Atlas Shrugged-Contradictions Where None Can Exist(VANITY)

dubyagee

[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).

[BADROTOFINGER]

But, if you feel good by doing it, how can it be self sacrifice?

This is where Rand kind of sets the context for discussion about her philosophy. Being an avid capitalist (kind of myopically in my opinion, if myopically is a real word) sets the tone of the arguement in the terms of "whats in it for me?". Charity work is self-sacrifice in the sense that you are not being monetarily paid for it. As religeous people, we dont necessarily think as capitalists 24/7, the way Rand thought that we should. That is why you and I (if I may be so presumptuous) dont necessarily think of it as self-sacrifice, because we recieve a reward that Rand, unfortunately, didnt recognize as a reward. And it was HER loss, in my opinion...JFK

[yendu bwam]

This is what Christians do through prayer, and others through other forms of meditation.

Christians are told by God and Jesus what is wrong and what it right. It's then up to them to obey or not. When they have desires (as they all do) to do bad things, they know immediately that such is bad (they've been told so), and they know there will be a price to pay for behaving that way.

[lelio]

Hey that's Ayn Rand! :) Its pronounced "Ein" too.

[clintonh8r]

No, but evil is about being forced to work for the good of the whole. That is the central point about which Rand is most misunderstood.

[07055]

And it was HER loss, in my opinion...JFK

Yes, if that is what she believed, I definitely agree.

To me, self sacrifice would be working to elect Hillary Clinton president.

[Hank Kerchief]

"To know one's own desires, their meaning and their costs requires the highest human virtue: rationality." - Ayn Rand.

This is the biggest piece of Randish poppycock

Don't get excited, take your time. Please reread what you criticized. You seem to have missed the most important phrase, "...their meaning and their costs...." You may totally disagree with everything Ayn Rand wrote or said, but she was always careful about what she said. None of what you implied is true, if you include the phrase you apparently missed.

Since you apparently do not believe good and evil can be determined using the only faculty God has given us with which to understand the truth, what faculty do you propose one uses to determine what is true?

Hank

[jwalsh07]

What is "good?"

Pineapple sundaes, a 270 yard striper and a solid left right combination to an "evil doer".

[dubyagee]

It's an awfully hard thing to do, to defend Christianity with logic. The first question I would ask is, do you honestly believe that if you had been born in Islamabad, you would think the same way?

I have no illusions about defending Christianity with logic. What I would love to defend is the intellect of Christians. (BTW, I cannot answer the Islamabad question because it is not based in reality(grin)).

[yendu bwam]

No, but evil is about being forced to work for the good of the whole. That is the central point about which Rand is most misunderstood.

Well, I agree that such is evil (from my own morality). That is what communism and socialism were. Communism and socialism posited that government could be used to coerce people into forming a selfless society. Christianity tries to get people to see the beauty of living a selfless life, and knows that a better society will follow if they do.

[ken5050]

Did you ever see the movie of "The Fountainhead"..awful..of course, how'd you like to have beenthe screenwriter who was handed the 1300 or so page book and told..."boil it down to a 2 hour screenplay..cut out all the philosophy stuff, and add some sex scenes."...LOL

[stylin_geek]

I was the one who said that Ayn swung and missed when it came to God. However, Ayn believed in free trade, and if one engages in charity work, the "coin" to pay for charitable work is gratitude. However, she had a huge problem with welfare states, because the people receiving charity despised those who gave. Consider also the speech by Francisco to Hank Rearden during the party where they first met.

[mamaduck]

May I add: Sacrifice is giving up something of a lesser nature for something of a higher nature. AND: there is no true "selflessness" because any sacrifice you make - see above - AND if you do it to "make the world a better place", well you are living in that world aren't you?

Sit in a cave until you all you desire is to sit in a cave and you become desireless . . .

[dubyagee]

You're wrong. Stalin and Mao were quite rational and logical and clear-headed (much more than most people) and considered themselves overwhelming successes. It just didn't matter to them that they wiped out tens of millinos of people; it made rational sense for them to do such to reach their goals. That we consider wiping out so many people evil comes from somewhere else.

Yes, and I can see in the above statement where someone with the beliefs of Rand could commit those murders. In their eyes, it would be to their benefit and their profit if the world they lived in inhabited only those who thought like they did.

[mamaduck]

ask YOUR consience ;-)

[dinasour]

Good post. Thank you.

I enjoy reading Objectivist arguments; at least I find more in common with them than when I try to read say, Noam Chomsky.

Ayn Rand certainly did believe in evil, but she failed because she tried, valiantly, to define it objectively, that is, in the absence of God.

On the purely practical side, she failed, as do all utopian systems, because they are all based on the basic principle:

All you have to do is:

[Insert list of rules here]

And the world will be a perfect place.

The world is just not that simple.

Bureaucratic systems are similar, but differ from utopian systems only in the size of the rulebook.

The United States is currently trying this "rules based" approach, in the guise of a regulatory bureaucracy. It is also failing.

The Taliban tried it, the Marxists tried it, the ISO9600-quality-circle-jerk crowd tried it, many religious cults have tried it.

The problem isn't which rules you pick, or how many. The problem is that the world just isn't so simple (IMHO).

[yendu bwam]

Since you apparently do not believe good and evil can be determined using the only faculty God has given us with which to understand the truth, what faculty do you propose one uses to determine what is true?

You assume a truth and a God. So do I. God gave us truth with regard to good and evil. We need to be rational in living our lives according to that morality. But that morality did not emanate from the use of reason. If so, all rational people would be good. They are not. Many rational people (Dr. Moriarity, the Grinch, Lex Luther, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot) are perfectly evil.

[BADROTOFINGER]

Stalin and Mao were quite rational and logical and clear-headed (much more than most people) and considered themselves overwhelming successes. It just didn't matter to them that they wiped out tens of millinos of people; it made rational sense for them to do such to reach their goals. That we consider wiping out so many people evil comes from somewhere else.

True, Stalin and Mao were rational and logical, but only to a point. Their goals of a Utopia were impossible to achieve, but their over inflated self opinions refused to let the apparent logic of their fallacy damage their fragile egos. No matter what they did, their ideas did not work, causing them to take measures against people who disagree with them, rather than listen to them as well as facts, and realize that they are wrong. I think that Stalin and Mao and their ilk were exactly the kind of people that Rand hated. You probably know many like them, those that have such a small ego, such a miniscule thread of it, that they will savagely attack anyone who dares to criticize them and endanger that last remaining shred. Randian heroes didnt give a damn what others thought of them, and since they depended on others for nothing (other than what could be bought, sold or traded, that is), paid them no mind. Facist pigs like Stalin and Mao and Clinton cannot abide criticism of them, because they have so much to lose. Just my opinion, hope it made sense...JFK

[stylin_geek]

You have now succeeded in giving me a vision of what a true He** would be like. Working to elect Hillary. The ultimate Freeper nightmare.

[mamaduck]

I agree, I have a naive idea that everyone understands win-win, when actually I don't find many that do . . .

[yendu bwam]

In their eyes, it would be to their benefit and their profit if the world they lived in inhabited only those who thought like they did.

Right. Five adults and five children are stranded on an island with only two days rations. It's perfectly rational for the adults to overpower the children and murder them and take their share of food in the hopes of being saved. Rationality does not make that a 'good' act (for most people!).