Friday, August 29, 2008

A brief history of Christian objectivism

For up to date postings on the philosophy of Christian objectivism, go to http://christianobjectivist.blogspot.com where Beth Drennan's treatise founding Christian objectivism will be published in segments beginning in September. The name of that blog differs from this one only by not having an "s" at the end of the word "objectivist."

Thank you!

HISTORY

Christian objectivism had its beginnings in January, 2000, in a house in Baraboo, Wisconsin, where a family of Christians (the youngest child being 18, the oldest 20) all read Atlas Shrugged and, in addition to having their lives immediately changed as if moving from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, they each independently concluded that many of the tenets set forth in Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand's Objectivism), were substantially the same tenets they perceived as being the foundations of Christianity, as they, themselves, understood Christianity.

They realized immediately that a proper combination of Christianity with the concept of objectivism would create a philosophical system that reflected their deepest convictions.

Of this initial group, the daughter Sarah Saturday--now a Los Angeles computer consultant and designer, and a musician--and the mother, Beth Drennan--an attorney and former columnist for The New York Times Syndicate, and founder/director of a non-profit legal corporation--began in-depth discussions, and Drennan began her formal work on the development of the tenets that would express the new philosophical system named Christian objectivism.

Drennan produced the treatise setting out the new philosophy of Christian objectivism, and she and Saturday began hosting in-house and online groups to discuss the new philosophy's applications. The first-ever online appearance of the new philosophy and its name was in a Yahoo chat group set up by Saturday soon thereafter. A discussion group, hosted by Saturday, is still active today, in which Christian, atheists, Randian Objectivists, and everyone in between, hold lively exchanges. (You may join that group by clicking the indicated rectangle at the top of this blog.)

As would be expected, Randian Objectivists (Objectivists who subscribed strictly to Rand's version of the philosophy of objectivism) had strong reactions against the group, ranging from laughter to vigorous verbal attack, most asserting that Objectivism as set forth by Rand was utterly incompatible with Christianity.

A disambiguation was in order. 

Drennan explained that the name "Christian objectivism" had been chosen for reasons other than to cling like robots or remora to the version of the philosophy of objectivism that Rand had homesteaded and named Objectivism (for clarity, in this document, Objectivism with a capital "o" refers to Rand's Objectivism, and objectivism with a small "o" refers to the general philosophy of objectivism that preceded Rand's version.) Christian objectivism was not a system built to hide in the skirts of any pre-existing system, or to grow from it, as an offshoot. Rather, Christian objectivism would be an entirely new, fully original, and independently-standing structure. 

Therefore, Drennan had no hesitation about asserting that the second word of the name of the philosophy would be "objectivism", as this term most sharply reflected her certainty that truth was objective. And since it was her position--shared by Saturday-- that Christianity was true, then Christianity's truth must also be objective. 

So, while Rand's writings about her own Objectivism had profoundly affected and excited Drennan's family and had opened their minds more fully than ever to the concept of objective truth, it was nonetheless gallopingly clear that Rand, an atheist, had not delineated her philosophy in such a way as to leave room for theist variants, and Drennan was not attempting to crash that party. 

That was not to say, however, that vast areas of Christian objectivism and of Rand's Objectivism--both taking the same view of the nature of truth--did not overlap, and there was no attempt to disguise that fact in Drennan's treatise on the new philosophy. 

In fact, Christian objectivism, by consistently discussing Rand's Objectivist writings, especially the similarities and differences between the two philosophies, had, in effect, intentionally set up residence in close proximity to Rand's philosophy, establishing only very meager fencing between the two, for the simple reason that truth, being objective, obviously had bedrooms in both houses and should be able to move freely between the two establishments, like a child in custody of parents who share his biology but who have enough irreconcilable differences to keep them from being housemates.

A series of essays will be posted on christianobjectivist.blogspot.com, in which Drennan's treatise on Christian objectivism will be published in segmented installments. A book-length treatise will be published thereafter.

6 comments:

Brian said...

Christianity and Objectivism agree on the nature of truth?

"Truth is the recognition of reality; reason, man’s only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth." -- Rand

"Assertions of truth based upon history, revelation and testimony set forward in the Bible are central to Christian beliefs." -- Wikipeda on religious truth

Rory said...

You can just call us 'Objectivists' and Ayn Rand's philosophy, 'Objectivism', rather than suffix or prefix it with 'Rand' or 'Randian'. It does not require any clarification - it is Objectivism, and what you talk about is not.
It isn't AR's 'version' of Objectivism, it /is/ Objectivism, anything else is not.


I will leave you by saying that this:
"And since it was their position that Christianity was true, then Christianity's truth must also be objective."
Underscores your entire system and highlights exactly why your 'system' has nothing to do with objectivity or Objectivism and everything to do with rationalism.

Mark said...

In response to Rory's comment, unfortunately the name, "Objectivism" was already taken before Rand came on the scene. Her version has gotten a lot of press, for good reasons, but the original idea of Objectivism was more general.

Beth Drennan said...

Brian: Christianity and Objectivism agree? Yep. And you're getting your religious truth from Wikipedia? time for a premises check perhaps?

Rory: As Mark points out in his comment below yours, "Objectivism" existed for a hundred years before Rand came and made her version of it. Therefore, in the future, when you say "Objectivism," to be clear to the philosophical community, please use an adjective to explain which version you mean.

Also, Rory, I enjoyed your prescience in stating that you know what underscores my entire system without having seen my system. Woooo. Supernatural powers, there? And "nothing" to do with Objectivism? And everything to do with rationalism? Oh, ouch! Call off your hallucinations before I turn you in to Peikoff for mysticism.

Tenure said...

I am astounded. The word 'Objectivism' was used before Ayn Rand ever came on the scene, therefore, her Philosophy is nothing original.
Immanuel Kant would have, by all rights, called himself, an 'objectivist', since he claimed in his work to be proving how man can objectively understand reality (via faith!).

As for the base of your entire system, if you said to me, 'I'm going to kick that child. Why? Why not? What does his life matter?' it would tell me that you do not hold human life above that of a mangy dog.
When you say, "And since it was her position--shared by Saturday-- that Christianity was true, then Christianity's truth must also be objective"
you make it clear that Christianity is objectively true, because you think both Christianity and Objectivism are true.
If this was not what you meant, fine, but this is what you said, in black and white, and I will take you at your word.

Now, if you wish to dispell this, be my guest. Make your first post on why Christianity - scrap that, Christianity is more a system of ethics - on why the existence of God, Heaven, the Redemption of sin - are objectively true.
You can start by disputing what Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have said about the logical impossibility of God, as he is commonly described (see I'm leaving you room here to describe God as you wish/believe).

Tenure said...

In addition, your sarcasm is not appreciated. If you disagree with what I say, say it. Don't just sarcastically accuse me of mysticism and 'prescience'.
I would like to hold a civil discourse and I make every effort to guard my own language against sounding hostile, because I know how difficult it is to hold a conversation when you both slip in snide remarks.