Ayn Rand’s Tragic Trajectory

www.desiringgod.org ^ | 3-6-2014 | John Piper

[fortheDeclaration]

No, Rand never stated that there was a legitimate place for ANY faith as far as I know.

She rejected faith as a means of cognition.

She simply is using the definition 'belief which is not based on proof'.

But the other meaning of faith is 'confidence or trust in a person or thing'.

That trust and confidence is based on various proofs.

Christianity never claimed that one should believe it's claims without proof.

In fact, it claimed it could defend it's claims of Christ's resurrection with 'many infallible proofs (Acts 1:3)

It is not faith that starts your car in the morning, but it is faith that it will start in the morning. Sometimes it doesn't for some reason unknown to us (leaving the lights on)

No doubt the system that the U.S. has adopted is fascism, as Rand predicted when she observed John F. Kennedy's administration.

[freestyle]

But you did drop the context. Faith and Religion are the private right of the individual (which the first amendment is there to reiterate and protect, if not "foster"). The question she was asked in that quote was, "why?"

Are you suggesting that religious agreement (or uniformity) should be a precondition of law making (politics)?

[freestyle]

>>>No, Rand never stated that there was a legitimate place for ANY faith [belief] as far as I know.
>>>She rejected faith [belief] as a means of cognition.
>>>She simply is using the definition 'belief which is not based on proof'.

I'm happy to swap the word "faith" with "belief" if it improves our ability to share thoughts and concepts without confusion.

In the quote above, she does state her view on a legitimate place for faith. A private choice. She said:
"When it's a private matter, it's fine, it can even be a kind of inspiration to people. Faith is what each man may choose for himself, if he wishes. I don't."

If you read that as "belief," it should still work. Either way, if there is infallible proof of something to rely on or validate, Rand does not reject having confidence or trust in that thing. (I'm the same way, I love infallible proof. ) So I think we can both agree that we can have confidence and trust in infallible proof, and it is not something that you merely "believe" in.

[KC Burke]

Are you suggesting that religious agreement (or uniformity) should be a precondition of law making (politics)?

Let's not be insulting.

I had understood that you introduced some quotes by Rand that she offered in a manner to negotiate the issue of her robust atheism. The quote seemed to say that her beliefs were little more than a way of saying religious belief was faith and since she felt all questions could only be addressed in public society by rationalism, religious belief must always be set aside in public decision making.

I was suggesting that Miss Rand was self-serving in such an argument -- take it or leave it if you don't agree as I am not disputing you, but objecting to Rand.

[fortheDeclaration]

Thank you for the discussion, I appreciate your insight.

[Publius]

An audio interview of a fundamentalist Baptist pastor and his critique of Rand’s atheism.

[Misterioso]

Who cares what a fundamentalist Baptist minister thinks about Ayn Rand?

[whodathunkit]

I care.

If you read through the thread you will find others who care as well.

Some important points are proffered and well worth consideration.

[Publius]

A member of our book club suggested I ping the group on this.

[Misterioso]

I meant, why should I care about a believer’s opinion about an atheist? You tell me.

[whodathunkit]

I certainly don't agree with the Pastor. His interview is an example of the response often offered to dismiss all of Rands Objectivist philosophy.

The need to keep the discourse in the spiritual realm is a necessity to avoid rational debate.

And yet there is (dare I say it?) a similarity in the strong belief in a supreme being and the vehement denial of one. It is an oddity that self proclaimed spiritual leaders feel threatened by proponents of atheism, after all, didn't God create atheists?

[freestyle]

>>>Are you suggesting that religious agreement (or uniformity) should be a precondition of law making (politics)?
>>Let's not be insulting.

I apologize if you took that as an insult. It was not intended to be insulting in any way. It seems we are taking away different messages from the Rand quote I posted regarding religion in politics. My question to you was an honest one to see if you disagreed with the meaning of her answer. I read it literally and agree with the reasoning.

[freestyle]

Thank-you. That first link (www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-ethics-of-ayn-rand) is a much more comprehensive version of the authors knowledge of Objectivism and Rand. He does a very solid job of describing her views objectively. I find the final critique to be a bit confusing though. Essentially, he says that Rand's philosophy of ethics are sound IF there is no "Maker". He concludes that since, in reality, there is a Maker who cannot be dealt with (traded with voluntarily) as man, that she is unable to conceive the rational reasoning for mercy. (This is how I am understanding his point, granted, I'm not totally able to follow his logic).

I know Rand argues that if charity is said to be a moral "duty" then it corrupts or perverts the concept "benevolence".