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 saw a theory posted here before I signed on about a possible explanation for the creation of the Universe. The theory was essentially is that there are forces independent of the Universe that we know. These forces have always existed and that at the time of the big bang they came into contact with each other and that the big bang was the result. As for me I won’t claim to know how the Universe was created, just that I perceive its existence, try to understand it and operate accordingly.

Are you SURE you read her books? Come to think of it, have you ever had sex with a woman you loved? Her heroines' rewards from sex are the pleasure of sexual relations with men they love. Is this so different from most humans?

You are right that her idealized plots necessarily left out the mundane negative consequences of sexual intercourse, but it wasn't Rand who invented that literary device.

My problem with her idealizations of sexual relations is that they appear to be from a female point of view. She seems to put more emphasis on the intellectual motives for sex with little realization of the mundane, preprogrammed, biological ones.

The atheistic world view is on philosophical quicksand, because there is no basis for truth. They may have a lot of scientific "muscle", but there is no skeleton holding it up. One is thinking what they are thinking simply because of chance.

Holy sh!t! If they're right, then we're all screwed!

Without a basis for truth, you know what happens? Every molecule in your body explodes! Yeah, just like crossing the beams in Ghostbusters. Really.

These forces have always existed and that at the time of the big bang they came into contact with each other and that the big bang was the result.

And do you feel that this is a possibility? If you do, then you accept the possibility of the existance of the supernatural, and then you're just a small step away from accepting the possibility of God's existance.

As for me I won’t claim to know how the Universe was created, just that I perceive its existence, try to understand it and operate accordingly.

Well, same here. But I also know that something doesn't come from nothing, and so I don't rule out the possibility of a supernatural creator.

What if there has been an infinite series of gods, each of which gives birth to the next one just before he dies? Is that rational?

What purpose does this question serve?

Here's a better one for you: is it rational to believe that something can spontaneously come from nothing? This is the question whose answer undermines the rationality of your atheism. I don't see any way you can get around it.

Since it orbits the sun at an average distance of about 93MM miles, if the earth were the center of the Universe then the center would have to be moving in an eliptical path. I believe that a "Center" should be equi-distant from all putative edges. Therefore, if the orbiting earth were the center then all of the supposed edges would have to be mimicing the eliptical movements of the earth. If you cannot see the absurdity of this scenario by this point, I do not volunteer for the near pointless job of explaining it further. Regards

It may well seem ridiculous to imagine the entire universe moving to and fro in relationship to ourselves while we stand still, but it cannot be demontrated mathematically that this is not the case.

On the other hand, it is certainly satisfactory to the mind to imagine the universe standing still and ourselves moving, so that's the way we see it.

It's all relative. Neither perspective is absurd.

So, here we have an 11 dimensional universe. The first 3 we can see. The 4th is within our span of awareness. The 5th is a different problem. It seems to be "finite" whereas all the others are "infinite". Then there are the 6th, 7th, .... and so on up. There may be more but we haven't done the math on them.

The 5th dimension is surrounded by an infinite number of universes of infinite size. The higher dimensions are "wrapped up" - they probably do nothing more than define the sizes of the hadrons and various quantum manifestations.

We live in one of the universes. It seems to have banged into another universe at some point. This created heat, and with it hadrons. 90% of our gravitational background derives from universes outside our own. They are much hotter. Kind of like our classically intuited image of "hell" - more like the Buddhist "hell" than the Zorastrian "hell".

Now, where is God? Is He inside our universe, or outside it. Is he astride the 5th dimension? How does he communicate with critters on the inside of one of the infinitude of infinite timeless universes that border the 5th dimension?

What should your typical atheist make of this situation where the "hardware" that used to be assigned solely to the invisible world of God is now something subject to the analysis of mathematicians and the examination of physicists? Remember, the atheists said the "hardware" didn't exist either, and there was nothing beyond the first three dimensions, with an ending and beginning of the 4th dependent solely on an ever regurgitating "big bang".

St. John noted that even the devils in hell know that God exists. So, once we can define and examine hell, and maybe even start communication with one of its residents, will the atheists continue to deny the Creator?

We'll all find out, eh?!

From reading Ayn Rand I don’t find atheism in the same style as many of those who call themselves atheists today. Most atheist that make it into the news today tend to be anti-theist in that they dislike God and any mention of God. Ayn Rand would fit more in line with an agnostic, professing to have no knowledge of the existence of God. Since you can not know or understand God through a completely rational process to accept or profess the existence of God requires going beyond reason. It can be useful to utilize theories as an aid to understanding; but to claim a theory or faith is superior is to accept a kind of magic. A magic that lessens the place Man’s rational mind plays in producing and creating the necessities that support the Six billion inhabitants of Earth. Ayn Rand’s attacks against religion were aimed at those who proclaim access to a higher knowledge not available to others. Who then attempt to use that claim of a superior knowledge to control and manipulate.

It undermines the rationality of atheism, regardless of who holds to it. Or am I missing something? If this question is all it takes to logically undermine atheism, then the only atheists around should be illogical idiots. This "something from nothing" argument against atheism seems devastating to me, but its utter simplicity makes me think it's too good to be true. Surely atheists have a simple, one-sentence reply for this:

Something can't come from nothing, yet things exist, so a supernatural creator must exist.

Ayn Rand would fit more in line with an agnostic, professing to have no knowledge of the existence of God.

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.

Since you can not know or understand God through a completely rational process...

Can you know or understand any consciousness outside of your own through a completely rational process? It's a leap of faith just to believe something about your own brother's personality, much less God's. You can gain no knowledge of your brother's consiousness through any of your senses, so do choose to believe that you can know nothing about him? Is it magical or shamanistic to believe that a consciousness exists within his body?

I'm confused. Since you are an atheist, why can't you answer this yourself?

Regardless, your logic is sophomoric. I hope you meant:

Something can't come from nothing, yet things exist, so something must always have existed.

There's a bit of a logical leap from "something must always have existed" to "a supernatural creator must exist". You either have a some unstated premises, or you are seriously logically challenged.

Here's a trick for you. Set up a mirror on end on a table top. Then, set up a barrier about 3 inches high between you and the mirror. Place some beans behind the barrier.

Now, looking only at the image in the mirror, reach your hand over and pick up a bean.

Virtually all birds can do that trick every single time without fail. Virtually no mammal can ever do that trick correctly the first time - not even human beings.

Bet that's something you'd never observed before.

The difference between your view of things and that of a bird's is profound - yet both birds and men are able to navigate around without all that much trouble. The reality of the world remains unchanged no matter how birds or men view it.

So it is with the universe as a whole. No matter how you view it, or examine it, the impression you come up with is yours, not necessarily mine.

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

By a similar token I could ask you as a Christian: How can a God that cares about Mankind allow evil in the World? If you are unable to give me a complete explanation does that disprove that the Christian God exists. Just because you can not answer every question does not invalidate a concept.

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.