The Idiotic Objectivists

While Ayn Rand, the author of Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, and essays on politics, culture and philosophy, was a great advocate of free market capitalism and a significant anti-communist, she also made mistakes in her thinking which are presently being slavishly parroted by her devout coterie of followers at the Ayn Rand Institute.
While Rand publicly championed the individual, she privately insisted, according to former close associates, on a high degree of conformity within her inner circle.
This is reflected today in her followers, who call themselves Objectivists, and who tend to spout her dogma and mimic her mannerisms in a fashion that is at times positive and at times unbecoming.

A case in point is the recent article “Why Christmas Should be More Commercial” by Dr. Leonard Peikoff who referrers to himself as the foremost authority on Objectivism and is the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute.
While Peikoff revels in the commercial aspects of Christmas, he sneers at “assorted Nativity tales and altruist injunctions (e.g., love thy neighbor) that no one takes seriously.”
I would beg to differ.
Most of us, to varying degrees, enjoy the commercial aspect of Christmas and gift giving and see no contradiction between this and the religious aspect.
In this season this year, which comes on the tail of hijackers crashing planes into buildings, thousands of grieving families, friends, and a grieving nation, and anthrax in the mail, thinking about G-d, and loving thy neighbor contributes greatly to a more significant sense of meaning and purpose in life, certainly more so than a mere commercial transaction.
I don’t agree with Peikoff and his extreme atheism, I think people do take these things very seriously.

The Objectivists hold to the irrational theory of evolution which is that man somehow evolved from the primordial ooze.
They dismiss as a superstition the more rational idea, in my opinion, that the creation of life, with all of its incredible facets, had to involve a supernatural and divine aspect.
They reject the theory of creation not because it is irrational but because the Atheist Ayn Rand rejected it.
As an admirer of reason, I find the creation theory to be much more rational while at the same time providing a varied and nuanced sense of life, certainly more so than the morally neutral idea that man somehow miraculously evolved out of the mud.

In his Christmas article, Peikoff asserts “America’s tragedy is that its intellectual leaders have typically tried to replace happiness with guilt by insisting that the spiritual meaning of Christmas is religion and self sacrifice for Tiny Tim or his equivalent.”
Unless I’m missing something, America’s “intellectual leaders” haven’t insisted on religion any time recently but rather an atheistic, morally neutral, scientific socialist culture that claims to be based on “reason.”
As far as American religion being an advocate of “self sacrifice,” this is just nonsense.
Self-sacrifice is a policy of the abovementioned intellectual leaders who have no intention of sacrificing anything themselves, only the fruit of the labor of others.
Religion tends to advocate voluntary tithing for the needy and private charities.

Peikoff wants to “take the Christ out of Christmas, and turn the holiday into a guiltlessly egoistic, pro-reason, this-worldly, commercial celebration.”
His utopian idea of happiness seems to be a world where man is not fettered by such obstacles as guilt or worry about anything but the here and now.
Much of the article venerates earth-worshipping paganism, which is where many Atheists, hungering for meaning and purpose, seem to end up.
Ayn Rand and the Objectivists made great contributions to capitalism, freedom and individual rights but, unfortunately, that contribution is somewhat eclipsed by a darker side.
Perhaps Rand was more influenced by her own Stalinist high school and College education than she realized.
Either way, it’s a shame that such glaring mistakes threaten to discredit such important work. Chuck Morse Is the author of “Why I’m a Right-Wing Extremist” www.chuckmorse.com

I'm not an atheist by any stretch. I'm a deist, a Christian in fact. I'm trying to figure out how atheists deal with the fact that things exist with no rational way to explain the possibility of their existance. Short of some sort of supernatural creator, the universe must have (1) brought itself into existance, or (2) the universe has always existed (which you mentioned). Neither of these seems like a rational option.

I skipped a step -- ignoring the possibility that things have always existed -- because it seems like a logical impossibility. Once you've discarded the possibility that the universe has always existed, then you are left with a supernatural creator of some sort.

Do you believe that the universe has always existed? This idea seems to me just as impossible as the universe having spontaneously come into existance, uncaused. Uncaused-ness is a supernatural characteristic. If you ascribe this characteristic to the universe, then you are giving assent to the idea that a supernatural element must be included in any explanation of the existance of the universe. In essence you have given the universe the God-like quality of eternal existance.

If my logic is sophomoric (which is entirely possible), then you have the option of bearing with me or ending this exchange. This thread is dead anyway, so if you choose not to respond, I won't be surprised or upset.

If you are unable to give me a complete explanation does that disprove that the Christian God exists.

You're right, and I think I alluded to this tangetially in my last post to you. Here's the rest of the paragraph from which you quoted me:

It seems to me that unless you are willing to believe that something can come from nothing, you must accept the existance of some sort of supernatural God. Once you've crossed this logical threshold, it's a matter of getting the nature of God right, which is tricky. I think anyone who is rational must be a gnostic (intentional space between the a and g) regarding God's existance, but I think everyone's knowledge about God's nature is incomplete.

I don't think you can have complete knowledge about the nature of God, but I do think you can make a logical declaration about the existance of God, or at least about the existance of a supernatural creator at some time in the past. The question of evil is essentially a question about God's personality and, like any personality, it can not be directly known and so there is an element of faith involved. God's existance may be logically proven, but his personality may not be logically proven. At least, that's how it seems to me right now, but this stuff is really difficult, and I'm trying to get it figured out just like you are.

My short reply for how God could allow evil to exist is that for men to have free will, the option of doing evil must be on the table. God hates evil, but he is commited to the idea of free will. Again, it's difficult. Belief in the biblical God does not make for an intellectual bed of roses. It's hard to understand God's personality.

I'm not an atheist by any stretch.

I just thought that as long as you were being presumptuous, I'd return the favor.

Short of some sort of supernatural creator, the universe must have (1) brought itself into existance, or (2) the universe has always existed (which you mentioned).

You haven't been brainstorming on this one very long have you? Either the universe has existed for all time or it has not. If it has not then there must have been a time before the existence of the universe. If there was a time before the universe existed, and if it is true that something cannot come from nothing, then something must have existed at a time before the universe existed and from which the universe came. Since this thing existed when the universe did not exist, then this thing must be something other than the universe. If "nature" is defined as everything in the universe, then this thing could be termed "supernatural". The same argument for "universe" can then be applied to this "supernatural" thing, ad infinitum.

That's about as far as I can take it with logic. It sure is a far cry from logically proving that there is or was some willful, or thinking supernatural being.

And then there's another branch of the either-or argument in which the universe has existed for all time. I don't see how this is somehow a less "rational option". It seems to make some sense if you take "time" to be part of the universe rather than some mysterious extrinsic property that somehow can exist independently of the universe. In that case, the universe and time, which is part of the universe, have always existed together and started together.

it seems like a logical impossibility

It may seem like it to you, but I fail to see the logical contradiction that proves it to be impossible.

Do you believe that the universe has always existed?

I don't find it a matter of belief so much as a matter of semantics. If you, as I do, define "universe" as "all that exists", then the question is rather silly since without the universe there is no existence. But of course there is nothing more prima facie true then the fact that existence exists. I suppose people who ask such questions are really wondering if there is something in the universe that somehow defies the laws of the universe, or at best, that is manifested by laws that some of us do not understand.

Uncaused-ness is a supernatural characteristic

O-Oh, is that right? I didn't know that. I-I guess I'll have to inform mythelf.

God-like quality of eternal existance.

I suppose we can all define "God-like" however we wish.

I won't be surprised or upset.

I wouldn't dream of upsetting you. Thank you so much for that out.

I just thought that as long as you were being presumptuous, I'd return the favor.

Are you not an atheist? Can you see why I made such an assumption after having read your earlier posts in this thread?

It is fallacious to believe that something can come from nothing. When trying to explain the possibility of the universe's existance, you can kind of shift things around by varying your suppositions, but all you really change is the particular facet of this logical fallacy at which you ultimately arrive if you exclude the possibility of a supernatural creator.

The first possibility you mentioned has time preexisting the universe, which is impossible if you define the universe as "everything that exists". The infinitely repeating process of redefining "supernatural" is actually a logical artifact resulting from the incorrect supposition that time can exist apart from the universe. This leaves only the possibility that the universe has existed for all time. You wrote:

I don't see how this is somehow a less "rational option". It seems to make some sense if you take "time" to be part of the universe rather than some mysterious extrinsic property that somehow can exist independently of the universe. In that case, the universe and time, which is part of the universe, have always existed together and started together.

This was in response to my statement:

I skipped a step -- ignoring the possibility that things have always existed -- because it seems like a logical impossibility.

I was unclear here. I have no problem with time being an intrinsic part of the universe, existing along with the universe and beginning when the universe begins. What I think is impossible is that the universe has existed for an infinite period of time.

If you suppose that the universe has existed for all time, then there are two possibilities for "all time" -- it is either an infinite amount time or a finite amount of time. The infinite-time possibility circumvents the need for a supernatural creator, but it means that our universe must be infinitely old, which it doesn't appear to be the case (I also think there's a purely logical argument that can be made against the concept of an infinite amount of time existing). The finite-time possibility appears to jive with what we can observe about our universe, but it requires the existance of a supernatural creator, who can exist outside of time, to have brought the universe into existance some finite time ago.

In regard to the logical possibility of a supernatural something existing which brings the universe into existance, you said:

It sure is a far cry from logically proving that there is or was some willful, or thinking supernatural being.

My position is that the fact of existance demands the existance of a supernatural creator. I don't think that the fact of existance proves that the creator is willful or thinking. The existance argument cracks open the door to the possibility of a God with those qualities, but it certainly doesn't provide the proof.

I said:

Uncaused-ness is a supernatural characteristic

To which you replied:

O-Oh, is that right? I didn't know that. I-I guess I'll have to inform mythelf.

What natural things can happen without being caused?

Can you see why I made such an assumption after having read your earlier posts in this thread?

No.

incorrect supposition that time can exist apart from the universe

Of course. I didn't expect you to see that. In fact, I'm not convinced you yet do.

it requires the existance of a supernatural creator, who can exist outside of time, to have brought the universe into existance some finite time ago.

And just what do you imagine existence outside of time is like? It seems to me you believe in a time before time, which is a logical contradiction assuming time simultaneously existed and did not exist. You imagine causation in the absence of time but causation cannot be separated from it. Furthermore you describe the existence of something before anything existed (assuming the universe is all that exists). That's another logical contradiction.

What natural things can happen without being caused?

You were the one making an assertion in this matter, and you expect me to defend it? Sorry buddy, the burden is on you to defend your own assertions. Perhaps this is just an assumption of yours?

I don't think that the fact of existance proves that the creator is willful or thinking

Perhaps presumptuous on my part, but you are a strange deist indeed if you think the creator is some mundane physical force without a will.

"Supernatural" is a strange term. Many use it in a logically contradictory way. If something supernatural exists, then it is part of the universe b/c the universe is all that exists. Since the universe is nature (I define these as synonyms which I believe is consistent when used in the context of the supernatural). Therefore if the supernatural exists, then it is natural. Its a term that really is only useful to those who adhere to the validity of logical contradictions (simultaneously natural and supernatural while defining "supernatural" as not natural).

I didn't expect you to see [that time cannot exist apart from the universe]. In fact, I'm not convinced you yet do.

You're not convinced I see this, because you think the existance of a supernatural creator forces the existance of a time before time. I do see this though, because I define "supernatural" correctly. Supernatural means to exist outside of nature, which means outside of existance itself. Supernatural, correctly defined, cannot be subsumed into the definitions of "natural" or "universe" (which are synonyms, as you pointed out). A supernatural creator exists apart from existance, apart from time, and apart from logic.

The obvious criticism is that according to such a definition, supernatural is a logical contradiction on its face, which it is. Holding to this definition appears at first blush to be abandoning the idea of rationality. But in fact, it is only by defining supernatural this way that the rationality of the universe may be upheld. By shifting the ability to defy logic onto a supernatural creator, and away from the universe, you end up with a logically incomprehensible creator, but you gain a logically comprehensible universe. This is good, because we live in the universe, and our survival and sanity depend on the universe being subject to logic.

If you see this position as flawed, then consider the alternatives. You can introduce the idea of infinity into the universe -- i.e. the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time -- in order to circumvent the need for a supernatural creator, but then you end up with a universe that contains the rationally imcomprehensible concept of infinite time (I think the eternally-existing-other-dimensions theories are basically spinoffs of this). Or you can place the potentiality of the universe's uncaused existance within the natural universe -- which is what you do if you accept a finite "all time" but reject a supernatural creator -- but then you have a natural universe that contains another clear logical impossibility. You're really just shuffling around a set of related absurdities.

The elephant in the living room is the impossible coexistance of three obvious facts: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe has existed for a finite span of time, (3) something can't come from nothing. If you accept these three facts, and your definition of the universe is "all that exists, time included", then you have accepted a logical impossibility. You can either try to hide this logical impossibility by sweeping it under a rug somewhere, or you can put it in its proper place. I prefer to take it outside of the natural universe, since I have to live here, and place it instead within the unknowable, incomprehensible thing that is the supernatural creator. I am satisfied with the resulting situation -- a rational universe with a transcendant creator.

Anyway, that's the way I see this existance thing right now. If you've got a way of explaing how the universe can exist and be rational without the existance of a supernatural creator, I'd be very interested in hearing it. My guess is that a quick walk-through of whatever you propose will reveal an elephant stashed under an end table somewhere.

I said:

I don't think that the fact of existance proves that the creator is willful or thinking

To which you replied:

Perhaps presumptuous on my part, but you are a strange deist indeed if you think the creator is some mundane physical force without a will.

I continued:

The existance argument cracks open the door to the possibility of a God with those qualities, but it certainly doesn't provide the proof.

I think God is willfull and is far more than a mundane force, but the fact of existance doesn't provide the proof for anything beyond God's existance. There are other arguments that help flesh out God's personality.

supernatural is a logical contradiction on its face

Well, you have conveniently isolated yourself from any argument by accepting the truth of absurdities. It allows you to choose which absurdities you want to believe, and for some motive you chose the one you have. As a matter of fact, if it is a contradiction, then it is false. You therefore are, of course, wrong, but there is no way of convincing you of this because you don't accept any of the legitimate rules of persuasion.

Despite your own delusions, you have not reduced the existence of the universe to the need to select between logical absurdities. I thought we had established this on past posts and I won't rehash it all here. All you have succeeded in doing is proving, logically, that you are wrong.

I'm sad that the discussion must end here, but I am wasting my time, as would anyone, trying to argue with someone who believes that a statement can be both true and false at the same time. Have fun chasing your windmills.

Well, okay, but I wish you had addressed this:

The elephant in the living room is the impossible coexistance of three obvious facts: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe has existed for a finite span of time, (3) something can't come from nothing. If you accept these three facts, and your definition of the universe is "all that exists, time included", then you have accepted a logical impossibility.

If these three facts are true (which I believe they are, or do you disagree?), and if it is also impossible for these three facts to be true at the same time (which must be the case since there was nothing from which the universe may have come prior to its existance), then there is a rather striking logical impossibility that must be addressed. How can you disagree with this?

My choice of a logic-defying definition for supernatural is the necessary result of the above logical step. You have chosen to short-circuit this discussion because you don't like my definition, but you haven't refuted the logic that demands that it be so-defined.

But so be it.

You are a frustrating absurdity, aren't you? We have covered these but you are quite a selective reader.

You have nowhere established the "facts" of the finiteness of time or the universe. Even granting those as premises you have not established that finitude necessitates a creator, the impossibility of a first cause, or even the necessity of a first cause if it is assumed that time is finite. And, you certainly haven't established that the bag of contradictions (that there is something that both exists and does not exist) associated with your belief is somehow more valid than any other bag of contradictions.

And it is a little pathetic being accused of accepting logical impossibilities from somehow who confesses that his whole view of truth and existence is founded firmly upon a logical impossibility.

If you are so willing to break the bonds of reason and logic, why make it so hard on yourself? With such a detachment you have opened up an infinite world of possibilities for belief. Why not just find some religious document and believe it literally? Wouldn't that make life easier for you? Not so much hard thinking involved.

It is a kick, I must say, watching such logically crippled individuals think they can reason their way to the secrets of the universe. Kind of like joining the major leagues before you know how to spell "baseball".

You say you're not an atheist, and you're certainly not a deist, so I assume you're an agnostic.

I've given no opinions suggesting whether or not I'm an atheist, deist, agnostic, or anything else. Do you really think we're ready to tackle these questions when we can't yet handle simple logic?

Most of the influential philosophers have shown a penchant for both reason and absurdity. I like the former in anyone--although the latter can be amusing.

I suppose that in particular Aristotle needs mention for his treatise on logic, Locke & Hume for recognizing that there is in fact a world outside our minds, and that it can be known through observation. Oh, and then there is Hillary Clinton for pointing out that it takes a village.

I'm surprised you discarded my abuse as well as you did. Most people I argue with find their egos more important than their arguments. You won't suffer it from me again.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.