critchelow

There is an interview clip on the documentary "A Sense of Life" where she makes this comment. I'll go to the library today, if they have it I will re-watch it and tell you exactly how far into the tape she makes this comment.

Thank you for the responses and I'm sorry if I sidetracked Adleza'a post. I'm beginning to see the relevance of having no proof for or against God. The arbitrarity of the argument is starting to sink in. It is a huge pill to swallow. Edited to remove accidental quote

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.