From my initial read of the page you linked to, I'd say this is another individual who has found that the "chasm" between Ayn's two divergent points is an illusion. There really IS common ground for both Christianity and Objectivism.

I actually had started contemplating something similar myself. Perhaps not a book length treatise, but some kind of document that outlined Objectivism from a strictly Christian point of view. Ayn outlined it from a strictly atheistic point of view (in theory).

After listening to her speak, I no longer believe she is an atheist. She is, in large measure, a secular humanist. Part of their "theology" is that they are their own gods. She is her god -- hence she cannot be atheist. I do not say this to demean her, simply to point out a relevant point which does make a difference in how you read her, and by extension, her alter ego, John Galt.

But back to my point: Is it possible to discuss Objectivism from the point of view of a Christian? I pondered on that point last night. Apparently someone else pondered on that point enough to write a book on it.

Thanks for the link...

we, of course, disagree. I'll let someone else pick up the thread if they'd like at this point. I'm not sure I can add anything further to the discussion. However, I did want to point you to a book, written by one of the gulch members Mark, called "Soul of Atlas."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/soul-atlas...
You may find it interesting.

Precisely. In step five, "canceling out" is another word for "division," and ( A - B ) is zero, so the division in that step was invalid. Division by zero, in literary terms, is a logical fallacy.

Now that you have been able to parse a simple example and see the logical fallacy, I encourage you to go back through Ayn's work and do the same. She assumes dichotomies many times which do not exist. Since it is logical and reasonable for there to be more than two groupings, what does that do to her conclusion? It is probably reasonable and valid for the folks who DO belong to the two groups, but what of the others?

Another incredible limitation in her philosophy which is glaringly obvious to Christians was her denigration of Jesus Christ for his sacrifice in the garden and cross. She could not believe in a religion who taught of a sacrifice of that kind from the one they worship. She claimed she would be insulted by it if she were a Christian. Those were her words. Her short-sightedness comes because she will not acknowledge the potential of a life after death, and that to God, this life is but a short period of our eternal nature. We lived with Him before we were born; we have this life of mortality; we will live again after we have died.

Since she will not accept the potential of this, everything she attempts to say about religion is skewed. Since the lumps the "family" in with "god" as "slop," you cannot even appeal to her philosophically about God being our Father, and sacrificing for His children.

As the saying goes "you cannot see what you will not look for." She will not see thee things, therefore, her comments on them are not valid.

Again, I will repeat: I see the value in what she espoused within the context of her authority. I accept she knew and understood those things well enough to write a book like AS. She seems to be spot on in that regard.

But that is as far as she can be logically or reasonably granted.

Her philosophy MUST be understood in relation to her personality. If the description is a discredit to her, then what does that do to her philosophical points?

This is not a science. If a mathematician, say, comes up with some wonderful new theorem, you could separate his personality from his arithmetic with impunity. If a naturalist discovers a new species, the kind of person he is has no bearing on the discovery. They are "working with" things which have no bearing on their personality, and vice-verse.

But we are talking about a philosophical discussion. The kind of person she is, her mind, her attitudes, all come into play -- because THAT is what she is "working with."

Her reason and her logic are part of the basis of her ethics. Her ethics and her thought process were part and parcel to the reason and logic she came up with. They go hand in hand.

Logic, also, cannot be taken out of context. Just because there is a described logical progression of steps does not mean those steps are logical or reasonable.

Let me put it into another context. Let's use math. It is easy and straight forward, and presumably all of us can see how it works and verify it for themselves. I will use nothing but rules used in the math all high school students are required to pass and understand. Most of the junior high math actually cover enough for them to understand this as well.

So... here we go.

1) I will start off saying two variables are equal:
A = B

2) Next, since I have an equality, I can do anything to one side of the equation as long as I do the same thing to both sides, and the equation remains equal. So I will multiply both sides by A, giving me:
A^2 = AB (this says "A-squared equals A times B)

3) Just for giggles and grins, let's subtract B^2 from both sides, giving me:
A^2 - B^2 = AB - B^2

4) The reason I did that is because the construct (A^2 - B^2) factors out very nicely. SO when I factor it out, I have:
( A + B ) ( A - B ) = B ( A - B)

5) It is easy to see that there is an ( A - B ) on both sides, so just cancel them out, leaving:
A + B = B

6) Since A = B, you can change it to:
2B = B

I only used relatively simple, high school level algebra, and proved that 1 = 2, or 5 = 10, or -2 = -4 -- or did it? Actually, working through the proof, you might say I proved that -2 = 4 -- but I'll leave figuring that out to the reader.

Each step uses purely logical, 100% verifiable, simple algebra. Yet it is obviously wrong. Yes, there *IS* an error. Which step it is in?

So, my friend, just because someone can weave a thread of "logical statements" does not imply their results are accurate.

*FOR* *ME*, I stated that I acknowledged the results of her work were incredible! She wrote books which have changed lives, and were so highly predictive that it is almost frightening.

As far as the philosophy she advocated, she seemed to be spot on. She is authoritative and insightful in these areas. But her own mental processes were halted because it seems she could not even conceive of the potential of valid options outside of her dichotomy. That invalidates her as a source of understanding in other areas.

Almost immediately, you seek to discredit her personally. This ignores the basis of her Ethics: Reason and logic. A is A. By definition, any logical system is rigid. Non-contradictory thinking is rigid. It has stood man well throughout time. It is how we have made progress. If the fundamental basis of her philosophy is based on logic and reason, you cannot criticize her for sticking to those principles while developing a philosophy. This philosophy, is not a POLITICAL philosophy. This is key.
Ethics and Philosophy is not outside her expertise. Faith is irrational b definition. You accept that, but I do not, Rand did not. That hardly means "high tower of atheism" nor is it arrogant.

After having listened to Ayn, in her own words, I find she was incredibly blind to many things. I am (at this moment) going back through John Galt's "big speech," and I must say, it sounds quite different now that I have heard Ayn, from her own mouth, describe how she really feels. Quite different.

Since she, as an individual, refuses to see religion in anything but a bad light, she cannot fathom how it can be a good influence.

This leads to HUGE fallacies in her philosophy. One I will mention is called the "false dichotomy." In Galt's speech: "For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors-between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it."

*SHE* built this chasm, from her own mental constructions, and everything has to stand on that, or it falls into the abyss. Either people belong to incompetents of ghosts. No in-between.

So it is not possible for me to say I have my own life and my own agency and my own power to act, and, having studied and pondered on the matter, I choose to act in the name of a God whom I have come to believe in. Because of her own short-sightedness and philosophical rigidity, my belief in God is inconsistent with her moral dogma, thus I am no longer a rational being.

Several of the interviewers I watched tried to get her to come off her high tower of atheism, and admit she could not prove no God existed, therefore at least not be so arrogant about it. She refused.

If I was making my original response (above) today, I would have said something more to the tune of "Ayn has blatantly stated she cannot believe or accept a faith based explanation, therefore her comments on faith are out of line, and altogether invalid."

As it was, I realized she was as close to an atheist as I had known, and was attempting to be charitable. This is a trait her own comportment in the videos I saw showed me she does not hold.

Speaking of her personally, it appears she is self-absorbed, almost to the point of narcissism, secular humanist, who thinks herself perfect, who worships her own mind and thoughts, with such an ardent, religious, zeal that she cannot tolerate the potential of an explanation that is outside of her own, godlike, understanding.

Professionally, it appears she developed a mind-bogglingly accurate political philosophy, and, using it, wrote some incredibly insightful books, which have changed the lives of many people. Her political philosophy is astoundingly good! I am overwhelmed at the political philosophies she espoused.

But quoting her outside of her area of expertise is like quoting Einstein outside of his. (What, for instance, did HE know about psychology? Why quote him on it. That kind of thing.)

Having said all of that, I will admit that *I* am, also, blind to things outside of my area of expertise. When I venture into those discussions, I normally try to be open minded and see what I can learn -- but sometimes my own pride gets in the way. What can I say? I'm human.. I guess the difference is folks don't try to quote me in areas I am illiterate in.

which is your right, of course, but I thought it was just heating up and getting interesting. It's relevant to discuss religion in here. there are tough questions, it would be disheartening for either side of the question to hit and run so to speak ;)

"In one of the interviews, a person asked her if she thought she was perfect, and her answer was yes. "
I am not sure which interview this question was asked, but Lee, I really think she gave a flippant answer to a flippant question.
For those of faith, I imagine it is outrageous that there are those who seemingly, arrogantly state, there is no God. Having been raised with faith all around me, I have experienced this reaction countless times.
To your last statement, reason is absolutely vital to survival. Choosing reason (it's always volitional) must occur in order to survive. Belief in a god is not essential to survival.
Her personality is not essential to her philosophy.
I can find you any number of very polite, amiable, modest individuals who would like to see less population on the Earth, the productive slaves to the unproductive, themselves as a dictator.

I was not insulted by your comment. I simply acknowledged that in a thread concerning her philosophies. I do not agree with her philosophy concerning religion.

But she went out of her way to state that "god" did not mean a deity, but the "highest possible" we can achieve.

I downloaded the video and watched it. I also downloaded a number of other ones. I wanted to get to her Ayn, as a person. I have to say she was antagonistic and rather rude about people who believed in God (or god), and considered herself above them in every way.

*IF* she believed in a god at all, it is herself. In one of the interviews, a person asked her if she thought she was perfect, and her answer was yes.

So I have to agree with the concept that she is a "deist," and point out that from what I saw these past two days, she, and her profound intellect and reason, was her god.

you are welcome! believe it or not, I came to Buena Vista social Club from Fresh Air (NPR) some years ago and picked up a CD. since I download everything now I can't remember which
ones

I didn't say that anyone was being disrespectful, but that I have had my say and there isn't any reason to keep repeating it! Moving on to another thread that I can still contribute to....

BTW: I found another Buena Vista album that must have been the source of your link. It is called Buena Vista Social Club at Carnegie Hall, and was the last album before many of the bands original members passed away. I don't normally go for live performances, but this one is superior.

Thanks for that!

wait a minute! do you expect that in a site about Atlas Shrugged, you will get no comments to back up your statements regarding faith and belief? In no way have I been disrespectful to your beliefs. But in here, this site, this post regarding an Ayn Rand lecture, surely I'm allowed to quote Rand. In no way did I suggest you couldn't say whatever you wanted on this post. goodness gracious, I meander all over the place in here-but I didn't even see this thread as meandering. It seemed relevant and interesting. It's one reason why this site appeals to a broader audience. Just try to have this discussion on an Objectivist site and see how long you'll hang out. Put the shoe on the other foot for a moment and imagine me on an atlas shrugged movie website outnumbered by individuals of faith-by a not insignificant margin, I might add.

Maybe not "flawed", as much as too restricted and uncompromising.

If you find your posts to be "irrelevant", than so must I find mine to be the same.

I'll join you in leaving this thread...!

lol that's a pretty good one for the trolls

I didn't find your comments irrelevant. Just wanted to share Rand's thoughts on it. She wrote extensively about faith, but funny enough did not go into great detail about atheism (from what I have read anyway). Probably because atheism is not important to her philosophy. for example, you can be a communist/atheist.
In this site, Rand is going to come up ;)

Then I guess I'll have to acknowledge I find Rand's definition of faith to be flawed, and simply exit this conversation instead of add more irrelevant posts to it...

Sorry for the type...Objectivists, not Objectionists...Sorry if I offended anyone.

An interesting perspective. Thanks. I would have to agree. These examples would be exceptions to my rule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtEzZEe_5...

I just downloaded (legally) their first album offered on Rhapsody, released in 1997.

Ry Cooder was part of the production, and anything that he gets involved with gets my attention....

Anytime what you have fits the thread, insert it.

Just alert me to this being an Ayn interview, and not some other bizarre trip down musical lane!

P.S. Don't give up your day job for DJ'ing...The Sound of Music???

oh, and just WHOA about your dad

Buena Vista social club has a long history. enjoy your finds

maybe it was another show? lol I distinctly remember Rand's comments on these types of sentiments. I've got more 30 minutes stored up for you, let me know when you want another