Atlas shrugged

[austro-libertarian]

Elphaba,

We'll see.

Are you going to reject your faith in order to reason? If you want to talk about Rand, you may have to suspend your beliefs for a moment and try to see things from her point-of-view.

While you and many others here rely on your faith, Rand did not. Rather, she despised people who used faith to make proclamations. It was anathema to her, because she believed "reason" was the only method for success.

She also believed that the successful person must also be an atheist who is not bound to any faith whatsoever, for plans and solutions must be based on reason, not faith.

I am fairly familiar with Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, having read her fiction and most of her non-fiction books, including "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff. I understand her view of faith vs. reason. I contend (with a-train) that her definition of faith is naive and circumscribed, amounting to more of a strawman argument, rather than a threatening intellectual or religious attack. I view faith (a la CS Lewis) as one blade of the scissors, the other being works. Faith is demonstrated by works imho. Rand simply defined it in a way that it is unbelievable.

I am not an Objectivist so I see no point in subscribing to all of her views. I recognize atheism is fundamental to her philosophy, but I do not see it as all or none; again, some truth, some error. In a subsequent post (b/c this will become cluttered with the quotes, my responses, etc.) I will give reasons why her axioms do not go against the LDS view of God.

No, they do not in that she does not preclude any religion from her beliefs.

Even her own? Very interesting, that last word you wrote, don't ya think?

It would never matter to Rand what religion you had faith in: Rand despised anyone wasting his/her time on “faith” in the supernatural. If she saw someone expressing a faith in a supernatural deity, including Christianity's God, she would have held that person in great disdain.

Again, she viewed faith as some homogeneous lump, as if all religions meant and understood the same thing by faith. I will talk about her view of the supernatural in my next post.

Atlas Shrugged has become an instant phenomenon, selling more books in a week than it ever did while she was still alive.

But here’s the problem: People who jump on the Rand band-wagon do so by cherry picking her teachings that mirror their own, but reject those that do not.

You’re doing the same thing here. You’re criticizing Rand’s atheism, yet, Rand’s philosophies are nothing without her atheism.

I am not on the Rand bandwagon; I am not a Randian. I can accept that A is A and accept that God is God.

She loved her notoriety, including her arrogance. This helps explain her rigid atheism, with no regard for other people's faith and beliefs. But if you want to use Ayn Rand's beliefs as example, you have to include her atheism in your deliberations.

I never use her "beliefs" (that crazy word again) when discussing or promoting liberty. She identifies more with the extreme right rather than libertarians in my opinion (in my political framework anyway). She called libertarians "right-winged hippies."

So, c'mon and let's reason together.

The "come, let's reason together" was a reference to scripture where the Lord says the same thing, thus demonstrating, at least in the Lord's view, reason is not incompatible with His gospel, or his methods of communicating with humankind.

Find me one example of Rand accepting her faith in any religion. And when you can't find one, watch the video I linked. I doubt you can find a better illustration of what she believes about people's faiths, and even more illustrative of how she perceived these faiths to be a complete waste of time . . . and reason.

I've seen all of her videos more than once. There is no "example of Rand accepting her faith in any religion." But I am not sure how this relates to anything I am discussing.

[austro-libertarian]

Rand's view of reality consists of three axioms (Objectivism, p. 4-7):

1) Existence exists.

2) To perceive that which exists requires consciousness.

3) The law of identity: to be something is to possess identity, to have a nature.

These three axioms can be summed up in the sentence, "There is something I am aware of."

On the face of it, this is perfectly congruent with LDS thought. We believe matter exists, seen and unseen. We believe that because of our perceptions of it, coming through our senses. In the example of humankind, we possess certain natures, abilities, and talents. We possess the ability to become like God, having refined our carnal natures to become more like Christ.

Now for the Objectivist critique of the supernatural, or religion:

"In [the supernatural] view, existence is a product of cosmic consciousness, God. This idea is implicit in Plato's theory of Forms and became explicit with the Christian development from Plato. According to Christianity (and Judaism), God is an infinite consciousness who created existence, sustains it, makes it lawful, then periodically subjects it to decrees that flout the regular order, thereby producing 'miracles.' . . .

"The religious view of the world, though it has been abandoned by most philosophers, is still entrenched in the public mind. Witness the popular question "Who created the universe?"--which presupposes that the universe is not eternal, but has a source beyond itself, in some cosmic personality or will." (Objectivism, p. 21)

A LDS reading this should recognize immediately this could also be written by a LDS critiquing modern-day Christianity due to the Apostasy. This is not the LDS view of God. LDS doctrine states that matter cannot be created out of nothing, but only from existing matter. Joseph Smith pointed out numerous times the fallacious view of creation ex nihilo, a view still common to many Christian denominations. In other words, existence exists regardless of a cosmic consciousness--not because of it. LDS doctrine is that the worlds were organized out of existing matter, just as we can organize existing materials on earth to create a house.

Finally, one more Objectivist critique of God, taken from Objectivism (p. 31):

" . . . let us confine the discussion here to the popular notion of God.

"Is God the creator of the universe? Not if existence has primacy over consciousness.

"Is God the designer of the universe? Not if A is A. The alternative to 'design' is not 'chance,' It is causality.

"Is God omnipotent? Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given.

"Is God infinite? 'Infinite' does not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity, i.e., of no specific quantity. An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. But A is A. Every entity, accordingly, is finite."

This view is a critique of Apostate Christianity (Peikoff states that it is the "popular notion of God"), not the LDS concept of God. LDS doctrine believes God created this universe (and many others) but that this was not out of nothing, but (again) from existing materials. God did design the universe, implying causality (Peikoff is assuming God designed it meaning it did not exist before God).

God is also omnipotent but this does not mean he alters the metaphysically given, but that he acts in accordance with physical laws; whether they are in ways we do not yet understand is another matter. There are many sounds that the human ear cannot hear, yet we know from science that they exist. Similarly with what the human eye can see.

God is not "infinite" in the LDS view, since LDS doctrine states that God has a body of flesh and bone. The infinite view is the views of men from various creeds (Nicene, Athanasian, etc.). God, possessing a body, is thus finite in a spatial sense, yet his influence is infinite (omnipresent), similar to the sun (one spatio-temporal location, influence in multiple spatio-temporal locations). He is not an incorporeal mass of floating substance.

To sum up, Objectivism, in my opinion, criticizes (correctly) apostate views of God. When taking into account the LDS view of God there is nothing incompatible between the two, at least according to the three axioms above.

Edited March 27, 2009 by austro-libertarian

[a-train]

I am fairly familiar with Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, having read her fiction and most of her non-fiction books, including "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff. I understand her view of faith vs. reason. I contend (with a-train) that her definition of faith is naive and circumscribed, amounting to more of a strawman argument, rather than a threatening intellectual or religious attack. I view faith (a la CS Lewis) as one blade of the scissors, the other being works. Faith is demonstrated by works imho. Rand simply defined it in a way that it is unbelievable.

I think the definition of faith, the dogmatic acceptance of the unreasonable and mysterious, which Rand spoke against was not her own. Indeed, the misdefinition of faith came centuries ago. Religious parties 'took God on faith' long before Rand. Rand would call what Joseph Smith called faith, confidence to avoid confusion.

I recognize atheism is fundamental to her philosophy

I'm not so sure it was. She simply believed their was no evidence of God. But if taken to its logical end, Objectivism would compel one to believe in God if real evidence appeared.

-a-train

[austro-libertarian]

I'm not so sure it was. She simply believed their was no evidence of God. But if taken to its logical end, Objectivism would compel one to believe in God if real evidence appeared.

-a-train

Right, I agree, which is my argument. I should have written something like, "In her own words, atheism is fundamental to her philosophy."

[Elphaba]

Right, I agree, which is my argument. I should have written something like, "In her own words, atheism is fundamental to her philosophy."

Elphaba:

But if you want to use Ayn Rand's beliefs as [an] example, you have to include her atheism in your deliberations.

http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/19476-atlas-shrugged-2.html#post349849

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Rand's view of reality consists of three axioms (Objectivism, p. 4-7):

1) Existence exists.

2) To perceive that which exists requires consciousness.

3) The law of identity: to be something is to possess identity, to have a nature.

These three axioms can be summed up in the sentence, "There is something I am aware of."

On the face of it, this is perfectly congruent with LDS thought. We believe matter exists, seen and unseen. We believe that because of our perceptions of it, coming through our senses. In the example of humankind, we possess certain natures, abilities, and talents. We possess the ability to become like God, having refined our carnal natures to become more like Christ.

Now for the Objectivist critique of the supernatural, or religion:

"In [the supernatural] view, existence is a product of cosmic consciousness, God. This idea is implicit in Plato's theory of Forms and became explicit with the Christian development from Plato. According to Christianity (and Judaism), God is an infinite consciousness who created existence, sustains it, makes it lawful, then periodically subjects it to decrees that flout the regular order, thereby producing 'miracles.' . . .

"The religious view of the world, though it has been abandoned by most philosophers, is still entrenched in the public mind. Witness the popular question "Who created the universe?"--which presupposes that the universe is not eternal, but has a source beyond itself, in some cosmic personality or will." (Objectivism, p. 21)

A LDS reading this should recognize immediately this could also be written by a LDS critiquing modern-day Christianity due to the Apostasy. This is not the LDS view of God. LDS doctrine states that matter cannot be created out of nothing, but only from existing matter. Joseph Smith pointed out numerous times the fallacious view of creation ex nihilo, a view still common to many Christian denominations. In other words, existence exists regardless of a cosmic consciousness--not because of it. LDS doctrine is that the worlds were organized out of existing matter, just as we can organize existing materials on earth to create a house.

Finally, one more Objectivist critique of God, taken from Objectivism (p. 31):

" . . . let us confine the discussion here to the popular notion of God.

"Is God the creator of the universe? Not if existence has primacy over consciousness.

"Is God the designer of the universe? Not if A is A. The alternative to 'design' is not 'chance,' It is causality.

"Is God omnipotent? Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given.

"Is God infinite? 'Infinite' does not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity, i.e., of no specific quantity. An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. But A is A. Every entity, accordingly, is finite."

This view is a critique of Apostate Christianity (Peikoff states that it is the "popular notion of God"), not the LDS concept of God. LDS doctrine believes God created this universe (and many others) but that this was not out of nothing, but (again) from existing materials. God did design the universe, implying causality (Peikoff is assuming God designed it meaning it did not exist before God).

God is also omnipotent but this does not mean he alters the metaphysically given, but that he acts in accordance with physical laws; whether they are in ways we do not yet understand is another matter. There are many sounds that the human ear cannot hear, yet we know from science that they exist. Similarly with what the human eye can see.

God is not "infinite" in the LDS view, since LDS doctrine states that God has a body of flesh and bone. The infinite view is the views of men from various creeds (Nicene, Athanasian, etc.). God, possessing a body, is thus finite in a spatial sense, yet his influence is infinite (omnipresent), similar to the sun (one spatio-temporal location, influence in multiple spatio-temporal locations). He is not an incorporeal mass of floating substance.

To sum up, Objectivism, in my opinion, criticizes (correctly) apostate views of God. When taking into account the LDS view of God there is nothing incompatible between the two, at least according to the three axioms above.

Thanks for that. I enjoyed reading it.

I hope you didn't hurt your fingers typing it all.

Elphaba

[miztrniceguy]

I am almost done reading Atlas Shrugged and have enjoyed it immensely.There are so many parallels in it that I have recently heard someone call Ayn Rand a prophet. As I have been reading it, I have had thoughts like "how can someone fall for this carp" and then hear the exact same thing on tv news.

[HEthePrimate]

Yeah, go atheism and selfishness! Go, go, go!

[HEthePrimate]

It makes me laugh whenever someone accuses liberals of waging class warfare. Sorry, but the rich declared class warfare on the poor long ago and have been redistributing wealth upwards all that time. Who actually produces the goods and wealth that the rich accumulate? Answer: The workers. I find it hard to believe that the wealthiest 10% of our population actually produce 71% of the goods and services. They'd drop dead from exhaustion!

[Maxel]

It makes me laugh whenever someone accuses liberals of waging class warfare. Sorry, but the rich declared class warfare on the poor long ago and have been redistributing wealth upwards all that time. Who actually produces the goods and wealth that the rich accumulate? Answer: The workers. I find it hard to believe that the wealthiest 10% of our population actually produce 71% of the goods and services. They'd drop dead from exhaustion!

It makes me laugh when liberals (or anyone, for that matter) don't understand that there must be factory workers as well as factory managers, and that a person ought to be rewarded not only for the physical work (s)he does but also the skill level required for the managerial and/or organizational work done.

I'd love to see the average laborer successfully run a multi-million dollar corporation without preparation or training. It's right and proper that the leaders are paid more than their underlings in normal circumstances- problems begin to arise when the leaders begin to take more than is decent.

Question for you, HEP: if the rich aren't purchasing the goods created by the workers, where does the demand for said goods come from? Is it at all possible that, without the rich, the workers would be out of a job?

[HEthePrimate]

It makes me laugh when liberals (or anyone, for that matter) don't understand that there must be factory workers as well as factory managers, and that a person ought to be rewarded not only for the physical work (s)he does but also the skill level required for the managerial and/or organizational work done.

I'd love to see the average laborer successfully run a multi-million dollar corporation without preparation or training. It's right and proper that the leaders are paid more than their underlings in normal circumstances- problems begin to arise when the leaders begin to take more than is decent.

Question for you, HEP: if the rich aren't purchasing the goods created by the workers, where does the demand for said goods come from? Is it at all possible that, without the rich, the workers would be out of a job?

Is it at all possible that if the workers received a higher portion of the profits that they would spend more money, thereby providing jobs?

[Maxel]

Is it at all possible that if the workers received a higher portion of the profits that they would spend more money, thereby providing jobs?

Is it at all possible that you straw-manned my post, then used a smilie to be smarmy and condescending?

Answer: Not just possible, but probable!

[HEthePrimate]

Is it at all possible that you straw-manned my post, then used a smilie to be smarmy and condescending?

Answer: Not just possible, but probable!

Well, same to you! Neener, neener, neener!

Come on, dude, lighten up!

[Moksha]

So was it too much government regulation that caused this current depression or too little? IF the wise men of the financial community were given free reign, surely they would solve our woes, or would that require more Kool-Aid, corrective lenses or a revision in history?

BTW, why is it that so many of the managed economy nations are holding our IOUs?

BTW2, Gordon Gecko was a big booster of Rand.

[miztrniceguy]

The people that invent should be rewarded for their ideas. Without inventing they would not exist. The workers should be paid a fair wage for their own skills (labor) and treated fairly. If the employer does not treat his employees fairly, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. By the same token, workers that do not perform as expected should be released if the employer should so choose. Workers should be rewarded for outperforming expectations, and should not be rewarded bonuses if agreed upon benchmarks are not met.Each according to his ability and contribution. The government should not be telling a company how much to charge for it's product. If priced unfairly or not quality the people do not have to buy it. You get what you pay for, and get paid for what you give.

[boyando]

Is it at all possible that if the workers received a higher portion of the profits that they would spend more money, thereby providing jobs?

Yes, it is possible, but it has never worked in the past.

[Maxel]

Well, same to you! Neener, neener, neener!

Come on, dude, lighten up!

Sorry... Last night I had a dearth of patience and levity. I apologize for my rudeness.

[boyando]

I have a question: How many of you would give up your faith and religion to implement Ayn Rand's strategies?

Atlas Shrugged is a huge, huge hit right now, and I can certainly understand why. Her prediction the economy would collapse because of government interference could be right on. I know the book is breaking all sales records, and I think it's because people are so frightened right now, they need something to hang on to that might be the answer.

But I wonder how many people realize that Rand did not only say the government must get out of the way. She also said the "atlesses" (my word) of the country must base their decisions on reason, which cannot exist with faith and religion.

Rand believed that faith in God shuts people off from recognizing reality, making it impossible to act within the parameters of this reality. An “atlas” must not be saddled with dogma that rejects what he sees before his very eyes.

I've followed conversations on this board, as well as others, and am surprised at the cherry picking going on. IMO, it's usually the idealogues who have jumped on the Rand bandwagon, adamantly insisting the government needs to get out of the way.

But that's as far as they go, and I'm left to wonder if they really don't know how unwavering she was about this. So again, how many of you would give up your faith to follow Rand's strategies? Because she insists you can't do both.

This is a video of Phil Donahue interviewing Rand about her beliefs regarding God, atheism, and reason.

Ayn Rand on Religion • VideoSift: Online Video *Quality Control

Below are quotes that explain how emphatic she was that reason was the only way to see reality, not faith or religion. If you don't want to bother reading them, they all say basically the same thing: reason and faith cannot exist together.

The quotes below are from an article, written at reasonline.

I thought this was an interesting observation that might catch some of your attention:

I read Atlas Shrugged thirty years ago, when I was still a member, and a believer, in the Church. I didn’t recall the plot until I just found it on the web. However, one thing I do remember was thinking she was wrong about faith.

Elphaba

I love you Sis and because of our relationship, it is all so hard for me to critique what you have posted. I don't bet that one of the reasons that every one calls you there favorite liberal is because of your ability too think outside the box and not just repeat what others have said.

I find two flaws in your post about Atlas Shrugged. One, you assume that no one should be aloud to cherry pick from what they have read in the book, and how it applies to what they see going on around them. Using that same philosophy, you would be forced to choose between the ideas of President Obama and atheism. Unless of coarse, President Obama is a atheist who goes to church for political reasons.

And second, it is impossible to live by reason with out faith, be it faith in God or faith in a set of rules, because reason requires all the facts, with no emotions. Faith without reason is just as useless.

We all see what we want to see. We all here what we want to hear.We even remember those things that we want to remember and forget what we want to forget. So does that mean there is no truth?

I know that you have told me, in private, that truth can be a personal thing but reason tells me that it can't. Either we as "the collective" are better off with governments deciding what is right, and or fair, or we are not. Reason tells me that we are not. Reason has told you that we are better off. I am still looking to see some thing, any thing, that tells me that I am wrong, but like I said earlier, we all see what we want to see.

So one of us in right and one of us is wrong. Not a 100%, because neither one of us are perfect. but we can safely say that the economy is either growing or shrinking, because of government intervention. From my view point, it has not.

Anyway, I think I have put up a pretty good argument, even though I have not read the book in question.

Love you Sis.:)