In response to:

Christianity is Compatible with Ayn Rand

z Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 8:23 PM
Objectivism doesn't require faith. It's not a religion - It's a philosophy. Advocating inductive reasoning is not a belief, nor is it a belief system. It's an appeal to logic. It's called Objectivism because it contends that reality exists separate from the human mind - It's not a creation of the human mind. (You didn't "think" reality into existence.) We discover reality through our senses and draw conclusions using inductive reasoning. Ayn Rand contended that we should carefully examine any pre-conceptual ideas (i.e. YOU didn't conceive of them) that are spoon-fed to us in the form of overly-simplified, (generally self-serving), pre-packaged belief systems. She advocated GENUINE individualism - an ideal seldom realized.
bgmk Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 9:16 PM
"We discover reality through our senses and draw conclusions using inductive reasoning." Yup that's exactly how I came to Christ, THE 'reality that exists separate from the human mind." And what makes you think Belief Systems are "overly-simplified, self-serving, and pre-packaged." Why can't they simply be One person testifying to another person the separate reality" that they discovered through their senses that lead them to draw conclusions using inductive reasoning?
All you've made a case for here is a kind of a priori Anti-Transmaterial Bigotry.
Charles the Hammer Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 8:41 PM
The problem is her own, self-defined parameters, were based on her on pre-concieved ideas. They are inherently based on a rejection of God, an epistemology solely base on naturalism and materialism, etc. It's is an impossible situation. Unless she was God, she could not know for sure, but her own philosophy (not wholly true - if a philosophy takes a specific stand on the nature of reality, which Objectivity does, than it cannot, just like any other classical philosophy, be purely without religion).
Mattieohmalley Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 8:38 PM
z

But reality can be deceiving. It LOOKS like the sun rises and sets. It does not--the earth spins and rotates.
It looks like there is no God, but billions testify they know the creator. Reality is deceiving. Two different people can SEE the same thing and conclude different understandings. In order to have scientific principles we have to accept that there is God who says that facts can be knowable. Otherwise nothing can be sure no matter how accurately we perceive it. As long as others see reality different there will always be doubt about what is real.

It is impossible to know what is real without believing the God of the Bible (who tells us that there are realities).
Joycey Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 8:37 PM
Whatever. Or you could look at creation objectively and see with your own eyes the complexity and interdependence and marvel at the Creator...... And come to the conclusion that life has meaning.
Tom838 Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 8:46 PM
That is a failed argument for belief in god. You are saying that given there are things you do not understand, you have to explain them with a god; nonsense.
z Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 8:56 PM
Ahh, yes. That's where a valid argument can begin. Objectivism promotes that kind of abstract thought process. It's healthy and good.

Obviously, Ayn Rand saw the same complexities, but reached very different conclusions. But the conclusions are nowhere NEAR as important as the well-reasoned logic that brought you there. She was, ultimately, a champion of man's ability to reason.
z Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 8:57 PM
And Ayn Rand thought that life had meaning:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

-Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Charles the Hammer Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 8:58 PM
Tom - and you choose to refuse to believe that there is anything man cannot explain. If not now, then "someday" . . . talk about a BELIEF. Pot, meet kettle. Oh, and nice condescending assumption regarding lack of understanding and a true understanding that man is not God, neither can he be. If you believe he can be . . . welcome to Marxism.
Charles the Hammer Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 9:01 PM
z - you don't see the inherent untenable position in that? That man's own happiness equals morality? That that NECESSARILY means relativism? And, by the bye, why does what she have to say mean it is accurately reflects reality? If you only believe it does, than what authority do you cite, in you BELIEF, to chastise those who believe differently?
z Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 9:19 PM
I wouldn't try to defend Ayn Rand's position equating man's happiness with morality. I disagree with it. I don't even like her use of the term 'morality'. That's generally a word used by religious people. Aristotle wrote two treatises on 'ethics'. In my opinion, philosophies are better off remaining within that realm. 'Morality' is very fluid, always changing, being redefined, even within the Bible itself.
bgmk Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 9:19 PM
Says who Tomboy? An argument insufficient to YOU is NOT an insufficient argument for ALL, neither is absence of evidence to YOU evidence of Objective Absence. You simply cannot KNOW what ANOTHER person's experience has been, or how they arrived at what to them is a perfectly rational conclusion. You are like a Tone Deaf man telling us All that BACH is nonsense and we are making up the whole Idea of "music". Or a Color Blind man who insists there CAN BE no such thing as "red' or "green".
bgmk Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 9:21 PM
Except that if all Morality is WHAT MAKES ME HAPPY then the whole concept of "Morality" is no different in Humans than in a Dog.
bgmk Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 9:23 PM
Neither does "reason" have any objective meaning because what Turns me on is the only absolute. If I dig it who gives a dam n whether it is "reasonable" or not, especially ME. "REASONABLE" and "RATIONAL" is whatever in the H ell gets my rocks off.
Might as well define a Weasel as Rational.
Go ahead, make the case that the only True Objectivity in the Universe is to be Found in the Animal Kingdom. He ll ofa Society you got there, sport.
Charles the Hammer Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 9:44 PM
z - first, you're wrong on morality, but being from a Western culture, that doesn't surprise me. Second, ethics are what change, are fluid - you are subscribing to relativism. Which, don't get me wrong, is your choice. It just means you can only disagree with people. You can never say anyone, at any time, is wrong. Even Aristotle recognized the need for absolutes that existed outside of individual determination.
Charles the Hammer Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 9:46 PM
z - Sorry - correction: morality and the Bible. But, also, that really doesn't matter as the Bible is not the source of Christianity, much less Truth. (It is the highest *written authority* on the Faith, but it is not the sum total, nor the fountainhead, to borrow a term, of the Faith).

Increasingly, priests and pastors are preaching that socialism (in the name of “social justice”) is Christ-like. In truth, capitalism, not socialism, reflects Christian values. I think Christians would be less likely to embrace socialism if they understood that the economic philosophy of Ayn Rand is compatible with Christianity.

‘Social Justice’ Evolves

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle speaks of a general form of justice that encompasses all virtue. Describing general justice, Aristotle writes: “It is complete virtue and excellence in the fullest sense… It is complete because he who possesses it can make use of his virtue not only by himself but...