Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Struggling w/ my love of Rand and my past w/ God.

Rate this topic


Adleza

Recommended Posts

After skimming about ten pages of search function threads, I am pretty sure I won't be repeating anything too terribly. I'm also pretty sure I am within the forum rules on this post. I'll take corrections on either point.

One of the biggest difficulties I am having recently is my love for Ayn Rand and for her writings... combined with my lifelong faith in God. I use "difficulties" a little loosely, to mean troubling, or pestering, rather than earthshaking-crisis-creator. However, I have been wanting to write this all out and get some responses from people. I need some rational, objective (little "o" intentional) takes on this particular difficulty. Reading other responses to Christians who come to these boards, I am impressed by the professionalism (for lack of a better word) that is maintained. (e.g. I didn't see any "OMG Stoopid Christian! You are sooo lacking in reason!!") :)

Disclaimers:

1. I want to make clear that I am not any sort of expert on Rand, having read only Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead thouroughly, and perusing some of her other writings. So I may be missing some major point in that regard.

2. I am not in any way promoting Christianity, nor am I trying to combine Christian and Objective philisophies in any way.

I realize naming myself a Christian is going to make me somewhat unpopular, so I will explain what I mean when I say I am a Christian (this is the long part, somewhat biographical, but it illustrates why At.Shrug. and The Fountainhead swept me off my feet to such an extent).

I was raised in a "Christian" environment, where my grandfather chose his church based on the quality of the choir, and my father and I routinely made fun of hymns with lines in them such as: "And seeing God, the angels all fell on their faces" and "They took my savior and they nailed him to a tree" (that last with a fast bouncy rhythm). From the get-go, I was enamored with the idea that there was some friendly man in the sky somewhere that was assigning angels to watch over me, and that my prayers would be answered (in some mysterious way that I, a mere human, would never understand). I took it much more seriously than my family. Then I hit the ripe old age of 10. I started paying attention. There was something going on, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it.

Then I went through the required teen age where all adults are dumb, and I discovered that many things I had been told were questionable, or just plain incorrect, and went through a brief Pagan wannabeGoth stage, since it seemed to be the logical oppisite of Christianity. What I found there was so stunningly similar to my first religion, in that most of the thing was a farce, was a way for a few people to exert power over many, was full of know-nothings who just needed someone else to speak for them, that I lost interest eventually. I was still attending a Methodist church during this time. I enjoyed the singing, the rightousness accompanied by putting dollars in the plate, the prayer, the sermons... the works. The Pastor was a brilliant man, a fantastic speaker, and to this day one of the most Christian people I have ever known. (Christian = Lives by the actual tenets of Christ; ie loving, tolerent, patient, etc.) Most of my wiggling doubts I pushed aside.

By my last year of high school, I realized that something was obviously wrong with me. The begining of the end of my attendence at church services came when I realized that I prayed wrong. When I prayed in church, my eyes remained open, focused upwards, past the vaulted ceilings. I presented mySelf to God along with my prayer. I felt no shame, or humbleness. There was no sense of groveling. I thought that God should be proud of what a fine human he had made, and that to prostrate myself would rob him of a chance to view his greatest work. I was not "Godfearing". One Sunday it struck me that even though this is how I had prayed since I was six, it was abnormal. Everyone around me looked sad, or sleepy, or in some great pain.

My second major revelation came after a service in which Milo the Pastor gave a sermon regarding homosexuality. He had attended the national Methodist meeting, where among other things, members had voted to continue veiwing homosexuality as wrong by a comfortable 2/3 majority. He was very angry. He denounced his own organization for being a mob of hypocrites, spoke to the stupidity of veiwing another human as Less because of their privite lives, and said that he and his congregation would not bar anyone from God on the grounds of sexuality. It was a spirited sermon, and I agreed with nearly every bit of it. On the way out the door, where it was custom for members of the congregation to chat for a few moments with Milo, I listened to a doctor from the community comment on his sermon. She was actually one of my doctors, and I respected her very much. But she said, "Milo, I so appreciate your sermon today. I just had no idea what to think about this topic, and it is very comforting to me that I now know what I should think." This was one of those times in my life that I think my jaw actually dropped. I thought- "she has just handed over her brain to someone, because she was afraid to think for herself! And this, an intellegent woman!" I haven't attended a service since.

My "last straw" so to speak, was more recent. I was presenting on Kierkegaard, a deeply religious philosopher, in a psychology class made up of mostly anti-religious people. (Not friendly aetheists! These people would have happily persecuted me if I let on I actually believed in this stuff.) I love to speak to groups, and I happened to love my assigned philosopher. So I spoke for about 15 minutes on Kierkegaard's writing, his life, and God. This was, for all intents and purposes, a religious sermon taking place in a classroom. I made it that way on purpose, because I wanted to fight with people (I do SO love a good classroom brawl! ;) ). But for 15 minutes, my classmates listened, and laughed (in a good way), and nodded their heads, and applauded at the end of my presentation. No arguments, no questions. Their faces mirrored my love of Kierkegaard and God. It was one of the most terrifying experiences of my life.

Terrifying, because... it was so easy. I didn't browbeat, I didn't yell, I just talked, and mob mentality (or something!) took over. I am sure that I didn't actually convert anyone, but my god, it was such a leap from their previous attitudes to what I saw in their faces after I was finished. I was actively perverting their free will, and they allowed it.

I couldn't bring myself to touch so-called Organized Religion with a ten-foot pole. I couldn't be a part of that system anymore. It made me feel dirty. So what I was left with was a individualized, unshakable spirituality. And then- Atlas Shrugged! Wow! So I went and found a copy of The Fountainhead. And I read Ayn Rand's discussion of the words Exaultation, Worship, Reverence, and Sacred, contained in the introduction to the 25th anniversary edition. She states that "Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man's reach." In the context of religion, these words debase man, are emotions to be experienced on one's knees. During the book, these words are used in context of Roark's buildings, and Roark is described as a religious man, in his own way. I feel these emotions when I pray (God) and when I drive into Seattle (skyscrapers), in precisely the same manner. Also in the Fountainhead, Toohey's "collection of souls" struck home with me as well, in a different manner. This is what I glimpsed after Milo's sermon, and in my classroom.

Perusing other similar topics, I found the following post:

"Here are the main reasons why they [Christians] cling to the belief in God:

They believe that without God,

1. Life is meaningless.

2. The universe is incomprehensible.

3. There is no morality by which we can live.

4. We can never be certain of the truth."

I was tempted to reject these four statements out of hand, but I thought carefully about them, and still reject them. I do not believe those statements to be true. In the context of the quoted post, I should not be clinging to the belief in God. So why do I still believe?

I don't believe the Bible was handed down, hot off God's presses, to the various authors of its books. The Bible is a man-made text. Period. Books were revised and removed (to what extent depends on your tendency to conspiracy theory), and a good deal of the stories can more easily be taken as metaphors than historical events. There was some point in history (Council of Nicea? I can't remember whether that is even close) where a vote was taken to decide whether Jesus would be portrayed as a prophet of God or The Son of God.

So what am I left with? When I call myself a Christian, the statement is based on the fact that I believe in something similar to the Christian God, not because I go to church, or because I think I am too weak to exist on my own. I know all the arguments that God offers no proof- and I don't believe anymore that he does leave it, just in mysterious ways that little humans can't see. I should not have faith in God.

In another thread, I found also the following post:

"It is not so much the rejection of faith that is important, but rather the promotion of reason."

I may be mistaken, but it has been my impression that many of the posters on this forum do in fact reject faith as an antithesis to reason (which honestly, I can't argue with). Does Objectivism require a rejection of religion? Is there room anywhere for faith, or is faith seen as a form of deception? Am I mistaking something else as my reverence of God? As I type this all out, it is ocurring to me that it all actually bothers me quite a bit. As a response to this post, please don't tell me that there is no proof, that I am just afraid to think for myself, etc... the responses that would make sense if I had come in here and compared the Bible to Atlas Shrugged (or something). I really think I have a pretty good grasp on reality, and on the general ideas contained in Objectivism. So what is happening here?

(I know this was a long post- thank you for taking the time to read it and respond in anyway.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over and over again you use the word "believe" not words like I know or I can prove. A rational person should have no "beliefs". There should only be statements that he knows that he can prove to be objectively true, i.e. conform with reality.

God and religion are arbitrary concepts and are therefore neither true nor false. One doesn't even have to consider the arbitrary if there is no proof for it. Note, one also can't prove that a God doesn't exist. One can't prove a negative. In other words, one can't point out the non-existent facts of reality that "prove" that a non-exsitent entity doesn't exist. There are no such facts. They don't exist.

If one allows in even a small section of the irrational into his thinking, a "belief" in God, then what he is doing is "blanking out" his mind to all the facts of reality that contradict that "belief". But, contradictions can NOT exist A is A. So this one small "belief" distorts the rest of your reasoning because you are accepting contadictions as existing and having to rationalize this to yourself, so you have to "blank out" your mind in more and more areas. These would include denying that evolution exists and then reading an article of gene therapy. Or "believing" the earth was created 8,000 years ago while looking at the fossil of a dinosaur. The list could go on and on.

In conclusion "believing" in anything is arbitrary and results in poor thinking and having to "blank out" your mind and rationalize contradictions. This is obviously NOT a good thing and does NOT conform with reality, i.e. all that exists. Remember existence exists, and only existence exists. Anything else would be a contradiction and if you can't understand (and I am NOT trying to be insulting here) why contradictions can NOT exist then there is nothing more to discuss.

I hope I cleared it up for you a little, I'm sure more people here will chime in and explain the Objectivist position a little more eloquently and accurately then I can though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In another thread, I found also the following post:

"It is not so much the rejection of faith that is important, but rather the promotion of reason."

I may be mistaken, but it has been my impression that many of the posters on this forum do in fact reject faith as an antithesis to reason (which honestly, I can't argue with).  Does Objectivism require a rejection of religion?  Is there room anywhere for faith, or is faith seen as a form of deception?  Am I mistaking something else as my reverence of God?  As I type this all out, it is ocurring to me that it all actually bothers me quite a bit.  As a response to this post, please don't tell me that there is no proof, that I am just afraid to think for myself, etc... the responses that would make sense if I had come in here and compared the Bible to Atlas Shrugged (or something).  I really think I have a pretty good grasp on reality, and on the general ideas contained in Objectivism.  So what is happening here? 

(I know this was a long post- thank you for taking the time to read it and respond in anyway.)

Adleza,

I admire the courage and honesty it evidently took to write this post.

I gather from your post that you understand why the notion of God can only be based on blind faith, and not on reason. You also seem to understand that it is a redundant concept. That we don't need it in order to live a moral, meaningful, and fulfilling life.

So why do you still believe?

The answer seems to me quite simple: it's a deeply ingrained habit. You grew up with it, and it's going to take time and effort to change.

It might be hard to do, and it is extremely unfair of parents to raise a child with this handicap. But you can break free of this habit, just like you can learn to drive a different, new car. And when you do break free, I can promise you that you will feel the immense release and happiness that you deserve, for being a rational, non-contradictory being.

Edited by erandror
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adleza, I was raised in a Baptist household. As a child I thought of---that is, IMAGINED---God to be a wise white-haired man upon whose knee I sat while he pointed down to the world below us and explained things. But at that age(somewhere between four and eight), if someone had asked me if I believed in God I would have said yes, instead of "God is my imagination". Somewhere in that period of time The process became so automatic that I forgot that God was my imagination. Then, when I was about thirteen, and feeling terribly depressed about something, I , alone in the house in my room, started to get angry at God. I began yelling and cursing him, and then I made a gesture with my finger and shouted, "if you're so strong, come down and do something about it!" and I looked up at the ceiling, saw a wiggly little surface crack, and burst out laughing. By switching so fast from looking in at my imagination to looking out at reality, and being aware of myself doing it, I rediscovered that God was my imagination.

So, now, when someone asks me, "Do you believe in God?" I say "No, God exists, and I know just what it is. God is your imagination when you regard it as existing in reality and call it God". Believers don't mind arguing with people about whether God's existence "out there" can be proved or not, because it makes them feel safe; the real source of God in them never has to be dealt with.

That's all I can tell you. That's all you need to know. The rest is up to you and your self-honesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your replies. The belief = habit idea had crossed my mind, as well as God = my imagination/someTHING else. The bit about allowing even one contradiction as being a blanking-out, too. For whatever reason it is very helpful to hear other people say it though. As I think about it, I can't even think in my head what I am typing on the screen... which doesn't make much sense actually. What I mean, is I can say/type the words: "My belief is a habit, which I have enoyed very much, that I can see is empty of reason, a habit that gives me a feeling identical to the alternative of dropping the habit and embracing reason... I am pretty sure that when I ask for guidence I am seeking guidence from myself, that when I pray thankfulness that I am thanking myself, that when I ask for something from God it is with the certainty that I myself am going to have to achieve it, that when I pray for forgiveness it is a waste of my time because I often already know what to do to fix whatever I have screwed up. There is NO reason for me to believe in God past a habit I have for a long time." I can say all that, but when I try to actually think it, it is as if my brains are sliding around a locked box. (I don't mean literally... :huh: ) Honestly I am having a hard time even concentrating on words I just typed. This is an awful feeling. But I do appreciate your replies. I think they help because it doesn't require so much effort to read them as it does to actually generate the thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are describing is exactly the "blanking out" I was speaking of. I suggest you read or re-read (whatever the case may be) Galt's speach in Atlas Shrugged. What you describe matches Galt's comments. It will take 3 hours or so to read it but it could possibly become one of the most important 3 hours of your life, assuming of course you put forth the effort to think and understand its meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are describing is exactly the "blanking out" I was speaking of.  I suggest you read or re-read (whatever the case may be) Galt's speach in Atlas Shrugged.

Yes exactly! The first time through (I haven't reread the speech yet, just thinking about it) I thought the blanking he spoke of was intentional ignoring of something, not an involuntary response... You know what- It is very like the SEP (sombody elses problem) invisibility shield from Hitch Hiker's Guide- no matter how hard I try, I can't look at it. Ahhh... not to compare literary and philisophical genius with silly entertainment...

I'll re-read that speech tomorrow.

(edited for clarity)

Edited by Adleza
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, Adleza.

Let me begin by saying I understand what you are going through with your religion. I had a similar experience. I had gone to religious services since I was 12 years old and never thought much about it until I started hitting puberty. You see, I experienced in a very strong way the "blanking out" that Rational_One mentioned. When I started accepting my beliefs on faith, I started accepting more and more.

It has been nearly five years since I deconverted from Christianity. It has been, by far, one of the most difficult experiences of my life. There were times I didn't think I'd make it. You see, I had almost every aspect of my life tied into Christianity, from the fact I wanted to go to seminary to the Christian pronouncements on scientific principles.

A book I would highly recommend for you to read is Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian. Although I disagree with much of Bertrand Russell's philosophy now, his criticisms of religion are what convinced me I could no long live life calling myself a Christian. Read the book with an active mind and understand that Professor Russell was hardly an Objectivist.

The road to deconversion is long, hard, and painful. It's also the most important thing you'll ever do for yourself and your self-esteem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adleza: Very interesting post. Long, but I made it to the end :huh:

The exact manifestation of your problem is unclear to me? How does a lingering belief in God manifest itself to you? You mention being thankful to God etc. -- like automatic prayers. What else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concept of "god" is a valid (not arbitrary) concept -- for a class of imaginary beings, as "leprechaun" is a valid concept for a class of imaginary beings. Thus, this is an example of a valid concept drawn from imaginary, but otherwise nonexistent things.

The idea (not concept) of "God" is a proper name designating a particular imaginary being, as "Santa Claus" is the proper name for a particular imaginary being. Thus, this is an example of a valid idea identifying an imaginary, but otherwise nonexistent thing.

Religion, likewise, is a valid (not arbitrary) concept. It refers to existents of a certain kind. This is the way Ayn Rand used the concept "religion" when she described it, among other ways, as a primitive form of philosophy.

(For anyone new to Objectivism, you might benefit from examining The Ayn Rand Lexicon entries for "God," "Religion," and "Concept-Formation," plus Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 148, for Ayn Rand's views on the "concept" of God.)

[Edited to remove superfluous quotation.]

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adzela, look at what you wrote: "My belief is...empty of reason...that gives me a feeling identical to ...embracing reason". That is a contradiction, based on self-dishonesty. For, since you still have the irrational, "empty" belief, you cannot and do not know what it is to "embrace reason". Also, you are using your feeling ("enjoyed very much") as a reason to hold on to your belief and to not embrace your reason. Note, I said YOUR reason. It is not something floating out separate from you like your imagined God. Your feeling is what you must give up as the standard of how you use your mind. If your imagined God is perfect, all-wise, happy and proud, then you can never be, for in your mind you choose to disown the best possible to you. Why? What has religion been telling you all your life?---that you are not worthy. Ayn Rand says that you can make yourself worthy, but it is totally up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concept of "god" is a valid (not arbitrary) concept -- for a class of imaginary beings, as "leprechaun" is a valid concept for a class of imaginary beings. Thus, this is an example of a valid concept drawn from imaginary, but otherwise nonexistent things.

The idea (not concept) of "God" is a proper name designating a particular imaginary being, as "Santa Claus" is the proper name for a particular imaginary being. Thus, this is an example of a valid idea identifying an imaginary, but otherwise nonexistent thing.

In OPAR Dr. Peikoff states that the idea of God (i.e. the idea of a supreme creator of existence) is arbitrary. How can something that has no referents in reality not be arbitrary?

Given, imagination can be fun, but I'm not certain I understand how something that is purely the product of imagination can be anything other than aribitrary. I will do some more reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In OPAR Dr. Peikoff states that the idea of God (i.e. the idea of a supreme creator of existence) is arbitrary.  How can something that has no referents in reality not be arbitrary?

Given, imagination can be fun, but I'm not certain I understand how something that is purely the product of imagination can be anything other than aribitrary.  I will do some more reading.

Yes. While I certainy didn't directly quote OPAR in my post, I think people familiar with Objectivism should see that's where I got my arguement from in essence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concept of God is not arbitrary. It refers to what Mr. Laughlin describes.

However, the existence of God is arbitrary, you can't prove that one way or another.

I think the difference is whether or not you are saying that the concept of God exists outside of your imagination. (if that makes sense, I'm not very good at explaining this.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concept of God is not arbitrary. It refers to what Mr. Laughlin describes.

However, the existence of God is arbitrary, you can't prove that one way or another.

I think the difference is whether or not you are saying that the concept of God exists outside of your imagination. (if that makes sense, I'm not very good at explaining this.)

Agreed. I've just thought about it and should have been more exact in my terminology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In OPAR Dr. Peikoff states that the idea of God (i.e. the idea of a supreme creator of existence) is arbitrary.  How can something that has no referents in reality not be arbitrary?

Given, imagination can be fun, but I'm not certain I understand how something that is purely the product of imagination can be anything other than aribitrary.  I will do some more reading.

The religious concept of God IS arbitrary, since it assumes His existence.

I guess what BurgessLau means to say is that God as a historical concept, describing a kind of belief, is valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can something that has no referents in reality not be arbitrary?

Jennifer:

The statement "God exists" is an arbitrary claim; i.e., it's not derived from any observation of any facts of reality.

However, the concept "God" is not arbitrary — at least insofar as when someone uses it, one understands, at least in a general way, what's meant by it.

Of course, those who assert the existence of God never offer any rationally intelligible definition of their concept. But still, when someone says he "believes in God," he's not talking total gibberish.

If "God" were truly arbitrary in this sense, no one could have any meaningful discussion about or involving the concept at all. (It also, strictly speaking, could not be considered a "concept.")

By the way, Jennifer, I've greatly enjoyed your posts. You've beat me to the punch on some really good stuff!

[Edited to add the sentence in parentheses.]

Edited by Kevin Delaney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The religious concept of God IS arbitrary, since it assumes His existence.

I guess what BurgessLau means to say is that God as a historical concept, describing a kind of belief, is valid.

Yes, in the same sense that leprechaun is a valid concept and Santa Claus is a valid idea (named by a proper noun). Both have referents in reality -- that is, here, in imagination in one or more minds. (Mental entities -- such as images and concepts -- are part of reality too.)

Dr. Peikoff discusses the idea of the arbitrary on pp. 163-171 of OPAR, but especially pp. 163-167. A skim through the first few pages shows that what Dr. Peikoff is talking about is claims to the existence of something for which no evidence is offered (or even available). He uses the term "claim" (or its equivalent, such as "statement") repeatedly. Occasionally he talks about a particular idea as being arbitrary but it is clear in this context that he is talking about people -- such as emotionalists, theists, and nihilists -- making claims about something.

Here are some examples of his wording:

"Claims based on emotion ...' (163)

"... an arbitrary declaration ..." (163)

"An arbitrary claim ..." (three times, 164)

"An arbitrary statement ..." (164)

... and so forth, with a few references to arbitrary ideas (as on 164, bottom)

P. S. -- This discussion has been very helpful to me in getting me to clarify some of these ideas. Thank you. It is partly through this back-and-forth that one can make progress. Most communication is both initially frustrating and ultimately rewarding.

[Edited to add two words.]

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I want to thank everyone- I am touched that you would be as supportive and thoughtful of a complete stranger. I'd also like to add that the people who make the religious cartoon pamphlets would have a field day with you guys. (I mean that in a complimentary way, those pamphlets always seemed screwy to me.)

At any rate, I thought a lot about what you all said, about the blanking-out and what not, and didn't sleep much last night. When I woke up I had the very odd sensation of being absolutely alone, yet absolutely whole. If that makes any sense. I felt like I had been cut off from something, but rather than losing something, I felt like I had regained somthing. (I wish I was better at explaining.) As I woke up more, and during the day so far, that feeling has dissolved into something that feels uncomfortably like panic. I do have a fear of being alone- I do actually have some deep-seated beliefs regarding the absence of God (and I use beliefs intentionally and with its proper meaning).

But I felt it this morning, and I very much want to stop this blanking stuff. So I appreciate everyone's input... I'll pick away at this blank until it is gone.

[edit added a word]

Edited by Adleza
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adleza,

You are not alone, except in one sense: your thoughts are your own. Nobody is looking into your soul, or following you around.

If you want to share your thoughts, use words and gestures. Find someone you can love and share with your every thought and feeling.

Learn to love yourself, to keep yourself company when you are alone. Maybe the voice that you gave to God is actually your own?

I imagine losing your God may feel somewhat like losing a loved one. But keep reminding yourself that you are not losing anything you actually had. You are only losing your illusions, and going "cold turkey" is always hard.

Good luck! You are doing a great job!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I want to thank everyone- I am touched that you would be as supportive and thoughtful of a complete stranger. 

Objectivists are simultaneously some of the most gentle, benevolent people in the world and the hardest, strictest, and most unyielding. It can seem like a contradiction, but it is that intense devotion to precision and perfection and knowledge of the difficulty involved that creates our affection for those that undertake the same battle.

On attaining a vision of what man could be and ought to be, how can you help but cherish anyone that strives, however erratically, to achieve that?

At any rate, I thought a lot about what you all said, about the blanking-out and what not, and didn't sleep much last night.  When I woke up I had the very odd sensation of being absolutely alone, yet absolutely whole.  If that makes any sense.  I felt like I had been cut off from something, but rather than losing something, I felt like I had regained somthing. 

There are few things in life so rewarding as solitary observation, thought, and action, but to achieve those rewards one must accept the awesome responsibility of solitude, of facing reality alone and naked, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, your own devotion, your own virtue.

It is frightening to be free. However:

Cowardice is so ignoble an inner state that men struggle to overcome it, in the face of real dangers.  The appeaser choses a state of cowardice where no danger exists.  To live in fear is so unworthy a condition that men have died on barracades, defying the tyrrany of the mighty.  The appeasser chooses to live in chronic fear of the impotent.  Men have died in torture chambers, on the stake, in concentration camps, in front of firing squads, rather than renounce their convictions.  The appeaser renounces his under the pressure of a frown on any vacant face.  Men have refused to sell their souls in exchange for fame, fortune, power, even their own lives.  The appeaser does not sell his soul: he gives it away for free, getting nothing in return.

The choice is clear, and, knowing it, how could one choose the path of an appeaser?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**Disclaimer: I have only read the original post, didn't have the time to read all the others.**

That being said, have you ever heard the phrase "Man looked to the sky for a God and found himself?" (or something along those lines). Do you really think about a God that created all of this or are you merely thinking about yourself, what you want to be, and of existence. Or the other possibility in this situation is that you could be picturing in your mind as God, what actually in reality you understand to be the "benevolent universe" of existence (benevolent in this context is means that it does not act against you).

Just think about what it would actually take for a God to exist. Most religious people think of this omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent being that is eternal. Ask yourself, in all of your experience of existence, have you ever experienced anything to lead you to believe that such a being is possible?

The issue here is what Rand called Primacy of existence vs. Primacy of conciousness. You cannot have a conciousness without existence, therefore existence HAS to come first. Try to imagine an all powerful being who existed in non-existence and created existence out of non-existence. Not working? because it's riddled with contradictions. You cannot have an all powerful being that created existence because no conciousness has the power to create or destroy the existence of matter. In physics this is known as the law of conservation of matter. If you have any doubts about this let me clarify with an example: You can kill a man. His conciousness ceases to exist, but not because you simply wiped it out of existence but because you rearranged the necessary matter and chemicals that resulted in his conciousness into an arrangement that no longer works. You can change matter into an amazing array of different formations but you cannot destroy or create it. It simply is. The only thing concious beings have the power to create or destroy is a particular arrangement of matter that often results in something: ie a table or a human or a dog.

The reason I use these examples is because once you combine what you feel (most likely about yourself) and identify it's cause and then destroy the contradiction in your mind (God) that you attribute that feeling to, it may help to clear things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being somewhat new to Objectivism and raised by devout Catholics I find it hard myself to debunk a belief in God. It is and has been ingrained in me. A new reliance on reason has allowed me to view the history and teachings of Christianity in a totally new light. Such that I no longer believe in Christian doctrine or interpretations of the Bible, Christ and Man. I quite certainly believe that every religion has been a betrayal of truth to establish a belief system which served a certain purpose.

So having said that, I would like to make it clear that I am no longer religious. Religions to me place man below nature and reason and I cannot accept that.

But here is the most interesting part. By thinking as reasonably as I can, I still cannot debunk a belief in God. Not God as a higher man, but God as everything that is working around us, nature maybe.The laws that define our reason. The reason of nature seems to me to be God. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I feel that heaven is here and God is right outside your window, under your bed, and tickling your nose.

Is it possible that the answer is not to lose your belief in a god, but to realize what you should be believing as God? Maybe when man looked to the sky for God he was seeing God as purely as could be seen.

Didn't Ayn Rand say that she did not believe that man is nothing more than a collection of atoms. Man's consciousness may be nothing more than the arrangement of matter of his existence. But how is it that this particular arrangement created my consciousness. It seems that there is a formula for ME. But if that is true is it not true that formula has and always will exist. Just as any other law of nature or science. I find it troubling to relegate my existence in eternity to nothing more than 70 or 80 years.

As I said before, I am fairly new to Mrs. Rand's ideas. I am trying to be as opened minded as possible. Please pick apart my argument because these are the questions I seem to be coming back to most. I feel like I've gotten past the traditional beliefs and reliance on God. Now though, after discovering and studying some tenets of reason I feel like I have found another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...