I think it's important to understand that Rand was influenced by the German philosopher, Nietzsche. Granted, Rand's "political philosophy" was certainly not as deep, nor as influential, but it's widely accepted that she was influenced by him. There are important differences, of course, but there are certain key elements that are important.
One of those elements concerns Rand's critique of religion and so-called altruistic morality. Selfishness, in this view, is not evil, but only as good or bad as the selfish individual. And as for altruism? It doesn't exist. As Nietzsche said, "there are no selfless acts" at all!"
Why? Because the altruist is motivated by fear and by the need for others to think well of him. His vanity knows no bounds. He imagines himself as suffering along with those he wishes to help (he is motivated by fear), and he buys himself a good reputation with his fellows and flatters his vanity by his alleged "selfless" acts. Altruism is just as brutally selfish as anything else, but as a form of morality it is far less honest.
Of course, in Rand's view the altruist does not decrease suffering. On the contrary, the altruist increases suffering and misery, and he robs individuals of their humanity by placing the blame for their suffering on those who are not responsible. The altruist is shameless, has no respect for the tragic, is far more vain than most can imagine.
I have to say that after decades of altruistic government the results speak for themselves.
I didn't see anyone else point this out to you, if they have, please forgive the redundancy.
For Ayn Rand, man's soul is his consciousness, particularly that consciousness unique to man, the rational/volitional consciousness, the conscious ability to think and choose.
If you attempt to make the word soul mean anything more than this in Ayn Rand's mouth (or pen), you have misinterpreted her.
(I will gladly provide quotes from her writings to substantiate this, if you like. Most people familiar with Ayn Rand are quite familiar with her position on this.)
Hank
This is a great mistake, both about Ayn Rand's view, and about the nature of evil.
I Quote from The Autonomist, "Introduction to Autonomy."
"All values are based on the good. There is only good. This statement must be understood in the following context: in reality, as an actuality, there is only good. There can be more good and less good, and there can be things that increase the good, and there can be things that diminish it. Now what we call evil is really less good or that which diminishes the good. Without good, however, there can be no evil. Sickness is evil, but there could be no sickness if there were not health. If there were not life there could be no death. Poverty is evil, but there could be no poverty if there were no wealth.
"This does not mean that there is not evil, or that it is not real. It means that evil is not a positive, and exists only as a negation of the good, and, therefore, can never exceed good. It means that evil cannot exist on its own, but only where there is good. Anything that limits, diminishes, or threatens good is evil, and its embodiment in people, movements, teachings, acts, and governments are rightly called evil."
Hank
I'll take your points in order.
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.
A lot of 'believers' are statists. Many are Nazis/Facists/Socialists. You'll find VERY few GOPers who decry taxation as immoral. Let them come on this thread and denounce taxation as theft.
Your mistake is that you are not in the 'group' you think you are (GOP), or you are assigning value(s) to the GOP that it does not have.
But if man is only truly alive and good when he is true to himself and his virtue, how can evil exist?
Because man is often not true to himself and virtue. It's a lot easier not to be.
Good and evil contradict one another.
False premise. Evil is the abscence of good.
Third, Rand does not believe that men are made up of nothing more than chemical reactions, but that they have a soul.
Although I agree with you, that Rand's statements that God does not exist are irrational, I'd need evidence that she ever said man has a soul.
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.”
This is a very interesting, and worthy point that I have not seen made before.
It is often said by those who belittle the intellectual capabilities of Christians, that the bible is full of contradictions
It is. But you're making another mistake. The Bible does not prove the existance of God. I don't believe the Bible is the word of God, but I believe in God. And Natural Order is one method of His proof. I have others, but they are personal.
Rand's mistake was trying to DISPROVE something by lack of evidence. I guarantee there is life somewhere in the Universe, besides Man. But I can't prove it. By her 'logic', it would be morally safe to nuke every planet without visiting it.
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
Nice wrap up, bringing it all together.
One could also add what I did above. She has precluded a possibility without evidence.
At best she could say God 'could' exist.
It's not as if we're trying to disprove the Easter Bunny.
My reason tells me that greatness must come from that which is greater
Your reason is faulty. Greatness is a man-created concept. Created in our languages/thought processes. It could be possible for an alien society to exist that has no idea about 'greatness'.
I've actually been thinking of posting something similar, but never got the time. Glad you did.
But I never found her rejection of religion to be backed by compelling arguments, and specifically regarding "A.S.", I found that Galt's Gulch was more than a bit utopian and not fitting in with the logical and accurate depiction of the way collectivism works in the real world.
The 10^40000 comes from astro-physicist Fred Hoyle but responsible mathematical evidence for the extreme unlikelihood of atheism goes back to at least the 1960s: Check Wistar Institute Symposium
Atheism is irrational. It is a world-view based on unthinking emoition.
I admire your effort to read this book coming from a Christian perspective, but your first sentence is in error. Although she probably didn't present any believers in a positive light in that book, there's no evidence that she considered them all to be looters. She never said such a thing. With all due respect, that comes from your imagination.
The understanding behind the next several sentences of your criticism is tangled. Sorry, but I'm not able to help at this time. One can't understand Objectivism by reading Atlas Shrugged. I don't defend everything about objectivism, and certainly not about Rand, but if you want to understand Objectivism, the 200 page "The Virtues of Selfishness" is where it's explained.
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.
It kind of gives you hope for the next generation.....
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.