The philosophy of Jesus vs. Ayn Rand: On Wealth
Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 1 month ago to Philosophy
Someone (sorry, I don't remember who) asked that we have more philosophical discussions here, so this is my attempt at doing so. If you're such an avowed atheist such that you cannot have a rational discussion and must resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks, then please stop reading this now and move along. However, if you would like to engage intellectually and rationally in a philosophical discussion, then I welcome your comments.
Oftentimes there are those who claim that religion is evil in that it decries money or the making of money, and claim that the essence of religion (or at least Christianity, but then if it is merely Christianity, what is the objection to other religions?) is altruism. Surely, you are familiar with the "Root of Money" speech by Francisco - I won't quote the entirety here, merely the claim that "Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears..." Which is a clear condemnation of altruism.
Matthew 6:24 states, in part, "You cannot serve God and wealth." Which many atheists take as you cannot be wealthy, thus you must give away your earnings but for a meager pittance to live on - you must be altruistic. I believe that this is a misunderstanding of the teaching about wealth. On the serving two masters - You can serve God which means to live a life of honesty, morality, and goodness; or you can serve money, which means to do whatever it takes to get ahead - lying, thievery, murder, etc. As so many are wont to do with this passage, it does not mean that you must take a vow of poverty or give all but a meager portion to live on to others. It also does not mean that if you have earned great wealth that you have not served God. This is a very simplistic view. In Matthew 19:23 "And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Hard, but not impossible. Hard because in the morality of the day one had to bribe, steal, lie - in essence be totally corrupt - to make much money. That was the culture of the time. If you were an honest person, you would likely be taken advantage of by those who were not. This was merely an acknowledgement of the world as it existed rather than a condemnation of hard work and high morality leading to becoming wealthy. On the contrary, it is likely that this very sentiment is what helped to lead to a less corrupt society and one that values honesty and truth instead of thievery and deceit.
Oftentimes there are those who claim that religion is evil in that it decries money or the making of money, and claim that the essence of religion (or at least Christianity, but then if it is merely Christianity, what is the objection to other religions?) is altruism. Surely, you are familiar with the "Root of Money" speech by Francisco - I won't quote the entirety here, merely the claim that "Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears..." Which is a clear condemnation of altruism.
Matthew 6:24 states, in part, "You cannot serve God and wealth." Which many atheists take as you cannot be wealthy, thus you must give away your earnings but for a meager pittance to live on - you must be altruistic. I believe that this is a misunderstanding of the teaching about wealth. On the serving two masters - You can serve God which means to live a life of honesty, morality, and goodness; or you can serve money, which means to do whatever it takes to get ahead - lying, thievery, murder, etc. As so many are wont to do with this passage, it does not mean that you must take a vow of poverty or give all but a meager portion to live on to others. It also does not mean that if you have earned great wealth that you have not served God. This is a very simplistic view. In Matthew 19:23 "And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Hard, but not impossible. Hard because in the morality of the day one had to bribe, steal, lie - in essence be totally corrupt - to make much money. That was the culture of the time. If you were an honest person, you would likely be taken advantage of by those who were not. This was merely an acknowledgement of the world as it existed rather than a condemnation of hard work and high morality leading to becoming wealthy. On the contrary, it is likely that this very sentiment is what helped to lead to a less corrupt society and one that values honesty and truth instead of thievery and deceit.
I will not comment on Jesus or Rand points of view, but here is my thoughts on wealth.
1) Only an irrational person would make wealth/money their major goal. The reason for pursuing money is to achieve some other goal, such as the ability to eat, the ability to acquire health care, the ability to provide housing and not just for today but the future. Note that wealth/money for many entrepreneurs is the goal of being able to pursue projects that they find fulfilling, e.g., a private spaceship that can take people to the moon, the ability to work on genetic engineering problems to solve cancer (because you are interested in the problem and your ability to solve it and not just on a theoretical level), etc. These entrepreneurs are not pursuing money/wealth they are acquiring the means to take on projects that they find fulfilling. Also for entrepreneurs money is a major and correct measure of whether they are achieving their objectives.
That said higher standards of wealth are correlated with increased happiness, and objective measures of happiness including longer life spans, increased access to education, housing, travel, health care, etc.
2) The purposeful avoidance of acquiring wealth/money is irrational. This is an attempt to avoid the reality that man has physical needs.
3) The pursuit of wealth is rational and moral when it is part of a plan to achieve one’s goals. But everyone has physical needs that require money/wealth so everyone must pursue wealth in a moral manner.
Since the crux of the argument is incompatibility between objectivism and altruism as atheists want to cloak Christianity, perhaps you'd like to weigh in on that as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn26pEDE...
philosophy |fəˈläsəfē| noun
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy.
Religion
Religion is a set of variously organized beliefs about the relationship between natural and supernatural aspects of reality, and the role of humans in this relationship. While religion is difficult to define, one standard model of religion, used in religious studies courses, was proposed by Clifford Geertz, who simply called it a "cultural system" (Clifford Geertz, Religion as a Cultural System, 1973). A critique of Geertz's model by Talal Asad categorized religion as "an anthropological category." (Talal Asad, The Construction of Religion as an Anthropological Category, 1982).
Conflation
Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, seem to be a single identity — the differences appear to become lost. In logic, it is the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts.
Then to include an argument based on interpretations of some selected biblical text stating that if you don't serve god - then "or you can serve money, which means to do whatever it takes to get ahead - lying, thievery, murder, etc." is more than a fallacy - it's ridiculous and it's proselytizing.
By making such comparisons, fallacies, and extremist statements, one has gone far beyond the reaches of Objectivist Philosophy, maybe beyond any philosophy. One may call it philosophy or a philosophical discussion if they wish, but only if talking to themselves. Such word-smithing is at best totally illogical and completely mis-states any Objectivist thinking that I'm aware of.
AR talked about on one hand, the evils of an altruistic society put forth by progressive socialists to a population that gullibly bought off much of their reasoning based on having had a true philosophical education or study, replaced by the precepts of a religion (Christianity) that seemed to glorify such goals in not only the society, but also in the individual.
On the other hand, she talked about a reasoned, rational, and logical approach to an analysis of an entirely separate topic - religion, concerned with man being ruled by a supernatural entity with all right things to come after death in some other supernatural realm - therefor not requiring a self determined philosophy of life and mind.
As a separate issue, she talked of money - a store of value used by people in the interactions of trading and as a store of excess production garnered by individuals producing through the efforts of their own minds pursuing their own happiness. I'm not aware of any Objectivist thinker that would agree to or think rational a statement concerning 'to do whatever it takes to get ahead - lying, thievery, murder, etc.'
I guess, in a more direct answer to your question, what my point about what Christianity has to say about wealth is best answered by Jesus in his statement of 'Give unto Caeser what is Caeser's and give unto God, what is God's'. That's not a religious question, it' a religious dictate that leaves nothing for the individual that has earned the wealth in the first place.
In the second place, I don't accept that one can have a philosophy based on religion, since one has to do with knowledge, reality, and existence and the other has to do with beliefs of the supernatural. How one views things within the context of the supernatural has no philosophic consequence or merit by definition. While one may very well have a wish that his beliefs of the supernatural can be structured in such a way as to be comparable to philosophical study, wishes, beliefs, the supernatural, and superstitions can't be shoehorned into any rigorous philosophy regardless of whether some action derived from either compares to the other. It's an absurdity.
So, your statement is just based on a naïve understanding of scripture and a shallow analysis. You really should take a theology course, perhaps it would bring some light into your understanding of the world. I'm sure that Fr. Nielsen at St. Paul's would be happy to help you find one.
Suffer without complaint in this life, being moral and just as we define it for you, obeying and giving to your earthly ruler what he says is his and obeying and giving to your supernatural ruler what he says is his, and we'll promise you an unimaginably happy and glorious other life in a supernatural realm after your death.
That is indeed a 'really moving passage'.
It actually sounds like practical advice to me. He's saying obey the law, live to fight another day, and live your values. I could see a modern person who thinks income taxes are horrible being asked, "So you're inciting people to evade taxes?" while someone makes a recording for the fed gov't. The tax critic says, "No. While I don't agree with modern tax law, I am not advocating being sneaky and not paying. I see that as cheating because the current law of the land is this is our gov't is funded."
So, you're okay with 3 movies taking liberties with Rand's words 32 years after her death? The dividing line of acceptability is somewhere between 32 years and 300 years?
Different language? Quite probably. I speak American-English. I've listened to a few pentacostals speaking 'tongues' and I can't understand them.
P.S. Please don't try to trap me in the paradox nonsense that if God created all, how did God come into being. God has always existed and will always exist. God is not matter nor energy, so has no physical manifestation in any form that is conceivable to man. Of course, you will then say that since you cannot conceive of it, that you cannot test for it, nor measure it, that it cannot exist. That is the mystery and the glory of God. And of course, you will then decry this merely as mysticism. So be it. That is the refuge of the unbeliever.
I am not Christian, but my reading of the Christian Bible is not that it's opposed to wealth and people trading thing things they create with one another.
1.Money is just a medium of exchange. It's not the same thing as wealth.
2. It says the love of money is root of all evil, not money itself. Loving a medium of exchange does sound unhealthy to me. When Jesus says keep your treasures in heaven rather than on Earth, I don't he's literally saying to give away your wealth. He's saying wealth is less important than your spiritual philosophy. He's not asking people to relinquish their wealth. He's just saying it's not important to his cause.
3. In a pre-industrial society, wealth was highly tied to land. There were many other goods and services. Having enough to eat and very basic shelter was a bigger share of the economy. If someone owned the land, he controlled the wealth, perhaps unfairly. In a post-industrial society, wealth is in services, artistic things like music and movies, and providing and experience. Using land to produce food is a smaller share of the economy. The authors of the Bible couldn't conceive of a world in which you could create value out of thin air by creating software.
I would say that many of the teachings of Jesus about the poor have been misconstrued (mostly intentionally in my opinion) by atheists - AR in particular - as sacrificing yourself for others. I don't think that is the true teaching.
Matthew 19:21-23
21 Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
That passage is often cited as commanding us to eliminate all our worldly possessions giving them to the poor and live a destitute life. That would be a wrong interpretation. Instead, like much of the teaching of Jesus, this is an allegory. It is meant to identify the struggle between the corporeal world (our possessions) and the kingdom of heaven. In order to reach heaven, we must be willing to give up all that we have on earth - not that we have to give it all up, but not hold it so dearly that we wouldn't give it up - and keep the overall priorities aligned. The young man leaves dejected as he now knows that he must view his life differently. It intentionally does not tell us what he ended up doing, merely that he has the struggle between what he should do and what he would prefer to do. One must live one's life justly and morally, treating others with respect and dignity.
One passage that the anti-Christians don't often bring up is Matthew 26:6-11
6 Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,
7 a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head, as he sat at table.
8 But when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste?
9 For this ointment might have been sold for a large sum, and given to the poor."
10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me.
11 For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.
In this passage Jesus is chastising his apostles who think that it would be better to give the proceeds of the scented oil to help the poor (the typical charge of those believing that Jesus was the ultimate altruist). But, Jesus says that there will always be the poor (wise or omniscient?) and what little could be done for them by such an action, while helpful, would be inconsequential - but honoring him (and God in turn) would forever be remembered. That isn't to say that we should ignore the poor, but it was a realization that despite whatever we do, they will always exist. Do what we can to help them but we must also honor God.
Just 2 small examples.
It shows itself throughout all cultures, and within science, and day to day life, coincidence? People who think that man is all there is, imply a generally much larger opinion of themselves, than I'd care to entertain. As far as your question is concerned, I've been the most successful in any enterprise when I was honest, and truthful, yet while I held my ground. Then generally good things would happen, and generally when I least expected it because I was busy pursuing yet another endeavor and staying productive.
Socrates in Apology:
"Good Sir, you are an Athenian, a citizen of the greatest city with the greatest reputation for both wisdom and power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation, and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth or the best possible state of your soul"
Better to lead a life of virtue than pursuing wealth and power .
The concept of Eudaimonia. and living well. pursuing a virtuous life of reasoned activity , engaging in the politic, and pursuing a philosophy of life.
Virgil, just right before the birth of Christ postulates" the greatest wealth is health"
Heraclitus (pre-Socrates):
“No one that encounters prosperity does not also encounter danger" Interestingly, he damns Athenian "enemies" with wishing them wealth. That's pretty interesting
I do a limited amount of what some would consider altruism to help my students at Florida Tech have the equipment in place so that they can become the next generation of Galts. It is partly to further my and their research, as long as I see that research as being in my best interest. The other "benefit" to that charitable giving is that it reduces what I have to feed the federal tax leviathan.
Overall, it is hard but possible, as you say, for a Christian to be financially successful if one views money as a a means to an end.
To further your point, Jesus did say that we would have the poor with us always.
HOWEVER, one cannot be both a strict objectivist and a Christian. Ayn Rand carefully worded the oath to prevent that. A true Christian may be able to say that he/she did not ask Jesus to die for his/her sins, but accept that he did. However, if one accepts that forgiveness for sins, the Christian should NOT be able to say that he/she does not live for God. It is a trade. Christians might be able to say that it is an excellent trade in both parties' long-term interests. The short term cost for Jesus was his crucifixion on the cross, but I think that Jesus would have thought that the salvation of humanity and his glorious resurrection would have been worth that short-term, very high cost. However, there is no way to know definitively what Jesus thought about that part of the deal now.
About a month ago, a number of us had a discussion about Blaise Pascal. Pascal, Newton, and Galileo all exemplified that one could be a man of mathematics and science and yet still be a Christian, even if the church persecuted them for their then controversial beliefs. In many respects, the Catholic Church has had to evolve into a bigger idea of the greatness of God to reflect the amazing degree of order that there is in the universe from the nanoscale all the way to the scale of the cosmos.
IMHO you could devote your life to helping students "altruistically" if you enjoyed it. It's your life. You can make things and trade them with other people. You can be idle and not have much to trade. You can give away your goods and services. It's your life. You can do whatever you want with it.
It is wrong, as many atheists want to charge, that Jesus is the ultimate altruist. Jesus did not sacrifice his being so that all humankind would be saved (that is a misinterpretation of scripture and Christian theology), rather he sacrificed himself in order to provide a gateway for humanity to attain salvation. He sacrificed for himself/God. You might say that it was the ultimate selfish act - providing a gateway for those who choose to take it so that they can become closer to God. He did it for himself, in essence so that his creation could have a pathway home. He also gave us free-will so that we can choose our path independently. It is our choice, not forced on us.
It will be interesting about how the atheists react to the new movie "Heaven is Real." I'm sure it will be that this little boy had been coached or brainwashed, anything but accept that this is a piece of proof that there is an afterlife.