(February 23, 2023 at 2:01 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 23, 2023 at 1:28 am)Objectivist Wrote: In Christianity's premises, there is no such thing as objectivity.  Christianity explicitly rejects the principle of objectivity.  This is the clearest, textbook example of a stolen concept one will ever see.

I confess I'm not seeing why this is so.

Google tells me the definition goes this way:

Quote:(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

"historians try to be objective and impartial"

If you are critical of certain Christians, you could certainly accuse them of being insufficiently objective in their thinking -- that is, we could assert that they reach their conclusions due to personal feelings or opinions. But is it a "Christian premise" that people must reach conclusions through feelings and opinions? 

What explicitly about Christianity's premises doesn't allow objectivity?

What explicitly about Christianity's premises doesn't allow objectivity?  Answer: Its explicit denial of objectivity by affirming the primacy of consciousness.

(February 23, 2023 at 3:10 am)Objectivist Wrote: Answer: Its explicit denial of objectivity by affirming the primacy of consciousness.

Well I don't understand this at all. Oh well.

(February 23, 2023 at 3:42 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 23, 2023 at 3:10 am)Objectivist Wrote: Answer: Its explicit denial of objectivity by affirming the primacy of consciousness.

Well I don't understand this at all. Oh well.

Colour me shocked.

Boru

(February 22, 2023 at 10:02 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: You know just because we moderns cannot understand something does not mean that from an objective perspective there is not a good reason why things happened were written as they did. "I do not know" remains a viable answer without a being a reason for disbelief.

FTFY

(February 23, 2023 at 3:42 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 23, 2023 at 3:10 am)Objectivist Wrote: Answer: Its explicit denial of objectivity by affirming the primacy of consciousness.

Well I don't understand this at all. Oh well.

All you have to do is look at reality.

Quote:

Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness

The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.

The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).

The Ayn Rand Lexicon

(February 16, 2023 at 10:12 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Judas is proverbially a bad guy of the NT, so what would have happened if he didn't betray Jesus? Would Jesus' mission be a (bigger) success or would it be a failure?

Did you never watch The Last Temptation?

(February 23, 2023 at 3:42 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 23, 2023 at 3:10 am)Objectivist Wrote: Answer: Its explicit denial of objectivity by affirming the primacy of consciousness.

Well I don't understand this at all. Oh well.

Yeah, I do not see how his objection has anything to do with basic Christian doctrine. I suppose a wooden interpretation of "the Word" in John 1:1 could be seen as a form of idealism. Since in Scholastic theology, i.e. Roman Catholic dogma, the existence of God is identical to His essence, the poverty of Randian ideology is exposed by a third option, not considered by binary thinkers. Perhaps, God's existence and His awareness of His existence may be considered distinct yet remain inalienable.

Yay mystic babble then doesn't address the objection 

(February 23, 2023 at 7:00 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(February 23, 2023 at 3:42 am)Belacqua Wrote: Well I don't understand this at all. Oh well.

Yeah, I do not see how his objection has anything to do with basic Christian doctrine. I suppose a wooden interpretation of "the Word" in John 1:1 could be seen as a form of idealism. Since in Scholastic theology, i.e. Roman Catholic dogma, the existence of God is identical to His essence, the poverty of Randian ideology is exposed by a third option, not considered by binary thinkers. Perhaps, God's existence and His awareness of His existence may be considered distinct yet remain inalienable.

I also think that God's consciousness, for the Scholastics, wouldn't fall easily into the idealist/realist dichotomy. As with God's "love," or God's "desires," the words don't mean what they mean when applied to humans. 

As I understand it, for finite temporal creatures, consciousness is always consciousness of something. This requires two things: the being who is conscious and the object of that consciousness. 

But since God includes everything, there can't be an object of consciousness separate from him. God's consciousness is just existence itself. 

Though I realize there is a lot of diversity in how different Christians address this. I wonder if Berkeley, for example, would be vulnerable to Rand's criticism. (Which is not to say I agree with it, necessarily.)