An Objectivist Christian is Not a Contradiction

I reread some comments today made by Loxley, Hegel, John Galt, Pooh, and others, but today I decided to respond to the comments made by Hegel and Galt about how Christianity can work in accordance with objectivism. You may not understand this post unless you first read the comments from my post in April: Problems with Objectivism

First off, the truth is multifaceted. This is not to imply that the truth is relative, but rather that the truth has many aspects to it. The sky is blue. The sky is also white, grey, black, and yellow. If it is raining and I say the sky is blue, then I am lying. If it is sunny and I say the sky is gray, I am also lying. And if the sky is blue, but has clouds, than from the ground the sky is both blue and white. Does that mean that the truth is relative? Absolutely not. There is a clear truth visible: the sky is a certain color depending on what time of day it is, whether their is a storm system, or if there are any other objects in the sky.

I absolutely believe that the Bible is the truth. I do not, however, believe that the Bible is the whole truth. The Bible does not state that my shirt has the words "Star Wars" written on it right now. That does not mean that it is untrue that my shirt has the words "Star Wars" written on it nor does it mean that the Bible is a failure for representing the truth because it does not state the truth that my shirt does in fact, at this moment, say “Star Wars” on it. This is a rather trivial example. A more important one may be this: The Bible states that I am supposed to give to the poor. However, the Bible also states, “If anyone will not work, neither let him eat.” Is the first argument a support for welfare? Is the second argument mean that I should not give out food without demanding that that person should work somehow? The Bible is a foundation of understanding the truth, but ultimately we must use that foundation to discover the whole truth through living. This discovery is what led me to Ayn Rand.

When I began reading Atlas Shrugged, I was in a period of frustration with the church. I did not believe that the values of the church were the values I saw in the Bible. I always believed that God existed. I believe that that one God is the Father and that he sent his son, Jesus, to die on the cross for our sins. For much of my childhood, I believed this fact because of personal emotional feelings about this matter or apologetic evidence that frequently turned out to be unsupportable against other scientific evidence. There was a sort of crisis at this time for me. Was my concept of the Bible wrong or were the concepts of the Bible held by the church wrong?

At the time, I had been studying political philosophy and had grown attached to the concept of natural law. Rather than just picking a political ideology, natural law demanded that one study the nature of the world and then determine what law structure works best with nature. It's such an amazingly effective tool for understanding politics. Communism, for example, does not work because it denies the reality of the nature of men. It assumes that the Bourgeois are the only ones who desire power. In reality, when absolute power is available, corrupt men always find a way to fill this position - poor and rich men alike. Once you understand the nature of men, you can start creating a political philosophy that functions around that idea. If when absolute power is made available, bad men will naturally take over, then do not make absolute power available. You repeat this process to ever aspect of the political system, and you find the system of government that you want. This is wonderful, because when people begin using the label of a political system to support an idea (i.e. a democratic leader saying the only way to secure democracy is by giving this leader absolute power) one can refer back to the nature of the world and the origins of the political system to recognize that idea is flawed.

This seemed like a terribly fantastic thing to also apply to religion. There was a contradiction in the Christianity that I believed in and the Christianity I saw all around me. So, I decided to take the argument down to the very foundations of how I saw the natural world and how that made me believe in God ("Check your premises" -Ayn Rand). If there is a God, then the world He created must be a reflection of how He expects me to live. If it is not, and the whole thing is a great deception, then either God does not exist or he is not any sort of God I wish to follow. The concept of the world I agreed must strongly with was the objectivist idea and it is as follows:

Man's first issue is to survive. A human must breath, eat, and drink first before he can make any decisions. Life is the highest value for any human. How can a human make good choices unless they are alive? That is not to say that choosing to die is a bad choice, it simply means that one must be alive long enough to find out what are good choices. Living, however, is a volitional issue. Every person chooses to eat and drink. Every person has the capacity to not eat and drink. In order to eat and drink, a person has to exercise their mind to achieve this. We have to learn what liquids we can drink (i.e. water) and how to find liquids that are safe for our bodies (i.e. clean water). We have to practice a life that gets food. In the modern world, one has to work to contribute to an economy that shuffles money around so that man can purchase food. Survival, in this terribly oversimplified paragraph, is something secured by rationality. Exercising our minds is the only way we live.

This is a happy thought, indeed. Rationality is a process anyone can do. It implies that a person is capable of thinking within himself exactly what is necessary to do to live. However, it gets really complicated when lots of minds become involved. If another man tells you to do something, but rationally you see no reason for doing it, should you trust his rationality or your own? This is where egoism comes into play. Some men have discovered that manipulating other men into not thinking for themselves can be an easy way to gain things without having to do the work himself. This is not rational behavior because it encourages men to not provide for society, but to mooch off of others. But if no one provides, then everyone will die. Rather than forcing other people to do you work, it is much more rational to do the work yourself. If every man provides for himself, there is no problem. This does not mean that some mean will not try to undermine the whole of society for their own irrational interests. But as men cannot read each other's minds, the only way to protect from being mooched off of from another man is to be dependent entirely on your own rationality. If another man provides rational evidence to gain your support, you can join him, as long as you are still judging evidence through your own rationality rather than depending on the rationality of others.

There are other founding ideas that develop important concepts for other aspects of life, but these three ideas--life, rationality, and egoism--are the reasons I believe in the Christian God and are means for me to better interpret the concepts of Christianity.

First, God created humans to desire life. He wanted humans to want to live on Earth. That means that on some level He wanted humans to define their standards of life simply for the sake of living. God, therefore, is benevolent--He has not created a standard in one world that has to be contradicted in order to live in the afterlife.

Second, if God wanted humans to live for living on Earth, He must also desire that humans live rationally, since that is the best way to pursue life. More support for God as a benevolent being--every human has the capacity to be rational and therefore every being is capable of obeying His will and doing good.

Lastly, if God wanted rationality, He must have also wanted people to be egoistic. It is rational for every being to trust in their own rationality to come to decisions. This shows that God is benevolent because He does not create a primary means of understanding that is found outside the make-up of the human mind. Every human being has the capacity to understand the truth of God within themselves.

(In theory, God could be extraordinarily malicious, creating a world where it seems evident to pursue life, rationality, and egoism, but have a supernatural standard of death, irrationality, and selflessness. Such a god is a deceiver, and I will not worship a deceiver. If hell is the existence opposite of this god that is where I wish to be. Also in theory, there could be no God and this is simply the nature of the universe, but by the objectivist philosophy, this matters very little. I am still living my life to the fullest capacity because I am living it by the standards I believe are evident, and in accordance, with Earth.)

I believe in the Christian God because I believe that the Bible is intended to help Christians live on Earth the best way possible, has standards that are rational, and encourage men to live by the rationality of their own minds. Because I am an egoist, I do not follow the opinions of other Christians just because they tell me they are Christians. Because I am rational, I listen to the opinions of others, but ultimately decide how to respond based on my own rationality. Because I believe in life on Earth, I do not become deceived that I should do something simply based on argument that I will see a reward in Heaven.

That very last fact is critically important, and Ayn Rand did not understand this concept. She was frustrated with Christianity because she believed that it was necessary in Christian principle to always defer to the mystical goal of getting into Heaven. This is a fallacy in a lot of common Christian practices. Being Christian is not about getting into Heaven. Being Christian is about living your life in the way that tries to act like the perfect symbol of life, rationality, and individual perfection: God. The hope is that in living this way, we can carry on a relationship with this entity that created the standard of living on Earth. God is the greatest producer. Heaven is the hope that Christians have that death is not the final action we will have with the creator of Earth, the maker of all things good. The hope is that for making right choices here, despite the temptation of making bad choices, we will be rewarded by living in a place where there is no irrationality, no irrational selfishness, and no death. I am an objectivist because I believe that God created an objective world so that I could use objectivism to come to Him.

Objectivism is the word that Ayn Rand uses to define her philosophy, which she also calls “The Philosophy for living on Earth.” So, if that philosophy espouses atheism, how can I use that philosophy to prove God exists? Objectivism is about life, egoism, and rationality (it includes other things, but with relation to religion, these three ideas are supreme), anything else is an interpretation of those ideas on life. Ayn Rand believed that parts of the Bible contradicted the values of Earth, specifically the concept of altruism. Altruism is the process of giving without rationality. I do not believe that the Bible supports this concept. It is true that the Bible supports charity, encourages people to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, and give money to the poor. This may seem like altruism, but remember altruism is irrational giving. Giving rationally, or as Rand puts it “benevolence,” is a good thing. There are people in the world who are not trying to be moochers or looters who need help, and helping them is a clear benefit to the collection of individuals we know as humanity. There is lots of evidence that God did not intend us to give irrationally. The Bible states clearly, “If anyone will not work, neither let him eat.” The Bible is full of examples about how men should not condone laziness. The Bible is a code of standards that each man is supposed to adapt in his own life and not force upon others. The Bible does not support moocher and does not create looters. If anyone uses the Bible to do so, they are not acting in accordance with the spirit of God.

But why believe in God at all? Rand stated that it is possible that God existed, but even if He did, it didn’t matter because men were the most important thing in men’s own lives. But I think Atlas Shrugged is a perfect contradiction to this idea. What was the greatest thing Dagny Taggart was looking for? She wanted to know and love the greatest producer that ever lived. She wanted to live in an idyllic society where men like James Taggart did not exist. She wanted to live where rationality ruled the minds of every man. But, she was forced to live away from that world for a time until she could understand the value of the utopia that she dreamed of. She had to learn how to give up her railroad in order to gain her railroad. I am looking for the motor that runs the universe; I want to know, and to love, the mind that created the world we live in. I think He gave us a way to find Him, but there are lessons we have to learn here on Earth. His existence is not the negation of goodness on Earth or the power of mankind, but rather He is the compliment to the power of men and the perfect representation of the goodness we see on Earth. That is the greatest value I could ever live for.

So, in a nut shell: I’m an objectivist, because I need some standard outside of Christianity that helps me understand the will of God so that when contradictions in my circle of Christian influences occur, I can make a decision. I am a Christian because life is more fulfilling when I understand why I am living it.

I am sure that this is incomplete, but after 2300 words, I am open for questions.