A couple people have forwarded me the announcement of SFL's upcoming webinar on "Objectivism and Christianity" for a reaction. Here's what I wrote in response to one inquiry.
I think this is what Daniel Dennett calls a “deepity.”
Christianity is in reality incompatible with Objectivism for many reasons, and the idea that “individual liberty and Christianity cannot exist without each other” is either absolutely false, or true only in a trivial sense. Note for example “Christanity teaches me that…”—this indicates that the speaker will offer a variety of Christianity which is tailored to fit with claims for individual liberty. And the vague reference to “important ties” between Christianity and Objectivism is also weasel words. He’s not going to say that they’re actually compatible, but just that there are “important ties.” But then, of course, there are “important ties” between Christianity and Islam, but that does not mean that one can be both a Christian and a Muslim. And there are “important ties” between Mormonism and Catholicism, but one cannot be both.
Objectivism is incompatible with Christianity most fundamentally because Christianity teaches that there are paths to knowledge other than reason—that is, other than a logical analysis of the information about the material world provided by the senses. This is the only mode of knowledge for Objectivists. Faith or other kinds of knowing that cannot be rationally demonstrated or physically tested are rejected by Objectivism.
This author says that a “Christian philosophy of free will” “shares values” with the Objectivist perspective on rational self interest. To a degree this is true, and Rand acknowledged it many times. She was an admirer of Aquinas and even recognized that Christianity had certain fundamentally individualistic aspects that she admired—that differ from, say, the Eastern religions. Aquinas argued in favor of combining the ethics of rational self interest, which he got from Aristotle, and the ethics of self-sacrifice which he got from Jesus. Therefore it’s obvious that there is a degree to which Thomistic Christianity, or any other variety of Christianity which pledges partial allegiance to an ethics of rational self interest will share some things in common with Objectivism. But this is like saying that Tupac was somewhat influenced by the Notorious B.I.G., and therefore that one can be in both posses. It’s either not true—that is, you can be in Tupac’s posse or in B.I.G.’s posse, but not both—or it’s true only in a trivial sense, which is to say “Well, both posses are in gangsta culture, therefore they share important similarities.” Well, okay, there are “important ties,” but...whatever.
Objectivism rejects any claim to a supernatural or non-physical dimension to existence—contrary to John 4:24. It holds that we know about the universe solely through reason and logic alone—contrary to John 20:29. It holds that the individual exists solely for the purpose of his own rational happiness and not in order to serve others or make other people happy—contrary to Galatians 5:13 and Luke 18:22. It holds that the only morally proper political system is laissez-faire capitalism—contrary to Matthew 21:12-14 and Acts 2:42-47….
No, the only reason to attempt to argue that Objectivism and Christianity are compatible is that the speaker is afraid of the consequences of admitting the obvious conflicts.
Update: These comments were written in reaction to the email announcing the SFL presentation, and that email was written not by the presenter, Mr. Henderson, but by a student speaking for herself. I doubt that this makes much difference, as the content of these "Objectivism can be combined with Christianity" arguments are usually pretty much the same, but just to be clear, I was responding to the student's words, and not Mr. Henderson's.
Comments policy