Christian Objectivism?
May 17, 2009 § 38 Comments
Seven or eight years ago I tried to create a “Christian-Objectivist” world-view that rejected Objectivism’s atheism (which I find utterly depressing) but embraced certain Objectivist teachings alluded to in this post. Like many college students, I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, and fell in love with them for a brief time. However, when God through His all-good and life-giving Spirit called me back into the Christian faith, I found that Objectivism and Christianity simply could not be synchronized or reconciled. Ultimately my effort to do so failed for two reasons.
First, man’s place as a “supreme being” in Atlas Shrugged and other books by Rand simply cannot be reconciled with God’s place as the Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe (Genesis 1:1). As man is exalted far above the animals, so is God infinitely exalted above mankind.
Second, Objectivism leaves no place for unmerited acts of kindness in the private sphere. For example, in the Randian view, there is absolutely no rational reason for me to buy you a cup of coffee as an act of goodness. If I buy you a cup of coffee, it is because I expect to receive something in return from you, or to in some other way further my own self-interest.
But people do not always act according to a Randian “rational self-interest.” If they did, then how could one explain Polish Catholics who hid Jews during the Holocaust, often at the cost of their lives? There is no rational self-interest that could have justified hiding Jews during the Holocaust.
You are correct regarding your assertion that Christianity and Objectivism cannot be reconciled. However, I would like to point out the Objectivist viewpoint regarding charity.
Ayn Rand specifically stated in print and in interviews that charity is compatible with the philosophy as long as it is voluntary. What she rejected was that people had a *duty* to give to others since such an ethic is grounded in self-sacrifice (i.e. altruism).
In terms of charity, Rand correctly pointed out, it should be done if the person wanting to give to others WANTS to. And not out of any duty as perscribed in the Bible or by other philsophies (such as socialism).
It is good that you enjoyed Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and there is nothing wrong with you having done so. However, as someone who loves freedom, you need to make the choice between faith and reason.
As a Christian I had contemplated this point numerous times but always erred on the side of faith yet it was not until finally investigating the existence of God that I was contradicting myself.
As revealed by your attempt to reconcile religion with Objectivism, this is the fallacy of religious authors (like Thomas Aquinas) who attempt to reconcile reason with faith.
Ultimately, faith will always be what the religious will embrace despite their rejection of the violent or irrational-ridden parts of the Bible such as in the Book of Leviticus or Jesus’s condemnations of wealth.
Howdy Mike
Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. I agree with a number of things you say above. In fact, I believe that Christ does NOT approve of or condone coerced charity. I wrote a few posts about this (just search for “coerced charity”, there was also one I did about the health care “creed” of the left).
The only thing I would take issue with is the reconciling of reason and faith. I don’t see reason and faith as mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed principles. For me, there is no choice between reason or faith. Rather, I see reason and faith as complementary. I think it was Pope John Paul II who said that reason without faith is hedonism, and faith without reason is extremism. In the Orthodox Liturgy at the consecration of the elements we offer “unto Thee this rational and bloodless worship”. We make reference to a “reasonable faith” in several places throughout the Liturgy.
Obviously there are things that cannot be explained by human reason alone: the Resurrection of Christ for example (someone even once said, “I believe it because it is absurd!”). I don’t look to human reason to explain articles of Christian faith or God’s divine intervention in human affairs. What good is human reason when grappling with concepts like “only begotten of the Father before all worlds,” or “of one essence with the Father”? Reason cannot even begin to comprehend the begotten-ness of Christ or the essence of God Himself.
I think the key to sanity here is to recognize that human reason and science have their limitations, and faith (theology) has its limitations. Just as I don’t look to the Bible to solve a chemistry problem, I don’t look to human reason to discern moral good from evil, or to tell me how to live the Christian life. If you want an example of where reason divorced from God leads, just look at the utter amorality permeating the public university system. If you want an example of God divorced from reason, look at Islamic extremism. Hence, both faith and reason are needed.
The problem I have with Rand is this. If one accepts as I do that faith and reason can be complementary, it’s just not necessary to posit – as Rand does – an absolute rejection of the existence of God, and of anything else that cannot be directly observed by the five senses. In this I even believe Rand to be somewhat contradictory. For example, love cannot be directly “proven” but from her novel “We the Living” it is obvious that Rand believes in love, companionship, and so forth. None of these concepts can be quantified or measured. If we can admit the existence of love, companionship, beauty and so on which are non-quantifiable, then why can we not admit the existence of God Who is also non-quantifiable? Although I’ve read most of Rand’s books, she does not seem to answer this question. I’m still not clear on why she so forcefully insists that God must not exist.
Is she fearful of the moral consequences that could arise from a religious world? People are not basically good (goodness is taught, not innate), and yes it is true that events like the Spanish inquisition did happen and it was awful. But she of all people should know that the number of people murdered by atheistic ideologies (Nazism, Communism, Maoism) during the 20th century, upwards of 120,000,000, easily dwarfs all of those murdered in the name of any religion, even the so-called “religion of peace.” (Islam).
I would also add that if the evil done in the name of religion argues against religion, then the good done in the name of religion must argue in favor of religion, and the goodness and generosity of Christian charities is rarely paralleled anywhere in the secular world, and infrequently in the religious world either.
But thank God for Rand because she so brilliantly exposes forced charity for what it is – it is robbery at the hands of the state. The modern welfare state – which at the point of the gun takes property and wealth from citizen A, not for a tangible public good which benefits everyone, but rather to give it to citizen B for no other reason than citizen B is a member of a specific economic or social class – acts like nothing more than a common thief. Christ never condones stealing, whether it is done by the private individual or by the state. Yes, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” but Caesar himself is never given a license from Christ to steal from one of his subjects and give the booty to another subject.
I wish that Rand wasn’t so strident in her atheism because so much of what she says is relevant and applicable even today, regardless if one believes that God exists or not. But by insisting on atheism, she may drive away people who might otherwise be very sympathetic to her cause.
yet it was not until finally investigating the existence of God that I was contradicting myself.
The existence of God cannot be proven by empirical observation; it is a matter of faith. One cannot prove God exists anymore than one can prove love exists, as I pointed out above. However, arguments can be in support of God’s existence, see this post.
Hi,
I’m a strong Christian who is currently about 1/2 way through a reread of Atlas Shrugged. I too am trying to reconcile what I see as Rand’s truth, with the truth I know in Christ. I’m hoping it is possible for us mere humans, Rand included, to be partially correct.
Here are some of my initial observations;
I find I agree with Rand when she projects objectivism into the morality of corporation, or business ventures. The greatest moral good that an ethical business produces is a profit earned on a great product or service at a reasonable price. Of course, there are secondary benefits, such as employment, or corporate altruism, however they should never jeopardize the former, or all will fail. I’m thinking through the morality of corporations, as opposed to the morality of individuals. While our laws often treat them as equal, corporations are certainly different in many ways. Corporations can be held to ethical, and moral standards, but not the same as individuals.
I can agree that anything which intentionally inhibits the best, most beneficial product from achieving market prominence can be considered a form of evil. I’m specifically thinking about legislation, market coalitions, trade agreements, or outright deception, slander and propaganda.
I am troubled by Ms. Rand’s portrayal of sexuality. For example, Dagny’s relationship with Francisco seems genuine, however, they have both placed their vocations ahead of their humanity and living a “normal” life. When Dagny becomes attracted to Hank, she does not consider his responsibility to his marriage, nor acknowledge her responsibility for respecting his marital promises.
I’ll follow up with more comments over the next few weeks as I delve further.
Thanks for reading my blog and taking the time to respond. In general I’m a free-market exponent and I agree with your sentiments, though I might put some qualifiers around “anything which intentionally prohibits”, and the “greatest moral good an ethical business produces.”
I’ll address the latter first. I’m not convinced that businesses exist to do moral good. Businesses exist to make a profit. So, insofar as morality is concerned, businesses are general amoral. One might argue that, for example, pharmaceuticals achieve moral greatness by making drugs that have given thousands of people a second chance at life. I would respond by asking, would the drug company make the drug if there were no profit? Of course not. So I think we have to be careful not to conflate profits with morals. Profits are “good” in that they allow a business to survive and thrive, but profits are not necessarily “morally good.”
This might sound like a “how many angels dance on the head of a pin” argument, but those who don’t understand that business is in business to make a buck often end up disappointed when business makes a morally questionable decision, or take a political position with which they disagree. More often than not, it is the lack of response by business to a perceived moral outrage (whether it be lack of “social justice” on the left or the trashing of “family values” on the right) that frustrates people.
Your first statement, “anything which intentionally inhibits the best, most beneficial product from achieving market prominence” is somewhat difficult to unpack. “Anything” is a strong word. A product may be the best and be beneficial in some respect but be hazardous in another respect. I do believe that government has a limited role regarding the protection of public safety. That is why I am generally supportive of agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board. Airline travel is a “product”, and an airline might offer the best “product” but then we come to find out that the airline was slipshod on their maintenance, possibly endangering the lives of its passengers and those on the ground. The example I am thinking of is Southwest a few years ago had an issue with potentially cracking fuselages on some of its older Boeing 737s. Now they have repaired the problem since then, and I do believe it is safe to fly on Southwest; it is one of my favorite airlines. But had not government auditors uncovered the problem, we might not have known about it, and public pressure might not have been brought to bear on Southwest to force them to correct the problem.
But having said this I hasten to add that the role of government in the private market ought to be restricted to the protection of public (physical) safety, and precious little else. In fact I cannot think of any reason outside the protection of public safety that the government should be involved in the free market. Indeed, the economic downturn we’ve seen recently was largely brought about by poor lending practices encouraged by government during the Clinton and early Bush years. The government take over of GM, bailout of the banks, takeover of the student loan industry, and now the government take over of health are anathema and would have certainly been deemed so by Rand.
I don’t know enough about Rand’s view of sexuality to really comment, except to say that perhaps her doctrine of “rational egoism” (the good being defined to be what is reasonably in my self-interest) may play a part here. For in rational egoism, no room is left for the consideration of other’s responsibilities, hence, why Dagny does not consider Hank’s marriage. However, I have to confess that this aspect of Rand is not really that interesting to me and so I have not spent a great deal of time thinking about it.
Again, thanks for taking the time to post. If you like my blog, please recommend it to others.
In general, I agree with your assessment; however, allow me to clarify a few points.
About the morality of business… Rand does clarify some principles of morality/ethics for corporations; Such as; Follow through on your commitments/promises and hold others equally accountable, do not build your business by tearing down others, respect your competition as something that makes you stronger, don’t rely on hand outs or favors, etc.
What I’m thinking in regards to Christianity is that we are servants of our creator, and so we are answerable to our Father in heaven. Our mission on earth is to build his kingdom, and not our own. In this regard, yes, a business is amoral, lacks a soul, and is not necessarily committed to kingdom work, unless it’s owner so directs.
Perhaps you are familiar with the Minnesota principles?
Proposition #1: Business activities must be characterized by fairness. We understand fairness to include equitable treatment and equality of opportunity for all participants in the marketplace
Proposition #2: Business activities must be characterized by honesty. We understand honesty to include candor, truthfulness and promise-keeping.
Proposition #3: Business activities must be characterized by respect for human dignity. We understand this to mean that business activities should show a special concern for the less powerful and the disadvantaged.
Proposition #4: Business activities must be characterized by respect for the environment. We understand this to mean that business activities should promote sustainable development and prevent environmental degradation and waste of resources.
These might be taken directly from the failing and corrupt friends of Jim Taggert himself. I believe the Minnesota principles use some progressively loaded words, and smack of language used by the moochers and looters to inhibit productivity.
In other areas, I’m not entirely on board with you. For example, why does the Federal government need to run the National Transportation Safety Board? If it did not exist, do you think that transportation would become less safe? If it is a necessary industry watch dog, then wouldn’t industry create it and fund it? If we unburdened industry from all the federal safety rules, I doubt they would risk having many crashes and souring the public on travel safety. I’ve had the good fortune of working with some companies with their own private jets. The difference between private and public air travel is vast. I believe the current system actually makes travel less safe by crowding people and cargo onto fewer over worked massive transports. It creates select public congregation points which become focal points for terrorists, and are easily infiltrated by them. Where the solution is to further rob us of our rights of privacy and dignity by subjecting the entirety of passengers to full body scans or searches to ensure the safety of us all.
I believe it is another of those “for the public good” agencies that was formed after a series of horrible anecdotes with disregard for circumstances or statistics. Was transportation horribly unsafe before the NTSB existed (1967)? Or, for that matter, go back to 1926, and see how the CAA has stifled private aviation. In those days, visionaries saw each of us one day with a private plane in our garages, and now that kind of freedom is unthinkable.
About the morality of business…etc.
Of course it is true that if a business does not do these things they will quickly find themselves out of business. I struggle with what you are saying because although I believe that profit is in general a good thing (it is obviously better to show a profit than not to show a profit), is the [moral] good is tainted by profit? To put it another way, suppose we found out tomorrow that Mother Teresa were getting paid six figures to take care of India’s poor, would our opinion of the moral greatness of Mother Teresa change at all?
What I’m thinking in regards to Christianity is that we are servants of our creator, and so we are answerable to our Father in heaven. Our mission on earth is to build his kingdom, and not our own. In this regard, yes, a business is amoral, lacks a soul, and is not necessarily committed to kingdom work, unless it’s owner so directs.
I want to be cautious here. I don’t believe we are called to set up God’s Kingdom here on earth. We are called to be partakers of the Divine nature, to be conformed by His grace to Christ’s image and likeness through study, meditation, prayer, and good works. But an effort to set up God’s Kingdom (i.e. a heaven, a utopia) on earth? If you look at history, everyone who has ever tried to create God’s Kingdom here on earth ends up creating a hell instead.
I believe the Minnesota principles use some progressively loaded words, and smack of language used by the moochers and looters to inhibit productivity.
Yes, you are correct. The “Minnesota Principles” are simply leftist statements cloaked as business-friendly rhetoric. The existence of the principles imply an enforcing agent, and who is that to be? Government? God forbid.
We understand this to mean that business activities should show a special concern for the less powerful and the disadvantaged.
What does this mean? Honestly I am so tired hearing others preach to me about taking care of the so-called less powerful and disadvantaged when they themselves do not lift a finger to do anything about it. 47% of Americans pay no taxes. 60% receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. 10% of income earners pay 70% of the taxes. So you have the majority of the population who have no “skin in the game” telling the minority of the population, “here’s what we’re going to do with your hard-earned money.” It’s disgusting. If that’s not an affront to human dignity – the bald-faced violation of private property, I don’t know what is.
or example, why does the Federal government need to run the National Transportation Safety Board? If it did not exist, do you think that transportation would become less safe? If it is a necessary industry watch dog, then wouldn’t industry create it and fund it?
Well, I don’t know that the feds need to run the NTSB. I suppose it could be run by a private party. The only advantage I have seen with having government do it is that there is impartiality where there might not be in the private sector. For example, let’s say a Boeing jetliner crashes and in the post-mortem it’s found that Boeing was negligent with this or that engine part. So Boeing goes to the private sector NTSB and pays them hush money not to put that in their final report. I think that would be a lot harder to pull off with a gov’t-run NTSB, because the NTSB by the nature of its work is not a political agency. They investigate crashes. They are not beholden to any other body or agency, the airlines, the FAA, pilot’s unions, etc. Now I will grant you that this doesn’t work in the case of most government agencies. E.g. the FDA has become overly political because of the enormous amount of red tape in getting new drugs to market, and I would like to see the FDA privatized, or done away with.
Does the NTSB make us more safe? Absolutely. There is no question that post-mortem analysis of airplane crashes and incidents have made the skies more friendly. Would a private NTSB make us less safe than the current public one? It seems to be a matter of conjecture.
Why doesn’t industry create and fund the NTSB? Because it is pure overhead. It isn’t directly tied to profit. Remember businesses don’t do what is right, they do what is profitable. Most of the time those two coincide, but sometimes they don’t. If every recommendation of the NTSB were implemented your airline ticket would cost $3,000 instead of $300. The airlines look at the various recommendations and decide what is necessary AND cost-effective from a safety standpoint, then implement that. Of course, sometimes Congress will step in, rightly or wrongly, and require airlines to implement this or that recommendation (for example, all of the post-9/11 requirements).
I’ve had the good fortune of working with some companies with their own private jets. The difference between private and public air travel is vast. I believe the current system actually makes travel less safe by crowding people and cargo onto fewer over worked massive transports.
Just curious what you do? Are you an corporate pilot? An aircraft mechanic? Yes, of course there are vast differences in public versus private jet travel. But look at the enormous differences in cost. Private jets run thousands of dollars per flight hour, yet I can fly in relative comfort on a jetliner for hours at a time for under $500. Now I could have paid $10,000 for that same trip through ExecJets or NetJets or whatever, but most people, including me, don’t have the money for private jet travel. So yes, I absolutely acknowledge your points here, but they are risks I’m willing to take because I need to fly in order to do things. Having said this, it is a dangerous world out there and I try to minimize the number of times that I fly to minimize the personal risk. I usually fly once or perhaps twice a year.
Where the solution is to further rob us of our rights of privacy and dignity by subjecting the entirety of passengers to full body scans or searches to ensure the safety of us all.
Read this and let me know what you think.
I believe it is another of those “for the public good” agencies that was formed after a series of horrible anecdotes with disregard for circumstances or statistics. Was transportation horribly unsafe before the NTSB existed (1967)? Or, for that matter, go back to 1926, and see how the CAA has stifled private aviation. In those days, visionaries saw each of us one day with a private plane in our garages, and now that kind of freedom is unthinkable.
Well, the “private plane in the garage” vision failed not because of the FAA but rather because the visionaries in question vastly oversimplified what it takes to have a functioning, controlled airspace so that you don’t have planes falling out of the sky willy-nilly. They also overlooked the skill it takes to handle an aircraft. I’m not sure that I want a “plane in every garage”… think about it. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if the tens of millions of people who drive a car flew a “car-plane” instead? Look at NY city traffic at rush hour and make it three dimensions. Oh wait, we already have! It’s called JFK/La Guardia airspace! :-)
You asked, “I struggle with what you are saying because although I believe that profit is in general a good thing (it is obviously better to show a profit than not to show a profit), is the [moral] good is tainted by profit?”
No, I don’t think so. Profit is just the difference between what it cost to produce a good or service and what someone was willing to pay for it. But, if you worship money, or put profit above morality, then it would most likely be turned immoral. Often, in discussing philosophy with scientists, I revert to a method of NOMA (Non-overlapping magisteria) to explain how a self proclaimed rational person can still be impacted by beauty, love, or spirituality. I’ve been thinking in the terms of morality of corporations, as opposed to people, it may also be useful to describe the magisteria of Capitalism (e.g. Og Mandino’s book, The Greatest Salesman in the World, a book that my grandmother gave me which greatly impressed my sense of corporate purpose).
Namely, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men” – Colossians 3:23
As for Mother Teresa, and her altruism… We don’t necessarily consider all doctors or nurses money grubbing Scrooges. There is an air of sacrifice in many professions, and some are quite profitable.
You said, “I don’t believe we are called to set up God’s Kingdom here on earth. We are called to be partakers of the Divine nature, to be conformed by His grace to Christ’s image and likeness through study, meditation, prayer, and good works. But an effort to set up God’s Kingdom (i.e. a heaven, a utopia) on earth? If you look at history, everyone who has ever tried to create God’s Kingdom here on earth ends up creating a hell instead.”
I really didn’t mean that we should attempt to establish Heaven on Earth. No, I meant that we are all called. If we listen to that calling, we are serving God’s purpose. We are called, according to Paul, to amass our riches in the next life. As for this world, according to Philippians 4:11 “I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therein to be content” Which I believe means that we should be thankful for what is morally set before us whether it be feast or famine. An example; When I was in college, I met an old woman near where I lived who needed her garage re-roofed. I offered to do it just to help her out. I never expected payment, and I was thankful for her bringing me lemonade and cookies once in a while as I worked. When I was finished with the roofing, she out of the blue, gave me an old truck as well that she didn’t want anymore. I was grateful for the transportation it afforded, but I did not seek it or expect it.
In general then, I believe that our work, efforts, and investments, should be focused on building God’s kingdom in heaven, rather than our own kingdom on Earth. While we should not covet Earthly things, we do live on Earth and should be content with the lot we are given. I do believe though, that hard work results in building wealth. What we decide to to with that wealth is a measure of our character and morality. How often do we sate our own earthly desires, rather than praying, and thinking of a purpose that will glorify the Lord, and the source of all our good fortunes.
One comment about the NTSB. Public aviation thrived for decades without them.
You said, “Read this and let me know what you think.”
I say it is par for the course. I think it is just another step toward anarchy. Not the sense of mindless chaos, but in the sense that laws are passed and arbitrarily enforced depending on circumstance. It is another step into the tyranny of law, and our emerging police state. We can measure the loss of our freedoms now in the size of the stacks of paper of bills that are too big for our representatives to read before they sign them into law. Even our lawmakers are clueless about the laws they themselves have passed and voted yea on. Our courts have become the marketplaces where the Floyd Ferris’ negotiate the fines we pay for breaking their growing litany of laws. Another feature of the internet is the ease at which due process can now transform the storm of misdemeanors into ready cash for the government. Sure, we try to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…”, but I’m not really sure I know all the laws anymore. What days can I water my lawn, with my own water?
You said, “Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if the tens of millions of people who drive a car flew a “car-plane” instead?”
Actually yes. I am not a pilot, but many of my friends are pilots. I’m not an aircraft mechanic, but I am an engineer, and my father was an aircraft mechanic as well as a mechanic for most anything with an engine. I was specifically thinking about the Benson or Wallis autogyro, and I think you are right that in some congested metropolitan areas it might get too crowded. But, as it stands now, flying is pretty much outlawed except in some very tightly controlled manner (which drives the costs beyond most peoples capability to afford it). I see the “safety” stuff as just easier to get a consensus to outlaw, such as forcing motorcyclists to wear helmets, everyone to wear seat belts, and anything you want to name to ensure the safety of children. It’s common sense to ensure your own safety or your families, so why not let the government outlaw the lack of common sense. We let is slide, because who could argue against it? Well, I can. What I oppose is the extreme cost to enforce it entirely, and the resultant arbitrary enforcement (e.g. anarchy of law). I just don’t think it is possible to print enough laws to keep all people who lack common sense from hurting themselves. Remember those chemistry sets we had when we were kids? They don’t allow children to experiment with chemistry anymore.
Of course, we’ve moved beyond common sense now to the willful danger of refusing to own health insurance. After all, it’s for our own good. Right?
Back to flying; It seems odd to me that we accept wholeheartedly the danger of hurtling in a car at speeds that ensure serious injury or death should someone, or something mess up. But, when it comes to flying, we are taught that it is dangerous even though the chances of dying on any flight is 52.6 million:1. The average person who flies often (like a pilot) has a 1 in 11 million chance of dying in a crash during their lifetime, while a car driver has a one in 100 chance of dying in a crash.
I think the fundamentals of Objectivism are compatible with Christianity. (Rand’s atheism seems to be not fundamental to the philosophy but an additional, unnecessary premise.)
As for your two objections:
1) The first one seems to be identical to the issue that Rand was an atheist. Of course she was a humanist. What else could one be, given Objectivism + atheism? I think she was right in her high view of Man. She just couldn’t see that there was something even higher.
2) Your second objection seems to be to be a misunderstanding. In The Fountainhead, for example, Howard Roark at one point begins to support someone else, paying all the other guy’s living expenses. (And not as an employee. Not in exchange for any material goods or services.) And yet Roark explains that he is selfish in doing so.
Rand explains that even risking your life fighting for loved ones is not a sacrifice–not selfless.
Rational self-interest reasons for protecting Jews? I’m sure we can think of some possibilities:
- Knowing would would not be able to live with yourself if you didn’t.
- Regarding the state of your own soul, it is a gain. (You are a better person, improved character, treasure in heaven. Virtue is in your rational self interest.)
- Upholding your principles, not letting the evil men (the Nazis) win.
- Because these people you are protecting add value to this world, which we would lose if they were murdered. This is similar to Roark’s reason, to keep Mallory away from the looters.
“Businesses exist to make a profit. So, insofar as morality is concerned, businesses are general amoral.”
It seems to me that in trying to discredit Ms. Rand’s philosophy, you failed to see what she was really trying to get across. Her philosophy is not about smashing God or other human beings, but about lifting the human spirit and ending the idea that living for others is the only way to be a good and moral person. You make two points in your original post:
One, she raises humans above God and makes them the supreme beings of the universe. Consider for a moment, however, that she was atheist. There was nothing above man in her mind. Had she been a religious person at all, this idea probably would not have been the case. That being said, in today’s society, there seems to be a push towards ‘shame.’ People everywhere are told that humans are loathsome creatures set on destroying this earth and engaging in so much sin that they are forced to crawl back to a disappointed God and beg over and over again for forgiveness. Do you really think this is what God intended when he created man? We were made in His image, and while this image was obviously tainted by the fall, that does not mean there is no holiness left in us. We are by far God’s greatest creation. Look at what he has let us accomplish. That is what Rand is trying to show us. Humans are not deplorable creatures. God is proud of us. And yes, we make mistakes, but that does not discount the fact that he made us unique, set apart from all other animals. He gave us a brain and resources and the knowledge to use it to do what He does best: create. That is Rand’s view of man. She sees the possibility for greatness where everyone else sees death and destruction. Which do you think God intended? Second Timothy 2:15 says “Do your best to present yourself to God as one APPROVED, a worker who DOES NOT NEED TO BE ASHAMED and who correctly handles the word of truth.” Christians realize that this greatness was given to them by God. That is the only part Rand did not see.
Two, you say that Rand doesn’t leave room for charity, but that is no where close to what she meant. What she disagreed with was the insincere dutiful giving. The Bible is full of this very idea. From the very beginning, God tells his people that He does not want a dutiful sacrifice, but sacrifice out of love. Romans 12:9 says ‘love must be sincere.’ You can clearly see the reverse of this idea in Rand’s books. Katie in The Fountainhead is worn thin and loses all her spark because she is working for the poor not because it makes her happy or because she feels any purpose or meaning behind what she does, but because she wants to “be a good person.” No one should be expected to give of themselves so heartlessly. Love should be selfish. In one of her interviews, Rand provided an excellent example. What if a husband told his wife that he had purely married her for her sake; that he gained nothing from it and had no self-interest in the matter at all? How is that love? Giving of oneself to simply give and show off to others was what Rand was against, not the idea of sacrifice, so long as the sacrifice was made out of love. Sincerity is the key.
Aside from her atheist views, I believe it is completely possible to merge Christian views and those of Objectivism. Consider the major ideas of her philosophy:
1. Objective Reality-we live in a world that exists outside of our minds. This Christians can easily accept. We know that God created our world and humans and intended everything to work and move and live together.
2. Reason-man’s only way of acquiring knowledge. This, I believe, can be agreed with as well. God provided us with logical brains and the capacity to use reason and logic to uncover facts about our world. This idea is not something to shrink from. Christians are allowed to use reason too. For example, I pray about something I’m upset about. I ask God to help me forgive the person who has wronged me. Gradually I notice a change in my heart and in time am able to move past whatever offence that person has committed and forgive it. I will use my God-given reason to deduce that God was with me during my trial, holding me up and seeing me through. Others may use their own reason and see something different, but that doesn’t change the reality. I also want to add that because God has given us such wonderful brains with such a capacity for knowledge, that Christians should not be as threatened by science as they are. Science is God’s too. But that is a topic for another time entirely.
3. Free Will-a person’s ability to make choices, either good or bad. I think this idea is agreed on in most facets of Christianity. The philosophy goes on to say that at the end of our life, we cannot blame our final place on anything but ourself. The person we are on our death bed is not a result of fate or our genes or our environment or even God. He didn’t force us into anything. The choices we’ve made are ours, and we need to accept the consequences for our actions. Of course, God does have a purpose for each of us, and those who try to live for him and follow his will will discover this purpose, but he does not force us into submission.
4.Self-interest-the doctrine of selfishness. This is where we begin to run into problems. Should humans live for themselves? The popular New Testament phrase says “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Does this not imply that a man is also instructed to love himself? Take it from another perspective. If a man does not love himself at all and is told here to show love equal to his self-love to his neighbors, how much love will he pour out? He will love no one, but will go through the motions he thinks are right and good to gain entrance into heaven. A person must learn how to have inner happiness and at least like themselves before they can give that happiness to others. This idea is similar to taking the plank out of your own eye before removing the speck from another’s eye. Rand is also very against the idea of altruism. But what is altruism really? It is a person’s desire to help those in need because doing so is good and moral. But doesn’t this idea also require there to be people in need. How can a person be altruistic if there are no poor, no widows, no orphans. This idea needs some people to be destitute. Was this God’s intention?
5. Laissez-faire economy-a pure capitalist society without any government intervention, either on behalf of businesses or their employees. This is mainly against socialism or communism. God may have intended everyone to live in a socialistic society, but there is so much corruption in this world that unless every member of the society has a very strong faith in God, it will not work. People need the motivation of success to drive them. If everyone is treated as equals, especially if the gifted are treated no better than the not so gifted, there will be no incentive to work. If I get paid the same amount of money for doing poor work as I do for working hard, unless I am an exceptional human being, I will do mediocre work. Socialism is a beautiful idea that will work when we live God, but to think for a moment that it will lead to any sort of utopia here on earth is naivety.
I tried to explain my views to the best of my ability. I can only hope that I have done Ayn Rand justice.
Howdy Nicole – you’ve said a lot there, so I need to take some time to read and digest it, and then I’ll comment. Thanks for taking the time to write such a long, detailed post. If you like my blog, please recommend it to others. -TPK
It seems to me that in trying to discredit Ms. Rand’s philosophy, you failed to see what she was really trying to get across. Her philosophy is not about smashing God or other human beings, but about lifting the human spirit and ending the idea that living for others is the only way to be a good and moral person.
This may be true but Rand does make it quite clear that she has no use for God whatsoever. The Objectivist believes in objective, observable reality. There is no room for faith – that is, believing what cannot be seen.
One, she raises humans above God and makes them the supreme beings of the universe. Consider for a moment, however, that she was atheist. There was nothing above man in her mind. Had she been a religious person at all, this idea probably would not have been the case.
Well, yes, this makes sense. But it seems rather obvious.
That being said, in today’s society, there seems to be a push towards ‘shame.’ People everywhere are told that humans are loathsome creatures set on destroying this earth and engaging in so much sin that they are forced to crawl back to a disappointed God and beg over and over again for forgiveness. Do you really think this is what God intended when he created man? We were made in His image, and while this image was obviously tainted by the fall, that does not mean there is no holiness left in us.
You’re on the right track here. God was certainly disappointed by our sin. But “disappointed” is perhaps not a strong enough word. Adam’s sin (not necessarily our sin by guilt) broke the relationship between God and His creation, to include Adam. The image of God in us is broken but not destroyed. Christ came to heal that which was broken: “by His stripes were ye healed.” I also disagree with those who say that people are born basically good. People are born innocent, but not necessarily good.
We are by far God’s greatest creation. Look at what he has let us accomplish. That is what Rand is trying to show us. Humans are not deplorable creatures. God is proud of us. And yes, we make mistakes, but that does not discount the fact that he made us unique, set apart from all other animals. He gave us a brain and resources and the knowledge to use it to do what He does best: create. That is Rand’s view of man. She sees the possibility for greatness where everyone else sees death and destruction. Which do you think God intended? Second Timothy 2:15 says “Do your best to present yourself to God as one APPROVED, a worker who DOES NOT NEED TO BE ASHAMED and who correctly handles the word of truth.” Christians realize that this greatness was given to them by God. That is the only part Rand did not see.
Agree. Except that your Bible translation has some problems. II Timothy 2:15 should read “…and rightly dividing the word of truth.” Huge difference between “rightly dividing” and “correctly handles.” What translation do you use?
Two, you say that Rand doesn’t leave room for charity, but that is no where close to what she meant. Love should be selfish. In one of her interviews, Rand provided an excellent example. What if a husband told his wife that he had purely married her for her sake; that he gained nothing from it and had no self-interest in the matter at all? How is that love? Giving of oneself to simply give and show off to others was what Rand was against, not the idea of sacrifice, so long as the sacrifice was made out of love. Sincerity is the key.
But if love is selfish, how is it then a sacrifice? Was Christ’s death on the cross a sacrifice of love, or a sacrifice of selfishness?
I will agree that I do not believe that any person has the right to force someone else to give charity. I have a couple posts on coerced charity – search my blog archives.
1. Objective Reality-we live in a world that exists outside of our minds. This Christians can easily accept. We know that God created our world and humans and intended everything to work and move and live together.
My problem is not that Christians accept that God created the world; my problem is that Rand does not. And although there is much to admire – and much I have admired – in Rand’s writings, I do think something is lacking when there is no acknowledgment of a Supreme Being (i.e. “God”) who ultimately will render unto every man according to his works.
2. Reason-man’s only way of acquiring knowledge. This, I believe, can be agreed with as well. God provided us with logical brains and the capacity to use reason and logic to uncover facts about our world. This idea is not something to shrink from. Christians are allowed to use reason too. For example, I pray about something I’m upset about. I ask God to help me forgive the person who has wronged me. Gradually I notice a change in my heart and in time am able to move past whatever offence that person has committed and forgive it. I will use my God-given reason to deduce that God was with me during my trial, holding me up and seeing me through.
“Gradually I notice a change in my heart and in time am able to move past whatever offence that person has committed and forgive it.” – Does reason produce this change in your heart, or does God?
Does your reason leave room for Divine revelation? If so, how is reason then the only source of knowledge? If not, how do you claim to believe in God? (Since the knowledge of God comes not through reason but through revelation).
Others may use their own reason and see something different, but that doesn’t change the reality. I also want to add that because God has given us such wonderful brains with such a capacity for knowledge, that Christians should not be as threatened by science as they are. Science is God’s too. But that is a topic for another time entirely.
I respectfully disagree that Christians feel “threatened” by science. I would argue the reverse is true – [atheist or agnostic] scientists feel more threatened by Christians, especially by scientists who are themselves Christian.
Science and faith are complimentary, not contradictory nor mutually exclusive. I don’t look to the Bible to answer questions of nuclear physics; I don’t look to a science text to answer why God created man, what our purpose in this world is, or questions about the nature of God. Faith and science each have their spheres and purposes.
3. Free Will-a person’s ability to make choices, either good or bad. I think this idea is agreed on in most facets of Christianity. The philosophy goes on to say that at the end of our life, we cannot blame our final place on anything but ourself. The person we are on our death bed is not a result of fate or our genes or our environment or even God. He didn’t force us into anything. The choices we’ve made are ours, and we need to accept the consequences for our actions. Of course, God does have a purpose for each of us, and those who try to live for him and follow his will will discover this purpose, but he does not force us into submission.
I agree with this. Except that there’s one tiny problem, and it’s the problem I alluded to above as lacking in all philosophies that are without God: For Rand, Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa ultimately have the same fate: this life is all there is. Our eternal fates are no different than those of rocks on Mars. So the atheist must live in a state of despair, knowing that the evil of a Hitler goes unpunished and the goodness of a Mother Teresa goes unrewarded.
4.Self-interest-the doctrine of selfishness. This is where we begin to run into problems. Should humans live for themselves? The popular New Testament phrase says “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Does this not imply that a man is also instructed to love himself?
Well I think that historically this may also be mistranslation. I heard it somewhere that we are to “love your neighbor as God loves you.” That is a lot different than “love your neighbor as you love yourself.”
Rand is also very against the idea of altruism. But what is altruism really? It is a person’s desire to help those in need because doing so is good and moral.
So Rand is against doing what is good and moral?
I think what Rand is against is not altruism per se, but coerced altruism – whether coerced by the state or by embarrassment and/or shame. (Please read my posts on coerced charity: http://tpkatsa.wordpress.com/?s=coerced+charity)
But doesn’t this idea also require there to be people in need. How can a person be altruistic if there are no poor, no widows, no orphans. This idea needs some people to be destitute. Was this God’s intention?
Hmm.. that’s a tricky question. I cannot say that God intends some people to be poor and others to be rich. In matters of economics I tend to side with Rand. Whether you are rich or poor depends on your efforts, not on God’s intentions. What is important though is that both the rich and the poor must be treated equally in the eyes of the law (Leviticus 19:15).
5. Laissez-faire economy-a pure capitalist society without any government intervention, either on behalf of businesses or their employees. This is mainly against socialism or communism. God may have intended everyone to live in a socialistic society, but there is so much corruption in this world that unless every member of the society has a very strong faith in God, it will not work.
I doubt God intended socialism. Jesus was no leftist. (http://www.creators.com/opinion/dennis-prager/jesus-was-no-leftist.html) Communism was brought into existence by those who were so impatient for the heaven in the next world that they wanted to impose heaven in this world. And those who have attempted to create heaven on earth have ended up creating hell instead.
People need the motivation of success to drive them. If everyone is treated as equals, especially if the gifted are treated no better than the not so gifted, there will be no incentive to work. If I get paid the same amount of money for doing poor work as I do for working hard, unless I am an exceptional human being, I will do mediocre work.
I’ll bet you didn’t learn this in college; college does everything it can to undermine the ideas above.
Socialism is a beautiful idea that will work when we live [with] God, but to think for a moment that it will lead to any sort of utopia here on earth is naivety.
Well, the fact is as I said, creating utopia on earth leads to hell instead. So I would go a step further and say that it is evil to try to create utopias on earth.
I tried to explain my views to the best of my ability. I can only hope that I have done Ayn Rand justice.
I think you have done an admirable job with a difficult subject.
Hi Nicole, I’m p00lriah, a guest blogger here at my friend’s blog. You wrote:
May I add that communism is the religion created by atheists (e.g., Marx). Its existence is necessitated by a person’s need to believe in something, but God and religion are not included as options. So I believe that the communist utopia is a substitute for the Judeo-Christian concept of heaven.
In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt did not need to take such risks to “save” the other objectivists of the world.
He recruited fellow “disciples of objectivity” in hopes of creating a better world.
John Galt was willing to die for his cause and to bring Dagny “who denied him” to his kingdom, despite her efforts to further destroy him.
So, I ask again “Who is John Galt?”
Sounds a little like someone else I know:)
Perhaps the reason that this post continues to receive comments three years after I posted it is that it touches a deeper cord.
What really is the Judeo-Christian case for limited government and free markets?
Is the socialism preached by American liberals consistent with Judeo-Christian values because ostensibly I am “my brother’s keeper?”
Perhaps the question that Rand – and by extension her protagonist Galt – asks here is, at what point must my brother assume responsibility for himself?
Lucas’ comment is perfect. “Christian Objectivist” turns up results because there are people who when they read Atlas Shrugged, recognize Rand’s ideal man instantly, people who already knew him.
I want to stress that if we’re going to try to work out the kinks between these two philosophies, the term “sacrifice” in association with what Jesus did really has to go. The misunderstanding of it as a sacrifice is the main point from which the evil of altruism seeps into Christianity. The truly amazing thing is that it wasn’t a sacrifice at all.
“Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him.”
(more on the exact definition of sacrifice here http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html)
The essence of the real motive is in this dialogue:
“If I find, when it is too late, that I want to return to this valley- why should you have to bear the risk of keeping that door open to me?” (Dagny)
“I don’t have to. I wouldn’t do it if I had no selfish end to gain.” (Galt)
“What selfish end?”
“I want you here.”
I want to stress that if we’re going to try to work out the kinks between these two philosophies, the term “sacrifice” in association with what Jesus did really has to go. The misunderstanding of it as a sacrifice is the main point from which the evil of altruism seeps into Christianity.
Well you might find some support for this in Orthodox Christianity. Because we do not subscribe to the doctrine of original sin (thus requiring “atonement” hence requiring “sacrifice”), we tend to downplay the sacrificial nature of Christ’s work on the Cross in lieu of its awesome power in having trampled down sin, death, and the Devil (see my other posts on this topic along with Aulen’s “Christus Victor” theology). However, that Christ went of His own free will to the Cross for us because He loved us simply cannot be denied (John 3:16, Romans 5:8, and so on).
My issue is not so much that the death of Christ is or is not sacrificial, but the Leftist notion that when Jesus said, and I paraphrase, “Feed the poor,” what He really meant was, “set up a government program to confiscate money from citizen A to feed citizen B,” that is, the notion that Jesus was really a wealth redistributing liberal and therefore, so should we also be. I’m okay with saying that Christ’s death was sacrificial for the purposes of this conversation, because Christ had a unique mission as our Savior in His sacrifice for us. He commands us to sacrifice for others; however, there is a difference between a religious obligation that one may or may not choose to freely undertake, and a legal obligation (paying an ever-increasing tax burden to finance more redistribution of wealth) about which one has no choice.
So, I don’t think it’s through Christ’s death per se that the “evil of altruism” seeps into Christianity. Altruism in itself is not evil; forced altruism, what I like to call coerced charity, is evil. There is nothing morally wrong with one individual sacrificing for another of his own free will and Rand, grudgingly or not, would have to acknowledge this. The problem arises when the commands of Christ are interpreted as applying to matters of public policy instead of applying to our individual lives and personal inter-relationships.
To the extent that the state limits the power of a man to choose what he will do with what is rightfully his, via redistribution of wealth and/or property, regardless of how it is done and for what purpose, the state engages in what you describe as “evil altruism” and what I call “coerced charity.” I don’t think that Christianity condones, supports, or encourages the massive entitlement state that was also anathema to Rand, and it is in this way that I see Christianity and Objectivism as somewhat mutually supportive of our rights to life, liberty, and property (the pursuit of happiness).
You are completely right that Christianity does not need to and shouldn’t support the welfare state. And it’s a great argument to use. Christians can be allies to Objectivists politically.
However, altruism IS evil, as in morally wrong. Altruism is the philosophy that is destroying our world, and to whatever extent Christianity continues to support it- even on a personal level- it is also part of the problem Objectivists are fighting. This is all on its own, even without the added problem of being given a gun.
The free market depends on people acting in their self-interest- it’s central idea is that this is good. Accepting the opposing morality of self-sacrifice as the good, contradicts and weakens your defense of capitalism. A preference for evil to occur on a small scale rather than a larger one is an improvement, but it’s not enough. There is a tendency towards consistency, and politics will move back to the left to codify and carry out the moral ideal in practice, unless altruism itself is defeated and a morality of rational self-interest, the morality of Objectivism (and, I believe, the real morality of Christianity) replaces it.
(Note that not all personal charity is altruistic- there do exist rational reasons for wanting to help someone. But wherever it is a sacrifice, it is morally condemned in Objectivism. You have the right to make irrational choices, but having a legal right, and being morally in the right, are 2 very different things.)
“However, altruism IS evil, as in morally wrong. Altruism is the philosophy that is destroying our world, and to whatever extent Christianity continues to support it- even on a personal level- it is also part of the problem Objectivists are fighting.”
Let’s assume that altruism is evil. As I said I disagree – I believe that forced altruism is evil. But supposing altruism to be evil, I have a couple of questions:
(1) If I invite you to my house and give you a cup of coffee without charging you for it, I’ve just engaged in altruism: I’ve given you something for nothing. Have I engaged in evil?
(2) Assuming that altruism is morally wrong, and you agree that there is a morality that we ought to abide by – wouldn’t this morality be problematic for the Randian because it dictates what a man ought (not) to do with his own private property and wealth. In other words, if my right to property and wealth is as sacrosanct as Rand says it is, then who is she – or you – to tell me that I cannot voluntarily give it away?
The coffee is probably not going to be an example of engaging in altruism. If I am visiting your house I am likely a friend or an acquaintance. Values involved may be: the relationship, the conversation, or a desire to fit with social convention and make a good impression- to be considered a good host. Any of these might be sufficient self-interested reasons to part with the cup of coffee, since its value is rather low. Objectivists are not materialists; there are other values in play besides monetary payment.
Something is only a “sacrifice” when it means giving up a greater value for a lesser one. If the coffee is extremely expensive and selling it could really help my family financially, then offering the coffee might be an altruistic gesture.
/
The whole purpose of morality is to tell you what you ought to do with your life and property. Objectivism is not relativistic; principles are acceptable and necessary.
When I say that you ought to do something, I do not mean that you should be forced to do so. You *can* give all your property away. I don’t think you *should*, but I cannot prevent you from doing so. All I can do is try to convince you that it’s not in your best interest. I do not violate your right to dispose of your property by merely suggesting that you are making a bad choice.
“The whole purpose of morality is to tell you what you ought to do with your life and property.”
I would counter by saying that human beings are not born basically good. Goodness must be taught. So, the purpose of [Judeo-Christian] morality is to make good people; that is, to teach people how to be good, decent human beings. Once goodness has been taught, what a person does with their life and property becomes a consequence and reflection of the goodness instilled.
“Human beings are not born basically good.”
Actually another similarity: Objectivism holds that human beings are born neither good nor bad, but as a “blank slate”, tabula rasa.
And you’re right, I oversimplified, but whenever you do have to think to determine what is right, you are using philosophy. Whether morality is supposed to make good people or produce good action would be a silly argument, because they happen together. Rand would put it that humans are integrated beings- the Bible that “you will know them by their fruits”. If I had to say what comes first, I suppose I’d agree that character does.
Sorry to show up here so late, but I’m a Christian-turned-almost-atheist-turned-Christian-again, who is reading Atlas Shrugged and has come upon this blog in searching for comparisons of Christianity and objectivism. . I have long believed that reason and faith belong together, as is written in Isaiah — “Come let us reason together.” I don’t agree with everything that Rand says, but she has some very good points. Rich Mullins used to tell a story of a college professor of his, who said, “God spoke to Balaam through his ass; and he’s been speaking through asses ever since.” A message is not necessarily false just because of a flawed messenger.
Also keep in mind that we have a fluid, dynamic language, and words can have multiple meanings.
Selfishness as Rand describes lines up very well with what the New Testament prescribes for church leadership. Deacons and elders are called to be able to manage their families well, for if they cannot manage their own families, how can they manage the church? Is this not very similar to Rand’s idea that helping other is fine, but you must first watch out for yourself? I fail to see a difference in the underlying premise. Or, to use the ever-so-popular flock analagy, if a shepherd neglects himself in favor of the flock, he will inevitably fall sick or be injured at some point, which could lead to death. Then, his “altruism” will have an unintended consequence: a flock without a shepherd. But if that shepherd had been more selfish, his flock could still be taken care of. So, if altruism is evil, that could be partially because true altruism (at the expense of self-preservation) simply does not work.
Now, speaking of altruism, I hear of some theologians who believe that those with power and money have a great responsibility to help the poor, and we as Christians should hold them responsible for doing so. But Jesus’ commands were given to Christians, not to unbelievers. Jesus pointed out that we will always have the poor with us. This means we cannot, and are not called to, eradicate poverty. It is not our concern that there should be no poor, but rather that we help the poor. Why should this be? The only possible explanation I could see is that the act of us helping has significance beyond the person being helped. In other words, we, in some way, gain something spiritually from helping others. Perhaps it is humility. Perhaps it is an appreciation for what God has done for us. I’m really not sure. But those who argue for coerced charity must, logically, see eradication of poverty as a goal, and this does not line up with what Jesus said.
These are the arguments I read most often — that Christianity calls for altruism and forbids selfishness, and that Rand calls for selfishness and forbids altruism. When we try to over-simplify the use of our language they certainly seem to be contradictory. But if we take time to read the meaning behind the words, we find that the Christian and Randian definitions of these words are not the same, and the teachings, while not identical, are certainly potentially compatible, at least on some level.
As far as denying the existence of God, that’s a whole other matter. Naturally, an atheist will do this, and that’s why I respect agnosticism much more than atheism. We have five senses, but this does not mean that these are the only senses to exist. By this logic, a person born completely blind could rightly and truthfully claim that a red object and blue object were identical, because that person’s 4 senses would not tell him/her otherwise. But a friend of mine who is blind knows that his minivan is white, because his wife told him it was white, and he has faith that she would not lie to him about such a thing. Faith has its place. Logic has its place. Reason has its place. Science has its place. Religion has its place. Philosophy has its place. To everything there is a season. You know, I think Solomon may actually have been wiser than d’Arconia.
Rob, Well said, well said. Thank you for commenting!
I ran across the following article on Yahoo! which touches on this topic: http://tinyurl.com/c967a4p
I paste the entire article here for your convenience:
Ryan Shrugs of Ayn Rand
———————————–
Wisconsin’s First District has voted him into Congress seven times over the past 14 years, but popular as Paul Ryan is at home there may be another constituency that holds the Republican vice presidential candidate in even higher regard.
Ryan, you see, is the country’s most powerful Randian. At least, he used to be. More on that in a moment. First, a look at his adoring relationship with the work of Russian emigre novelist Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
It began, according to a 2005 speech Ryan gave to The Atlas Society, when he was still a student. And it guided his thinking on monetary policy decades later:
“I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are,” he told the group. “It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff.”
Ryan has since denied making his staff read the books.
He continued: “But the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.”
Rand’s literary inner circle was called, ironically perhaps, “The Collective.”
Individualism, or objectivism in some cases, provides the philosophical underpinnings for most of Rand’s narratives. The novelist and literary critic Harriet Rubin wrote bluntly in the New York Times that “Atlas Shrugged” is a “glorification of the right of individuals to live entirely for their own interest.”
It also celebrates atheism, treating religion with a degree of scorn.
“If devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking,” one of Rand’s characters says in the novel, the “alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind.”
This is where politicians and business leaders tend to pull up.
Ryan has, as noted above, taken a step back from his avid Rand-regard in the past few years. And in an interview with the National Review this April, he did a pretty firm about-face:
“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.
So after all that, Paul Ryan, it seems, has shrugged off Ayn Rand.
—————
I invite comment.
I just wanted to say thanks to tpkatsa for posting this blog. I’ve been trying to reconcile my Christian faith and Objectivism ever since I read Terry Goodkind’s “Sword of Truth” series – it’s nice to find others who believe as I do that they need not be mutually exclusive…though certainly I have my disagreements with Rand. Objectivism as a political philosophy is on the rise in the United States, and I suspect many other people will be facing the same dilemma of reason and faith in the near future.
Our Bible study this evening is on the Christian’s responsibility toward government. Should be interesting. As the guy leading the study is somewhat of a political Randian, I expect this to have implications here.
Thanks for this great, and ongoing, post. I am an Orthodox Christian who, with the latest developments in the U.S., am at once struggling with just went wrong and where are we headed. I have not yet read Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, but have read a bit on her philosophies. In addition, I am well versed on Orthodox Father’s teachings. In short, and in my current ignorance, I am of the mind that, indeed there are connections between views of Christian Faith and “Randian Reason” (her Objectivism), Faith seems to apply more direct as a personal or individual “guide for life”, whereas Rand’s views (except perhaps where she pulls in her views of faith – incorrectly IMO) should be applied more to a society. Certainly, again IMO, a society where individuals seek within themselves to cultivate an image of Christ is or would be ideal, it is not realistic – as evidenced in times past where “the church” forced conversion. However, again in my ignorance thus far, a “modern” society must be somewhat modeled or reflected in Rand’s Objectivism or, as I have read, Libertarianism. As a Christian, I find it difficult to call myself by any particular political label. Labels is not what I search for, though. I am searching for answers and why the “common” (non-thinking) person can be in favor of further oppression and control from without. Sigh….
Hi Kenneth – thanks for reading and welcome to the comment thread that never dies… though it does ocassionally hibernate.
Yes I would agree that the Faith as revealed by the New Testament and as handed down to us by the early fathers is a guide to living a moral life. But the New Testament does very poorly as a guide to how a free society should function. Setting aside the 2,000-year gap between today and New Testament times, Christian ethics are beautiful in our personal lives but can be ruinous when applied as a matter of public policy to nations and societies. I have always believed that regardless of how strong I may think my faith is, others are and ought to be free to pursue their own faith. Men should be free to worship God as their conscience dictates – or to worship no God at all.
One topic that Ayn Rand does not address her books, because of course it was unknown to her at the time, is the rise of the religious left. The religious left believes that the commands of Christ were intended to be implemented as public policies at taxpayer expense, instead being of left to the conscience of individual Christians. For example, the religious left promotes government welfare programs to feed poor people and does so in the name of Christ. I have blogged extensively about this – search my blog for “coerced charity” and you’ll find those posts.
This is not to impugn the noble task of caring for the poor. However Christ did not say “tax your neighbor to feed the poor” or “set up a government program to feed the poor”, He said, “YOU feed the poor.” It is interesting that the very same people who would tax your money away to feed the poor are often but not always the same people who want to chase God out of the public square. It’s an interesting dichotomy. In my view people ought to be left alone to do their own charitable works.
Ultimately, the government should not be in the business of taking from the “rich” (e.g. the taxpayer, who most of the time is not really rich) to give to the poor. The ethics of Robin Hood are no better than the ethics of the thief. Taxpayer-funding of the welfare state is nothing more than “spreading the wealth around,” and it amounts to legalized thievery. It runs counter to Leviticus 19:15 which states that a governing body should favor neither the rich nor the poor, but judge righteously. Unfortunately however, as the U.S. election results have shown, those who believe as I do are a minority indeed.
To all my readers who are following this thread I wanted to commend this article by an Episcopal Bishop on how Ayn Rand led him to Christ. While obviously, there is no theological common ground (Objectivism is atheist by nature), I don’t mecessarily agree that Objectivism is utterly incompatible with Christianity from a moral/ethical perspective. Perhaps I will use this article as a jumping off point for further analysis in a follow-up post.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/channel/utilities/print.html?type=article&id=92514
Hello,
I apologize for being so late to the discussion. This topic of Christianity and Objectivism is my passion and (recently) my expertise. I have studied both Theology and Philosophy in depth, and after studying Rand’s philosophy, I have set out to form a proper integration of what is true in her worldview with Classical Christianity. This entails criticizing and correcting errors both in Objectivist thought, as well as modern Christian thought which is heavily influenced by the assumptions of Immanuel Kant.
I have *many* book ideas for the future which will promote a rationally-self interested Christianity, a proper philosophical framework (Metaphysics and Epistemology), critique “Christian” Kantian ideas and practices in the Church as well as irrational ideas in Objectivism, and address many areas of ethics and politics. However, I am currently working on my first book….
The Galt-like God: Meditations of a Christian Egoist
Ayn Rand got SO much right in her philosophy – and the only reason she was able to get away with being an Atheist is that Christians had entirely dropped the philosophical ball centuries ago in an all out anti-intellectual retreat. All that is good and true in Ayn Rand’s philosophy (and ANY philosophy for that matter!) rightly belongs in the Christian worldview. Its time for Christians to reclaim their post as the “pillar and buttress of truth” so that they can truly be “the salt and the light of the world”. Its time for Christians to pick their God-given brains back up and claim all that is good in true (in Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and all others) for Christ.
That’s my passion and my goal. While the book is in the works, I’ve started a blog and a facebook page to help rally and inspire those out there who *know* there is something valuable to the thought system of Ayn Rand but who don’t know how to reconcile it with their Christian convictions (likely because they’ve been surrounded by Kantian Christianity). Please check them out, “like” and “share” appropriately and spread the word if it is something that you value. Also, please feel free to contact me personally to discuss various ideas/questions. Such discussions are my passion.
thechristianegoist.wordpress.com
facebook.com/thechristianegoist
Regards,
-Jacob Tyler Brunton
jacobtyler623@yahoo.com
Hi Jacob – I would love to discuss this with you more in depth. Welcome to the blog and thanks for posting.
Does Rand’s atheism impact your effort to reconcile her economic philosophy with Christianity, and if so, how?
Thanks for the welcome. :)
While I do intend to reconcile her economic philosophy with Christianity, that is not my main goal. Economics is a subsection of morality which, itself, is a subsection of philosophy in general. I intend to reconcile her entire philosophy (or that which is accurate in it) with Christianity — or more appropriately, demonstrate how, in fact, they are already ‘reconciled’ integrated. Obviously I am convinced that Rand was mistaken with her atheism and therefore all aspects of her worldview that are logically linked to her atheism are in need of alteration. However, I take issue with the Christians who say, in effect “Rand was an atheist, therefore her whole philosophy is wrong”. There are certainly many errors in her philosophy, but they need to be specifically identified and correcting. Likewise, there are many errors in modern Christian [philosophy] (so many, that I would argue Rand was more of a Theist than many modern Christians) – and those errors also need to be specifically identified and altered.
But, back to your question… Are you referring to some specific implication that atheism seems to have regarding economics?? If so, elaborating on that would be helpful in providing a better answer.
Sorry. I’ve got a lot of typos in that post and I don’t know how to edit it. It’s late. That’s my only excuse. Haha
Hi Jacob – well, I haven’t had much time for blogging lately (as evidenced by my late response in approving your last two comments!). Don’t worry about the typos, I’ll fix those when I get around to it. I would agree that you can’t throw all aspects of Rand out due to her atheism.
Where we differ is your claim that morality is a “subsection” of philosophy. Judeo-Christian morality is derived from Holy Scripture and is not the product of philosophy.
Human reason in and of itself may lead to evil as often as it leads to goodness. Reason is a tool but it cannot ensure goodness in and of itself.
If there is no God who rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked, life is ultimately meaningless. Yes, we can try to imbue life with meaning, but ultimately our lives are no more meaningful than rocks on Mars.
If there is no God who rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked, then all morality is ultimately subjective; whether one murders is as ultimately inconsequential as whether or not likes vanilla ice cream.
So I would be cautious about saying that morality is simply a consequence or subsection of philosophy.
I think you’ve got a bit of a misunderstanding regarding philosophy, “human” reason, and their relationship to Scripture. If “human” reason/philosophy discovers something that is true, then it is *true* regardless of the method of discovery. All truth is God’s truth – even truth outside of Scripture (Rom. 1:19-21). To say otherwise is to treat truth outside of Scripture as if it has nothing to do with God – as if He is only God over things in Scripture rather than Him being God over all of reality.
Incidentally, that position you take on this (which is unfortunately the majority position by modern Christian intellectuals) is actually the one which makes morality subjective — because it makes *everything*, including God and Scripture, subjective.
If “human reason”/philosophy cannot be trusted to discover certain truth, -if only Scripture can do that, then how do you come to know that Scripture is true? Your essentially saying that “Scripture is the only sure source of truth”, but you haven’t (and can’t, apart from reason), give a *reason* for why Scripture is true.
This means that the only way to accept Scripture as true is by subjectively wishing that it is so – turning Scripture, God, and Christianity into nothing more than your own private fairytale.
This issue is touched on in the very first post on my blog: “Jesus Christ AND Ayn Rand?”
http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/jesus-christ-and-ayn-rand/
“. If “human” reason/philosophy discovers something that is true, then it is *true* regardless of the method of discovery.”
But my friend I didn’t say this. What I said was:
==
Judeo-Christian morality emanates from the Bible. As Christians, we get our values from the Bible, comprising the Old and New Testaments.
Human reason is amoral. Reason is a tool. It may lead to great goodness, or it may lead to gross evil.
If there is no God, then life is ultimately meaningless. Yes we can imbue it with meaning temporarily but ultimately that vanishes away. After we are dead, that’s all folks.
==
I agree with you that human reason can discover certain kinds of truth (such as scientific truth). But it cannot discover moral or theological truth, because these truths emanate solely from divine revelation.
If there is no God to tell people that stealing is wrong, then stealing can be right or wrong, depending on one’s opinion (morality is relative). If God did not reveal the Trinity to us, human reason could not possibly discern the Trinity (theology cannot be uncovered by human reason).
Note that human reason may also lead to doing nothing in the face of evil, which itself could be considered a grave moral failing (Leviticus 19:16 – “do not stand by the blood of your neighbor”).
As far as the truth of Scripture, I’m not going to get into a long debate on that. I assume that as we are Christians, the truth of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) is a priori a given.
Let me elaborate on what I said regarding the truth of Scripture. First I am assuming you are a Christian or Jewish (Jews generally accept the Old Testament as divinely inspired). If that’s not the case, my apologies.
So yes I believe Scripture is “true.” However, I believe that the Bible is true in the context for which it was intended. I am not an inerrantist; that is, I do not believe every word of Scripture must be literally true. For example, Jesus said that the mustard seed was the “smallest of seeds.” Perhaps it was the smallest seed known at that time. But if we by scientific advancement discover a smaller seed it doesn’t invalidate the Lord’s point which was that even if your faith is very small God can work mightily in and through your life. In other words, the Bible is not intended to be a manual of botany. Similarly the Bible makes other references to scientific (or geographical) facts, such as the existence of “Leviathan.” Maybe Leviathian was really a blue whale. Did Leviathan exist at all? It doesn’t really matter because the Lord’s point in Job 41-42 was not so much to give us a lecture on whale species, but to tell us that compared to God, we are well… very puny :-).
So, the Bible is not a science text, so I’m not going to look to the Bible for authoritative answers on scientific questions. I look to science texts to answer questions of science, and to the Bible to answer questions about faith, theology, and God.
In my opinion – and yes it’s a theologumenon – the purpose of the Bible is to deepen our relationship with God (through the Light of His glory in the Face of Jesus Christ), and to teach us how to live moral lives.
Now I believe that the New Testament does more of the former while the Old Testament does more of the latter. Neither Testament has a monopoly on moral truth; Moral truth is found in both.
In my opinion, the moral truth of the Old Testament is primarly intended to govern societies (such as nascent Israel); one must carefully distinguish between commands intended for the new nation of Israel at a certain time in a certain place (such as the command not to mix linen and woolen fabrics, or not to eat shell fish, etc.), and the commands that are intended for all people at all times and in all places (e.g. do not steal, do not murder, do not bear false witness, and so forth). Think of it this way: what a better country we would have if people would follow these Commandments: Do not rob, do not steal, and do not bear false witness. And that’s just 3 out of the big 10.
The New Testament, on the other hand, is intended more for our personal lives and how we relate to one another on a personal level and as a Church. An example of this would be Christ’s command to turn the other cheek. In our personal lives, of course we should not hit back (unless defending another innocent person). But as a matter of public policy this is suicidal. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, should we have offered to allow them to bomb Los Angeles? Of course not – such a notion is absurd.
Who tells me that the Bible is true? Well, ultimately it’s a decision you have to make. You have to choose to believe the Bible and the things written therein. There is more evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament texts than for any other document from that period (see books by Josh McDowell). As Orthodox Christians, we believe that the Bible is given to us by and through the Church, and we look to our rightly-ordained Bishops and the early church fathers to authoritatively interpret Scripture. That does not mean we cannot hold opinions; it does mean that we cannot proclaim these opinions as “Teachings of Orthodoxy,” it would be very wrong if we were to do so.
At least on the two reasons you give, I disagree. Man is the “supreme steward” and thus practically works quite well. There are no “unmerited acts” that the Christian is called to do. I do find this sentiment a lot in American Church-ianity or some kind of quasi-Christian spiritual mysticism, but biblically, we do good for the reward from our savior. We do good as into Christ, because he deserves it. Rand was against altruism, so am I, because I’m a Christian.