In my previous articles I explained how my libertarian beliefs are compatible with a biblical worldview, and why I believe in minarchy (small government) rather than anarchy (no government.) Today I will explore Objectivism, the ethical philosophy developed by Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand is best known for her novel Atlas Shrugged. In it, Rand lays out a consistent ethical framework based on the inviolable rights of life and property. She calls her ethical system Objectivism because the rights are objectively determined by reality, not by the subjective whim of the masses or by the varying interpretation of religious scriptures. Objectivist ethics are inherent in the universe. They are objectively true.
I started reading Ayn Rand because she gives a vigorous defense of small-government libertarianism. Her essays have played a part in shaping my own views of political philosophy. I agree with much of what she says about government. However, I am not an Objectivist.
Objectivism is incompatible with biblical principles. To explain why, let’s study the underpinning concepts of Objectivism. Let’s begin with the Essentials of Objectivism as presented by the Ayn Rand Institute.
Metaphysics
Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural
A belief system that rejects the supernatural is contrary to the Bible. The Bible is filled with accounts of supernatural miracles. Jesus walked on water. God appeared to Moses in a burning bush. Ten plagues afflicted the Egyptians. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. God spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus.
Epistemology
Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge)
The Bible says a great deal about faith. In John 20:29 Jesus says “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Hebrews 11 says it is “by faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command.” Hebrews 11 lists off all the biblical heros and declares that “these were all commended for their faith.” Faith is not an optional part of a biblical worldview. Because Objectivism rejects faith, it rejects Scripture.
Human Nature
Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions)
According to the Bible, God is sovereign over all things. God can harden the heart (Exodus 7:13, 9:12). He controls our eternal destiny: “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” (Titus 3:5). God is in control of nations: “The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples.” (Psalm 33:10). A man does not control even his own destiny: “Many plans are in a man’s heart, But the counsel of the LORD will stand.” (Proverbs 19:21).
Ethics
“Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action.”
“Rationality is man’s basic virtue.”
Objectivism rejects any form of altruism—the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.
Man’s reason is a poor guide: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” (Proverbs 14:12).
Politics
Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current “mixed economy” notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.
The sociopolitical system that is compatible with Objectivism is laissez faire capitalism. The way to achieve this is through a minarchist libertarian government. This is not incompatible with biblical values. The underlying values of Objectivism are unbiblical, but Objectivist politics are not.
Esthetics
“Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.”
I don’t even know what this means.
Of the Essentials of Objectivism, only one out of six (Politics) is compatible with biblical values. As a Christian, I cannot be an Objectivist. Objectivism is based on a godless secular view of the world. It worships man instead of man’s Creator.
I couldn’t agree more. I will always be indebted to Rand for really opening up my eyes to philosophy and principled political thinking. Without her works, there is no question that I would be much less informed in my understanding.
However, there is also no question that much of Objectivism is completely at odds with Christianity. Ironically, many Christians presume her position against altruism is contrary to Christianity, and take the biggest objection to that. However, I think it can be demonstrated in scripture, without even knowing anything about Objectivism, that God himself holds a “virtuously selfish” attitude towards his creation. I argued this is more depth here.
I owe a great deal to Ayn Rand for being the catalyst that converted me from a full Leninist Communist to a full free-market advocate. After reading her novels, I felt that I could suddenly see the actions of people in the economic and political realm clearly for the first time. I too could never be an objectivist, however, not only because it is in total opposition to christianity but also because I am a complete “Anarcho-Capitalist” and do not agree with her perceived need for government. I would agree with Colin that selfishness, as understood by objectivism, is not incompatible with christianity. As for “man worship”, I have the same admiration that Ayn Rand has for the achievements of the great men of industry. The difference is that I give credit to God for granting man everything he has, while an Atheist must inevitably credit man as the source himself.
-Ike
Here we are, 2008, in an age of skyscrapers, internet, unstoppable scientific progress, smart phones, jets…
…and yet you still live by a book that, since its inception, has never been substantiated by fact, and contains stories such as: man parts the sea; man builds a boat out of wood and fits two of every organism into it; man walks on water; man feeds five thousand people with five loaves of stale bread and two fish; virgin gives birth.
Ayn Rand’s book was based on reason, yours is based on fantasy.
I doubt you’ll print my comment, but I hope it moves you.
Either way, it’s been fun
Scotty Stevens
Scotty Stevens wrote:
We publish all non-spam comments. We’re pretty willing to listen to anyone.
As for moving me, not so much. I’m writing this series of articles to explain my libertarian worldview to a Christian audience, with the hope that they will come away recognizing that my worldview is legitimately compatible with Scripture. My audience is non-libertarian Christians. I’m not really trying to engage the other side of the coin, that is, non-Christian libertarians.
But you’re welcome to comment. Thanks for taking the time to read my article.
“you still live by a book that, since its inception, has never been substantiated by fact”
I live by faith in the Bible due to my own confirmation of God through experiences in life. My experiences are not “objective” in the sense that you cannot observe the experiences I have had in the past, and therefore I cannot “prove” God exists to you. However my faith is still based on personal observations and, by my estimation, reason. If you could be convinced of three simple things; that God exists, God is omnipotent and omniscient, and that God loves you; would you consider it reasonable in your personal life to believe that God knows the truth, that God is not lying when he states truth and that God can perform things which cannot be explained by man? I am convinced of the first three things and therefore do not need to observe the latter three in order to believe them.
“I doubt you’ll print my comment, but I hope it moves you.”
The name of the site is ZealForTruth, the objective here is open discussion not censorship. This site welcomes opposing views as long as the discussion is constructive.
-Ike
Well of course no one can be a Christian and an Objectivist.
I wanted to point out an inaccuracy, however.
You say “Rand lays out a consistent ethical framework based on the inviolable rights of life and property.”
Rand did not base her ethics on political principles, rather the other way around. Ethics is logically prior to politics. A man living on a desert island need ethics, but not politics. No amount of contemplation of his rights will tell him how to behave.
My brother told me once that a clock which is broken is still correct twice a day. Rand is an example of that theory. She managed to present many truths from a completely false premise. I also think the term “anarchy” sometimes receives a worse rap than it deserves by being defined simply as a belief in no government. Perhaps a more correct definition would be a belief in no state. We have mistakenly made the two terms, government and state synonymous, when they really aren’t. Government, the act of being governed, can take many forms. As individuals we govern our own actions on a daily basis. When we enter into trade agreements, such as employer and employee, we allow our employer to govern what we will do and how for the period in which we are paid. There is church government, and God’s government. Most of these are entered into voluntarily with no coercive force or threat of violence. The state, on the other hand, is an institution with a self granted monopoly on the use of the initiation of force. I don’t believe a world without government is even possible, as I said, we each voluntarily participate to varying degrees in an orderly fashion because we understand that life’s easier when we cooperate. That’s why I don’t have to hold a gun to my customer’s heads, nor do they, mine. I don’t have to threaten anyone with bodily injury to buy shoes from Wal-Mart or sandwiches from Wendy’s. Your boss can tell you you must wear a clean shirt to work and, if you want to continue to get paid by him you will or if that’s too much for you, you can take a hike. You may join a religion which tells you you cannot bathe on Thursdays or again, you may tell them to go spit up a rope. (I asked someone a long time ago, “What’s the difference between a cult and a religion?” He answered, “It has to do with the degree of difficulty involved in leaving.”) I think the same can be said of the difference between legitimate government and “The State.” The State is when opting out becomes a practical impossibility. Find me a place on Earth where there is no state, and I’ll gladly go.
Peace, liberty, justice and prosperity,
Bryan
Nice, succinct explanation of why Objectivism and Christianity are incompatible.
I’m on the “other side” (i.e. Objectivist), but from time to time I’ve had to make exactly the same arguments to people who want to reconcile the two: it cannot be done; not if one completely understands the two.
Indeed, there’s a little group of folk who call themselves “Christian Objectivists”. I think they do a disservice to both Christianity and Objectivism.
A final point: this explains why Objectivits do not like being called “libertarians”. It is because we realize that the term is so broad that it combines us with people who are ideologically opposite, and therefore obscures more than it illuminates.
I would simply like to add my own agreement with Software nerd’s comments. These two worldviews are completely incompatible; one simply cannot even reconcile the metaphysics of Objectivism with Christianity, let alone anything further.
I, too, am an Objectivist, and when I first read your post, I was all ‘Rargh! Fool!’, but, no, I disagree with your judgement of Objectivism itself, but agree with your brief presentation of the facts.
Also, what Rand meant by metaphysical values effecting one’s art, was that, say, you see the world as a place where you can achieve happiness, you’ll feel the desire, if you’re an artist, to create some sort of monument to that feeling. If you think the world is a chaotic place, doomed to unhappiness for men, then vice versa.
For a concrete presentation of this, compare Greek Art, with the modern blobs and screeching colours called art.
By vice versa, I meant, not that you wouldn’t create a monument to that feeling, I meant your monument would be something like an orgy of disproportioned bodies devouring one another, compared to say, Hercules triumphantly wielding his sword.
Jesus walked on the water? Ever see the SUN “walk” on water?
Yes, Jesus is nothing but a metaphor for the sun, which is nothing supernatural.
Thanks for the comments, everyone. Jay Wayland, you make a great point about ethics coming before politics. My description of Objectivism as a system based on property rights was sloppy and just plain wrong. The rights of life and property are consequences of Objectivist ethics, not the basis of them.
So, I find this kind of amusing, I’ll admit.
“Objectivism is incompatible with biblical principles.”
Really? Who’d'a thunk it? If Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine (who both had a rudimentary understanding of philosophy and logic) were still here and had they ever read Rand… let’s just say I think all three would be offended and/or amused that you put so many words into this.
You just expanded a simple syllogism into 670 words (yes, I pasted it into MS Word to run a word count). Kudos.
“I am a Christian.
Objectivists can’t be Christians.
Therefore, I’m not an Objectivist.”
There, I revised it for you.
Thanks Tom. I wrote the article to offer a little more explanation so that people who aren’t aware of what Objectivism really teaches can plainly see why it is incompatible with Christianity.
Easy, now. Just joshin’.
Classic circular argument/begging the question fallacy:
1. God exists.
2. How do you know God exists?
3. The Bible “is filled with accounts” etc.
4. Why should I believe what the Bible says?
5. The Bible is the Word of God.
6. Therefore God exists.
Believe what you want. Don’t pretend there is any logic to such religious beliefs. Even long ago when I accepted the existence of God, I knew it was irrational. I just didn’t realize the full negative consequences of living one’s life based on irrationality.
I agree with Softwarenerd that this is a succinct demonstration of why Christianity conflicts with Objectivism.
I’d like to point out that Objectivism is a complete philosophy, with positions on the subjects you mention in your posts; it isn’t just an “ethical philosophy,” as you maintain earlier in your entry.
Thanks for pointing this out, and I hope “Christian Objectivists” take a look and see why they’re mistaken.
Roderick
I couldn’t be an objectionist, I believe Jesus is a metaphor for the sun too. And the 12 constellations are the 12 apostles, the three kings are Orions belt and the star in the east is Sirius and so on and so forth.
Thanks MammaBear. Which constellation is Judas?
I agree that I cannot call myself an objectivist because I wholeheartedly believe in God and I believe that Moral objectivity is from Him alone.
A fundamental flaw, often on both sides, seems to be equating “faith” with “fantasy” in that both assume a lack of (dare I say it) objective evidence. Yet no where in the Bible do any of the authors commend or require so-called “blind faith”. Jesus himself, when asked about his identity by John the Baptist, pointed to visible, objective evidence and let him draw his own conclusions. Ths Psalms ascribe to God the admonition “Come, let us reason together.” Again and again the Bible authors point to evidence, not wishes. Were it merely wishful thinking, much could , should, and would have been left out that is uncomfortably included. Peter clearly has this in mind when he assures his readers that what he told them about were not myths or fantasies but actual occurances of which he and others were witnesses, because he KNEW they would sound fantastic/unbelievable. A major point of the scriptures (it seems to me)is to encapsulate the testimony of those who saw and experienced the actual events others would never get to experience. We live every day of our lives mostly based on the testimony of others, taking other people’s word for something. that is, on “faith”. Is it therefore mere fantasy? I’ve never seen an atom; I’ve never experienced an earthquake; I’ve never witnessed a whale breeching; I’ve never been in a war zone or seen the Alps or lava or …. Are they ALL LIES?! Photos mean nothing; my TV shows me space ships and aliens and genies and talking horses, but I don’t think they’re real (or are they???)
Just as Rand’s specific meaning of altruism/sacrifice must be clearly delineated to understand her arguement, so too must Biblical “faith” be understood before it can be discussed (or lived!).
Just notes from a newbie. Hope it’s not redundant.
Thanks for the site.
Ayn Rand rejected anarchy. In fact she held anarchists in a worse regard than socialists. Objectivism espouses a limited government who’s only funcion is to protect individual rights and nothing more. In no way, shape, or form has Objectivism ever promoted anarchy. That is an obvious lie to anyone who has studied it.
The political philosophy of the bible is the exact opposite, Socialism. This is beyond contestation, the bible is very clear on it. Altruism and Socialism are built on the same principles. Selflessness, self-sacrifice, saving others, etc…
Objectivism is the exact opposite; individualism, self-interests, freedom.
That’s certainly true. I was surprised at her antagonism toward anarchists, but it’s true that anarchy is at odds with Objectist ethics.
You can make a case for it, but it’s not beyond contesting. The Bible isn’t about politics. It doesn’t advocate a particular form of government. We can use biblical principles to test whether a particular government operates in accordance to God’s laws, but that’s about it.
I’m not sure I agree. Altruism is about serving others sacrificially, at one’s own expense. Socialism is more about economics and class warfare–that is, cutting down the capitalists and putting the capital (e.g., factories and other means of production) into the hands of the working class. There’s nothing particularly altruistic about socialism–it’s a Robin Hood scheme that appeals to the poor working class because it promises them wealth. Altruism is about giving; socialism is about taking.
i dont agree that one cannot be an objectivist and a christian. the basic problem with saying that objectivism is irreconcilable with christianity is that there is one out of context statement to “sum up” all of Ayn’s beliefs on the subjects. i will go through each of these principles (and will concede a few).
metaphysics (the state of existence)
the world follows objective natural laws (biblical)
anti-supernaturalism (unbiblical)
rational causation of all events (biblical)
epistemology
reason is the only basis for interpreting and discovering truth (christianity is a rational religion. it follows logic based upon premises that have been given in the bible and revealed through nature.)
miss rand’s specific problem with thiesm and mysticism can be omitted from objectivism without losing its basic structure.
human nature(introspection)
objectivism promotes introspection (biblical)
man, of necessity, must strive to be a moral hero (biblical)
determinsim rejected (although god is omnipotent, he never forces the hand of any man and that is the true nature of the argument. he gives free will.)
ethics
reason (reason and logic are in and of themselves amoral. the premises which a corrupted man are what leads him to sin and wrong. if A is B and B is C then A is C. if A is a sinful premis naturally logic will lead him to a sinful C. reason was a gift of god to man in the garden. God is logical {albeit superiorly to ours} and encourages us to search for wisdom {achieved through logic as oposed to blind emotion or unsupported faith})
politics
we agree on this point any way
esthetics
basicly art is a physical manifestation of what a man percieves. man sees reality. man interprets reality based upon his philosophy and metaphysics. and man turns that interpretation into a piece of art.
albeit no christian could be a perfect objectivist, neither could anyone except ayn rand. no two people will ever hold the exact same beliefs, but the basic foundations of objectivism are reconcilable with christianity.
It’s very late and I’m very tired, so bare with me, if you can.
Ayn Rand’s philosophy is very good, because it is based on reason.
I don’t think it is possible to say that God does not exist, but only that God does not exist to you. I don’t think that it is possible to say, definitively, that God does exist, but only that God does exist to you.
Without getting into the nitty gritty…
Christianity is the largest religion on earth and has lasted over 2000 years. The very fact that it never died out is amazing.
Objectivism–which I find to be a perfectly acceptable philosophy, although I do not consider myself an Objectivist–has been around for a little over fifty years.
When choosing your own philosophy, keeping in mind their histories, and, how much we truly do and do not know–which of these religions sounds more reasonable?
The truth is, if Ayn Rand said that God “probably” does not exist, but might, then many Objectivists would not be Atheist, but instead Agnostic. And her philosophy would not have changed all that much. Man would still be an end in himself. Now considering that realization, to all of us who have pondered Objectivism as a reasonable philosophy, does following the belief system of an intelligent, but human, woman named Ayn Rand sound reasonable? Any more reasonable than a 2000 year old religion? (that you do not have to take literally–if you are reasonable)
I have much more to say, but am so tired, and to stay up any longer would be completely irrational.
Thanks for stopping by, rationalist. I appreciate your comments. I have some comments on what you said.
There is something to be said for longevity. It is evidence of the power of a particular idea, and something that has history deserves a fair examination. But longevity is not evidence of truth. Christianity was once young. The apostles gave their lives up for a cause that was less than 50 years old. I don’t believe Objectivism can be dismissed merely because it is new.
I sort of see what you’re getting at, but I must disagree. If we take your idea, then maybe God exists to me but not to you. However, according to my God, if you die unrepentant in your sins you will burn in hell for all eternity. If you’re right, then I’m living my life in service to a non-existent God. So the question really is, am I right or are you right? Will you or won’t you burn in hell for all eternity? It can’t be both. Either you’ll end up in hell or you won’t. Either I serve a figment of my imagination or I serve the creator of the universe. Either God exists or he doesn’t. It can’t be both.
No, it doesn’t sound reasonable to follow Ayn Rand. On the other hand, my God is a poor homeless single man who was murdered 2000 years ago.
Good comments Jew, just to clarify, one, I don’t think Ayn Rand should be dismissed, only questioned. Two, I didn’t say both could exist, but only that know one can ever truly know, leaving them to their faith in either possibilities. Three, I agree, that believing in a 2000 homeless man can sound a bit unreasonable–yet we believe. Faith is a funny thing.
Fair enough, rationalist. I agree with everything you said.
I know that the Objectivists want to deny the possibility of a Christian’s being both a Christian and an Objectivist. That is a result, however, of an a priori presumption that there is no God and no supernatural realm. If God really exists, then it is neither irrational nor subjective to believe it is so.
Knowledgeable Christians also reject the “faith or feeling” that Ayn Rand despised. They see faith as a rational response to God’s actions in the past. They don’t see it as mere feeling or arbitrary choice or a blind leap. They don’t believe in God because they have a subjective desire to do so; they believe in God because they believe that He is real. Nothing could be more rational.
Ike,
You did not have personal observations of god’s existence. That is totally contradictory. Observation entails that you have used your senses to gain knowledge of reality. If god transcends reality you could not have done that. The only way one can express your faith is through the denial of the validity of your mind. If you accept that something exists without any proof, then you are basically saying that your mind has no value and you must turn to other means for the gaining of knowledge. Those other “means” being ways that are totally incapable of gaining knowledge. Yaron Brook once said about the scientists who were also deists in the age of reason, that they did not gain knowledge, through meditation or prayer, but through thinking, the only to gain truth.
Renaissance Guy,
When you say it would be rational to do so, you’re assuming that he exists, right? Wouldn’t it also be rational to gain knowledge about his existence? Oh, wait, you can’t and you never will. You know, why? Because god does not exist!!! Rationality applies to this world. The only way one can believe in a god is through faith. You must accept this or you would not be able to call yourself a christian. You cannot apply rationality to something that is in the realm of the irrational. God can only be seen through faith, it can not suddenly just appear in reason.
TheHowardr,
It would probably tick you off for me to cite the “shotgunner of the mind” as Rand put it, but Kant made it quite clear that we can have true statements about real things without experience. A Priori reasoning allows us to make propositions about the material word that are deductive in nature and not falsifiable or confirmed by experience. A position of faith is such an assertion. It is not rational to argue faith on empirical grounds but on logical grounds.
Why is it irrational to believe in God?
Why do you stated objectivists, atheists, agnostics, etc. think that you have to suspend reason to believe in God? If you look at the complexity of the world, from the vastness of the universe to the vastness of human genetics, does it not seem just as irrational to believe that this was just a random accident, as it is to believe their is an intelligent designer behind it all?
How do we know Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged? I did not see her write it. Other people tell me she did. The publisher said she did. Is there physical, scientific evidence that she did indeed write the book? Can I reason she did based on my experiences, wisdom and knowledge? How do we know it wasn’t a random accident by a roomful of millions of monkeys banging on keyboards?
Belief in God is a decision. There is no irrefutable evidence to either side. Reason (which is only the culmination of your own experiences and understanding) will lead you one direction or the other.
But irregardless of what you decide–only one is truly correct. If God does not exist, than atheists are right, theists are wrong and we all end up dead just the same. Nothing really mattered. The worms and bacteria don’t care what your philosophy was and who was right. The atheists don’t get a medal. Why does an atheist bother arguing with anyone about it, or care what anyone thinks. Why even waste your time reading Ayn Rand, or the Bible for that matter.So take what you can and enjoy it while you are here. The clock is ticking–Time is all you have, so get out there and enjoy every moment, right?
But what if God does exist? Why do you read and study philosophy, religions, world views, etc., argue on message boards, and reason your way to your own understanding of the world. Why do you weigh various belief against your own experiences. Is there something inside you deep down that thinks there is more to this life than what is immediately apparent to us. Don’t you desperately seek and hunger for the absolute truth? Why? Is it irrational? Is it against proper reasoning?
Why?
Steve, nice post.
I think the reason Atheists concern themselves with philosophy is that they are either secretly harboring subconscious theistic belief or needs (latent-religiousity) or they’re simply pricks (antagonists).
Moving on, Ayn Rand makes some good points, and various aspects of her philosophy function well; capitalism, individualism, and her certainly appealing reverence for self-confidence and personal strength.
Atheists are funny. I don’t think you can ever know with certainty thru reason or experience whether or not there is or isn’t a God. Eventually one must either make the leap of faith or not. But every time I consider atheism, which makes perfect sense–objectively, I cannot find any true reason to live. Rand’s philosophy is wonderful at times, but ultimately if there is no God: what’s the point? All those great works of Reardon and Roarke, what’s the point? Just for the fun of it? The joy of living? Life is hard, why not kill yourself, what’s the difference? “I’ll never work for the sake of another man, or ask him to work for me?” (not the exact quote, obviously) It’s a beautiful sentiment in the glorification of individuality, and I think the bible even says something about the greatest gift you can give a person as giving them freedom. But again, what’s the point? And with secular Humanism a similar paradox. If there is no God than life will ultimately be reduced to periods of masturbation in tandem with the contemplation of suicide.
How sad.
So you can believe there is a God or believe there is not; the choice is yours.
Steven, your analogy fails the test of history. We do have evidence that Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged in the form of a signed contract from her publisher, in addition to photographs, recordings, etc of Ayn Rand with the book. However, more troubling is the willingness displayed in your post to blur the lines between physical verification and belief without fully accepting its consequences. If you wish to argue that there is no physical evidence that swings either way for the existence of God, you are also allowing room for that to change–regardless of its consequence. I have to strongly disagree with this line of reasoning because God is, by definition, beyond the scope of physical verification (by its own definition).
Secondly, this blurring is further hindered by trying to play Pascal’s Wager–as if the only choices were between the Evangelical Christian concept of ‘God’ and atheism. What if God really does exist, but it’s Siva (or more commonly in English, Shiva) the destroyer? All that betting on the Christian God and it wasn’t the safe bet, after all. Belief, in the form of theology, is always mediated, it’s always interpretative. It always fits with some form of rationality, but even then it is mediated. Atheism, if taken as a kind of theological belief, is still such, but their goal isn’t reconciliation with a deity. But perhaps the bigger issue is that there is ‘God-shaped hole’ or ‘hunger for God’ inherently in man, which the atheists call the religious on–and the religious believers fail to answer the question without turning to an emotive response such as these trite expressions.
ccrisr, I think Steve was making a larger point and simply using Rand as an example.
And here’s an idea, not sure if its a good one, but I’d like to know what you think. You mentioned that if there is a God, maybe it a Hindu god or some other God besides the Christian conception–a good point–but aren’t you inadvertently proving the likelihood of God by making that statement?
If there is No God, then that is one possibility,
If there is a Christian God that is another,
A Hindu God another,
A Muslim God, etc.
Let alone the various denominations within each religion.
There could be hundreds, thousands, infinite conceptions of God.
But only one conception of No God.
Based on probability, isn’t there most likely is some kind of God.
Unless you can prove there is none, but can you?
The Lover, it really depends on what ‘God’ is. If ‘God’ is really just a term for an existing deity, regardless of which one it is (which also turns the discussion towards pluralism [or ‘universalism’ for the Christian]), then it may be safe to say that exists–but there’s still no proof on the matter. No argument can prove the existence of a supernatural entity. In fact, Anselm’s argument is by far the best inductive argument there is and yet it is frequently ignored or rejected. Probability isn’t enough for one’s faith; Kierkegaard goes so far to say that one’s eternal happiness (i.e. salvation) can never be based on an approximation (he’s speaking directly of historical facts, but it works as well for theological arguments). Further, such an argument maintains the possibility of being proven wrong by later discoveries (e.g. the folks who suggest that religious belief is a psychological anomaly and have evidence to support it). However, there is still the problem that arguing the existence of a God results in proving the existence of a particular God, each of which have very different scenarios for ’salvation’, ‘worship’, and ‘the afterlife’. Should one hedge one’s bets by adhering to the requirements of each deity (which thankfully for the theists excludes atheist religions like Jainism and most forms of Buddhism)?
Good post cchrisr,
That’s why I said “likely.”
I’m not too concerned with pluralism or hedging my bets by adhering to the requirements of each deity. These are distractions.
Since there is no “proof” (either for or against the existence) then its reasonable to weigh the possibilities of each side and then to make the “leap” or not.
If there is no God, end of discussion.
If you believe, then its already clear that God’s Will and scope is beyond that of human understanding. So each individual is left to his or her own devices in figuring out the best possible way to relate to such a God(s). I think that if this is done humbly, and with common sense, this can be achieved. Each religion’s requirement is simply an (imperfectly human) attempt at achieving this relationship–which has many positive benefits; if not, belief would have died out long ago. Perhaps one way is better than the other, but if one believes that one’s own method (or the method in which they’ve been brainwashed) is Perfect, beyond simply “best”, then one puts one’s own interpretation above God’s own will–neither humble, nor sensible.
And of course everyone makes mistakes. Big ones.
…the benefits of a loving forgiving God.
Don’t forget holy and just.
I am an Objectivist. As such I am not, and cannot be, a Christian. The two are polar opposites. Objectivism is founded on the absolute moral precept that the individual human life and mind is and can be the ONLY standard of morality. Christians, obviously, do not believe this at all — not because they willingly suspend objective reason in order to embrace an invisible diety, but because the foundational beliefs of Christianity are diametrically opposed to this core principle. To the Christian human life and the human mind are not moral absolutes, they are evil.
Who can say with rationality that there is no God ? To say so with accuracy would require the ability to search all “the known” and to therefore rule out objectively the notion. It seems to me that the fact that something exists that owes its origin to intelligent thought requires an intelligent Someone to explain its beginning. Rationality affirms that “nothing cannot create everything or even something.” Further, where do the abstracts, such as beauty and truth come from? It is not rational to say that these could have created themselves. The Christian view is much more satisfying. There is a Creator, and everything owes its origin to the Creator. To deny this drives one to an infinite chain of causes. There is a closed system (in which man lives which limits his knowledge)and an open system (in which an infinite God exists). God is both immanent and transcendent; man is not alone and separated from his Creator. Man feels himself isolated and distant from his Creator, owing to sinful choices. but God has chosen to reach out and redeem man on His terms. This explains the metaphysical, searching instinct in man which leads him to develop religions. But not all religions can be true when they contradict each other because logically things that contradict each other cannot both be true. God has communicated with man in an objective and subjective manner. If God were to communicate with man, it would be true communication since the universe proclaims truth, accuracy, and correct knowledge (science) as foundational principles. The most accurate form of communication with man is by way of language, and the most accurate way to communicate language is in written form. Now it comes down to the examination of those writings that claim to be revelations to man from God to see which one demonstrates historic accuracy. One can see that these Christian ideas are opposed to the major tenets of Objectivism, if I understand it right. The Objectivism of Rand seems to me to be argued in part from her own subjective experience. Some of her views of government, politics, and economics do not run counter to Christianity, but her views of epistomology, faith, and ethics give the Christian pause.
objectivism is such bullshit.
genes and upbringing have no influence or “control” of a person?
what kind of shit are they spouting today?
Ayn Rand was a narcissistic sociopath, i know THAT much is true.
That’s a rather extreme view of both objectivism and human development. Both genes (i.e. nature) and upbringing (i.e. nurture) influence a person — read any developmental psychology text from the last 30 years (or you can go back an additional 100 years to see two groups debate whether it’s one or the other).
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Ayn-Rand–engineer-of-souls-4385
That’s a great article, Darius. I enjoy reading Rand, but I have no illusions about her ego and her abrasiveness.