Posted on 07/22/2002 4:31:37 PM PDT by dubyagee
Having heard Atlas Shrugged touted often on Free Republic as one of the greats in literature, I recently undertook reading all 1,000 plus pages of this “objectivist bible.” I was suprised to find that I thoroughly enjoyed this book and while I agree with much that Ayn Rand preaches (and boy, is she preachy) I find the fact that she denies that God exists quite contradictory to her reason. So from a Christian perspective, I have decided to place some of these contradictions before you, in order that I might be abused by your intellectual snobbery (grin)…
IMHO…
First, Rand makes the mistake of lumping all believers in with “looters.” Were this the case, there would be no believers here at FR decrying big government or taking offense at the fact that the government wants our paychecks each month. The “right wing fundamentalist bigots” would not exist. Christians would be considered left wing lunatics. Clearly, there is a mistake in her presumption that all “supernaturalists” are the same. On a personal level, I have never met a Christian who would presume that the government should take care of those who refuse to take care of themselves, but only Christians who might venture to say, “But by the grace of God, go I…”
Secondly, for someone who professes any form of supernaturalism as contrary to reason, Ayn Rand repeatedly refers to the ugly side of man as “evil.” Rand obviously believes that evil does exist. But if man is only truly alive and good when he is true to himself and his virtue, how can evil exist? Where did it come from? How could this good and wonderful being called man, distort and pervert good to the point that it became evil? What is the source of this evil? Religion, Rand might say. But why would this marvelously intelligent creature pervert what he knows to be true for the sake of destroying his species? In the words of Francisco D’Anconia (I love this character, btw), “Contradictions cannot exist.” Good and evil contradict one another. The presence of both in this world is clearly a contradiction. Reason tells me that there must be a source from which each came. My reason tells me that each is trying to destroy the other, knowing that the two cannot exist indefinitely together.
Third, Rand does not believe that men are made up of nothing more than chemical reactions, but that they have a soul. A soul is supernatural in itself. We cannot see it. We cannot prove that it exists, but there are few who believe that it does not exist. If reason overrides all superstition, how can she make the claim that a man is more than what meets the eye? Does this not contradict the very essence of reason?
Finally, imagine Hank Reardon, creator of a vast empire, watching it be torn apart by those he has aided. The helplessness he felt, knowing that nothing he could say or do would convince them of their own smug self-righteousness. In that smug self-righteousness they desire to kill Reardon because he causes them to think, and therefore to see the evil within themselves. Now, if you would humor me for a moment, imagine the execution of a man named Jesus, who comes to this world He created, in a desire to save it from destruction by “looters.” He is, indeed, killed by smug self-righteous men who fear his logic. But instead of going to the ground, never to return in his greatness, he does return. And he acknowledges those who acknowledged him. And he gives gratitude to those who have shown him gratitude. And to those who did neither, he says simply, “I knew you not.” It is often said by those who belittle the intellectual capabilities of Christians, that the bible is full of contradictions and that a loving God would not turn his face from humans simply because they did not believe. But God, above all, would know, as did Ayn Rand, that evil does exist. The difference is that God would know from whence it came. And if he accepted all humans, regardless of their belief or unbelief, wouldn’t he be aiding the looters in his own destruction and the destruction of those who were “right”? Wouldn’t He be denying that He desired gratitude? Wouldn’t he be denying that he deserved gratitude? Wouldn’t that be a contradiction of all Ayn Rand professed to be right? If God exists, isn’t acknowledgement and gratitude the least he deserves in return for his creation?
If a soul can exist, so too, can God. If, for the sake of argument, God does indeed exist, Rand has brought herself down to the level of the evil “looters.” Her greatest contradiction is her refusal to acknowledge the possibility that God does exist, thereby offering him no acknowledgement and no gratitude for that which she worshipped above all…a great Mind. IMHO, Rand errs in her belief that this great mind that man possesses came from nowhere and from nothing because that in itself in contradictory. My reason tells me that greatness must come from that which is greater. Her denial was for the purpose of pursuing her own code of morality, which she perceived to be superior to that of God. She praises man and ignores the possibility of God, thereby corrupting her own belief system of giving gratitude and adulation to that which is greater than her.
The last thing that I am doing when I choose to believe in God is abandoning my reason. I am not practicing “Morality of Death” because before I believed in God I still believed in doing what is right. The bible does not contradict this; the bible simply makes it clear that men consistently choose that which is wrong over that which is right. Has history not proven this? Good and evil exist on this earth, of that no one can deny. Good and evil are contradictions in themselves, yet they both exist. Therefore, contradictions do exist. Although, according to my beliefs, one day they will cease to exist. But they will not cease before Atlas(God) shrugs(wink).
Thank you, and I agree.
Heck, he didnt even have to add the sex scenes, Rand had them in there herself, and a considerably steamier than any movie had. Of course you have to consider the time period. If Rand were alive today, I could see her as the female Austin Powers, "I'm randy, baybeeee!!!"...JFK
Oh, absolutely!
Right. But many, many in this world (Chrisitans in particular - 1/3 of the world) believe that we exist to serve others - that the ultimate good is based on selflessness (not selfishness or self-interest or self-reliance). That is a notion of good that is given to them by God - not one like Rand's which is self-established - and which is one of many self-established moralities (like Stalin's).
I asked a philosopher. He said there is no philosophy in Rand's works.
Why do you throw the children in? Wouldn't it be rational for the strong to overpower the weak, not in hopes of being saved, but in the hope of surviving. An island is a far cry from a world.
Not for us old guys. :-)
No kidding. Dagny(rand) had no problem dropping Francisco and Hank like hot potatoes when wily Galt showed up!
Where do you get your, ah, "ideas?" Have you ever read the Bible? Do you really believe values, moral or otherwise, are irrational? (Anything not derived or understandable to reason is irrational. The other name for such beliefs is superstition.)
As for "selflessness," there is no such thing taught in the Bible.
For example, Jesus taught there was nothing more important to man than his soul, and there was nothing worth exchanging for it. Then in Luke the very same lesson is given, but instead of soul, the word, "himself," is used. Therefore there is nothing in this world worth exchanging for one's self. The "self" in fact is the soul Jesus came to save. If you truly believe to be unselfish is a virtue, curse God and be separated from Him for ever. What could be more unselfish than that? If you refuse to do this, exactly for whom's benefit do you refuse to do it?
Mat. 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Luke 9:25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
Hank
Not so, my friend. Today, the Senate finally passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which protects by law babies actually born during a partial birth abortion. Prior to this, in many hospitals, fully developed and fully healthy babies were being left to die in many hospitals when the abortionist in a partial birth abortion couldn't manage to kill the baby in the birth canal. The hospital management, the babies' mothers (and quite a number of Democrats in Congress) believed it quite rational (and acceptable) to let die babies that the mothers didn't want. Most people understand such as evil - even if rational. (For why not kill babies that are two years old, and which the parents don't want? - That's something seriously proposed by Princeton University's Professor of Ethics, Peter Sanger.) Again, rationality does not give us morality, no matter how much Rand wants it to. Rationality is not the ultimate good. It can be used for good, or for evil.
Agreed. But without the self-interest, that thing that when combined with capitalism produces wealth that serves us, we are poorly equipped to help one another. Rand had half of the equation correct. That half is capable of providing for everyone. It is a pity that she didnt understand the other half. Perhaps growing up in the Soviet Union for as long as she did damaged her ability to see the difference between what you and I know works and what communism claims it is and didnt work. I hope that made sense too...:-)...JFK
You totally misunderstand Christ my friend. He preached total selflessness. Selfishness (in gaining the whole world) is what Christ taught causes you to lose your soul. Christ's admonitions to: not not judge others, to love all, including your enemies, to help those in need (the good Samaritan), to refrain from pride, to give your possessions to charity - those are all admonitions to selflessness!
I didn't say that. I said morality does not necessarily arise from rationality. If you start with the premise (which most people don't) that goodness equates with total selflessness, then Christian morality rationally can be derived. If you start with the premise that goodness equates with taking over the world, then Hitlerian morality rationally can be derived. If you start with the premise that looking out for yourself and not being bothered by others equates with goodness, then Randian morality can be rationally derived. But the premises were not derived from rationality. They are desires. In Hitler's and Rand's case, they are their own desires. In Christ's case, they are God's desires.
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.