A Christian endorsement of Ayn Rand?
The author is a lawyer and legal professor who maintains his own blog on legal issues. I find his reasoning to be pretty solid in most cases and was gratified to find that while theologically he didn't see eye to eye with Ayn Rand, he could and did appreciate her economic philosophies and endorsed Rand's books as insights into economic matters.
He is right in his implied assertion that Objectivism supports the interpretation he gives, but the overtone is that unless there is a direct connection to the Judeo-Christian teachings there is something lacking. [If I'm wrong here, someone please correct me]
There is nothing lacking in Objectivism. True as with any philosophical system there are areas that need exploration and elucidation but the frame is there. a very sturdy frame. The frame is capable of holding many ideas and thoughts. It is a system whereby individuals, groups and cultures my live, work enjoy life and provide for the needs of the culture without demanding that the individual Creator (e.g. Howard Roark, John Galt etc.) give up his integrity, self-worth, even his humanity I order for the society as a whole prosper.
If you want something, pay for it. Your need does not entitle you to a single thing from anyone. The collective does not override the individual. Perhaps I’m wrong in my read of the article but I did not take it as a ringing endorsement of Ayn Rand or of Objectivism. To me it was almost damning with faint praise. It was as if he were saying “These three are good, but be careful, there are many half-truths and falsehood therein so be very careful when you read and apply what you read.”
Most Christians miss the mark when they don't understand that Jesus's ministry was basically to get the Pharisees and their concrete-bound rules and regulations out of the lives of the Hebrew people and launch them into the realm of the abstract.
If you read of the instances where Jesus remarked at the "faith" of this or that person, He is referring to folks who could abstract and extrapolate meaning from the Torah and from life itself.
When He admonished (in giving) to: "Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.", He is telling the Pharisees and folks who see need amongst the Hebrew people to help one another bear great burdens...not to meet basic needs that you can work toward by yourself. Basically, He is saying "Value the Jewish People because you're all you've got!"
This thought of the "collective" overwriting the will of the individual is more of a construct of the Catholic religion than it is of the teachings of Jesus. In fact, Jesus told His followers: "I came that you might have and own your own life." ...and THAT'S Individualism.
Acceptance of Jesus' lordship is a burden that objectivists will say is an intolerable one. Both real and lukewarm Christians will say that they have gladly bear this burden. To distinguish the real Christians from the lukewarm ones, you can either ask them to take Galt's oath, or you can ask them who is on the throne of their lives. If they have accepted Jesus as lord in addition to savior, then they will unhesitatingly say that Jesus sits on their throne and that he has dominion over their lives. Any Christian who does not respond in this way is unworthy of respect.
REAL Christians are not lukewarm. Revelations 3:15-16 is relevant here. "I know all of your ways. You are neither hot nor cold. How I wish you were either hot or cold! But because you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth." Most churchgoers, regardless of denomination, are lukewarm nowadays, but there are some who are not and are worthy of respect even if you choose to disagree with them.
REAL Christians may engage non-Christians in debates like those here in the Gulch, but will be tolerant of those who make one of the following three possible responses to the Christian message: acceptance, rejection, or a desire to seek more information.
Regarding "so when I talk to any Christian, I have to throw a blanket statement of judgment on them until I get to know them better", this is exactly the correct approach, as khalling notes below.
For centuries the Catholic church agreed with Rozar on "This makes it extremely confusing to people who don't care to read the bible or study it for as long as it takes to gather our own interpretation." Their solution to that was to make themselves sole arbiter on biblical interpretation, which in an era prior to the printing press may have been a reasonable approach at the time that decision was made, but certainly is no longer. That has been a stumbling block for non-Catholic Christians as much as it has been for anyone in the Gulch. If one is to become a Christian, such a decision must be made individually.
To come to any individual decision on any topic, one must inform oneself thoroughly enough that one can objectively come to a conclusion as to how to proceed. This is not to say that such decisions will be ones where we know the outcome. For example, when a business owner decides to expand or shut down his/her business, he/she does so based on a critical analysis of all of the available evidence and judges that the decision that he/she makes is one that he/she can live with (i.e. the risk to reward ratio is sufficiently in one's favor). This is not to say that we will always make right decisions, but only that we are willing to live with the consequences if we are in error.
REAL Christians are worthy of respect even if one disagrees with them. They are living non-contradictory lives. They have simply made a decision that they deem to be in their best interest and are willing to live with the consequences, burdensome as they are.
I have no tolerance for Christians that insist that others must conform to Christian beliefs. I have respect for others liberty such that they are able to make their own decisions regarding complicated issues. So long as they don't impact my liberty, they are free to decide for themselves.
So I don't think the same thing can be said about atheists.
You are however correct that there are mean atheists and nice atheists, and the same can be said about Christians. But Christianity and atheism aren't what makes someone a good guy or a bad guy.
The point I was trying to make, is you don't see bad atheists commit "sins" in the name of atheism.
Kind of makes one wonder why, though, if a dogma is supposed to be clear and precise how it could devolve into the hundreds of individual denominations now in existence...
The de-evolution of Christianity into hundreds of denominations was inevitable once the Catholic church lost control when the printing press was invented and people learned how to read. The Catholic Church has never said that faith should be in the absence of reason. A good summary of the Catholic view of the relationship between faith and reason can be found in St. Augustine's "Confessions".
I don't know much about physics, but I wonder if they could find the exact location of an electron. I wonder if it would change how people live their lives if they did.
One could look at the matter from an Objectivist standpoint, however, as an opportunity for the Market of Ideas to do its work. Those dogmas which espouse unreasonable or paradoxical tenets can be discarded leaving only those with clear and precise tenets standing. I fully support the search for a single life philosophy and believe that the quintessential philosophy should be all-encompassing, logical, and present no inherent contradictions.
I don't know any personally, I know a few from this website.
I don't really care what profits they make, their values are different from mine. What matters is that they respect my rights and they do what makes them happy. That is what a true objectivist is.
Of course I'm going to have to have a discussion with khalling about what makes living life virtuous, but that's another post.
It's faith vs reason, pure and simple.
Being somewhat familiar with this author's writing style and arguments, I'll explain a little bit on his mindset: his starting point is that Christianity was and remains the fundamental belief society started with at Adam and Eve and that all other philosophies are creations of men. You don't have to believe this interpretation, but I say this to point out that you correctly identify an implied assumption of the author. You are obviously free to challenge this assumption.
"To me it was almost damning with faint praise."
Having read many of the author's articles, I will tell you that when he gives praise, it is not mocking or damning. He saves his harsh criticism for liberals/progressives. Is he going to give the ringing, 100% praise Objectivists clamor for? He can not because finds Ayn Rand's atheism at direct odds with his deism. What he says is that one should read to find the parts one can agree with in order to broaden one's horizons. He is focusing on the evil of marxism/communism and points out that even Objectivists agree as to the repressive nature of
these types of societies.
I would take the praise for what it is: a partial endorsement that points out areas where his Christian ideals mesh with those of Objectivism. You aren't going to get 100% endorsement of Objectivism by those who call themselves Christian. But at least the partial endorsement is something politically you can share in common. It's a lot more than you are going to get from the communists or progressives.
I believe that you are being too hard on the authors intention to state that Ms. Rand's philosophy can be conforming with Christian beliefs. I know that as a christian I am a committed fan of Ayn Rand's philosophy. If there is any criticism warranted for Ayn rand, it is that probably as result of her early upbringing under communism she didn't recognize the fact that her philosophy and Christianity are really the same. While Christianity believes that man is his brothers keeper it teaches that man should be willing to help, but only if he believes that doing so is his wish.
Objectivism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive but can coexist in our world and morality, a christian concept plays an important part.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
So you're saying Ayn Rand came up with the perfect philosophy of man?
So what are you going to do with all of us who disagree with this assertion? Re-education camps?
Don't confuse emotions that reflect bad values with emotions that reflect a reaction to bad values.
Does she have any valid observations? Yes, but only when applied to specific sects and therein is the rub. I prefer to deal in principles rather than in religions, because principles are foundational and reasonable.
Every one misspeaks. The true test is whether or not one is willing to acknowledge such and reform their opinions when new information is presented. However, before one can really assert subject-matter knowledge, they must first also acknowledge ignorance. Einstein was a good example of this.
She provides plenty of evidence of the harm religion does to people. She does not have to provide proof there is no God - that is the burden of the believer.
I'll give you a little advice: the people on this forum are unlike the other forums you're probably used to. They don't like name-calling or bloviation. They actually appreciate a solid philosophical discussion and the use of facts to support arguments. Bring those with you in your posts and you'll fit right in. Fail too many times and you will get voted right out of the Gulch.
I was simply implying that if you agree with AR fundamentally, you would not believe. If you don't, then you would not likely consider her a genius since it is her philosophical contributions that made her so.
Are you an altruist or uphold the concept of rational self-interest? It can't be both.
Is reality subjective or objective? It can't be both."
Me: "Again, why? Because AR said so? Does that mean that she was infallible? That would raise her to the status of deity, wouldn't it? And wouldn't that undercut the argument? Trying to follow the rational argument here."
"Infallible" means can't make a mistake. But AR showed that it is certainly possible to hold rational principles without contradiction.
Remember: the burden of proof is yours, not the atheist's.
I'm more than willing to have an open discussion about how Objectivism and Christianity are actually a lot closer than one might think, but it is predicated on the recipient entering the discussion without the prejudices you exhibit. You fall into the same fatal conceit that Rand did - basing all your objections on your own desire for God not to exist - not because reason dictates such.
One cannot prove a negative; I don't need evidence of something non-existent. You have to provide the evidence of a God; and no one has ever been able to do that rationally.
You simply cannot "know better."
That's only one of the areas where Obj. and Christianity are in conflict. And there is no prejudice in saying that: reason shows that.
As I have said, emotions almost always prevent Christians from understanding and accepting Obj. philosophy. They simply do not grasp the fundamentals enough to begin to question their faith.
I think you've got that backwards. In order to be able to prove something does not exist, you first must quantify exactly what it is you are seeking to confirm or deny.
"You have to provide the evidence of a God; and no one has ever been able to do that rationally."
You have already determined in your mind to reject any evidence or concept I would give you. Without an open mind, you are going to do nothing but dismiss what I have to say. I can assure you that everything I know can be arrived at rationally - but you have to make up your mind to entertain the possibility first.
"They simply do not grasp the fundamentals enough to begin to question their faith."
Why should I question my faith when I have personal evidence of its truth? That would be like a judge dismissing the evidence and testimony of the witnesses simply because of the charms of one of the lawyers. And you want me to base my decisions on reason? Or is it really just reason as you define it?
If you want to have a reasoned discussion with me, do so. All I have heard so far are empty claims without merit or foundation. If you want to prove to me that I can't know what I know, please proceed. Any parrot can repeat the same thing over and over again. Are you an independent, thinking, rationale being - or just a parrot?
Semi-off-off-topic. Anybody else notice the seemingly high percentage of Catholics at Fox News?
a) Socialism / Communism appeals to so many people precisely because they don't want to compete and be perceived as doing "better" work than others. Quite often this is because when the comparison is made, their work is not recognized as superior, and that grates on them. It's not fair that others get more because they're better. They don't want the competition element to exist. Its exactly the Maple attitude described in The Trees. Mr Adams well understands the song, but I don't think he perceives it kind of undoes his point about sinful man. If men are all sinful as evidenced by this desire for competition, we wouldn't have so many people loving what communism/socialism promise: reward without consideration of effort, talent, or skill. They'd reject such a system because it wasn't providing the competition they wanted. What do we see today but a clamoring for more socialism?
b) The desire to be good at something is not evil. The desire to do better than what has been done to date is not evil, either. If one seeks ultimate fulfillment in this, it's a rather empty thing. But it is not an evil - I don't think he's got that right at all. Two thoughts from the Bible on this topic:
Eccl 4:4 - I have seen that every labor and every skill which is done is the result of rivalry between a man and his neighbor. This too is vanity and striving after wind.
Prov 22:29 - Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings; He will not stand before obscure men.
As to communism, it isn't the masses who clamor for it. The USSR was evidence of that. Communism, fascism, marxism and their ilk are brought about by the powermongers who deceive the people into enslaving themselves. You will note that in all of the nations that practice this social structure, there is strenuous and overbearing enforcement of the social hierarchy - those in power and those ruled. In terms of lifestyle, there is little real difference in outcome between socialism and feudalism.
"This leads us to the third—and the worst—argument, used by some “conservatives”: the attempt to defend capitalism on the ground of man’s depravity.
This argument runs as follows: since men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient and innately depraved, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility of being a dictator and of ruling everybody else; therefore, a free society is the proper way of life for imperfect creatures. Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.
Dictatorship—this theory asserts—believe it or not, is the result of faith in man and in man’s goodness; if people believed that man is depraved by nature, they would not entrust a dictator with power. This means that a belief in human depravity protects human freedom—that it is wrong to enslave the depraved, but would be right to enslave the virtuous. And more: dictatorships—this theory declares—and all the other disasters of the modern world are man’s punishment for the sin of relying on his intellect and of attempting to improve his life on earth by seeking to devise a perfect political system and to establish a rational society. This means that humility, passivity, lethargic resignation and a belief in Original Sin are the bulwarks of capitalism. One could not go farther than this in historical, political, and psychological ignorance or subversion. This is truly the voice of the Dark Ages rising again—in the midst of our industrial civilization.
The cynical, man-hating advocates of this theory sneer at all ideals, scoff at all human aspirations and deride all attempts to improve men’s existence. “You can’t change human nature,” is their stock answer to the socialists. Thus they concede that socialism is the ideal, but human nature is unworthy of it; after which, they invite men to crusade for capitalism—a crusade one would have to start by spitting in one’s own face. Who will fight and die to defend his status as a miserable sinner? If, as a result of such theories, people become contemptuous of “conservatism,” do not wonder and do not ascribe it to the cleverness of the socialists."-Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Rand
In the 1960's, Nathaniel Branden, a student and associate of Rand's taught a course titled Basic Principles of Objectivism. To answer the question "What is Objectivism" he wrote as follows:
"a. that existence, reality, the external world is what it is, independent of man's consciousness, independent of anyone's knowledge, judgment, beliefs, hopes, wishes, or fears – that facts are facts, that A is A, that things are what they are;
b. that reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provides by man's senses, is fully competent to know the facts of reality;
c. that man's perception of the facts of reality must constitute the basis of his value-judgments, that as reason is his only guide to knowledge, so it is his only guide;
d. that man is an end in himself, not a means to the end of others, he must live for his own sake with the achievement of his rational self-interest as the moral purpose of his life, neither sacrificing himself to others, nor sacrificing others to himself;
e. that no one has the right to seek values from others by the initiation of physical force;
f. that the politico-economic expression of these principles is laissez-capitalism, a system based on the inviolate supremacy of individual rights, in which the exclusive function of government is the protection of rights;
g. that the absence of these principles from men's minds and actions is responsible for the present state of the world." (Any errors in transcription are mine)
As can be seen, Objectivism is an individual-centric philosophy of life. Underlying capitalism is the concept of the individual's right to own property.
Marx and Engels saw history as the endless struggle of classes and all individuals solely in the light of which class they belonged to. They said as much in their Communist Manifesto i.e. "The history of all hitherto existing society [2] is the history of class struggles." and "The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
This last sentence places Capitalism and Socialism as polar opposites not open to comparison.
Lastly, the economic expansion of the U.S. from the 1830's abolition of the Central Bank to the turn of the 20th Century would have had a huge impact on Rand as did the colossal failures of the Socialist states of the 20th Century (USSR, Nazi Germany, Communist China, Cuba, Venezuela, et alia.)
Should you desire to read more of her thoughts, I would suggest Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and The Voice of Reason.
You might also want to try Capital: A Critique of Political Economy by Karl Marx edited by Frederick Engels as a comparison to both Rand and the Austrian School of Economic Thought.
Eloquent, blarman, on the merits of capitalism. I just would prefer that we use the term "free enterprise". Not only is free enterprise a terminology more consistent with Galt, but Marx and Engels used capitalism as a term of derision. This is a great example of how we have become so accustomed to moochers' language that we don't even realize how it has reshaped the debate.
Rand misinterprets fundamental Christian doctrine in her assertion that Christians want a human dictator to rule over them in either case - virtuous or fallen! The Bible is quite clear on this matter with respect to the ordination of kings . The Lord warned Israel about the effects of kings prior to the ordination of Saul. They chose nonetheless to pursue a monarchy. Kings then led to the downfall of Israel as a nation only a few hundred years later.
I will point out, however, that if she is referring to the Christianity that came from the Dark Ages, her criticisms are quite apt. It should be noted, however, that one can not simply lump in ALL Christian sects under one heading, as the doctrines of the various Christian religions differ to such a degree that attempting to categorize them all under the same dogmatic roof leaves much to be desired. From what I have read, it would be more appropriate to substitute Catholicism for Christianity when reading Rand's statements.
If she is attempting to extend the title of "dictator" and apply it to God, then I will grant her her ignorance as a shield for such a proposition. I can only hypothesize that she comes to this conclusion in order to satisfy herself that there is no God such: that if Christians long for a virtuous dictator to rule over them (God), then He would be present in person to do such and that because He is not, there is no God. She mistakenly attributes the human desire for control over others to God in the first place.
Instead, I would posit the situation thus: the reason God does NOT rule personally is because He actually respects and reveres personal choice to the point that He chooses NOT to personally rule and interfere. In fact, it is even quite plausible and reasonable that His respect of personal choice extends to the point of removing our remembrance of anything prior to this life in order not to unnecessarily bias our ability to choose our own path.
My knowledge of the Bible is rusty at best, but don't phrases such as "render unto Caesar" advocate for Kings? and what about God's -well I'll call it weakness-where David is concerned?
The argument regarding virtuous dictators is pointed out many times in the Austrian Economic school's philosophy. Hayek states it boldly, Von Mises more veiled.
Let's see if I can get it straight. They were trying to trap Jesus into saying something against Caesar ("don't pay Roman taxes"), and he turned the tables on them, after he got them to produce a Roman coin suitable for paying the taxes, with *graven images* on it; basically saying that while trying to get him in trouble with Caesar, they were getting themselves into trouble with God. So, give what's due Caesar to Caesar (the tribute, or punishment for not paying it), now give what's due to God to God (rejecting the coins, or punishment for the graven images in their possession).
That's the best I can do. I'm not a Bible scholar.
Btw, while I don't normally recommend Wikipedia entries, you might find this one interesting, especially near the bottom with the quotes from Tolstoy, Thoreau and Gandhi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unt...
Now let's move to the New Testament. Peter, one of Christ's Apostles had been approached by a tax collector. The Romans ruled far and wide and the Roman Emperor had called for a tax - usually a coin from each male. Those who couldn't pay the tax were usually flogged or pressed into service on Roman slave galleys. Christ asks Peter if doing so divides their allegiance. He reasons with Peter that paying one's respects for the laws of the land by paying taxes does not interfere with the worship of God. As such, it would be prudent to pay the tax and then instructs Peter how to miraculously obtain the tax money. The exact quote is "Render unto Caesar the things of Caesar and unto God the things of God."
I'm not familiar with either Hayek or Von Mises' statements in detail, so I'll defer to a more studied commentator.
Blarman said that God actually respects and reveres personal choice. In addition,
although unstated, the reasoning behind the warning about asking for a king (eventually Saul) in the books of Kings and of Chronicles was that the biblical God viewed earthly kings as a burden that would be too much for the Israelites to bear, which indeed proved to be the case.
This is not an advocacy of Kings, quite the opposite. Regardless of whatever bondage or government one might find on earth, there is only one God. To know Him overrides all else.
Things are getting nasty in the gulch.
"Machiavelli's name does not rank in the noble company of scientists. In the common opinion of men, his name itself has become a term of reproach and dishonor...
"Why should this be? If our reference is to the views that Machiavelli in fact held, that he stated plainly, openly, and clearly in his writings, there is in the common opinion no truth at all... It is true that he has taught tyrants, from almost his own days - Thomas Cromwell, for example, the lowborn Chancellor whom Henry VIII brought in to replace Thomas More when More refused to make his conscience a tool of his master's interests, was said to have a copy of Machiavelli always in his pocket; and in our time Mussolini wrote a college thesis on Machiavelli. But knowledge has a disturbing neutrality in this respect. We do not blame the research analyst who has solved the chemical mysteries of a poison because a murderer made use of his treatise...
“We are, I think, and not only from the fate of Machiavelli's reputation, forced to conclude that men do not really want to know about themselves... Perhaps the full disclosure of what we really are and how we act is too violent a medicine.
“In any case, whatever may be the desires of most men, it is most certainly against the interests of the powerful that the truth should be known about political behavior. If the political truths stated by Machiavelli were widely known, the success of tyranny would become much less likely. If men understood as much of the mechanism of rule and privilege as Machiavelli understood, the would no longer be deceived into accepting that rule and privilege, and they would know what steps to take to overcome them.
“Therefore the powerful and their spokesmen – all the 'official' thinkers, the lawyers and philosophers and preachers and demagogues – must defame Machiavelli.
Machiavelli says that rulers lie and break faith; this proves, they say, that he libels human nature. Machiavelli says that ambitious men struggle for power; he is apologizing for the opposition, the enemy, and trying to confuse you about us, who wish to lead you for your own good and welfare. Machiavelli says that you must keep strict watch over officials and subordinate them to the law; he is encouraging subversion and the loss of national unity. Machiavelli says that no man with power is to be trusted; you see that his aim is to smash all your faith and ideals.
Small wonder that the powerful – in public – denounce Machiavelli. The powerful have long practice and much skill in sizing up their opposition. They can recognize an enemy who will never compromise, even when that enemy is so abstract as a body of ideas.”
James Burnham, “The Machiavellians”
(which I believe he wrote in 1943...)
Men with power cannot and should not be trusted with that power. Tell me that Obama is trustworthy.
It's not that man's "depraved". It's that, some men want the unearned, and have no problem with obtaining it at the expense of others. You can call that depraved, you can call that evil... I prefer calling it evolution in action.
And "men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient ". She does fine up to there... but the "depraved" part is her own invention that she sticks in there to make her straw-man argument.
That whole quote is just... gibberish to justify her philosophy and exorcize her demons.
Man IS weak, fallible and non-omniscient. Don't blame God; blame evolution.
If you can't see the significance of Burnham's commentary... I can't help you see it. But if I have to choose between the teachings of Machiavelli and Rand? It's not much of a contest.
Fortunately, I don't have to choose.
The author made no pretense to hide his feelings about Rand's philosophy. He disagrees with atheism. Whether or not he identified the correct reason for man's struggle is a philosophical question which I would submit is completely open for debate. I don't agree with him on it either as a basis for economics, but I think it would be a topic worthy of exploration through reasoned thought.
Make a logical argument for your point of view on "taking the Lord's name in vain"? This is a site based on logic and reason, not rules that Christians hold important.
Many on this site are offended by Christian moral arguments against Objectivism-however, the discussion is free to be made here-as long as things stay in some rational bounds.
I am otherwise enjoying the discussion. It's an excellent post.
If Scott doesn't think that this type of commentary has reached the same level that caused the previous censure, then there is not a common standard being applied.
The example of an Objectivist rationalizing rape of children is completely specious and unfounded. The "colorful" language was meant to chill an manipulate those contributing to the discussion into silence.
Note-this is different than posting about a pervasive, factual situation of child rape, for example, pervasive in the Catholic Church. The culture of priest/child relationship, the covering up by those in authority, is a pervasive problem the church has to deal with. Note that I am not comparing that real and testable problem with Christianity as a whole, but you cannot deny the Catholic Church has a real and unique and evil problem on their hands which is widespread.
You are smart enough to know the culture within which you live. Whether you believe or agree or not is not important, you know that others do. Just as when I lived in Mexico I wouldn't intentionally say or do anything that would embarrass or offend the Mexican people, nor should you or any other member on this site INTENTIONALLY seek to offend other members. That has occurred lately - and not merely by the censured member.
Now, to the assertion that somebody rationalized the rape of children - 1) if that is true, it certainly wasn't me, so why the hell are you using it in any argument to me? 2) How the hell does that have any relevance to rudeness in postings? 3) What the hell do you think I have to do with any priest or bishop committing or covering up such activity? Looking to lay that at the feet of me or any other Catholic is a specious argument at best, and highly offensive.
This is the first posting of yours that has riled me to a point that I would use the now available "Flag" capability. How dare you? You want to say that you use reason and act rationally, but then try to lay that kind of bullshit on me? I'm just as infuriated as anyone about what occurred. The Catholic church has no more a problem in that regard than society as a whole. Go look at the perverts in your school systems. Hell, it seems that there's a new teacher being convicted every week for molesting a child. And how many step-parents have been accused/convicted of molesting children? I still don't condemn all of those people because of some subset that have committed evil.
No way did I sanction such behavior, nor would I.
My analogy, made in poor judgement in hindsight, was based on an episode of "Law and Order SVU" I had witness just a short while earlier, in which a pimp used that same kind of justification for the same (actually worse) behavior.
I'm tiptoeing around it this time. Sdesapio called me on the phone and disingenuously talked me into leaving the message up, to take the heat, then to post another message explaining myself as I explained myself on the phone to him. Instead of stepping in as he claimed he would do, he joined the mob and I ended up censured.
Whereas I could have more easily simply deleted the message had he requested I do so.
please, flag me. sigh. it won't be the first time I've been hauled into the principal's office.
Here's the difference, if you'd calm down. I am speaking about the culture of abuse. You may make the argument about schools and I'll agree. the reason you are hearing about those cases is that they are reported and acted upon. The culture in the Catholic church has been to hide and deflect-to shame those who were abused. Again, I point to control-hence my post on the refugee camps and Muslim abusers of young girls in "grooming." Shame is an important part of this. No shame in Objectivism.
Check your premises.
If you want to lump all those with whom you don't agree into one bucket then you are making an even greater error than those whom you seek to criticize.
As for shame, perhaps Objectivism would benefit from a bit of it. For the shameful way that some of you treat those of us that have different perspectives. I dare say that you receive a better and more accommodating hearing and respect than is given to us.
To your last statement-shame is an emotion which is not productive. I am done on this post.
As to your last statement, shame is often a productive emotion in that it causes inappropriate behavior to not be repeated. That would seem to be a good thing.
Yeah, no atheist / capitalist was *ever* a pedophile, and by embracing Objectivism you can overcome whatever sexual urges you're afflicted with.
The problem in the Catholic Church merely reflects the same problem in society as a whole. A predator can hide behind the philosophy of Objectivism just as readily as he can hide behind the philosophy of Catholicism.
muslims come to mind ?
If you want respect, offer respect. Personally, I disagree that LetsShrug actually took the name of the Lord in vain, since His name isn't "Christ".
Now that I see it's LetsShrug he chastized, I can see why you're suggesting he put up with being offended.
What is the logic and reason behind making certain concepts expressed by certain people in certain ways verboten, but not by members of the oligarchy in other, even more disturbing ways... hmmm?
Acceptable is a difficult word to pinpoint. Like, I think it's acceptable, in the fact that I'm going to have to accept that some people are going to mock my beliefs and there is nothing I can really do to stop them. However I don't condone the mocking and will take steps within my personal boundaries to reduce my contact with it.
I do think that a mention that Rand was not into religion was valid, but did not need repeated emphasis, which did not further the article.
I found his recommendations of the three novels and their value, despite lack of religious content, to be very valuable. I did find the song reference, although interesting, to be a bit off subject - actually leaving me wondering which was the main topic of the article.
Nonetheless, I found the article interesting and with merit.
As to all the snarkie behavior today, that's freedom, I guess. I grew up in dogmatic Catholic school with a non-Catholic dad who turned the air blue during normal conversation. One of the best, most reasoned men I ever knew. He had about the same reaction as below the first time he heard me use one unladylike expression, which I still seldom do, except during Obama speeches. It shows we are all individuals,that's all.
But no one has objectively shown AR to be wrong in this discussion.
I've said this many times. Soon enough we all will know. If you (or AR) is right, what harm did it do you for me to believe? If I'm right, however, where does that leave you?
Since you're relatively new here, I'll leave you this to chew on. Under the Objectivist philosophy what incentive is there for one to respect the liberty of another? The O answer is that it is only by observing another's liberty that I can expect my liberty to be respected. I submit to you historical evidence that that is not the nature of man. So, if one is basing a philosophy on quick-sand, who's philosophy is more flawed?
The incentive is virtue: how can I stand on the principle of rights if I don't respect the rights of others? Man's nature is such that he requires rational actions to survive; rights are rights to such actions.
Where's the quick-sand?
Should you insist on believing this, when the SHTF I hope those that have no moral compunction against the use of force don't know where you live.
And history is only replete with evidence of facts, not faith.
Why would you suggest the use of force - again?
How does so much talk of force and religion even belong in a forum titled "Galt's Gulch?"
As for force, please study history. It is replete with the use of force. I would say that the use of force is inherent in the DNA of man.
The Objectivist philosophy, which you purport to adhere to, requires you to depend on your fellow man not adhering to his nature to use force upon you, based on some "rationality" that that is in his best interest. I say that is not the nature of man, nor is it demonstrated by history as rational. Please go and reason out a rational response to what I have told you. I am open to reason, not to blind adherence to a philosophy so easily refuted.
I never implied "dictate"; I merely asked that you and others look at the context here - AR movie et al.
So you are accepting force? Does the fact that it exists say it must be accepted? It certainly is not inherent - that's absurd.
I expect others not to initiate force because it is not inherent and is not in his best interest. If one does, I expect government to protect my rights - that is govt.'s role.
Of course I accept force - just as I accept gravity. The fact that I'd like to be able to fly around weightless doesn't give me the ability to just will it so. I deal with the world of reality.
What if there is no gov't, or the gov't chooses not to respond to your pleas? And even worse, what if it's the gov't initiating the force?
Do you follow AR blindly? Or do you think for yourself? Your answer will provide me guidance on whether I want to spend anymore time in this interchange.
There is govt. - don't drop context.
Objectivism gives govt. a monopoly on the initiation of force. Govt. misuse of it is a different problem.
Objectivism is a philosophy that is fully rational. What would it mean to follow it blindly if one came to that conclusion on his own?
An objectivist would not likely ask such a question.
I accept reality. That reality is that humans are jealous of one another and that they want to rule over one another. If you refuse to accept those truths, then you are likely to spend your life in servitude.
Ask any entrepreneur about self-sacrifice.
That you think there's no common ground between Objectivism and "religion", lumping all religions together indicates a poor understanding of... pretty much everything.
There are many here that share say 90% of commonality with the views in AS, maybe more since atheism/anti-religion isn't a major theme of AS. And yes, on that portion, both religious and Objectivist share common ground.
whew!
Yes, there is some common ground. But it is not fundamental, and that will always lead to disagreement and conflict.
What I find quite puzzling is that you - a man who decries faith - is trying to tell me - a man of faith - just what faith is and how it works. You are trying to make this into a fight between atheism and Christianity and trying to claim that any belief in God isn't reasonable. You are welcome to your non-belief just as AR was welcome to hers. That being said, you are gravely mistaken on your stance that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. I can tell you without hesitation that there isn't a single principle I believe in that isn't reasonable.
If you don't believe that a person can be reasonable and believe in Christianity, I'd suggest you read C.S. Lewis' "The Problem of Pain". What you might not know is that Lewis was a rigid atheist - before his philosophical reasoning led him to Christianity.
This thread was based on the point that a Christian can agree with AR. I and others have simply been trying to show that there is a necessary limit to that agreement, and partly because of the contradiction between religious faith (not the pseudo-faith you have been talking about) and reason. Of course, I never really expect to convert a Christian because that contradiction is so fundamental and that would require a total re-think of his philosophy.
I'll even go one further and say that I cannot see that Objectivism cannot be used to derive a morality that fits with the actual behavior of humanity. When you rely on others to observe a philosophy in order to maintain your own liberty, when history shows that is not the case, shows that the underpinning of the philosophy is not sound nor rational.
Again, you keep inventing a contradiction that doesn't exist. There is nothing unreasonable about believing in God and I challenge you to back up your claim.
Is a Christian going to agree with Rand's economic principles? Absolutely. Are they going to agree with Rand's atheism? No, of course not. I even point this out in my analysis of the article. But to say that a Christian can't believe in reason is patently absurd.
1. It is always unreasonable to believe in something that is metaphysically and Epistemologically untenable.
2. A Christian cannot be a capitalist; thus he cannot fully agree on economic principles. The moralities are totally different.
3. Yes, a Christian can accept reason in some areas of his life, but clearly not all.
#1. Why is the concept of God untenable? You keep making the claim, yet you have nothing to back it up but your own belief. You would have mankind arise from the void and return to the void. I see an origin that didn't start with birth and doesn't end with death.
#2. BS. Please tell me what about my own faith precludes me from being a capitalist? Am I going to be an Objectivist after Ayn Rand's atheist philosophies? No. But your own ignorance of Christianity is so obvious that it is painful.
3. Again, you are trying to define reason to exclude spirituality for no other reason than you don't want to deal with it. An honest seeker of truth will carefully weigh an argument before coming to judgment. You've just decided that it isn't convenient for you and that by extension it can't be a possibility. That's the definition of bias and prejudice.
Please. Tell me how Christianity is metaphysically untenable. Tell me how I can not be a capitalist. Tell me how I can not be reasonable. So far all I've seen are repeated statements of ignorance and blatant pretense. You present no foundation for your arguments. I expect this from the talking heads in the media, but I have higher expectations here in the Gulch. Either defend your argument or retract it.
2. All religion holds an altruistic morality. If you don't, then you are not truly a C.
3. I deal with reality; you deal with mysticism.
As a student of philosophy, I never decide anything for convenience. In Obj. phil, nothing can be considered real until there is evidence to support it.
You're in the Gulch; but have you actually read Atlas Shrugged? Integrated what AR says?
If you say yes, then you are the one who is dismissing most of her fundamentals for convenience/rationalization.
I have no desire to prove to you that God exists. It's not the way it works and it would be completely pointless. The whole point is to introduce a way of living that leads to greater things. You haven't indicated that you are interested, therefore I'm not going to waste my time telling you what you are missing out on.
2 - You're going to have to define what you mean by altruism, because I've seen it misapplied to Christianity far more than I've seen it correctly used. Rand's use of altruism is mooching - that's not any part of Christianity.
3 - You again circle back around to your claim that I can't prove what I believe in, when you can't substantiate your OWN point and when you aren't even interested in listening to my point of view. Talk about a kangaroo court.
Again, either substantiate your points with logic and reason, or concede that you don't really have a clue what you are talking about.
And yes, I have actually read cover-to-cover and in its entirety "Atlas Shrugged". I can give you both a literary and philosophical critique if you wish. I also own both movies in special edition, as well as having watched several YouTube videos of interviews with Ayn Rand. I have not yet made the time for "The Fountainhead" as I'm currently working on Brandon Sanderson's "Words of Radiance" (a fantasy novel). You?
I haven't been able to determine why the religious would want to find commonality with Objectivism other than they seem to want their religious beliefs recognized as philosophy. They are not.
The success of religious belief is to provide a reason to exist in a slavery condition in order to get immortality and an excuse for not understanding everything that happens in nature and society around you. And in Christianity particularly, to adopt other religious trappings such as a man-god hybrid, celebration of the winter and spring solstice, a fir tree with adornment, a god ordained king to rule you to gain acceptance. Now they want to hitch on to a true philosophy, but not all of it.
Another of my personal favorites is CS Lewis' "The Problem of Pain" where he goes into the origin and meaning of pain and its philosophical meanings.
Okay, there are a few billion Christians of various denominations, then there are about a billion Moslems, then lots of other religions.
So we all reject Objectivism because it has no commonality with our religions beliefs (a specious argument; check your premise).
How long do you think Objectivists will survive, and remain free? Trust me, in my hands even Galt will obey. What "evil" am I prevented from enacting, if I reject Objectivism completely? If there's no commonality, then I believe in slavery, and force as an argument. My first response will be a gun, not my last, and while you few may be able to outdraw me... remember those other billions.
And as the real world isn't AS, you won't be facing straw men, but very bright, dedicated, industrious bad men, who simply reject Objectivism completely.
Still want to play this holier-than-thou game?
Go ahead. piss-off a billion or so of us.
Are you an altruist or uphold the concept of rational self-interest? It can't be both.
Is reality subjective or objective? It can't be both.
All inventors act on faith. They don't know ahead of proving their hypothesis whether or not it will be true. Edison tried hundreds of formulations for the lightbulb before settling on the tungsten filament. His reason and study led him to believe that there was a substance he could excite using electricity to provide light, but he didn't know exactly what it was until he had tried many different formulations. Should he have given up when the first one didn't pan out? Of course not. He continued to believe even despite scores of failures that his idea was sound, and eventually he figured out a solution he was satisfied with and which has been the standby for 100 years.
I would also invite you to read more of the conversation regarding altruism, because (as I have seen) Christianity's version of altruism is no different than Rand's - it is the world's version of government "charity" that encourages the moocher.
Since you are also new to this thread, I will also introduce to you the concept of ignorance as a factor in subjective vs objective thinking. The only way to have 100% objective thinking is to completely understand a given object or topic, so it is literally impossible to be 100% objective in the analysis of anything - there are just too many unknowns. All we can do is attempt to acknowledge and limit or account for these items.
Reason employs logic; it is man's only means of grasping reality and acquiring knowledge.
Faith is blind acceptance based on feelings in the absence of evidence or proof.
Necessarily, blind faith has no foundation.
The "faith" you refer to with inventors is not the faith anyone is talking about.
Altruism is self-sacrifice - the morality of religion. You don't understand AR's objection.
Objective thinking does not require omniscience. Objectivity simply requires adherence to reality and reason and to be consistent with known knowledge.
BTW: being new to this thread does not mean I am new to concepts. I have been an Objectivist for more years than you have likely lived. It behooves you to read and understand AR.
The question is why? There is evidence available to tell us that. Faith is not employed - "faith" of a religious nature that blarman does not want to address.
For whatever reason, definitions continue to be the hill you go to die on. You might want to rethink that Mr. Custer, as the Indians are circling. See (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/f...) I am using definition #1. I also like #6 from the New World definitions. I refuse to limit faith to #4 as you seem to. Those were the most restrictive definitions I could find. Merriam-Webster's were far more accurate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...)
Faith is seeing a door and having enough hope in the future to open it. Faith is deciding that something good can happen to you so you get out of bed in the morning. The only people who are devoid of faith are those who commit suicide because they can see no positive outcome for them in the future. Humanity is replete with faith of many varieties, not just the religious ones.
The concept of blind faith is an oxymoron. Even the #2 definition doesn't go there. It does talk pretty specifically about experiments, however - which non-coincidentally was exactly how I used it - the motivation to test a hypothesis.
"Objective thinking does not require omniscience. Objectivity simply requires adherence to reality and reason and to be consistent with known knowledge."
Agreed. My only point was a reminder that ignorance should never be overlooked or taken out of the picture entirely. That is where arrogance begins and possibilities get discarded not on lack of merit but on prejudice. It is the realization that Objectivism seldom acknowledges its own Achilles' Heel.
If you really want to go into altruism, we've already covered this one ad nauseum in this thread (http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/32...). If you want to go into it again, I'll humor you by repeating the same statements I made there: Christianity doesn't support mooching. It never has and never will.
BTW - no one on this forum cares how old someone is or how long someone claims to have been an Objectivist. Ideas and respectful conversation are the currency here in the Gulch - even in disagreement. You want to give me something to think about, great, do so. But don't disagree just to be disagreeable. Any idiot Progressive or six-year-old can do that. Any my six-year-old has better manners.
You think I don't understand AR's point of view? You're welcome to your misconceptions and welcome to explain to me how you interpret Rand's philosophies. Condescending statements, however, are the desperate ploy of those without enough confidence in their own stance to be able to withstand the heat of others' opinions.
Please understand that I fully support atheists in their right NOT to believe. I support their rights to evangelize (another Christian word) if they so choose. But please don't belittle my intelligence and reason by telling me that my belief is absurd simply because you don't want it to be true. To me, to presume that you can know without a doubt that no God exists without the benefit of personal omniscience strikes me as the kind of hubris a true Objectivist would shun. If the search for truth as advocated by Ayn Rand is the glory of the Objectivist, wouldn't it be a wiser course to acknowledge what one doesn't know in the absence of proof rather than allowing one's prejudices to wall off marvelous possibilities?
Last I checked the Christian church teaching was "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies."
Last time I checked, the Christian church was teaching "Thou Shalt Not Steal."
Even primitive tribes usually had a practical chief, who ran things; and a witch-doctor, kahuna, priest, etc., who handled the mystical/spiritual end of the business.
I might note that my daughter is a pastor in a church in Oregon; I am an atheist. Neither of us tries to sell anything to the other. No force, no fraud. Perfect relationship.
The fact that you derive no value does not mean that there is no value.
And I concede. Churches (religions) are not moochers. They simply commit fraud (IMO, selling a perceived value for my "contribution") What they are selling, i.e., salvation, 72 virgins, everlasting life, forgiveness of sins, etc., is not, IMO, worth suspending rational thought. Except for the periods in history when they initiated physical force and, thus, were "looters," the place of a church (religion) in my life is not worth the return on investment. Those who wish to participate in religion do so, IMO, because they are lacking in internal validation and, thus, as Eric Hoffer says, looking outside themselves for substance, a cause greater than themselves. The "You are a sinner and not worthy and must come to Jesus, Mohammed, et al." is a great scam. Watch Jimmy Swaggert (who, I see, is back on TV). So be it. Again, re Jefferson, if they do not initiate force to take my treasure, okay by me.
Just because you do not identify belief in a deity as rational does not mean that it isn't. I can't comprehend the quark, doesn't mean that it is any less real.
I reject your assertion that the religious lack internal validation. I certainly do not. I live for myself and my family. I live a certain moral code because I believe that there is a greater power that created all of the universe and to whom I will one day need to account for the conduct of my life.
There is a difference in living one's life for another and conducting one's life in a manner that is moral and ethical. That is not really any different whether one is an Objectivist or a deist. The difference is in that the Objectivist relies on everyone else ascribing to the same moral code with no reason to do so.
Those of faith rely on the belief that one will account for one's actions, which goes to support the moral code.
Wikiquote: Faith is confidence or trust in a person, deity, the doctrines or teachings of a religion, or any specifable belief that is not based on proof.
To believe, to have faith in something that is not provable is irrational. Having worked with many true paranoid schizophrenics in my life, I know the power of a belief BUT beliefs are not (but could be) truth; beliefs are not (but could be) fact. If someone gets joy and happiness and fulfillment out of believing, more power to them. Just don't interfere (directly or indirectly) in my life.
I like this thought (I just made it up): God gave me rationale enough to deny his existence. So I do.
And as for "selling guilt" - you are still free to choose to give or not to give. You've been "sold" nothing unless you choose to complete the transaction.
And don't go extrapolating that to taking care of my fellow man, they can take care of themselves. Animals are different.
However, my concern re the late night "guilt sales," is that the ROI is negligible and questionable as to efficacy.
As to humans, some have been taught that the "social safety net" is a good place to live. But, that's another discussion.
As for the efficacy or efficiency of the entity caring for the animals, that just goes to which you might choose to support. But the basic function of caring for unclaimed animals, or for those temporarily lost, is a worthwhile activity, in my opinion. So, whether they use "guilt" or other means to derive their funding is merely a matter of tactics.
I don't endorse that manner, but that in and of itself doesn't make them moochers. Now, if they went and pleaded for tax dollars, that would be different (most of them, at least in our area, do not receive tax funds, they are privately funded).
Then why do you do the same with the Church?
Irrational, illogical.... never said 'stupid'.
This is a site for objectivist... I don't visit religious forums and try to cram objectivism down their throats..why do YOU come in HERE do that? It just seems odd to me and I can't get anybody to answer the question... I keep getting slammed for not having an open mind (um..I opened my mind and starting asking myself hard question about my religious beliefs and THIS is where it took me..) Or I get told how we're all welcome here. I think some are confused by the whole point of the gulch... there was no church and no mention of bible studies going on. It's a good question, I wish someone would answer it rationally.
One of the tenets of Objectivism of which Ms. Rand based the actions of her characters, is atheism. Thus, this aspect of the movies - and characters, and just life in general, is that premise that one must ascribe to atheism to ascribe to the other tenets of AS. I, for one, and seemingly several others, reject that proposition. We only look to present a different viewpoint on why that philosophical standpoint is invalid, from our perspective.
You're free not to read those posts if it offends you so much.
On the other hand, I grew up, and so did you, around family farms where everyone pitched in, and also watched out for one another, especially "the little ones". And in my own case, no government bureaucrat in the history of bureaucracy would ever keep such a weather eye on my health and safety like my own father did while working for him.
What are the most effective systems to pull people into prosperity and pursue virtuous endeavors?
I apologize, I can't go any farther on this discussion, I do not think we are communicating well with one another. See you on another post.
other rights were possible. As for the definition of
'rights' she said: 'Right is a moral concept which
defines and sanctions an individual's freedom to
act in a social context.' (Almost verbatim). How
can you bring plunder and removal of culture -
what culture ? - into this.
We have access to more information individually than the Library of Alexandria, and our ability to coordinate grows virtually weekly (weekly virtually?)
Those of us seeking to change things will go out of our safety zones to find those with common cause in specific areas and help them achieve their goals, rather than letting our differences sabotage our communications.
Reach out and help those with common cause. It doesn't always have to have the "Ayn Rand" brand on it. Go find those commonalities. Share them with us, so we can help as well.
Let's not go down that rabbit hole, hehe
From Rothbard's essay on Myth and Truth About Libertarianism:
"Myth #4: Libertarianism is atheistic and materialist, and neglects the spiritual side of life.
There is no necessary connection between being for or against libertarianism and one's position on religion. It is true that many if not most libertarians at the present time are atheists, but this correlates with the fact that most intellectuals, of most political persuasions, are atheists as well.
There are many libertarians who are theists, Jewish or Christian. Among the classical-liberal forebears of modern libertarianism in a more religious age there were a myriad of Christians: from John Lilburne, Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, and John Locke in the 17th century, down to Cobden and Bright, Frédéric Bastiat and the French laissez-faire liberals, and the great Lord Acton.
"Placing the state in charge of moral principles is equivalent to putting the proverbial fox in charge of the chicken coop."
Libertarians believe that liberty is a natural right embedded in a natural law of what is proper for mankind, in accordance with man's nature. Where this set of natural laws comes from, whether it is purely natural or originated by a creator, is an important ontological question but is irrelevant to social or political philosophy."
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhol...
'deep'. If you read it when very young, try again.
The creeping tyranny of government, in support of "the people," ultimately leads to the people becoming the serfs of the political elite.
(Why would he write a paper comparing Ayn Rand and Salma Hayek?)
I am a Christian myself. And I *also* endorse the economic and political philosophies of Ayn Rand.
The "Christianity" that Ayn Rand condemned was inauthentic. She accepted uncritically the distortion of Christianity, on the part of socialists, as the real thing. Even the explicit rejection of all things religious by Lenin and especially Stalin and Mao did not alert her to that mistake. What she took for Christianity was and is actually Marxism in religious dress.
And she was right to reject the papal encyclical "Populorum Progressio" by Paul VI. She would have done better not to recognize Paul VI as an accredited spokesman for Christ.
I suspect also that her rejection of all things religious was a rejection of what her native Russia had made of Christianity. If she knew anything in her early life about Grigoriy Rasputin, let's just say his mad-monk act didn't help.
But: if anyone here wants to discuss evidence that this earth is not as old as conventional nuclear physics tries to establish, and that an ultra-violent event having only eight human survivors *did* take place, and that about 5300 years ago, I would be glad to share that.
right; it crashed rather early on. (And not in Galt's
Gulch either).
Nuff said.
First off, this particular column was more about Neil Peart than Ayn Rand. He rhapsodizes about Peart's poetry, again and yet again.
-Unfortunately I learned nothing from him about Ayn Rand. I'm always interested in a well-written critique, but I learned no new facts here. He feels that capitalism works because man is a fallen creature.- I don't really understand that, but I could read it again. I don't have the interest, though. What are these economic truths that Rand discovered that he likes? I have no idea.
Be good, children.
"I think you've got that backwards. In order to be able to prove something does not exist, you first must quantify exactly what it is you are seeking to confirm or deny."
You don't get it: you can't prove a negative.
You want a C vs Obj. difference? Definitions! E.g. of what constitutes 'proof'.
And subjectivism vs objectivism.
"You have already determined in your mind to reject any evidence or concept I would give you. Without an open mind, you are going to do nothing but dismiss what I have to say. I can assure you that everything I know can be arrived at rationally - but you have to make up your mind to entertain the possibility first."
Same difference. You entertain a "god", then you "see" evidence others can't see, then you believe. I see no evidence, thus don't entertain.
"Why should I question my faith when I have personal evidence of its truth? That would be like a judge dismissing the evidence and testimony of the witnesses simply because of the charms of one of the lawyers. And you want me to base my decisions on reason? Or is it really just reason as you define it?"
What does "evidence" mean? Your analogy is invalid: in your case, you are using "evidence" that you see and I can't - not evidence.
Conclusion: it is impossible to "have a reasoned conversation with you." So this conversation should terminate.
You are correct in that a negative can't be proven, but I am not asserting a negative. It is your line of reasoning which does so. In so doing, you are violating the fundamental basis of the scientific process of logical inquiry. You should be positing the existence and then looking for confirmation.
"you are using "evidence" that you see and I can't - not evidence."
If I have a telescope and tell you that I can detect a comet out past the rings of Saturn, does your lack of a telescope mean that the comet does not exist? Are you going to deny my observation simply because you don't have your own telescope yet or are you going to ask how to get your own telescope so you can independently confirm my observation? Or you could just complain about your lack of a telescope - I suppose that's another possibility.
The basis of any rational conversation must start with a foundation of possibilities and an exploration of such. The "what if" scenario is the basis for all scientific discovery and all truth. What you should be asking yourself is this: if I am truly looking for truth, why am I so opposed to the exploration of a concept that I can't scientifically prove is impossible? The only answer is because that decision in and of itself is based on emotion rather than logic. It is founded on fear - not reason. When you can come to grips with this reality, you will be able to begin to build your own telescope. Until then, I'll let you go by telling you that the view is fantastic and you really should take a look.
He does not see - nor do most people - that faith completely contradicts the morality supporting Capitalism. Objectivists can welcome his support on other issues, but they can not accept his contradiction and his altruism that continually undercuts Capitalism.