Replies

I have to interject here with some points of contention.

1. I just want to start by saying that I take issue with the differentiation you make between religious and rational. I assume that you did not intentionally mean in that fashion but if you are a fan of Ayn Rand as I am then you will understand that words MEAN things and that the way we use them has meaning. The way you present it insinuates that your options are religious morality and rational ethics...therefore religion is not rational.

While I would be the first to admit that there are certainly some highly irrational "believers" in religion who care not a whit about the intellectual evidences and analysis behind certain religious doctrines and belief systems...there are also those who believe for who the science of religious thought and reason is an integral part of their religious belief systems. Theosophy and theology are very real intellectual and rational pursuits not whimsical fancies pursued by mindless masses.

2. I have never agreed with the notion that Aristotles “ethics” are free of religious encumbrances. Aristotles logic has one ultimate flaw. There is a reason why people, as a whole, tend to admire and respect certain people more than others. The recognition of those qualities as “good” “worthwhile” “respectable” is still an internal non-rational process. Ayn Rand’s philosophy butts up against the same problem. It is all well and good to talk about having rational value system. In the end though Ayn Rand could never and never did satisfactorily explain why her notion of right and wrong existed. She had a very clear moral code. Just because she was an atheist does not mean that her moral code was not based on religion. Ayn Rand I would argue was a deeply religious woman DESPITE her proclaimed atheism. She held deep convictions about what was right and what was wrong and built a philosophical frame work around them to explain their value in rational terms. But the core notion that what she stood for was RIGHT versus what she was against as being WRONG did not come from a rational judgment…they came from a different kind of understanding. Ayn Rand herself concedes that her belief system is in a way a religious conviction in The Fountainhead. She just denies a maker…she fails to explain however the glaring whole in her argument. She believes and utters on more than one occasion in her writings that there is EVIL. She just seems to dismiss it as some human failing. The fact is that despite Ayn Rands atheism she had a very clear moral clarity about right and wrong. Her philosophical framework was built around the understanding not visa versa. The chicken as it were did not come before the egg. That belief of right and wrong I would argue and I daresay many will agree comes from a deity. A supreme being. That is why we as a people have moral clarity and know the difference between right and wrong. Not because of a rational code of ethics…but because there is such a thing as good and evil. And if there is a good and an evil then there is clearly a god and an anti-god.

3. I was a one time agnostic and a huge believer in Ayn Rand. I am now an avowed Christian and still admire Ayn Rand. I nevertheless have to partly disagree with your statement that Ayn Rand nailed down exactly the philosophy that the founders believed in. Most of the founders were deists. Ayn Rand was not. Most of the founders believed in the morality of freedoms as coming from God. Ayn Rand did not. There was a serious difference that would have very real practical effects. Ayn Rand…despite her philosophies appeal had some glaring prejudices against people of faith. She did not understand people of faith and as a result her explanations of the reasons behind why people have religious faith are seriously flawed.

4. And finally, your assertion that one religions morality is another religions immorality is patently false. Quite the contrary. While it is true that certain religious sects may have varying opinions as to why dancing or wearing skirt or drinking may or may not be a sin. The basic principles that underlie a moral code remain extremely similar. Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not commit adultery….Each of them agrees in some measure or fashion that these are moral and GOOD value to have and that to break them is evil. Even Islam despite its extreme violence adheres to these principles. It just builds in a framework wherein followers are excused from perpetrating those “sins” against unbelievers…a sort of moral relativism (Killing is bad but its ok to kill an infidel because God Hates them anyway)
Regardless the point is that all religions despite their very many differences still share a certain common value of what is good and what is bad. And the basics just happen to be the same ones that atheists and agnostics share. The difference is that people of religion tend to believe that that sense of right and wrong come from God while others built philosophies around why it isn’t.

Most of the founders believed in the morality of freedoms as coming from God. Ayn Rand did not. There was a serious difference that would have very real practical effects. Ayn Rand…despite her philosophies appeal had some glaring prejudices against people of faith. She did not understand people of faith and as a result her explanations of the reasons behind why people have religious faith are seriously flawed.

Amen! Excellent response.

The way you present it insinuates that your options are religious morality and rational ethics...therefore religion is not rational.

Words do mean things and the terms morality and ethics are synonymous.

It is the fact that religions are based in irrational mysticism that makes religions irrational.

And if there is a good and an evil then there is clearly a god and an anti-god.

That reminds me of some circular arguments found in Plato's Phaedo, illogical arguments that sound good -- much like popular cliches that push nonsense.

Looking back several hundred years before Plato and Aristotle's time, to Homer and the Hades he describes in "The Odyssey," there was no heaven and hell, all souls went to Hades. And those that were heroes had special treatment, and some others were condemned to perpetual punishments. Aristotle's ethics builds on Homer's thinking regarding virtue and vice.

Good and evil -- Heaven and hell -- that seems to have come from biblical cultures. Cultures that have proven themselves to be far less cultured than -- seemingly -- that of ancient Greece.

Most of the founders believed in the morality of freedoms as coming from God. Ayn Rand did not.

From Ayn Rand's Objectivist Ethics ... "Ethics is not a mystic fantasy -- nor a social convention -- nor a dispensible, subjective luxury, to be switched or discarded in any emergency. Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man'a survival -- not by the grace of the supernatural, nor of your neighbors nor of your whims, but by the grace of reality and the nature of life."

In other words, man has a spiritual nature in a real world universe where Man's creator (whatever) seems to have expected men to survive by using their real world minds.