Is it possible to be a follower of Ayn Rand and not be an atheist?
Posted by Mamaemma 10 years, 6 months ago to Philosophy
I think it is.
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
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.
After being introduced to Ayn's thoughts, I realized that a vast intelligence might be telling stories and parables so that I would use my mind to see past the surface words and into the patterns of life.
Basically, I learned to "chew" on thoughts and words...and for that I am eternally grateful.
(Sorry, I just couldn't resist that one...)
What surprises me - is that a thread can lay dormant for days, then be brought back... um... dead for 3 days and revived... hmmm... That sounds like a recurring theme from... somewhere... --giggling again--
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.
What does it mean to say "space is space," or a "monkey is a monkey." It is circular and is an excuse not to deal with what does exist and the ramifications thereof.
Is existence alive? Can existence live? Can it be measured?
None of these have meaning without God, who has revealed Himself generally and specifically, to give insight as to who He is, his character, and His intent for His creation.
Man cannot ascribe meaning to these things in an absolute manner without knowledge of something that cannot change, else, man's ascription is subjective and can change day to day, which means meaning is meaningless beyond the current state of his thinking.
Unless you know everything (which would make you god and then you could not refute his existence), you cannot say God is not there and the cause of all creation.
Atheists cannot answer fundamental questions because that have fallacious premises.
If God never communicated with man through His Word, then we would be absent any specific meaning to life.
Purpose has to be defined, else you have no reason to resolve right and wrong for even thinking or killing the person next to you or giving them a glass of water?
This all goes back to what actually exists, not whether existence exists.
Is anything absolute? If you say, "yes" then you are working in concrete concepts. In fact, I would venture to say that AR would say that man's ability to rationally determine his own destiny as the highest value in life (not my belief, but hers) is concrete in her mind and absolute.
I realize you may not have meant this this way and you likely believe in absolutes such as Jesus exists; however, stating a release from thinking in concretes is dangerous and can be misleading to those less thoughtful.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Load more comments...