1. Briefly describe your theological/philosophical perspective and the journey you took to get there. (3 minutes)

Objectivism is a philosophy originated by Ayn Rand, the author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Objectivism is a naturalistic, egoistic philosophy. Its givens, or axioms, are Reality, Identity, Consciousness. Reality is what we observe, the world we all deal with every day. The objects within our reality have objective identity that we can know through our senses and reason. We know all this because we humans are conscious. From this we believe that reason is the only means of dealing with reality; productive purpose is required to live in reality; and rational self-interest is how you determine what purpose you pursue.

The fundamental standard of value for Objectivists is life as lived by individual humans. That which supports and furthers life is good. That which harms or limits life is bad.

In ethics, the Objectivist virtues were identified by Ayn Rand as: Rationality, Honesty, Integrity (notice that they are related to each other), Independence, Productivity, Pride (these three are also related), and Justice. David Kelly, Executive Director of the Objectivist Center, identified an eighth virtue: Benevolence. My short hand summary of this virtue is: giving others the benefit of the doubt. Some Objectivists do not believe that Benevolence is a fundamental virtue.

In politics, we believe that the proper role of government is to defend individuals' right to life, liberty and property. These are essential for anyone to pursue their life's interests. Objectivists believe that most of the functions of our current government should be pursued privately, through businesses, charity or voluntary group action.

I was raised as a Catholic, and during high school decided that the various supernatural beliefs espoused in its doctrine were false. I searched for something to believe in its place, and found Humanism and other free thought groups. In 1985 I learned of Objectivism, and have been studying and following it ever since.

2. What are your most important values and how did you arrive at them, e.g. when and how did they become important to you? Do you feel your theological/philosophical perspective influences your values and if so, how? (5 minutes each)

To answer the second part of the question first, of course my philosophy influences my values. This is the purpose of philosophy, to answer the questions: what is true? how do I know it? And what should I do about it? Values are the result of answering the last question.

Values are that which I seek to gain or keep. I classify them into two categories: mandatory values and optional values. Mandatory values are those that anyone must pursue in order to lead a good life. Optional values are those which may or may not be shared by others.

An example of a mandatory value is the development and pursuit of a productive career. An example of an optional value is developing my skills in engineering management through study and practice. It is mandatory that humans pursue some productive career. It is optional as to which career to pursue. We cannot all be TV newscasters. We must find rewarding work that suits our abilities and interests.

Though I said that my philosophy influences my values, I held many of them before 1985. I was pursuing my career in the computer industry since I graduated from college (let's just say it was before 1985). Everyone has a philosophy, because everyone has values they pursue. Some are irrational, such as becoming addicted to drugs that impair your ability to function. It is dangerous to your ability to live a fruitful life if you don't know what is your philosophy, which may result in your holding conflicting, irrational or harmful values.

Other values that I held before learning of Objectivism include: friendship, outdoor activity, discussing ideas, and singing operettas. A theme common to these values is that many are social in nature.

Mankind formed into social units because they enhance our ability to live a fulfilled life. I value many of my social interactions, but some I do not. These are usually with people who do not follow the virtues of rationality, honesty, integrity, productivity, independence, pride, justice and benevolence. Because the world has many people like this, a value that I pursue is developing a society where many people do hold these virtues.

I have done this through evangelizing Objectivism in classes and writing. I also have developed an interest in Life Coaching, which is a helping profession through which individuals can clarify their values and develop plans for achieving them. Even people who do hold rational values find it difficult to achieve life-long values, or to know which ones to pursue. I believe that it is important that we all live our lives consciously with the intent to achieve values that we have chosen.

3. What is the naturalistic/religious divide, is it just language or is it something more? (3 minutes each)

It is NOT just language. There is a fundamental difference between people who pursue a naturalistic philosophy and those who pursue a supernaturalistic theology.

Religion is a type of philosophy. It also seeks to answer the three basic questions of philosophy, but it arrives at very different answers from the naturalist philosophy. What is true? A supernatural existence, heaven. How do I know it? Through faith, that is, belief without evidence. What should I do about it? Worship God, prepare for the afterlife, follow the dictums of faith set out by my religion.

Compare this to how an Objectivist would answer these questions. What is true? The world in which we live. How do I know it? Through my senses and my reason. What should I do about it? Pursue my life by following the virtues which my reason has identified.

The most dangerous part of religious philosophy is how the second question is answered. Faith, belief without evidence, is poison to the primary means that we have to live, our rationality. By believing something on faith you are short-circuiting your mental processes. You are also opening yourself to exploitation by others who seek to manipulate your behavior through your faith.

This problem propagates into the political realm. If you are in the habit of believing things because you were told to take them on faith, then politicians can use the same thought processes to get the electorate to make decisions that are not fully explained. "Trust us," we are told by the politician. "Have faith." Faith is a form of anti-reason. It is harmful to life.

This also illustrates why Objectivists believe that government should be small and not try to coddle individuals. We must be raised in a society where we are expected to use our brains, fend for ourselves, be productive. A society that allows individuals to coast -- not think, not do -- will result in a population that does not know how to use its minds.

4. For Steve: You've mentioned before that many atheists have misperceptions of Objectivists. Some would say that your focus on the pursuit of self-interest shows a disregard for the poor. Can you explain the Objectivists perspective on selfishness and the poor? (3 minutes)

As I have explained earlier, Objectivists believe that the pursuit of a fulfilling life is a mandatory value that everyone should have. This means that you are pursuing YOUR life, seeking YOUR values, not those established by your mother, neighbor or the governor. You must use your rational faculty to do this. Your mind.

Now, what about the poor? First, realize that there is no thing as "the poor." You cannot go outside and find "the poor." What you find are poor individuals. They may be poor for many different reasons. Some are poor because they have experienced unexpected calamity, losing their possessions in a fire for example. Others are poor because they choose to be, through the decisions they have made in their life. Still others are poor because of life circumstances that have conspired against them, perhaps due to mental illness.

I feel sympathy for people who are poor due to unfortunate circumstances. I feel NO sympathy towards people who have chosen to be poor by pursuing irrational decisions. For those for whom I feel sympathy, I am willing to contribute some of my wealth to charities that provide short-term assistance. I do this because I know that I could experience a calamity, and I want to live in a society where good people are given help in time of need.

Private charity is the appropriate way to respond to people who need short-term assistance. Charity can also assist those requiring long-term assistance, such as the mentally ill.

But I would ensure that the charity to which I contribute does not ladle money to just any person, including those who are irrational, dishonest, and non-productive. It is nearly impossible for government to make such distinctions. An individual can precisely target where and how his precious wealth is used. A government cannot.

Once again this illustrates a fundamental tenet of Objectivism: individuals must be free to use their minds to pursue their self-interest. In this case, an individual decides that it is in his self-interest to contribute to building a society that contains certain supports. He reviews how to do this and votes with his charity dollars as to how to achieve this. Compare this to our current government, where charity dollars are extracted through taxes and applied by means of political priorities. Are those priorities rational? Have faith!