Is it possible to be a follower of Ayn Rand and not be an atheist?
Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
I think it is.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Previous comments...
I was born evangelical, gave that up at age 18, and by age 24 I had read Atlas Shrugged 3 times and bought several others by Ayn Rand. At that time I revelled in Rand's attacks on mysticism and decided I was an aethist; all that was long ago about 1964. My view has somewhat tempered these days so I consider myself agnostic -- "don't know, can't know, so why bother?"
That said, even to this day I see Blind Faith as a lazy and unreasoned way to run the railroad. I view still that Ayn Rand was right about mysticism.
Because the physical evidence supports a certain Narrative speaking of a supernatural Creator--and of a violent event the like of which we have never seen in our lifetimes, and which no one should have survived--but eight people did.
https://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com...
Take off the https:// part and it works.
I thought I was the only one who omitted key words when typing fast. I do it way too often.
It's important to remember that the Abrahamic religions are not the only ones, and those who reject the Abrahamic God are not necessarily atheists. I know Unitarian Universalists, Wiccans and Eclectic Pagans who are quite fond of Rand, even if they wouldn't care to live her world.
enjoy a lifelong wonder at the glorious harmonic
complexity -- studying it like an art student or an
astronomer -- and call it God's handiwork, without
implying mysticism.
I contend that you can understand a whole lot
about right and wrong from moralists who have
gone before, from the experience of others, just
like a scientist builds on the knowledge left by
others. . and the Bible contains a whole lot of
wisdom, and Jesus showed ways to interact
with others in a positive way.
I contend that interaction with others, in general,
can be aided by fluency in religion. . it's kinda
like the significance of "please" and "thank you"
which moms teach us -- social lubrication -- when
handled wisely.
so, on the surface I am a believer, and down
inside, I am like a child looking up at the stars,
awestruck, in perpetual wonder. -- j
p.s. and I consider myself an objectivist,
or at least a student.
Since I'm well known for not learning my lesson and since I don't care if others disagree with me, I'll have another go at it.
Regardless if you choose follower, fan, supporter, admirer or comprehender of Ayn Rand, I'll agree that you can be any of these things and still believe in the god of your choice.
I still maintain, however, that you cannot be an Objectivist without being an atheist. You may be a not-Objectivist, you may accept many tenets of Objectivism, you may even be a capitalist, but Objectivism requires the denial of mysticism, superstition and the supernatural. Belief in a god requires acceptance of the supernatural and mysticism.
dansail wrote, "atheists and non-atheists follow her philosophy according to their own reasoning." I'll support this statement only if it is changed to "atheists and non-atheists follow her philosophy according to their own UNDERSTANDING" or even "according to their own reasons," but because Objectivism has its own reasoning, so to speak, you are not free to follow your own reasoning and still be an Objectivist.
It is entirely possible that the Universe was created. There is nothing in Science or Reason that rules out that possibility.
It is entirely possible that whatever may have created the Universe continues to take an interest in it.
There is nothing in Science or Reason that rules out that possibility.
If new experiential evidence was discovered that proved the Existence of God - Objectivism would not collapse. The Existence of God would then simply be Known to Science.
I am an Objectivist - I believe in the primacy of Reason. And I am also a Diest.
I don't claim to KNOW God exists the way I KNOW argon gas exists. But I have found sufficient reason to believe.
I haven't shared those reasons because they would mean nothing to you. They are my own personal experience.
I am not trying to convince you to be a Deist. I am merely refuting the assertion that one must be irrational to believe.
That is simply not true.
I have an aquarium. and I sometimes grow brine shrimp. For all practical purposes I am the creator of their universe - at least that is how THEY would see ME.
There is no reason in the world that our universe can't be analogous to that example.
And again, if such a thing were to ever be proven - OBJism would not fail. Nor even fallter.
And again, my first point. I do not assert HIS consciousness preceded HIS existence so there is no logical violation.
Oh and by the way - I never mentioned FAITH.
Aetheism is based on the belief that “Man comes from mud.” Therefore how can such a creature have any “rights?” The moment you assign a right to the individual, you move away from that which is atheism.
I see a sliding scale here with the Randian viewpoint being a bit of the way towards the other end of the monotheistic absolute.
I think it was Dominique that said “How can you say I love you if you can’t say I."
So who is this “I” and can that “I” exist without there being more than that which atheism acknowledges. I've read that the cat and dog does not recognize its name as its identity but perceives the word as a command to pay attention.
I’m saying that if the individual has rights, then he is more than just a biological composition of cells and therefore has a (best word I can find at the moment) spiritual element.
Atheism is not a philosophy. It does not recognize anything. It rejects the concept of God. I am unfamiliar with the phrase about mud. Sounds like something someone who is religious would say
I believe the Mud expression is used, by those who have religious believes, to describe those who don’t.
As to the concept of God; one could believe in man as a spiritual being and still not believe in an omnipotent god above them. Does Buddhism, for example, believe in a Supreme Being?
There are many varieties of beliefs that acknowledge existence beyond the organic person of this immediate live. Over 70% of the world’s population believe in reincarnation. Compared to many belief systems, the Judeo-Christian god is rather simplistic. Perhaps that is why we here are all over the map on this.
2. yes people are "organic." Death is a reality. There is no empirical evidence for reincarnation
3. 70% of the population believe in reincarnation. cite and how is that objective proof of anything?
4."the Judeo-Christian God is rather simplistic"> a complicated god is more valid?
5. all over the map here.> this is an Objectivist site.
Re 1) My definition is that which is more than JUST the physical which bring us to 2) Which has debatable memories and incidents but per 5) we should not get into it on this site.
Re 3) True as to no proof, wanted to stress that there are many belief systems that address spiritual existence and as to citing, at 80, I have read a lot of stuff, if it was important I would search for it.
Re 4) Not what I wanted to imply, by simplicity I was thinking of how inadequate it is to address the broad spectrum of theological questions.
In the late 40’s A social studies teacher, in describing his visit to a mental institution said he was instructed that the two topics absolutely not to be discussed with inmates were relatives and religion.
Probably good advice for here too. (:-)
And my answer would be “No.”
"There is such an enormous amount of misunderstanding and misconceptions in both this article and the comments that follow that it is impossible to respond briefly and ad rem to all of them, so I will comment on only two or three.
1) Atheism is not nor ever has been an alternate religion nor is it a philosophy of life. It is merely a single answer to a single question: Is there a such thing as God? Atheism does not prescribe what is right or wrong, good or evil, because atheism is no more an ethical theory than is chemistry or biology. It says nothing about morality because atheism is not a moral code. One needs to look elsewhere to determine what values (if any) one should uphold and practice.
If there are two more diametrically opposite philosophies (and concomitant moral codes) than the dialectical materialism of Hegel and Marx, on one hand, and the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand, on the other hand, I could not fathom what they are; however, both Objectivism and communism are atheistic philosophies.
Now, how is that even remotely possible if atheism is a full philosophical system and is embraced by both communism and laissez-faire capitalism?
2) This leads us to the second point, viz., that atheism does not operate within a moral vacuum, but rather it's ethicism, to the extent which it even HAS an ethics, is fully and totally dependent upon the wider philosophical framework (and ethical codes) within which it, atheism, resides. For communism, that ethical code is altruism; for Objectivism, it is individualism.
Therefore, contrary what many religionists might claim, atheism does not and cannot operate "deuces wild" when it comes to morality. Rather, it is not even subject to a morality of its own and cannot be either praised or condemned by reference to any moral base whatsoever.
The above is not to be construed or implied to be the "last word" on atheism, morality, philosophy or religion."
She just didn't realize it.
When governments fail, people generally don't believe in government.
When things we want or need fail us, we tend to abandon them.
Load more comments...