Christian Objectivism
What always shocks me is how Christians view the principles of Objectivism as clashing with the principles of God and Christ, usually without any substantiation at all. The only way I can even fathom this happening, is on the basis of the ego (self-worth) and selfishness (self-interest).
This post will probably be short, as I’m simply going to debunk the idea that Christianity and Objectivism aren’t compatible. Objectivism is not contrary to scripture, it compliments scripture.
The Objectivist is famous among all people for having a sense of pride that is disgusting. It
Remember that you can receive automatic updates of
Nathan said,
January 16th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I think you’re playing with the definition of “selfless” there, Shaun. What Rand said is true: You can’t say “I love you” without some idea of what the word “I” means — in other words, you have to have a concept of who you are.
The definition of “selfless” which /you’re/ trying to discuss, however, involves an interest in (not merely an understanding of) oneself. It is possible for me to know who I am, to have a clearly defined concept of self, and yet still lack an interest in that self — rather like it is possible for me to understand and define chemistry, but have a complete lack of interest in the subject.
Favela Cranshaw said,
January 17th, 2008 at 9:11 am
How are you able to get around the fact that Objectivism condemns the belief in the supernatural?
Brannan said,
January 17th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I think the point that you are trying to make is summed up when Jesus said, “Love your neighbor *as yourself.*” It assumes that we care about our health, our life, our worth. Without appreciating ourselves as a Creation of God, we cannot truly appreciate others. And that is entirely different from selfishness or arrogance.
Shaun Connell said,
January 17th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Favela,
This is not a pillar of Objectivism, and, strangely enough, I generally agree with the critiques. The argument was not against rational Christianity, but instead the mythological fables that perpetrate society.
Brannan,
I’m not sure that it is different than selfishness, at least not the kind that Rand emphasized. Rand herself said that she was against pointless self-indulgent, and her stories are filled with the love of others, just a love based upon justice — the purest form of love.
Brannan said,
January 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
It sounds like Rand made her own definition of selfishness/selflessness then
Jason said,
January 17th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
You know my position.
Favela said,
January 29th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Objectivism requires a fully rational consciousness (definite pillar) and a belief in the supernatural is irrational. So does this stump you?
Shaun Connell said,
January 29th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Favela,
Not at all. The supernatural is not necessarily irrational, especially if the natural itself includes a set of principles proving something beyond it — something supernatural. I actually run the website http://www.RationalChristianity.org.
Aristotle Jones said,
April 21st, 2008 at 10:01 am
Sorry for trolling here, but I found this on a whim. As a staunch Objectivist and former Christian, you couldn’t be more incorrect in trying to marry the two opposing philosophies. Its like trying to use Aristotle as proof that Plato was correct in his concept of Forms. Altruism (Christianity) is totally at opposite to Objectivism on principle.
Jesus was the poster child for self sacrifice, however you chose to add that he did it for the his own glory, which is supposed to show some semblance of rational-self interest? Shaun, either purpose would be irrational and at odds with Objectivism. Self sacrifice for the sake of attaining glory or adoration from the masses is the action of a person whose sense of self worth is non-existent and/or totally wrapped up in what others think.
Your blog on this is typical of someone who sees the truth in Objectivism, but is afraid of being without their fire insurance. The threat of eternal damnation or eternity separated from God, you would know, if you were a student of Philosophy at all, is a basic fallacy.
Furthermore, suggesting that anyone could know anything about the Supernatural is in fact irrational based on the definition of Supernatural. You would do your self well to look into the Objectivist Epistemology and Metaphysics prior to trying to unify Ojectivism and Christianity as you do a disservice to every person who reads your blog in your attempt.
I’m sure you can pick and choose versus from the bible that seem rational, however you must first understand that the entire philosophy is built upon contradictions. Even a school child can sometimes come out with the correct answer to a complex equation, but that doesn’t mean his methodology was correct. This is what you have stumbled upon here. Objectivism, is your answer however your math (Christianity) is completely off. You are trying to work the problem backwards in order to justify your emotional need for the Christian Religion.
Its weak, and disingenuous, and yet another example in the long history of religion of how the witch doctors of the world have tried to confuse man so that they might control us out of the fear of the unknown.
Renaissance Guy said,
May 5th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I have tried to work out mentally how I can be both an Objectivist and a Christian. Like you, I believe that the two systems are largely compatible. However, most Objectivists could never identify a Christian as “one of us.”
Do we need a name for a system that combines the Christian faith with the self-evident truths of Objectivism? I need a term to apply to myself and a group to belong to.
Shaun Connell said,
May 7th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Renaissance Guy,
I’ve started referring to myself as a “Rational Christian” and find that people often pick up on the label, and use it to refer to me. I started a website on rational apologetics at http://www.RationalChristianity.org. In the future, I’ll be adding doctrine in line with the Christian Objectivism mindset.
Ben said,
May 7th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Aristotle Jones, what contradictions?
You say that “Furthermore, suggesting that anyone could know anything about the Supernatural is in fact irrational based on the definition of Supernatural” but you do not define supernatural. Supernatural simply means “things superior to nature” and we know about them because they were told to us by th ebeings that are. If they hadn’t then yes, it would be impossible.
Also, Jesus dying for his own glory had nothign to do with caring what the “masses” thought of him, God does not seek his own glory because he needs our approval or because he lacks self-esteem, he does it because it is his glory, in the same way that any man would seek to have his debtor pay him off.
If you really look deep into christianity, you’ll find that the “faith” that God asks for from us is not a faith of blind obediance, but in fact that we are commanded, by the bible to look into things and come to our conclusions Rationally.
The whole point of Christianity is in fact Objective reality, that God exists and that his moral standard determines ours weather we acknowledge it or not. As far as reason goes, once again, God commands us to fidn reason first and then accept Christian value, it is people who have corrupted Christianity into a religion and twisted it to demand blidn faith.
God does not demand that we fear the unknown, in fact, he had a very long book written over many years and by many differant peopel in entirely differant situations to explain that unknown to us so that we would not fear it!
Mike Renzulli said,
May 29th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I totally disagree with your post and I am afraid you are incorrect with your attempt to mix Objectivism with Christianity.
Ayn Rand (who was an escapee of Soviet Russia) opposed religion because it preaches the morality of self-sacrifice or altruism which is what communists preach.
As opposed to the communists who say that people should give their lives to the will of the state, religions (such as Christianity and Islam) state that in order for people to attain salvation, they must give their lives to God or the church.
As a former Christian now turned atheist, Rand was right.
If you want to call yourself a Christian Libertarian that is one thing since libertarianism draws from a variety of philosophers who also were religious(such as John Locke, Thomas Aquinas and Lord Acton).
However, I would suggest you no longer call yourself an Objectivist since it is a philosophy based on reason and rational self-interest. Not faith.
Lily the Christian Objectivist said,
July 16th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Christians are the only objectivists who have their facts straight. And any Christian who is NOT an objectivist, isn’t a Christian. Truth is objectively true, and Christianity is based on fact, not mumbo jumbo. To see the greatest rational proof ,exercised by a Harvard Law Professor, using the Federal Rules of Evidence, analyzing the four eyewitness reports that form the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, see the essay by the Professor of Evidence at Harvard, who concludes that, on a strictly rational and legalistic basis, the gospel accounts are factual. Start here and google elsewhere for yourself. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=reRi5FybflcC&dq=simon+greenleaf+gospels&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=N69CHNgWKy&sig=JhFA7OONt_JeUy3pIGMDpbO9NMs&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPP1,M1
IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THIS HARVARD PROFESSOR’S LEGAL ANALYSIS PROVING THAT THE GOSPELS ARE TRUE, THEN SHUT UP ABOUT CHRISTIAN OBJECTIVISTS BEING OXYMORONIC, AND GO GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT, stupid atheists. Until you have read this, if you call yourself an informed Objectivist, YOU’RE the one using the oxymoron. Emphasis on “moron”.
Mike Renzulli said,
July 18th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I have read the Harvard Professor’s assessment and he is absolutely wrong.
Its a well-known fact that academia has been hostile to Ms. Rand and Objectivism and this may well be one way he is trying to undermine it or he has no idea what Objectivism is all about.
One can not be an Objectivist and a Christian simulatneously. An Objectivist starts with reason as his means of acquiring knowledge. That precludes revelation and faith. The Christian belief is entirely founded on the premise of divine revelation with faith needed to accept it.
Like Leonard Piekoff said in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand:
“Existence exists, and only existence exists. Existence is a primary: it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal. So if you are to postulate something beyond existence
Shaun Connell said,
July 18th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Mike,
The spiritual is part of existence.
Mike Renzulli said,
August 1st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
To believe something spiritual in the context of ultimately acknowledging the existence of a god or spiritual realm beyond human knowledge is to ultimately deny reason itself.
Objectivists believe that reason, not faith, is the sole means of man’s survival. To attempt to mix the 2 together is a contradiciton since the two, ultimately, are not compatible.
Until you embrace Objectivism fully by embracing reason while at the same time rejecting faith, you and your colleagues cannot properly call yourselves Objectivists.
Myrdden said,
March 12th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
A very fascinating discussion, minus the sarcasm of some of the posts.
I believe some misconceptions exist about Christianity, for various reasons. While it is partially about altruism, it does not preach poverty or total sacrifice to the point where one cannot help others. In fact, if one were to live a life of total poverty, how could one ‘feed the widows and orphans?’ Christ taught parables about investment, and nowhere does the Bible attack wealth, only it’s being gained by ill-measures, or it’s being put higher than reverence for God and one’s fellow man.
To be a ‘good steward’ is commanded, which does not mean to give it all away in total self-sacrifice, but to use it wisely, and not with total selfishness, but with an eye to one’s neighbor as well. But it does NOT mean taking away anything from others. It is voluntary, not a government taking away from the producers to enable the non-producers. The Bible is also clear on this: if a man does not work, he does not eat. Charity is for those who cannot work (i.e., the affore-mentioned widows and orphans), not for those who refuse to produce in society and carry their own weight.
It is true, however, that Christianity, like any religion, is not ‘rational’ in that it cannot be proven, any more than ‘dark matter’ believed to be in the universe exists, though scientists believe it does. Does a belief in something not seen or as-yet unproveable mean that one is irrational? Some would say yes, some no.
Can I hold to the Christian concepts of the Golden Rule and love for God while still seeing the world as a rational place where I work for myself but still believe that all, in the end, belongs to God?
Man is a duel-being, having both a mind, and a heard. Objectivism deals with the mind, with rationality, but tends to ignore matters of the heart in its philosophy. Christianity deals with heart matters, while leaving matters of reason and science to mankind to work out. Some will say that a synthesis of the two cannot be worked out. Others would say that a synthesis of the two is essential, as each lacks what the other can provide. If the comments left by some of the pure objectivists on this post are any indication, a little irrational kindness might go a long way.
I don’t see Objectivism as making us into totally logical Vulcans from Star Trek, having no feelings or empathy towards our fellow man. Is it rational to feed someone who has no food, when I have plenty? Not necessarily, but if I do not, and can still live with myself, what would a society of men like me be like? In the end, it would not be much different from a society which has no reason. Neither would be a place I would wish to live. A society with no mind; a society with no heart. I believe we need both: rationality and irrationality, self-making and compassion, self-actualization and yet also consideration of those around us.
Mike Renzulli said,
August 17th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Myrrden,
Objectivists do not, as you say, ignore matters of the heart (which I assume means being compassionate towards other people).
Religion denies and even damns human existence as denigrating mankind to the status of a constant sinner while bombarding people with guilt-ladden rhetoric in order to regiment its followers into giving to others and living according to the church’s values in order to obtain salvation.
To religion, people are a means to the end of procreation, chartiable giving, self-sacrifice and other anti-life ethics that condemn humans to a life of misery and even death.
Objectivists believe that mankind is a rational human being who bases his choices and actions based on egoism. In Objectivism, human existence is celebrated and cherished since we believe human life on this earth is the standard of all values and people are an end in themselves.
In terms of charitable giving, if someone wants to give money to charities or beggars that is their choice. We believe it should be because someone WANTS to do it and NOT out of some altruistic duty.
This is one of many reasons why, like reason and faith and (as you say) rationality and irrationality, Christianity and Objectivism are not compatible.