| | The athiesm distinction is one reason I don't call myself objectivist.
I think there is some truth to the notion that objectivists are athiests because Rand was born and raised in Soviet Russia and therefore did not evolve as a person with Christianity as her guide. I think that if Rand was thoroughly American, you would see objectivism with a more diestic quality. Rand rationalized a lot. If she wanted something in or out of her philosophy, she found a way to rationalize it. In her personal life, she rationalized infidelity. She rationalized Rachmaninov being great and Bach sucking. I think Athiesm was integrated with objectivism in the same way.
I can find no deal breakers between the idea that there is a "primary mover" or "designer" who bestowed absolute free-will and Rand's philosophy which is, as she put it, "a philosophy for man's life on Earth." The designer creates the playing field...says do whatever you want on it...and Rand says, "ok...here are the rules to have the most fun." Neither did Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Lysander Spooner, Ethan Allen, etc... the more serious thinkers of their time.
The obvious questions is, "Brad..how do you know YOU aren't rationalizing Diesm because YOU are thoroughly American?" Because I wouldn't go to a museum and question whether a particular painting has a painter. Nor would I go to IHOP and order meatloaf. If I did, I wouldn't question whether there is a cook (although sometimes you wonder). And I certainly wouldn't be impressed by my waitress if she were to argue that my meatloaf is the end product of a mysterious explosion...a loud *pop*...a big *bang* that just sorta happened in the kitchen...leaving my plate adorned with the most flavorful slice of meatloaf available. The whole scenario is absurd...yet this is the pretty much the intellectual track athiests are on. When I look at the moon, or the ocean, or a tree...I'm fine accepting that these "creations" have a creator somewhere along the line. That understanding doesn't interfere with my knowledge that running into the tree head first will result in bodily injury. Or that jumping into the ocean when sharks are present is anti-life and therefore immoral.
And to be honest, I don't really care for someone who would seriously deny that a painting in a museum had a painter. I'd rather watch South Park.
Now what or who the creator is...as religions attempt to address/answer is a very different question than whether there is a creator.
(Edited by Lyman Bradford
on 7/22, 9:54am)
|
|
