Ayn Rand Novels: The Fountainhead Essay Contest

Posted By: anarchy2day Re: Ayn Rand Novels: The Fountainhead Essay Contest - 04/08/13 12:52 AM

Quote:

Since I have a prepubescent mind, I guess that means I'm eligible for this contest. So, here's my essay intro.

Title: The Impossibility of the Christian Devotee of Ayn Rand's Philosophy

How is it that Ayn Rand has so many Christian admirers? They do not simply enjoy her novels or use them as a distraction from life. No, many of them, like Dawg Talk Message Board poster anarchy2day, adopt Rand's philosophy, in part or in whole, as their own personal worldview. The irony in this is that Rand's philosophy is atheistic and anti-Christian, which leaves anarchy2day two options. Either he accepts Rand's philosophy in total, or he accepts it in part. If he accepts it in total, he is betraying his Christian faith. If he accepts it in part, ignoring the atheism that is anathema to his religious beliefs, he is perverting a philosophy that cannot be separated from atheism. To accept Rand's philosophy is to accept atheism, and half measures in this regard would only earn one Rand's scorn. How tragic it is to know that the biggest Ayn Rand fanboy on DT would be summarily dismissed by the "great" philosopher herself.

So, what are Rand's thoughts on religion? Here is a passage from my cherished copy of the 25th anniversary edition of The Fountainhead:

Quote:

Religion's monopoly in the field of ethics has made it extremely difficult to communicate the emotional meaning and connotations of a rational view of life. Just as religion has pre-empted 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. 'Exaltation' is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. 'Worship' means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man. 'Reverence' means the emotion of a sacred respect, to be experienced on one's knees. 'Sacred' means superior to and not-to-be-touched-by any concerns of man or of this earth. Etc.

But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions. What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal. Yet apart from the man-degrading aspects introduced by religion, that emotional realm is left unidentified, without concepts, words or recognition.

It is this highest level of man's emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man.

It is in this sense, with this meaning and intention, that I would identify the sense of life dramatized in The Fountain-head as man-worship. (Introduction, pg. 9)

And so, all of the religious attitudes are confusions of natural emotions and feelings that are directed at the wrong object. Man himself is the true object of reverence and worship, and this is the foundation of Randian philosophy. It is impossible to accept any consequence derived from this philosophy and not accept the "man-worship" that lies at its core. Therefore, Christian devotees of the Randian philosophy, like anarchy2day, are profoundly confused individuals. And in the opinion of Rand herself, if she were alive today to pronounce judgement, anarchy2day and others like him would be considered contemptable weaklings who cannot free themselves from the disgusting, servile debasement that is Christian faith.

Rand herself was atheistic. Her philosophy is just that - philosophy. It isn't theology and is very much separable from her atheistic views.

I would remind Mantis that Plato and Aristotle were also atheists. It doesn't mean that their philosophies aren't usable by anyone of any theology.

Marx (and Engels) were some more atheists. Doesn't stop people with a theological viewpoint to strive to implement their philosophy.

Thanks for playing that little ruse though. It was fun while it lasted.

What you don't understand is that Rand's philosophy, in itself, isn't atheistic. If anything, it could be considered more humanist than anything else.

If I could speak to Rand, I wouldn't mind telling her exactly where I think her philosophy is wrong. It probably would not surprise you that I think her atheism is misplaced, but it's not her atheism that I find her most objectionable trait. It's her open hostility towards religion, Christian or otherwise, which is her worst flaw. But I won't dwell on it so much. I've stated it here and elsewhere many times before.

Thank you for the quotation from The Fountainhead. As with Rand herself, she gives her main characters (namely Howard Roark, from the aforementioned, The Fountainhead and John Galt from Atlas Shrugged) the same atheistic and hostility towards religion that Rand had, although, Roark had it to a lesser degree. His atheism was abundant but he wasn't openly harsh towards religion.

I'm sure that she would find me a contemptible fool or some other such. *shrug* I would take it as a bonus if she thought of me whatsoever.

I would tell her so and that her ability to show contempt for others puts a hole in her "man is God" view of things. I would also point out that those who oppose her philosophical men in her novels are also men. Should they not also be central to her beliefs? In fact, one might suggest that those opposing John Galt (and the other strikers) in Atlas Shrugged were carrying out her beliefs as much as Galt was, perhaps more.

There is a good deal that can be taken from Rand's philosophy, Objectivism (as she termed it). I dare say, a good deal more than can be taken from Marx. Namely, relying upon your own talents and being your own person - an individual. Also, striving to be the best you can and do your best at applying them. The sanctity of the individual is one of the overriding messages of her philosophy, hence, the "man-worship". The worship of man and his individual achievements. It sounds a great deal like pride (which is one of the seven deadly sins) but I'm not sure it qualifies in this sense. For example, the characters which represent the strikers in the novel Atlas Shrugged, don't practice it with the intent to show-off. In fact, they keep their accomplishments from the world at large by not sharing their achievements and not seeking any glory.

But, I digress. I've gone on much too long.

I'll end with just this little nugget. You can divorce Rand's philosophy from her religious (or anti-religious) fervor. In truth, you can even divorce parts of her philosophy from the overall philosophy without any difficulty.

Mantis? Are you there? Do I hear crickets chirping?

I would just paraphrase as many Rush songs as possible. Neil Peart was heavily influenced by her writing.

Quote:

I would just paraphrase as many Rush songs as possible. Neil Peart was heavily influenced by her writing.

Why would I let anyone else speak for me, even if it is through song?

Crickets? You will not be so lucky.

LOL. That's an intellectual cat fight, BTW.

Quote:

Rand herself was atheistic. Her philosophy is just that - philosophy. It isn't theology and is very much separable from her atheistic views.

I can tell we are probably never going to agree on this, but let's see if we can at least come to some understanding. I know you like everything Rand has to say about individualism. But individualism is not a Randian idea. You can find this in the work of any number of philosophers, each with their own permutations on what it means to be an individual over and above the collective. Not all of them are atheists. What I don't understand about Christian fans of Rand is why they don't pick a philosophy more suitable to their personal beliefs. If your philosopher of choice was Kierkegaard, I wouldn't have a problem with anything you write on this topic, at least not insofar as your influences are concerned.

Quote:

I would remind Mantis that Plato and Aristotle were also atheists. It doesn't mean that their philosophies aren't usable by anyone of any theology.

True enough, but be careful with this analogy. Plato's ideal society doesn't necessarily exclude Christians. Rand, on the other hand, excludes Christians from full humanity. I'd say there's a big difference here, wouldn't you?

Quote:

Thanks for playing that little ruse though. It was fun while it lasted.

Not over yet. I'm interested to see what you think about what I've written above.

Quote:

What you don't understand is that Rand's philosophy, in itself, isn't atheistic. If anything, it could be considered more humanist than anything else.

Okay, I was understanding you up until this. I don't know what you mean by "in itself," but I don't know how you can claim that Rand's philosophy is not inherently atheistic. Roark is Rand's ideal human. Is he a theist? Are any of the "good guys" in Atlas Shrugged theists? These are the only two novels of hers I've read, but I'm willing to bet none of her ideal humans are theists. Is that a coincidence?

Calling her philosophy "humanist" as a way to deflect the charge that it is atheistic doesn't make sense. Humanism is also atheism. It is the position that the human being is the center of the cosmos, and consequences for humanity should be the goal of all human action. Now, I know many Christians call themselves humanists, but these people are confused, not only about the real meaning of humanism, but about their theology as well.

Rand's philosophy is most definitely humanist--"man-worship" to be more precise. Adding a transcendent being like the Christian God to that equation doesn't work. Once you have God, you no longer have humanism, and you no longer have Rand's ideal human. The ideal human is the whole point of her philosophy. Despite her protestations, she is a Nietzschean to her core. Randian philosophy has everything to do with the human subject, and atheism is a necessary component.

Sure, you can screen out the atheism and still claim to be following Rand's philosophy, but once you do that, you could just as easily be following some other philosophy that deals with individualism and the ideal human. At the very least, the choice of philosophy could be more appropriate.

Quote:

If I could speak to Rand, I wouldn't mind telling her exactly where I think her philosophy is wrong. It probably would not surprise you that I think her atheism is misplaced, but it's not her atheism that I find her most objectionable trait. It's her open hostility towards religion, Christian or otherwise, which is her worst flaw. But I won't dwell on it so much. I've stated it here and elsewhere many times before.

I don't have anything to add here since my comments above cover this as well, but I wanted to let you know I've read this and understand you are not a true Randian. But that's kind of the whole point of everything I'm saying.

Quote:

There is a good deal that can be taken from Rand's philosophy, Objectivism (as she termed it). I dare say, a good deal more than can be taken from Marx. Namely, relying upon your own talents and being your own person - an individual. Also, striving to be the best you can and do your best at applying them. The sanctity of the individual is one of the overriding messages of her philosophy, hence, the "man-worship". The worship of man and his individual achievements. It sounds a great deal like pride (which is one of the seven deadly sins) but I'm not sure it qualifies in this sense. For example, the characters which represent the strikers in the novel Atlas Shrugged, don't practice it with the intent to show-off. In fact, they keep their accomplishments from the world at large by not sharing their achievements and not seeking any glory.

I give credit where credit is due. This is a good analysis, and I agree with much of what you say here. I don't know your full thoughts on Marx, but I wouldn't dismiss him perfunctorily. Marx's early works deal a lot with what it means to be a human being. There are places in Marx's early writings that would fit right in with Rand's own views. The later writings of Marx abandoned humanistic philosophy in favor of socioeconomic theory, which is what most people know him for. So, unless we are comparing Rand to early Marx, there isn't really much of a comparison to be made. Rand is primarily concerned with the human subject and later Marx is exclusively concerned with the objective world.

Quote:

You can divorce Rand's philosophy from her religious (or anti-religious) fervor. In truth, you can even divorce parts of her philosophy from the overall philosophy without any difficulty.

How interesting. Isn't this the same argument I was making about Whitaker Chamber's review of Atlas Shrugged? You dismissed his review because of his former communist beliefs. He wasn't even a communist anymore, and you still dismissed him, failing to "divorce" his beliefs from his review. So, if you are willing to extend this courtesy to Rand, divorcing her personal beliefs from the philosophy in her novels, are you now willing to do the same for Chambers? This is a test of your intellectual honesty. I think I've been very fair with you in my response. Now, it's your turn.

Quote:

I can tell we are probably never going to agree on this, but let's see if we can at least come to some understanding. I know you like everything Rand has to say about individualism. But individualism is not a Randian idea. You can find this in the work of any number of philosophers, each with their own permutations on what it means to be an individual over and above the collective. Not all of them are atheists. What I don't understand about Christian fans of Rand is why they don't pick a philosophy more suitable to their personal beliefs. If your philosopher of choice was Kierkegaard, I wouldn't have a problem with anything you write on this topic, at least not insofar as your influences are concerned.

I do like Rand's views on individualism, you are correct there. As for the rest, I'm not concerned whether you have a problem with anything I write on this or any other subject.

Quote:

True enough, but be careful with this analogy. Plato's ideal society doesn't necessarily exclude Christians. Rand, on the other hand, excludes Christians from full humanity. I'd say there's a big difference here, wouldn't you?

Rand doesn't exclude anyone. She's openly hostile to every theology, not just Christianity. I don't know that Plato's ideal society wouldn't exclude Christians. His ideal world as expressed in The Republic would also be exclusive of Christians or would be no less harsh towards Christian tenets as you suggest that Rand's ideal world would be.

Quote:

Not over yet. I'm interested to see what you think about what I've written above.

Well, then read it what I think of it.

Quote:

Okay, I was understanding you up until this. I don't know what you mean by "in itself," but I don't know how you can claim that Rand's philosophy is not inherently atheistic.

It is philosophy. It isn't theological and so religious aspects don't apply except indirectly and tangentially.

Quote:

Roark is Rand's ideal human. Is he a theist? Are any of the "good guys" in Atlas Shrugged theists? These are the only two novels of hers I've read, but I'm willing to bet none of her ideal humans are theists. Is that a coincidence?

Actually, John Galt is Rand's ideal man. In her books, both Roark (The Fountainhead) and Galt (Atlas Shrugged) are atheists. That's not surprising though since Rand was an atheist.

Quote:

Calling her philosophy "humanist" as a way to deflect the charge that it is atheistic doesn't make sense. Humanism is also atheism.

Humanism isn't inherently atheist. In fact, most humanist philosophies have a religious foundation.

Quote:

It is the position that the human being is the center of the cosmos, and consequences for humanity should be the goal of all human action. Now, I know many Christians call themselves humanists, but these people are confused, not only about the real meaning of humanism, but about their theology as well.

I don't consider myself a humanist but I can appreciate the individual aspects of certain philosophies, including humanist ones.

Rand's views were, I think, more along the lines of what the Founding Fathers would have espoused, less the hostility towards religion. If anything, her views are more austere than those of the Founding Fathers in regards to the powers that government should have.

Quote:

Rand's philosophy is most definitely humanist--"man-worship" to be more precise. Adding a transcendent being like the Christian God to that equation doesn't work. Once you have God, you no longer have humanism, and you no longer have Rand's ideal human. The ideal human is the whole point of her philosophy. Despite her protestations, she is a Nietzschean to her core. Randian philosophy has everything to do with the human subject, and atheism is a necessary component.

Humanism is not inherently exclusive of religion. And despite Rand's heavy dose of atheism (see Roark & Galt) in her heroic characters, she also infuses it into her antagonists as well (see Toohey in The Fountainhead & Dr. Ferris in Atlas Shrugged).

One of the main institutions mentioned in the book is the Patrick Henry University (of Cleveland

). Ironically, Patrick Henry was not an atheist. He was a devout Christian and along with the Carroll's was instrumental in the 'freedom OF religion' in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

Quote:

Sure, you can screen out the atheism and still claim to be following Rand's philosophy, but once you do that, you could just as easily be following some other philosophy that deals with individualism and the ideal human. At the very least, the choice of philosophy could be more appropriate.

Rand's philosophy deals with capitalism as well. In fact, the individual's ownership of one's self (religion aside) and the product of their work, is the basic tenet of Atlas Shrugged. The religious views of only a handful of the characters in the book are ever really expressed and nearly all of them surround atheism.

Quote:

I don't have anything to add here since my comments above cover this as well, but I wanted to let you know I've read this and understand you are not a true Randian. But that's kind of the whole point of everything I'm saying.

I never claim to be a follower of Rand. I think that her philosophy has a lot of good points to make in it's defense. I hold views that could be extrapolated from a number of different philosophies, parts of which could include that of Rand.

Quote:

I give credit where credit is due. This is a good analysis, and I agree with much of what you say here. I don't know your full thoughts on Marx, but I wouldn't dismiss him perfunctorily. Marx's early works deal a lot with what it means to be a human being. There are places in Marx's early writings that would fit right in with Rand's own views. The later writings of Marx abandoned humanistic philosophy in favor of socioeconomic theory, which is what most people know him for. So, unless we are comparing Rand to early Marx, there isn't really much of a comparison to be made. Rand is primarily concerned with the human subject and later Marx is exclusively concerned with the objective world.

Rand is primarily concerned with the individual and Marx is primarily concerned with the collective.

Quote:

How interesting. Isn't this the same argument I was making about Whitaker Chamber's review of Atlas Shrugged? You dismissed his review because of his former communist beliefs.

No. You use his views earlier to condemn Rand because of her atheism. Her atheism shouldn't even be a consideration. Like Chambers, you can't seem to disgorge her atheist (theological views) from her philosophical ones.

Quote:

He wasn't even a communist anymore, and you still dismissed him, failing to "divorce" his beliefs from his review. So, if you are willing to extend this courtesy to Rand, divorcing her personal beliefs from the philosophy in her novels, are you now willing to do the same for Chambers? This is a test of your intellectual honesty. I think I've been very fair with you in my response. Now, it's your turn.

I'm not willing to divorce his philosophical views (maybe they changed) from him. I could accept that maybe his theological views changed (he went from being an atheist to a Christian) but held onto his Marxist philosophy, a la Jim Jones. No, I won't give Whitaker Chambers any slack on that side of the ledger. Theology does not equal philosophy. That would be like calling the Founding Fathers 'atheists' because they were influenced by the philosophies of Aristotle, John Locke, and others.

There are no Christians who believe Ayn's philosophy to be theirs, because Ayn's philosophy cuts through Christianity. You cannot live for yourself when you live for God.

However, Republicans love Ayn Rand because it gives them an excuse -- no -- a reason to be as selfish as possible no matter what the cost. That's why many CEO's dusted off Atlas Shrugged to read after Enron's fiasco.

Quote:

There are no Christians who believe Ayn's philosophy to be theirs, because Ayn's philosophy cuts through Christianity. You cannot live for yourself when you live for God.

However, Republicans love Ayn Rand because it gives them an excuse -- no -- a reason to be as selfish as possible no matter what the cost. That's why many CEO's dusted off Atlas Shrugged to read after Enron's fiasco.

It seems that you don't know the difference between philosophy and theology either.

Quote:

How interesting. Isn't this the same argument I was making about Whitaker Chamber's review of Atlas Shrugged? You dismissed his review because of his former communist beliefs. He wasn't even a communist anymore, and you still dismissed him, failing to "divorce" his beliefs from his review. So, if you are willing to extend this courtesy to Rand, divorcing her personal beliefs from the philosophy in her novels, are you now willing to do the same for Chambers?

If you like someone, you minimize or ignore the things that don't agree with you.

If you don't like them, those things become instant qualification for dimissal.

Quote:

*** You are ignoring this user ***

My enjoyment in the threads has improved dramatically when I see these peppered throughout.

Quote:

Quote:

*** You are ignoring this user ***

My enjoyment in the threads has improved dramatically when I see these peppered throughout.

Sigh. This is especially pathetic, seeing as I was responding to Mantis, not you.

When your intention is to ignore someone... you simply ignore them. And that's the end of it.

This is the exact opposite of ignoring someone. This is attention seeking.

You're trying to announce 'Look, everyone! I'm ignoring him!'. It's an insecure plea for attention.

I was honored to be placed on anarchy's ignore list on the old board.

Quote:

I was honored to be placed on anarchy's ignore list on the old board.

I was going to give you another shot, but welcome to it again.

Now, I'll have to look to see who I'm ignoring.

Now you're just feeding the poor guy's delusions of grandeur.

Ah, what else has he got? At least he's a Browns fan. It's the least I could do.

Quote:

If you like someone, you minimize or ignore the things that don't agree with you.

If you don't like them, those things become instant qualification for dimissal.

Apparently. I don't exclude myself from this tendency either. We all do it. But I like to think that when I have it pointed out to me, I admit what I'm doing and try to improve. This is what it means to be intellectually honest. I don't know why expected a2d to do this. I guess I have a weakness for expecting the best from others.

Why are you ignoring PDR, and why am I not on your ignore list?

Quote:

I do like Rand's views on individualism, you are correct there. As for the rest, I'm not concerned whether you have a problem with anything I write on this or any other subject.

Are you concerned about having well informed opinions? Are you concerned about consistency in your beliefs? If so, you should be concerned about what I have a problem with.

Quote:

Rand doesn't exclude anyone.

Might be time to re-read your copies of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Quote:

It is philosophy. It isn't theological and so religious aspects don't apply except indirectly and tangentially.

Atheism is a philosophical principle. Almost every philosopher today is a materialist. That means nothing exists but the material world. Therefore, God does not exist and atheism is true. I don't know where you got this ridiculous notion that atheism has nothing to do with philosophy, but you should drop that one my friend. You sound silly.

Quote:

Actually, John Galt is Rand's ideal man.

Actually, they both are. Read her introduction to the 25th anniversary edition. Atlas Shrugged was Rand's attempt to make her philosophical position clear for those who missed it the first time around, and Galt was Roark 2.0.

Quote:

Humanism isn't inherently atheist. In fact, most humanist philosophies have a religious foundation.

Do go on. You've made the claim, now back it up. Perhaps you could give a specific example of one such humanist philosophy?

Quote:

Rand is primarily concerned with the individual and Marx is primarily concerned with the collective.

Spoken like a man who has never read Marx. And don't tell me you've read the Communist Manifesto because I'll just laugh at you. Read Capital Volume 1 and then I'll take your views on Marx seriously.

Quote:

I'm not willing to divorce his philosophical views (maybe they changed) from him. I could accept that maybe his theological views changed (he went from being an atheist to a Christian) but held onto his Marxist philosophy, a la Jim Jones. No, I won't give Whitaker Chambers any slack on that side of the ledger. Theology does not equal philosophy. That would be like calling the Founding Fathers 'atheists' because they were influenced by the philosophies of Aristotle, John Locke, and others.

What are you talking about? Did you get tired at the end of your response? This is the most incoherent paragraph I've ever read from you, and that's saying something. I'm going to give you the chance to rewrite this and make a cogent argument. Maybe you should try refocusing on the question. If Rand's personal beliefs can be divorced from what she writes in her novels, why can't Chambers' personal beliefs be divorced from what he writes in his review? Give it another shot.

Quote:

Are you concerned about having well informed opinions? Are you concerned about consistency in your beliefs? If so, you should be concerned about what I have a problem with.

Am I concerned about consistency in my beliefs? Not at all. My beliefs are rock solid. I'm not at all concerned with what you think.

Quote:

Might be time to re-read your copies of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

I'm listening to Atlas Shrugged currently. I haven't fired up The Fountainhead in a while. I might throw We the Living into the hopper too.

Quote:

Atheism is a philosophical principle.

You're wrong. Atheism is a theological principle. It can be mixed with philosophical principles, in such cases as Marxism and in Rand's own harshness towards religion. Just the same, her atheism is not equal to her overall philosophical principles.

Philosophies are inherently secular. Theologies are not. When you mix the two, you end up with an ideology.

Quote:

Almost every philosopher today is a materialist. That means nothing exists but the material world. Therefore, God does not exist and atheism is true. I don't know where you got this ridiculous notion that atheism has nothing to do with philosophy, but you should drop that one my friend. You sound silly.

Blah, blah, blah.

Quote:

Actually, they both are. Read her introduction to the 25th anniversary edition. Atlas Shrugged was Rand's attempt to make her philosophical position clear for those who missed it the first time around, and Galt was Roark 2.0.

Okay, they both represent her views of an ideal man (if in most respects). I'll accept that since they are very similar characters in a different setting.

Quote:

Do go on. You've made the claim, now back it up. Perhaps you could give a specific example of one such humanist philosophy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

It's a wikipedia, so take what you want from it.

Quote:

Spoken like a man who has never read Marx. And don't tell me you've read the Communist Manifesto because I'll just laugh at you. Read Capital Volume 1 and then I'll take your views on Marx seriously.

I haven't read Marx. I've seen the results of his philosophy. I wouldn't bother picking it up. A long time ago, I labored through Mein Kampf, enough to know that I don't want to pick up Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto.

Have you picked up Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'? Sure, it's economic philosophy, but philosophical just the same.

Quote:

What are you talking about? Did you get tired at the end of your response? This is the most incoherent paragraph I've ever read from you, and that's saying something. I'm going to give you the chance to rewrite this and make a cogent argument. Maybe you should try refocusing on the question. If Rand's personal beliefs can be divorced from what she writes in her novels, why can't Chambers' personal beliefs be divorced from what he writes in his review? Give it another shot.

I'm not willing to accept Whitaker Chambers. He went from being a communist (which inherently implies atheism) to be a Christian (which implies anti-atheism). That doesn't mean he cannot go from being a statist with an atheistic bent to being one with a theist one.

They can't because I'm not talking about his religious views. I'm talking about his philosophical ones.

Quote:

Atheism is a theological principle.

What research or whatever have you read that backs up this idea?

Wouldn't the only connection with theology be it's denial in the belief in God's existence.

Does that really qualify as a theological principle?

It's a belief system in a way, but please explain the connection to theology.

Quote:

*** You are ignoring this user ***

Well, you had asked for it.

Quote:

Quote:

*** You are ignoring this user ***

Well, you had asked for it.

Oh well. Maybe someone else will pass on my question.

Rockdogg asked you a good question. Here it is:

Quote:

[on atheism not being a philosophical principle]

What research or whatever have you read that backs up this idea?

Wouldn't the only connection with theology be it's denial in the belief in God's existence.

Does that really qualify as a theological principle?

It's a belief system in a way, but please explain the connection to theology.

I'll have to respond to you later. Busy day. But to answer one of your questions, yes, I have read Wealth of Nations. Enjoyed it very much. I would encourage you to read Marx. It is well worth the time. You don't have to be a Marxist to read Marx.

Quote:

I'll have to respond to you later. Busy day. But to answer one of your questions, yes, I have read Wealth of Nations. Enjoyed it very much. I would encourage you to read Marx. It is well worth the time. You don't have to be a Marxist to read Marx.

Please don't think I'm being a smart-ass, but what does Marx have to do with an individual being atheist?

Are you saying he offers a connection between atheism and theology?

Again with all due respect doesn't that connect theology to atheism as well?

Wouldn't theology have to disconnect itself from ANY consideration of disbelief in a deity other than to discuss the power of faith? imho

Quote:

Rockdogg asked you a good question. Here it is:

Quote:

[on atheism not being a philosophical principle]

What research or whatever have you read that backs up this idea?

Wouldn't the only connection with theology be it's denial in the belief in God's existence.

No, atheism is a religious belief - or an anti-religious belief. It has everything to do with theology and nothing to do with philosophy. It is absolutely a theological viewpoint.

I read Atlas Shrugged this past fall. I bought the fountainhead but it's still in que.

Quote:

I read Atlas Shrugged this past fall. I bought the fountainhead but it's still in que.

Honestly, I can't say that I've 'read' it even once. I've listened to the unabridged version (narrated by Scott Brick) many times. In the midst of it again.

Quote:

I believe what he was stating is that atheism is as much a belief system as any religion... just as ::gasp:: evolution/science. They are ALL belief systems.

Well, yes, but more than that. Atheism is a theological belief system, no different (in a factual sense) than Christianity, Judaism, Confucianism, Jainism or Voodooism is.

What atheism is NOT is a philosophical belief system.

I hope that clarifies it. For the completely stupid, I won't try to explain it any further than that.

Well to explain something to someone you think is stupid would require you to have at least half your brain functioning from somewhere other than the lower end of your colon.

Other than that your statement about atheism being a theological principle because you say atheism is a theological principle would qualify you to be a theologist in the same way Haslam saying he didn't know what was going on in his company would qualify him as completely innocent.

It's nice to see there are certain consistencies in this world, like the way your arrogant yet ignorant method of discussion has not changed.

I still remember you promising Sarah Palin was going to save this country.

That's some real anarchy there!

Quote:

Please don't think I'm being a smart-ass, but what does Marx have to do with an individual being atheist?

That was a separate response to a2d bringing up reading Adam Smith. As far as I know, Marx has no explicit position on theism as a belief. Religion, yes he says some things about that, but not about theism as such.

Quote:

Well, yes, but more than that. Atheism is a theological belief system, no different (in a factual sense) than Christianity, Judaism, Confucianism, Jainism or Voodooism is.

What you should have written is "atheism can be a theological belief system." People do take it this way, but that doesn't mean it is not also a philosophical concept.

I think we can clear this up with one question: Is Rene Descartes a philosopher or a theologian? Before I give my answer, I'll give you a chance to respond.

Quote:

Quote:

Well, yes, but more than that. Atheism is a theological belief system, no different (in a factual sense) than Christianity, Judaism, Confucianism, Jainism or Voodooism is.

What you should have written is "atheism can be a theological belief system." People do take it this way, but that doesn't mean it is not also a philosophical concept.

I think we can clear this up with one question: Is Rene Descartes a philosopher or a theologian? Before I give my answer, I'll give you a chance to respond.

I'll further muddy your waters for you. Was St. Thomas Aquinas a philosopher or a theologian.

Thanks for clearing that up, because I was scratching my trying to make sense out of it, but now I understand the context and not once did you use the words stupid or ignorant.

Quote:

Quote:

I read Atlas Shrugged this past fall. I bought the fountainhead but it's still in que.

Honestly, I can't say that I've 'read' it even once. I've listened to the unabridged version (narrated by Scott Brick) many times. In the midst of it again.

But, let me further ask. How did you like Rand's novel 'Atlas Shrugged'? Glean anything from it?

Speaking of understanding the context...I was scratching my head.

Quote:

I'll further muddy your waters for you. Was St. Thomas Aquinas a philosopher or a theologian.

That's actually a good question. I'd say he was a theologian who used philosophical reasoning. So, now we have philosophers who call themselves Thomists. I guess you would resist the label "philosopher" for these people, but that's what they call themselves nonetheless.

As for Descartes, he is regarded as the father of modern philosophy, and we are all well aware of his famous dictum "I think, therefore I am." Nothing could be more philosophical, right? But a crucial principle of the cogito ergo sum is that God provides the conditions for Descartes to know himself as a thinking being. Therefore, theism is at the heart of one of the most well known philosophical arguments.

Now, Descartes did some theology too, and you might want to argue that Decartes' cogito ergo sum is actaully not philosophy at all because it relies on theism for its truth. That's fine, but be aware that claiming the cogito ergo sum is theology and not philosophy is a rather difficult position to maintain. Would even Ayn Rand say Descartes was not a philosopher? Perhaps she would......

Quote:

That's actually a good question. I'd say he was a theologian who used philosophical reasoning. So, now we have philosophers who call themselves Thomists. I guess you would resist the label "philosopher" for these people, but that's what they call themselves nonetheless.

The actual truth is that Aquinas was both a theologian AND a philosopher. Hence, my proof that religion is separate from philosophy.

Quote:

As for Descartes, he is regarded as the father of modern philosophy, and we are all well aware of his famous dictum "I think, therefore I am." Nothing could be more philosophical, right? But a crucial principle of the cogito ergo sum is that God provides the conditions for Descartes to know himself as a thinking being. Therefore, theism is at the heart of one of the most well known philosophical arguments.

Since Descartes was not a theologian, I dismissed your question as errant or a ruse.

Quote:

Now, Descartes did some theology too, and you might want to argue that Decartes' cogito ergo sum is actually not philosophy at all because it relies on theism for its truth. That's fine, but be aware that claiming the cogito ergo sum is theology and not philosophy is a rather difficult position to maintain. Would even Ayn Rand say Descartes was not a philosopher? Perhaps she would......

Not so much. She wouldn't have said that the likes of Voltaire, John Locke, Thomas Aquinas, et al, were not philosophers either. All of them wrote about theological issues, some more than others and some more glowingly than others.

You might say that we, on this very minor scale, have had discussions about it. Are we then philosophers and/or theologians too?

I know that Anarchy takes every available opportunity to stroke his ego by telling people he fears that he's ignoring them, but I'd like to delve into this debate, because it's a good one. If he does the defense mechanism thing again where he highlights 'you are ignoring this user' with a laugh icon, I'll just smile/frown to myself...

Quote:

The actual truth is that Aquinas was both a theologian AND a philosopher. Hence, my proof that religion is separate from philosophy.

Quote:

Since Descartes was not a theologian, I dismissed your question as errant or a ruse.

I know it looks like I'm trying to box him into differing opinions ... and that's possible ... but despite all that ... there's a great truth to the questions he raises. They're very valid, and thoughtful.

But thoughts?

Can a philosopher be just that or a theologian or both? And vice versa?

Is there exclusivity to the debate? Or does one negate the other?

Quote:

The actual truth is that Aquinas was both a theologian AND a philosopher. Hence, my proof that religion is separate from philosophy.

You've changed the premise of the argument. Your original claim was that atheism could not be a philosophical principle. I responded that theism is a core principle of Descartes' cogito ergo sum. So the question remains, is the cogito philosophy? Answer the question. It's not hard.

Quote:

Quote:

The actual truth is that Aquinas was both a theologian AND a philosopher. Hence, my proof that religion is separate from philosophy.

You've changed the premise of the argument. Your original claim was that atheism could not be a philosophical principle. I responded that theism is a core principle of Descartes' cogito ergo sum. So the question remains, is the cogito philosophy? Answer the question. It's not hard.

No I haven't. My view is that theology and philosophy are not mutually inclusive. It is you that started this discussion (which has been veered from the topic that I originally posted) to attack Rand's philosophy and questioned how a Christian could accept her philosophical views (either in part or in whole).

My view is that atheism is not a philosophical principle but a theological one. And other than Descartes being a philosopher, he has no relation to Rand. So, I think therefore I am. And Descartes' full statement was: Dubito, ergo cognito, ergo sum. I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.

It's a sound statement. To doubt that one's self exists presupposes that one can think which in turn presupposes one exists.

Blah, blah, blah.

Since you tried to start by ridiculing me personally (an I'm tiring of your stupidity) I'll begin ignoring you if you wish.

If you cannot accept my premise that atheism is a theological view, why should I care to continue going around in circles with you.

My point in bringing up Aquinas was to prove that theology isn't the same as philosophy. Philosophy is secular.

When someone tries to tie their theological views (atheist, Christian, Islamic or any religion) into philosophy, it begins to corrode. That isn't to say that it can completely be thrown out, but certain aspects tied to such theological views probably should be thrown out. To use idiomatic language, it would be akin to 'separating the wheat from the chaff'.

Now, do you understand?

"OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism, but isn't it still a religious belief?"

One of the most common pastimes in philosophical discussion is "the redefinition game." The cynical view of this game is as follows:

Person A begins by making a contentious statement. When person B points out that it can't be true, person A gradually redefines the words he used in the statement until he arrives at something person B is prepared to accept. He then records the statement, along with the fact that person B has agreed to it, and continues. Eventually A uses the statement as an "agreed fact," but uses his original definitions of all the words in it rather than the obscure redefinitions originally needed to get B to agree to it. Rather than be seen to be apparently inconsistent, B will tend to play along.

The point of this digression is that the answer to the question "Isn't atheism a religious belief?" depends crucially upon what is meant by "religious." "Religion" is generally characterized by belief in a superhuman controlling power--especially in some sort of God--and by faith and worship.

(It's worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism are not "religion" according to such a definition.)

Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense. Widening the definition of "religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of human behavior suddenly becoming classed as "religious" as well--such as science, politics, and watching TV.

Quote:

Quote:

That's actually a good question. I'd say he was a theologian who used philosophical reasoning. So, now we have philosophers who call themselves Thomists. I guess you would resist the label "philosopher" for these people, but that's what they call themselves nonetheless.

The actual truth is that Aquinas was both a theologian AND a philosopher. Hence, my proof that religion is separate from philosophy.

Quote:

As for Descartes, he is regarded as the father of modern philosophy, and we are all well aware of his famous dictum "I think, therefore I am." Nothing could be more philosophical, right? But a crucial principle of the cogito ergo sum is that God provides the conditions for Descartes to know himself as a thinking being. Therefore, theism is at the heart of one of the most well known philosophical arguments.

Since Descartes was not a theologian, I dismissed your question as errant or a ruse.

Quote:

Now, Descartes did some theology too, and you might want to argue that Decartes' cogito ergo sum is actually not philosophy at all because it relies on theism for its truth. That's fine, but be aware that claiming the cogito ergo sum is theology and not philosophy is a rather difficult position to maintain. Would even Ayn Rand say Descartes was not a philosopher? Perhaps she would......

Not so much. She wouldn't have said that the likes of Voltaire, John Locke, Thomas Aquinas, et al, were not philosophers either. All of them wrote about theological issues, some more than others and some more glowingly than others.

You might say that we, on this very minor scale, have had discussions about it. Are we then philosophers and/or theologians too?

It seems that PDR is a believer in the "Thomasitic System of Right Reason", even though he has no clue of it's meaning.

Just some food for thought, but I don't get why many think Ayn Rand is some "Smart philosopher" when in reality she wasn't much more then a hack IMO, and i'll explain why in more detail below. I will also get into prayer and spontaneous healing/miracles as well.

Rand has a disdain for religion, but her disdain is based on a logical and knowledgeable fallacy. Rands arguments against God, just like all others, are almost always disingenuous.

So lets go through this with a few questions:

Quote:

Question 1: Why are simple or most atheist question related to God almost always disingenuous.

Rand, like many others uses a transparent method that is not uncommon in this form of debate. She asks a question, and then proposes the only possible answer to it. In this case Rand is being dishonest both intellectually and practically. Its part of the very reason her writings were rejected by most mainstream thinkers. She is supplying the answers she expects, in essence the answers that she wants. Without exploring other answers that just may not fit into her agenda.

Quote:

Question 2: Why does the existence of God or the involvement of God in existence as we know it necessitate complete suspension of free will and the consequences brought about by human choice?

I think that question pretty much stands on its own. Rand like many others bases her opinions on the idea that the existence of God and his involvement in existence as we know it would mean God should just completely suspend causality and circumvent human choice. According to Rand, since God doesn't do this, he doesn't exist and man is God....Some logic there....

Quote:

Question 3: What Evidence do we expect the miracles of Jesus to have left behind?

Are we looking for some very drunk wedding guests that still haven't sobered up from the water into wine?

Are we looking for a patch of water in the Sea of Galilee with footprints labeled "J.C Was here"?

Should we be looking through Nazareth Gift shops for 5000 fish bones mounted on plagues with a little red button that we can push to make them sing?

Are we supposed to be looking for a stretch of water filled with perfectly preserved demon possessed pig bones?

Exactly what evidence does Rand expect there to be left behind? What she bases her claims on non-existence of a higher power is based on logical fallacy. (I will get more into this towards the end)

Quote:

Question:4 Has Christianity been banned from the use of Metaphor?

Well that would cause some major problems with the Gospel writers, Apostle Paul, the minor prophets, and Torah which use Metaphor heavily and frequently. In fact, Metaphor is a classic Hebraic Illustrative device. One would think Rand would know this. The use of Metaphor by no means proves or disproves anything, Metaphor was just the preferred method of the writings in question, as a way to keep the readers interest on the message being conveyed. Apparently though, Christians and the Bible, let alone other religions don't get to use Metaphor....

Quote:

Question:5 Why would we expect a belief or conviction to unilaterally translated into applied behavior?

Has there ever been an idea, once, in human history that once a person was introduced to it, it universally influenced their decision processes in every person who was introduced to this idea? If that the case then thats an idea I have never been introduced to.......

Quote:

Question:6 How does coincidence provide causality?

Regarding miracles, there was an assertion made that the coincidence of spontaneous healing provided a scientific conclusion. What exactly was that conclusion?

A prayer followed by a spontaneous recovery may be a coincidence. The relationship and sequence of prayer and spontaneous recovery may very well be a coincidence,but that coincidence still leaves the spontaneous recovery completely unaddressed....

More on Miracle as they relate to the existence of a higher power

It would seem that Rand is unfamiliar with one of the more intelligent Christians, that being Immanuel Kant and his miracle critique. The short version:

To base a faith, conviction, or belief on that which is inherently an exception is an affront to ones own reason.

A miracle is necessarily an exception in normal causality, it is an exception to a normal, predictable event. thats what a miracle is. Now the moment we propose any criteria, any method, wherein a miracle can be consistently, repeatably, and predictably produced it is no longer an exception, thus no longer a miracle.

To base a faith or a belief on an exception or the lack of an exception is to base a belief or a conviction that one must necessarily apply a rule, which is an exception, to something that is a suspension of rule. To base a belief or disbelief on the tangible occurrence of an exception(Such as a miracle or other exception in the normal events of causality) as proof or evidence to disprove is logically inconsistent and intractable....Kant pointed this out.

However, as an intelligent Christian...I know this...

If you haven't i reccomend reading some of Kant's writings...You will gain far more understanding then you would from Rand. Now i have not read all of Rand's writings mind you, but some of what i have read seems to conflict in many ways with the writings of men such as Kant. I have not read all of Kants writings either, Im still in the process of that, but Kant does base his writings on sound logic.

This post is not meant as an argument, its meant to perk interests in the pursuit of knowledge....to see more then one side of a point of view, and why their are logical reasons for that point of view!

Good discussion by the way!

A) I know what you're referring to.

Assumptions are a bad idea, most of the time.

B) I had nothing to do with the discussion you've quoted.

jc

two-faced (tfst)
adj.
1. Having two faces or surfaces.
2. Hypocritical or double-dealing; deceitful.

You keep referring to the photo-shop image on his posts with completely irrelevant comments about 2 faces that have no connection to the meaning of the image as if you're demonstrating subtle cleverness.

Weiner, go to school and earn your teachers pension.

Quote:

Weiner, go to school and earn your teachers pension.

That would be - teacher's - Mitt.

Another Fail!!

Here is how you discuss something with anarchy. He won't address any question directly that he thinks will defeat his position, so you have to get him talking long enough until he inadvertantly answers the question.

Quote:

When someone tries to tie their theological views (atheist, Christian, Islamic or any religion) into philosophy, it begins to corrode. That isn't to say that it can completely be thrown out, but certain aspects tied to such theological views probably should be thrown out.

So, applying this position to my Descartes question, the cogito is flawed because it relies on theism. It is not thereby invalidated automatically, but it is not the most sound philosophical argument, and we should probably throw it out once we find something that doesn't rely on theism.

Now, why couldn't you just say that? You are making me do all the work.

Quote:

Quote:

Weiner, go to school and earn your teachers pension.

That would be - teacher's - Mitt.

Another Fail!!