Where do you see the nationalistic tinge in that second point?
Also, it is reasonable to assume, I think, that there are moralities and moralities. I would agree that the one based on a personal philosophy founded in reason and based on natural rights is the best one we discovered thus far. I don't see anybody claiming that the belief in God is the essential part of morality. On the other hand, we cannot deny that many people have been able to find in their belief in God a foundation for their personal philosophy for a morality that I can readily accept in very many situations. It is, I think, a kind of choice that a free society worthy of that name must never deny. Ultimately, morality is just a cognitive guide for our actions. Mistaken choice of morality (or ignorance) is no excuse for misdeeds. Is it?

Not all of them, just the dumb ones. You do much better on other topics. And that I do _not_ agree with many those, either (immigration, e.g.), but I appreciate your depth of thought based on experience on those. Here, well...

You simply refuse to "get it"

Friend, you appear to me to be deluded. No offense..this is coming from a mystic after all.

No disagreements there. The problem that we have here between Christians and Objectivists is that they have different definitions of what constitutes faith. Hebrews 11:1 is probably the best Biblical definition of faith. "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." I am not seeing a lot of reason or rationality there. I'm not saying whether there is a god or not. That definition of faith is not particularly consistent with reason. On the other hand, the rest of Chapters 11 and 12 of Hebrews cites numerous examples from the Old Testament of the entire history of the Jewish people of how their acts of faith were rewarded. That Judaism still exists despite such persecution is remarkable. The "rational" basis that Jews and Christians use is based on quite a bit of historical evidence over a long period of time (millenia).

Regarding the "full article", what is being referred to as a "paper" are technically conference proceedings. That doesn't mean that the talk did not happen. It just means that the only permanent documentation are the conference proceedings. To be fair to Dr. Brat, many talks without conference proceedings are referred to as papers.

Thanks c. Hmmm

And as well they "do not understand the meaning of Ayn Rand 's philosophy. " A is A fred.

My "view of the universe" excludes your irrational mysticism and is therefore rejected, not just "discounted", as not worthy of pursuing in what has become your trolling demanding to be taken seriously. Why are you here at all? What is that attracted you to Atlas Shrugged, or are you at all?

I have seen a lot and looked for a lot, but have not seen anything justifying these wild speculations mischaracterizing an entire movement and which have no more basis than the rest of his theological pronouncements.

His religious speculations were not part of his science. A desire to understand is not theology, even when mixed with it in his mind. He could not have been at the university at all without being a theologian, which was a requirement at the time, but that's not a justification for theological thought, and neither were his occasional theological ruminations attached to his scientific works. Most of Newton's life was devoted to theology .and alchemy, which was in fact a waste of time. If he hadn't created his physics we would not have ever heard of him. Fortunately he, Galileo, Maxwell, and others were able to compartmentalize and pursue objective science apart from their religion. It would have been a lot more efficient if the established Church and the pollution of its ideas had been out of the picture, as the speed of more recent advances in science illustrates. But the history was what it was, and we can be grateful for not just the accomplishments of these giants, but that they were able to do it under the physical and cultural conditions they were in. It would have been impossible for them and everyone around them to make a sudden jump from the medieval world to a culture of dominant individualism and rationality that came gradually over time only ultimately with the Enlightenment. Without such mixed situations heavily weighted against the geniuses who were able to properly motivate themselves at least in isolated bursts, no progress would have been made at all and mankind would still be there in the swamp.

They are not eyewitness accounts. They are myth recorded hundreds of years after Jesus' death.

No. Faith is the opposite of rationality and is not in one's self interest.

He doesn't understand gravity either.

RevJay4: "My faith comes from looking around me every day for 70+ years and seeing wonders I can't explain with science."

Science is not omniscience. There is always more to understand. That is not achieved by a "fallback" position of mysticism as a substitute. It explains nothing.

You are a mystic relying on sacred text and vague "gleanings". The statements about "subtraction" misrepresenting Ayn Rand are your own. Your strained analogies trying to rationalize your arbitrariness have nothing to do with Ayn Rand's principle of omitted measurements in concept formation.

Stop misrepresenting what I said. Your posts are non-responsive and evasive.

He's making it up. It's part of his theology to retain a certain imagery he can't defend.

Please don't feed the troll.

Stop your nonsensical ad hominem strawmen. No one one believes Ayn Rand was infallible and no one except for you has tried to appeal to such a notion. You consistently evade the facts of what Dave Brat has said and the contradictions between your theism and Ayn Rand's philosophy, which you never bother to discuss. There is no such thing as a "theistic" Objectivism.