

some theologians say that, if there's a conflict between reality and God, side with God. What would a Christian do with his Objectivist ideas, then?

Some Christians, like those referenced in the originating post, try to interpret God in an Objecitivist way, using Ayn Rand's formulations, to make God an egoist and Christianity a life of "reason, rational self-interest, individualism, and individual rights". How well or not they can do this, are these "egoistic" Christians more or less of a threat to Objecivists than altruistic, faithful Christians?

[monart]

12 hours ago, EC said:

Well guys, it looks like I'm out of options anyway, I've reached out to everyone possible to try to get help for my situation. I even had Dr. Craig Biddle call me yesterday. Seems like no one can help and I'm out of options and completely destroyed by whoever the evil group actually is. My guess is they are coming for all other Objectivists and lovers of freedom next and when they finish with them they will destroy one another.

The evil destroyers of my life and all the good in the world have essentially won and are now a path to destroy everyone and the entire world in the process.  Well, nobody will help me and stop these evil people from having essentially taken my entire life and now they will come for everyone until every living person is destroyed with the whole entire planet with it. This is what evil does and has done myself.

This is more appropriate for another thread, but. . . In taking you seriously, I've been trying to learn from you, on-and-off forum, what specifically is the threat (existential or psychological) that is targeting you, and what, specifically, is the help you're seeking?

[Boydstun]

4 hours ago, monart said:

Could Mr. Brunton be trying to maintain his balance on his unstable platform by regarding "God", like some Christians sometimes do, as if it were like "Existence", the axiomatic concept of Objectivism, . . .

I noticed how easy it is to replace God with Existence in the most basic ontology of Spinoza's (Jewish, not Christian) system here (linked excerpt is from my fundamental paper "Existence, We" [2021 {scroll down}]). Perhaps that is part of why he was so often accused of pantheism and atheism.

Edited March 25 by Boydstun

[EC]

3 hours ago, monart said:

This is more appropriate for another thread, but. . . In taking you seriously, I've been trying to learn from you, on-and-off forum, what specifically is the threat (existential or psychological) that is targeting you, and what, specifically, is the help you're seeking?

I provided a lot of links of how they go about their life destruction.  Essentially every tactic listed is or has been used against myself.  They have essentially destroyed everything about my life,  bankrupted me, destroyed property, harass me in many ways, sabotage my work in every manner possible, hacked everything electronic, made it impossible for me to get a new job or improve my situation in any manner, left me living in my vehicle (which has been repeatedly sabotaged in many ways), make me look "crazy" trying to describe it. And they do everything in ways that are hard to prove, that are easily deniable if taken piecemeal. I need legal protection against this evil group and a place where I can stay safely and restart my destroyed life. 

[EC]

4 hours ago, monart said:

This is more appropriate for another thread, but. . . In taking you seriously, I've been trying to learn from you, on-and-off forum, what specifically is the threat (existential or psychological) that is targeting you, and what, specifically, is the help you're seeking?

What I need since this evil group has destroyed everything and completely (as I'm typing this I'm getting out of context emojis, which is one of the things the hacking part of this evil group does to gaslight and harass me, and am screenshotting them for proof, which they can make disappear as they have with many things) is to be put into the FBI protection where they provide a new identity and protect my life while the criminals involved are caught and brought to justice.  I tried contacting them and never got a reply, same with the national press. The literature and links I've provided suggests that it is the government behind this but remember everything electronic is hacked and some of the information could be phoney to stop me from pursuing the governments protection. I also can't bring myself to believe that the government of the United States has become this corrupt that it engages in destroying the lives of American citizens like this to the point where I have nothing left,  nobody to turn to that will fully believe me, and no resources left (screenshot of a completely out of context blinking emoji as I typed that), and absolutely no way to improve the situation now. (another out of context blinking emoji that makes no sense even remotely to be there).

I need the protection of the FBI and the "witness " (in scare quotes because I'm the victim of crime and not just a witness) protection program to protect my life and provide me with safe shelter as they find whoever the leaders are behind all of this and have them brought to justice before this attempted murder of myself by a million pin pricks leaves me dead or they do something to actually murder me and falsely make it look "natural" or a "suicide ".

[tadmjones]

11 hours ago, monart said:

I see how you regard "self" as that which thinks (and that which chooses). Do you include any aspect of the body as part of the self? Or is the self strictly a consciousness? Is there "consciousness as such", apart from the objects of its consciousness?

I’m perplexed with the notion that self describes subjective experience a part from any description of mental products or operations of cognition, ie the ontological basis of the ‘first person’ perspective of experience. 
As per Rand , and Stephen , consciousness is the act of perceiving that which exists. Would an irreducible subjectiveness be non perceivable and render it without identity and therefore non existent?

[monart]

18 hours ago, Boydstun said:

I noticed how easy it is to replace God with Existence in the most basic ontology of Spinoza's (Jewish, not Christian) system here (linked excerpt is from my fundamental paper "Existence, We" [2021 {scroll down}]). Perhaps that is part of why he was so often accused of pantheism and atheism.

A comparison of Reality as "Existence Exists" and God as "Being qua Being" may help in understanding how some Christians (and theists in general) would become Objectivsts and how they could recover from their previous Christianity. I estimate that many if not most Objectivists are recovering Christians/theists. Tara Smith and Ben Bayer, of the Ayn Rand Institute, have stated that they, too, are/were recovering Catholics. (I, myself, haven't been a Christian or theist, but was born in a Daoist-Buddhist culture.) Another helpful examination is the esthetic comparison between John Galt and Jesus Christ.

(I've read your excerpts of "Existence, We" and am curious but will have to wait until I have access to it. Thanks.)