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).
This is a great mistake, both about Ayn Rand's view, and about the nature of evil.
I Quote from The Autonomist, "Introduction to Autonomy."
"All values are based on the good. There is only good. This statement must be understood in the following context: in reality, as an actuality, there is only good. There can be more good and less good, and there can be things that increase the good, and there can be things that diminish it. Now what we call evil is really less good or that which diminishes the good. Without good, however, there can be no evil. Sickness is evil, but there could be no sickness if there were not health. If there were not life there could be no death. Poverty is evil, but there could be no poverty if there were no wealth.
"This does not mean that there is not evil, or that it is not real. It means that evil is not a positive, and exists only as a negation of the good, and, therefore, can never exceed good. It means that evil cannot exist on its own, but only where there is good. Anything that limits, diminishes, or threatens good is evil, and its embodiment in people, movements, teachings, acts, and governments are rightly called evil."
Hank
4/20/02 As mentioned previously, TNT dropped plans for an Atlas Shrugged TV Miniseries, but producer Al Ruddy is still attempting to arrange production of an Atlas Shrugged movie. Meanwhile, according to a comprehensive article on the subject posted at the Atlas Society web site, John Aglialoro, who holds the film rights to the novel, is "looking at all the options in terms of how to structure the story as well as the project. After half a dozen scripts that tried to tell the whole story, it may be time to consider spinning out the core plot of the strike, which conveys Rand's essential message, and not trying to include all the subsidiary plot-lines, relationships, and consequences of the strike."
http://www.missliberty.com/FilmAtlas.html
Yeah, there used to be a lot of really arrogant know-it-all 16-, 17-, and 18- year-olds who thought they had ALL the philosophical answers wrapped into a neat little package because they read Ayn Rand. I remember when they would smugly recite crap like "A equals A" as if it was something incredibly profound. Oh, and Ayn Rand could NEVER be wrong in their view.
I don't see too much of those young objectivist types anymore. Probably because youngsters nowadays prefer video games to reading. Also, there was a lot of falling away from Rand because of that Nathaniel Branden affair.
Could you imagine how many more pages could have been deleted if she knocked out most of the speechifying?
Exactly. What did either Stalin or Lenin say about the deaths of millions? The death of one is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic. Something like that.
Amen to that and let me add my thanks. That was the clearest explanation I've ever seen for him. I've read the book many times over the years and now I finally see where he really fits into the picture.
It was worse than you might imagine. I've read a few bios about Ayn Rand. None came right out and said it, but by reading between the lines you could tell that Rand's hubby, Frank O'Connor, had certain "problems" which probably explains why Rand had to get a lot of side action (actually any action) from Nathaniel Branden.
Michael Jackson could play Eddie Willers. He's really good at worshipping women...
Organized religeon.
Thinking is good!
I look forward to your reply.
For the record, while I am very familiar with Ayn Rand, and have read everything she has written (even some things never published) I do not agree with some of her conclusions. She never intended to be a philosopher, which is what most people know her for, but I nevertheless consider her one of the three greatest philosophers, the others being Aristotle, and John Locke.
It is interesting that Ayn Rand rejected "religion" because of what the self-proclaimed religious authorities taught her. She herself admitted that certain problems in metaphysics (not her strongest philosophical area) could be solved by the supernatural. It was specifically the teaching that mankind was guilty of choosing knowledge, and that all of mankind was condemned for the act of one man that convinced her that Christianity was not true. Those who taught her these things will some day have to answer for this great evil.
Hank
You can literally figure out Rand's characters by making a chart of all the ways a person can botch up or develop his philosophy, for example:
1. A character (James Taggart) who refuses to think about the issues. "Don't bother me, don't bother me."This is probably how Rand sketched them out when she started to write the thing. But it's important when reading the book to understand that each character represents a different philosophical problem. That's what makes her work unique, and so difficult for the casual reader to fully understand.
2. A character (Reardon) who thinks his personal excellence will somehow triumph, even if he ignores the evil around him.
3. A character (Stoddard) who begins with excellent views, then compromises it all away, little by little.
4. A character (Cheryl?, Taggart's wife) who starts out knowing nothing, but who figures it all out.
No but I think she found Rock Hudson.
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.