Would You Move to Galt's Gulch?

Madeleine,

Here is my usual answer to those who are Christians. (I used to be one also.)

When I came out of a very deep personal crisis (please see my "Madalena" and "Lamb" articles for a partial idea), I had to rethink everything. My philosophy was Objectivism, but who ended up providing with the help I needed back then were usually Christians.

I thought it was the least I could do to try to understand the Holy Bible. I started with Jehovah's Witnesses, not because of their doctrine, but because of the seriousness of their study. I thought that from there I could look at the other divisions of Christianity.

For example, it was my Jehovah's Witness friend who gave me the first answer I found credible to how the books were chosen for inclusion in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). He said that they had to fulfill three conditions: (1) they had to be written in the name of Jehovah (God), (2) they had to contain at least one prophesy, and (3) such prophesy or prophesies had to become historical fact.

Based on that definition, which is a wonderful one in my view, I started looking into the historical Jesus. I encountered the work of a very interesting scholar, Earl Doherty. He gives compelling arguments and analyses of historical documents that lead to why an historical Jesus is so hard to document and is probably a myth. He also was friends with a woman who wrote an amazing book called Dare To Think For Yourself: A Journey from Faith to Reason. Her name is Betty J. Brogaard and the book recounts her journey from Christianity to athiesm in plain language and in a very interesting style (her husband continued to be religious, also). You can find it at PublishAmerica. There (and in Mr. Doherty's work), you will find discussions of how the Bible was written and copied, prophesies, faith, doublets (evidencing multiple authors of the same books in the Bible) and a host of other interesting information written from an opposing, but non-hostile, viewpoint.

These are not Objectivist writers, however their emphasis on reason places them squarely within much of the philosophy.

I am not trying to attack your beliefs. However, if they are firm, they need to stand up to serious arguments. I don't know how your time is, but as you are a staunch Christian with an Objectivist leaning, I would love to hear your comments on this.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/07, 5:23pm)

Post 101

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 3:53pm

Peter Reidy,

You write: "For the record, the Garden of Eden story comes from the Old Testament, which both Christians and Jews purport to believe (maybe Moslems, too)."

Actually, the last time most Jews literally believed this was in pre-Talmudic times, more than 2000 years ago. Maimonides wrote that "literalism is the erudition of earthworms," and very few if any Jews were literalists in his day, much less in ours. Even by the most Orthodox Jewish criteria, an Jew who arrives at Atheism by applying his reason to the evidence of his senses is a Kosher Jew - while a believer in an anthropomorphic deity, or indeed the holder of any belief by faith alone, is not.

As for Christians, most of them rejected literalism only in the last century, and still make faith a requirement of membership. But give them time.

Post 102

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 4:39pm

This is true, but you don't have to be a literalist to accept the story's broader point about original sin and the fall from grace, which is what Engle and Rand were talking about.

Peter

Post 103

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 5:14pm

Dean,

No sex without marriage? Ridiculous.
Why is that ridiculous for a Catholic, for instance, who believes sex is more fulfilling by following that discipline? Why do you assume what is ridiculous for you is ridiculous for everyone else?

What is ridiculous about it is the idea that having sex without marriage is "evil".

Ridiculous except that most Christians are not Biblical literalists who believe the world was created in 4004 B.C.

They aren't Christians then. (See below.)

The Romans didn't exist at the time Moses is claimed to have existed (circa 1300 B.C.). They were of no consequence until at least a thousand years later.

Egyptians, woopsie.

Straw men... no, those are actually things written in the bible which I am attacking. I said what I said because Christians make their values the same as a false God's values, because they try to spread false ideas, and because they try to make laws that step on freedoms of life loving rational men.

Andy, I'm not upset that Madeliene finds some kind of value in Objectivism. Instead, I dislike how she believes in a God that doesn't exist-- and if she really is a Christian, then I dislike how she accepts things which are evident to be false as true... especially since they have such a vast impact on a person's values and decisions.

Rich Engle wrote:

You are focusing on a pretty specific segment of Christianity. Basically, you're working off of a Fundamentalist view.

Post 104

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 5:29pm

If a person who claims to be a Christian accepts objective reality, then they are not a Christian, if they do not accept objective reality, then they espouse an evil philosophy. Christianity is an evil philosophy and any definition which defines it in a way that it is not, is not a definition of Christianity. Christianity as it is presented in the Bible and as it can only be defined is not a straw man, but a concrete example of evil. I know here at SOLO we sometimes wish for judging things by 'degrees', but there can be no compromise between evading reality and accepting it.
(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 10/07, 5:47pm)

Post 105

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 8:33pm

Andy,

Your response to Dean's "ridiculous" thread ignored his most compelling points, where were as follows:

That God chose himself being killed as the way to make sins be removable from men: ridiculous. Requiring that you must believe that Jesus was God and died on the cross for you, and that you accept him as a savior, to be saved? Ridiculous. That he gave men that option after 4000 years of not, ridiculous.

Now, if any watered-down, modern-day version of Christianity doesn't accept those tenets, it cannot honestly describe itself as Christianity. It'd be like a Muslim denying that there is no God but Allah, and that Muhammad is his truest prophet.

Post 106

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 8:35pm

Of course there are more evil things than believing evidently false things...

Post 107

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 9:22pm

Dean,

You're being a little facile in your generalizations.

Unitarians and Universalists started out historically as (heretical) Christians, but these days lots of UUs are completely non-Christian, and some are atheistic secular humanists. (As recently as 20 years ago, secular humanists were actually a larger percentage of UUs than they are now. I would like to see the trend reversed.) In UU settings, there is much talk about "the G word" and when it's appropriate to use it.

My wife and I have attended a UU Fellowship pretty regularly for 10 years. We're both atheists, and we don't consider ourselves to be religious in the slightest. (The minister at our UU says "Blessed be" a lot. We don't. But, while we get along with our minister, we didn't think our UU, which functioned for years without one, had any kind of pressing need to hire her. People like us were outvoted by the ex-Christians and some of the New Age types in the fellowship.)

I will confess to getting tired of the UU at times, but when it's working well, it's splendid training in agreeing to disagree. Which, as an academic, I see as a necessary skill in at least some walks of life.

Robert Campbell

Post 108

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 11:19pm

Robert, very true. I knew I shoulda put some kind of qualifier on that statement, or maybe I should have said "Catholic" and "Luthern". What other religions have spawned from Christianity? It would almost be fun to make a tree/chart of it-- or at least I'd be interested in looking at it.

Post 109

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 11:21pm

Dean,

Christian Family Tree

and

Christian Lineage

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 10/07, 11:27pm)

Post 110

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 7:46am

Pete,

Your response to Dean's "ridiculous" thread ignored his most compelling points ...

That's true. I only remarked upon Dean's "ridiculous" points that I could refute in a sentence or two. As for his ridicule of the basic tenets of Christianity, I'm confident I know enough to show how off base he was, but I wasn't interested in playing Christian apologist. It's one thing to argue from one's belief. It's another to do so as a purely rhetorical exercise.

My objective was to tell Dean that he's trotting out nothing but village atheist tripe that no one who's knowledgeable pays any respect to. I think he can do better if he wants to be taken seriously.

Andy

Post 111

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 8:02am

Dean, Jody, and Pete,

I get a kick out of how you theologians have pronounced who's allowed and not allowed to call himself a Christian. It is this sort of foolishness that gives Objectivism a bad rap. And it's just plain nuttiness to pronounce Christian beliefs as evil. I understand that a lot of people find Objectivism as a refuge from religion. If that's your case, I don't mind sharing Miss Rand's philosophy as such a shelter even though that means tripping over your baggage every so often. But there comes a time when you need to stow that baggage. Objectivism, after all, requires objectivity - even about religion.

Andy

Post 112

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 8:18am

Objectivism, after all, requires objectivity - even about religion.

Andy-
Any definition of Christianity (that is not a ridiculous redefining of the term to the point of it being meaningless and deserving of a better word) will entail a belief in God and faith. If you have no problem with the arbitrary or with mystical prounoncements that are contrary to objective reality, then that is fine by me. However, I do have problems with beliefs that are contrary to objective reality and that are contrary to the belief that reason is the only means of ascertaining that reality.

Post 113

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 8:59am

Jody,

If you have no problem with the arbitrary or with mystical prounoncements that are contrary to objective reality, then that is fine by me.

Again I'm not interested in playing the Christian apologist, but before you denounce this or that as arbitrary or mystical it might be worthwhile to understand what it is. A Christian belief in God is a belief in a person who created the universe. As we do know creators exist - human beings are creators par excellance - and we do know that astronomical observations indicate a universe that has evolved over the ages, I don't think you can automatically write off a person's belief that a creator of the universe exists as arbitrary or mystical. You'll need to do better.

However, instead of getting into hoary old arguments over the existence of God, why not make an inquiry into what Christians have concluded from their belief in God as creator? What you will discover is that God is their answer to the question: Why does existence exist? Do you or I as Objectivists think the question is necessary? No we don't. But the mere fact that Christians ask and answer it doesn't make their belief in God arbitrary or mystical - let alone evil.

Andy

Post 114

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 9:35am

Andy,

A Christian belief in God is a belief in a person who created the universe. As we do know creators exist - human beings are creators par excellance - and we do know that astronomical observations indicate a universe that has evolved over the ages, I don't think you can automatically write off a person's belief that a creator of the universe exists as arbitrary or mystical. You'll need to do better.

First, we know human creators exist, but they do so within natural law where God is claimed to exist outside natural law. Second, given the choice between vacuum fluctuation and a being in the sky as the cause of the universe, which one makes more sense: the one that we can test in a lab or the one that we'll only be able to find through faith?

Sarah

Post 115

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 9:36am

Andy-
I think it doesn't lead to constructive discussion to try and blur CHRIST-ianity into a definition of deism. If we are talking about deism it necessarily will be addressed differently. I'm not saying the belief is okay, it is not. It still relies upon a metaphysics based upon arbitrary whim, but at least with deism an individuals epistemology and ethical stances are not predicated upon the fiat of a god as they are in CHRIST-ianity. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I've never heard a mere deist obfuscate the word Christian by calling themselves such.

Post 116

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 10:20am

I get a kick out of how you theologians have pronounced who's allowed and not allowed to call himself a Christian.

I told you my definition of Christianity. I pronounced no such thing. If a person who doesn't meet my definition of Christianity claims to be a Christian, then they are using the word with a different meaning then what I define it as.

And it's just plain nuttiness to pronounce Christian beliefs as evil.

For a person whom cares about their own life, and wants to promote it, it is against their interest to have belief without reason or belief when there is contrary evidence. My definition of "evil" must be with respect to a thing which has values, "evil" means anything which makes it harder for a value holder to achieve their values.

If I used a Christian's definition of "evil" to describe the belief in Christianity, that would be nutty.

Post 117

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 12:17pm

Andy,

In post #91, Dean said:

No sex without marriage? Ridiculous.

You responded:

Why is that ridiculous for a Catholic, for instance, who believes sex is more fulfilling by following that discipline? Why do you assume what is ridiculous for you is ridiculous for everyone else?

Later, in post #113, Jody said:

If you have no problem with the arbitrary or with mystical prounoncements that are contrary to objective reality, then that is fine by me.

You responded:

What you will discover is that God is their [Christians�] answer to the question: Why does existence exist? Do you or I as Objectivists think the question is necessary? No we don't. But the mere fact that Christians ask and answer it doesn't make their belief in God arbitrary or mystical �

In both cases you seem to be arguing that, from the other party�s point of view, what the posters (Dean and Jody) say is wrong. I don�t follow this logic. Dean is stating his opinion about �sex without marriage�; he says that it is ridiculous. That is his opinion, based (I assume) on his objectivist orientation. What is the relevance of the Catholic viewpoint to what Dean says?

Likewise, Jody is saying that, from an objectivist point of view, belief in God is arbitrary and mystical. What is the relevance of the Christian�s viewpoint to what Jody says? The fact that Christians consider God to be the answer to the question of why we exist has no bearing on the objectivist idea that belief in God is arbitrary and mystical. And this is what I take Jody to be supporting.

Thanks,

Glenn

Post 118

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 12:51pm

Well, this is going along nicely. Interesting.

(1) they had to be written in the name of Jehovah (God), (MSK)

Unfortunately, everyone ran to that one. It's like putting out a magazine without being able to verify circulation. Ask any of 'em- they were all working under Orders From The Man<tm> name. Check the comic books, even.

This is true, but you don't have to be a literalist to accept the story's broader point about original sin and the fall from grace, which is what Engle and Rand were talking about. (Peter)

I never dated the woman. What I was getting at is that the actual content of the story is subject to the idea as it is commonly known. Check it out. There are cases where the snake is not being a proponent, for example. It seems the original myth goes more to dealing with the nature of knowledge itself. Or, more specifically, where the intellectual center fits into the whole of what a person is. I'm stretching here, because that's what you do when you look at things like this.

They aren't Christians then. (Dean)

Apparently, you are controlling the universe from your bedroom, which includes licensing authority in this area. Are you not an atheist? Yet, an atheist who determines who is and who is not a Christian. Uh-huh. Any other instructions?

(Edited by Rich Engle on 10/08, 1:01pm)

Post 119

Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 1:00pm