Posted on 01/19/2019 1:59:31 PM PST by huckfillary
“For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors—between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.”
— Ayn Rand
Another thread based on a single Rand quote.
“What -is- the best argument to make, to show that morality -can’t- exist without God?”
I cannot answer you. I know that I read what I could find on Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism”, in which she essentially tries to argue that it can, and was not convinced. Objective Truth, Reality, is not Morality, nor does it imply its existence as it seemed she was trying to argue. On one side of the Universe lions eat Christians and on the other side of the Universe Christians eat lions. What does it mean? Nothing.
“one can be moral, without being religious”
How can that be? Would it be by accident? A code of morality would simply be emblazoned in their heart at birth? I would probably call that a miracle, but that would just open another can of worms.
Probably, these aren’t very good arguments, but then FR is probably not the best place to ask.
OF COURSE one can be “moral without being religious.” The real question is “why one would be ‘moral’ when in truth there is no such thing as objective morality?”
Without God, all so called “morality” is mere subjectivism, and thus arbitrary. There is no reference point and in fact no scale of morality where anything can be defined as “good” or “bad” at all. What is, simply is.
It is a silly silly silly thing to define “good” as “survival” or any other element of flapdoodle that materialists try to conjure up as “good”.... Destruction, suffering and despair might easily be defined as good, or utter subjugation of others for personal peace might also and there is no standard to say “no, this is wrong.”
Yet humanity IS moral. My question is “why?” I can see only two possibilities: 1) it is utterly insane and irrational, a belief in something that cannot, by definition, exist or 2) the human race really IS in the image of God and thus cannot be anything but moral.
We are in fact constantly evaluating others behavior (and ourselves as well, though always less stringently :) ) and comparing it to a standard we “should” live up to. In fact, every argument humans have refers to an unspoken universal standard that SHOULD be binding on both of us. We may not even agree on what that is, but we are always damned sure that one exists, and argue vociferously over it.
Wnen once asks for “evidence” of God in this case, I have to smile, as the presupposition of morality itself is one of the most powerful arguments for God.
Anyway, Ayn Rand (whom I have read pretty thoroughly) is in fact what I call “Nietzsche for Dummies.” She starts with utter irrationality and moral nothingness and attempts to subjugate both by stamping her feet and yelling.
She wound up with pretty good results, but reminds me of a drunk looking for the porno parlor who stumbles into an AA meeting in the church basement instead. Wound up in the right place, but God alone knows how she got there. Logical positivism is a rational trainwreck.
Ridiculous and sophomoric way of describing Christians/Christianity. Did she actually know any Christians well - or was she just given to writing stupid things?
“...but I don’t consider some priest’s chastisement of my sin to be “stepping on me”....”
I didn’t say he was. You are free to go to confession, or not.
“We don’t have the Spanish Inquisition.”
No, but THEY did, a long time ago. And hundreds of innocent people were murdered “in the name of God”, or because it “was God’s Will”.
“..s fining and arresting people for not allowing sicko men wearing dresses to hang around in women’s rest rooms. They’re using government to do this, and that is “stepping on people”....”
Yes, they are. And I never said I agreed with that. THAT is worth going to war over. But so far... Nobody has shown the balls to do so. So it will go on until someone DOES have the balls to stand up and kick their teeth in.
“...Could you see this coming from the end of anti-sodomy laws?...”
It has nothing to do with that. It has EVERYTHING to do with people not understanding the concept of “live and let live”, and once again, trying to force THEIR version of life on someone else by force of law.
“...Ayn Rand’s understanding of human nature makes me think that she could have....”
Ayn Rand was against totalitarianism - be it communist/socialist or religious.
You and I probably agree on 98% of issues. But this probably isn’t one of them... :^)
I totally agree. She was far ahead of her time, but she understood communism and statism.
Bill Buckley wrote that he was introduced to Ayn Rand when she came up to him at a party and rasped, “You arrre too intelligentt to beleeff in Gott!!”
Denying God gives a person permission to do any act of evil, with what they believe is their free will, without an eternal price to pay. (Or so they think).
If Ayn Rand went to her grave denying God, I can guarantee what she NOW realizes, is how horribly wrong she was.
Neither does any God own me. I own myself.
+!
Li'l frisky fetus holding a sign:
Keep your philosophy
Off my biology.
Take that, Ayn Rand.
“...Denying God gives a person permission to do any act of evil, with what they believe is their free will,...”
Some pretty awfully evil things have been done “In the Name of God” or because “God WILLS IT!” by fanatics over the centuries.
By ALL religions. Nobody gets a free pass on that.
People have a right to believe what they want to believe, and live the way they want to live. However, they DO NOT have a right to forcibly and coercively impose it on anyone else.
Its called “Live and Let Live”, and if more people got THAT basic idea through their heads, the world WOULD be better.
The Ten Commandments are a good starting point. But Human nature always gets in the way, unfortunately.
“Ayn Rand was against totalitarianism - be it communist/socialist or religious.
You and I probably agree on 98% of issues. But this probably isn’t one of them... :^)”
I am sure there is quite a lot we could agree on. I like your “about” page and the quotations you have selected. I am certainly not trying to just argue, or put words in your mouth.
I was simply trying to bring up my own experience with Rand, and what I think I have learned from her:
She was certainly against totalitarianism, but she had blinders on when it came to the religious, and could ONLY see it as totalitarian. She went to great lengths to convince herself, and others, that a Morality could not only exist, but would, in fact, be obvious to all, without religious belief. It would be necessary for the “live and let live” existence she preferred. I can only state that I was not convinced, in any way, by her arguments. I do not believe that Morality exists in the Universe beyond the belief of Man.
She did show, however, in “Atlas Shrugged” (and I expect, her other writings) incredible insight into human nature, particularly in her antagonists. It opened my eyes to a lot of what is seen around us, today. Why didn’t James Taggart just let Dagny run the company? Why doesn’t Hillary Clinton just retire to the Bahamas with her hundreds of millions? It’s because they CAN’T. Even Rand doesn’t explain why, but she accurately portrays the escalating nature of their irrational and dangerous response to unfolding events.
The conclusion I have come to, is that she is portraying the expression of forms of mental illness. Hillary won’t just go away, to live a life most people could only dream of, because she is bat-shit crazy. The more Reality fails to comply with her warped perception of it, the crazier she is and acts.
This brings us back to Anti-Sodomy laws. I too, believed with you, long ago, why not “live and let live”? What business is it of mine?
Well, for one thing, in my lifetime we can see the results. Homosexuality has transformed from a shameful mental illness affecting an extremely tiny minority into a national force that attacks the rest of society with impunity. I believe that this is exactly the pattern of escalation that Rand portrays in the antagonists in her books. They don’t want to “live and let live”. They don’t know how. They were contained, by a Morality that Rand rejects and cannot understand. But now, they have been unleashed, like the “dogs of war” to wreak havoc for the masters who have freed them. I don’t know about you, but I begin to see a wisdom in such moral laws.
I have come to classify Rand, and those like her, as “baskers”. They bask in the freedom, security and prosperity of a society whose moral underpinnings have made that society possible. They take this for granted, without ever understanding the sources of the blessings they enjoy. In Rand’s case, great effort is even exerted to attribute these sources to something else.
The Founders knew the dangers of Government of Religion. Government could, and had, oppressed in the name of Religion as much as any cause. They wisely prohibited Government from enforcing a religion. They did not prohibit religion, however, and in fact drew upon a belief in God to place the rights of people beyond reach of the government. They used a Morality derived from a belief in God to define and limit the purpose of Government.
I am sure that I am not telling you anything that you do not, already, know. I just think that Rand tried, and ultimately failed, to unify her understanding of human nature with life in America and totalitarian countries. Her rejection of Religion would not let her put it in its proper place, as the Founders had done, as the moral base upon which just government stands.
“..I am certainly not trying to just argue, or put words in your mouth....”
Me neither, Empire. We just see things a little differently.
I realize it was a Book. Rand seems to inspire those!
Stay safe.
Same-same, brother.
All is well.
I would have responded, “And YOU are too intelligent not to.”
I am a limited fan. I am also a Christian.
I take the good, and leave the rest.
The fault of Objectivism, of ruthless self interest, is, ironical!y, that there can be no objective good: only subjective.
Atheist Evolution would say that a male spreading his genes in the corporate pool more than other males is a biological imperative, a natural-law good.
Genghis Khan was a murderous despot. He apparently succeeded in effectively raping so many conquered females that his genotype is enormously disproportionately well represented in the Asian genome.
By objective standards, his subjective philosophy was not really very good for anyone but himself. Yet he succeeded spectacularly as a tyrant and rapist.
Atheists who strive to argue for some sort of squishy quasi-religious morality based on the suggestion that it is really better for the atheist himself in the long run to cooperate with others in a mutually-beneficial, pseudo-moral way are nothing but sophists.
If they were right, Khan would have failed, and failed decisively. Similarly, Josef Stalin would have failed.
Ayn Rand’s philosophy inevitably leads to amoral ruthlessness, with nothing objectively wrong - that is, if one is intellectually honest.
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.