29 thoughts on “Atlas Shrugged Part II”

1. That is an amazingly accurate statement. But the opposition, will then attack Ayn Rand for her religious views. They don’t attack the statement, because it is “so” true….

   • Agreed. But then, it is justified to attack Rand on her religious position – especially since, without God, her logic does not hold.

     HOWEVER, those who would attack her most often do so from a position of hypocrisy as they are most often less than Godly people, themselves.

2. It is not appropriate to attack someone’s religious position, unless that religious position is the justification or reason for the held view or “belief”. I think this statement is one of those “universal” truths. (Probably based in,or congruent with, Judeo-Christian thought). Ayn Rand’s religious beliefs, or lack thereof, would strengthen her argument.

3. Will it be the same cast?

4. Texas95, you may read this as an “attack,” but I honestly don’t mean it as one (and I’m a Christian who teaches at a Christian University, though admittedly–like all people–”less than Godly”). I’ve asked several Rand supporters this question, and most simply refuse to answer.

   So perhaps you can help me out: Rand was a committed atheist, who apparently placed primary emphasis on the individual and one’s own needs (I’ve read a couple of her books, but don’t claim to be an expert on her philosophy). Christians are to place primary emphasis on God, and “to love others as yourself.” So how can one follow the tenants of both Rand and Christ?

   • By being randy Christians?

     • Some people don’t have a sense of humour, luv.I think it flies over their head, Kells.

5. James, Firstly, I am no expert on Christianity, Judaism, or Ayn Rand and her writings. However taking this statement on its own words and merits:

   Do you not see that you just answered your own question? Love others as you love yourself is nothing more than extending Rand’s philosophy to the world.”

   IF the “one’s” rights are protected, regardless of race, color, or creed, (or membership in a group);
   THEN everyone’s rights are protected.

6. Thank you. But then why was Rand a committed atheist, who seemed to think that Christians and Christianity were stupid?

   • Why does anyone deny God?

     • You were an atheist. You tell us.

       • Perhaps a deist, but can’t say I ever remember ever being an atheist.

   • James, do all self described atheists “seem to think that Christians and Christianity were stupid?” Somehow I doubt that. If anything, I would hope Atheists would wish to be “left alone” about their beliefs as to whether there is/is not a G-d. And in turn, I would think Atheists would not care whether or not someone else chose to believe in “a Creator” and make a judgment call as to being stupid based upon their beliefs.

     • No, I don’t think all atheists think that–in fact I don’t think I felt that way, when I was an atheist. But it seems to me that Rand did. Again, I’m not an expert on her, but these are some of her quotes: http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_ARand.htm

       • I read the quotes you linked. I would very much have enjoyed meeting and talking with Ayn Rand. The quotes with respect to natural law are quite interesting as she questioned or denied the existence of G-d. Maybe Rand’s beliefs in natural law “came to her” as she experienced the inequities of communism in Russia where everyone’s outcome is decided by another person in the government. Maybe the inequities of Man’s treatment of other men, caused her to not believe a “creator” would allow such trajedies to occur.

         I do not take from the quotes you linked: that Rand believed those with faith were “stupid”. I take from her quotes, as “questioning everything”. I respect and appreciate that.

         If all of us asked “why” more often, with kindness and true openness, I believe humankind would be improving the human condition instead of being mired in misery and injustice.

         • Good points.

           As for natural rights/natural law, the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans that these things are imprinted on the hearts of ALL men. Romans is where Locke derived the majority of his thinking.

7. B., in an earlier post you mentioned yourself as an Atheist and not an Agnostic, if memory serves me correctly (which unfortunately, it seldom does.)

   • I could see me saying Agnostic, these days, Deist would have been more accurate, but I have NEVER denied the existence of God – was just uncertain about His true nature. So, no, I do not believe that was me. Maybe someone else.

   • It might be me you were thinking of–I was an atheist until I was 25, and became a believer because of my experience with overcoming alcoholism (I’ve been sober for 28 years now). In answer to your earlier question about why atheists deny the existence of God, in my case there were at least two reasons (I’m sure there other possibilities). For me, it was a family upbringing based on reason and observable truth, combined with a lack of exposure to faith. Besides, when I briefly attended a church as a child it was of a fundamentalist stripe that told me consistently that I was bound for hell. I quickly figured out that if hell was impossible to avoid, I’d better enjoy this life while I could.

     • I loved your reply as well as your link. I think Rand misinterpreted the Bible……then again, not everyone’s fortunate enough to be Lutheran. I refer to this quote from your link: (The Doctrine of Original Sin) declares that (man) ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge – he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil – he became a moral being/ He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor – he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire – he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which (the preachers) damn him are reason, morality, creativeness joy – all the cardinal values of his existence.

       Let’s face it, since when has man been a rational being?

       By the by, congrats on your sobriety. That’s a tough thing to share, so bully for you. And yes, you are sweet baby James. Now when the hello are you gonna post again at your site?

       • Thanks, kells. I normally only post every week or so nowadays, though I did a couple of days ago: http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/since-your-ballot-wont-matter-why-not-vote-against-both-obama-and-romney/

       • One other thing: In my case, my story isn’t tough to share. As an AA friend pointed out early in my sobriety, he had no problem publicly demonstrating that he was a jackass when he was drunk, so why should he be shy about sharing it while sober–especially when secrets are one of the things that sometimes lead folks back to drinking. That made sense to me then, and since I became a teacher I’ve found it helpful for some students. And because I know you like songs, I’ll share two of my favorites, if played in succession: The Animals’ version of “House of the Rising Sun” followed by the Blind Boys of Alabama version of “Amazing Grace” (which uses the same melody) –together an excellent story of sin and redemption. Thanks again.

         • I shall listen to the Blind Boys rendition. I’m quite familiar with the Animals (Typically, I refer to the boys here when I reference them.)
           I commented at your site, but I will go into further detail of my trials if you have an e-mail at your site…..

           • No email there, but it’s easy to find my work email address through the university site.

8. And so then what is the true nature of God?

   • What is the true nature of God? Now, that is THE question, isn’t it?

     • Indeed–the question that has kept theologians busy for centuries.

     • I am NOT going to make any claims as to knowing the true nature of God, but I WILL tell you that misunderstanding of what we CAN know of His nature leads to many of these silly questions about God that lead to disbelief.

       For instance: the notion that a truly loving God means He wouldn’t allow evil reveals a lack of understanding. You see, not only is God loving, He is loving enough to allow us our own will – even if it means we will destroy ourselves. It also means, no matter how much He loves us, His sense of justice will DEMAND that He keep His laws and covenants.

       In short, much of what people want to say is evidence that God does not care is actually a refusal to take a good, hard, long look in the mirror and accept the truth of who is REALLY to blame.

       • Your interpretation contradicts itself; for by not allowing evil, how is that then free will?
         I oftentimes wonder if evil is inherent…………….Now you’ve got me thinking………… (never a good thing.)