Objectivism and Christianity, Part One

Annals of the Homestarmy

Tuesday, April 20. 2010

Posted by Ancient of Days in Personal Entry

Comments (22)
Trackbacks (0)

Objectivism and Christianity, Part One

Bumped to continue discussion. Original post date: 2010-04-11 09:28
[I am posting this here because Radar had mentioned that he would be interested in reading it. It's not complete, and the writing still needs to be polished, so please have some patience with it -- AoD.]

“You’ll come back,” said Hugh Akston, “because yours is an error of knowledge, not a moral failure, not an act of surrender to evil, but only the last act of being victim to your own virtue.”

Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. New York: Penguin Putnam, 1999. Print.

From time to time, I have a conversation where someone asks me to justify how I can claim to be both a Christian and an Objectivist – the speaker believing these to be views in opposition.

I’ll start off by saying that I’m no philosopher. I have no formal education beyond the 11th Grade at a sub-standard high school, and everything I know of Objectivism comes from Ayn Rand’s volumes Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, For the New Intellectual, The Virtue of Selfishness, and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. However, the first time I ever read Atlas Shrugged, I was astounded that someone had captured so well so many of the things I already knew to be true.

Additionally, I have nothing more to recommend me as any kind of authority on Christ than a lifetime of study of the record of His works and the deep ring of truth that comes when I hear someone speak of Him.

That being said, I believe there is plenty to recommend a Christian to a life of Objectivism and that any conflict between the two is – as Dr. Akston says to Dagny – “an error of knowledge.”

Probably the most common confusion I run up against is the seeming conflict between Rand’s glorification of “selfishness” against Christ’s sermon (among others) about the Samaritan. Besides telling those individuals who labour under this confusion of ideas to go read her works for themselves and see if they can’t resolve the dilemma, perhaps the following excerpt from Atlas Shrugged can help.

During John Galt’s missive to the world after taking over Mr. Thompson’s radio broadcast, he tells those listening the following:

Accept the fact that the achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness — not pain or mindless self-indulgence — is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values. Happiness was the responsibility you dreaded, it required the kind of rational discipline you did not value yourself enough to assume — and the anxious staleness of your days is the monument to your evasion of the knowledge that there is no moral substitute for happiness, that there is no more despicable coward than the man who deserted the battle for his joy, fearing to assert his right to existence, lacking the courage and the loyalty to life of a bird or a flower reaching for the sun. Discard the protective rags of that vice which you called a virtue: humility — learn to value yourself, which means: to fight for your happiness — and when you learn that pride is the sum of all virtues, you will learn to live like a man.

As a basic step of self-esteem, learn to treat as the mark of a cannibal any man’s demand for your help. To demand it is to claim that your life is his property — and loathsome as such a claim might be, there’s something still more loathsome: your agreement. Do you ask if it’s ever proper to help another man? No — if he claims it as his right or as a moral duty that you owe him. Yes — if such is your own desire based on your own selfish pleasure in the value of his person and his struggle. Suffering as such is not a value; only man’s fight against suffering is. If you choose to help a man who suffers, do it only on the ground of his virtues, of his fight to recover, of his rational record, or of the fact that he suffers unjustly; then your action is still a trade, and his virtue is the payment for your help. But to help a man who has no virtues, to help him on the ground of his suffering as such, to accept his faults, his need, as a claim — is to accept the mortgage of a zero on your values. A man who has no virtues is a hater of existence who acts on the premise of death; to help him is to sanction his evil and to support his career of destruction. Be it only a penny you will not miss or a kindly smile he has not earned, a tribute to a zero is treason to life and to all those who struggle to maintain it.

I see in this much the same as I see in many teachings of Christ. Jacob tells us what he knew of the great plan of happiness:

25. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

2nd Nephi 2:25

And Christ himself extolled the virtues of loving both God, and our neighbour:

36. Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38. This is the first and great commandment.

39. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Matthew 22:36-40

If you are dealing with a man who is struggling to be good, and if you value that struggle — as Christ, if not your OWN struggles, would teach you to — then it is perfectly moral and properly Objective to assist him. If he is wallowing in his sin, and not making an effort to strive, than providing him “pennies and smiles” will only enable him to continue to drown the Light of Christ that is admonishing him to turn back to the Lord. And, if we are truly taking upon us the name of Christ in all we do, then it should be well within the bounds of “our own selfish pleasure in the value of his person” to help the former, for remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God.

More to come on this at some point, but feel free to respond below.

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Daboo on :

Excellent argument! And well said!

My friend Sarah joined the Peace Corps after college, and told me that the people who she was supposed to help often refused to become self-sufficient, because then the Americans would stop giving them free stuff and services. They were "looters." They preferred to live just under the poverty line, scraping by so that they could get charity from foreigners. And as such, being a "good Samaritan" to them would be casting pearls before swine, to mix biblical metaphors.

Objectivism isn't anti-Christian; rather, it is a recognition of the true worth of souls. We find our potential by maximizing our gifts (parable of the talents), not by stifling them.

The Mad Giggler on :

Helping someone doesn't always mean giving them what they're asking for. :)

Swatson on :

How can you tell what is the best way to help someone?

Radar on :

I find this article lacking and want the full argument. How soon are you to completing it?

Ancient of Days on :

I hate you.

Daboo on :

Here I'll add my score to yours and help you hate him harder. I rolled a 17.

Radar on :

What you have so far is good. But, aside from the introduction you give, I can clearly tell that this is only a portion of your argument. I want the full thing so that I can properly attack you. I mean properly discuss it with you.

Ancient of Days on :

Well, look, man - I *TOLD* you I was still working on it. YOU were the one who was so anxious for me to post it.

Radar on :

I never told you to post up an incomplete argument. All I told you was that I wanted to read your article. You inferred something that I did not imply. (hey I think I got it right that time)

The Mad Giggler on :

Also, I hate you for changing my life-view by having my wife listen to Atlas Shrugged aloud. I was perfectly happy being a communist.

The Fox on :

Joey,

I don’t know Objectivism, so I’m wondering if you can define it more fully as your argument gets fleshed out.

From what I’m understanding of your argument, however, I would object to it on the following grounds:

1. Your only quote attributed to Jesus (and he’s only quoting Torah) doesn’t establish your argument. You interpret his words in light of Rand, but this only begs the question. In the quote it is not defined how one “loves his neighbor.” You do that afterward.

2. You quote Galt as praising pride and maligning humility. This may require the greatest amount of explication, because on the surface it contradicts the NT. According to Matthew 5, Jesus blesses the following: “the poor in spirit”, “those who mourn”, and “the meek”. If Jesus came also as he says to “fulfill the Law and the Prophets” then we must assume he does not differ with Solomon on the matter of pride and humility. Proverbs 11.2: “When pride comes, then comes disgrace; but wisdom is with the humble.” Proverbs 16.18: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” These appear to contradict Galt.

3. As I understand Rand’s philosophy, Jesus does not seem to uphold it. The NT is a document most closely aligned with Communism (or Communalism?) rather than Objectivism. When a rich man approaches Jesus and asks how to be perfect, he is told upholding Torah isn’t enough; he must sell his goods. When he cannot do such a thing, Jesus tells the disciples that a rich person will have trouble entering the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 19.16-22.) At least on the face of it, this seems antithetical to Objectivism. The Objectivist, if I understand correctly, would say that the rich man does good by achieving wealth, particularly since he seems to be leading a righteous life, not one of depraved pleasure. He is a disciplined man. And his wealth likely gives him the ability to employ others and perform charitable deeds. Now, if he sells all he owns, his workers will become unemployed and the poor will receive one large donation but will lose in the long run. His wealth likely generates more wealth, does good for the poor consistently over time and creates an economy whereby his workers also earn. Now they will become poor and so will he creating an expanded need for welfare with a smaller base of wealth to support it.

Now one may argue that Jesus was only addressing this one man and not creating an economy whereby all of the rich were to sell their goods and give to the poor. The problem is that his disciples don’t seem to agree with that idea. According to the Luke, among the proto-Christians “no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common” and “as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need” (Acts 4.32-35.) These early believers don’t appear to be Objectivists at all.
As a caveat, I should mention also that this obviously didn’t continue in the Church except in movements here and there. This sort of economy isn’t viable in the long-term. The early believers thought Jesus was coming back for them in their lifetime. According to Matthew, he’d said so himself: “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (Matt 24.34, after Jesus tells his disciples the sign of his coming and about the coming itself.) Paul likewise urges people not to marry because “the appointed time has grown short…. For the present form of this world is passing away” (I Cor. 7.25-31.) In this, Paul also veers away from Objectivism, but only because he says the end is nigh. He would deny believers a full life, because a time of suffering is coming. So perhaps, the early Church would not have promoted a communal life if long-term considerations had been part of their equation. It’s hard to say for sure.

Regardless the reason, the teaching doesn’t seem to align with Objectivism. But I may very well be missing something here. I look forward to seeing your argument fleshed out.

Ancient of Days on :

Fox:
I *do* thank you for those comments - it helps me see where I need to shore up the article. I still don't think that there's a conflict between Objectivism and Christianity, and I'll make sure to address the points you raise here - thank you.

Just so no one is holding their breath, I'll point out that even writing as much as I did above took me about 16 years - things that make sense in my head are sometimes hard to coax into written words.

ThRhett on :

Having just finished Atlas Shrugged, I was grateful for this post and I look forward to more to come from all of you concerning Objectivism and Christianity.

I have additional questions stemming from Rand's works that I would love to see discussed. Mainly concerning her views on sex and relationships. Those parts of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were somewhat disturbing. I find it hard to reconcile her ideas of "morality" with sexual morality (if that makes sense).

Also, do y'all suppose that her portrayal of "moral men" is accurate considering she is herself a woman? Specifically when it comes to dealing with relationships?

These thoughts are random and took me 16 minutes so they might not be the best thought out thoughts ever thought. I'm sure Radar will complain.

P.S. Galt's radio broadcast is 70+ pages, but he states it only took him 3 hours to tell it. Possible?

Ancient of Days on :

Yes, I have some *very* serious concerns about her views on sexual morality.

Regarding the length of the broadcast, I own two different unabridged audiobook recordings of Atlas Shrugged, and Galt's broadcast never takes longer than 2 hours to listen to - so I've always wondered how it took 3 to deliver.

Johnny Elbows on :

Several years ago, someone accused me of being an objectivist in an attempt to shame me into doing something I didn't want to do. Since I didn't know what the word meant, his attempt failed.

His accusation intrigued me, however, and I have since read quite a bit about objectivism. The philosophy does appeal to me, but I have always had a hard time reconciling it with my Christian beliefs. Here are some issues that I see.

*_Pride_*
Pride is not considered a virtue in any Christian denomination. The act of comparing yourself to others is considered to be one of the great sins. The fact that Objectivism enshrines this as its cardinal virtue worries me.

*_Giving based on merit_*
Your explanation of Objectivism says, "If you are dealing with a man who is struggling to be good, and if you value that struggle — as Christ, if not your OWN struggles, would teach you to — then it is perfectly moral and properly Objective to assist him. If he is wallowing in his sin, and not making an effort to strive, than providing him 'pennies and smiles' will only enable him to continue to drown the Light of Christ that is admonishing him to turn back to the Lord." This seems consistent with my readings of Rand's work.

However, since we are drawing on teachings of Book of Mormon prophets, let me quote King Benjamin: "Ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish. Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God" (Mosiah 4: 16-18).

This passage seems to directly contradict the idea that a man needs to be struggling to better himself in order to deserve help. Indeed, it appears that, according to Benjamin, a man's need *is* a claim on us, and that we have no standing if we choose to withhold from him because he is not striving. This difference in philosophy also concerns me.

*_The idea that personal happiness is the object of existence_*
While I agree with Jacob's statement that "men are that they might have joy," I disagree with your claim that this supports Galt's statement that "the achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life." Happiness and joy are very different from each other, and while this difference may simply reflect an evolution in language, it is still concerning to me.

*_Self-Ownership_*
Another concern which Objectivism raises for me is an idea that you don't address here. That is the idea that each person owns himself and owes no obligation to anyone outside of himself. However, Christian teachings often emphasize that we are "bought with a price" and that this purchase brings with it the obligation to submit our will and our desires to a greater will.

When I couple these concerns with my concerns about Rand's views on sexual morality, I have to conclude that the accusation that I am an Objectivist is a false accusation. Paul taught, "whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things" (Philippians 4:8). Instead of proclaiming myself as an Objectivist, I will follow Paul's admonition, and I will seek out the good things from Rand's philosophy, and think on those things, and will leave behind the rest.

The Fox on :

JE,

Regarding "happiness", I don't know how Randians mean it, but if they mean it in an Aristotelian sense, that may be of some comfort to you. Aristotle used a term, usually translated "happiness," that really meant something more like "completeness" and centered around moral perfection. If Objectivists mean something like this, then that may not be so bad. From the quote above, however, it's unclear that this is what they mean.

Joey? What is "happiness" in the Randian sense?

JE, you raise some interesting points.

Ancient of Days on :

The Objectivism Wiki defines the pursuit of happiness as "discover what your true values are across the long-range span of your life, and strive to achieve them." I would say this coincides with both my understanding of the Aristotelean view of "happiness" (not surprising, since Rand often referred to Aristotle as "[the] philosophical Atlas who carries the whole of Western civilization on his shoulders") and with my own understanding of "joy" as referred to by Lehi.

The Mad Giggler on :

I can't say that I necessarily subscribe to all of Objectivisms tenets, but there is no doubt in my mind that it shares a great amount of Christian Truth.

A couple of quibbles I have with some of these comments:

1) Pride. Many people do not understand what it means to be humble. Christ made no bones about the fact that He was perfect. He did not dither on whether His work was of value to those around him. Yet, he was also perfectly humble. How could this be? Does not humility equate with self-effacement? No, it does not. Christ's will was perfectly aligned with that of his Father. We can know that we also have great self-worth as we subject our will to the Father's. Each of us has infinite worth and we should not ever let other's views drag us down. Christ said, "What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost."

2) Communism and Christianity. Communism is the opposite of Christ's teaching. Karl Marx is widely quoted as saying that "Religion is the opiate of the people." Christ, His Apostles, and the early Church lived the Law of Consecration. That is to say, that they all gave everything that they had that all might be used and redistributed to each according to his need. The parable of the Talents (Matthew 25: 14-30) clearly illustrates that the Father is extremely displeased with the lazy and slothful ("cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth"). In the parable, each servant is given a differing amount according to their ability to manage it. Yet communism would enshrine the "value" that everyone should receive the same amount. These are clearly incompatible teachings.

As the Church grew, the Saints were not asked to all sell everything they had. Instead they were asked to dedicate their means to growth of the Church, aiding the apostles as they traveled and preached. I don't recall that it's ever explicitly stated, but it seems clear to me that by the time Paul was traveling through Europe, the followers of Christ were no longer selling all they had and leaving their various occupations. Instead they were setting up bases in each city. Yes, they still had the mandate to care for the poor, but that is very different from the commandment given in Mark 10: 21 ("Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.") That particular instance seems to follow Christ's pattern of calling special men to follow him - giving up all they had - such as Peter ("Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matthew 4: 19)

In modern scripture, King Benjamin taught the value of self-sufficiency (Mosiah 2: 11-14):
"But I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind; yet I have been chosen by this people, and consecrated by my father, and was suffered by the hand of the Lord that I should be a ruler and a king over this people. . .
"I say unto you that as I have been suffered to spend my days in your service, even up to this time, and have not sought gold nor silver nor any manner of riches of you;
"Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another, nor that ye should murder, or plunder, or steal, or commit adultery; nor even have I suffered that ye should commit any manner of wickedness, and have taught you that ye should keep the commandments of the Lord, in all things which he hath commanded you—
"And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day."

3) Giving based on merit. I love the King Benjamin quote, but I think as followers of Christ we can do so much more than just hand people money. In Acts 3: 1-10, Peter and John encounter a man lame from birth. He has begged daily at the temple for alms for a significant amount of time. The two apostles of Christ do not just hand him money, instead they heal him - allowing for him to earn his own daily bread. We can do likewise as we encounter those who have need of us. Help them walk again by teaching them how to earn their own daily bread. Rather than handing someone a dollar bill, why not offer them some work? Why not offer to teach them the basics of honest trade? Would not this benefit them so much more? Would not this increase their self-worth? Would not this in time enable the former beggar to help others in turn? Isn't that really what Christ taught? Each soul has such boundless worth and the true follower of Christ should seek to amplify a person's ability to see that in him or herself.

I know from personal experience that the welfare system directed by Christ in our modern day does not just hand people money when they ask for it. We are encouraged to first find ways on our own to make ends meet. Then turn to family after we have exhausted our own resources. Then, if we still lack the ability to care for ourselves and our family, the Church will aid us in finding work and care for us in the meantime. This seems to align very well with Objectivism.

4) The idea that personal happiness is the object of existence. It's true: people lose their souls in the pursuit of pleasure. Yet, if living the gospel of Christ didn't make me happy, I wouldn't do it. There is a plan laid out in the scriptures. It is a plan to return us to our Heavenly Father. Sometimes we call it The Plan of Salvation. I happen to like another of its names: The Great Plan of Happiness.

Radar on :

Very well stated Mr. Giggler.

The Fox on :

In clarification of my comments, I see that I wrote that Christianity is “most closely aligned with Communism” when what I meant is “more closely aligned”. The parenthetical “communalism” is much more accurate. And you’re right that Marx was an atheist, while the Jesus of the NT is most certainly not.

But my point wasn’t that proto-Christianity was Communist, only that it is more closely aligned with Communist views of humanity than with Objectivist views. This doesn’t mean that they are the same thing, however. I’m merely using Communism to contrast Christianity with Objectivist philosophy. I think the general portrayal of the rich and the poor in the gospels, though, is one similar to that of Communist thought. The rich are generally uncaring, while the poor are oppressed. The sins of the poor are sicknesses in need of a healer, while the rich cannot be helped, even if righteous. The solution is to divide up property, concentrate it in the hands of a few (the apostles at first) and allow them to dole it out. It’s very in line with the Communist idea: “To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.” I would say that Rand's philosophy contrasts these attitudes.

But again, not saying proto-Christianity was Communist. Though it was Communalist.

The Mad Giggler on :

I disagree with your statement that "I think the general portrayal of the rich and the poor in the gospels, though, is one similar to that of Communist thought." There's a lot of language about the "poor" being blessed and the "rich" being cursed, but Christ taught that
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
"When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:24-26)

And "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:3)

Alma, a prophet in the Book of Mormon casts further light on how these two quotes are related:
"Now, as Alma was teaching and speaking unto the people upon the hill Onidah, there came a great multitude unto him, who were those of whom we have been speaking, of whom were poor in heart, because of their poverty as to the things of the world.
"And they came unto Alma; and the one who was the foremost among them said unto him: Behold, what shall these my brethren do, for they are despised of all men because of their poverty, yea, and more especially by our priests; for they have cast us out of our synagogues which we have labored abundantly to build with our own hands; and they have cast us out because of our exceeding poverty; and we have no place to worship our God; and behold, what shall we do?
"And now when Alma heard this, he turned him about, his face immediately towards him, and he beheld with great joy; for he beheld that their afflictions had truly humbled them, and that they were in a preparation to hear the word.
"Therefore he did say no more to the other multitude; but he stretched forth his hand, and cried unto those whom he beheld, who were truly penitent, and said unto them:
. . .
"And now, because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye; for a man sometimes, if he is compelled to be humble, seeketh repentance; and now surely, whosoever repenteth shall find mercy; and he that findeth mercy and endureth to the end the same shall be saved.
"And now, as I said unto you, that because ye were compelled to be humble ye were blessed, do ye not suppose that they are more blessed who truly humble themselves because of the word?
"Yea, he that truly humbleth himself, and repenteth of his sins, and endureth to the end, the same shall be blessed—yea, much more blessed than they who are compelled to be humble because of their exceeding poverty." (Alma 32:4-7, 13-15)

Because poverty often compels us to be humble and turn to God for help, we hold up the poor as examples of the "poor in spirit" who will "inherit the kingdom of God." But we can understand from Christ that "with God all things are possible" and that through God, even a rich man can enter the kingdom of God and a camel can pass through the eye of a needle. So a rich man who humbles himself before God and cares for those around him - helping others to find their eternal worth in the eyes of God (loving God and his neighbor) can indeed inherit eternal life.

Does this mean he has to impart of his wealth? Undoubtedly. Does it mean he has to rid himself of all of it? Not unless he's asked to, as Peter was and as the rich young man was.

The Mad Giggler on :

I also think we're getting too caught up in thinking that Objectivism equates to rich being good and Christianity equating to rich being bad. Objectivism is about realizing your self-worth and not letting other people take that away from you.

The looters in Atlas Shrugged essentially devalued the heroes' worth by demanding that they had a right to what the heroes had earned. Rand is saying that no one has a right to what someone else has done. If you as a hard-working earner wish to impart of your substance freely, that is a-ok. But you should never feel obligated to give something to someone who demands it for nothing in return.

Add Comment

Name

Homepage

Comment

In reply to

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA