Judeo-Christian Context and Objectivism

Question: How might an Objectivist engage in deep reflection and contextual conversation with a person who has been thoroughly steeped in a Judeo-Christian ethic of compassionate servanthood?

Answer: You have the most important step already—namely, keep contextual. In other words, remember the context from which this person is speaking. Remember that he may mean something different than you do when he uses words like “faith” or “compassion”. And remember that even though he has embraced a Judeo-Christian ethic, he may not have embraced a fully Judeo-Christian metaphysics. He could hold something of a hodgepodge of different ideas. Being contextual entails discovering the fuller context of what someone means so you can thereby actually engage with their ideas—and not with what you are assuming their ideas to be.

After asking questions about what a person means in regard to key ideas (e.g., “compassionate servanthood”) and why he believes those ideas are true (i.e., asking “why should people strive above all else to be compassionate?”), the next thing is to sympathetically summarize the issue. It's amazing how many people aren't even sure of what they are trying to say, so this step—as simple as it sounds—can save hours worth of confusion. It also helps people see that you are honestly seeking to understand their point of view, which grants them a sense of visibility. It shows that you actually do understand and are not blinded by dogma.

Next, seek to discern where there is a point of agreement, preferably a fundamental one, and build from there. With someone from a Judeo-Christian context, perhaps the point of agreement involves a common belief in the existence of reality—even though he may also believe in a supernatural reality. Or perhaps he shares your view that human beings should strive to be noble and heroic—even though his reason as to why is because God created us and, in effect, God said so. This step serves two functions. First, there's the psychological function of illustrating that despite disagreements you still recognize some shared views, i.e., that perhaps you aren't ideological enemies but, to some degree, fellow travelers with differing views. Second, from here you can work to construct your argument on shared premises.

In any specific issue, there are specific things you can do. But in general, I advise that you seek to understand where the person is coming from (which is necessary to understand what they are actually saying) and to build from some point of agreement.

With the sort of person you mention, however, there is the obvious and massive epistemological problem of faith. Most every person from such a context holds their views based on (what we would call) faith, be it in the form of unquestioned acceptance of something learned as a child, the conscious acceptance of an idea without any evidence for it (e.g. because it is written in a book deemed to be holy), or some other version of “just because.”

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook

Seek to understand where the person is coming from and build from some point of agreement.

In this regard there are two approaches, both of which are necessary to have any hope of changing the person's mind. First, politely point out that their view is unfounded and explain that you are seeking to base your moral views on evidence. Second, offer an alternative. As logically unsound as it may seem, most people will not give up on their religious beliefs when they have learned they are arbitrary. Without some appealing alternative it takes an enormous leap of courage to let go of everything you've known and felt as a safe home—including possibly your family and whole social network—just because you can't give evidence for it. Yet with an alternative morality, or social network, or whatever other value their religion offers them, they can feel free to let go of their arbitrary belief. Yes, it's far easier to just expose the lack of evidence for their view and then walk away secure in the knowledge that you are more enlightened than they are. But such actions will almost never inspire the person to look at your moral ideas as better, let alone to perform the heroic task of leaving their spiritual community.

In short, if you seek to understand someone's context—and not just to poke holes in their view but instead to build toward the truth from a point of agreement—you can converse productively with most anyone . . . even someone thoroughly steeped in a Judeo-Christian ethic of compassionate servanthood.

spiderID=1250

‍