Christianity Ayn Rand and Objectivism - Christian Forum - Bible Forum - Christian Religion Bible Study Forum

Lee Parish · #1 06-18-09, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Colossians 2:8: See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. ESV

The purpose of this thread is to explore, in admittedly rudimentary ways, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, called by her and known to her followers as Objectivism. We will look at her philosophy through the prism of the Bible in general and Christianity specifically.

I am not a philosopher. Therefore I will not take much of a critical view toward her general reasoning. Rather, my goal is to display that Christianity and objectivism are incompatible with each other, Rand herself said so. However some Christians seem to think that we can marry the two.

Rand's philosophy has enjoyed quite a resurgence in the last year. Her most famous work Atlas Shrugged has been on the Amazon Top 100 Bestseller list for 112 days, topping out in the top ten and currently sitting at #60. This is astounding considering Atlas Shrugged was first published in 1957, and is 1168 pages.

A glance at the bestsellers demonstrates the power of Conservative writers to disseminate their thoughts to large audiences. Shrugged has ridden the tide of conservative thought. Therefore I believe it is relevant to speak of a dead philosopher because her philosophy is once again gaining steam. Not to mention one of the most powerful men in our nations history, Alan Greesnpan is a follower of Rand

Generally speaking objectivism appeals to young people at a high rate. It is a philosophy that lifts up the individual and praises selfishnes, capitalism, and individualism, while decrying faith and sacrifice. All the while trumpeting reason.

Not all of Rand's views are incompatible with Christianity but taken as a whole her philosophy is. If you know of anyone enthralled with Rand's reasoning, and in love with her philosophy, this thread is for you. If you have any knowledge of objectivism this is your invitation to contribute to this thread. Comments in general are welcome as well.

In my next post I will set forth the first disagreement between Rand's philosophy and Christianity: The Nature of our Universe.

Kindly,
Lee

Lee Parish · #2 06-20-09, 08:07 PM

THE NATURE OF OUR UNIVERSE

I will be using quotes from Ayn Rand, as well as the heir of her estate and preeminent disciple Leonard Peikoff, to demonstrate the differences between this man-made philosophy and the Word of God.

Quote:

To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity.
--Ayn Rand, Philosophy Who Needs It

Quote:

The universe is the total of that which exists—not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything. Obviously then there can be no such thing as the “cause” of the universe. . .
--Leonard Pikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism

Objectivism states as an axiom (something which is self-evident and needs no proof) that the universe is eternal. That there is no cause, but rather that it just is.

Of course Christians deny such a view.

Quote:

Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Quote:

Psalm 90:2: Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Christians accept the fact that God IS, and because HE IS, we are. God created the universe and all that in them are.

Quote:

Rev. 4:11: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created

Quote:

Exodus 3:14: And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

And when such time as His will is accomplished this universe that He has created will be destroyed.

2 Peter 3:5-13

Quote:

Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

It has become evident to me that the drive behind Objectivism is not to be "rational" as all adherents claim. Rather the drive is a hatred of God. Therefore you will see that this "rational" philosophy becomes very irrational.

Romans 1 dovetails nicely into any discussion of Objectivism

Quote:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Rom 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Rom 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Rom 1:32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (ESV)

I hope this is helpful and/or interesting to you. I will post as I have time. Hopefully there will be another post up tomorrow dealing with another topic. We will keep this thread relatively short, as I only intend to point out enough contradictions between Christianity and objectivism to make it clear that we cannot practice both.

Any questions, additions, or corrections are asked for and encouraged.

Kindly,
Lee

johnh1094 · #3 06-21-09, 08:24 AM

Excellent work, Lee, and reminds us that although we may agree with conservatives in many matters, we should never accept the philosophies of human thought, no matter which end of the spectrum they may come.

Worldly wisdom, which does not spring from the Bible, should never be the Christian's aim. If we're not careful, we can be influenced by some pretty outrageous thoughts from objectivisim, and its primary mode of entry into our minds may be something on the news channels we enjoy.

I know a fellow child of God who sits in front of Fox News channel for HOURS every single day. He has allowed his mind to be influenced, and doesn't know it. When I suggested he should plant his mind into the word of God, he attacked me. He thought I was a Democrat! All I suggested was that he apply his mind to the word of God instead of wordly thought.

Thanks for this great work!

Lee Parish · #4 06-21-09, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnh1094

Excellent work, Lee, and reminds us that although we may agree with conservatives in many matters, we should never accept the philosophies of human thought, no matter which end of the spectrum they may come.

Worldly wisdom, which does not spring from the Bible, should never be the Christian's aim. If we're not careful, we can be influenced by some pretty outrageous thoughts from objectivisim, and its primary mode of entry into our minds may be something on the news channels we enjoy.

I know a fellow child of God who sits in front of Fox News channel for HOURS every single day. He has allowed his mind to be influenced, and doesn't know it. When I suggested he should plant his mind into the word of God, he attacked me. He thought I was a Democrat! All I suggested was that he apply his mind to the word of God instead of wordly thought.

Thanks for this great work!

Thank you John. Thats exactly right. I am not attacking conservatism or conservatives in general. I tend to be one of those crazy states rights conservatives myself. But we have to understand what is really important and what is secondary. Plus we have to be careful what we buy into.

My first thoughts on Rand were objective thought (?) right on! Reason, I'm there! Those were Biblical ideas (or at least I thought). But when you examine some of these things they are as unreasonable and nonobjective as you can get.

Lee Parish · #5 06-23-09, 11:46 PM

THE NATURE OF OUR CREATOR

As was addressed previously objectivism claims that the universe has always existed. Not surprisingly they reject a creator of this universe. In fact their hatred of God is amazingly forceful for this "philosophy of reason".

Quote:

Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics . . . .
--Leonard Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism

So Mr. Peikoff the unquestioned guardian of Objectivism, Ayn Rand's disciple declares that no argument for God can survive for a moment. That is interesting. Bear with me for a minute, this is interesting.

Ayn Rand recognizes only three true philosophers; Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and Ayn Rand. In fact many of Ayn Rand's philosophical foundations are found in Arisotlian philosophy. Her praise of Aristotle is great:

Quote:

If there is a philosophical Atlas who carries the whole of Western civilization on his shoulders, it is Aristotle.
--Ayn Rand

However both Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas both advocated from REASON for a Creator. A "first (or prime) mover" or an "eternal unmovable mover" as Aristotle stated.

While praising Aristotle and Aquinas, Rand rails against Plato and other such "mystics" for their belief in God. She praises this country's "Founding Founders", but misrepresents their beliefs and opinions concerning God.

While I do not endorse or embrace Aristotle, Aquinas, or Plato's views of our Creator, it cannot be denied that they did believe in such a "Mover".

Rand is very inconsistent in this regard.

The hatred of God (and those who believe in him) by objectivists cannot be understated:

Quote:

Existence exists, and only existence exists. Existence is a primary: it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal. So if you are to postulate something beyond existence—some supernatural realm—you must do it by openly denying reason, dispensing with definitions, proofs, arguments, and saying flatly, “To (expletive deleted) with argument, I have faith.” That, of course, is a willful rejection of reason.

Objectivism advocates reason as man’s sole means of knowledge, and therefore, for the reasons I have already given, it is atheist. It denies any supernatural dimension presented as a contradiction of nature, of existence. This applies not only to God, but also to every variant of the supernatural ever advocated or to be advocated. In other words, we accept reality, and that’s all.
--Leonard Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism

Note particularly the bolded portion. The lead voice for Objectivism, the one to whom the creator (Ayn Rand) intrusted her creation (Objectivism), states unequivocably that Objectivism is atheist.

I have never seen a house that was not built by somebody (Hebrews 3:4), nor have I driven a car on a road that wasn't built by someone. Nor has any philosophy existed that was not first conjured in the mind of someone. Why do people reject the fundamental TRUTH that something physical that exists must have been CREATED?

I have already set forth scriptures accepted by all Christians concerning the Nature of God. Since I love the book of John so much I will leave you with the first few verses.

Quote:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

johnh1094 · #6 06-24-09, 11:04 AM

Here's a portion of the Aristotelian philosophy page of the Univ. of Tennessee that I thought was interesting.

"By the Middle Ages, such ideas (the ideas of Aristotle of a prime mover, JDH) took on a new power as the philosophy of Aristotle (newly rediscovered in Europe) was wedded to Medieval theology in the great synthesis of Christianity and Reason undertaken by philsopher-theologians such as Thomas Aquinas. The Prime Mover of Aristotle's universe became the God of Christian theology, the outermost sphere of the Prime Mover became identified with the Christian Heaven, and the position of the Earth at the center of it all was understood in terms of the concern that the Christian God had for the affairs of mankind.

"Thus, the ideas largely originating with pagan Greek philosophers were baptized into the Catholic church and eventually assumed the power of religious dogma: to challenge this view of the Universe was not merely a scientific issue; it became a theological one as well, and subjected dissenters to the considerable and not always benevolent power of the Church."

It's interesting that Rand adopted the reason of objectivism, including the Prime Mover of Aristotle, but it is not that inconsistent that her disciple would reach back into Greek culture and accept an atheistic view that the Prime Mover might not be God at all.

Funny, isn't it?

Lee Parish · #7 06-24-09, 06:50 PM

Ayn Rand was a militant atheist. I have done a bit of looking into her life and writings and it is sad that one can be as miserable as she was. But when one rejects God and rails against anyone who believes and reasons that God IS, they are bound to be unhappy.

Ecclesiastes 1:2-3,13

johnh1094 · #8 06-26-09, 09:59 AM

Amen, bro!

Lee Parish · #9 06-27-09, 09:54 AM

Later today I will have a post up. This time we will talk about an issue that should be important to all Christians - THE NATURE OF LIFE.

Edit* I know you are waiting with bated breath for my next post, but it will have to wait till this afternoon. Had more work to do yesterday than I thought.

JuliaElaine · #10 06-28-09, 02:39 PM

This is an interesting topic... I have a few friends who are big Rand fans (though they are members of the church) and while I haven't read any of her books, the little I know about Ayn Rand causes me to wonder why any Christian would embrace such a writer. I look forward to reading your other posts!

johnh1094 · #11 06-28-09, 04:52 PM

Bated: to reduce the force or intensity of : restrain <with bated breath> meaning, I'm holding my breath in anticipation of your post.

And all these years, I thought it was the bad breath that occurs after one holds fishing worms in ones mouth. Wow! Isn't education great???

Lee Parish · #12 06-28-09, 09:38 PM

THE NATURE OF LIFE

What is the cause of life? What is the purpose of life? To whom should we devote our life? These are questions that have perplexed men for ages.

Ayn Rand for her part doesn't attempt to explain the cause of life. Her axiom is that "existence exists" therefore she does not delve into the fundamental question of a causation of life.

In fact to the consternation of many followers, Rand doesn't strongly support evolution, though she supports it tacitly.

Quote:

I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent. But a certain hypothesis has haunted me for years; I want to stress that it is only hypothesis. There is an enormous breach of continuity between nature and man’s consciousness, in its distinctive characteristic: his conceptual faculty. It is as if, after aeons of physiological development, the evolutionary process altered its course, and the higher stages of development focused primarily on the consciousness of living species, not their bodies. But the development of a man’s consciousness is volitional: no matter what the innate degree of intelligence he must develop it, he must learn how to use it, he must become human by choice. What if he does not choose to? Then he becomes a transitional phenomenon—a desperate creature that struggles frantically against his own nature, longing for effortless “safety” of an animal’s consciousness, which he cannot recapture, and rebelling against a human consciousness, which he is afraid to achieve.
--Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It?

She doesn't strongly support evolution, it seems, because it conflicts with her belief in free-will.

I offer Genesis chapters one and two. Exodus 20:11, and Mark 10:6. The Bible's simple declarations on the beginning of life shine in comparison with Rand's virtual silence.

As to the purpose of Life, Rand is much more forceful.

Quote:

The moral purpose of a man’s life is the achievement of his own happiness. This does not mean that he is indifferent to all men, that human life is of no value to him and that he has no reason to help others in an emergency. But it does mean that he does not subordinate his life to the welfare of others, that he does not sacrifice himself to their needs, that the relief of their suffering is not his primary concern, that any help he gives is an exception, not a rule, an act of generosity, not of moral duty, that it is marginal and incidental—as disasters are marginal and incidental in the course of human existence—and that values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life.
--Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

The Bible teaches that the purpose of man's life is NOT the achievement of his own happiness. Rather the purpose of man's life is to "fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole of man." (Ecclesiastes 12:13)

Christ says, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God." (Matthew 6:33)

As to our third question: To whom should we devote our lives? It should be no surprise then what Rand trumpets.

Ayn Rand emphasizes the individual. In an effort to avoid collectivism and liberal fascism she trumpets the rights of individuals. I appreciate her call for individual freedom. As I too believe in freedom from tyranny, and government oppression. The Bible certainly teaches that each one (to the extent that he is able) is to provide for his own (2 Thessalonians 3:10,12) and for his family (1 Timothy 5:8). God never instructs a government to care for others. He leaves that to the purview of the government, and in our unique case the governed.

However it should surprise nobody that on this question, Rand starts with a false premise.

Quote:

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
--Ayn Rand The Virtue of Selfishness

Christianity teaches that we do not OWN our life. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20:

Quote:

1Co 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
1Co 6:20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

Christ's sacrifice purchased our mind soul and body. We should devote our lives to Him, not to our own pleasures.

Rand goes so far as to declare man a god. I wonder if she knew she how close she was with humanists?

As a personal aside, I don't know if Rand ever really studied the founding fathers. She twists their words and the motivation behind them. She conveniently forgets that most of them believed in a personal God. She forgets that Jefferson attributes "The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to "Natures God" i.e. the founder and ruler of all creation.

One more point concerning life. I will give you some quotes from Rand and will not provide any commentary only one passage of scripture will follow.

Quote:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?
--Ayn Rand, The Objectivist

Quote:

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable . . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.
--Ayn Rand, The Ayn Rand Letter

Quote:

If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix—and that cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality—and that a human being’s life begins at birth.
The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse.
I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.”
By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?
--Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Forum

Quote:

A proper, philosophically valid definition of man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells.
--Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Forum

2 Timothy 3:1-5

Quote:

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

johnh1094 · #13 06-30-09, 08:57 AM

Great lesson, Lee, and brings understanding of this philosophy through the light of the scriptures.

Max_TO · #14 12-18-09, 03:02 PM

If I remember correctly Ayn Rand was part of the " elite "and had at one point been a mistress to one of the Rothchilds . It is her type of Philosophy that has inspired so many with regards to world governance .

Lee Parish · #15 12-18-09, 09:19 PM

Truly Ayn Rand and her followers are a difficult breed. They trumpet freedom but devote themselves to a Godless world. They are forced to accept evolution as the cause of life (after all we are all just animals). Evolution by its very nature removes free will. Free will cannot exist in an environment where all our actions are attributable to the sum of our ancestors' behavior.

Christians should stay far away from this Godless, hedonistic, self-serving, irrational religion known as "Objectivism"

Christian Commando · #16 03-04-10, 11:45 PM

Actually, I find "philosophy" very boring, for the fact it is fed by imaginations of the human mind, trying to give abstract understandings to things, regardless of thier level of existance, beyond the scope of which is realistic.

this is what caused the out cropping of the totally "spiritualized", "symbolized" and "figuratized" versions of interpreting God's word came from. Of which i won't have any part of, for God teaches us to take His word. precept upon precept, line upon line- (literally), as written for what It means, unless God provides a clear understanding of another kind beyond that.

God Bless!!

Lee Parish · #17 Yesterday, 08:23 AM

I find man made philosophy boring as well, and of course all man made philosophies are condemned in scripture . Unfortunately some put a good deal of stock into them, and we must be willing to address that head on if needed. Thanks for your comments.