Posted on 12/29/2001 12:09:43 AM PST by Starmaker
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 nuance 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 egotistic, 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.
That is why they are called miracles :>)
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Happy New Year!
The literal reading or the symbolic reading? Seems to me that someone who never had a science cource somehow got the basic chronology correct 3000 years ago. Since then, some other people have been inserting 'details' between the lines. Those details are usually wrong.
Reading Peikoff I don’t find him sneering at Christian’s but merely acknowledging reality. The commercial part of Christmas has eclipsed the religious celebration as demonstrated by where most Americans spend their time, money and energy. Compare the amount of ink used or thought put into Christmas trees, light displays, shopping for presents and all of the other secular parts of Christmas; as opposed to nativity scenes, religious services and thoughts about the birth of Christ.
Extreme atheism: extreme is an adjective that adds nothing to atheism. You are either an atheist or not just as you are either a theist or not; you can’t be any more or any less of an atheist.
Claiming Creation theory is more rational than evolution theory is wrong. While it is true that evolution as a complete theory is lacking in certain areas, it still is a simpler and therefore more likely explanation of the origin of the universe. If God exits he would have to be greater and more complex than that which he created. Theists believe that God somehow came into existence, which would be even less likely than that a less complex Universe happened on its own. You can’t arrive at a belief in God through a rational process; it requires faith.
I would have to agree with you about many of our current Socialist intellectual leaders desiring the sacrifice of others. But there are also Pastors that profess Christ while demanding sacrifice on the part of their congregation; sacrifice that in reality ends up benefiting primarily the church leaders.
To call the vision utopian is mistaken. Utopian requires a belief in the perfectibility of mankind. Ayn Rand laid out an idealized vision of man’s potential but I find no evidence that she expected many would live up to it. Until all men are perfect you can never create utopia and to try will always result in catastrophe. The best we can do is try to move things in a better direction.
To claim that an accurate historical description of the true origin of the Christmas holiday some how venerates paganism is wrong. If any one venerates paganism it is those that worship the holiday as a historical reality.
To end with a parting cheap shot about Ayn Rand being influenced by a socialist upbringing is beneath you. I enjoyed your little essay but I am sure with a little time you could have improved the title.
Good points. These are good examples of changes made by a specific species to survive to a specific selecetive pressure(s). However, none of the examples that you gave give any support to the large phylogenic leaps that would be necessary to give rise to all of the diversity we see today. One has to assume that these small changes could have possibly brought about larger changes. In the end, none of these examples lends any real support to phylogenesis.
And I reject faithless scientists who spend their days spewing the meaningless words of fellow heathens.
Perhaps they can trace their lineage to some puddle of mud or a tree swining primate, but I was created by God in His image and likeness.
The Bible says that grasses and trees existed before the sun did. That is not remotely correct.
It does? Where?
I logically conclude that miracles are simple, logical, manipulations of energy presently not known nor fully understood by man. The reason that the agnostic discredits some things that were once considered miracles is because they are now logically understood. Miracles are logical. To understand a miracle logically, is a miracle.
Both the agnostic and the believer discover miracles by the same method, faith. My religious fantasies can be observed logically without contradiction. That man may not logically understand a miracle, is man's limitation. With God all things are possible, simply because He knows just a few more logical applications that we have not yet discovered.
I have long wondered why these two concepts are mutually exclusive. Anyone willing to entertain the possibility that a supernatural and divine aspect was the catalyst for man emerging from the 'ooze'?
Huck BUMP!
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.