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).
I dont believe that anyone with Rand's beliefs would commit mass murder for their own betterment. Mass murder is inherently anti-capitalist (cant kill your customers and suppliers and expect to stay in business very long...). If one were killing for profit, taking from other that which does not belong to them, then they are looters. Of course, one wouldnt have to understand Rand to claim to be a believer then go out and commit mass murder. But that person would be a liar, as well as a murderer and a looter. Just my opinion...JFK
This is absolutely, unoquivocally wrong. She made the distinction in blind faith, be it to a higher power spiritually or to the government, as opposed to what one knows is true as being wrong. The looters were not the Christian believers. The looters were the people in society who expect their happiness to come at others expense. That their well-being is owed to them by those who have truly earned it. If a Christian falls into that category, so be it. He has placed himself there of his own volition.
I make no such assumptions. My belief in God is the result of a very long and arduous chain of reason. Truth is not a thing to be "believed" or "not believed," it is a quality of a certain class of statements.
For your information, Ayn Rand might have considered the existense of God, except that Christians convinced her it was a mistake. There were certain metaphysical questions which she admitted the "supernatural" could solve. She once said, she felt physics had abondoned the idea of the "ether," (a less than purely physical concept) a little too soon.
You also did not answer my question. If reason is not the means by which I know what is good and bad, what faculty do I use?
(You made an earlier absurd statement about knowing what your desires are without reason. You used language to describe the desire, and language is a "rational" process, that is, a function of reason. When you have a desire, how do you identify it, how do you decide whether it is the right time to fulfill it, how do you know it is not just indigestion?)
Maybe you just live by whim and impulse.
Hank
Yeah, the whole time I was reading it I was trying to fit a face with the character and I could come up with nothing. Reveals a lot about Hollywood, doesn't it?
I agree, as many have certainly claimed a belief in God as the excuse of their own madness.
Hmmmm, deja vu.......
The Antichrist?
The Willers character troubles a lot of people, but actually he's very important. The book begins with him, and very nearly ends with him. He's always hanging around with the good guys, and he seems to be one himself. So what happened? Why was he dumped?
Eddie Willers' problem was that he never really used his mind. In all the scenes involving him, he was operating entirely with his emotions. He never understood the principles that separated the good guys from the others. Even in those scenes where he was being pumped for information by Galt (the "worker" at the railroad) Willers was giving information and gushing about Dagney, but always in terms of what he felt. He never took the trouble to think things through. And in the end, that's what doomed him.
So what Rand is telling us is that it's not enough to have the right feelings, or to operate on good instincts. If a man won't use his mind to understand what's going on around him, even if he finds himself on the right side and works hard, he's not going to make it. That's the lesson of Eddie Willers.
the standard of value, the good, according to objectivism, is mans' life. That which is evil is in opposition to mans' life. You would do well to read Peikoffs' book on Objecivism if you want to understand the philosophy as a whole in the proper context.
Also, "For The New Intellectual," "Philosophy: Who Needs It. ", "The Virtue of Selfishness", and "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand are illustrative.
yuck ooh yuck yuck yuck...How dare you!! ; * )
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.