Posted on 06/27/2009 8:00:09 PM PDT by jhoge
Ayn Rand was an atheist. According to her one-time associate Barbara Branden, Rand became an atheist at age thirteen. Branden records Rand writing in her diary at that age: "Today I decided to be an atheist." Branden then reports her as later explaining, "I had decided that the concept of God is degrading to men. Since they say that God is perfect, man can never be that perfect, then man is low and imperfect and there is something above him – which is wrong." [Branden, PAR, p. 35.] Branden continues that Rand's "second reason" is that "no proof of the existence of God exists."
Rand therefore proposes two objections to the existence of God. First, belief in God degrades man, by positing something "higher" or more "perfect." Belief in God is anti-man. Second, there is no proof for the existence of God. While Rand would later emphasize the irrationality of belief in God, the impression from her writings is that her principal objection to belief in God was a moral or psychological one. [Ryan, OCR, p. 270.]
(Excerpt) Read more at solohq.org ...
Ayn Rand while producing great novels, was also by another measuring stick, simply a person. Not correct about everything. She like all of us exercised her authority to be wrong about things. This is one of them.
She probably could have been right about it, but someone needed to correct the logic flaws in her two reasons.
“Today I decided to be an atheist.” Branden then reports her as later explaining, “I had decided that the concept of God is degrading to men. Since they say that God is perfect, man can never be that perfect, then man is low and imperfect and there is something above him – which is wrong.”
A key part of her flaw is that ‘man can never be that perfect.’ If she understood anything about Christianity, she would know that God would provide a way for once-perfect, now-fallen man, to be made perfect again (Jesus Christ). Man cannot be perfect on his own, but God has provided a way when we die and believe in Christ (glorification). God completes the work He began in us here.
Rand (at 13 anyway) could not come to grips with the fact that life isn’t what she wanted it to be. It isn’t that way for anyone, I suppose. Everyone wants to be something they are not. More power. More beautiful. More rich. Taller. More popular. Smarter. How about never wrong, or better put, always right? God?
We cannot be God. We can’t be perfect on our own. Some people, because of this fact, not being able to handle the truth God exists and He is perfect and holy, and thus unfair to all these lower men and women, says there is no God. The whole idea is just unfair there could be something higher or better above man.
I would caution Rand and others like her that it is not easy being God. It is not easy being perfect - although it is God’s nature to do so. But think of having infinite power, knowledge, foreknowledge, and the ability to suspend the natural laws you made yourself, and intervene at any point in time you want. Now add to that people - people that you originally made perfect, that went against the only thing you said they could not do, and they sinned and became imperfect, sinful beings, that passed this sin problem on to their offspring.
God could have wiped everyone out there right at that moment and He would have been totally in His power and authority to do so. He could stop every one of us from doing bad things, even before we did them and He’d have every right to do so.
It takes an almost infinite amount of patience to control infinite power and let people continue to screw things up. He made us people with free wills and some amounts of power to exercise those wills within limits. For the most part He lets us use those free wills the way we want, and that includes accepting Him or rejecting Him.
the second one, no proof of God therefore He doesn’t exist. She didn’t define what would be proof to her (but at 13 I won’t quibble). But the fact is you cannot state with certainty that just because there is no proof for something (or you don’t see the proof in front of you and you just don’t recognize it) doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It could mean it hasn’t been found yet, or there hasn’t been a way to detect it found yet. To rule something out because of lack of evidence is not science. In fact this very chain of logic is what compels evolutionists to keep digging for the ‘missing link’.
In short, Rand’s premises for rejecting God are flawed just by reading them. I don’t know if anyone later in her life were able to address them with her or not. I hope someone was able to talk to her about it.
Honestly, I don’t think I made any judgement call on whether atheism is good or not. I stated that I am, and was looking to get the opinions of others. Yeah, it’s my first day. But the identity of the speaker should make no difference when it comes to the question of validity of what is spoken.
I’m not trolling, I’m wondering. In fact, this is the kind of response that kept me from signing up and posting. I’m not here to attack, just to ask honestly.
Thanks to some of the others who have given the time to supply their thoughtful responses.
You make a good point on Ayn’s politics, I should have thought of that.
Atheism and Conservatism are not opposed forces.
Libertarianism, on the other hand, rests on the foundation of the perfectability and exaltation of man. Hence Rand's simultaneously ridiculous and pointless argument for atheism because belief in God "degrades" man by proposing a Being superior to him. The anthropology of libertarianism is incorrect, so the principles that flow out from it are also incorrect - the notion that man is good, but it's government that makes him bad, etc. Libertarians believe that "freedom" consists of being able to do whatever you want - though the caveat of "provided you don't hurt someone else" is usually tacked on. Problem is, the libertarian definition of "hurting someone else" is defined so narrowly as to be meaningless. Man is good, so "law" is not needed - it's just a construct designed to limit freedom, in the mind of the libertarian. This tendency to believe that any law is an infringement upon their rights, coupled with the above, tends to mean that libertarians, ultimately, seek to return man to the "state of nature" that the Anglo-Enlightenment philosophers proposed as a starting point for their philosophical constructions.
This, of course, points to conservatives, not libertarians, as the heirs of Locke and the classically liberal commonwealthean doctrine. Libertarianism is sort of like a perversion of classical liberalism (modern American conservatism). Just as Herbert Spencer was a British perversion of Locke and Sydney, so is Ayn Rand a perversion of the American brance of Anglo- classical liberalism, represented by our Founders. The reason for the difference is anthropological - how the two sides view man's basic nature - and this ultimately rests on a difference in spiritual foundations.
Though conservatives and libertarians may often be allies of convenience on many issues, I would contend that they hold compatible views on these issues for different reasons having to do with foundational worldview. As a conservative, I do not delude myself into thinking that the libertarian either likes me, or wants to be my hard and fast ally - specifically because my foundational worldview is alien to his.
Mankind is a social animal, and the bond that keeps society together is love. You were wondering about why people love their near and dear ones, as they do. Well, it is that aspect that helped in their success as human beings, in the first place. Love and trust lead to the formation of societies. Our abilities as a species, and as individuals, are multiplied by this advantage of being able to rely on, and share the experiences of, others. The survival and evolutionary advantages offered by this strategy is a reason why mankind is the most successful of all mammalian species, on the planet.
Is this unique to humans alone? Certainly not. Watch these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofpYRITtLSg&feature=related
And
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oVhopPjTNg
That would be it, thanks.
Nope. I am living proof.
The Founding Fathers were Atheists and Deists (who are just a shade away from the former). The word 'Creater' could mean many things. Deism, for instance, takes this view that 'God' is disconnected from Man.
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816
The common ground between say Christians and Atheists are the "basic" concepts of morality. That is to say a recognition of the basic rights that every person has.
In fact that is a mark of sentience.
Now I might be at odds only with certain atheists, particularly those who are hostile to religious beliefs. But for those who are not (the majority whom I have contact with). We can always find common ground.
Oops.
Creater = Creator.
My bad.
How do you know slavery is bad??
You can't say because of God, because not only is slavery not condemned in the Bible, there's a whole chapter on rules on how to obtain and treat slaves.
If a law was passed that required any women who was raped to marry her rapist, I'd assume you like most normal people would find that a "bad thing", to say the least. Why?
Again, that's Deuteronomy 22:28, God's rule, so it can't be because of him.
The same way you can find the above examples (and many others in the Bible) morally wrong even though according to your God they are OK, is this same way Atheist are able to find things morally wrong.
No, they are not opposed forces.
Great videos. Thank you. If you want a laugh, go to youtube and type in “hitler nigerian email.” Absolutely hilarious.
parsy, who got sore from laughing
Very, very well stated ExpatGator.
Thanks, and it’s probably a good idea to further explain myself; hopefully the dogs will be called off.
Growing up, my family was not particularly religious. My parents could be classified as diests at best. I became an atheist, and it has clicked with me.
The reason I ask is because it seems that the Republican Party, the party of conservatism, is pretty hostile to my folk. While I may agree with them on economic issues, it’s tough for me to support a party who elected a president (Bush Sr.) who called my ilk, “non-citizens”. I will give Bush Jr. credit however, while being quite Christian, he repudiated his father’s words.
So, I seek opinion. Hopefully that clears the air a bit.
Depends on what you believe conservatism is.
If your talking simply fiscal conservatism. Atheism could go either way. Logically, if we are all random chance, an atheist would be a fiscal conservative, if he thinks it takes money from him. And an atheist would be a fiscal liberal if he hopes to get money from it.
If you are talking social conservatism, which I view as supporting our country’s Christian heritage and strong support of the family, then I don’t see the logic in atheism being a strong supporter of it. For the most part Atheists seem at war with God and anything Christian.
My first response would be that men wrote the bible, not God. What provides me and the atheist the ability to know good from evil, is IMHO, god, something outside of us. Reason can provide us with rules and laws and ways to live together. I just think the spark toward goodness and truth comes from outside.
Most atheists I have known don’t stop at what is “reasonable”, they go beyond into what is “right.”
parsy, who notes atheists have died for truth
I recall some article that said Obama easily won the atheist vote and that just follows in a long long tradition. My surprise meter did not budge on that news. Are there some atheist conservatives? Sure but they are a distinct minority. Most of their fellow atheists are over on the other side. Getting into a God debate over here is all heat and no light. If you want to do some good go talk to the atheists on the other side and get them to defect.
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.