The Patrick Henry University in the book had to have science and engineering and did not have a Christian emphasis. Patrick Henry College has the following majors as copied from their web site: government (American politics and policy, international politics and policy, political theory, or strategic intelligence), journalism, history, literature, or classical liberal arts. What would have Ayn Rand said about this?

Regarding "the price of a ticket is relatively small, so the bet does not break the bank and if somehow you hold the winning ticket the upside is tremendous: Regarding marriage, I have to concur with AJAshinoff. We all take risks every day. If we are willing to accept such risk (and cost), then it is like anything else - a trade. Regarding the lottery, that is a tax on stupidity. One knows exactly what the odds are. The fun thing about life is that we don't what the odds are. Christians think their odds are better than the lottery. They may be in error, or maybe they're not.

Pascal was not hypocritical. He thought he made a trade in his best interest.

The opposite of hypocritical.

Huh?

You assert that faith can be used to justify enforcement of faith upon you, but not reason?

The bloody Reign of Terror following the French Revolution was done in the name of reason, not faith. Planned famines in the Soviet Union and Maoist China were done in the name of reason, not faith. Nazi atrocities against "sub-humans" were done in the name of reason, not faith.

You seem to think that if two individuals are both committed to reason, they must necessarily agree, since reason (according to you) "has only one side." And, of course, if they seriously disagree, it must be because one party or the other was employing something other than reason to arrive at a conclusion.

This is part of why I am preparing a banner proclaiming Florida Tech as today's Patrick Henry University to be used as advertising.

To be fair to Tertullian, what he meant was that the proof of Jesus' significance is partly evidenced by his miracles. It is absurd that any human would be capable of resurrection from the dead, walking on water, etc.. However, if these things did indeed happen, then that does speak to Jesus' authority. The only reasonable responses to Jesus are that he is lord, liar, or lunatic. Objectivists choose the latter. Christians choose the former. Each person must use his/her reasoning to grasp certain realities that are difficult to explain like where we came from. I have met many intellectually rigorous Christians. For them, reason is used to make the connection that the complexity of not only inorganic materials, but particularly living beings, is of an order (as in crystalline order) that is beyond the capacity of anyone to duplicate. Believe me, as a materials engineer, I have tried to so, and while I am good compared to humans, I am not ashamed to say that I can comprehend but not design a system of the kind of complexity that exists here. That is partly why I compare myself to Quentin Daniels.

For the Christian, the theory of evolution, while based in reason, requires even MORE faith than believing in Jesus. If one argues in the big bang theory as explaining evolution, then what or who caused a big bang? Moreover, atheism does require an element of faith. One cannot prove the lack of existence of a creator any easier than the presence of a creator. Atheism is a simpler belief system than belief in a creator. On that point, I think all can agree. Whether there is a creator or not, we as humans are not going to be able to convincingly prove that while we are here on earth.

Indeed, the intellectual activiity in trying to work through religion or objectivism is not wasted. Several of the founders of America were deists for the most part because they went through a similar intellectual exercise. I am not going to argue that America's founders did not belong in the Gulch.

Pascal's Wager does not say one should fake one's belief in God.

In his "Pensees", Pascal does not suggest that one should mouth Christian platitutudes while intellectually doubting the existence of God at the same time. He is not suggesting that one adopt the stance of a hypocrite.

A "non-contradictory life"?

I don't know what that is. Example?

I am not a Christian, but I was at one time a churchgoer, and my understanding of the Scripture is that faith--belief in the absence of evidence or in even in contradiction to reason--is crucial. Who was it who said, "I believe it because it is absurd?" Ahh yes, Tertullian, in De Carne Christi, said "prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est." The translation appearing in Wikipedia is: "it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd".

That said, I recently heard of a study on scientific reasoning that included a number of clergy as a "control group" from whom little valid reasoning could be expected. Lo and behold, the preachers came in as the top reasoners. Perhaps the intellectual activity in trying to work through religion is not wasted.

Which proofs for God's existence can generally be shown to be logically false?

As for claims and evidence that are extraordinary, many people find the claims of Richard Dawkins extraordinary, yet he has never provided extraordinary evidence.

Requirements for extraordinary evidence apply equally, whether the extraordinary claims are made by a mystic or a materialist.

And you get High Tech With a Human Touch, which is a premium product at a somewhat premium price.

Regarding "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", Christians would certainly cite raising other people from the dead, being raised from the dead, walking on water, the number of witnesses to him in resurrected form, etc. as such evidence. The amount of evidence that is out there is not a trivial amount. But it is a valid question as to whether the standard of evidence should be a preponderance of the evidence or undeniable fact. It is a matter of faith to make a step from preponderance of the evidence to undeniable fact. Is that leap worth taking? It certainly is a fair question to ask.

I refer below in essence to Pascal's Wager, albeit not directly. Pascal's Wager does have consequences. If you are a Christian, you must accept his lordship in addition to his salvation if you are going to live a non-contradictory life.

I haven't taken those courses, but I sure have heard enough about them on Mark Levin's program.

Yes, I agree with that.
Reading the comments I think that the statement I most disagree with, is "hedging one's bets.." or something to that degree. I do not see it as rational-more superstitious. it's like buying a lottery ticket. The odds are NOT in their favor, but the price of a ticket is relatively small-so the bet does not break the bank and if somehow you hold the winning ticket the upside is tremendous. There is a cost to suspending one's disbelief, in that if you suspend disbelief and reason for God, why not for other issues and difficult moral dilemmas. Same is true about marriage, IMO, half a commitment is not being authentic to each other. Neither would it be for both parties to "hang on" in the hopes of re-kindling a deeper commitment.

The appeal was the online courses on the Constitution I watched. It sparked a discussion. We have another year before a decision need be made. Its never a bad thing to survey the field before you step foot on it.

My thinking that marriage is two individuals doing what seems best in their own interests. The partnership/merger, as is subscribed to the Rand quote, each individual would have to be in the relationship because that is what creates happiness in their own lives. Up and Downs, I think, are worked through/endured because of the happiness that person either currently creating in OR is remembered to have brought to ones life. Sure, commitment is part of any contract and so is sincerity. Love can be merely a vest interest cultivated over initial infatuation or time, No? :)

Hillsdale is a beautiful place if you can tolerate the cold weather. I tolerated that weather to go another university in Michigan to grad school.

If your daughter is going to a "liberal arts" school, Hillsdale College in Michigan takes no government money whatsoever. It is, however, a Christian school, I think. I am not sure of the denomination. My in-laws used to run Hillsdale Beauty College until selling it (and retiring) a few months ago. If your daughter is considering going to a technical university, you both should contact me. Referrals get the attendee a $1000 discount on tuition. It's expensive compared to a government university, but less than most private schools. The student pays what it actually costs.

" ... and _reason_ as his only absolute."

There are limits, based strictly in reality, on what constitutes reason. If you use reason to understand religion, you will come to a set of conclusions that differ from those you would have found if you used religion to understand reason.

Religion, historically, has often been a precursor for philosophy, and philosophical quest occasionally a precursor to the discovery of reason.

If your understanding of reason is based on faith, then it is to faith you will repair when your reasoning contradicts reality. There are two sides to faith, but only one to reason. I can use my faith (on the one side) to justify my enforcement of faith (the other side) upon you. Not so with reason. As you said, "Objectivism cannot be corporate. It cannot be legislated."

The use of reason is not open to a multi-cultural approach, where I have "male, American logic" and someone else uses "female, Eastern-Mystical" logic. I'm certain that some feminist mystics must have hated Rand for her "betrayal" of their "feminine" logic.

Be careful not to ascribe to Objectivism or to Rand those beliefs of yours that you feel to be the same as hers.

Rand always cautioned people not to accept Objectivism on faith. I observed her application of that principle more than once. I saw her turn on someone who believed that his feeling of agreement with Objectivism gave him permission to violate her rights. "I'LL SUE YOU!" she said. He about fell over.

We now come to the question of belief in God. God is extremely difficult to prove, and requires faith. Proofs for God's existence can generally be shown to be logically false, but of course that does not prove His non-existence. The philosopher Blaise Pascal believed, using the logic of his famous "Pascal's Wager." In essence, he claimed it cost him nothing to believe in a god that might not exist, but that belief would gain him a benefit if there was a God.

Well, not so fast, M. Pascal! If your God does exist, and has the powers normally ascribed, He will KNOW that you are faking your faith, and you'll be on the Express Staircase to the Lower Regions as you cease your last breath.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus far, God has not seen fit to cause me to suspend reason. I'm not holding my breath.

I agree about Charity, it has to be the individuals free choice to do so. That's why taxation for someone else's needs is theft.

Hillsdale College? My daughter and I were just talking about Hillsdale the other day.

Regarding the faith comment, covering oneself in the event that a God does exist is not necessarily a bad thing IF one realizes that one is buying an insurance policy for something that you may or may not be able to ever collect on AND is willing to pay the premiums for that insurance policy. Nonetheless, faith in God is a selfish act.

Religion does validate one's self and is selfish. If one is religious and is willing to accept the consequences, I think that it is possible to live (albeit with difficulty) such a life without contradiction IF one is doing so in gratitude for what amounts to a trade for something that is not tangible. One could go through life living a life of religious gratitude for what they thought was a deal too good to pass up. For objectivists, trades for things that are intangible are difficult to enter into.

Regarding charity, I don't have any problem asking Gulch citizens for charitable donations of used lab equipment under the following stipulations: a) you do it of your own free will, b) that you realize that my university is as close to what Gulch citizens would want in a university other than Hillsdale College, c) traders are preferred (equipment in exchange for materials, chemical, or bioanalytical services rendered), and most importantly, d) you can use the donation to avoid paying taxes to the looters.

If charity makes you feel good about yourself, I think that is perfectly reasonable. All my charitable donations (time, money, equipment) go to individuals or organizations with whom I agree philosophically and can have a personal stake in.