A Christian Who Reads Ayn Rand

I am a Christian who's has read, and been very much influenced, by Ayn Rand's writings. True philosophy and true theology will not contradict each other. Some attempts to reconcile the two:

Here's something I wrote a while back, when I was getting my first impressions of Objectivism.

Rand describes her Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on Earth." I think that such a statement exposes Objectivism's limitations and flaws. She contemplates the nature of existence, but does not consider the origins of that existence: questions such as "How Earth?" "Why Earth?". She doesn't believe in a God that cannot be perceived. Yet everything that can be perceived--everything that exists--must come from Something that cannot be perceived and does not exist in our world, but transcends it in a way we cannot imagine.

Here's something I wrote to a Objectivist/atheist.

Existence--in and of itself--cannot cause the identification of existence. Matter cannot cause one to know that matter is present. Nor can lack of matter cause one to know that matter is absent. Nor does your own physical being explain consciousness--the identification of self.

Do you all have any insights/arguments?

Post 1

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 1:00am

Hi Protagonist. Welcome to this website. There are several flaws in these statements. Let me see if I can clear these up for you.

"Rand describes her Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on Earth." I think that such a statement exposes Objectivism's limitations and flaws. She contemplates the nature of existence, but does not consider the origins of that existence: questions such as "How Earth?" "Why Earth?".

If you've read Rand's Atlas Shugged, you will recall the character John Galt proclaiming that "Existence Exists". Existence is defined as EVERYTHING that exists. This does not include just what we currently know exists, it includes everything that does exist. If we find out that some higher level intelligence created (caused) what we know as the physical universe using some higher order natural laws then we would simply come to discover that this being EXISTS and this still falls under the scope of the original axiom "Existence Exists". Such a discovery would simply expand our knowledge of WHAT exists.

"She doesn't believe in a God that cannot be perceived. Yet everything that can be perceived--everything that exists--must come from Something that cannot be perceived and does not exist in our world, but transcends it in a way we cannot imagine."

This is classic question begging. Why MUST this be the case? What if I made the following statement:

Everything that can be perceived -- everything that exists -- must come from a giant pink intergalactic, multidimensional space panda that we cannot see and does not reside in our universe, but transcends in a way we cannot imagine."

Wouldn't you ask the same question? Would I be able to provide any evidence to back up such a statement?

"Existence--in and of itself--cannot cause the identification of existence. Matter cannot cause one to know that matter is present. Nor can lack of matter cause one to know that matter is absent. Nor does your own physical being explain consciousness--the identification of self."

I don't quite get at what you are trying to say here. Can you give us a further explanation?

How human consciousness developed during the last billion or so years is a question of science. We cannot suddenly assume that something called "God" is the reason simply because we don't have any other clear answer at the moment. A statement to that effect would again be begging the question and could not be considered as a valid claim to knowledge unless you have evidence to back it up.

George Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God is an excellent book that I highly recommend if you would like to question your faith.... or eliminate the idea of faith as a valid form of knowledge altogether. Anyways, I'd be glad to continue the conversation if you'd like.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 5/02, 1:13am)

Post 2

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 4:54am

Protagonist,

Welcome. What do you think was the most important thing that Ayn wrote in Atlas Shrugged? I have 3 favorites.

1. "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
2. "There are no evil thoughts except one: the refusal to think".
3. Galt's speach on what money is.

Now as to your comments:

"How Earth?" "Why Earth?"

I am not Ayn. But if I were to restate what she said in my own words, I would say "a philosophy for living in reality." Since you are currently a Christian, you have a very different idea of what reality is than many of the people here. I would like to point out that its important to learn as much about reality as possible, so that one can make the best decisions. Despite our differences, I hope that we can still live in a harmony of interests.

everything that can be perceived--everything that exists--must come from Something that cannot be perceived and does not exist in our world, but transcends it in a way we cannot imagine.

Please do explain how you know this. What evidence do you have to support that claim?

Existence--in and of itself--cannot cause the identification of existence. Matter cannot cause one to know that matter is present. Nor can lack of matter cause one to know that matter is absent. Nor does your own physical being explain consciousness--the identification of self.

I love this question. Basically, I think you are asking "How does consciousness arise from matter?" I will start off by stating that just because we are not sure of the answer yet, it does not imply that God/Spirits/Souls exist. Now to answer your question in less than 5 minutes...

Consciousness is a state machine which has sensors to detect reality. The human mind is a very complex state machine. It has a practically infinite number of possible states, they are influenced by an incredible number of inputs, with an incredible number of ways to change state. Basically what that means is that some matter is able to receive information about itself & surroundings, and also able to use that information to change its state. Your consciousness is every message sent from neuron to neuron in your brain, some of which lasts over a period of time (20 seconds) because the messages can be sent through loops of neurons.

Considering Artificial Intelligence (AI) in computer science, I have reason to believe that its possible to create such a consciousness with electronics. And then of course electronics have a great long-term memory (hard drives & flash drives).

One very interesting question is "How does the brain store long term memories?" The human brain is an amazing thing.

Post 3

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 8:04am

Thanks for posting, Protagonist.

Regarding all things: How do you know what you know? What is your method of acquiring knowledge? Slowly and carefully examine all the perceptual input you experience.

Let Epistemology be your guide.

Post 4

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 8:04am

May I suggest, to Dean at least, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's section on cognitive science. Interesting read.

Post 5

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 10:49am

Protagonist,

Welcome. I presume and hope you are serious about your questions and not just on a missionary crusade.

The question of God is dealt with by Objectivism on an axiomatic concept level. I recently posted on this to a person I am afraid is not very serious, but who was postulating reincarnation. I have adapted these comments for "Chriastian God."

I would like to direct your attention to the chapter that deals with axiomatic concepts in the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

In it, Rand basically gave the reason she did not speak too much about this kind of metaphysical speculation. Her drive was to create a philosophy for living on earth based on reason.

There comes a point where deductive/inductive reasoning, which is based on referents in reality, no longer works. That is when you have an axiomatic concept or, in the case of a Christian God (or Divine Creator), faith-based (non-reason) opinion.

The hallmark of any axiomatic concept is that it cannot be refuted by assuming the opposite, which is a condition for reasoned proof. For example, the opposite of existence is nonexistence, which is not a state of anything. It is a lack of state. It automatically steps outside any syllogism or empirical evidence.

The opposite of identity is non-identity, which means instead of a state of being an individual something, it is a state of being everything and nothing at the same time. Out it steps from the realm of reason too.

The opposite of consciousness is non-consciousness, which means a state of being able to evaluate something without being able to evaluate anything. Once again it falls outside.

The opposite of a Christian God or Divine Creator is a non-Christian God (there is a wide variety of others to choose from) or no Creator at all. It is existence as being forever, i.e. before, now and afterwards and existence being something that just is, without any cause whatsoever. Existence is precisely what gives rise to cause. These positions are reasonable and metaphysically possible. Just look around you.

Of course, you may have a different opinion, but that is another matter.

Now here is a thought that was not in that other post. If our hardware, i.e. the physical brain as it now exists, is incapable of grasping some aspect of reality (like a Higher Power, telepathy or whatever) and needs further evolution to grasp it, then that is something for the future. Not now. Sort of like a dog with a book. It can do many things with a book, but it cannot read.

Objectivism, and especially Ayn Rand's formulation of it, is concerned only with what our minds are capable of knowing within the bounds of reason at the present. Any non-reason approach to thinking falls outside the scope of the philosophy's metaphysics, which is identified as knowable axioms, not speculations.

Emotions are valid evaluative drives withing the realm of reason, not forms of cognition. There is a good deal of disagreement within Objectivism as to what valid cognition consists of, but reason is always the prime form above all others.

One issue we all abhor is the religious concept of faith, which means negating our rational faculty in order to achieve some other "higher" form of truth. I think most are agreed that we might be able to add to that faculty some day, but we are all agreed that we will never deny it.

These things are hard to internalize on first contact, and frankly they get a bit boring. But if you take the time to think through them with an open mind, I am sure your own thinking will become infinitely richer, even if in the end you do not completely "cross over" to reason (for whatever reason...).

The hardest part of getting out of Christianity and going to reason is in letting go of the fear (what if I am wrong? - will I be punished for thinking God doesn't exist?) and insecurity (what happens when I die?) and the social structures (especially church life and job pressures) built around it.

Good luck to you and all the best wishes. I do hope you linger awhile around here.

Michael

Post 6

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 9:51pm

Protagonist, I am the protagonist, not you! : ) What a pecular choice of a nickname for a Christian.

Sarah, Thanks for the link.

Mike, Thanks for the insight.

Post 7

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 10:57pm

Basically what that means is that some matter is able to receive information about itself & surroundings, and also able to use that information to change its state.

You're anthropomorphizing. In a purely phenomenal universe, matter does not "use" or "change itself" into anything. It reacts to stimuli, creating a response. There would be no active or middle voice, only the passive voice.

I've heard the concept that consciousness if a feedback loop in the neural net, but that too doesn't make sense. Suppose, I have a set of "Newton's Cradle" on my desk, where the hitting of one end ball makes the other end ball swing back and forth to hit the rest of the balls, making the end ball swing back and forth, etc. Are the balls now "conscious" of each other. Do they "know" that they are swinging back and forth. Or are they merely reacting to stimuli?

The feedback loop theory of consciousness is, quite literally, circular reasoning. "I am conscious that consciousness is caused by a feedback loop of neurons, because a feedback loop of neurons is conscious of a feedback loop of neurons." How do the neurons "know" they are there? How can any matter alone "know" that it is present?

Post 8

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 11:13pm

How human consciousness developed during the last billion or so years is a question of science.

Consciousness is the identification of observable phenomena, to know what it is

Science--in a broad sense--is observable phenomena.

How can observable phenomena cause--or explain what causes--us to know what observable phenomena is? It's like asking the milk cow where farmers come from.

Thus conscious must be independent of that which is it conscious of.

Post 9

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 5:42am

Protagonist,

A is A.
And A is not B.
And rocks tied on strings are not a neural net.
And a cow is not a human being.

I am conscious that consciousness is caused by a feedback loop of neurons, because a feedback loop of neurons is conscious of a feedback loop of neurons.

I didn't say that, you did. If it actually is circular reasoning, it makes little difference to me, because its not my words. I have to go to work, so I can't speak further on this right now.

Look: I can't prove to you right now with a working example that consciousness can come from neural nets alone. For that, you will have to wait 10-20 years when we have the technological ability. I will have to stop my end of this conversation if you do not learn what a neural net is and how it is different then a bunch of rocks on a string.

Thanks for the talk. Have a great day. : )
Dean
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 5/03, 5:52am)

Post 10

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 8:59am

Protagonist,

It is by not using words precisely that we get into trouble. You wrote:

Consciousness is the identification of observable phenomena, to know what it is

You got that one right. And the observation in your "observable" comes from the fives senses receiving a bombardment of stimuli from reality (noise, light waves, smells, etc.). The conscious mind then integrates these cognitive "raw materials" into percepts, basically attributing forms with identity. It is from integrating percepts that concepts are made.

(Percepts only will give you cows. Concepts will give you human beings.)

Here is where you get into trouble. You wrote:

Science--in a broad sense--is observable phenomena.

That is not precise to an extreme degree. Science is an area of human knowledge that deals with observable phenomena. That is the crack in reasoning where a concept like primacy of consciousness can take root.

I suggest you read, if you have time, the excellent introduction to Objectivism that Solo provides. If you are really interested in knowing about Objectivist metaphysics (which would be a great idea anyway, especially if [1] you wanted to learn it for your own doubts and clarification, or [2] you wanted to know it better so you can better argue against it and convert us to Christianity or whatever), I would suggest you go to that site, read everything under Objectivism 101, then the rest, but especially link through metaphysics until you come to primacy of consciousness. The case for the primacy of existence is not dealt with in depth there (actually there is not too much to detail except refuting other systems), but it is stated well - very clearly and simply.

Just as an exercise in inverted logic, suppose I do accept your premise that an omnipotent Creator or Consciousness caused everything. (I will use "He" instead of "It" so as to not offend.) He then was the one who created reason.

On basic metaphysical issues, you cannot have reason (rational identification and integration of reality) and faith (intellectual acceptance of an idea without any supporting rational evidence, essentially a negation of rationality), coexist. It is either-or. Some things are absolute and that is one of them. You cannot believe in God and not believe in God at the same time - or accept existence as primary and accept consciousness as primary at the same time.

So given your premise, God created everything, including rationality so that we can appreciate and understand His wonders. Given your premise also, the only way we are to get to know God better - even believe in Him - is to renounce rationality, i.e. what He himself created for us to understand His creations. That to me is the height of ingratitude and is nothing less than spitting in His face.

That was just an exercise in inverted logic (putting consciousness first). Actually there is no God in the Christian (Islamic, mythological, etc.) sense. On Christianity itself, I personally have a real problem right at the start with a talking snake being the root of all evil.

Michael

Post 11

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 10:19am

"HE", so as not to offend? - lol - how chauvanistic....... the oldest dieties were female, as in Mother earth, etc...... and much more benevolent than the patriarchial ones.....

Post 12

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 10:29am

Robert, not that I understand that Michael character or anything, but I think he used "he" because that is how God is usually referred to by Christians. Pagans and polytheists are a different matter and commonly refer to either gender.

Here is my own silly take on it...

If there ever was a God, she died during childbirth.

Post 13

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 10:31am

Amen to that :-)

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 10:34am

Just trying to keep the focus on the ideas, Robert. Christian doctrine calls God a "He," and many Christians simply turn off their minds to any-and-all arguments when you say "It."

But of course I am not a male chauvinist.

And of course, if there were a God, He would be male.

Linz even stated once that Ayn Rand was a man. He wrote Atlas Shrugged.

//;-)

Michael

Post 15

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 11:57am

So given your premise, God created everything, including rationality so that we can appreciate and understand His wonders. Given your premise also, the only way we are to get to know God better - even believe in Him - is to renounce rationality, i.e. what He himself created for us to understand His creations. That to me is the height of ingratitude and is nothing less than spitting in His face.

Michael, it's funny you came to this conclusion using your inverted logic exercise. This is exactly the argument of an Objectivist friend of mine who says if there were a God and a Judgement Day, this is how he'd argue his way into Heaven.

Jason

Post 16

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 12:09pm

That reminds me of my favorite Jefferson quote:
"Fix reason firmly to her seat and bring to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question boldly even the existence of a God for if there be one, he must surely prefer the homage of reason to that of blindfolded fear."

Jim

Post 17

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 6:28pm

Very nicely said James or was that Jefferson.

Post 18

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 8:01pm

Michael -- good job with this thread. You are very good at explaining without being condescending. This is exactly the right additude that I hope continues to dominate this website especially in light of those who suddenly showed up trying to sell us on agressive moral judgements and nuclear holocaust.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 5/03, 8:03pm)

Post 19

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 7:03am