Ayn Rand --Objectivism
I have a young man in my youth group who is intersted in this 20th century philosopher and her work. Anybody have any feedback regarding Ayn Rand and her way of thinking?
video of an interview with Phil Donahue
An Ayn Rand Lexicon
posted by Todd Paris @ 11:10 AM
23 Comments:
Just recently, the Ayn Rand Institute created a website on which they published with free access the entire "Ayn Rand Lexicon". If you are curious to know what her philosophy (Objectivism) is all about, this is a very convenient and easy way to find out. There are quotes and excerpts from many books by her and experts on her philosophy arranged by topic with a clickable, alphabetical index.
Go to: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/ and click on any letter in the bar at the top of the page.
Thanks for the link Michael.
Ayn Rand's ideas provide Man with the first properly integrated understanding as to how to live one's life on Earth. She advocates :
* taking the Universe as completely Real That is, it exists apart from any one man's experience. It is a place where each man must learn its rules. As Roger Bacon observed, "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed."
* Where Thomas Aquinas grasped that Man has a mind for a purpose, Rand shows how to use one's mind for living in this Universe, (see, An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology).
* She makes it clear that being "selfish" is biologically necessary for any person to live and to be his or her self. Being oneself is necessary in order to stay alive. She also holds that cheating other men is ultimately UNselfish. Charitable acts can be perfectly reasonable but should not result in self-sacrifice, else the 'self' is wrongfully undermined.
* She shows, that to live that way, each man must be free of government force (which may force him to sacrifice himself without his choice), and each man (including politicians) should only act in a way that respects every other man's right to life, liberty and property.
Unfortunately, many people read her works too superficially, failing to grasp her metaphors and the full meaning of her characters, their statements, and their principles. As a result they see her characters as wooden (they are not) and their way of addressing ideas as far fetched. However they are only far fetched because our present culture is so widely steeped in ideas that are the opposite of her vision. In fact, her vision would have been regarded as brilliant by the Founders of America, and are in fact brilliant to this day.
Thank you, Richard, for a proper response. Gratifying.
I once went down the path of Objectivism and Rand, before coming home to Christ. So I have some understanding of her appeal. Her ideas are very exciting, especially to a young person. She writes in a classic heroic style, while at the same time, extremely clear and rational. For someone who hasn't read a lot of books, and is perhaps insulated too much by the Church, she can hit like a bolt of lightning. She presents a whole worldview package, answering questions from what political system is best to what music is worthy of praise (i.e. baroque classical and nothing else).
However, before I hit on her good points, I need to be clear about her bad points. First, she was a materialist, and a notorious anti-Christian. Ironically, it is her materialism, her hypocrital stance of braving trying to understand the world...but fearfully questioning her faith in the senses, that unravels her whole system. Sadly, her anti-Christian stand is more bigotry and ignorance than anything else. She hits the usual atheist smears, "faith vs. reason and science," Christianity caused the "Dark Ages," etc. She constantly insists that Roman Catholicism is synonymous with Christianity in general.
Second, for being such an individualist, her followers -- The Objectivists -- are often extremely collectivist and cult-like. Like most cults, they have deviated into several different factions today over disputes of purity and succession. This has nothing to do with Rand and her ideas, but it is something to watch out for.
Because of her materialism and anti-Christian bigotry, it's hard for me to recommend Rand to a Christian. But she did (eventually) help me in my faith, so perhaps I can't throw too many stones.
One thing I still find appealing is her political position of libertarianism - limited government and individual rights. As mentioned earlier, Rand did seem to channel many of the hearts of the Founding Fathers, and the liberty that makes America unique among all nations in the world. Fortunately, it's possible to learn more about these political beliefs without buying into the whole Objectivist-theology. For example, one can read Ludwig Von Mises, Frederic Bastiat or Friedrich Hayek to gain the same political ideas, or columnists such as Thomas Sowell or Jonah Goldberg. The fiction of Robert Heinlein is another alternative (though Heinlein was also often anti-Christian). One can eventually follow the trail to a general defense of the Western world, with Christianity as the sole foundation.
Another appealing facet of Rand is her strong devotion to Reason. Growing up, I didn't know any Christians who could make the case for Rational Christianity. In fact, my worldview was corrupted enough by secularism such that I believed that Christianity was inherently irrational, and opposed to Reason. It didn't help that many Christians I knew held that very same position! There is a recent book published that would appeal to many budding rationalists to show them that Christianity is the most rational worldview of them all: "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist," by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. The writing style was reminiscent of Rand, and the book shines with reason and logic on every page. I wish I had started with this one, and not Rand during my skeptic phase of life!
Rand also introduces many young people to the world of philosophy. Sadly, many growing up in the Church have no idea that "Christian Philosophy" even exists, or that it is something that can be studied by all, and not just seminary students. In only a short time, a scholar of Rand will learn her favorite philosopher is Aristotle. Following Aristotle, one can eventually find St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
People also find appeal in Rand's philosophical system building, which is intellectually interesting. Such system building can also be found in Christian philosophy, such as what is seen in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview J.P. Moreland and William Lane. A Christian interested in Rand might also be interested in learning more about systematic theology, which is even more intellectually interesting and ultimately good for one's relationship with Christ.
My last comment is that there are a couple of good books out there that devastatingly show the flaws in Rand's position. Several were written by Christians, though the books are focused on critiquing Rand and not apologetics:
Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System by John W. Robbins
Reconsidering Ayn Rand by Michael B. Yang
Both books are available at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/
In closing, Rand is certainly an intersting thinker and many of her ideas are worth exploring. The danger is buying into the whole of her system, which is what she herself insists of the reader.
"but fearfully NOT questioning her faith in the senses, that unravels her whole system."
Joe writes quite a clear argument, but errs in several ways.
Interestingly, he had to post a little edit of his biggest error:
"but fearfully NOT questioning her faith in the senses, that unravels her whole system."
Rand dealt with this subject in all the philosophical detail that it deserves. She knows and explains what any honest mind knows: that our senses are our only source of actual information about the world. She knew that men's minds are able to distinguish between what they actually experience by their senses and what they may 'feel' (in their minds) or wish. She refuted Immanuel Kant's notion that our senses are unable to truly provide information of the world.
Joe says her rejection of religion (a narrow form of philosophy) is "more bigotry and ignorance than anything else." Hardly! She explains her objections fully, in many non-fiction articles, not the least of which is For the New Intellectual.
She never equated Roman Catholicism with all of Christianity, but she did perspicaciously address the essential commonalities between all forms of Christianity.
Joe echoes the common accusation that Rand's followers exhibit cult-like collectivism. Many do, but they are an embarrassment to those who truly understand and practice the principles she elucidates as appropriate for Men. The latter act on those principles, because they are valid principles. They form friendships, through understanding, as opposed to cultish following. Joe's accusation could be leveled at the followers of any religion.
Rand is not a libertarian, and was vehemently opposed to Libertarianism. Libertarianism began with two men who knew her, grasped her ideas only partially, and then 'ran' with the notion of freedom as the only political fundamental. In contrast Rand understood that politics must stand on a proper morality and epistemology, whereas they allow any morality and disregard the epistemological foundations needed. She read the authors Joe mentions, and carried their arguments farther than they did, or refuted them, as necessary.
History has shown repeatedly that Christianity is not a foundation for freedom. Christianity has survived, not by causing freedom, but by adapting to it, as men of the Enlightenment came to grasp what socio-political freedoms would improve human life. It was also not the foundation of America:
First, the pilgrim's approach to settling early America was terribly unsuccessful compared to the merchant traders at Jamestown. They imposed draconian rules on one another, theocratically forcing attendance at religious functions and so forth. (These things are in the early literature, but are 'overlooked' by Christian and politically correct scholars.)
Second, the key Founding Fathers objected to organized religions, and were Deists. They accepted that there may be some Being responsible for Creation, but rejected the other supernatural claims made by *men*. To them, God did not interfere in natural cause and effect in any way, and prayer etc. would not bring about such interference. They opposed "tyranny over the minds of men". Their mention of God was not done in the sense that has subsequently been attributed to them.
I have not read the books Joe recommends, but have read several others and various articles that seek to refute Rand's philosophical views. In every case they make egregious errors in interpreting her arguments, often completely missing important principles and arguments. Their arguments could not be developed were it not for their mistaken starting points. In fact, an entire faction of serious advocates of Rand's ideas makes this error. Given that, it is no wonder her opponents misrepresent her, and/or dispute her ideas through their own misunderstandings. Many of her detractors (e.g. Whitman of the National Review) are also just plain dishonest.
She never insisted that her reader "buy into her whole system" but as one comes to understand it, one realizes that one cannot cherry pick it. Perhaps Joe prefers to cherry pick, so as to avoid facing arguments against those things he 'feels' count as knowledge and understanding, but that she shows, ultimately, are not. Knowing so would certainly make one feel a certain insistent, subconscious pressure.
My intention is not to debate the fatal flaws of her worldview, which have effectively been dealt with by John W. Robbins and others.
But Richard's post actually helps what I was trying to say, so I appreciate his comments. He admits many of the issues I mentioned. As Richard admits, Rand offers a total worldview, with herself as its incarnation. Since this worldview is consistently build on a foundation of false or contradictory presuppositions, it makes Rand and ALL of her ideas easy to dismiss in one fell swoop...by her very own standards.
I feel this is a shame, as though the core of her system is rotten, she did have some interesting insights on several topics.
That being said, there are a lot of other thinkers out there that can match her emotional appeal, which I have cited in my post above.
Some additional critiques of Rand:
Audio lecture from John Robbins:
http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/The_Philosophy_of_Ayn_Rand_Refuted.mp3
Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature by Greg S. Nyquist
Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality by Scott Ryan
The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker
"And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.” Acts 5:38-39
John Piper, the author of Desiring God, has the perfect article on this subject:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1979/1486_The_Ethics_of_Ayn_Rand/
"In the late seventies, I went on an Ayn Rand craze. I read most of her works, fiction and non-fiction. I recall sitting in the student center at Bethel College as a young professor of Bible reading Atlas Shrugged. An Old Testament professor from the seminary walked by and saw what I was reading. He paused and said, “That stuff is incredibly dangerous.” He was right. For a certain mindset, she is addicting and remarkably compelling in her atheistic rationalism.
To this day, I find her writings paradoxically attractive. I am a Christian Hedonist. This is partly why her work is alluring to me. She had her own brand of hedonism. It was not traditional hedonism that says whatever gives you pleasure is right. Hers was far more complex than that. It seems so close and yet so far to what I find in the Bible."
What's interesting about Piper is he agrees with Richard and Rand about the failures of Kant...however, he presents a third alternative based on Biblical teachings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Hedonism
I have already commented on how people have "dealt with" Rand's worldview by using mistaken interpretations of her ideas, so why would Joe repeat his claim (dropping another author name), except as a smear or in the hope that repetition will strengthen his argument?
Never did I suggest or 'admit' "Rand offers a total worldview, with herself as its incarnation."
This is just another attempt to smear Rand through what the rather bald dishonesty of putting the bolded words in my mouth. "Bald" because the comments, there for all readers to see, are the evidence that I never suggested such a thing.
As for the accusation of her being the incarnation of her ideas: only a hypocrite would not try to live by their best ideas, and she was no hypocrite! Yet hypocrites abound among church congregations, and a among a great many church leaders and theologians, all the way up to and including quite a few Popes.
Joe then makes a third repetition and smear, by simply denouncing her ideas as "build [sic] on a foundation of false or contradictory presuppositions,..".
He is either echoing other writers', or his own, complete failure to understand the revolutionary depth with which she founded of her ideas.
There are now thirty University positions where her fundamental understandings are explained to interested students. Lectures explaining the deeper points of her philosophy are often filled with mature, well-educated adults, because Rand's ideas are not immediately apparent to people who have grown up with a less than consistent grasp of reason. The American Philosophical Association includes a special division for study and extension of Ayn Rand's ideas. Serious academic publishers such as Cambridge University are now printing the works of Ayn Rand scholars.
Finally we are offered a fourth(!) use of his repeat & smear tactic, and directs those willing to fall for such an approach to another critic. Surely it would be better to learn and understand what is being criticized first, rather than echoing 'learning' through critics, as he suggests. Many people writing on the Internet oppose Rand by echoing the ideas of others or as I said above, failing to read her views with care.
As I typed this Joe's addition of other critics only adds to my point. Walker and Nyquist are intellectual charlatans, whom I believe deliberately &/or foolishly twist Rand's ideas to then refute them.
In the mp3 Joe suggests, as many critics do, the speaker, John Robbins, quickly plunges into a non-essential that he does not explain that Rand made some arguments as to why a woman should not be president! He slips in a little smear in the process and then moves straight into misrepresentations and lies saying Rand was "very opposed to homosexuality" when she barely commented on the subject and not at all in the simplistic manner Robbins presents. He then claims she adopted the metaphysics and epistemology of the communists (she was raised in Russia). This is a complete falsehood. It only took 6 minutes to catch this speaker's dishonesty. After ten minutes the speaker demonstrated that he was going to indulge in the tautology of saving Biblical views from Rand's arguments simply by assuming that if an argument conflicted with the Bible then Rand must be wrong. Robbins then proceeds to cherry pick, divorcing her ideas from their fuller context and then creating arguments against them. This is not reason. At 15 min, it was clear that Robbins was going to repeat the errors, in embarrassing degree, that I have already described. There clearly was going to be little or no intellectual improvement.
Watch, as other misguided comments similar to Joe's or Jayco's, perhaps with other links to materials of the same nature, are posted.
Thomas Aquinas argued that God gave Man a mind for a reason. That, coupled with the ideas of Aristotle, brought Christianity to the Enlightenment, and ended the Dark Ages. Why go backwards by abandoning Reason? Why ignore --on the basis of smear, repetition, or others' misunderstandings-- ideas that present an unprecedented understanding of Reality, Reason, Ethics and, ...well, Life? Read Rand more carefully than most, and really wrestle with the ideas you don't get, they are there for a reason you may have to work to grasp properly.
Richard's attempt to draw this into debate is depressing. His defensive tone is what turns many from Rand completely. It really is a shame. Smear tactics? The original post asked for opinions of Rand, I provided an opinion as well as other opinions...which apparently personally offended Richard.
Is he really this insecure? Were my comments really a call to "abandon Reason" or a "return to the Dark Ages"? Is this the proper forum to debate Objectivism vs. the rest of the world? Richard's lack of manners and humility says more about Rand and her worldview than I ever can.
Jayco:
Another on Rand from Piper...
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2428_Atlas_Shrugged_Fifty_Years_Later/
Since Ayn Rand had no place for a sovereign, all-sufficient God who cannot be traded with, she did not reckon with any righteous form of mercy. It is indeed evil to love a person “for their vices.” But mercy in the Christian sense is not “because of” vices, but “in spite of” vices. It is not intended to reward evil, but to reveal the bounty of God who cannot be traded with, but only freely admired and enjoyed. It aims not to corrupt or compromise integrity, but to transform the values of the enemy into the values of Christ. While it may mean the sacrifice of some temporal pleasures, it is never the sacrifice of greater values to lesser ones. It is the sacrifice of lower values to higher ones.
Therefore, Ayn Rand’s philosophy did not need to be entirely scrapped. Rather, it needed to take all of reality into account, including the infinite God. No detail of her philosophy would have been left untouched.
Why do so many people, like Joe has just done, seek to reduce discussion to accusations about the person --reducing discussion to a 'flame' session-- rather than sticking to the discussion?
I have no intention of debating Rand... but this thread is nonetheless about Rand! If someone uses intellectually bankrupt arguments and passes them off as an opinion, what is wrong with pointing out the errors or dishonesty in their published opinion? Is one to be personally attacked for exposing such wrongs? A commenter has little choice but to indicate the source of the faulty opinions, but that is not defensiveness, it is a plain indication of the reason for the disputation at hand.
Why is it necessary to insult my sense of security? (Quite untarnished.) Did I say Joe's comments were a call to "abandon Reason" or did I say that one should not dismiss Rand by a process that abandons Reason --a process Joe has clearly used, not only in his own words, but in the sources he provides to support his opinion? In order to make my point, I have to show why, or else I am making what amounts to arbitrary claims to the reader. Arbitrary claims are not the 'stuff' of rationality, and I think the reader deserves better.
As for accusing me of "lack of manners" and (for Pete's sake) lack of "humility" ...what is that, except someone whining that they have not been allowed to "get away with" faulty statements? Not to mention the obvious feeling of resentment their choice of such a tactic suggests they have,toward the person who points out said faults.
Then, in yet another dishonesty Joe attempts to suggest my behavior, as he has chosen to characterize it, is somehow indicative of Rand. If I was that way, it is certainly no indication of Rand's character or ideas. Such a conclusion is the full nature of irrationality: in this case attributing one person's actions --misrepresented-- to the ideas of another, for the purpose of denigrating that second person. I think any honest mind can see that such an approach is, at its heart, both dishonest and unjust to that second person.
I do not think this sort of approach should be occurring on this blog forum. Surely this is not the nature of this site? And, surely, it is not essential that one "preach to the choir" to comment here? I hope the 'choir' is not so shallow that it accepts the above mentioned absurdities?
Wow.
Jayco certainly misses the point. When you sanction evil, in the real world, evil sees that it is free to pursue its goals.
Sure, it would be nice to tell the ugly woman she is beautiful, and maybe she is on the inside, but to do the same with a murderous child-killing mentor of terrorists is disgusting beyond any sense of rational and human decency.
You see, all ideas have context. If you take Piper's argument only in the narrow context provided, and then apply it more broadly, as is clearly the intention, then you will find yourself supporting the most heinous evils.
The church has supported some incredibly heinous evils, because the men of the church failed to think things through to the degree that Ayn Rand did. That failure has resulted in the deaths of millions, because it promoted belief-obedience, rather than reason.
Richard:
You have obviously completely missed Piper's point. As did Rand. What is missing from both of your positions is God. Until you address Him, you are simply typing empty words.
I think Joe hits on the head with "lack of humility." The original post asked for some opinions of Rand, which were provided. Apparently you are so insecure that you simply can't abide the existance of contrary opinions. This shows a lack of humility. And it is rude. The only "flaming" here is from you. The discussion was on the various opinions of Rand, not "Rand was the greatest and any opinion contrary is wrong."
Lastly, to suggest the "Church" was responsible for the death of "millions" is simple falsehood and shows the bigotry you have inherited by the adoption of your worldview. It is also Tu Quoque ad hominem, since the failures of Christians have nothing to do with rationality of Christianity, anymore than the personal failures of Objectivsts. As shown in Vox Day's new book -- The Irrational Atheist -- the bodycount of atheists is literally in the millions. Is this really a comparison you want to make? The "Dark Ages" as a concept is no longer held by nearly all historians.
Christianity is the most rational worldview, as it is the truth. Rand never applied her own reasoning to the revelation of God. It was ultimately her loss.
Joe -- you might be interested in this..
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/without_a_prayer.htm
Robbins’ criticism of Rand lies in her failure to be reasonable. Historically, Rand dismissed any criticism of her or her philosophy as mysticism or as anti-intellectual. Robbins’ critique is neither. Instead, Dr. Robbins deals with Rand’s system at the philosophical level of epistemology, theology, ethics, and political theory. His approach is apogogic. That is to say, he takes Rand’s first principles (axioms or presuppositions) and then demonstrates that deductions from her axioms result in contradictory conclusions.
Rand regarded epistemology as the most important branch of philosophy. This review thus deals primarily with Robbins’ response to Rand’s epistemology. Further, she regarded human reason as the means by which man knows. Reason, according to Rand, integrates the "material" (perceptions we suppose) provided by the senses. Rand, without any argument or explanation, asserted that man is born a tabula rasa (a blank sheet). All information must come via the senses, according to Rand and all varieties of empiricism.
But it is altogether unexplained (and inexplicable for the empiricist) how "knowledge" that a baby’s mind is a tabula rasa could have come from sensory experience alone. If something were already in the mind which allowed man to integrate his perceptions, then not all knowledge comes through the senses, for at least the knowledge of how to integrate sense perceptions does not come from the senses themselves. But if there is nothing which allows or enables man to integrate his perceptions, then we would never be able to identify our perceptions as belonging to something "out there."
Robbins ably points out that a tabula rasa mind is simply a contradiction in terms. A mind cannot simultaneously be conscious of nothing and yet still be said to be conscious. As even Rand admitted ". . . a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms . . . ."
Not only is Rand’s account of the working of the mind defective (how does the mind pull itself up by its own bootstraps?), so also is her accounting of the existence of universal concepts in the human mind. Rand gave no account of what sensations are not the (assumed) relationship between a world "out there," human senses, and human percepts. The fact is, whether Rand or any empiricist cares to admit it, we do not begin with sensations but with propositions when constructing an epistemology.
Robbins points out in his book that Rand, by her own definition of faith (which definition was quite derogatory), posited faith in the senses. In her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Rand proclaimed "For the puposes of this series, the validity [sic] of the senses must be taken for granted . . . ."
So 'opinions' that are false are acceptable here, so long as those voicing the falsehoods accept the same God you do. And you two say I lack humility (speaking of ad hominem)? What kind of arrogance justifies such behavior? That of people who hold that their puppetmaster-in-the-sky is superior to yours & vice versa --see Islam's view of infidels, see Jesus Camp and the like, over thousands of years of barbarism.
Hence, my comment on the millions of deaths resulting from religious belief is easily confirmed. Since the thinking that caused those deaths was encouraged by the "church" tu quoque does not apply. "Until you address [reason, rather than its pretense], you are simply typing empty words."
Wikipedia currently says, "Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose."
-----------------------------
Now that Ayn Rand has finally demonstrated the efficacy of Reason to man in the 20th century, a new speculation about God has emerged, Michael M's Wager:
"The existence of God cannot be determined through Reason. Though all men are free to "wager" as though God does exist (just to be on the safe side!) they should take into account that Reason would have to be God's crowning creation and gift to man. It endows man with the capacity to grasp everything that exists in the universe that God wants man to be able to know and the capacity to use that knowledge to perfect his life. They should consider the possibility that God would not want to be known, but rather would prefer to observe from afar what men can achieve on their own with the capacities he gave them.
After all, God would not have given man Reason if he did not want man to use it in accordance with its function. Furthermore, any rejection of Reason, such as the arbitrary replacement of it by the Satanic anti-capacity of Mysticism to fabricate false ideas of the universe, or worst of all, false ideas of the nature or will of God, would most certainly constitute the most damnable sin.
Thus: man would need only one commandment: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt falsify neither gods before me, nor the nature of me or my creations.
Thus: there would be only one mortal sin: the rejection of God's Reason in favor of Satan's Mysticism.
Thus: in the end, Heaven would necessarily be occupied by God and all of the rational atheists who ever existed.
Thus: all who abused the rational minds God gave them and stubbornly clung with nothing more than faith to religions that worshipped allegedly revealed gods would necessarily reside with Satan in the fires of Hell for eternity."
Thus: it would perhaps be better not to "wager" on the existence of God after all.
[Copyright 2008 Michael M All Rights Reserved]
---------------------------------
I am perpetually curious how persons who accept truths on faith alone will react to this concept of God, which is not implausible. I publish it here, because those commenting have an extra incentive to attempt a refutation. For so long as it can stand as an article of faith, the only one in this thread doing God's work other than me, would be Richard.
God's crowning creation and gift to man.
God is perfectly rational. Reason is not a creation, it is part of Him. "In the beginning was the logos and the word was with God and the logos was God" (John 1:1).
Second, God's greatest gift to mankind is the ability to glorify Him alone. (see Psalm 86)
It endows man with the capacity to grasp everything that exists in the universe that God wants man to be able to know and the capacity to use that knowledge to perfect his life.
Man will always be limited and can never know the whole of knowledge about the universe. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." (Proverbs 14:12) "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:9)
Man is a slave to sin, and hence, perfection will always be out of his grasp. "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." (Romans 3:10) "Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin." (John 8:34)
God wants man to be able to know and the capacity to use that knowledge to perfect his life.
"And he said, Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded you that you should not eat?" (Genesis 3:11)
"Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (1 Corinthians 1:20)
They should consider the possibility that God would not want to be known, but rather would prefer to observe from afar what men can achieve on their own with the capacities he gave them.
"When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!" (Exodus 3:4)
"Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them." (Romans 1:19)
Thus: man would need only one commandment: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt falsify neither gods before me, nor the nature of me or my creations.
"And God spoke ALL these words" (Exodus 20:1)...ten commandments...
Thus: there would be only one mortal sin: the rejection of God's Reason in favor of Satan's Mysticism.
"“If a person sins, and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD, though he does not know it, yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity." (Leviticus 5:17)
"Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." (James 4:17)
"Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness." (1 John 3:4)
Thus: in the end, Heaven would necessarily be occupied by God and all of the rational atheists who ever existed.
"Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."(Revelation 20:14-15)
Great clip from Donahue. Phil has a way of riling up people that really don't want to fight eh? :)
Interesting that the Christology post prior to this one generates 2 comments and those less than a hundred words combined and this post about Ayn Rand generates 21 (now 22) posts about 100 words apiece!
Ayn suggested that there is no evidence of God's existence. So I guess she is not a proponent of McDowell's books then? Or of Strobel's Case for Christ?
Donahue suggests that the reason why Ayn doesn't see the evidence is that she was not in the right place at the right time. I say, "Where has she been that is devoid of evidence of God?" The universe declares the glory of God.
Ayn is in wonder of the skyscrapers in the cities and the distance we have put between us and the jungle life. She would have fit very well in Genesis 11! Humanism is not the answer. Man is not basically good and bent on excellence and improvement.
Thanks for opening the discussion,
Mike
Wow...these comments give me a headache. I'm glad that I only look to the Bible for my beliefs. The Bible is so much clearer than this Ayn person. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one goes to the Father but through Him. Period. End of story. See how simple that is?
Post a Comment
<< Home