You could still find many of her ideas compelling and accept them. Much of her political ideas could be accepted by Christians, for example. The conflict will invariably come with the primacy of existence metaphysics that she championed. There's no way to believe in any sort of supernatural existence while accepting this philosophy, as a consciousness couldn't exist before existence. So, understand that this is the conflict, and the reason she was an atheist. Feel free to accept other parts of her philosophy that you do agree with. Perhaps, someday you will accept the primacy of existence too, but I wouldn't say it's essential to be a fan, and certainly not essential to appreciate her work.
Yes, this is possible, because both atheists and non-atheists follow her philosophy according to their own reasoning. While she dismisses belief as mysticism, one can be a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, etc, and still hold to the strength of their own character, their own pleasure in the strength of their mind and believe.
There is a good book I just read, "The Soul of Atlas", that presents a young man's life under the tutelage of a father and a stepfather (to which he refers as 'my two fathers'). It's a very good read and addresses belief, money, sex and power. All are pertinent topics in this discussion.
dansail, the Soul of Atlas was written by John Aglialaro's stepson, Mark Henderson, http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Atlas-Christi.... JA is the executive producer behind the AS movies and this site. :)
It's easy to accept and subscribe to her economic philosophy without engaging in her personal atheism. Atlas Shrugged is a very realistic account of the failure of socialism, and ones belief or not in God doesn't change how people behave in a given economic system or circumstance.
If you accept the primacy of existence, reality, and individual natural rights as well as reasoning over emotion, there's really no room for superstition, mysticism, or religion.
Rand shows that existence is-- that is that A=A, and that there is cause and effect, in that order. The effect cannot precede the cause. The mind causes the machine to exist. The machine does not cause the mind. But what does cause the mind?
She posits that life is, and that it is different from matter. It is not formed of random piles of stone. Yet she seems to take for granted that life is causeless. To have no cause is to be outside of and unbound by time. Yet life is bound by time. To be unbound from time is to be apart from all that is. That is... The cause of time and space. She argues forcefully against the existence of God but perhaps has backed into a proof instead.
Existence is the word we use to describe what is. Only what is can be a cause leading to an event or effect. Why do you want to try to find what was before what is, nothing-there can not be nothing, or go to somewhere that is not? AR doesn't 'take for granted that life is causeless', she says that it exists, it is. Time is simply a human measure of change, of movement, it is not a thing or to be within.
What you're sounding like is someone trying to define 'infinity.' Infinity by definition has no measure. You are simply refusing to accept definitions, which leads to gobbledygook. Without 'A=A', we can have no communication.
'A is A' is the first of three principles of logic given by Aristotle. And it was Aristotle who first deduced logically that God exists. Why AR accepted and took Aristotle's logic and rejected some of his arguments is beyond my understanding.
If being a follower of AR means believing only what she believed, I am not a follower. AR would like followers that believe blindly what she said? I strongly doubt that. However, I'm a follower of her enthusiasm for reason and logic. And I'm catholic. Yes, it is possible. I have seen in this forum way too many misconceptions about christianity. I won't teach or convert anyone, I just say some people here talk about what they don't know with such emotional tone that I doubt they are thinking at all when it comes to this subject.
Time was defined by Einstein as the thing that is measured by a clock. And then he demonstrated how time and space are conected... just to make a precision.
I'm unclear of the relationship of your reply to my comment. I'm quite well aware of the derivation of A=A. I'm not sure what AR would like and I don't know that she ever asked anyone to blindly believe anything. And I'm pretty sure that the word time defined as a measurement made by a clock was made well before Einstein.
I'm not certain what else can be responded to i your reply.
Fair enough.... The relationship is with the statement 'existence exists' combined with cause and effect. The second leads to ask 'why' as many times as we can, therefore once the first statement is the answer to the question why, we abandoned the second, there is cause and effect. I see a contradiction here.... I'd chech my premises. But you're right, most of my reply to you refers to other general comments, sorry :)
It strikes me that you're wanting to ask/answer 'What caused existence', But again, existence is not an effect or event. It is a word, concept, used to describe what is. The only things excluded from that concept are things that are not, imaginary mystical non-real.
Within Objectivity, there is simply no need nor way nor reason to be talking about what is not. Objectivity is a philosophy concerned with what is--reality--those parts and components that either effect a man or that he can effect. Neither I nor anyone else can ever say anything about what is not, it has no attributes nor identity.
What is not can't cause anything nor can it have an effect on what is. What is not doesn't exist.
Well this is going to send a barrage of arrows ;-) my way but what the heck. I too am a believer in most of AR's philosophy, But I also am a Christian. I am not as philosophically astute as a lot of you, but I try to keep an open mind as I believe we all have free will and I am a staunch believer in individual liberty. For example one of the cornerstones of her philosophy as I see it is an impeccable moral character, to treat each other fairly and with mutual respect. But to me the question is where does this moral character come from. How do we have a sense of right or wrong whether a believer or not. That had to be instilled in each of us somehow. I am sure that many have heard the justifications for the existence of God, How do we know there is air, none of us can see it, but we accept it is there. I find it to be an exercise of faith to believe that this world and all of its inhabits, humans and otherwise came into existence from nothing.. I really am not trying to start a verbal war here but I find it very difficult to say that if you are a Christian you cannot believe in ARs writings and beliefs.
Sensory evidence demonstrates the existence of air. One SEES the tress swaying, one FEELS (as in the sense of touch, not emotion) the pressure of moving air, one HEARS the air moving---and one loses consciousness if one does not breathe it into one's lungs periodically. So the concept and existence of air is derived---like all good concepts must be---from the evidence of one's senses. Oh, and we do not "accept" that "air is there," we each experience it directly, but our minds must discover what, exactly, it is. We do not have to accept it on blind (or nearsighted) faith.
jerry; I certainly don't intend to send any arrows your way, heck I don't even have a bow. And I certainly don't intend to imply that anyone can or should control what you believe. But the point of the post seemed to me to be about a possible combination of Objectivist philosophy and religion beliefs.
If you investigate Objectivism, I'm convinced that you will find it to be a complete, consistent, and human based philosophy based in reality. And AR did an excellent job of deriving and explaining the morals necessary for life within and from that philosophy that deals strictly with what is, not what is not. From your comment, you apparently believe that humans are born with no morals and such must be instilled. Objectivism's morals are evident from living as a human within what is, and instilled morals from a super being aren't necessary nor rationally logical and simply confuse the issue.
Re: Zenphamy, I am truly amazed at you arrogance to make a statement like, " there's really no room for superstition, mysticism, or religion." Who are you to decide whether anyone can accept, even admire the philosophy of Ayn Rand and have a belief in God?" I have been an avid admirer of hers for over 50 years and yet seem to be able to continue my belief in christianity without a problem. It seems to me that you and many other atheist actually have the problem in accepting Christians because of your own intellectual limitations.
Again, as above, existence by definition is a word to describe what is. It isn't a thing or an effect or an event--just what is, what is known. There is no definition for 'what is not' except nothing, and trying to talk about 'what is not' is nonsense, anti-sense, no sense.
Honestly, help me pick a better word than follower. I'm trying to address what seems to be a real sticking point on this site, and, you see, I don't think it matters.
"common ground" as in basis for decisions and determining actions. "world view" would also work. I am a Christian - individual freedom to choose is key. totalitarians of all sorts think they know what we should decide to do...usually to further their goals (and line their pockets) in that name of 'common good'
Agreeer. Compatriot. Comprehender. Not many of us are followers. We're simply people that recognized ourselves within the descriptions and reasoning offered in her philosophy and writings.
For all of that, here I am, all you Huckleberries. The only time I marched lockstep is when I was in the Marines. This Christian dino enjoys his own independent thought. I think Ayn Rand is peachy keen. Discovering her three years ago? I can still be swayed up to a certain point. Oh, Jesus is the door to God, by the way. Nyah! Nyah!
I go farther back than the creation "Oorah!" I could not help but look on with scoffing amusement when ancient Spartans repeatedly shouted that in the 300 flick. 300 is historically inaccurate on several levels but still comic book fantasy OK for entertaining.. The sequel is just plain baa-aaad!"
The fundamental here is ones rules of evidence. What does one's integrity demand before saying something is true?
I consider religion as the fraction of philosophy based on mysticism and claiming knowledge of the unknowable. That's only one of many fallacious assumptions that prevent one from achieving what Rand did...
She, for the first time, created a fully integrated and comprehensive system of philosophy. By comprehensive, I don't mean addressing all issues but at her level of abstraction having a consistency and match to reality that heretofore didn't exist, I like to say that she did for philosophy, what Newton did for physics. Newton didn't have all the answers, e.g. Einsteinian discoveries on behavior at a galactic scale - we live at a human scale.
So to address THE question - of course one can follow and agree with many principles and agree with many conclusions of Rand and not some others - people do that all the time with any category of knowledge you care to name.
The split she had with the Libertarian movement originators was over the need for a proper ethics as the basis of one's political theory. She did and they didn't.
So it will serve us well to collaborate with those fighting to regain our freedom independent of what group they classify themselves with. Having consistent reasoning will be critical. One part of that is why we form governments to secure our rights and what justifies our claim to those rights.
I'll defer to the Declaration of Independence and Rand's essay on Individual Rights. And then her essay on The Nature of Government. Unfortunately, many readers and admirers of her fiction have never read the nonfiction - which she wrote to explain the way she came to ideas that she used to animate her fictional characters.
That provides the tools for thinking that can change our culture to regain and retain our freedom.
Thanks for the best post on this entire thread, by far.
You wrote, "The split she had with the Libertarian movement originators was over the need for a proper ethics as the basis of one's political theory. She did and they didn't."
I was glad to see that because I had always wondered why she disliked libertarians. But now that you've enlightened me as to the reason, I find that I don't fully understand it.
I have read quite a bit of her non-fiction and I believe that you must in order to understand Objectivism. I don't claim to be an authority on the philosophy and I didn't even understand everything that she said, but I will study it more until I do.
You cannot keep a self-willed individual from championing Ayn Rand's philosophy - whether or not they are religious. All you can do is tell them not to sit next to you at the lunch table.
Many of the religious individuals who contribute to this list have rational arguments and worthwhile perspectives. They are welcome to sit next to me at the lunch table.
I am so glad someone else started this thread. First let me say too many on this thread are parsing words to avoid the topic. Follower, believer, subscriber. I mean really. To follow does not in itself mean "blind." Having said that and moving this BACK to the MEANING of the topic lets look at this comparing Biblical AND Rand's Collectivism.
Objectivism: • Follow reason, not whims or faith. • Work hard to achieve a life of purpose and productiveness. • Earn genuine self-esteem. • Pursue your own happiness as your highest moral aim. • Prosper by treating others as individuals, trading value for value.
First let’s take the REAL definition of some words so we can apply proper context. Full Definition of REASON Mirriam-Webster 1a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : cause <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay — Graham Greene> 2a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : intelligence (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : sanity
Follower: Full Definition of FOLLOWER 1a : one in the service of another : retainer b : one that follows the opinions or teachings of another c : one that imitates another 2archaic : one that chases 3: a sheet added to the first sheet of an indenture or other deed 4: a machine part that receives motion from another part 5: a spring-loaded plate at the bottom of a firearm's magazine that angles cartridges for proper insertion into the chamber 6: fan, devotee
The PRIMARY facet of collectivism is REASON. Definition 1a and 1b, clearly imply that there is an explanation for your thinking, and a rational. This excludes the statements that some religions use, well that is the greatest mystery and you must take it on faith. But does that mean religion or atheism is the ONLY way.
Look at the biblical definition of faith. Heb. 11: 1,2: 1. Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. 2. For by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them.
Strong’s defines based on the ACTUAL Hebrew the following words. Evident. evidence: 1650 e[legcoß Elegchos (el'-eng-khos); Word Origin: Greek, Noun Masculine, Strong #: 1650
1. a proof, that by which a thing is proved or tested 2. conviction Next the bible counsels people NOT to just accept what they are being told without investigating, and it was considered NOBLE-MINDED to NOT take things on blind faith. Acts 17: 10-11 10 Immediately by night the brothers sent both Paul and Silas out to Be•roe′a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes•sa•lo•ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.
Reasoning is also talked about in terms of something acceptable to God. Romans 12:1 Consequently I entreat YOU by the compassions of God, brothers, to present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.
Notice the use of the words “power of reason.”
So from one pillar of Collectivism REASON is key and in Christianity reason is not only important, but something considered Noble and Acceptable.
Working hard. Let’s look at one particular scripture that really pounds this home. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 In fact, also, when we were with YOU, we used to give YOU this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.”
Seems pretty clear that when it comes to hard work, the Bible and Ayn Rand are in total agreement. Bible says don’t work then starve.
Self Esteem: That would be your name. Your personal self-worth, something you earn. Hitler earned a name for himself. Solomon indicated how valuable a name is. Proberbs 22: 1 A name is to be chosen rather than abundant riches; favor is better than even silver and gold. There is no word specifically using the words self-esteem, however the parallels are in how the heart feels and reacts. Proverbs 15:13 A joyful heart has a good effect on the countenance, but because of the pain of the heart there is a stricken spirit. Dozens of scriptures both old and new testament on how to build your heart i.e. self-esteem.
The last point there are way too many scriptures about trading value for value and owning the product of your own labor.
Would a match be "mysticism" if lit in front of a person from a society which had never been exposed to one? Would it have been mysticism for one in that society to have postulated that such a thing existed prior to being exposed to it?
H.G. Wells (yes, I know he was evil, but just stay with the example) published "The First Men in the Moon" in 1901, was that "mysticism?" Merely because it hadn't been scientifically proven to that point?
You cite reincarnation as an example of mysticism. I say that it hasn't yet been definitively proven, and never may be, but is there a chance that it might be? There were those who insisted that the earth was the center of the universe, that man could never fly like the birds, that man could never stand on the moon, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
That's probably the biggest problem that I have with Objectivism overall. Anything not currently known is cited as "mysticism." Yes, that's a simplification, but it illustrates the point. O's use the charge of mysticism against things they don't want to address, because it is a simple charge to make.
A = A, that is fundamental. But A continually changes as we learn more. What was A in the Middle Ages (as understood by the best minds of the time) is different from A today, and will be different still tomorrow. Some of what you call mysticism today may be scientific fact tomorrow.
"Would a match be "mysticism" if lit in front of a person from a society which had never been exposed to one? Would it have been mysticism for one in that society to have postulated that such a thing existed prior to being exposed to it?" It's only mysticism if one applies a mystical framework for explaining the physical act. We don't watch magicians doing their thing and say "magic!" we know there is no such thing as magic. Well I know there's no such thing. We do gather more knowledge all the time, but that knowledge does not so fundamentally transform all knowledge you have gained before. For instance, the laws of gravity. You are still going to wear a jacket when it's cold and water your plants. You need calories in order to burn them. Godzilla is not going to come out of your pond and terrorize your family
I don't know, there are some pretty fierce sounding bullfrogs, and heck, the enviro-thugs keep telling us that fertilizer run-off is causing unprecedented mutations, so could happen.
The point is that mysticism is whatever you want to attribute it to. If you say that the difference between magic and mysticism is how you "feel" about it, then haven't you just undercut your fundamental argument?
I would never say the difference between magic and magic tricks was based on how someone felt. I would say magic tricks are objective realities and involve sleight of hand and other maneuvers which obey all laws of physics. The mystic jumps to magic. Don't get me started on some of my religious friends thinking Ouija boards have some evil power.
So, if I propose some description of how something happens without having some concrete scientific basis for that, then it is mysticism?
Let's say that the person seeing a match lit for the first time says that the red tip on the match head gets "angry" at being rubbed on the striker and thus ignites, is mysticism?
Love and hate are emotional states of one's psychology, psychosomatic responses to some aspect of reality in respect oneself, to the thinking one has done (or failed to do), to the values one has chosen (or unquestioningly absorbed from the cultural milieu). Nothing mystical about love or hate (or fear). We feel love towards that which upholds and causes our values to flourish; hatred and/or fear towrads that which threatens those values. Glad to be able to expand further. Oh, and that isn't particularly my definition. It is found in Lecture 3 of Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism series, entitled "Logic and Mysticism". It is "mine" only by virtue of my understanding.
So, by your reasoning (or that of Nathaniel), then, anything that exhibits "emotional states of one's psychology, psychosomatic responses to some aspect of reality in respect oneself, to the thinking one has done (or failed to do), to the values one has chosen", and "that which upholds and causes our values to flourish" is rational and would be acceptable to an Objectivist?
Just trying to get Marty to expand on his definition. He claimed that "Mysticism is the claim to non-sensory, non-rational knowledge" to which definition I believe that Love and Hate would fit. If that's the case then we need to pursue this further.
The reincarnation hook has been refuted in another post...it is just the opposite: Buddha said this is your only life, live it up! Kidding, he said use your life positively and with insight (or something like that).
OK, but I read the first 25% of The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying by Sogyal Rinpoche. That's all I could take - and that was years before I discovered Ayn Rand. Mysticism, mumbo jumbo and utter bullshit. I will refer you specifically to Part III, Death and Rebirth, p261.
"Padmasambhava says: All beings have lived and died and been reborn countless times."
Just asking "when" and "with whom" makes your question necessarily subjective. To understand the axiomatic concept of "existence exists" is to understand that nothing---neither time nor "whom"---can exist "outside" of existence. There is and cannot be any "outside" of existence.
Ok so something has always existed, per your statement; therefore, we both agree that something cannot come from nothing correct?
If that is the case, do you believe that all effects have a cause? If you do not, then how do we get here at all? If you believe the Big Bang is the origin of the universe, then what caused that?
If you seek to argue that "well Christians believe God has always existed, so who created Him?" well then you have given me half the argument already because you already said something has always existed because existence exists right? So all I need to do is show you that logic leads to that eternity past presence is God, outside of this universe right?
Science has proven that the universe continues to expand; therefore, it had an origin to expand from correct?
Are you willing to put your eternal state, after you pass from this earth, in the hands of science which as calculated that the odds of us being here from a supposed random Big Bang requires much more faith than believing God caused all this, especially when you read His word and look around and see it confirmed over and over and over and over and over.
Dialectically, all effects must have a cause, else these terms have no legitimate meaning. If a "Big Bang" led to the present-day universe, then all evidence of anything which existed before the Big Bang is destroyed beyond redemption---and it is useless to talk about it or to speculate.
Now, if the universe (all of existence) requires a cause, then the positing of a God as the cause merely pushes the question back another step: What, then, caused the God in question? Was there a still-earlier God who created the God which created the universe? Then we get pushed back farther, to an infinite regress, the very problem inventing a God is supposed to solve!
But once it is admitted that there must be something which has existed eternally, upon what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?
As in many philosophic discussions, the way a question is stated may be key to its solution. The supposition that existence itself REQUIRES a cause is the real problem. It does not. Why? Because if the cause exists, then it is part of existence; if it does not exist, then it cannot be a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction. As Branden put it: "Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality."
Your closing statement is merely a restatement of Pascal's Wager, and what one loses in that Wager is the only life one has. Besides, if one believes in God merely because one fears death, then one's belief is already corrupted.
Here is the problem with the universe existing in eternity-past: the universe is amoral - no development of any meaning can come from this situation that is absolute.
We cannot live without absolute meaning, no matter what the most erudite post-modern PhDs will promulgate.
Therefore, a person, entity or intelligence has to have existed in eternity, without being created; there is no God creating God creating God to get to here...there is no point to it. God gives any creation meaning; we, man, corrupts meaning and distorts creation in ways where creation becomes our god, and we seek to make Him in our image.
Now, many may say, "Why did God, if He is there and doesn't need anything, create anything?"
To me, that is the only question that cannot be answered; His Word doesn't address it; however, I know He is there for me to ask someday upon meeting Him....I do not think you can meet the "universe" or "matter" and ask it anything and get a response.
So what occupies infinity? Science has already identified the expansion of the universe, so it has to be expanding from something, so what was that? We have never seen something created from nothing. At the end of the day, either your religion is atheism with a default to empiricism, or a faith in some intelligence moving in eternity to result in the current state.
I go with the evidence...God exists, always has, and always will...your denial within is evident with every statement that science has said this and that. Science, when truly scientific and not based on consensus (something resolved through consensus is not science, but estimation and subjectivism).
My faith is not irrational, nor unfounded on evidence...when you choose not to see the evidence, that doesn't mean it isn't there, nor the conclusions it leads to.
"RE: Reincarntaon 'There are two things most people think they know about Buddhism -- that Buddhists believe in reincarnation, and that all Buddhists are vegetarian. These two statements are not true, however. Buddhist teachings on rebirth are considerably different from what most people call "reincarnation."' (http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhi......)
"... the Buddha did not teach a doctrine of reincarnation. For one thing, he taught there was no soul to transmigrate." from Misunderstanding Buddhism (http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhi......)
RE: "Rejecting the self" There are different interpretations to this, but in one sense, it's not that there is no self, but rather that self is not all there is. In another sense, "no-self" is about rejecting the idea of the inner-self, or what religionists refer to as "the soul."
Of course it is... while a lot of people who follow (OK, advocate) AR are athiests, it's not a foregone conclusion that you must be an Athiest to follow her writings or teachings... what's extremely difficult is to (a) be a follower of AR, (b) follow a religious belief, and then (c) declare that you have a religious belief to a group of athiests.
I don't know if you remember the ire my "born again athiest" comments have made among those who were easily offended by having their "rational belief system" questioned... it was not unlike telling a Fundie Christian that the "my way or the highway" religion they practice was wrong... opens the floodgates of prosthetylizing.
No, one does not *have* to be an athest to follow AR, no more than does one "have" to be an emigree from a once free country turned people's republic to know the soviet system is a system of looters and freeloaders.
One does NOT have to be a clone of Rand to adhere to and follow her rational discourse... People are people, and to like someone, to adhere to their sense of right and wrong, does not mean you have to *be* them. (Thank God, as I look awful in short hair!! :-) )
I believe that it is, and this was not an easy conclusion for me, I had to really think about it for two weeks after I finished the book, Atlas Shrugged. I am a nondenominational Christian. I do not go to church, and I believe that while the bible is a collection of very good stories, it is not proven nonfiction, but would be of excellent use to propaganda. And by propaganda, I mean it is very useful in creating obedience... I also have a very strong belief that a thinking person is incapable of following any one philosophy 100%. If a person were to truly consider all the aspects of the philosophy, inevitably most reasonable people will disagree with some part of it. Having said that, Objectivism, would be the closest philosophy that I have found to describe my own lifestyle, or at least the lifestyle that I strive to achieve. I am also a believer in a higher power, I have seen too many miracles that could simply be nothing but a miracle. I also believe that it is arrogant to believe that there is no creator. I believe something had to start life.
Yep -- a premise. Another premise is that the universe has always existed and will always exist. Which is correct? I do not know. But the latter seems simpler to me.
True enough -- but it remains a theory that just happens (by design) to explain the observations. As you probably are aware there are other competing theories. But all of them are difficult to prove or disprove.
All theories (properly understood) must account for and explain the observations; otherwise, they are mere hypotheses, or worse, baseless conjecture and warrantless assumption. There was a time, after all, when the heliocentric model of the universe was the accepted knowledge, just as an Earth-centric before that. It took some rather convoluted math to make it work, however. but in the context of those ancient ages, that was all anyone had to go on. Since all knowledge is contextual, that was good enough for them...and for then. Today, we have better instruments of both observation and measurement. According to Occam's Razor, the "correct" explanation is the one which accounts for all observations with the fewest terms possible.
Yes indeed -- experience has convinced me to be very suspicious when any explanation becomes complex. To be sure, the explanation may well be complex but the suspicious approach helps me allocate my time.
A healthy skepticism is always a good thing. When my son was young, I warned him not only about examining evidence presented to get him to believe something, but also to be especially careful (and critical) of those ideas in which he had a tendency to agree. Sometimes, I told him, we have a tendency to let our guard down when the argument is in favor of that with which we already would like to be the case.
Re: JoleneMartens1982, Wow, I don't believe that I've never read a more confusing explanation of someones belief. Please allow me to clarify one major point of all religions, religion is meant to provide complete proof. Religion and specifically Christianity is based on faith. All answers are not available to us and faith is therefore a requirement to be a Christian.
Did I mention anywhere that I did not have faith? I have faith. I believe in God, I am just not convinced that every story in the bible is true. I don't see how that gives me a lack of faith. The bible was written and edited by the hand of man, was it not? So how can we completely believe that it is completely true? Your answer is by faith. My answer is that it is a good book, I have studied it, not well enough to quote it, but I understand its teachings. I also refuse to go sit in church, I stay busy running my infant businesses and with my family and farm. I see no point in sitting in a room full of people pressed and dressed for 5 hours on Sunday to prove my faith. The world is my church. If I need to feel his presence I go out side and witness the beauty of the world he created. I feel that I am closer to God than any of those in a pew will ever be.
airfredd22: Please read the question posed, and please do not confuse, "not be an atheist" with "religion" or "being a Christian." Your response is not in line with the question when you inject the word "religion."
I apologize, I did not realize that I was addressing an ignorant, (the meaning of which is someone lacking knowledge) who doesn't understand that by definition people are either atheists, agnostics, or religious. There are no other options.
I proudly claim to be religious, in fact a Christian, while still a believer in the Ayn Rand philosophy without any sense of contradiction with my christian beliefs.
Catholicism, Pentecostal, Baptist, Mormon, Methodist, Orthodox Jew, . These are what are generally considered "RELIGIONS."
Christianity, Judaism are a broader category that are not necessarily affiliated with a "RELIGION"," i.e "Organized Religion." that affiliates itself with a form of faith.
Rand was most certainly an Atheist, and I will repeat that the question posed was carefully worded.
"Is it possible to be a follower of Ayn Rand and not be an atheist? ", NOT "Is it possible to be a follower of Ayn Rand and be a "__Insert religion here__?"
The difference is specifically as NOT an Atheist, meaning some form of faith in a Creator, or God if you will whether you are, or claim to be affiliated with an organized "RELIGION" or someone who does not subscribe to any particular religion but does believe in an Intelligent Design, Creator or God.
I apologize for being so ignorant in paying attention to these subtleties in phrasing. My wealth of ignorance is the stuff of legend I guess.
You certainly seem to be articulate and knowledgeable, however you are indeed correct in your sarcastic remark about your ignorance.
I made it very clear in my answer to the question raised by "mamaemma in her question, "Is it possible to be a follower of Ayn Rand and not be an atheist?"
I clearly stated that I believe it is indeed possible as I acknowledging that I am a Christian see absolutely no conflict between Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy and my belief in Christianity.
I of course can understand your lack of understanding this concept as you are clearly a defender of atheism and can't understand that followers of any religion don't find a conflict where in fact no conflict exists. This is of course only my opinion based on my personal understanding and people of all persuasions may differ.
As an aside, the problem that religious people have with atheists is that they want to ridicule and deny the right of religious people to practice their beliefs. That is of course primarily directed at Christians and Jews, as most atheists don't have the courage to direct this hatred for religion onto other faiths such as Islam. Some members of that faith unfortunately tend to be less forgiving of those that oppose them.
Absolutely possible. And we're not "followers" of Ayn, we're running alongside with common beliefs that are close enough to be together in our direction. Remember her quote about the smallest "minority" is the individual and we can never stop being that! lets remain all back up front and not be "following" anyone!
I think it is possible. I watched a couple of interviews Rand did with Phil Donahue. In one an audience member started a question by saying she used to be part of her cult. Rand asked Phil to move on and refused to answer the woman's question. Ayn Rand stated emphatically that Objectivism is not a cult. She made it clear that you were free to agree or disagree with her beliefs. She seemed to me to be saying you didn't have to blindly follow all of her beliefs.
It is not a cult....cults are defined as membership with a potential mortal cost to exiting. Objectivism is a philosophy that could lead to a cult, but not one in itself.
It is possible to admire many of the thoughts of AR, but not a "follower" nor an Objectivist. Since AR and Objectivism demand atheism as a precept for A = A, and "Existence exists."
Yeah, you'd think a partway nonconformist could be tolerated around here. To be allowed to have the freedom to be who we want to be. A Puritan would just hate a Christian dino.
Thanks for your provocative comment/question, and for taking a stand that may be unpopular. Another way to ask your question might be, "Is it possible to appreciate Ayn Rand and be interested in her work without agreeing with everything in her writing and the way she lived her life?"
Perhaps it's too strong a contrast, but I compare my Objectivist upbringing to the religions of my peers. While most of my friends and neighbors went to church or synagogue, my family 'worshipped' in the pages of Atlas Shrugged. Through my stepfather (and later, my own reading), Ayn Rand taught me how to think. I have always appreciated her clear exposition of ideas. In her writing, she refuses to let an inconsistency go unaddressed and she articulates the reasoning behind her conclusions. That said, I disagree with some of her conclusions. Further, when she avoids discussing some topics, I have looked elsewhere for answers (still applying her thoughtful, relentless logical process).
To be clear, I certainly recognize irreconcilable differences between Objectivism and Christianity (see The Soul of Atlas: http://SoulofAtlas.com), but I agree that it is possible to be a 'follower' on some points and not on every point.
Mark, where would be the best place for me to buy your book? By which I mean, is there a website where you get a larger percentage of the sale? Thank you for stopping in.
I have to ask two questions. First, do you call yourself an Objectivist or do you just follow Rand? Those are different things.
Second, what does common sense have to do with the question posed in this thread? I have never seen anyone, and certainly not Rand, say that Objectivism is based on "common sense." Common sense it too broad a term on which to base a philosophy.
I discovered long ago that I preferred a simple, uncomplicated path. With that in mind:
1. I don't call myself, other than Christian, anything in particular. But I do call myself a Christian because I am a follower of Christ's teachings. Following that simple logic, I guess I'd have to call myself an Objectivist. 2. There's a first time for everything. 3. Google "common sense philosophy" when you get a chance.
I agree with many other's who have already asserted that "follower" is an incorrect description of the people who hold similar a philosophical outlook as Ayn Rand's objectivism. I already had my way of viewing the world before I came across Ayn Rand's writings but after reading her works I found there were many others with a similar point of view. Ayn Rand basically gave us a way to quantify our world view, that hard work, productivity, combined with objective reasoning, produces value and it's every individual's right to profit from their own labor.
The basis of Objectivism is Man's nature as a being possessing volitional consciousness. I think one could believe that a God created Man with that nature, and accept that everything else Rand professed would still follow from that. One could not, of course, believe anything that any of the major religions say about God and Its relationship to Man.
On a parenthetical note, atheists of the leftist persuasion (at least, those whose blogs I've visited) consider Rand the epitome of evil.
"On a parenthetical note, atheists of the leftist persuasion (at least, those whose blogs I've visited) consider Rand the epitome of evil. "
That's only because her philosophy flies in the face of socialism and communism. Many on the left believe in the tenets put forth by the looters and moochers in AS. They see no conflicts with robbing from those who have earned to give to those who haven't because it makes them feel good. But all they are doing is making everyone miserable because eventually everything has been redistributed and you then need to continue to rob people to redistribute the "wealth" because you can never equalize the equation until everyone has nothing.
Marx wrote how religion was the "Opium of the People", and Lenin expanded that to include that religion retards human development... Most left wing fanatics I know (and I've known a few) are deeply athiestic, and react strongly if you mention you have a religious preference over an athiestic one.
I wonder this... If Rand were, say, Orthodox Christian (as are many Russians) instead of Athiest, would you have to be Orthodox to understand and follow her beliefs and writings, to see her A=A as being correct?
Marx wrote that because to dismiss God and set himself up as the "God" or sole source of solutions.
His philosophies have led to nothing but misery for all who live under it. Not a good source to validate the "validity: or religion or belief in God. Kinda like saying Oh..Lookie. the earth is flat, then expecting everyone to come to you on the nature of the universe. Wrong on the initial premise and wrong on all subsequent statements.
Ayn Rand was an atheist by default. She knew the problem of whether the universe was created or has always existed had no solution. She said as much in an interview, I believe, with Mike Wallace. It should be on you tube.
Unfortunately, when one's philosophy leads them to atheism, they are leaving out the logical conclusion of such a philosophy when it comes to the origin of existence and the identification of absolute truth. When rationalism leading to objectivism is your philosophy, then you are ignoring the development of something in the future which could contradict such a philosophy since it is created by man, which is a being, according to evolutionary theory, that is simply a bag of chemicals; therefore, who knows what those chemicals may do tomorrow to develop a valid contradiction to objectivism. Without absolute knowledge, you cannot make absolutely valid statements about those things which escape empiricism.
By the way, I appreciate some of ARs points of her philosophy; however, the absurdity of its conclusions concerning man's purpose and his origin leave it without grounds for validity in the whole.
the origin of existence should be left to science as objectivism does. objectivism only deals with reality hence A=A.
man's purpose is what ever each individual man choses his purpose to be, it is not a collective as you allude too when you say "whole".
one can not ignore the future when one has no idea what will happen in the future. I did not know that evolution was a "theory" since science has demonstrated that evolution actually has and continues to take place.
in conclusion you certainly are not an objectivist but prefer to argue against objectivism as a philosophy. now if you happen to know of another philosophy that men can live by please present it! then maybe we can all learn something from you.
I am objective about my faith in God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, as objective truth with historical evidence of existence of Christ and general revelation from God that He exists. It takes more faith to ignore it than to accept it.
Yes, an alternative philosophy to objectivism exists; however, it is not a philosophy developed by man; therefore, if that is the case, would you except a philosophy not developed by man?
By the way, science has not exhausted all knowledge; therefore, if science (empiricism perhaps) is your arbiter of truth, couldn't there still be truth undiscovered that would lead you to God's existence? If you say not, then you are saying you know all that has already been discovered and all that will be discovered which would make you God, which would seem to indicate he does exist!
You speak of "the origins of existence." As Rand put it in Galt's Speech and Branden expounded on in the Basic Principles lectures, the basis of Objectivism are two axiomatic concepts: existence and consciousness. These two, and only these two, are at the base of Objectivist thought. Why? Because they cannot be denied! They are concepts and thus must be derived from reality, must be discovered; and they are axioms, which must be implicitly accepted even by those who deny them.
Consider the fuller statements of these axiomatic concepts, viz., existence exists, and consciousness is conscious. They are, to be sure, tautological---and they must be.
Can you imagine a geometric proof WITHOUT axioms? It is impossible! Can you imagine a consciousness which is unaware of anything? If it is unaware of anything, then it is not consciousness. To attempt to prove one is not conscious (or that there is no such thing), is to seek to prove a contradiction. To deny that existence exists engenders the self-same dilemma: Just WHO is doing the denying and by what means did they become AWARE that they do not exist?
Because the foundation of Objectivism is to be found in these axiomatic concepts, and because the logic of existence and consciousness leads inexorably to single conclusions, the philosophy of Objectivism is cohesive and internally consistent.
The implications of these conclusions have specific ramifications down the philosophical road in the branches of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and, yes, even psychology (because psychology is the study of behavior AND CONSCIOUSNESS).
The question of atheism, in my view, is metaphysical (Can such a being exist? By what means?), epistemological (How can one know? How can one unequivocally and intelligently communicate such knowledge?), and psychological.
While one can be an admirer of Rand, and accept certain conclusions of her philosophy, one cannot be an Objectivist while embracing any supernatural, irrational, or mystical notions.
As Branden put it inthe conclusion of his lecture, "The Concept of God", "The belief in God is the rejection of the foremost premise of Objectivism, namely, the supremacy of reason as man's sole means of understanding and grasping reality. It is one or the other. You can have faith in God, or you can have man, reason, and this earth but you can't have both. Don't deceive yourselves. The choice is yours to make---but know that a choice IS involved here."
You should debate, else, why even ask the question unless you are willing to defend a position? I am sure you would say that your thoughts are word defending correct?
Honestly, because I don't feel the need to defend my position. I was wanting to hear what other people thought, and I have already learned a couple of things I didn't know. My intent in this instance is to learn.
what have you learned? and of what you have learned do you agree with it? from what I have read there are a large number of participants that are in agreement as presented by A-is-A at the top of the discussion.
If you want to be a Christian and follow the works and philosophy of Ayn Rand my question is simple: It's not who's going to let you. Who's going to stop you?
Followers aren't necessarily consistent in following others. A consistent follower of Ayn Rand would be an atheist because her metaphysics does not accommodate theism well at all. But I can see someone liking her ethics or politics, and perhaps even her epistemology, who compartmentalizes their religious views and keeps them separate.
I am an Independent Objectivist and a Deist. I find no conflict so long as your decision to believe is based in reason.
If you saw the Loch Ness Monster cross the road, it would be irrational NOT to believe. Even if you couldn't prove it to anyone else.
If some people actually do see ghosts (not something I personally believe) it's not even a question of belief for them - it is something they KNOW to be true.
A proper skeptic is properly skeptical, but just because a thing cannot be proven doesn't mean it cannot be true.
Still - this argument only holds for those who have direct personal experience. You should never believe another's extraordinary claim without extraordinary proof.
I had begun to fear that rational discourse had been forsaken for soapboxes and megaphones.
It's not so much about who's right (I am!) and wrong (You are!). It's about listening to counter-arguments and at least being open to the possibility of changing your mind.
The true test of ones intellect is: CAN YOU BE PERSUADED?
I was a properly skeptical Agnostic until 10:15 AM, November 15th, 2008 - when I changed my mind.
I had been an Objectivist for almost 30 years. I still am.
I'm going to assume that was sincere and not sarcasm. Just curious, might one enquire as to the cause of the change? None of my business, so feel free to tell me to jump in a lake.
Absolutely sincere. I'm not a big fan of sarcasm. Not that I'm immune, but in general I view it as a form of cowardice. If you have something to say - say it.
As for that Day - it was a personal experience that will never mean to anyone else what it meant to me.
There was no miracle nor burning bush. But it was Holy to me and I won't trot it out haphazardly.
I will write about it someday, however. I made a promise to do so. I'll tag you when I do, Robb. And I thank you for your interest.
To use a different perspective, I think Ayn Rand's atheism (antitheism) was primarily a reaction to experiences in her childhood which she took to be universal. Her characterizations of religious belief deal far more with structure than with belief.
Atheism is "Not Theism" - it does not specify what you stand for. And that's the important question.
That leave all other fallacies open. Good philosophy is responsible for addressing that.
What all philosophy shares is the questions it needs to address - they are the universals that apply to everyone everywhere in almost all civilized circumstances. Then the challenge is to identify and validate premises. Most people will not be interested in arguing about these, but they do rely on specialists, philosophers, to address these dimensions.
Consider if you are a follower of Ayn Rand or a believer in many of her ideas. For instance, you could agree and feel very much in step with almost all of the points that were expressed in Atlas Shrugged and still believe in God. Your just not a worshipper of the lady herself that thinks she is the incarnation of perfection!
I can not say to much about Ayn Rand herself because reading the book Atlas Shrugged recently was my introduction to Ayn Rand. I believe very strongly in most all the beliefs expressed in Atlas Shrugged but I suspect their would be plenty of things that I would not totally agree with Rand on. But Hey, I really do not think it is possible to find someone that I agree with 100%.
Personally, I was raised Catholic but as an adult I never believed the church's teachings in relation to God. At the same time I strongly dislike being called an atheist because I associate that with being a strong believer that NO God exist. That does not describe me. My belief is simply that no one on earth has any idea of how to explain the existence of the universe. Maybe a God created it or maybe not. If a God did create it, how did the god come into existence? Neither religions nor atheist can really explain things (though religions try with their fair tales).
I believe our inability to even begin to understand this is related to our understanding of time. There is a lot of theoretical study that suggest that time, as we understand it, is simply a figment of our imagination. Much evidence points to the idea that time does not travel in a linear line like we think it does. As long as we believe time is linear, how could you ever have a beginning? You would always have to explain what created the creator. Then you have to explain where the things came from that created the creator...then where those things came from...and on...and on.....and on....and on...etc.
".......... is simply that no one on earth has any idea of how to explain the existence of the universe."
This is the crucial point of "existence exists".......what AR termed "out there"...........it is not "how" it is but "that" it is.........and life requires that it (existence) be dealt with accurately to sustain life (if one so desires)........the next step is epistemology.........
I am sure you know far more about AR than I do. However, you can not know precisely how existence should be dealt with if you do not understand it. You can not understand it if you do not know how it came about or where it is going. Which means we can not know for sure and we just have to do the best we can with what we can determine. So, I tend to think there likely is no God as we typically think of him, but I can not deny that I do not understand the majority of existence so I can not definitively rule God out either.
"Understanding existence" is the purported goal of all philosophy. How one comes to that understanding is where they differ. See my response to Wiggys, above, for the Objectivist means of coming to that understanding.
I just read that and it made no sense to me. Maybe it would make more sense if I read the full texts. It sounds like it is saying God is impossible and illogical, but there is no proof or sound logical argument for that conclusion. They seem to be saying since I do not understand how it could be, it can not be. Which of course proves nothing.
In my opinion, people that try to act like god can not exist is just as illogical as those that are certain God does exist. Neither can prove their point so neither should act like they are certain. I think being ardent that God does not exists is actually just like believing in God. In both cases a belief is being purported as unquestionable, but in both cases there is no proof. They only logical thing is to admit that you don't know, but will take your best guess. At least that is the conclusion I have come to over and over again through my 47 years of life.
You can find the first four of Branden's Lecture on the Basic Principles of Objectivism at www.TheCultureofReasonCenter.com . Downloads (in MP3 format) are available for purchase for around $3 or so. The first four lecture are, respectively, titled "The Role of Philosophy", "What Is Reason?", "Logic and Mysticism", and "The Concept of God." For anyone wanting a basic understanding of the tenets of Objectivism, these four lectures are, really, essential. Your problem of "It sounds like it is saying God is impossible and illogical, but there is no proof or sound logical argument for that conclusion" is where the problem and your confusion lie. The reason? It is impossible to prove a negative. The reason no one can prove that God does not exist is because proof, logic, and reason pertain only to that which exists, and if there's no evidence, facts, or logical argumentation offered then there cannot be a refutation forthcoming, regardless of the proposition in question.
It is like being asked to solve a problem in arithmetic without being provided any numbers.
Another issue, related to the above, is that it is incumbent upon those making an assertion to provide some kind of factual evidence or logical argumentation is support of their statement. Merely proclaiming that, e.g., "God exists" then taunting others to "prove it isn't so" is the epistemology of a child: "Is too", "Is not"---is not a logical argument.
Nathaniel Branden stated it best: "The theist, in the absence of rational grounds for believing in God, believes in God on faith. The atheist, in the absence of rational grounds for believing in God, does not believe in God." from Lecture Four, The Concept of God.
Finally, atheism is a-theism, or not-theism, or against-theism. The pronouncements of theism come first. Perhaps we should call it "pro-theism" and "con-theism" or "anti-theism" to make the divide more clear. The arguments of the atheist are the counter to the arguments of the theist. It is true, as I have heard many Christians say, that "atheism cannot exist with a God". But that is only true in the sense that the concept of an orphan cannot exist without the concept of a parent. Atheism is a reaction, not to God, but to the theist, whose explanations are not explanations, whose logic is fraught with contradictions and fallacies, and whose facts are nothing more than the subjective "fact" of their own unnamed, unexamined, and blindly accepted emotion.
In closing this entirely too long response to you, mdant, let me say that I respect your search for truth, that I respect your mind, that none of my remarks are directed at you personal, and that I fully support your quest for understanding of Rand, of Objectivism, and hope that your future is endowed with that particular understanding which you seem so honestly to seek.
There is a good book I just read, "The Soul of Atlas", that presents a young man's life under the tutelage of a father and a stepfather (to which he refers as 'my two fathers'). It's a very good read and addresses belief, money, sex and power. All are pertinent topics in this discussion.
She posits that life is, and that it is different from matter. It is not formed of random piles of stone. Yet she seems to take for granted that life is causeless. To have no cause is to be outside of and unbound by time. Yet life is bound by time. To be unbound from time is to be apart from all that is. That is... The cause of time and space. She argues forcefully against the existence of God but perhaps has backed into a proof instead.
What you're sounding like is someone trying to define 'infinity.' Infinity by definition has no measure. You are simply refusing to accept definitions, which leads to gobbledygook. Without 'A=A', we can have no communication.
If being a follower of AR means believing only what she believed, I am not a follower. AR would like followers that believe blindly what she said? I strongly doubt that. However, I'm a follower of her enthusiasm for reason and logic. And I'm catholic. Yes, it is possible. I have seen in this forum way too many misconceptions about christianity. I won't teach or convert anyone, I just say some people here talk about what they don't know with such emotional tone that I doubt they are thinking at all when it comes to this subject.
Time was defined by Einstein as the thing that is measured by a clock. And then he demonstrated how time and space are conected... just to make a precision.
I'm not certain what else can be responded to i your reply.
Within Objectivity, there is simply no need nor way nor reason to be talking about what is not. Objectivity is a philosophy concerned with what is--reality--those parts and components that either effect a man or that he can effect. Neither I nor anyone else can ever say anything about what is not, it has no attributes nor identity.
What is not can't cause anything nor can it have an effect on what is. What is not doesn't exist.
I too am a believer in most of AR's philosophy, But I also am a Christian. I am not as philosophically astute as a lot of you, but I try to keep an open mind as I believe we all have free will and I am a staunch believer in individual liberty.
For example one of the cornerstones of her philosophy as I see it is an impeccable moral character, to treat each other fairly and with mutual respect. But to me the question is where does this moral character come from. How do we have a sense of right or wrong whether a believer or not. That had to be instilled in each of us somehow. I am sure that many have heard the justifications for the existence of God, How do we know there is air, none of us can see it, but we accept it is there.
I find it to be an exercise of faith to believe that this world and all of its inhabits, humans and otherwise came into existence from nothing..
I really am not trying to start a verbal war here but I find it very difficult to say that if you are a Christian you cannot believe in ARs writings and beliefs.
If you investigate Objectivism, I'm convinced that you will find it to be a complete, consistent, and human based philosophy based in reality. And AR did an excellent job of deriving and explaining the morals necessary for life within and from that philosophy that deals strictly with what is, not what is not. From your comment, you apparently believe that humans are born with no morals and such must be instilled. Objectivism's morals are evident from living as a human within what is, and instilled morals from a super being aren't necessary nor rationally logical and simply confuse the issue.
I am truly amazed at you arrogance to make a statement like, " there's really no room for superstition, mysticism, or religion." Who are you to decide whether anyone can accept, even admire the philosophy of Ayn Rand and have a belief in God?" I have been an avid admirer of hers for over 50 years and yet seem to be able to continue my belief in christianity without a problem. It seems to me that you and many other atheist actually have the problem in accepting Christians because of your own intellectual limitations.
Fred Speckmann
The only time I marched lockstep is when I was in the Marines.
This Christian dino enjoys his own independent thought.
I think Ayn Rand is peachy keen. Discovering her three years ago? I can still be swayed up to a certain point.
Oh, Jesus is the door to God, by the way.
Nyah! Nyah!
I could not help but look on with scoffing amusement when ancient Spartans repeatedly shouted that in the 300 flick.
300 is historically inaccurate on several levels but still comic book fantasy OK for entertaining..
The sequel is just plain baa-aaad!"
But I like 'champion'. It has a nice ring to it.
Jan
I consider religion as the fraction of philosophy based on mysticism and claiming knowledge of the unknowable. That's only one of many fallacious assumptions that prevent one from achieving what Rand did...
She, for the first time, created a fully integrated and comprehensive system of philosophy. By comprehensive, I don't mean addressing all issues but at her level of abstraction having a consistency and match to reality that heretofore didn't exist, I like to say that she did for philosophy, what Newton did for physics. Newton didn't have all the answers, e.g. Einsteinian discoveries on behavior at a galactic scale - we live at a human scale.
So to address THE question - of course one can follow and agree with many principles and agree with many conclusions of Rand and not some others - people do that all the time with any category of knowledge you care to name.
The split she had with the Libertarian movement originators was over the need for a proper ethics as the basis of one's political theory. She did and they didn't.
So it will serve us well to collaborate with those fighting to regain our freedom independent of what group they classify themselves with. Having consistent reasoning will be critical. One part of that is why we form governments to secure our rights and what justifies our claim to those rights.
I'll defer to the Declaration of Independence and Rand's essay on Individual Rights. And then her essay on The Nature of Government. Unfortunately, many readers and admirers of her fiction have never read the nonfiction - which she wrote to explain the way she came to ideas that she used to animate her fictional characters.
That provides the tools for thinking that can change our culture to regain and retain our freedom.
You wrote, "The split she had with the Libertarian movement originators was over the need for a proper ethics as the basis of one's political theory. She did and they didn't."
I was glad to see that because I had always wondered why she disliked libertarians. But now that you've enlightened me as to the reason, I find that I don't fully understand it.
I have read quite a bit of her non-fiction and I believe that you must in order to understand Objectivism. I don't claim to be an authority on the philosophy and I didn't even understand everything that she said, but I will study it more until I do.
Many of the religious individuals who contribute to this list have rational arguments and worthwhile perspectives. They are welcome to sit next to me at the lunch table.
Jan, agnostic
Having said that and moving this BACK to the MEANING of the topic lets look at this comparing Biblical AND Rand's Collectivism.
https://www.aynrand.org/ideas/overview
Objectivism:
• Follow reason, not whims or faith.
• Work hard to achieve a life of purpose and productiveness.
• Earn genuine self-esteem.
• Pursue your own happiness as your highest moral aim.
• Prosper by treating others as individuals, trading value for value.
First let’s take the REAL definition of some words so we can apply proper context.
Full Definition of REASON
Mirriam-Webster
1a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory>
b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon>
c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action>
d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : cause <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay — Graham Greene>
2a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : intelligence (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : sanity
Follower:
Full Definition of FOLLOWER
1a : one in the service of another : retainer
b : one that follows the opinions or teachings of another
c : one that imitates another
2archaic : one that chases
3: a sheet added to the first sheet of an indenture or other deed
4: a machine part that receives motion from another part
5: a spring-loaded plate at the bottom of a firearm's magazine that angles cartridges for proper insertion into the chamber
6: fan, devotee
The PRIMARY facet of collectivism is REASON. Definition 1a and 1b, clearly imply that there is an explanation for your thinking, and a rational. This excludes the statements that some religions use, well that is the greatest mystery and you must take it on faith. But does that mean religion or atheism is the ONLY way.
Look at the biblical definition of faith. Heb. 11: 1,2: 1. Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. 2. For by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them.
Strong’s defines based on the ACTUAL Hebrew the following words. Evident.
evidence: 1650
e[legcoß Elegchos (el'-eng-khos);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Masculine, Strong #: 1650
1. a proof, that by which a thing is proved or tested
2. conviction
Next the bible counsels people NOT to just accept what they are being told without investigating, and it was considered NOBLE-MINDED to NOT take things on blind faith.
Acts 17: 10-11
10 Immediately by night the brothers sent both Paul and Silas out to Be•roe′a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes•sa•lo•ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.
Reasoning is also talked about in terms of something acceptable to God.
Romans 12:1 Consequently I entreat YOU by the compassions of God, brothers, to present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.
Notice the use of the words “power of reason.”
So from one pillar of Collectivism REASON is key and in Christianity reason is not only important, but something considered Noble and Acceptable.
Working hard. Let’s look at one particular scripture that really pounds this home.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 In fact, also, when we were with YOU, we used to give YOU this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.”
Seems pretty clear that when it comes to hard work, the Bible and Ayn Rand are in total agreement. Bible says don’t work then starve.
Self Esteem: That would be your name. Your personal self-worth, something you earn. Hitler earned a name for himself. Solomon indicated how valuable a name is.
Proberbs 22: 1 A name is to be chosen rather than abundant riches; favor is better than even silver and gold.
There is no word specifically using the words self-esteem, however the parallels are in how the heart feels and reacts.
Proverbs 15:13 A joyful heart has a good effect on the countenance, but because of the pain of the heart there is a stricken spirit. Dozens of scriptures both old and new testament on how to build your heart i.e. self-esteem.
The last point there are way too many scriptures about trading value for value and owning the product of your own labor.
Answer is YES!!! It is Possible
The list of the world's religions is nearly endless. Alas, my willingness to participate is not.
Would a match be "mysticism" if lit in front of a person from a society which had never been exposed to one? Would it have been mysticism for one in that society to have postulated that such a thing existed prior to being exposed to it?
H.G. Wells (yes, I know he was evil, but just stay with the example) published "The First Men in the Moon" in 1901, was that "mysticism?" Merely because it hadn't been scientifically proven to that point?
You cite reincarnation as an example of mysticism. I say that it hasn't yet been definitively proven, and never may be, but is there a chance that it might be? There were those who insisted that the earth was the center of the universe, that man could never fly like the birds, that man could never stand on the moon, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
That's probably the biggest problem that I have with Objectivism overall. Anything not currently known is cited as "mysticism." Yes, that's a simplification, but it illustrates the point. O's use the charge of mysticism against things they don't want to address, because it is a simple charge to make.
A = A, that is fundamental. But A continually changes as we learn more. What was A in the Middle Ages (as understood by the best minds of the time) is different from A today, and will be different still tomorrow. Some of what you call mysticism today may be scientific fact tomorrow.
We do gather more knowledge all the time, but that knowledge does not so fundamentally transform all knowledge you have gained before. For instance, the laws of gravity. You are still going to wear a jacket when it's cold and water your plants. You need calories in order to burn them. Godzilla is not going to come out of your pond and terrorize your family
The point is that mysticism is whatever you want to attribute it to. If you say that the difference between magic and mysticism is how you "feel" about it, then haven't you just undercut your fundamental argument?
Let's say that the person seeing a match lit for the first time says that the red tip on the match head gets "angry" at being rubbed on the striker and thus ignites, is mysticism?
Glad to be able to expand further. Oh, and that isn't particularly my definition. It is found in Lecture 3 of Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism series, entitled "Logic and Mysticism". It is "mine" only by virtue of my understanding.
What say you? Is Marty's definition valid?
Kidding, he said use your life positively and with insight (or something like that).
"Padmasambhava says: All beings have lived and died and been reborn countless times."
Reincarnation refutation refuted.
If that is the case, do you believe that all effects have a cause? If you do not, then how do we get here at all? If you believe the Big Bang is the origin of the universe, then what caused that?
If you seek to argue that "well Christians believe God has always existed, so who created Him?" well then you have given me half the argument already because you already said something has always existed because existence exists right? So all I need to do is show you that logic leads to that eternity past presence is God, outside of this universe right?
Science has proven that the universe continues to expand; therefore, it had an origin to expand from correct?
Are you willing to put your eternal state, after you pass from this earth, in the hands of science which as calculated that the odds of us being here from a supposed random Big Bang requires much more faith than believing God caused all this, especially when you read His word and look around and see it confirmed over and over and over and over and over.
Now, if the universe (all of existence) requires a cause, then the positing of a God as the cause merely pushes the question back another step: What, then, caused the God in question? Was there a still-earlier God who created the God which created the universe? Then we get pushed back farther, to an infinite regress, the very problem inventing a God is supposed to solve!
But once it is admitted that there must be something which has existed eternally, upon what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?
As in many philosophic discussions, the way a question is stated may be key to its solution. The supposition that existence itself REQUIRES a cause is the real problem. It does not. Why? Because if the cause exists, then it is part of existence; if it does not exist, then it cannot be a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction. As Branden put it: "Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality."
Your closing statement is merely a restatement of Pascal's Wager, and what one loses in that Wager is the only life one has. Besides, if one believes in God merely because one fears death, then one's belief is already corrupted.
We cannot live without absolute meaning, no matter what the most erudite post-modern PhDs will promulgate.
Therefore, a person, entity or intelligence has to have existed in eternity, without being created; there is no God creating God creating God to get to here...there is no point to it. God gives any creation meaning; we, man, corrupts meaning and distorts creation in ways where creation becomes our god, and we seek to make Him in our image.
Now, many may say, "Why did God, if He is there and doesn't need anything, create anything?"
To me, that is the only question that cannot be answered; His Word doesn't address it; however, I know He is there for me to ask someday upon meeting Him....I do not think you can meet the "universe" or "matter" and ask it anything and get a response.
I go with the evidence...God exists, always has, and always will...your denial within is evident with every statement that science has said this and that. Science, when truly scientific and not based on consensus (something resolved through consensus is not science, but estimation and subjectivism).
My faith is not irrational, nor unfounded on evidence...when you choose not to see the evidence, that doesn't mean it isn't there, nor the conclusions it leads to.
"RE: Reincarntaon
'There are two things most people think they know about Buddhism -- that Buddhists believe in reincarnation, and that all Buddhists are vegetarian. These two statements are not true, however. Buddhist teachings on rebirth are considerably different from what most people call "reincarnation."' (http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhi......)
"... the Buddha did not teach a doctrine of reincarnation. For one thing, he taught there was no soul to transmigrate." from Misunderstanding Buddhism (http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhi......)
RE: "Rejecting the self"
There are different interpretations to this, but in one sense, it's not that there is no self, but rather that self is not all there is. In another sense, "no-self" is about rejecting the idea of the inner-self, or what religionists refer to as "the soul."
EDIT: Added a sentence for clarity. "
sdesapio
I don't know if you remember the ire my "born again athiest" comments have made among those who were easily offended by having their "rational belief system" questioned... it was not unlike telling a Fundie Christian that the "my way or the highway" religion they practice was wrong... opens the floodgates of prosthetylizing.
No, one does not *have* to be an athest to follow AR, no more than does one "have" to be an emigree from a once free country turned people's republic to know the soviet system is a system of looters and freeloaders.
One does NOT have to be a clone of Rand to adhere to and follow her rational discourse... People are people, and to like someone, to adhere to their sense of right and wrong, does not mean you have to *be* them. (Thank God, as I look awful in short hair!! :-) )
I also have a very strong belief that a thinking person is incapable of following any one philosophy 100%. If a person were to truly consider all the aspects of the philosophy, inevitably most reasonable people will disagree with some part of it. Having said that, Objectivism, would be the closest philosophy that I have found to describe my own lifestyle, or at least the lifestyle that I strive to achieve. I am also a believer in a higher power, I have seen too many miracles that could simply be nothing but a miracle.
I also believe that it is arrogant to believe that there is no creator. I believe something had to start life.
Else why have science?
Wow, I don't believe that I've never read a more confusing explanation of someones belief. Please allow me to clarify one major point of all religions, religion is meant to provide complete proof. Religion and specifically Christianity is based on faith. All answers are not available to us and faith is therefore a requirement to be a Christian.
Fred Speckmann
I apologize, I did not realize that I was addressing an ignorant, (the meaning of which is someone lacking knowledge) who doesn't understand that by definition people are either atheists, agnostics, or religious. There are no other options.
I proudly claim to be religious, in fact a Christian, while still a believer in the Ayn Rand philosophy without any sense of contradiction with my christian beliefs.
Fred Speckmann
Christianity, Judaism are a broader category that are not necessarily affiliated with a "RELIGION"," i.e "Organized Religion." that affiliates itself with a form of faith.
Rand was most certainly an Atheist, and I will repeat that the question posed was carefully worded.
"Is it possible to be a follower of Ayn Rand and not be an atheist? ", NOT "Is it possible to be a follower of Ayn Rand and be a "__Insert religion here__?"
The difference is specifically as NOT an Atheist, meaning some form of faith in a Creator, or God if you will whether you are, or claim to be affiliated with an organized "RELIGION" or someone who does not subscribe to any particular religion but does believe in an Intelligent Design, Creator or God.
I apologize for being so ignorant in paying attention to these subtleties in phrasing. My wealth of ignorance is the stuff of legend I guess.
You certainly seem to be articulate and knowledgeable, however you are indeed correct in your sarcastic remark about your ignorance.
I made it very clear in my answer to the question raised by "mamaemma in her question, "Is it possible to be a follower of Ayn Rand and not be an atheist?"
I clearly stated that I believe it is indeed possible as I acknowledging that I am a Christian see absolutely no conflict between Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy and my belief in Christianity.
I of course can understand your lack of understanding this concept as you are clearly a defender of atheism and can't understand that followers of any religion don't find a conflict where in fact no conflict exists. This is of course only my opinion based on my personal understanding and people of all persuasions may differ.
As an aside, the problem that religious people have with atheists is that they want to ridicule and deny the right of religious people to practice their beliefs. That is of course primarily directed at Christians and Jews, as most atheists don't have the courage to direct this hatred for religion onto other faiths such as Islam. Some members of that faith unfortunately tend to be less forgiving of those that oppose them.
Fred Speckmann
Also the individual never ceases to exist...the question is whether he allows himself to be treated as though he has ceased to exist.
To be allowed to have the freedom to be who we want to be.
A Puritan would just hate a Christian dino.
Perhaps it's too strong a contrast, but I compare my Objectivist upbringing to the religions of my peers. While most of my friends and neighbors went to church or synagogue, my family 'worshipped' in the pages of Atlas Shrugged. Through my stepfather (and later, my own reading), Ayn Rand taught me how to think. I have always appreciated her clear exposition of ideas. In her writing, she refuses to let an inconsistency go unaddressed and she articulates the reasoning behind her conclusions. That said, I disagree with some of her conclusions. Further, when she avoids discussing some topics, I have looked elsewhere for answers (still applying her thoughtful, relentless logical process).
To be clear, I certainly recognize irreconcilable differences between Objectivism and Christianity (see The Soul of Atlas: http://SoulofAtlas.com), but I agree that it is possible to be a 'follower' on some points and not on every point.
Thank you for stopping in.
Don't see where a belief, or not holding a belief in God, has much bearing on common sense.
Second, what does common sense have to do with the question posed in this thread? I have never seen anyone, and certainly not Rand, say that Objectivism is based on "common sense." Common sense it too broad a term on which to base a philosophy.
1. I don't call myself, other than Christian, anything in particular. But I do call myself a Christian because I am a follower of Christ's teachings. Following that simple logic, I guess I'd have to call myself an Objectivist.
2. There's a first time for everything.
3. Google "common sense philosophy" when you get a chance.
On a parenthetical note, atheists of the leftist persuasion (at least, those whose blogs I've visited) consider Rand the epitome of evil.
That's only because her philosophy flies in the face of socialism and communism. Many on the left believe in the tenets put forth by the looters and moochers in AS. They see no conflicts with robbing from those who have earned to give to those who haven't because it makes them feel good. But all they are doing is making everyone miserable because eventually everything has been redistributed and you then need to continue to rob people to redistribute the "wealth" because you can never equalize the equation until everyone has nothing.
I wonder this... If Rand were, say, Orthodox Christian (as are many Russians) instead of Athiest, would you have to be Orthodox to understand and follow her beliefs and writings, to see her A=A as being correct?
His philosophies have led to nothing but misery for all who live under it. Not a good source to validate the "validity: or religion or belief in God. Kinda like saying Oh..Lookie. the earth is flat, then expecting everyone to come to you on the nature of the universe. Wrong on the initial premise and wrong on all subsequent statements.
That is not the complete basis of Objectivism, and that is why your second sentence does not hold up.
By the way, I appreciate some of ARs points of her philosophy; however, the absurdity of its conclusions concerning man's purpose and his origin leave it without grounds for validity in the whole.
man's purpose is what ever each individual man choses his purpose to be, it is not a collective as you allude too when you say "whole".
one can not ignore the future when one has no idea what will happen in the future. I did not know that evolution was a "theory" since science has demonstrated that evolution actually has and continues to take place.
in conclusion you certainly are not an objectivist but prefer to argue against objectivism as a philosophy. now if you happen to know of another philosophy that men can live by please present it! then maybe we can all learn something from you.
Yes, an alternative philosophy to objectivism exists; however, it is not a philosophy developed by man; therefore, if that is the case, would you except a philosophy not developed by man?
By the way, science has not exhausted all knowledge; therefore, if science (empiricism perhaps) is your arbiter of truth, couldn't there still be truth undiscovered that would lead you to God's existence? If you say not, then you are saying you know all that has already been discovered and all that will be discovered which would make you God, which would seem to indicate he does exist!
Consider the fuller statements of these axiomatic concepts, viz., existence exists, and consciousness is conscious. They are, to be sure, tautological---and they must be.
Can you imagine a geometric proof WITHOUT axioms? It is impossible! Can you imagine a consciousness which is unaware of anything? If it is unaware of anything, then it is not consciousness. To attempt to prove one is not conscious (or that there is no such thing), is to seek to prove a contradiction. To deny that existence exists engenders the self-same dilemma: Just WHO is doing the denying and by what means did they become AWARE that they do not exist?
Because the foundation of Objectivism is to be found in these axiomatic concepts, and because the logic of existence and consciousness leads inexorably to single conclusions, the philosophy of Objectivism is cohesive and internally consistent.
The implications of these conclusions have specific ramifications down the philosophical road in the branches of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and, yes, even psychology (because psychology is the study of behavior AND CONSCIOUSNESS).
The question of atheism, in my view, is metaphysical (Can such a being exist? By what means?), epistemological (How can one know? How can one unequivocally and intelligently communicate such knowledge?), and psychological.
While one can be an admirer of Rand, and accept certain conclusions of her philosophy, one cannot be an Objectivist while embracing any supernatural, irrational, or mystical notions.
As Branden put it inthe conclusion of his lecture, "The Concept of God", "The belief in God is the rejection of the foremost premise of Objectivism, namely, the supremacy of reason as man's sole means of understanding and grasping reality. It is one or the other. You can have faith in God, or you can have man, reason, and this earth but you can't have both. Don't deceive yourselves. The choice is yours to make---but know that a choice IS involved here."
Good luck getting a real debate...!
P.S. I think it is possible, also.
Read my Post Script ! ;-)
If you saw the Loch Ness Monster cross the road, it would be irrational NOT to believe. Even if you couldn't prove it to anyone else.
If some people actually do see ghosts (not something I personally believe) it's not even a question of belief for them - it is something they KNOW to be true.
A proper skeptic is properly skeptical, but just because a thing cannot be proven doesn't mean it cannot be true.
Still - this argument only holds for those who have direct personal experience. You should never believe another's extraordinary claim without extraordinary proof.
I had begun to fear that rational discourse had been forsaken for soapboxes and megaphones.
It's not so much about who's right (I am!) and wrong (You are!). It's about listening to counter-arguments and at least being open to the possibility of changing your mind.
The true test of ones intellect is:
CAN YOU BE PERSUADED?
I was a properly skeptical Agnostic until 10:15 AM, November 15th, 2008 - when I changed my mind.
I had been an Objectivist for almost 30 years.
I still am.
If you have something to say - say it.
As for that Day - it was a personal experience that will never mean to anyone else what it meant to me.
There was no miracle nor burning bush.
But it was Holy to me and I won't trot it out haphazardly.
I will write about it someday, however. I made a promise to do so.
I'll tag you when I do, Robb. And I thank you for your interest.
Atheism is "Not Theism" - it does not specify what you stand for. And that's the important question.
That leave all other fallacies open. Good philosophy is responsible for addressing that.
What all philosophy shares is the questions it needs to address - they are the universals that apply to everyone everywhere in almost all civilized circumstances. Then the challenge is to identify and validate premises. Most people will not be interested in arguing about these, but they do rely on specialists, philosophers, to address these dimensions.
I can not say to much about Ayn Rand herself because reading the book Atlas Shrugged recently was my introduction to Ayn Rand. I believe very strongly in most all the beliefs expressed in Atlas Shrugged but I suspect their would be plenty of things that I would not totally agree with Rand on. But Hey, I really do not think it is possible to find someone that I agree with 100%.
Personally, I was raised Catholic but as an adult I never believed the church's teachings in relation to God. At the same time I strongly dislike being called an atheist because I associate that with being a strong believer that NO God exist. That does not describe me. My belief is simply that no one on earth has any idea of how to explain the existence of the universe. Maybe a God created it or maybe not. If a God did create it, how did the god come into existence? Neither religions nor atheist can really explain things (though religions try with their fair tales).
I believe our inability to even begin to understand this is related to our understanding of time. There is a lot of theoretical study that suggest that time, as we understand it, is simply a figment of our imagination. Much evidence points to the idea that time does not travel in a linear line like we think it does. As long as we believe time is linear, how could you ever have a beginning? You would always have to explain what created the creator. Then you have to explain where the things came from that created the creator...then where those things came from...and on...and on.....and on....and on...etc.
This is the crucial point of "existence exists".......what AR termed "out there"...........it is not "how" it is but "that" it is.........and life requires that it (existence) be dealt with accurately to sustain life (if one so desires)........the next step is epistemology.........
In my opinion, people that try to act like god can not exist is just as illogical as those that are certain God does exist. Neither can prove their point so neither should act like they are certain. I think being ardent that God does not exists is actually just like believing in God. In both cases a belief is being purported as unquestionable, but in both cases there is no proof. They only logical thing is to admit that you don't know, but will take your best guess. At least that is the conclusion I have come to over and over again through my 47 years of life.
Your problem of "It sounds like it is saying God is impossible and illogical, but there is no proof or sound logical argument for that conclusion" is where the problem and your confusion lie. The reason? It is impossible to prove a negative. The reason no one can prove that God does not exist is because proof, logic, and reason pertain only to that which exists, and if there's no evidence, facts, or logical argumentation offered then there cannot be a refutation forthcoming, regardless of the proposition in question.
It is like being asked to solve a problem in arithmetic without being provided any numbers.
Another issue, related to the above, is that it is incumbent upon those making an assertion to provide some kind of factual evidence or logical argumentation is support of their statement. Merely proclaiming that, e.g., "God exists" then taunting others to "prove it isn't so" is the epistemology of a child: "Is too", "Is not"---is not a logical argument.
Nathaniel Branden stated it best: "The theist, in the absence of rational grounds for believing in God, believes in God on faith. The atheist, in the absence of rational grounds for believing in God, does not believe in God." from Lecture Four, The Concept of God.
Finally, atheism is a-theism, or not-theism, or against-theism. The pronouncements of theism come first. Perhaps we should call it "pro-theism" and "con-theism" or "anti-theism" to make the divide more clear. The arguments of the atheist are the counter to the arguments of the theist. It is true, as I have heard many Christians say, that "atheism cannot exist with a God". But that is only true in the sense that the concept of an orphan cannot exist without the concept of a parent. Atheism is a reaction, not to God, but to the theist, whose explanations are not explanations, whose logic is fraught with contradictions and fallacies, and whose facts are nothing more than the subjective "fact" of their own unnamed, unexamined, and blindly accepted emotion.
In closing this entirely too long response to you, mdant, let me say that I respect your search for truth, that I respect your mind, that none of my remarks are directed at you personal, and that I fully support your quest for understanding of Rand, of Objectivism, and hope that your future is endowed with that particular understanding which you seem so honestly to seek.
Load more comments...