Wow. That was good.

Zenphamy- I appreciate your thorough answer to my question. Actually, it is more of a quest for me to find a way to reconcile two conflicting views that I hold dear.

I do take issue with one part of your answer though. I definitely agree with the objectivist ideal that A=A, and if we can't experience it, it must not exist. My issue is that, in my heart, I do feel that I experience the existence of God. In addition, I feel that I have as much "proof" that God exists as those who disagree feel they do. With all the major breakthroughs in Science, we are still no closer to finding out how this little rock of ours came to support advanced life. I feel that an objective (not objectivist, but objective) view of this dilemma could reasonably come to the conclusion that, given the great search and lack of progress, there may be something more out there. There is as much proof that God created the earth as there is that it was a random cataclysmic event (no proof in either case, only theories). When I look at my daughter, I cannot reconcile her beauty to me with a random combination of atoms.

That is the basic root of my struggle. I cannot find a way to make A=A when searching for answers without a God. Science has not provided me with an answer that I can reconcile. This struggle really began for me when my daughter was born. She is by no means perfect, however, she is perfect for me. I have a hard time believing that this perfect child for me ended up in my life purely by physical chance. In my mind, it is easier to reconcile some sort of divine intervention, than random chance. So, in that, I guess I could say that, as an objectivist, I do "sense or experience the superhuman or super-stitional gods of religion" as you said. In my life, I find it easier to credit divine intervention than random chance. I no longer attend an organized church for many of the same reasons Ayn spoke out against the church. In my experience, churches, much like governments, like to preach self sacrifice with the sole goal of separating me from my money. I am completely on board with Rand in that respect. I don't feel the need to go somewhere every Sunday to listen to someone try to make me experience guilt because of my success. I refuse to allow others to make me feel guilty for my success.

The difficult part for me is, as a student of Rand, I want to find a way to make A=A in my existence. However, when it comes to the creation of life I have not been able to find the A that is supposed to equal A. I would think with all of our huge scientific advancements we would have found that A, and the fact that we haven't makes me sometimes think there isn't one.

I know this is rambling, but it is an interesting subject to me.

I thought I could add to what you wrote Z, but I just erased it. I Couldn't say it better.

I agree with everybody: you did a great job. You might also be very good at suggesting where KS should look for good sources of those basics. I am too much of a rookie to dare make such suggestions with any confidence in my choices.
Thank you, Z.

Zen
the first statement from KS that Ayn Rand thought that "most religious institutions etc" if factually incorrect. Ayn Rand did not give any credibility to "religion" as a valid institution to begin with. If one is an objectivist then religion is not recognized as being valid.

+1 For retaining your sense of wonder

Beautifully written.

Ayn Rand didn't think it was important to spend a lot of time or effort arguing about it either. Rejection of religion is a simple, unalterable consequence of a philosophy of reason, which has much more important topics to pursue. The emphasis on religion on gg has been due to those stubbornly trying to promote it without understanding Ayn Rand's philosophy or to oppose her philosophy or both, They do this obsessively, in complete disregard for the purpose of the forum. It doesn't belong here. But that is in contrast to occasional intellectually honest questions such as by KSilver in this thread -- and in that context it is important to address them.

This is an excellent point coal. Separating the two out. Studying Objectivism does not mean you give other beliefs up first. The inquiry is the thing. I have read some comments on the site from both Os and people new to Rand who talk about the philosophy like it' s going on a diet. You can 't eat this or this. You can only do this exercise. For me it 's reading philosophy. I don 't pledge anything before I crack into Aristotle's Politics or Locke's Treatise. It 's not so much about being AN objectivist as it is just learning about the most revolutionary work in philosophy in the 20 th century and seeing its importance historically and scientifically.

coal; I can relate very closely with your story, although without the grandfather as a baptist, but he might as well been so. We were raised in the foothills of the Ozarks and church every Sunday was mandatory. Then I began to learn things, mainly in science, that were frowned on by the church's teachers and minister. When I looked at the reasonableness of what I was learning compared to the unreasonableness of the church teachings, it was an awakening and the beginning of a new adventure that I've been on ever since.

I found objectivity a little later and found that it fit me like a glove. It felt so good to finally through off the cloak of guilt put on me by a large part of my family and friends for my denial of church and the religion being taught.

I grew up RC in Tennessee in the '60s, left that "religion" in the '70s and pretty much became a spiritualist. Since I was not around in any of the "religious" times (i.e. when Jesus, Mohammed, etc. where alive) I don't know of who or what, if any, are any more true than I know what I'm going to want to eat for lunch in a week. I do, however, believe that there has to be some sort of intelligence design to the universe, because in nature, there tends to be chaos. Perhaps I am using spirituality for my limited intellect trying to comprehend an unlimited universe. For all I know, there could have been a few older cavemen sitting around a fire saying to themselves, "all kids want to do is eat and f*ck, and nothing is getting done. Perhaps we should give them something to keep them busy." Perhaps it's because we are the only animals on the planet that learn from a fairly young age that we are going to die. Perhaps it was teachings from long ago that were passed on from generation to generation that we must build on our accomplishments. I don't consider my spiritualistic side to hold me back, but more to help me focus and prioritize the things I want to accomplish.

Coaldigger: Well stated. If you don't mind I will keep a copy of this. Thanks.

I am one of that number of people.
I do not call myself religious but a believer.
I also believe in the evidence of evolution.
I'm quite comfortable with both beliefs.
If some wish to consider me a nonconformist here, I'm quite comfortable with that.
Ayn Rand was a nonconformist.
Not my way. Her way, bless her brain and the heart that pumped blood into it..

Thanks for your post.

It is my view that science helps us to better understand god. Everything in scripture is interpreted by the mind that wrote it down. How would someone with Moses education look at a vision of the creation? Very differently than if a neurologist saw the same vision, and also true of a civil engineer seeing the same vision.

I look for things that help me understand the world around me better, and by so doing I gain a better glimpse into what the creator is like.

I think we are on the same page on this based on your post, if I am misunderstanding you please clear things up.

nobody takes a point away from my jan. nobody

Jan-
You, and many others here, misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that since we "are no closer to finding out how- therefore divine intervention is required." What I am saying is that until we have definitive proof of any theory, we shouldn't rule out other theories. This is where the militant preachers of atheism get me. I am more than willing to explore the theory that there is no God, but I don't want to rule out the theory that there is one either. I will look at all theories until they can be disproven. The militant preachers of science and atheism say, "have faith, we will prove it one day". How is that any different from saying "have faith, you will meet god one day." Both sides require faith to follow their theories. However, the atheists scoff at the faith necessary to believe in God, while the religious fanatics scoff at science. I am no where near either of those extremes. I will explore the realities of my existence in the hopes of finding proof. Until I find proof, my exploration will continue in all directions necessary to gather the information I need.

Good post.

Almost, not quite. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Where Objectivism and religion intersect is with regard to how to treat others. "Love thy brother as thyself" translates into "Not live for the sake of another nor ask another to live for mine." That includes respecting others' lives, property and freedom. In fact, if the Ten Commandments get whittled down to George Carlin's two, they'd be another item that meets Objectivist (and atheist) ethics.

I was interested to see a new comment on this thread. And it really does get to the heart of the matter (no pun intended). What I am about to say has probably been addressed elsewhere in this post, but I am simply responding to this one.

I speak only for myself,but through my understanding and study of Objectivism for 40+ years.

Your first sentence contains a premise that is incorrect. Why assume, with no proof, that the "primordial ooze" as you call it, had to be created by "someone/something"? It is more valid, based on evidence, that the primordial ooze,or Universe, it that which has always existed, without beginnig or end, and without the help of some consciousness.

And that was has evolved through billions of years, out of this ooze, and not by design, is, as far as we know now, but will eventually discover in other galaxies, Man's consciousness and conceptual intelligence.

Having been raised very religious, IMO the tragic reversal, bordering on hubris, is the teaching that "Man was created in God's image and likeness". It's actually the reverse: Man created God in Man's image and likeness, only a more perfect, e.g., "omniscient" version. We see, in our limited vision, that men create things, and wonderful things, to our glory. But I see no evidence whatsoever that the Universe had to be created by anyone, and that it did not exist always, and, predates what we call consciousness.

The first premise is false. Why does whatever you mean by "primordial ooze" require that someone or something with conscious intent created it? Created out of what? Nothing? Created how? Consciousness perceives reality, it doesn't create it, let alone by standing in the nothing of nowhere. The notion of primacy of consciousness required to create existence as such is a fallacious floating abstraction and mystic fantasy that explains nothing and is not a rational basis for any belief.

1. There is "agreement" in that religion is a primitive form of philosophy seeking an integrated view of life and the world around us. And that is far better than the nihilists and pragmatists who don't want even that. But the answers provided are very different.

Ayn Rand once wrote (1965) in response to a letter from a priest:

"Perhaps I should add that I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one. This means that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I am fighting for reason, not against religion. I must also mention that I do respect religion in its philosophical aspects, in the sense that it represents an early form of philosophy."

"I have the impression that you are a follower of Thomas Aquinas, whose position, in essence, is that since reason is a gift of God, man must use it. I regard this as the best of all the attempts to reconcile reason and religion—but it is only an attempt, which cannot succeed. It may work in a limited way in a given individual's life, but it cannot be validated philosophically. However, I regard Aquinas as the greatest philosopher next to Aristotle, in the purely philosophical, not theological, aspects of his work. If you are a Thomist, we may have a great deal in common, but we would still have an irreconcilable basic conflict which is, primarily, an epistemo-logical conflict." -- Ayn Rand, in Letters of Ayn Rand, ed by Michael Berliner.

2. You were right to put "faith" in quotes in the context there in which you used it near the end of your post. Sometimes we accept ideas provisionally when we don't know the full validation but have reason to respect the source (such as in a physics text book). But properly, we never lose sight of that _status_ even if we are never able to go back and learn more about it.

That is a much different use of the term "faith" as having reasonable confidence than the religious acceptance on faith in contrast to reason.

All 7 billion were born as atheists and natural Objectivists--they knew nothing about gods and they wanted to be happy (Objectivism is the philosophy for living on this earth). They could all agree on that. All 7 billion were then indoctrinated into the varying belief systems of their cultures while too young to question or verify; and disobedience/resistance is punished. The young thus accept the teachings of their elders "on faith" and don't differentiate between received myths and first-hand sense data evidence. And that trusting faith "meme" takes root and becomes the tool of unreason for life if not identified and weeded out by the rational adult.

Of course, there are exceptions. When my mother tried to make me believe, at the age of three, that my guardian angel stood behind me, I didn't believe her any more than I was willing to believe in the Easter Bunny or other invisible entities.

There is no "story behind existence". It is what it is. 'Existence exists' is the primary. Our task is to understand its nature, not find a story outside existence to explain it. There is no outside of existence. That whole approach is wrong and meaningless from the beginning.

You don't have to prove there is no god. If someone claims there is such a thing it is up to him to explain what it means and prove it. When he doesn't, then in logic you reject it out of hand as the arbitrary as if nothing had been said. That is what atheism means: a-theism, the rejection of theism. You don't have to "understand everything" to know how to think rationally, which does not require "proving" every claim "one way or the other".

Atheism is the rejection of religion, not a religion. Objectivism is a philosophy, not "small government". Glenn Beck does not "fit into a Objectivist concept". Religious rationalizations and Biblical parables are irrelevant.

Roy, I think that the reason that almost any point can be argued from the bible is the range of positions represented is almost unbounded.

My way of dealing with this is to identify that all successful liars tell a lot of truth before slipping in the gotcha. The bible is a collection of stories written for an author's purpose over many centuries. To claim it represents the word of some omniscient, benevolent source is just arbitrary. It is up to us to recognize and judge any contradictions presented. Our standard should be reality and reason, not arbitrary and often destructive assertions.

Well said.

xenok, I always enjoy your comments

Why would that help? The full title is "The Soul of Atlas: Ayn Rand, Christianity, a Quest for Common Ground" and the product description says "the author builds a case for common ground between Faith and Reason". There is no common ground; they are opposites.

Thanks for the tip. That looks right up my alley.