Christian Revisionist History
Christians love to rewrite history. They try to say Christianity is the basis of the US, that Christianity is the cause of capitalism, that Christianity saved the works of antiquity, more BS, more BS , more BS.
You know what Christianity is responsible for – the DARK AGES, when the population of Europe declined, when even most kings could not read or write, when books and people were burned, when science and reason were nonexistent, and the wonderful Christians lost all sorts of technical knowledge that made life possible for so many people under the Roman empire. Christians love to LIE about history. The reason the US exists is because the Enlightenment which rejected Christianity and its LIES, the reason capitalism started was because of the Enlightenment’s rejection of Christianity. This is a site devoted to exploring reason, we cannot do this by ignoring reality.
You know what Christianity is responsible for – the DARK AGES, when the population of Europe declined, when even most kings could not read or write, when books and people were burned, when science and reason were nonexistent, and the wonderful Christians lost all sorts of technical knowledge that made life possible for so many people under the Roman empire. Christians love to LIE about history. The reason the US exists is because the Enlightenment which rejected Christianity and its LIES, the reason capitalism started was because of the Enlightenment’s rejection of Christianity. This is a site devoted to exploring reason, we cannot do this by ignoring reality.
Christianity is not the basis of capitalism. There is a famous passage near the end of the Book of Matthew called "the parable of the talents" that is extremely capitalistic, and yet in the Book of Acts, the early Christian community was at least socialistic, if not communistic.
You may think that Christianity being the basis for capitalism was what the argument was about, but that never came up in the previous discussion. You said they were incompatible. The essence of capitalism is unforced value-for-value exchange. To make that possible, a society must embody several of the Ten Commandments. Namely, murder, theft, and lying must be considered morally unacceptable. One can create a society that rejects murder, theft, and deceit without that society being religious using Objectivist ethics because rejection of murder, theft, and deceit should be self-evident.
Jesus simplified several of the Ten Commandments into "Love your neighbor as yourself". If one does that, one will participate in unforced value-for-value exchange out of respect for both oneself and one's trading partners. This is the "logic" that refutes your ridiculous argument that Christianity and capitalism are incompatible. You can certainly argue that Objectivist ethics are superior to Christian ethics, but saying that Christianity and capitalism are incompatible defies both history and logic.
Christianity does have a dark past, including the Dark Ages and the Inquisition, largely because some of its practitioners failed to be consistent with Christianity's stated values. Moreover, the current pope has adopted a concept started in South America called "liberation theology" that is inconsistent with both Christianity and capitalism.
Please re-read what we wrote in the other thread. It is not the same discussion as you thought you were having, and started in this thread.
I think it's that simple. The free exchange of value for value is the free market which, is a concept in its own right, separate from capitalism.
I believe that's how to make most people understand capitalism vs socialism. In the first case the laborer owns his labor. In the second case the collective owns it and allows him to keep whatever it determines to be efficacious.
Maybe tomorrow we should start a new thread.
As for being a Deist, before Darwin, many highly intelligent people thought some Deity was needed to explain the existence of life itself even if as a deist one thought some God started things up but was largely not involved directly sense.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
To quote blarman from earlier today: "Is the point of Objectivism to pursue a description of reality or to conform to dogma? If a fundamental premise is incorrect, is it not the obligation of a true Objectivist to design the hypothesis to fit the data, not to disregard the data in favor of a preferred hypothesis?" According to Merriam Webster's dictionary, deism is a "natural religion", thereby making deists also religionists. Regardless, your statement that capitalism is incompatible with any religion disregards several hundred years of data to the contrary.
"Deism is the belie[f], popular with the founding fathers, that if there was/is a creator he has no[] [a]ffect on our day[-]to[-]day lives and what the creator did was set the laws of nature." -edited content for spelling, grammar, and punctuation
So you asked them what they believed and that's what they told you, hmmm? Can you show me how you did that? I really want to ask Nicola Tesla a few things...
So let's look at that notion you proffer. A god which does nothing. Hmmm. Kind of a self-contradiction don't you think? To have all that power and simply sit on one's hands watching time pass by... [shakes head] If that's the kind of god you think exists or that they believed in, it explains much about your rationale. Having read from the Founders' words, however, I get a significantly different picture than the one you present. Washington's inaugural speeches leave little to the imagination on his stance and views. And to my knowledge, he was a deist.
And I would quibble with jbrenner regarding Christianity's compatibility with capitalism. I argue that it is 100% compatible. One can not freely give what one does not already have. It takes work first and foremost to acquire something before it can be given! The practice of charity simply acknowledges the ups and downs of life and takes a long-term look at things where one day you may be the one helping another and the next have the situation reversed: the prince becoming the pauper. I consider it insurance - a down-payment on an unexpected future need.
Example: I have helped many people move. In. Out. Furniture, pianos, boxes - the whole nine yards. Temporary inconvenience? Yup. But I can tell you that when I was suddenly given an opportunity for a job and limited time in which to arrange my affairs and start, I was sure glad I had paid it forward and that others were willing to help me out on short notice, especially with a very pregnant wife and me being in another state on moving day.
What I must observe, however, is that in any exchange, the only two people who have a right to comment on the value of the exchange are the two involved. They alone are the ones who benefit (or not) from the exchange. Everyone else is merely an observer: at best looking to ascertain comparative value (rather than direct value) towards their own similar transactions and at worst simply a critic of an exchange he or she does not approve of.
And as long as we are talking about counterexamples to your crapola about the incompatibility of religion and capitalism, I suggest you examine the history of John Rockefeller (not the current looter JR IV, but the original Rockefeller). Rockefeller may have been the greatest capitalist in history.
He had two notable experiences that made him think that he was divinely chosen to accumulate his wealth (as documented in The Men Who Built America on The History Channel). One such event was his not being on a train that his trunk made, but he didn't. That train derailed over a bridge, killing all on board. You might say that was a coincidence. Rockefeller didn't think so. In fact, he thought that you were opposing God's will if you opposed him (as documented in the link below).
Most significantly, Rockefeller's persecution/prosecution regarding monopoly status was the very clear inspiration for the Rearden trial in Atlas Shrugged. If you look at The History Channel portrayal vs. the movie version of Atlas Shrugged, you will see striking similarities.
http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-...
Carnegie was openly anti-Christian. Amongst the great capitalists, he probably had more in common with Objectivism than the others.
From the Freedom from Religion Foundation,
https://ffrf.org/news/day/dayitems/it...
Yet Carnegie might be the biggest practitioner of altruism in history, so he is definitely not an Objectivist.
JP Morgan was a regular churchgoer, the grandson of an Episcopal clergyman, and often in church on days other than Sunday.
http://hollowverse.com/j-p-morgan/
"In his memorandum that recalls details of his passing, Cornelius Vanderbilt spent his last moments with his pastor, reciting prayers and claiming Jesus as his Savior."
http://howtowizard.com/Q/Is_Cornelius...
The Enlightenment was the root cause of what freedom we've achieved and was bitterly fought by the Christian establishment of the time, and even today, few agree with the need to keep them as far from government and our public institutions as possible, particularly education. Laissez Faire Capitalism is about rational, reasoned selfishness and the total freedom of the individual--Christianity is not, and has never been.
Good points db.
The Inquisition and other atrocities associated with Christianity are well documented, and every student who pays attention in high school knows many of them.
Do you know where the concept of a "free" public education came from? Ironically, it came from none other than Martin Luther:
http://www.aproundtable.org/history-b...
What has been buried by revisionist historians is that many of the world's best institutions of higher education have Christian foundations; ironically, many such revisionist historians were political science or law professors at such institutions, most notably Woodrow Wilson of Princeton University. For the record, the university I work at is both secular and private.
The most "successful" of Christian mission ventures over the past 500 years have revolved around the founding of primary schools. If anyone in this forum seriously wants to change things toward Objectivism, I would recommend that such a person founds an "Ayn Rand academy" for primary and secondary school students. I will continue to provide an opportunity for interested individuals to further such education at Florida Tech.
I've read and still reading all the biblical discussions and teachings that did in fact lead us into the ideas of free markets, freedom for all, etc etc. One of the best so far on this subject is the "Founders Bible"...which is yuge!...I might finish it by the year 3000...
I study some of this stuff for it's historical value and to get an insight into the brain set of the people of the time...taking note of whom actually became Conscious and whom were destine to be stuck in bicameralism. I chose to be unbiased in either direction and just look at what's there.
Problem here is the actions and mentality of "Men" that "organized" the teachings for their own selfish needs and desires (Rome) versus the actual teachings, history and discussions.