Ayn Rand on Christian Egoism
Posted by TheChristianEgoist 10 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
“Christianity was the first school of thought that proclaimed the supreme sacredness of the individual. The first duty of a Christian is the salvation of his own soul. This duty comes above any he may owe to his brothers. This is the basic statement of true individualism.” -Ayn Rand
Read the article via the link above.
Read the article via the link above.
I call this being a Religious Objectivist. I place my self as an individual as my responsibility before helping anyone else do anything else. I may choose to help someone do something, but it is never in the form of a sacrifice.
You will never hear me saying "Oh I want to die and go to heaven" or "Oh life is so hard" because I love my life. Because of this philosophy my relationship with god is my own, and I do not "belong" to a church. All of them I have ever found focus on the bad there is to life as if it is some giant struggle filled with sacrifice. I do not see it that way.
Thank you so much for posting this, as it is what I have been meaning, but lacked the words to communicate properly.
On almost a daily basis for the past couple of years I've considered eating a bullet because I want to go to heaven and see my loved ones again. Ironically, one of the reasons that keeps me from doing it is the belief that it would guarantee that I never do.
That, and my last remaining virtue; I won't quit. Maybe that's why Rearden is my preferred hero over Galt in AS, followed by Dagny. He's beat on from all sides, he's flawed, but he won't quit.
I had to find a purpose to my life, to continue living, and integral to that was the belief that He still wants me here for some reason. I don't want to die a failure.
I too am glad TheChristianEgoist shared this. It helps reconcile the conflicts I still feel between Objectivism and Christianity.
If you are struggling with conflicts between Objectivism and Christianity, I invite you to read and follow my blog (www.theChristianEgoist.wordpress.com)
I am currently working on a book which does just that: reconciles the conflicts between the two worldviews. It is called 'The Galt-Like God: Meditations of a Christian Egoist'. The blog is a collection of side thoughts in order to inspire people as I work on the book. I think you would be very blessed by the ideas presented in my work (I know many others have been).
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the rest of my writing.
-The Christian Egoist
The logical-factual dichotomy opposes truths which are validated “merely” by the use of logic (the analytic ones), and truths which describe the facts of experience (the synthetic ones). Implicit in this dichotomy is the view that logic is a subjective game, a method of manipulating arbitrary symbols, not a method of acquiring knowledge.
It is the use of logic that enables man to determine what is and what is not a fact. To introduce an opposition between the “logical” and the “factual” is to create a split between consciousness and existence, between truths in accordance with man’s method of cognition and truths in accordance with the facts of reality. The result of such a dichotomy is that logic is divorced from reality (“Logical truths are empty and conventional”)—and reality becomes unknowable (“Factual truths are contingent and uncertain”). This amounts to the claim that man has no method of cognition, i.e., no way of acquiring knowledge." Ayn Rand Lexicon. If they use a calculator to arrive at a conclusion for example multiple dimensions. They did not see feel or touch the dimensions but they will claim they exist and at the same time chastise us for using our logic to deduce the vast number of happy coincidences suggest intelligent design. The big bang does not explain the first particle. More on this later.
Assumptions must be brought forth and examined. What assumptions are you making that allows you to connect happy coincidences to god? What makes you think intelligent design means that the designer is still living? The intelligent lightbulb designer is dead after all.
"In order fully to understand the nature of a philosophical conflict, one must grasp the fundamental difference that give rise to the conflict. One must investigate the basic issue and apply this knowledge to the disputed issue.
"A debated subject is often a symptom, a surface manifestation, of a more basic underlying disagreement. Unless this area is explored -- and unless some agreement is reached -- the conflict will continue, while becoming repetitious and dull. The result is a kind of "intellectual atrophy," where the argument proceeds without significant progress, where no new material is introduced, and where the participants know beforehand that neither side will convince the other." -- A:TCAG
"Playboy: Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?
"RAND: Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very—how should I say it?—dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith." -- playboy interview 1964 (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religi...)
http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/...
Regarding context, you seem to imply that I am not taking her thoughts in full context, but if you read the article linked to in the OP of this thread, you would have noticed that I am well aware of the full context of her positions on religion (and particularly Christianity) and that a follow-up blog is already in the works to cover what Rand calls a "great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus".
In you're view, is this abstract thought derived from perceptual concretes?
In my view, this abstract thought is derived from reason, in general (a combination of perceptual concretes and logical deduction).
http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/...
Please be sure to read the comments, as they will likely deal with any objections you may have. However, if you think there is something which has not been covered, I invite you to submit a comment or objection.
"There cannot be an infinite regress of accidental actions. An infinite regress of a series cannot exist because a series must have a beginning in order to exist."
I read the comments, and I don't think you addressed sward of apollo's essential argument against 4 (granted he added non-essentials, which you did address).
Why do you think an infinite regress of a series (or an unbounded series) cannot exist? The number line is abstractly unbounded as the sward of apollo pointed out. Distance in any direction could be physically unbounded.
If an unbounded series exists and is possible, why do you think accidental actions are necessarily bounded? If you think an infinite regress of un-purposeful actions is necessarily bounded, then why do you think an infinite regress of purposeful actions is not bounded? Or do you think both are finite and bounded?
Or to put it in the positive, what's wrong with this logical series:
1. Existence exists, has always existed, and will always exist -- the axiom of existence.
2. The actions of existents and the interactions between existents occur due to the nature of the existents possessing identity -- causality.
3. Existents may or may not act or interact with purpose -- distinction between life and inanimate matter.
4. Since existents have and will always exist, they have and will always act or interact with or without purpose -- integrating 1, 2 and 3.
5. An unbounded set of un-purposeful actions is possible -- conclusion.
The important thing to remember is that we are speaking of a series of inter-connected, real events -- in which every event is contingent upon the event prior to it for its very existence.
The existence of an accidental action is impossible apart from the existence of some prior action. The very nature of accidental action demands a prior action -- whether you are speaking of a singular accidental action, or a *seemingly* infinite number of accidental actions, it does not change the fact that accidental action is impossible apart from some prior action.
Therefore, to speak of a large number of actions (or an "infinite number") is really just to attempt to confuse the subject in order to evade the reality that no accidental action in the universe would exist apart from an original purposeful action.
You say (essentially) it's necessary for purposeful action to cause un-purposeful action, otherwise, the later wouldn't exist. What makes you think that the former coming first is necessary? According to my five steps, no first action of any kind is necessary or possible -- existence is eternal.
The exact reasons I listed above -- which you re-stated quite well:
"it's necessary for purposeful action to cause un-purposeful action, otherwise, the later wouldn't exist."
Yes, "existence is eternal" -- but that does not mean that every existent and every type of action available to all existents is eternal.
"So where do you see an error in my five steps leading to the conclusion that an unbounded set of un-purposeful action is possible?"
The error (or rather evasion) is in 2). Existents have particular types of natures in respect to action (as has been thoroughly covered), and to drop the context of those particular types of natures in a discussion which hinges upon those very natures is evasive.
I am not refusing to think. I happen to simply disagree with you about the nature of actions for reasons I think are valid. I'm looking for the error (the contradiction) if I made one, and I expect that you're doing the same if you made one. We can assist each other in identifying the error. I currently don't see mine, if I made one, and you currently don't see yours, if you made one. This is not evasion. It's a process necessary to correct an error.
Continuing on with the productive side of our discussion. I believe you're making an error of circular reasoning. Essentially, I hear you say purposeful action must come first. Why? Because un-purposeful action requires purposeful actions to initiate it. Why? Because purposeful action must come first. Why? Ect.
So I asked myself if you're not relying on a circular reasoning, then what is it that you observed that breaks this loop? I see you discuss the nature of actions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you essentially generalize that all chains of consequences could be followed back to the purposeful initiation of action. This can be observed by following some un-purposeful actions back to purposeful action, but not all -- some we just don't know. I think that this generalization is invalid because given the data, it's not necessary -- i.e., it's inconclusive. For any generalization to be valid it must be necessary.
So assuming that you think the above generalization is necessary, I asked myself why do you think it? Again correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see you disagreeing with the fact that we can't trace all accidental actions back through history. So then I thought, to force this generalization to be necessary, one could assume a first cause. If there is a first cause, then a first accidental action must be ruled out since an inanimate entity by its nature cannot initiate action. Again correct me if I'm wrong, but I see you imply a first cause by seeking a first action. If I'm correct so far, then I found the error. A first cause or action contradicts the axiom of existence. If the axiom of existence eliminates the possibility of a first action, then the problem of finding a first action and actor disappears.
The axiom of existence eliminates a first cause because existence is eternal, so the stuff that exists is eternal, so their actions are eternal, so there is no first action by definition of them being eternal.
If you think I'm still wrong at this point, the question that remains for me is: Why do you think a first action (regardless of the type of entity that made it) is possible, necessary, and logically consistent with the axiom of existence?
The above has made it clear that you have followed my reasoning rather well -- though not in the way I would put it.
You are correct that I take the 'generalization' to be true based on the (logical) necessity of it. And this is in part due to the idea of a first cause/action.
I think you are mistaken here:
"A first cause or action contradicts the axiom of existence... The axiom of existence eliminates a first cause because existence is eternal, so the stuff that exists is eternal, so their actions are eternal, so there is no first action by definition of them being eternal."
The axiom of existence means that existence, as such, is eternal; that something has always existed. It does not follow that everything which exists is eternal (this is obviously false) or that every action of any existent is eternal (this is also obviously false).
All that can be concluded from the axiom of existence is that there has never been non-existence. It does not say or imply anything about the action(s) of particular existents.
In fact, a bit of a topic changer, but I would challenge the Objectivist here:
You say "existence exists" (i.e. is eternal). I ask "WHICH existent?". ;) But that is more of a beginning to an ontological proof for the existence of God. For now, I'd rather stick to the cosmological -- which I think has been shown to withstand your latest objection of being contrary to the axiom of existence.
It seems the kernel or source of our disagreement is deeper than either of us thought -- let's keep digging.
I understand you to mean that something always existed but not necessarily the things that exist today. Things that exist today were caused by things that existed before, which you say is obviously evident. If the evidence necessitates that this is true then my statement that the stuff that exists is eternal would be false, which seems to be the crux leading to the logical conclusion that there is no first cause/action problem. I think that by removing this crux the first cause/action problem actually vanishes again. The first cause/action problem would be eliminated by this new line of logical thinking: something (not necessarily the same thing) will always exist, so causes/actions would still be eternal since something (again, not necessarily the same thing) that causes and acts will always be there, would it not? If so, there cannot be a first cause problem if something always existed, even if the same things don't always exist -- so long as something exists they act.
I want to challenge this notion: the axiom of existence doesn't mean that the things that exist today necessarily existed prior to today. My logical series in my last post relies on this notion to be false. What is existence as such besides the things that which exist? Without the things that exist, there is nothing that exists and the concept of existence or existence as such is meaningless. Additionally, how do you overcome the seemingly absurd idea that nothing can be caused to be something? If nothing is a zero, then how does anything cause a zero to do anything? What is it that you're causing to act? Within that same vein, how do you turn something into a zero? Where would that something go? You can't interchange a zero with something and here's why. Science has demonstrated a law of nature explaining this relationship between something and a zero: matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed. The matter/energy that exists today has always existed, though it's forms may change. E (energy) cannot and does not equal zero, which would be necessary if you could turn something into nothing; it equals mc^2. The USA has demonstrated this conservation of mass/energy relationship very thoroughly in Japan near the end of WWII with two bombs.
But you say everything that exists is eternal is obviously false. I wonder what observation you see that makes you think that this is obvious, and I thought perhaps you mean something like life. It is true that life exists and is created and destroyed all the time. The life that is you or me may be destroyed under the right conditions and we each may create life under the right conditions. So in a sense, it's true -- everything that exists is not eternal. That was not the sense I meant, however, when I said "the stuff that exists..." I meant all the physical stuff that makes up all the physical entities (living or non-living) is eternal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see you disagreeing with that last statement.
So within that sense of existence, do you still think I made an error in stating that a first cause or action contradicts the axiom of existence... with all the rest that follows (it may require a reread)? If you still do, then I wonder where do you see room for a first cause problem? What did I miss?
The problem is not whether the same things have always existed or whether different things have always been in existence. The problem that you seem to be missing is: the nature of those things. “so long as something exists they act”. But existence does not automatically equal action. As covered in my argument, there are two types of existents in respect to action: those which can only act accidentally, and those which can act purposely. Suppose there are things which can only act accidentally which existed in ‘eternity past’ -- there would have never been any action among them apart from an original purposeful action.
We both agree on the eternality of existence, but that in no way demands the eternality of action -- and it certainly does not demand the eternality of accidental action. That last (eternal accidental action) is a contradiction in terms.
Regarding the rest about matter and energy, it is an interesting discussion, but it does not add anything to the essentials of the philosophical discussion we are having, so I'd rather leave it as it would inevitably become a rabbit trail.
In support of your position I see you essentially say existence exists but may not necessarily be acting and it's quite the (unfounded) leap to suggest that they do necessarily act. (Continuing from you) Nothing supports the idea that the things that exist necessarily act. (From you, in summary) It makes no sense to say that things may exist in the past to eternity and act unless one of those things act first to set it all off.
This is were we meet at our first cause disagreement.
Before I go on to support my position, let me "poke at a holes" that I see, if you don't mind. What caused the first causer? Does it make sense that any cause (purposeful or not) to be isolated from previous causes? Every cause we know of (purposeful or not) is the product of causes as far as we know, is it not? If not, then please give me an example. All the examples I can think of are caused by something, or it's undetermined due to lack of information.
My position is that the things that physically exist necessarily act. To give one example -- and what I believe is a sufficient example to prove this -- the things that physically exist (purposeful or not) are made up of matter/energy. Matter/energy is the un-purposeful cause of gravitational distortions in space in every direction at all distances -- a force that can be observed and measured. You cannot separate physical entities from this act -- it is part of their nature at all times. To conclude that physical things don't necessarily act would require one to separate the thing that exists from its nature.
Do we make progress from here or is the kernel somewhere else?
Now, regarding your suggestion about matter, energy, and gravity. Gravity is the closes example you can come to of accidental action which could seemingly go back to infinity -- but it doesn’t work. Gravity requires at least two bodies to be in certain proximity to each other (with some distance between them), but how did those things get into those positions to begin with? Either they and gravity are all eternal, in which case they never would have been separate, or they arrived there by means of some prior action. So, gravity doesn’t really solve the problem. It still requires prior action -- which must have either been accidental or purposeful. The argument still stands.
"If you think an infinite regress of un-purposeful actions is necessarily bounded, then why do you think an infinite regress of purposeful actions is not bounded?"
It should have read: If you think un-purposeful actions is necessarily bounded, then why do you think purposeful actions is not bounded?
There had to be an original existent which was conscious.
Hebrews 11:1 "Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see."
11:3 "Because of our faith, we know..."
I've read your article in your main post before posting.
Every instance of faith in the Bible is an instance of someone believing something that is true, in the face of irrational temptations to doubt it, because of more rational and more certain reasons to believe it.
"The moral is to the physical as 3 to 1"
- Napoleon Bonaparte.
Let me know if you don't understand my point.
A army that thinks it can win... can win... a army that thinks it can't win... can't, regardless of its relative strength to the enemy.
Likewise, the positive beliefs in some religions, say Christianity, can create a mindset in the believer that will be conducive to success, even in dire straits. Some people find this in Scientology, others in Buddhism.
It's the emotional effect of the belief, the effect on morale, that creates the positive influence.
Or negative, if the chosen religious doctrine is negative...
Also, I'm not just saying that we haven't experienced a causeless cause -- the silent argument. I'm saying every cause we have experienced is caused and an un-caused cause is a contradiction in terms. If true, this is enough to necessitate the generalization: there is no such thing as a un-caused cause. We can honestly say every action we observe is caused -- even if we don't know what caused it. And here's the contradiction... The un-caused cause, if it is to cause anything physically, would need to physically exist to affect physical objects, but then it being physical would itself be subjected to physical causes -- it can't be un-caused. The un-caused cause, if it is not to be caused, would need to be non-physical to escape from being subjected to physical causes, but then it being non-physical wouldn't be able to affect any physical objects -- it can't cause. Any attempts to include a first cause (i.e., an un-caused cause) in the picture would require an entity that apparently exists outside of the law of causality -- i.e., a non-physical entity affecting physical objects, or a physical entity impervious to causality -- and therefore, an entity that exists outside the law of identity. This attempt seems to plant us in the realm of the irrational.
If you agree that an un-caused cause is a contradiction, then how do we remedy the apparently irrational and this: "...or else He wasn’t the original actor, and we must begin the whole process over again until we arrive at an original actor who IS eternal." ? In short, we must accept on rational grounds, with the threat of accepting a contradiction if we don't, that there is no first cause (or un-caused cause).
Unfortunately, parts of your last paragraph didn't make much sense to me.
"Gravity requires at least two bodies..." Check, at least two things that produce gravity exist. Check and check.
"...but how did those things get into those positions to begin with?" This is where you loose me. I'm not sure how this is relevant. We know at least two things exist today, and they must have existed yesterday.
"Either they and gravity are all eternal, in which case they never would have been separate,..." There are other forces at play (i.e., weak and strong nuclear forces) that are just as fundamental to the physical objects as gravity is. These other forces would resist gravitational forces. I only listed one of the forces that's always present to demonstrate that physical entities always act.
Gravity may not solve all problems, but it (and the other forces) solves the problem of figuring out whether or not physical objects always act. They do. They must. If you don't think so, do you mind clarifying why you don't think so? What evidence are you referencing to make your rational judgement?
http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/...