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 disagree. Most of mankind acts quite rationally. And men are totally free to choose their acts.
Exactly! Thinking, by the way, is just the common term for reasoning. Logic is the formailzation of correct reason. Therefore, all thought is "reasoning," that is, the use of the rational faculty (since it is the only one we have to think with). I think part of the problem here, is a misunderstanding of what rationality actually means. It does not mean reasoning correctly, it means only the capacity to reason or the faculty with which we reason. It can be used both correctly and incorrectly.
Hank
You claimed Rand as some sort of visionary for predicting confiscatory tax rates. I pointed out that beginning with FDR tax rates were confiscatory. As to me not understanding the effects of inflation on income tax, yes I do understand that.
As to the tax burden being higher on the average person today, yeah, that's true. However, even with the higher tax burden middle and lower class people have a higher standard of living, if they care to. That $10 worth of groceries you were talking about took two days to earn at $25 a week. My dad nearly stroked when he found out a house he purchased was going to cost him $73 a month in 1960. Maybe it's just because my Dad started out as a tenant farmer and we were considered poor white trash, but my childhood memories include raising chickens in the back yard because it was cheaper than going to the store, and asking my grandmother to buy me an apple, and her telling me we couldn't afford it. I remember her saying, "those apples are over ten cents apiece. We can't afford that." My dad worked six days a week repairing appliances, my mom worked 6 days a week fixing hair (until 9 pm on Mondays and Thursdays) and we thought we were stepping in high cotton when we bought a 5 year old car. Here in 2002, I'm not considered rich, but I'm looking out over the driveway at a new extended cab Chevy pickup, an Astro Van for the wife, three TV's, two computers, a hundred year old restored house in a small town with three porches and two porch swings, central air, dishwasher, a fat bank account with a 401K (got out of the market in '99 and have been sitting in a fixed account ;o>), my wife doesn't have to work outside the home and I can look after my mother and make sure she doesn't need anything. Pretty tough for me to grouse too much. God's treated me far better than I deserve.
BTW, my old man worked his *ss off. He taught me everything I know about earning a living, and he was the smartest man I've ever known. Never rich, but everybody from bank presidents to janitors knew and liked him, and he treated both with the same respect.
Sorry to go off topic like that, sometimes I get a little philosophical when I think about the old man. Back to point, though, I wasn't trying to make the claim that the average person was taxed at the same levels that they are now, but that FDR seriously wanted a cap on how much people could make. This fits in well with Rand's thrust that the "looters", as she called them, believed everyone who was smart, worked hard, and accomplished something should have the majority of it taken away from them and given to other people.
Take care,
A big part of that moral code is part of Objectivism or at least derived from it, just as yours (I presume) is from Christianity.
I think I'm no longer an Objectivists because of a few minor differences, and AFAIK Objectivism is very strict in its definition. It's not an easy path of study, no one falls into it, so those who stay are likely to do as I did. But I hope one day that something very close to Objectivism gains such prominence that it's taken for granted like Christianity! LOL I think Christianity's remarkable for all it has done for all people and how well it has weathered it's success.
Thanks for the kind words for Christianity!
Know that I'll give your proclamation the attention it deserves.
But never mind, yendu. You've already been indoctrinated with the Socialist sheeple propaganda.
Now, start slandering - it's what Liberals do.
What are you talking about? I'm not a liberal. What socialist sheeple propaganda are you talkin about? Am happy to defend anything I said on this post, just have no idea what you're talking about.
Hello. I commend what you have written and the depth of thought that has gone into it, but i feel that there are some things you may have missed, that i will put forward for consideration. i have realised this was posted 10 years ago and you are probably not even on this site anymore, but i want to write it anyway!
I see Objectivist thought disagreeing with Religion (and this is my thinking) because it is not a personal moral code they are taking on; but that of a collective, so overall religion has no place for individualism and restricts, in some ways, rational thought in the place of obsequious belief (this is further backed up by Orwell in 1984, jus’ sayin’).
To address your second point, i think you have a different understanding of good and evil. You pose them to be contradictory of one another, when in fact they could only be classed as a contradiction when applied to the same situation, instead they are able to exist at the same time, but not in the same situation. You are right that Rand shows she does believe for evil to exist and i think that evil can exist, because as Rand puts in the book, the evil comes from someone who defies themselves and their own values of life and existence; that is the evil of man. The whole point of her book is to show the stupidness of man defeating their species in order of some values that is not their own. They, she believes are capable to do it through (as D’anconia puts it) through the only evil thought, not thinking.
The last reference to the soul is one that can be explained with some knowledge on Greek thoughts of the soul (Aristotle is the one major influence in rand’s life, she says). A way of seeing the soul by this line of thought is through reason, a belief was held by some that reason was the proof of the soul and part of what made it up. So by Aristotelian standards, the soul is not devoid of reason but infact the best, most humanistic part of it is made up by the capacity of reason.
I hope you read this :)
Welcome to FR. I would not expect a reply to the poster you addresses, as they have not posted here since 2003, and the thread you posted to was from 2002.
All the same, we do discuss Rand here a fair amount and I hope you will stick around and participate.
Contradictions, schmontradictions!
Among other things, I categorically disagree with Ayn Rand's atheism as well, but it's quite refreshing to recognize that there is still plenty of common ground to be found between patriotic atheists and patriotic Christians, both of whom ardently believe in Liberty, privacy, conservative economics, minimally intrusive government, and so on.
I, for one, bemoan the frequent antagonism between these groups, because, to my mind, there is much more that we hold in common than there is to divide us.
Wow. I don’t even remember writing this! It’s ten years old! And I completely agree with your post. I have grown tremendously in my faith and as a person since I posted this vanity and believe that a belief in true liberty is key to conservatism. Most liberals have no faith in humanity and no basis for morality and believe we have to be ‘lawed’ to death to make us behave. Then they want to be above those laws of their own making...Ahhhh...could go on but will spare you.
Here’s to a bunch of ‘freeping’ years! LOL.
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.