Granted, there is a lot that there is not universal overlap, but let's face it: we need to find enlist the cooperation of those who agree with us to whatever extent. Christians and Objectivists could talk for a long time before they start disagreeing. While it also lists disagreements, The Soul of Atlas is chalk full of examples of common ground, as portrayed through the two men who shaped my life: John, my stepfather, is a businessman, entrepreneur, and a follower of Ayn Rand. Dad is doctor, farmer, and a passionate Christian. Because I was raised by both of them, the conversation between their world views played out in my life.

@khalling Thanks for your post. Clearly, there is no common ground between Objectivists and Christians on the deity of Jesus Christ. But on the topic of limited government and capitalism, both Christians and Objectivists can agree. This may be obvious to you. Yet I have heard Christians criticize Objectivists as if there can be no agreement on anything (witness Paul Ryan being skewered by the media, secular and Christian). I have also heard Objectivists refuse to recognize a reasonable (by Objectivist standards) position. Common ground is only useful is both parties can stand on it. My contention is that neither parties have engaged, and it is important that we do.

The thing is I have a hard time calling most religious folks, small government. When push comes to shove they love to legislate morality. I can not act as the rubber tube on this one. So, if there is a side that would want to change there ways.....

There's no reconcilliation needed. If using your rational reason is to believe, that's that.

it's a good article, but truths aren't really vetted here. Just that it must be explored.

I'm giving you 2 points for that for only 1 will be realized, but know the intent.

Here is something you may find interesting...

http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/...

I think both have a desperate need to identify "goodness," and "value." Drop the sacrifice, and Christianity is often concerned with that kind of thing.

I have not yet read your book, but it is on my list. I do have some questions. Respectfully, at the most elemental foundations of logic and reason, one side will have to ignore their premises in order to come together. Practically, when you look at technological development, issues such as stem cell research there is no philosophical intersection. To take that further, for Objectivists, there is not a stigma regarding technology out-pacing morality. For many Christian denominations, there is a stigma about "responsibly managing" the march of technology. On issues where Christians and Objectivists agree, I do not think Objectivists are compromising their values or morality. So, which common ground do you believe is under contention?