...I think things are improving considerably.

To think, people like Jefferson were a bit afraid to use the title Atheist. But something scary is going on with fundamentalists both in the Muslim and Christian countries.

Both have been creeping up unawares for a long time.

The US public need reminding of the value of their secular, science and reason roots (and their initial rejection of religious mysticism)- if they are really to defeat the evils of the Muslim world and the terrorists that come from there.

I believe that religion was invented by man in order to control man.
As more men become free of control, the easier it is to break away from those or that, which restrains.

...so I better stick a good quote in here.

Michael Ruse [biologist in favour of evolution],

"We who love science must realize that the enemy of our enemy is our friend...Dawkins [by calling Pope John Paul II, who accepted evolution, a hypocrite] himself simply preferred to be an honest fundamentalist."

In Reponses Jerry Coyne [geneticist] wrote,
"Ruse fails to grasp the real nature of the conflict. It's not just about evolution versus creationism. To scientists like Dawkins and Wilson, the real war is between rationalism and superstition."

I have found out that you can watch "a brief history of disbelief" and the "atheism tapes" (full-length interviews only partly shown in the brief history documentary) online at google video.

Beware: Each episode of a brief history is one hour long. Worth watching though!

Part one
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4379664999509308147&q=jonathan...

Part two
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7510277859954739795&q=jonathan...

Part three
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3846467839209811110&q=jonatha...

At the moment I am reading Dawkin's new book "the God Delusion" - it just came out last week.

So far some good quotes, I hadn't read before:

Robert M Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenace:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it's called insanity. When may people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion."

Carl Sagan:
"How is it that hardly any religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My God is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'"

Dawkins himself:
"Being an Atheist is nothing to be apologetic about. On the contrary, it is something to be proud of, standing tall to face the far horizon, for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind."

"Imagine a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no Indian partition, no Israeli/ Palestinian wars, no Serb/ Croat/ Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers', no Northern Ireland troubles, no honour killings, no shiny bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money. Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it."

There is also an interesting part about Einstein being damned in the US, while he was still alive for publicly saying that the idea of a "personal God" was "alien" to him and he thought that it was "very naive". One particularly angry American said he should be sent back to Germany for making such an offensive statement!

James wrote,

"You have to be able to evaluate the Bible as objectively as you would the Iliad."

The Iliad is just as full of mystical nonsense as the bible. The Muslim religion was a spin-off of Judeo-Christianity mysticism, one of the worst in history.

Regarding Christian history:
It could be said that pagan philosophy - some of it useful and worthwhile - was preserved through Catholic Churches and monasteries. However, the Church was responsible for destroying much of it as well.
(So any perceived benefits from Christianity are rarely as straightforward as thought.)

Bill wrote:

"You may live apart from Him for all your days."

Everyone, no need to argue the point anymore, because according to nutmuncher Bill there is no distinction between those who believe in God and those who don't. Theists everywhere, go tell your God to go fuck himself - he doesn't need you - St Bill's spreading the news!

Let's not be dishonest, Peter. What I wrote was this:

"Only by fulfilling his nature as a moral being does a man become independent. He does so, because his morality enables him to be a creator, therefore productive."

As for God, it is a matter of acknowledging Him as the creator and showing gratitude to Him for His creation that allows me to be the moral, creative, and independent being I can be.

Of course, as I said before, God imposes no duty upon you to acknowledge Him, let alone be grateful for His creation of which you are the key part. You may live apart from Him for all your days (although I think that's tough to do, even for an atheist, if you live a productive life of common decency).

Regards, Bill

Bill claimed: "Sin is the choice to live apart from God. Original Sin is the fact that we are born into this world apart from God. To overcome this, we must choose to be with God. We can only do this by becoming moral beings. Only by fulfilling his nature as a moral being does a man become independent..."

Which means that in order for man to become independent be must become dependent on God.

Wow. That's about as perverted, isn't it, as Hegel's claim that "freedom" means "obedience to the state."

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

* * * *

'NOT PC.'
**Setting Brushfires In People's Minds**

ORGANON ARCHITECTURE
**Integrating Architecture With Your Site**

I mixed you up with that other handsome fellow, Marcus.

Your insight is excellent. Sin is the choice to live apart from God. Original Sin is the fact that we are born into this world apart from God. To overcome this, we must choose to be with God. We can only do this by becoming moral beings.

Only by fulfilling his nature as a moral being does a man become independent. He does so, because his morality enables him to be a creator, therefore productive. He is otherwise a slave to his appetites, to his animal nature. He reduces himself to a cipher. Or once becoming a moral being, he can pervert that knowledge to rebel against God and live as destroyer.

Regards, Bill

But I'm not going to break my promise not to bother you anymore.

Regards, Bill

"Original Sin, our original base nature that is more clever beast than human being. This is the nature than tempts us to sate our appetites rather than defer them as needed to live a creative, productive life."

What definition of sin is Bill working with? "Sin" means "separation," and in the religious sense, "separation from God." The separation, according to the bible, came when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Interestingly, btw, in the Kabbala take on this, this was intended by God as a good thing, something to do with God's cup overflowing in the human vessel, and the separation as man's becoming independent. In any case, since Objectivists don't believe in Adam and Eve literally, this is moot, and even as a metaphor, would be rejected in the same way that Objectivists reject a "return to nature" attitude (since the eco-hippie/Eastern philosophy would also promote the "clever beast" theory of his.)

(edited to remove the impression that I was actually engaging Bill himself. As if.)

My mistake Bill, I am well aware of both meanings of the word it’s just that the "Greek god of love and sexual desire" seemed a more realistic notion for what you were suggesting.

And I have no interest in your advice on how to handle my love life. My questions were rhetorical but thanks for clearing up that eros thing…

Well, if you think I'm mired in "mind-body dualism" (without any explanation of how, I note), then I can only conclude you really don't understand Christianity, Catholicism in particular.

As for what I said about Original Sin, I think you're trapped in the Calvinist mangling of the concept if you believe what I wrote does away with the need for redemption. As I said, we all must choose to be moral beings. None of us can escape this choice. Even refusing to choose is a choice.

So what is it that this act of will must overcome? Original Sin, our original base nature that is more clever beast than human being. This is the nature than tempts us to sate our appetites rather than defer them as needed to live a creative, productive life. It is the animal existence of the present rather than the human one of the future. If we do not choose to be more than an animal by becoming a moral being, we will become slave to our appetites and so do evil to ourselves and probably to others to satisfy them.

Redemption comes out of the desire to be released from the constraints of this base nature and become fully human -- i.e. moral -- beings. This desire and how to fulfill is knowable through natural law, so it is possible to be redeemed without knowledge of Christ. However, that knowledge makes possible the fullest life a human being can have, as I have discovered for myself after living on both sides of the divide between belief and non-belief.

Regards, Bill

P.S. Upon review my opening remarks sound harsh. That's not my intention, and rather than fiddle away with rewording them, I'll trust you to take my word for it.

You are apparently unaware of what small-e "eros" means. You'll need to enlighten yourself on that score.

Finally, what makes you think I have any interest in telling you how to handle your love life?

Regards, Bill

Now can you please provide me with one good reason I tell my girlfriend for her to stop taking her birth control pills? Something other than how constantly worrying about an unwanted pregnancy will improve our sex life and help foster our love for each other.

You have to be able to evaluate the Bible as objectively as you would the Iliad.

Bill, you have just met all of my expectations about the necessary relationship between mind-body dualism and even the most "reformed" Christianity one can project.

I have but one more question: if that's all there is to Original Sin, then are you saying that we are NOT born needing the redemption of Christ's sacrifice -- all of us, regardless of how good our "choices" have been?

["I guess I still don't know: do you regard birth control as immoral?"

Yes. Its practice at the least starves eros. At its worst, it denies eros and reduces a person to a mere instrument for another’s physical pleasure.]

So using a condom starves the Greek god of love and sexual desire?

But seriously WTF kind of answer is this? Granted it was a yes or no question but you were much better off not providing your reasoning instead of this ridiculous explanation.

“I guess I still don't know: do you regard birth control as immoral?”

Yes. Its practice at the least starves eros. At its worst, it denies eros and reduces a person to a mere instrument for another’s physical pleasure.

“And, assisted suicide?”

I neglected to address this yesterday. Yes, of course. It’s murder. Even if one could rationalize how it’s not, I can’t see how one can ignore the likelihood of its abuse for the concealment of murder.

“But, in any event, do you really consider this Biblical Christianity?”

If you were a Protestant, I think I might understand your question. (You know, sola scriptura and all that jazz.) But you’re not, so I’m not sure what you mean by “Biblical Christianity”. Let me say this instead. Nothing I have put forth here is at odds with Catholic doctrine. An important reason why I am a Catholic is because the Church’s teachings affirmed my hard-won understanding of human nature and the human condition. What I gained from those teachings was a much sounder foundation for what I knew to be true than the philosophy of Rand provided. (I don’t think Objectivism is rubbish so much as I think it is incomplete.)

“What was the point of St. Paul's recommendation of celibacy, for instance?”

To encourage those who had the strength, the will, and the desire to forsake the ordinary union of husband and wife to attempt the extraordinary: An ascetic life that, while not denying the world, allows the mind to focus beyond it.

“And, what's your view of Original Sin, then?”

Original Sin is the truth that no person is moral without choosing to do so. In other words, no one is moral by virtue of mere existence. You and I have to choose to be good, and to do so, we must gain knowledge of what is good. Think of a child. What will it be other than a clever beast if not taught what good is and how to choose to be good?

We are designed with the capacity to be moral beings, but we realize that only through the will to do so. However, Original Sin is also the truth that our will can be perverted to choose evil. The Calvinists overly emphasize this aspect of Original Sin to teach that we human beings are by nature depraved wretches. We aren’t, because if we were depraved by nature, then only by defying that nature could any of us ever choose to be good.

Regards, Bill

"So having all of the babies that a happy sex life would produce is the way most conducive to human happiness for most people? You're joking, right?"

Well, that’s not what I said. If nothing else, I did not say that sex is requisite to a happy life. No matter, let’s get to the bottom of this.

Sterilizing sex reduces it to only its function of physical pleasure. By closing sex to procreation, a couple do not need the love for each other required to bear and raise a child. That is not to say their love does not exist and cannot grow, but sterilized sex is poor nourishment for it. Once sex does not nourish love, in the absence of that function, the pursuit of pleasure takes primacy – and that risks reduces each partner to the instrument of the other.

With that in mind, let me carry on with a point I eluded to at the beginning. Contrary to the adolescent obsession with sex that marks our times, sex is not necessary to a happy life. Because sterilized sex is, in a fundamental way, not sex, its practice does not preclude happiness – though it surely must be an impediment if one chooses marriage.

But what do I know, Holly? I do not inquire into the sexual conduct of others, because it is no business of mine. So the only sure knowledge I have to buttress what I have said here is nothing but my own experience. Nevertheless, my nature is not radically different from that of any other person, and so I suspect that what is fundamentally true for me is likely the same for others.

Regards, Bill

"Since Marcus does not seem terribly interested in the history of it, I can only respect his sense of justice."

James, I am interested in the history of Christianity.

Your remark reminds me of a funny story.

I was discussing the history with a Christian in very no nonsense, analytical fashion. At the end of it, this Christian wished me well as if I were a fellow Christian. I was quite shocked at this, because I had just critically analysed the history of the bible and Christianity - not displaying any thing close to Christian faith. But what she had falsely assumed is that because I had both knowledge and interest of her religion that I was like Paul on his way to Damascus.

I was as ardent an atheist as they come and had not said anything remotely encouraging or complimentary about Christianity. It just showed me how intellectually laziness is taken for granted nowadays – unless of course you have some sort of missionary motive.

Bill,

So having all of the babies that a happy sex life would produce is the way most conducive to human happiness for most people? You're joking, right?

I guess I still don't know: do you regard birth control as immoral? And, assisted suicide?

But, in any event, do you really consider this Biblical Christianity? What was the point of St. Paul's recommendation of celibacy, for instance?

And, what's your view of Original Sin, then?

"What's your opinion on the Church's teaching with regard to birth control and assisted suicide?"

Even during my wilderness years as a student of Rand I objected to birth control as inimical to what I desired in a full relationship with a woman. (Without getting into the spectacle of public confession, I will however say that temptation sometimes trumped principle.) That desire is part of my nature, and because my nature is not radically different from that of any other human being, I think most of us would find more happiness in the restraint I have subjected myself to.

However, that is for others to decide for themselves, not me. I did not then and do not now support government regulation or restriction of birth control. (Abortion and abortifacients are another matter because they take a human life -- another conviction I have always held as both a non-believer and a believer.)

"And, if you don't mind my asking, what in your view is the function of the Sacraments in your life?"

The sacraments, especially as performed in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, bring beauty to my life. They are effective because they engage the fullness of human nature, the hylomorphic union of body and soul.

Aesthetically, it's the difference between poetry and prose. The truth communicated through the performance of a sacrament can be understood without ritual, but the ritual, by engaging not just the mind but also the flesh, brings out the beauty of that truth by its demonstration of harmony between body and soul.

Of course, if the mind is not engaged by a sacrament, it is just empty ritual. On the other hand, in some Protestant denominations where a sacrament is largely a mental exercise, it can become amorphous without the physicality of ritual. In each case, the truth of the union of body and soul is lost.

Regards, Bill

The Wahhabi is very influential in spreading extreme Islamism but I have yet to see anyone advocate an attack on Saudi Arabian Wahhabi mosques. Why?

Huh? I brought it up, Kenny, on that Creeping Sharia thread, and you accused me of advocating genocide.

Then let's concretize this a little bit.

What's your opinion on the Church's teaching with regard to birth control and assisted suicide?

And, if you don't mind my asking, what in your view is the function of the Sacraments in your life?

James, you ask:

"Then we can achieve perfection here on earth?"

What do you mean by perfection? Heaven on Earth? Utopia? No. And no one needs to know a lick about Christian belief, only a good understanding of human nature, why we can never perfectly order ourselves let alone society. Common experience and a little Hayek are good starting points.

"What does one owe to his faith and Savior here on earth... anything?"

Nothing. God's grace is a gift that each of us is free to accept or reject at any time. A fully Christian life is one lived from the informed desire to do so, not from any perceived compulsion or obligation or guilt.

Of course, I'm a Catholic, not a Calvinist.

Regards, Bill

Then we can achieve perfection here on earth?

What does one owe to his faith and Savior here on earth... anything?

I can appreciate your views here but considering this was prior to the modern world and there were no real concepts or ideas of "faith" as the process of "non-thinking" or "non-reason" being "anti-mind". Can you really blame them for not being able to properly ground their morals? After all it only took how many thousands of years for someone to think to combine reason and selfishness in a consistent philosophy?

You ask: "Do one's spiritual needs ever, in your view, conflict with one's earthly needs?"

No. We are made to thrive in this world. We do so by fulfilling our nature.

Regards, Bill

Bill,

Do one's spiritual needs ever, in your view, conflict with one's earthly needs?

Kenny,

I'm feeling much better, thanks.

MI5 has successfully infiltrated extremist Muslim groups to thwart terrorists acts. That is, IMHO, the best way to deal with the threat. BTW, the same tactic was used to deal with the IRA threat.

I trust that you have fully recovered from your illness now.

Oil.

I know it's not a perfect analogy, but in America the fact that many racists were peaceful did not prevent the FBI from infiltrating the KKK and other such groups -- precisely in order to bring them down and break them up.

The BBC is more effective at spreading leftist propaganda than atheism. It is a disgrace that it is the largest broadcaster. I want to abolish it and sell its assets to private broadcasters.

And I admire Marcus's anger, Lance.

An ancient work like Homer's Iliad can be appreciated as literature, dissected for its history, and examined as a statement of religion and ethics within its context.

As scholars, we must be able to evaluate the Bible with equal objectivity.

However, unlike Greek mythology, the Bible continues killing and hurting people -- and this is worthy of our anger.

Since Marcus does not seem terribly interested in the history of it, I can only respect his sense of justice.

I agree with you about the cartoons and Mozart opera. I attended the "March for Free Expression" in London.

The use of Mosques to spread extremism and recruit terrorists is our major threat in Britain. How should we deal with or target them within the law?

The Wahhabi is very influential in spreading extreme Islamism but I have yet to see anyone advocate an attack on Saudi Arabian Wahhabi mosques. Why?

These are genuine questions that need answering.

You wrote:

"Christian 'sacrifice' that endorses -- as the New Testament does -- literal martyrdom may be 'selfish' from the perspective of a purported immortal soul in an non-existent afterlife, but it is total sacrifice here on earth."

As I said, Objectivists don't get it. No Christian rightly pursues martyrdom. That's because life is precious. However, Christians do honor those who refuse to embrace falsehood in the face of death. On the other hand, those who do lie to escape persecution and death are not damned. So the issue isn't trading life on earth for the afterlife. It is whether or not one will sacrifice his mortal life for the truth.

Is there no circumstance under which you would refuse to bend to the will of another holding a gun at your head? If you can conceive of one, then you understand the Christian concept of martyrdom.

Regards, Bill

Marcus, I admire your loyalty to reason.

That's a separate issue, Kenny. Just because our enemy's ideology is religious in nature, unlike the Communists, say, this does not mean that that ideology is any less a threat itself. I don't think we should nuke Mecca -- but we cannot be squeamish about targeting mosques -- especially when they are used as "shields" and when many Islamic religious institutions have become the equivalent of a Nazi Ministry of Propaganda.

As for the west, our "tolerance" has become a joke when we can no longer run images of the Prophet in cartoons or produce Mozart operas.

Islam's growing bigotry is totally taking advantage of suicidal western tendencies -- including a profound misunderstanding of what "religious freedom" means. Freedom of Religion cannot permit, for example, the Aztec practice of human sacrifice. Religious freedom does not mean the freedom to be part of a conspiracy to commit mass murder, either.

"You give a good reason for Objectivists to hate religious nutcases like yourself even more."

That's fine. I won't bother you any further.

Regards, Bill

Casey

“James is writing an entire book on the origins of Christianity.”

Good. I hope he comes to same conclusion that I have

Joe

Thanks, that’s interesting. So it sounds like Rand herself was divided on the benefits of religion.

Greg

“I think the story of Abraham was an example of humanity moving in the right direction…”

I completely disagree. I think the story highlights how divorced of reason religious morals are. The message is simply – “don’t do what you know is right or wrong through reason – just do what God tells you.” Faith is the process of non-thinking or non-reason and is therefore anti-mind.

James

“But is there nothing -- even taken in its best light -- that can somehow be construed as a virtue somewhere in that whole Bible?”

Why do you want there to be. I have (as we all have) had Christians try to brain-wash me all my life about how virtuous Christianity is. I don’t really feel any obligation to give them any succour – there are enough people doing that already. The brave thing today is actually to stand up to them and tell them that they are anti-life, anti-reason and anti-virtue.

Kenny

“The BBC is full of leftist atheists, e.g. Jonathan Miller, who (would) hate Rand and her philosophy.”

So what? An atheist is not necessarily rational – but it helps. I was merely looking for any prominent atheism given time in popular media nowadays and the BBC is the largest Broadcaster in the world – never mind that it is run by socialists – that was not my point.

Bill

“For example, the greatest sacrifice a Christian can make is to surrender his broken spirit. In other words, let go of what can only ruin you. That's hardly a sacrifice in the Randian sense.”

You give a good reason for Objectivists to hate religious nutcases like yourself even more.

Christian "sacrifice" that endorses -- as the New Testament does -- literal martyrdom may be "selfish" from the perspective of a purported immortal soul in an non-existent afterlife, but it is total sacrifice here on earth.

The same can be said about giving all of one's wealth to the poor (as Jesus recommended to the "rich young man") or holding all property "in common" (as the disciples do) or attempting to be celibate (as Paul recommends).

How many 9/11s before you get on board, too?

Some of the posters on this site have expressed a desire to wipe out Moslems.Here is an example from Craig Ceely on the Creeping Sharia thread.

"We should nuke Mecca forthwith, paying particular attention to the Grand Mosque, and toss a few on Medina, too, getting that Mosque of the Prophet. Then make the rubble bounce. All of it. Turn that desert into green glass."

See what I mean!

You are correct that the story of Abraham is a lesson in the abomination of child sacrifice. Sacrifice literally means to "make sacred" (or to "make beautiful" as a non-believer might put it), and murder of course does no such thing.

By the way, this true meaning of sacrifice has no resemblance to the Randian definition of the word. For example, the greatest sacrifice a Christian can make is to surrender his broken spirit. In other words, let go of what can only ruin you. That's hardly a sacrifice in the Randian sense.

Yet, Objectivists don't seem to understand that and so profoundly misunderstand the Christian concept of sacrifice. But then a lot of Christians do too, who make a show of giving up worldly values for nothing more than the approval and praise of others. That is a sacrifice in the Randian sense and is as disgusting to serious Christians as it is to Objectivists.

Regards, Bill

When (so-called) Objectivists have argued that the state should prohibit parents from giving religious instruction to their children.

Regards, Bill

In what respect have Objectivists ever failed to "recognize" that right?

The BBC is full of leftist atheists, e.g. Jonathan Miller, who (would) hate Rand and her philosophy. I object to paying the licence fee (i.e. BBC tax). This is state subsidised atheism and should be opposed as much as state sponsored religious groups.

In an Objectivist society, individuals would have the right to be religious and practice their religion. That means that individuals have the right to be Christians, Moslems and Buddhists provided that they do not infringe the individual rights of others. It is time that Objectivists recognised that fact.

George is spot on here.

But is there nothing -- even taken in its best light -- that can somehow be construed as a virtue somewhere in that whole Bible?

I admit that its only real value today is historical. It is some of the oldest literature we possess. It records an awkward, ignorant stage in the ascent of man -- one with a lot of madness, violence, and perversion -- but also a few moments of true beauty and wonder.

I'm as "hard-core" of an atheist as any of y'all, I promise.

I think the story of Abraham was an example of humanity moving in the right direction in that it attempted to establish a precedence of ending human sacrifices (I think). Any attempt to halt the arbitrary butchering of human beings in the hopes of pleasing 'god' is a step in the right direction. Of course this "moral lesson" is still a heaping piece of philosophical garbage among other reasons because it doesn’t shun all forms of sacrifice, just the obviously murderous kind.

And yes Rand was sufficiently "balls-out" anti-religious. Putting aside metaphysics and epistemology her philosophy condemns the single most important moral principal common to almost every religion (especially Christianity) -- sacrifice. This is why I don't think objectivism can in any way lead to Christian beliefs unless the Christian completely evades the Bible’s constant call for sacrifice.

For those following this who may not know, this is interesting in light of the conversation:

Rand had originally planned for a priest in ATLAS SHRUGGED to join the strike, but decided against it:

"The Priest. Father (medieval name), who is the last of the strikers. He withdraws the moral sanction from the world of the parasites. (He represents the last stand for pity.)" He was supposed to support James Taggart, but saw "the light" and joined the strike. She decided there was no place for him, though, in the valley. At best, he would have been like Andre in WE THE LIVING, someone committed to the good, but taken in by the wrong system (and we know what happened to Andre...).

For those following this who may not know, this is interesting in light of the conversation:

Rand had originally planned for a priest in ATLAS SHRUGGED to join the strike, but decided against it:

"The Priest. Father (medieval name), who is the last of the strikers. He withdraws the moral sanction from the world of the parasites. (He represents the last stand for pity.)" He was supposed to support James Taggart, but saw "the light" and joined the strike. She decided there was no place for him, though, in the valley. At best, he would have been like Andre in WE THE LIVING, someone committed to the good, but taken in by the wrong system (and we know what happened to Andre...).

That said, it doesn't follow that Christianity was in any sense *necessary* for the development of Western Civilization - especially since two of among its greatest periods Ancient Greece and Rome were entirely uninfluenced by it. Also, while certain elements of Christianity may have contributed to historically positive developments in the West - and obviously did so in ways that religious influences in other cultures did not - it was also clearly an impediment in other respects.

These are excellent points.

In Why Atheism? I briefly addressed the influence of the Reformation on later pro-freedom and rationalistic (in the sense of pro-reason)developments in Europe. I argued (and this point was by no means original with me) that these later trends were in large measure unintended consequences of the Reformation.

In many respects the Reformation was a revolt against the rationalistic elements in Catholicism, especially as manifested in Thomism, and a throwback to the views of Augustine. But the Reformers, in appealing to "Christian liberty" (which was essentially an appeal to the conscience of the individual), broke the intellectual monopoly of the Catholic Church and thereby opened the floodgates for an astonishing variety of conflicting interpretations of Christianity. And some of these, such as we find in deistic views about a "God of Nature," paved the way for a secular perspective.

It has become fashionable among some historians to minimize the importance of the Enlightenment (which I see as reaching back well into the 17th century). But I still believe that the Enlightenment (both the "French" and the "Scottish") was a crucial transformation in thought -- an essentially secular approach that challenged traditional Christianity on many fronts. Even those philosophers, such as Locke, who professed Christianity often excluded any appeal to "special revelation" (miracles, the Bible, divine inspiration, etc.)from the spheres of science and philosophy, and this took the fangs out of "faith," even if it did not eradicate its influence altogether.

The 16th century saw a revival of interest in Stoicism, Epicureanism, Skepticism, and other pagan schools of thought, both Greek and Roman. Without this rich heritage to draw upon, it is hard to believe that Christianity alone could have brought about later achievements in science and philosophy.

It is sometimes said that Christianity stressed the value and dignity of each individual in the eyes of God, and that this contributed to the notion of equal rights, opposition to slavery, etc. The problem is that Christianity also left the door open for emissaries from God who claimed to speak on his behalf, and who often conveyed messages that were anything but individualistic. It was not until this avenue was closed (which was largely the accomplishment of deistically-mind philosophers) that reason was unshackled.

Ghs

James is writing an entire book on the origins of Christianity. There is more than one thing he needs to know in order to do that.

...what if God tells you to kill your son?

Whoops, that already happened to Abraham, didn't it?

There is only one thing you need to know James: the bible is a nasty piece of work written by drug-users, sado-masochists, and sexual perverts.

While I agree with Rand that a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms, surely, prohibiting murder was a step in the right direction, wasn't it?

"Yes, Marcus, laws against murder and theft and perjury (some -- but certainly not all -- of the Ten Commandments) are aiming in a good direction, right?"

That's exactly the type of moral bullshit that comes out of religion one needs to combat - not applaud.

In the bible, it is a God waging his finger at his children menacingly saying - "thou shalt not!" A morality based on fear of punishment is not worth the tablet that it is written on.

Our laws were originally based on a mixture of pagan Roman laws and Common law, not the ten commandments. If they were based on the ten commandments - we'd all be fucked.

"Gertrude Himmelfard."

That's an interesting co-incidence. The (probably in a few months) next British PM, Gordon Brown, was reported by a Journalist to be fond of quoting Gertrude Himmelfard in private - and she is one of his favourite authors at the moment. Gordon Brown is a "new socialist" that has specialized in taxing our asses off for the supposed benefit of "public services" in the last ten years. So, it does not say much for the value of her writing. (Or perhaps Brown's just an evil coward).

Could recommend one or two specific Lord Acton books to start with?

Someone already mentioned that Acton never published an integrated book; all of his books are collections of essays.

There are two key essays in which you will find the most complete presentation of the thesis I mentioned earlier. These are: "The History of Freedom in Antiquity," and "The History of Freedom in Christianity."

Both of these are contained in the first volume of the 3-volume Liberty Fund edition of Acton's Selected Writings.

Ghs

I think George is correct that you cannot ignore the fact that Western Civilization emerged from a culture deeply influenced by Christianity. You'd have to do a lot of sweeping under the rug of almost certainly relevant and influential ideas to explain it as happening completely *in spite of* Christianity. In addition many of the most notable Renaissance and Enlightenment figures were avowed Christians, Newton being one of the notable examples.

That said, it doesn't follow that Christianity was in any sense *necessary* for the development of Western Civilization - especially since two of among its greatest periods Ancient Greece and Rome were entirely uninfluenced by it. Also, while certain elements of Christianity may have contributed to historically positive developments in the West - and obviously did so in ways that religious influences in other cultures did not - it was also clearly an impediment in other respects.

So hopefully we can do better in the way of providing a more rational influence in the centuries to come.

Yeah, he "wrote the greatest book never actually written," according to some, his planned HISTORY OF LIBERTY.

Fortunately, important selections of his work have been assembled in two volumes by Liberty Classics, volume I, ESSAYS IN THE HISTORY OF LIBERTY and, volume II, ESSAYS IN THE STUDY AND WRITING OF HISTORY, both edited by J. Rufus Fears and released in 1985.

I highly recommend both.

I don't think that Acton wrote a book. Many of his essays are collected in a 2 volume LibertyFund edition.

Gertrude Himmelfard supposedly wrote an excellent book on Acton.

Yes, Marcus, laws against murder and theft and perjury (some -- but certainly not all -- of the Ten Commandments) are aiming in a good direction, right?

On the source of Rand's view of homosexuality, ya got me...

Obviously, James, Joe, Peter, Philip and George are not concerned about Objectivism having any link to Catholic philosophers or philosophy. I am quite surprised - but I guess many of you have already considered this point already.

I am still curious what religious morals Ayn Rand approves of?

"Do unto others as you would have done unto you"? (perhaps this qualifies as a moral or ethical rule).

The immorality of sodomy, murder and theft perhaps?

(The one about sodomy could explain why Rand considered it immoral).

George,

Could recommend one or two specific Lord Acton books to start with?

I've never had a problem with Rand's comments about religion in general or with her comments about Chrisianity in particular. Her favorable remarks about Thomas Aquinas shows that she was aware of the different strains in Christianity, and that some of these strains -- especially those influenced by Aristotle -- had a high regard for reason.

"Christianity" is a very broad label, one that encompasses a wide variety of doctrines and attitudes. It would be rather difficult to be a fan of "Western Civilization" (as Rand certainly was) while condemning every aspect of Christianity, given the influence of this religion on the values that contributed to Western Civilization.

There seems to a recent trend of books (such as Rodney Stark's The Victory of Reason) that give a very favorable account of the role of Christianity in promoting individual freedom. I think much of this is exaggerated at best. A much better account is that provided by the Catholic liberal historian, Lord Acton.

Although Acton acknowledges that early Christianity, which emerged in opposition to the Roman state, had libertarian aspects, he also understood that most Christians quickly changed their tune in the fourth century, after Christianity became the state religion. Acton's explanation for why liberty emerged in Christian Europe is essentially this: Christian institutions provided a counterweight to secular power, so that neither could gain absolute power. Over time, as these two powers competed with one another, various intermediate institutions arose (e.g., incorporated towns), and the net result was a complex system of decentralized power -- a system in which individuals were able to exercise a great amount of freedom, in practice if not always in theory.

Of course, Acton understood that there is far more to the story than this, such as the role of ideas, but his institutional analysis of the growth of freedom in the West is a valuable corrective to much of the recent nonsense that claims that Christianity was somehow pro-freedom, by its very nature. Any supposedly innate tendency of an ideology, be it religious or secular, that takes 1500 years to manifest itself is suspicious on its face.

I finished reading PARC, by the way. (Just thought I'd throw this in.)

Ghs

Marcus, I would say that modern religions, as such, are a package deal - mixing good elements and bad ones (with the bad ones certainly deeply embedded, at least philosophically at the base).

But there are NO good elements in communism or collectivism as such. There is no package deal. Communism and collectivism are philosophically pure in that sense in the way that, for example, Christianity is not. It has emerged through two millenia as a syncretism of disparate things.

I don't think the following is actually true (on any major level): "Marxism and Leninism have some very valuable points to make about the value of science, reason and the nature of reality."

James you said, "In LOVE LETTERS, the heroine has a conversation with a bishop and says that she particularly appreciated the following line from the Bible: 'For what shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world but lose his own soul?'

This also happens to be my absolute favorite N.T. quotation. "

Mine too.

And this one's not bad either: "The kingdom of God is within." Explicitly individualistic, and read in the way I like to it's a repudiation of other-wordliness.

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

* * * *

'NOT PC.'
**Setting Brushfires In People's Minds**

ORGANON ARCHITECTURE
**Integrating Architecture With Your Site**

Actually, when you put it that way, Marcus, that's a good question. (I'd have been more enthusiastic to try and answer it a few years ago, though, Jungian phase and all...but I'd be interested to see this question answered.)

By devoting TWO entire essays to papal encyclicals (did you find "Of Living Death" boring, too?), Rand was sharply distinguishing herself from conservatives -- especially American ones like the Catholic William Buckley and his ilk -- who love all things Christian. How embarrassing to poor old Bill that his Pope was pink! (Besides, it's a great essay.) And, btw, Aquinas deserves all of the credit Rand gave him.

...I am not trying to find fault with Ayn Rand personally. I am convinced that Rand explicitly condemned all forms of mysticism - including religious mysticism.

My interest is only with respect to how far "religious ideas" may have influenced Objecitivism.

"And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points."

What "valuable moral points" in religion do you think Rand was referring to? Remember, with Rand, she doesn't normally say something like that lightly. She would not be meaning just the "moral", but probably also it's philosophical basis.

As to Catholicism:

1) To Isabel Patterson in 1948 (a great influence on Rand), she writes in a letter: "I am so delighted about your coming here that I consider it conclusive proof of a totally benevolent universe, and I almost feel benevolence toward the Catholic philosophers."

2) I could not understand why Rand devoted an entire essay - over 20 pages long -in the CTUI - to discussing Pope Paul VI's encyclical "Populorum Progressio" in 1967. To be honest, I found this essay to be boring.

3) St Thomas Aquinas was one of few philosophers she approved of.

4) There was no specific evil character who represented religious mysticism in "the Foutainhead" or "Atlas Shrugged". (?)

Please just treat this as a fanciful possibility - not a serious allegation of any Catholic ideas being part of Objectivism.

In LOVE LETTERS, the heroine has a conversation with a bishop and says that she particularly appreciated the following line from the Bible: "For what shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world but lose his own soul?"

This also happens to be my absolute favorite N.T. quotation. But notice, as well, that it combines the worst feature of Christianity (anti-worldliness) with its very best (spiritual individualism). Like Rand, I get a warm-fuzzy from the latter way of reading it.

I just don't see the concern here, Marcus, because her stance on religion was so uncompromised (the incident with the Texan millionaire, for example, who offered her money to incorporate God into the philosophy.) She could afford to be "generous", so to speak, in her view of Christianity. And I think she was simply acknowledging, from a historical p.o.v., the evolution of philosophy that led to her own system. Reading "The Dual Between Plato and Aristotle" from OPAR sheds more perspective on this.

Also, I think this shows that Rand was more "honest" about her enemies then some would have us believe; Rand is painted as a dogmatic knee-jerker who could never be wrong and is criticized for not having an indepth understanding of her opponents, yet here she is giving credit to Christianity in part.

And again, I'm not surprised by this at all when you consider that her project was to identify a "philosophy for living on Earrth" that "challenged 2000 years of Christianity." Is it shocking that she would identify a positive shared by the enemy (in this case, individuality)? And I don't think that gives any religious people the wrong idea. Remember, she was a competitor in the field of ethics and morality. If Ford acknowledged a benefit of a Toyota, would that be confusing to consumers? Objectivism thrives on competition, and a good Objectivist looks for the good in a competitor and tries to better it. Rand saw a good in Christianity (individual salvation) and did it better. She saw value in Aquinas (the Aristotelian influence), and rebuked the bad side of Aristotle (the Platonic influence.)

Obviously she saw Communism/Collectivism as the end result of the bad side of Christianity, and that was her real competitor.

It's a historical context issue, Marcus. Religion was the philosophy of the past. Communism has no such excuse.

...I do not disagree that she was answering the question given to her honestly. But my question is if this type of answer would not give "religious" people the wrong idea – just as it might give collectivists the wrong idea.

Can you imagine her saying something similar if she was posed this question about communism? For example if she had said:

"And, as philosophies, Marxism and Leninism have some very valuable points to make about the value of science, reason and the nature of reality."

Can you?

"Why does she make this point about religion? For example, she could also argue that Communism or Collectivism have some valid morals or principles. But I have never seen her emphasize that point before."

Because she didn't believe that Communism or Collectivism had any valid points, perhaps? But I the answer to your question is: because that was the question asked of her by the interviewer.

She gives her reason for making these points, and my observation is that

"But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy." I don't think you could say the same about communism or collectivism.

"PLAYBOY: Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?

RAND: Qua religion, no -- in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. ***And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points.*** They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very -- how should I say it? -- dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith."

*** Asterisks are mine. Why does she make this point about religion? For example, she could also argue that Communism or Collectivism have some valid morals or principles. But I have never seen her emphasize that point before.