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).

I can't say that I believe that anyone who doesn't give a damn about their own self-worth is ever acting in a rational manner.

That's because you happen to have some strong beliefs about self-worth (what it is, what it means). You believe that some things contribute to your self-worth and other things don't. Perfectly rational people may not happen to share those beliefs.

Ask any serious philosophers what they think of Ayn Rand (that is if you are lucky enough to know any...)

I started to ask, but as soon as the words "Ayn Rand" came out of my mouth, my sample of two philosophers doubled over laughing, and said, "Take that worthless bilge outa here."

And then one asked me who John Galt was, so I hollered, "Look over there - isn't that Schrodinger's cat?" and dropped my copy of Atlas Shrugged on his foot.

(My philosopher friends are much stronger on Heisenberg and Occam and such.)

There is no reason behind the murder of a baby. It is what they percieve to be a "right" of a women to do a she wishes to her body. The problem is presented when it is termed a baby as opposed to a fetus. In their "reason" they believe it is okay to destroy a fetus, but ask any of them what they think of killing a baby and it is an entirely different issue. They DESPISE those of us who refer to it as a baby!

But you also have the consequences of your actions to go on...

No. Many people commit acts that most religious people would consider 'bad,' for which there are NO adverse consequences in this world. The person who finds the money-laden wallet along the deserted road and takes it for himself suffers no consequences (in this world) at all. He throws the wallet away and keeps the money. The Godly person knows that such is wrong (because he is disobeying God), and also knows that there are consequences to pay if he wants to get to the next world.

Marx is taken quite seriously by many different areas of scholarship.

Full disclosure: I was VERY leftist in college. (Further disclosure: I attended Houston Baptist University, and majored in poli sci and English.) My journey toward the right began when one poli-sci prof had us read The Communist Manifesto, and after I read it, I spent almost an hour in said prof's office ranting about what a bozo Marx was, and it was no wonder his wife starved to death, and how the hell could anyone with an IQ above room temperature think this was a blueprint for ANYthing, because it was confused and idealistic to the point of unreality, and the "transformation of human nature" would never take place because blah blah blah . . .

When I ran out of breath, my prof smiled and said, "I always knew you had the heart of a liberal. Would you like a jar to keep it in?"

The person who finds the money-laden wallet along the deserted road and takes it for himself suffers no consequences (in this world) at all.

The guilt of keeping the money that belonged to someone else would be the consequences for myself.

Yes, and I think Christians and objectivist frequently find themselves in about the same place: That which is good for mankind is judged to be in one's rational self interests by objectivists, and Christians believe that what is promoted by God is really good for oneself.

To some extent that is true. But Christians have a hell of a greater incentive for toeing the moral line. The Christian says to himself, when tempted into committing an evil or selfish act - "Even if I do not get caught, God knows what I'm doing, and I may jeopardize my chances for salvation." The objectivist says - "Well, I know what I'm doing would not be good for society, therefore it doesn't make sense to do it." I think one is more likely than the other to say: "Oh, what the hell..."

There is no reason behind the murder of a baby.

Not true, Dubyagee. The vast majority of moms who undertake partial birth abortions (where the baby is fully grown, viable and healthy, and is murdered on the way out of the birth canal) have all sorts of reasons: I don't have enough money to raise the baby; I already have too many kids; my husband left me; I don't want to be inconvenienced; the baby won't live in a well-off family, etc. etc. All these moms are making rational decisions to murder not a fetus, but a fully formed baby. And be assured, if we allowed by law moms to murder their 6-month olds, some of them would do it (and for rational reasons). If you don't believe that murdering a baby is intrinsically wrong, there's nothing to prevent you from putting forth a million logical reasons for doing so. And the proof is in the pudding. Lots of moms don't consider killing their babies on the way out of the birth canal to be intrinsically wrong!

"Finally, rationality can be used for good or for evil. It is neutral to good and evil."

A most excellent point and a very good post. I think you nailed it.

The guilt of keeping the money that belonged to someone else would be the consequences for myself.

Good for you, dubyagee. But you only have guilt because from somewhere (God, your own theories on right and wrong) you have a notion that do so would be wrong. A lot of people don't have a God-given morality, and their own doesn't tell them that such is wrong - and they take the wallet - and they're happy about it!!!!

A lot of people don't have a God-given morality, and their own doesn't tell them that such is wrong - and they take the wallet - and they're happy about it!!!!

I think we're all born with an innate sense of right and wrong. I do believe it has to be developed fully. I think that over time, as people swallow their guilt, it is then that their "hearts become hardened" and they no longer feel that guilt.

In a big world, there'll be occasional exceptions to the principle that evil is not in one's best interest.

For a person whose morality is based on what's materially (or sexually, or pridefully) good for number one, self-interest becomes strongly intertwined with what most consider total evil. This mindset is common among millions and millions of people. What you posit is not a principle - only a belief shared by some.

Christianity does not preach union with God, but communion with God and others.

Yes, fair enough. Christianity does not posit giving up one's self. It does posit giving up ones self-adoration (self-pride), and seeking total humility.

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.

No - Each of us has different God-given talents and gifts. He hopes that we should use those for the benefit of others.

Who would you cast as the major roles in either the Fountainhead, or Atlas Shrugged..if you were making the movies..for Dominique...i'd vote for Ann Coulter...

No one. I'd have computer generated characters.

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.