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.
I was only insulted by " Atheism is irrational. It is a world-view based on unthinking emoition"
I didn't mean to insult you or anybody else. On the other hand it's true. But note, that I avoided saying atheists are irrational (fools,) although I would uncharitably apply that description to the die-hard, there-is-no-God type
I have, however, real respect and affection for non-believers and doubters (I was one once, actually) which is why I feel an obligation to point out the irrationality of atheism. You can't be an atheist through objective use of reason. It requires an abscence of thought.
I wanted to make that sink in by applying it to your belief system. I was emotional.
Gotcha!! Just kidding. :-)
I don’t really think that of Christianity.
You don't think believing a fellow was born of a virgin and rose from the dead is irrational? I'm a Christian and I'd have to confess that's bit hard to swallow off the bat. Unless, however, you feel the touch of God and come to conclude that there is more to our existence that atoms and energy. Things do start making sense at that point.
On the other hand, one who believes we are just a radom collection of molecules, will soon find himself trapped in a joyless loop of logic impossible to sustain according to the tenets of his belief.
Good example…
Five years after I became an Objectivist, I was working in Puerto Rico for 7 weeks and came across a baggie full of bills. It was in the middle of a cement courtyard in the Candado tourist area. As I came upon it I bent at the knees still looking forward, garbed it without looking, poped up and didn't miss a step. I walked at a normal pace to a market next to my apartment and hung out there a couple of minutes to make sure I wasn't being followed. When I got to my apartment I counted almost $600!
Two possibilities, a careless tourist or drug money. The next day I called the local police station and asked if anyone reported losing a large amount of money in that area. After going round and round with the officer who only wanted to know who I was and where I was calling from, he admitted that there was no report. I refused to tell him who I was. I'd be damned if some crooked PR cop, who was in all probability a Christian BTW, was going to pocket that money. As an Objectivist I make an honest best effort to find the owner, and then kept it.
About two years later I found a wallet laying between some seats while exiting an Airplane, I just passed it to the stewardess on my way out and kept on going. In that case I can't say that I proved it was a fair test of character. I would have liked to have looked inside, just to satisfy my curiosity, but people might have seen me pick it up and I value my public image.
No moral code's going to keep people from behaving badly against all temptation, but the value of the pride in proving one's honor is greater than anything you're likely to find in a wallet.
You're still insulting and slow to learn. Even your straw men like, "just a radom collection of molecules," are insulting.
Learn to check your spelling.
Well, elfman2, I'm glad you did what you did! But you did so in reference to a moral code in which proving your honor is important (and which is therefore in your self-interest to maintain). Your objectivism works to have you return the money only because you have a moral code that defines your self-interest. Many people in the same situation (including objectivists) could care less about proving their honor. They wouldn't return the money. Sad, but true.
We're on different pages there, Enduring Freedom!
Nay - for Christians can only be forgiven by God if they truly repent - that is, if they are truly sorry and want truly to never do such again. If they expect forgiveness and allow themselves to do evil on the basis of such expectations, they will not be forgiven (for they have not truly repented).
I do get a chuckle out of her anti-mysticism rants - they seem to sweep away most of the 60's drivel that so drives a lot of of the liberal cyclical reasoning of today.
In what way has she changed the world?
It kind of gives you hope for the next generation.....
And that's something we can all use!
All she had to do is read the morning papers!
She did. That's what convinced her. There is no other explanation for why the majority of mankind acts totally irrationally, but a few choose to act totally reationally, unless men are totally free to choose.
Are you one of those who believe sin is something that happens to you, not something you choose?
Hank
By comparing it with reality. That philosophy which best describes the nature of reality is the best philosophy. Among all the "philosophies" which I have studied, Rand's is one that most nearly describes reality correctly.
By the way, I put philosophies in quotes, because there really cannot be more than one philosophy, any more than there can be more than one chemistry or physics. There is only one true description of any aspect of reality.
Hank
Then what does "irrational" mean?
Hank
People choose their acts. We have free will. Whether or not an act constitutes sin or not depends on your definition of good and bad (i.e., your morality). Rational people choose their acts based on whatever's important to them. Like Stalin. Like Lex Luther. Like Gandhi. Like Mother Theresa. Christians believe that what God wants is what should be important to them. Rational acts for them are those which are in line with God's morality. Rational acts for the non-religious are those in line with whatever morality they choose.
What did Rand say about reality that's not apparent to most of us?
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.