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 agree 'good' doesn't come from reason! But our consciences are not good enough either - for we are all tempted to do bad things! Christ taught that we need God to overcome that tendency.
Please do pardon me. I clarified myself in an earlier post. I could see someone using her beliefs to justify murder, just as they do with God.(How awful to eat one's words!)
I would have never thought you could condense the book to mini-series length until I listed to Atlas Shrugged on tape.
It is around 9 hours long and definitely does justice to the book.
Wasn't absurd! We have many desires (to gossip, to have sex, to commit adultery, to be prideful) which do not emanate from reason!
Thank you for that explanation. How clever of Rand...
The Bible says as much in as little words.
Either you accept the existence of God (and good and bad) outside of ourselves, or you make up your own definitions of good and bad. But again, the use of reason, without God, can lead to Rand, Hitler, Stalin, or anything at all - depending on what your desires are.
Lilian Rearden: Hillary Clinton
Elsworth Toohey: Peter Jennings
Howard Roark: Tom Hanks
I think it's important to understand that Rand was influenced by the German philosopher, Nietzsche. Granted, Rand's "political philosophy" was certainly not as deep, nor as influential, but it's widely accepted that she was influenced by him. There are important differences, of course, but there are certain key elements that are important.
One of those elements concerns Rand's critique of religion and so-called altruistic morality. Selfishness, in this view, is not evil, but only as good or bad as the selfish individual. And as for altruism? It doesn't exist. As Nietzsche said, "there are no selfless acts" at all!"
Why? Because the altruist is motivated by fear and by the need for others to think well of him. His vanity knows no bounds. He imagines himself as suffering along with those he wishes to help (he is motivated by fear), and he buys himself a good reputation with his fellows and flatters his vanity by his alleged "selfless" acts. Altruism is just as brutally selfish as anything else, but as a form of morality it is far less honest.
Of course, in Rand's view the altruist does not decrease suffering. On the contrary, the altruist increases suffering and misery, and he robs individuals of their humanity by placing the blame for their suffering on those who are not responsible. The altruist is shameless, has no respect for the tragic, is far more vain than most can imagine.
I have to say that after decades of altruistic government the results speak for themselves.
I didn't see anyone else point this out to you, if they have, please forgive the redundancy.
For Ayn Rand, man's soul is his consciousness, particularly that consciousness unique to man, the rational/volitional consciousness, the conscious ability to think and choose.
If you attempt to make the word soul mean anything more than this in Ayn Rand's mouth (or pen), you have misinterpreted her.
(I will gladly provide quotes from her writings to substantiate this, if you like. Most people familiar with Ayn Rand are quite familiar with her position on this.)
Hank
Many would say that to love your enemies is completely irrational. Stalin and Mao (as well as most other people in this world) thought and think so.
That kind of sophistication is present in all her main characters, and even many minor ones. Each has a specific philosophical problem, and it affects his role in life, and of course in the novel. Each is carefully drawn to illustrate her philosophical principles. The gradual education of Henry Reardon is wonderfully handled. The fall of Dr. Stoddard is also wonderful, and grim.
There's a lot to be gained from actually mapping each character and his approach to problems. Rand did an enormous amount of work in creating characters, but it's very abstract. The book requires a lot of work to understand its subtleties.
Guns, NASCAR, Ayn Rand, Ann Coulter's looks, marijuana, cats, the evil of the Clintons.....
With Rand, it was "my way or the highway." You could agree with her 98% of the time but because you might disagree with her 2% of the time, then she would consider you scum of the earth. BTW, her earlier novels were much better than her later ones where she just slammed you over and over again with her philosophy.
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.