Reconciling Ayn Rand with the Gospel

Am ^ | 04/23/2011 | Ann Barnhardt

[EternalVigilance]

No. She didn’t even understand the true definition of freedom.

[Publius]

I didn’t expect this article. It’s thought provoking.

[Mariner]

It's far easier to reconcile Christianity with Socialism than Christianity with Objectivism. And both are impossible.

Theism of any sort assumes as it's most basic principle that there is a superior creature, with knowledge and a code of living that is superior to what man can divine for himself.

Objectivism puts nothing higher than the self.

[ml/nj]

Secondly, any form of religion is not Objectivist and to love one another as Christ teaches, is absurd, love of self comes first.

I guess I wish I could have debated these folks. Belief in G-d is very objective to me. But that's a long story.

Love of self does come first in the Bible. We are commanded to "Love your neighbor as yourself." So if one doesn't love himself first, there won't be much love for the neighbor.

ML/NJ

[Bayard]

Today, we simply say that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. But what we must focus on in terms of this discussion is the word that John uses to name and identify Jesus: John calls Him "the Word." In the original Greek, the word John uses is "Logos." The word "logos" in Greek is the same word used for the concepts of logic and reason. This Greek root is indeed the etymological source for the modern English word "logic." What John did in the very first sentence of his Gospel is to specifically identify Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, as Logic and Reason Itself. Logic and reason are intrinsic, constitutive qualities of God.

Alas, you've strayed into contorted theological waters here. You cannot define God's essence as logic and reason. Both names are limited concepts which are not the entirety of the essence of God which is greater than being itself. You can say plenty about Him being the source of such concepts, but all things we say that God "is" are analogies. Even the claim God "is" love is inadequate; he is love, but he is more than a human concept.

One reason that you cannot say that God is reason is that he does not think or know by means of sentenced predication, images, or sensory input. Such things are a limitation because they are constituents of something, and nothing is a constituent of God. Nothing can be predicated of the infinite God. He has no parts. He is one God in three persons, but he has no components. The Word Logos for the Greeks meant more than logic and reason, it could simply mean "word" for instance. It was obviously metaphoric for the second person of the trinity, but all distinctions in God are internal distinctions.

Why this is important is because we can stray into tri-theism, or polytheism if we are not careful.

But your post is thought provoking nonetheless.

[TradicalRC]

To argue that the work of atheists be dismissed is to argue for the dismissal of a large percentage of the advances and breakthroughs in mathematics, physics, and biomedical science that have been achieved over the last several centuries.

To argue that the work of Christians be dismissed is to argue for the dismissal of a large percentage of the advances and breakthroughs in mathematics, physics, and biomedical science that have been achieved over the last several centuries.

That door swings both ways.

[TradicalRC]

I love how she flees an atheistic nation to a Christian nation and realizes how good it is but says, “Too bad its not atheistic enough.”

This is a typical liberal problem: after they completely ruin a state with liberalism, they move to a conservative state and think, “Hmm, its so nice here, but it needs to be more liberal!”

[TradicalRC]

If Thomas Paine wasn't an atheist he sure sounded like one:

"The Bible: a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalise mankind."
-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1793-5), quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations

[sasportas]

It is interesting that this article if featured at this time of year when Christians commemorate the resurrection. Ayn Rand the objectivist yet she rejects the most objective religious fact, the resurrection. The resurrection actually happened.

Rand was right on her stand against collectivism, I’ll give her that, but as a Christian conservative when you leave out the “Christian” part you can count me out. No wonder she is such a darling of the Libertarians. Rand is an atheist, that’s all I need to know. Her so called objectivism is just so much blah, blah.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “ To argue that the work of atheists be dismissed is to argue for the dismissal of a large percentage of the advances and breakthroughs in mathematics, physics, and biomedical science that have been achieved over the last several centuries.” <<

.
Sorry, but that is false.

Until the age of government financing of “research” few atheists produced anything at all.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Until the age of government financing of “research” few atheists produced anything at all.

Was Charles Darwin’s work financed with government money?

[Calm_Cool_and_Elected]

http://www.visionandvalues.org/2011/04/christian-conservatives-and-randians/

[BuckeyeTexan]

It certaintly is. I know many Christians who will not read Rand or even consider her philosophy because they consider her godless and immoral.

As a Christian myself, however, I enjoyed AS and don’t believe that objectivism is inconsistent with Christianity. I know that a man’s only purpose is God’s plan for his life. We are His creation and therefore His tools to use as He sees fit. How God uses us is directly impacted by our free will to make choices. How do we make choices? Through reason and logic.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Ayn Rand was the only one who could reconcile Ayn Rand with the Gospel, and she refused to do so.” <<

.
And that is likely why others who also refuse idolize her.

[editor-surveyor]

Charles Darwin called himself a Christian; believe it or not!

He was, in fact an officer of the church. (he was also deeply confused and misguided)

[EternalVigilance]

No doubt about it.

Pun intended...

[Jenny Hatch]

I agree with her, especially regarding Sexuality. I found the two sex scenes in the movie to be illustrative of Rands masterful understanding of human behavior, self worth, and the “pursuit of happiness”.

As a christian my love and devotion to sexual morality revolts at Ayns personal life and her conceptualization of Dagnys search for the highest in human achievement playing out in her willingness to move from Francisco to Rearden to Galt without being encumbered by a marriage license. This licentiousness, the very notion of which, diminishes the idiology she espouses to all people of faith does NOT mean that we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

So much truth is found in the pages of Ayns books, particularly the devastatingly clear deconstructing of Collectivism, that to say Because Rand was immoral and her characters are sexually libertine, nothing good is to be found in the pages of those books, is simply a Lie.

For me, the discovery of these books at the age of eighteen provided a tremendous counter balance to the 13 years of
marxism I was spoon fed during my public school incarceration in Michigan.

The four standard works used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, of which I have been a faithful member since the age of eight, also provided this powerful deterent to my mind being completely overwhelmed by Socialism. The book of Mormon in particular was and is the great clarifyer for me when attempting to understand the purpose of life. Because I have been taught and believe that my own sense of Joy is the purpse of my own existence: http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.25?lang=eng#24

And because the gospel of Jesus Christ is also called by members of my Faith, The plan of Happiness, I do not need to read Atlas to know or believe that my own pursuit of Happiness is the highest ideal to reach for.

What Atlas does is it creates a map, a set of boundaries (sexual boundaries are not within the parameters Heavenly Father has set, but Rand did have sexual boundaries in her books) that if adhered to would help individuals understand the value of their own pursuit of Happiness.

I love her philosophy on many different levels, and while I would never call myself an Objectivist, I can comfortably rave about her books and movies simply because they are the PERFECT counter balance to the Collectivist storm we now find ourselves enmeshed in as Americans.

Jenny Hatch

[stylecouncilor]

ping

[higgmeister]

Rand was against charity.

Objectivism holds that there is nothing wrong with charity, so long as one is pursuing one's own values in providing it. As Ayn Rand said, charity is a marginal issue: it is not especially noble to engage in it, but if pursued prudently and seriously, and not at the cost of other important values, it can be a source of good for one's society and ultimately one's self. Objectivists tend to view their donations to causes as investments in some kind of improvement: a better culture, a better city, etc. But like investments, these require attention to make sure they are paying off.

Answered by William Thomas - Copyright, The Atlas Society.

Charity

[higgmeister]

...Because without rights being a grant from the Creator, there is no logical stopping point whereby we may prevent ourselves from descending into the Nietzschean nightmare struggle for individual dominance, the surrender of all reason and morality to an eternal battle among selfish selves, irresolvable for lack of an Arbiter.

The above is not the ultimate progression from Objectivism as you seem to proclaim with relish. What you state is against rational self-interest. It is not logical for individuals to destroy each other in a game of one-up-man-ship. You must see that Objectivism itself provides man the "logical stopping point."

How can you sleep at night when you claim that the most intransigent anti-Communist of the 21st Century was on par with Marx and Stalin?!