Posted on 06/29/2011 4:15:55 PM PDT by newheart
Rand changed my life. When I embraced her philosophy, Objectivism, the conversion was far more dramatic than my decision, several years later, to follow Jesus Christ—more dramatic, but in the end transitory. Yet Rand, the novelist, philosopher, and uncompromising atheist, inadvertently opened a door for the gospel. I don't believe dead people spin in their graves, but if they did and she could read these words, I imagine Rand would be twirling violently.
As many have noted, Rand's ethic of rational self-interest is incompatible with the gospel, and leads to social as well as spiritual disaster. "Most observers see Rand as a political and economic philosopher," wrote Gary Moore last year in Christianity Today. "I believe that she was first and foremost an anti-Christian philosopher." A six-foot dollar sign wreath towered over her casket, Moore pointed out, an icon of the false gospel she labored to proclaim. I agree entirely that Christianity and Objectivism are utterly incompatible. But my gratitude to Rand remains profound.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
Christianity was a side show to Rand. Her main enemy was socialism. If you believe in a reasonable God her writing does little to contradict that.
How wonderful that Ayn Rand actually led someone to the Lord even if it was unintentional! I would hope that left wingers by reading her book, Atlas Shrugged, would scramble to Conservatism in double step fashion. Life as described by Rand was a completely joyless and hopeless one!
With all due respect, if Ayn Rand led this person to God, then he’s reading her works wrong.
There's plenty in Objectivism that's compatible with Christianity (not that Rand would have wanted it that way). Foremost is the idea that you are responsible for your life and for the lives of those to whom you freely obligate yourself.
That's the "selfishness" that so many Christians abhor without bothering to read Rand (beyond excerpts of posts on bulletin boards).
Her “enemy” was altruism and this writer couldn’t grasp that.
“self-interest” ideally WOULD lead one to Christianity
True. Of course altruism leads to socialism. You could also say mysticism was her top enemy since reason was at the core of her values.
Although Conservatism is a wonderful political philosophy, it is better to have men and women become disciples of Christ as He is. In a truly Christian society, the best of conservatism will be retained.
Pathological Altruism is destructive.
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/Social/?view=usa&ci=9780199738571
Pathological Altruism
Edited by Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan and David Sloan Wilson
Sounds like an interesting read.
I agree. for me, the real problem with Rand's approach and with any system that does not allow for an objective basis for good and bad, is that eventually pure selfishness inexorably creeps in. It becomes very subjective (real irony in the name "objectivism") and devolves into the only real values are my own. It is closer to Nietszche than Christianity and as Nietszche saw clearly, power is all that sustains and enforces self-driven systems. If you have the power, you rule. And if you don't have the power, you are the ruled.
He doesn't cut her any slack. Mostly suggests that the clarity of analysis that she encouraged, led him to understand the reasonableness of Christian truth. She wouldn't be pleased, but as the author put it, God can even use a talking donkey, why not Rand.
Completely agree. That's exactly why the joke's on us.
Rand is a lot of people’s first introduction to philosophy and serious thinking, so his argument isn’t as strange as it might at first appear.
Altruism gets right to the fallacy of salvation by works.
Rand’s concept of a personal relationship to the truth is not too far away from the Way and the Life..except perhaps unfortunately in her own mind!!
I read Rand about the same age you did..and have had virtually the same experience...which testifies in some way to the integrity of her mind and thought.
I’m guessing he missed her words on original sin and why living in a universe controlled by some unknowable, untouchable deity that can change the rules and turn reality on its head would make life unlivable.
He’s also probably missed how prioritizing abstractions (eg, society, god, etc) that don’t actually exist over things that do exist (like individuals) leads to the individual becoming expendable.
The author addresses that. Her argument that reality is objective and exists apart from consciousness led him to understand that there is an objective reality. For me, the issue is that when she began to build an ethic based on her understanding of self-interest it becomes difficult to defend.
Yes it is appropriate to see her understanding of "selfishness" as taking responsibility for oneself. But despite her protestations, without the objective reality of a personal, infinite creator who determines the good, all ethical systems reduce to one person's opinion vs. another. Who's will is enforced? The one with the power to enforce it.
It was her writings (I still love Atlas Shrugged, and the Fountainhead nearly as much) that helped nudge me back to the Faith.
Life as described by Rand was a completely joyless and hopeless one!
Not really, but it cannot be anywhere near as joyous as being a servant of God and being in His presence.
The Big Three: Mysticism-Altruism-Collectivism. If one know what those things are, the answers are obvious. Most people don’t, I’ve found.
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.