Atlas Shrugged-Contradictions Where None Can Exist(VANITY)

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)…

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).

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.

How does one become a bona fide philosopher?

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.

Actually one woman, but... The point, for most Christians, of Genesis, is that mankind has fallen from Godliness and inherits a tendency to do evil and selfish acts. Would Rand have a problem with that?

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.

One thing has always puzzled me...Rand's materialism (the belief that all things are atoms, molecules, and so on; there are no unseen entities such as the supernatural) leads straightaway to problems with her beloved reason. Free will would be problematic in such a philosophy. We would be as very complicated machines that are completely determined by inputs and past events. "Volition" and "rationality" wouldn't really have meaning. Her "reasoning" would presumably be the result of a certain combination of chemicals in her brain, while that of a collectivist would be due to a different set of chemicals in his brain. She liked materialism because it is 'rational' (in principle it puts events within the grasp of the mind) but it also seems to say that the mind is not worth having...

There are several advantages to being an old man.

1. You reach a point where you no longer care what others may think of you or your opinions.

2. People tend to give more respect to your opinions, perhaps that they believe that along with old age comes some wisdom.

3. You really do have some wisdom obtained through years of experience.

Most of the people who tend to flame me are of the type who have a low IQ and are the very ones I want to smoke out for their Leftist Socialist Views. The worry me not.

As to the mailman and the cable guy, I have a Post Office Box and no Cable TV. I also live in a realtively secluded spot with no close neighbors, maybe I am safer from the Vip than the average Joe would be, but frankly I don't give a rats A$$ about those people.

That's my opinion.

Nice wrap up, bringing it all together. One could also add what I did above. She has precluded a possibility without evidence. At best she could say God 'could' exist. It's not as if we're trying to disprove the Easter Bunny.

Thanks for your comments. I haven't had a chance to catch up on the posts from last night, but as far as I know you're the first one to address the above point. Somewhere within Atlas Shrugged she, or rather one of her characters, mentions man having a soul. It will take a while, but I will see if I can find it.

she makes it clear she stayed away from the subject of children, because as she said, she had no real knowledge of children or raising children.

Her collection of essays The Anti-Industrial Revolution include several masterful commentaries on statist "education." I quoted her in my MS thesis, along with a marxist jesuit and an ArmEnian Calvinist.

Christianity, in particular, posits that good is about becoming selfless to serve others. The idea that goodness equates with selfishness doesn't fly with a great many.

I had no clue about anything until I acknowledged God in my life. I was working in a customer service position asking myself, "What do I care if these people buy this office furniture or not?" Now some out there are built to sell office furniture. I am not. There was no purpose for me in that job what-so-ever. Each day that I went to work was self-sacrifice.

After I acknowledged Him, it became clear to me that I had a desire to write. I am currently in school, at 35 years of age, working towards that goal. It is not self-sacrifice, it is a gift he has given me. I love waking up in the morning and knowing I am on the road to my "purpose." I understand what you are saying, but I do not believe that in order to serve God we must be entirely selfless. Were that the case, we would all be built the same, and given the same gifts. But I do believe we must be ready to bend to his will if he charts a new path on our course.

Christ ... preached total selflessness.

And once you've obliterated your self, what is left to love God with? You are preaching hinduism, not Christianity, if you believe that the obliteration of self is the ultimate goal of the human pilgrimage.

Christianity does not preach union with God, but communion with God and others. Big difference. Communion respects the selves of all players. Union calls upon the lesser to be dissolved into the Greater Whole -- rather like socialism!

I'll begin by saying I didn't take the time to read all 225+ posts, so someone might have already mentioned this, so if they did, sorry for the rerun.

Anyhow, you spoke of contradictions between good and evil. Francisco, when he said "contradictions cannot exist," spoke a true statement. However, your application of this statement is slightly off base. Good and evil are not a contradiction, at least in terms of logic and philosophy, the context in which Francisco makes this statement.

Good and evil are opposites, not a contradiction. A contradiction is when one thing has two opposite characteristics at the same time. Like, were I to say, "George W. Bush is not the President, but George W. Bush is the President." This is a contraction, because in my statement, George W. Bush is both the President and not the President. It's impossible--he is either the President or not the President--not both.

However, an opposite is simply and opposite--hot/cold, black/white, good/evil. Opposites can exist as long as they aren't being applied at the same time to the same thing.

Good and evil are opposites, not a contradiction. A contradiction is when one thing has two opposite characteristics at the same time

I realize in Dagny's world, one could not be good and evil at the same time. But in the real world, aren't there those who possess some good and some evil. In fact, don't we all? Doesn't that create a contradiction within ourselves?

I would say no: they are opposite traits, but not contradictions, in the sense of "a round square." Do you see the difference?

Your post though, reminds me of the old (Hume's)philosophical argument, "the problem of evil." In this, (and I would suspect Rand would fall into this line of reasoning), the non-believer says:

1. A good God would destroy evil.
2. An all powerful God could destroy evil.
3. Evil is not destroyed.

Therefore, there cannot possibly be such a good and powerful God.

Or there are variances on it, which include "goodness" as a part of the definition of God.

"Free will," of course, is the (best) rallying cry of those who wish to refute this argument, which is definitely valid, and it spurns an interesting debate--why would God, a seemingly good God, produce a man capable of forming the thoughts that would create such evil, like Hitler or Stalin? God certainly could have given us free will, but not given us the ability to think such evil thoughts.

It's a tough situation for a believer to be put in, because it is a difficult position to refute. It is very simple and very damaging. The presence of evil makes for a difficult world.

1. A good God would destroy evil. 2. An all powerful God could destroy evil. 3. Evil is not destroyed.

But according to my beliefs, God is working to destroy evil, but he is doing it in a way that does not infringe upon man's free will.

Love Rand's works, and "Atlas Shrugged" remains one of my favorite books.

But I never found her rejection of religion to be backed by compelling arguments, and specifically regarding "A.S.", I found that Galt's Gulch was more than a bit utopian and not fitting in with the logical and accurate depiction of the way collectivism works in the real world.

I found that Galt's Gulch was more than a bit utopian and not fitting in with the logical and accurate depiction of the way collectivism works in the real world.

Agreed. But her depiction of the "looters" was right on, especially when you look at the mind-set of Democrats.

It is foolish to believe that we are an accident. One has to discount time-tested laws of science and accept mathematical odds of 10^40,000 for just the proper spontaneous gathering of proteins.

The 10^40000 comes from astro-physicist Fred Hoyle but responsible mathematical evidence for the extreme unlikelihood of atheism goes back to at least the 1960s: Check Wistar Institute Symposium

Atheism is irrational. It is a world-view based on unthinking emoition.

Atheism is irrational. It is a world-view based on unthinking emoition.

I personally believe it is irrational because there simply is no way to prove that God does not exist. There is more evidence that points to God than away from Him. (Even though it is evidence that many people choose not to acknowledge.)

"First, Rand makes the mistake of lumping all believers in with “looters.”"

I admire your effort to read this book coming from a Christian perspective, but your first sentence is in error. Although she probably didn't present any believers in a positive light in that book, there's no evidence that she considered them all to be looters. She never said such a thing. With all due respect, that comes from your imagination.

The understanding behind the next several sentences of your criticism is tangled. Sorry, but I'm not able to help at this time. One can't understand Objectivism by reading Atlas Shrugged. I don't defend everything about objectivism, and certainly not about Rand, but if you want to understand Objectivism, the 200 page "The Virtues of Selfishness" is where it's explained.

"Well, you're entitled to your belief. But everyone defines self-interest differently. Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot defined it very differently "

Yes, and if they are wrong and it's not in the self interests of those promoting it then it doesn't meet the Objectivist definition of self interests. Hindsight of course makes identifying what's in our self interests a piece of cake, but the brutality employed by those examples should be quickly ruled out by a little forethought as not being to our advantage.

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.