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'm still trying to understand why the sandy shores and aquatic life managed to plant themselves right where all the rivers and seas turned out to me. "It is foolish to believe" that they just appeared there by "accident". Perhaps God not only created them, but has been precisely arranging them up to this day. What are the odd that all the fish would keep ending up in the water by accident?
The only accident that's necessary is that somewhere over the billions of years somewhere in the billions of star systems spattering out complex molecules that are bound to interact and form systems, some macroscopic patterns began to reproduce themselves. To deny the possibility of that "is irrational. It is a world-view based on unthinking emotion."
That would be true only of altruist mystics, what she sometime called the "mystics of mind," as opposed to the "mystics of muscle."
Hank
What Mao did was certainly in his self-interest, as far as he was concerned. He destroyed the old governmental system (which he despised), he instituted his vision of communism (which he wanted badly to do), he became a cult figure and hero to the vast majority of Chinese at his time. He died a revered figure, both at home and on the world stage. To me, redefining bad things people did as not being in their self-interest because self-interest couldn't lead to bad things doesn't make sense. Everything Mao did was in his self-interest. You're subscribing to the idea that things are wrong when they're not to 'our' advantage. Not everyone does. Mao didn't!
You are correct. C.S. Lewis has about the best discussion of this concept I know of in, Miracles." He points out that the strict materialist must conclude that thoughts and choices are not something we do, but something that happens to us.
Ayn Rand was aware of this problem, and knew exactly where the problem was, her metaphysics. Metaphysics was not her strong suite (she never intended to be a philosopher, anyway) and actually said, (it's in one of her recordings not her writings, I do not believe) she would almost like there to be a supernatural because it would solve so many problems.
For Rand, the problem was real, but she felt it was one that would eventually be solved. In the mean time, she knew the men were rational and volitional, and whatever was required for that to be true, when demonstrated she would have accepted it. The sad thing is, those who could have demonstrated it fed her a bunch of theological paganism instead.
Too bad!
Hank
Please explain what the word "correct" means. Do not use a "rational" description. Or explain what the word reason means, or God, or anything else without using reason.
The "rational" consciousness is the only consciousness human beings have. If you know anything, you can only know it rationally. Now reason can be used incorrectly, but it cannot not be used. Every point you have tried to make is a rational (I mean an attempt to use reason) argument. So far, they have been incorrect, but you must use reason, even for incorrect arguments.
Since you believe there is something "higher" than reason as a means of knowing the truth, why don't you use that "higher" thing to convince me of my errors instead of all these arguments which are suppose to appeal to reason?
Hank
One doesn't usually try to, and, in the case of Rand, she did not identify herself as a philosopher. Others identify her as a philosopher, because she wrote so much that was excellent philosophy. In this sense, one becomes a philosopher in the same way someone becomaes a painter, by philosophying, in the first case, and by painting, in the second.
Hank
Among the hundreds of millions of people that promoted the communist revolution in China, some are of course going to have personally benefit from it. To claim this one person as an example of evil being in one's self interest, one has to view Mao's fate alone, out of context with all the millions people integral to the revolution who would have had great potential under a better system but instead became Maoist pigs and puppets. Of course there will be rare people who wind up better under evil systems, and of course they'll end up at the top and be promoted to the rest. In a big world, there'll be occasional exceptions to the principle that evil is not in one's best interest.
I haven't read all of this thread, so this may already have been addressed at some length, but I think you are missing the point.
Of course the child's life is ruined. Of course the man doesn't grow emotionally. So what? To assert that harming a child or emotional retardation is a 'bad' thing necessarily requires some external standard of measurement.
The pedophile decides that satisfying his sexual desires outweighs the welfare of the child. He can make such a decision rationally, correctly identifying all costs and benefits, and still ending up molesting a kid. Why, is he crazy? No, merely evil. But we have to appeal to some outside standard of right and wrong to make such a judgment. We can't say he's evil just because he didn't take all the factors into account. He's evil because victimizing a child is objectively morally wrong, because God says so. But remove the supernatural authority, and the pedophile's opinion becomes just as valid as mine.
No, I thought you were going to find it, the one non-theological measurement that would differentiate the two actions, but it was skipped. Purposeful actions that either promote or deter life are good and evil respectively.
That paint scheme Dupont threw on Gordon's car a few years back was purple but not purple and brown but not brown... ; * )
Although Eve sinned first, and offered the fruit to Adam, most Christians believe the sinful nature is inherited through the father, and of course the passage of Scripture most used by them, (Romans 5) does not mention Eve, but "the first man."
Ayn Rand would have been appalled at the idea of an inherited "tendency to sin." She made a great deal of the fact that men are not controlled by forces and impulses they do not understand, but are volitional, and responsible for all their choices. It was this Calvinistic teaching which you are alluding to that she hated.
Hank
Any commandment or sin listed in the bible can be put to reason so that the "sin" behind it is understood. The pedophile, if rational, should be able to see that it is not possible for a child to consent. He should see that not only will it damage his self-worth, but that it will greatly damage the child's because the child is used without the power of consent.
Now what I am about to say is in agreement with you. I say that, because you might have had the opposite impression, at least at first.
Quite the contrary from selflessness, the Bible clearly teaches selfishness, that is, concern with what is truly best for ourselves. Often, men misunderstand what is best for them, and pursue things which they think they want, but which ultimately turn out to be very bad for them. What most people mean by selfishness is pursuing anything one thinks they want, whether they have figured out if it is really the best thing or not. That is not selfishness, it is subjectivity and stupidity. Selfishness is pursuing what is really best for one's self, and the first requirement of selfishness is that we really know what is best for us.
Now, serving God often seems like a "selfless" thing to do, but how can it be, if it is true, "...all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Ro 8:28)
Here are some verses that specifically say we are to be concerned with what is best for ourselves:
Gal. 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(Now, if you don't love yourself, your neighbor is in trouble.)
Gal 6:1 ¶ Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
(You are supposed to worry about yourself, and be careful not to put yourself in the place of temptation.)
Eph. 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. (Now if loving yourself is bad, you ought not to love your wife.)
1 Tim. 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
Hank
No, there are few if any value judgements involved.
Society's important because we can't live any better than a hunter-gatherer without it. We can't share knowledge and trade without society. And nothing like 21st century America would be possible without a highly advanced "non-degraded" society.
Human life is good because it's clearly an advancement beyond animal life in terms of complexity, diversity, awareness, impact and evolution (should you subscribe to that theory).
Progress in society is good because it supports more lives (amount of life) that are better able to better actualize their potential (quality of life).
The child molester's "difference of opinion " leads to degradation of all that back toward our potential without society. I'm sure we can all see the difference between the coke/pepsi value judgment and the caveman to architect progression in the promotion of life.
This is explained in more detail in Rand's "The Virtues of Selfishness", but I don't defend everything that's written there.
In 1963, John F. Kennedy recommended cutting the top tax rate from 91% to 65%. Franklin D. was a true believer in we'll take everything you've got and give you what we think you need. If memory serves me correctly, he had the top bracket at 94% during the height of WWII.
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.