Category Archives: Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand, Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Theism

That was then.

20 Comments

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the first day.

And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the second day.

And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. ” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning —the third day.

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning —the fourth day.

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the fifth day.

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground. ”

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. ” And it was so.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning —the sixth day. (NIV)

So goes the (main) Biblical account of creation. Implausible? Perhaps so. But no more so than the atheistic alternative.

I love the theory of evolution. Darwin’s theory of evolution (or the modern evolutionary synthesis, as it’s called these days) is a monumental intellectual achievement. It’s a thing of great beauty and power. Modern biology would be lost without it. (So, too, would modern atheism!) Nonetheless, as creationists never tire of reminding us, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis.

I’ve studied biology. I’ve studied the philosophy of biology. I understand both the theory of evolution, and its philosophical implications. But most people don’t. (Most people haven’t read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.) Ayn Rand didn’t understand the theory of evolution. Or, she understood it well enough, and didn’t like its implications. I suspect the latter. Her one-time lieutenant (and lover) Nathaniel Branden recounts

I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, “After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis.” I asked her, “You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms — including humans — evolved from less complex life forms?” She shrugged and responded, “I’m really not prepared to say,” or words to that effect.

Not prepared to say? Isn’t that evasion, Miss Rand? Surely not!

I have serious doubts about the theory of evolution. Because it has serious flaws. (I don’t like its implications, either.) Fatal flaws? I’m really not prepared to say.

ACT, Ayn Rand, Birds, Green Party, Metaphysics, Property, Regulation

Killing Whales To Save Them (Part 1)

49 Comments

I got this in my email today.

ACT

 
Killing Whales To Save Them
Press Release by ACT Leader John Banks
Thursday, July 5 2012

The proposition that South Korea could begin so called ‘scientific’ whaling is an international outrage, ACT Leader John Banks said today.

“Like Japan, it remains ludicrous that they believe you need to kill whales to save them,” Mr Banks said.

“This thinking is as lamentable as it is obscene.

“It should be condemned and stopped before it even begins,” Mr Banks said.

ENDS
 
Media Contact: Shelley Mackey, Press Secretary, 04 817 6634/ 021 242 8785
(shelley.mackey@parliament.govt.nz)
Unsubscribe from THIS newsletter | Unsubscribe from ALL of our Newsletters
ACT

Animals have rights. Yes, even feral conservatives like John Banks.

This PR may seem like one out of left field to some, but John Banks has a long history of campaigning for animal rights and supporting animal welfare legislation. It may seem that he and (former) Green MP Sue Kedgley make strange bedfellows, but a SAFE media release in (pre-election) October last year had this to say.

Greens Lead the Way against Colony Cages

If the nation’s three million caged hens could vote, the Greens and Act’s John Banks would be ruling the roost come this year’s election, says leading animal advocacy organisation SAFE.

Outgoing animal welfare spokesperson and Green MP Sue Kedgley, announced yesterday that her party will pledge against cruel colony cage systems and Act Party candidate, John Banks, also says he will pledge his personal support to help caged hens.

…

I say (and I am afraid this is going to be very unpop­u­lar), good on them both. Many libertarians are conflicted about animal welfare legislation. They think such legislation is unprincipled, while at the same time they abhor animal cruelty. I find their arguments, that the way to prevent animal cruelty is through social rather than legal sanctions, feeble at best and unconscionable at worst.

My defence of my seemingly unlibertarian views on the matter of animal welfare legislation is this. Animal welfare legislation is not a moral issue. It is a metaphysical issue.

(Almost) all libertarians I know subscribe to the view(s) that

human beings are individually possessed of certain inalienable rights, which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of … happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers – and only such powers – from the consent of the governed; that all laws legislated by governments must be for the purpose of securing these rights; that no laws legislated by government may violate these rights …

If you believe, as I do, that non-human animals also possess some (limited) rights, then it is within the proper scope of government to secure those rights. Animal welfare legislation is not necessarily unlibertarian. Whether it is or not depends on whether or not non-human animals possess rights. And that is a metaphysical question, not a moral one.

Atheism, Ayn Rand, Faith, Genesis, Hope, Justice, King James Bible, Love, Materialism, Merciful Grace, Monism vs Dualism, Nihilism, Revelation, Salvation, Theism, There is a God!

How can a Good God exist when there is so much evil in the world? (part1) Atheist Nihilism.

13 Comments


Why, in this world of ours, do millions of Innocent children suffer and die?

This is a very important and perplexing question.
Without writing a book I would like to touch on a few points.
It is difficult to discuss this subject in a manor which will bring solace to those immediately in the Pangs of grief.
I have in the past made the great mistake of attempting to comfort people whom are grieving, or have been the victims of serious evils with long winded explanations.
That is foolish!
The best thing to do at such times is to simply share their grief with them, and let them know you care.
Only when they are ready to discuss the ‘Why does shit happen?’ question should we deliver our thoughts and beliefs.
I put forward the argument that we are faced with a set of Options from which we *must choose*.
I warn that because Evil is Evil, that even though we may pick the scenario which appears the best, the most rational, we cannot expect to be ‘filled with happiness’. I say we may be able to understand and even find serenity, yet still wish things were different… that evil did not exist.

So why does evil shit happen to good and innocent people and children?

The Atheist will tell you Religion is bullshit!
Ie that The existance of evil clearly proves that no Good God exists.

Many Atheists will say Children die simply because we live (objectively speaking) in an Amoral, Cold and indifferent universe (in which the ‘survival of the fittest’ is said to dictate who lives and who dies).
They say that in such a universe child mortality is not a moral question, but simply a cold hard fact of reality. (Richard Dawkins will tell you ‘Why Questions’ are silly questions!)
They argue that the idea of justice is a silly human/ subjective notion and as such is culturally relative… no one view triumphs as objectively true.
They argue that though we may sympathize with those who grieve the loss of a child as a legitimate cause for sorrow, yet still they maintain that any feelings we may entertain that such deaths constitute an objective moral outrage… are merely childish delusions.
There is no ‘ought’ or ‘ought not’ in a purely materialist reality.
They say everything that happens… from the formation of the Planets and stars, to the tears which flow from a mothers eye are all inescapably determined by the Laws of physics… and only a fool can believe things ought to be different than they are.

I am no doctor, yet the unspoken psychology which underpins the Atheist ‘faith’ interests me.
I think in many cases, the Cold ‘realism’ atheists claim to possess is actually self delusion.
I say many who put forward the above argument are lying, and cant actually live by their own tenets.
Why would I say such a thing?
I say because very often Atheism is accompanied by a deep hatred of Theism.
Why, I ask, do Atheists on one hand claim Philosophical indifference, while on the other they clearly harbor a passionate hatred against the idea of God?
If you think about it,… according to their own world view… they have no right to such passions. They ought to have serenely surrendered to indifferent, cold unalterable reality!
They have no basis for petty indignation!
Thus it is my contention that their vehemence betrays the fact that they harbor a sense of injustice at the way our world operates, esp when it comes to the suffering and death of children… and this rears itself in hatred towards God, and those whom claim to believe ‘God is Good’.
When Christians like me express faith in a Good God, rabid atheists often betray their acute awareness of objective morality and sense of injustice when they Hatefully retort “How Can you believe in a Good God when there is so much horror and Evil in the world!!! (Its more of an exclamation than a question)
They have let the cat out of the bag!
I say their innate knowledge of good and evil and sense of injustice.. is One of their pet unspoken psychological reasons for choosing Atheism.

Few will admit this… not even to themselves.
They will attempt a justification for their hatred of religion by such arguments as “Religion is the cause of War, and barbaric superstitions… They may quote Voltaire…“Believing Absurdities leads to the commission of atrocities”… yet insodoing they… by their own reasoning are merely expressing their own subjective morality! Ie by denying Objective morality they have no legitimate moral ground to condemn *any Barbaric practices* as they have rendered all morality to mere opinion… and thus by their reckoning their opinions in realty hold no more weight than the Satanist whom thinks raping and sacrificing children is ok.
By atheist logic reality is indifferent to questions of morality.
Thus I argue while it is not impossible for an atheist to be a good, caring, and humane person, it is impossible for a ‘good person’ to live consistently with atheism… they will find themselves appealing to an Objective morality everyday. Thus Atheists like Dawkins are deluding themselves.

If the Atheists are correct. The question is answered, and there is little more to say. Life is brutish and short. You don’t like it? Tuff! *Harden up!* Better to be a hammer than a nail!


‘Honest atheist’ Nobel prize winner Bertrand Russell quote:
“Even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and the whole temper of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”

The alternative to the atheist amoral world view in which the moral question regarding suffering and death of children is written off as ignorance is that there really are objective standards of ‘ought-ness’ in the universe… and that having feelings of injustice are not silly delusions… not mere evolutionary expedients… but valid. Ie that such feelings are an awareness that some experiences and realities ‘ought not to be thus.’
If we accept this second view to be correct, immediately we must ask then how are we to know what is truly moral and what is not?
What is the standard by which we may rightly judge events, actions, and cultures as being Good or Evil… how do we escape mere subjectivity and cultural relativism?
Ought we to be governed by our sentiments?
And what about ‘Natural evils’ like floods and disease and distinct issues from Man made evils?
I will give you my veiws on this in (part 2,3)


Dishonest Atheists Ayn Rand and Richard Dawkins whom pretend Atheism is not Objectively Amoral and nihilistic. These AntiChrists decieve Millions of souls!
“Blind Leaders of the Blind and both shall fall into the ditch”.
Tim Wikiriwhi 23-6-12

Read more…. >>>>> Part 2… <<<<< Plus Links to more posts (below) .... Car Crash

Never Happy again.

Chace Topperwien

Charity Never Faileth

The hope which is In Christ. Terrible grief shall be turned into great joy!

Ayn Rand, Ecclesiastes, Intellectual Property, Property

God creates. Man makes alternative arrangements.

3 Comments

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Ayn Rand

The power to rearrange the combinations of natural elements is the only creative power man possesses. It is an enormous and glorious power—and it is the only meaning of the concept “creative.” “Creation” does not (and metaphysically cannot) mean the power to bring something into existence out of nothing. “Creation” means the power to bring into existence an arrangement (or combination or integration) of natural elements that had not existed before. (This is true of any human product, scientific or esthetic: man’s imagination is nothing more than the ability to rearrange the things he has observed in reality.)

Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun[c].

Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?

Ayn Rand, Freedom, Nanny State, Regulation, Righteous Rants, Sheeple, Tyranny

Of Bossyboots, Busybodies and Bloombergs

1 Comment

The following is today’s op-ed by my friend (when I haven’t been doing my level best to sorely piss him off) and political ally, Lindsay Perigo. Perigo is still New Zealand’s #1 libertarian. Partly because the competition is unhealthy, but mostly because … well, the gem of an op-ed below speaks for itself. Cheers, Linz!

Lindsay Perigo

Lindsay Perigo Op-Ed: Of Bossyboots, Busybodies and Bloombergs

In the Declaration of Independence, ratified in 1776, America’s Founding Fathers affirmed that the role of government was to secure the inalienable rights of all citizens to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In 2012, the Mayor of New York affirms that the role of government is to forbid the sale of super-sized sodas.

Michael Bloomberg has announced a ban, not yet ratified, on the sale of sugary drinks in containers holding more than 16 ounces.

It is an illuminating snapshot of how far the United States has been dragged from its founding principles by obnoxious wowsers like Bloomberg that he can indulge his odious urges with such impunity.

“Big Brother Bloomberg,” as Fox News’s The Five have dubbed him, has already succeeded in banning the smoking of tobacco in public and the use of trans-fats in restaurants.

Bloomberg is now a one-man obesity nazi, on a mission to force fatties to shrink. He has bought into the latest dietary theology that sugar is the main cause of flab, and thinks it’s government’s job forcibly to limit how much of it citizens may ingest.

The last time a politician took such an invasive interest in his subjects’ health his name was Adolf Hitler. He too campaigned against tobacco, along with white-bread and meat-eating.

If New York’s citizens had any understanding of what the original Tea Party was all about, they’d eject Mayor Bloomberg from his office forthwith, before he bans smoking in their homes, criminalizes caffeine and reintroduces alcohol prohibition.

Instead, many are treating his proposed ban respectfully, as though he indeed has a right to institute such a thing. And disastrously, opponents are not staking out a position based on principle—that government under the American system has no business dictating how much sugar people may consume—but on quibbles as to whether sugar actually is the culprit (tacitly conceding that if it were, the move to restrict it would be valid). They also point out that the ban could be easily circumvented by the sale of two 16-oz sodas instead of one 32-oz one. These “arguments” remind me of the hypothetical group of folk, conjured up by Leonard Peikoff in his lecture on why people don’t think in principles, who idly muse on whether it might be a good idea to rob a bank. “Which bank?” one of them asks.

Many of Bloomberg’s opponents are of the “which bank?” ilk, toying with the proposition that robbing a bank might be OK but fretting over which one has the laxest security, the easiest escape route, etc. They forget what they were raised, rightly, to believe—that it’s flat-out wrong to rob banks, period. Bossyboots Busybody Bloomberg is radically, fundamentally, treasonously out of line with the Declaration of Independence in his relentless Nanny Statism … and this is what his critics should be hanging him in effigy for.

Here in New Zealand, the National Socialist Government has announced that the excise tax on tobacco will be raised 10% a year over the next four years, meaning a pack of 20 cigarettes will end up costing over $20 a pack. It has also set aside $20 million of taxpayer money to facilitate the path to a “smoke-free New Zealand” (no smoking in private homes?) by 2025. A freedom-conscious citizenry, smokers and non-smokers alike, would storm Parliament over intolerable outrages such as this. Alas, we do not have a freedom-conscious citizenry, just a flock of sheeple.

America once had, but no longer has, a freedom-conscious citizenry. “Don’t tread on me” has become “please tread on me.”

“The natural order of things,” lamented Thomas Jefferson, “is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

In which case, paraphrasing Diderot, liberty will be safe only when the last pathological power-luster has been strangled with the guts of the last congenital control-freak.

And when its champions are able to defend it on principle.

Lindsay Perigo: linz@lindsayperigo.com

[Reproduced with permission! The original is online at http://www.solopassion.com/node/9150.]

Ayn Rand, Christian Libertarianism

Was Ayn Rand a Christian? (Part 2)

8 Comments

Ayn Rand said

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live.

For those unfamiliar with Randspeak, Rand’s “morality, the morality of reason” is Objectivist ethics. The axiom “existence exists” is metaphysical naturalism. Rand denied the existence of the supernatural. But it is not metaphysical naturalism that defines Rand’s moral system. Naturalistic moral theories are a dime a dozen. What distinguishes Objectivist ethics from other moral systems, and that which is its very foundation stone, is the choice “to live.”

Lindsay Perigo, the southern Pope of Objectivism, explains this (here and elsewhere) very clearly.

Objectivism holds that the choice to live, while it is the basis of morality, is itself pre-moral. If one chooses to live, then morality becomes necessary; if one doesn’t, then, surely, morality has nothing to say about that? How can it have anything to say when it has not yet entered the picture?

If one chooses to live, then the book of morality opens. If one chooses to die, one can just lie down and do it … one is [then] simply irrelevant to morality and vice versa. The key to this and the fact that it keeps on coming up is that Objectivists, being intrinsicists as they usually are, cannot accept that the basis of morality is an “if”—if one chooses life. Even though Rand herself spells it out repeatedly.

Life is neither good nor bad. It simply *is*. It’s the standard of good and bad. If you choose life, then x follows.

The choice to live is pre-moral … and the basis of “moral.” The code of morality that flows from such a choice precludes murder. …

As far as I know, Perigo never does explain how the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” flows from choosing something that “is neither good nor bad,” but “simply *is*.” But it’s not, in fact, hard to explain.

Consider the following remark by impolite, badly flawed Objectivist Tom Burroughes.

Tara Smith’s focus on the issue of human flourishing … is an absolutely vital aspect of Tara Smith’s book. It is, if you will, the punchline.

When people mock the Objectivist focus on life as the reward and standard of value, they seem to ignore that “life” is not just about dodging a morgue or just dragging oneself through the day at a miserable, but not-dead, level. It is about trying to reach the maximum one can in life, in all aspects, over the course of a life. And to do that requires, inter alia, that one cultivates the virtues, and as a consequence, treats others justly and rationally. It is, in fact, a pretty demanding way to live …

Burroughes does not describe something that “simply is” “neither good nor bad.” His is a rich description of the good life, a life that requires that one cultivate certain moral virtues … whereby, one treats others justly and rationally. His is, in fact, a description of Christian living (which is, notoriously, “a pretty demanding way to live”).

Was Ayn Rand a Christian? Yes, she was. She smuggled Christian values into her concept of “life,” at the ground level. She then chose that life, one suffused with Christian virtue. Objectivist ethics is an edifice built on the sure foundation of Christian ethics.

It’s no wonder that good Objectivists and good Christians are both proponents of a broadly libertarian political ideology, such being the only basis of a just system of government.

[Cross-posted to SOLO.]

Ayn Rand, Exodus, John

Was Ayn Rand a Christian? (Part 1)

7 Comments

A mash-up is a combination of existing texts, graphics, audio or video files or animations that create a new work. Here’s the first draft of one I hastily mashed up … the Gospel of Ayn the Apostle.

And God saith unto Moses, ‘I AM THAT WHICH I AM; A IS A.’ There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible. Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me; apart from me you can do nothing.”

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live.

It needs work … but in a nutshell, Ayn Rand chose life; and, in so doing, yes! Rand chose Jesus!

Unconvinced? I’ll pass the baton to blogger du jour Ann Barnhardt.

One of the hallmarks of Rand’s Objectivist philosophy is the supremacy of an individual’s capacity for logic and reason. Those two words, logic and reason, appear over and over again in all of Rand’s writings. Here is a quote from Rand herself, emphasis mine:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

The Christian reconciliation of all of this lies in the Gospel of John, chapter 1, verse one: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

In John’s creation narrative, he immediately identifies and establishes Jesus Christ as divine, co-eternal with God the Father, begotten, not made. Today, we simply say that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. But what we must focus on in terms of this discussion is the word that John uses to name and identify Jesus: John calls Him “the Word.” In the original Greek, the word John uses is “Logos.” The word “logos” in Greek is the same word used for the concepts of logic and reason. This Greek root is indeed the etymological source for the modern English word “logic.” What John did in the very first sentence of his Gospel is to specifically identify Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, as Logic and Reason Itself. Logic and reason are intrinsic, constitutive qualities of God. They are His essence. They are who He is. This is why Christ identified Himself as “The Truth.” Logic and reason are the process and mechanism by which statements are determined to be either true or false. A true statement is simply a statement that is aligned with God. 1+1=2. True. Why is this true? Because it is in alignment with the existential reality that is God Himself. Or, for you math buffs, consider Euler’s Identity, which I and many, many others consider to be the very thumbprint of God:

Here are the five great constants of mathematics: e, the base of natural logarithms; i, the imaginary number which is the square root of negative 1; pi, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter; the number one — the multiplicative identity; and the number zero, the additive identity. Now look at how simply and beautifully these numbers combine to form a true statement. That, dear readers, is God winking at us. Rand was right — reason is our only absolute, because Reason is God Himself. If one re-reads Rand making this simple, conceptual substitution, it will literally knock you to the floor.

Knock yourself out. Ayn Rand was a Christian!

Ayn Rand, Demonic Possession, Humour, Intelligent Design

Objectivism is a form of demonic possession

9 Comments

I’m going to go out on a limb here … I think Objectivism is a form of demonic possession.

Satan’s greatest trick was convincing the world that he doesn’t exist.

Rand’s greatest trick was convincing mental cripples that they are the epitome of rationality.

There’s a connection.

Consider what Jesus says about the devil: “Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!”

Do you ever get the impression, talking to Objectivists, that they simply don’t hear what you say? I certainly do. A lot of it comes down to Rand’s penchant for pernicious redefinition. Rand twisted words like ‘altruism’, ‘sacrifice’, ‘selfishness’, ‘concept’, ‘good’, ‘right’, ‘reason’ and ‘existence’ and so on, beyond recognition in some cases. Pernicious redefinition is tantamount to lying.

Again, there’s a connection.

Satan loves cults. It is of the nature of cults to put in place mechanisms that make it easy to join and difficult to leave. Cults almost invariably have strong contempt for the intellect, human intelligence, and any attempt to think independently.

Do you ever wonder why so much scorn is heaped on “philosophers,” “academics,” and “intellectuals” around here? I argue that Objectivism is a cult here and in several places here.

Satan loves Objectivism. As a matter of fact, my first exposure to Objectivism was the potted, plagiarised version that Anton LaVey tried to rebrand as Satanism.

If you think you might be insane, you’re probably not. Denial is a hallmark of true madness. It’s also Satan’s calling card. Reason is an Objectivist’s only absolute. But how many Objectivists are up-to-speed with even the basic elements of critical thinking? Not many, if any. Check out the total lack of interest in the virtues of rationality on display here. “Check your premises,” said Rand. But most Objectivists don’t know what a premise is. They don’t know that ‘valid’ is a technical term in logic. They don’t want to know about reason, and they particularly don’t want to know what Hume said about the limits of reason.

Denial, delusion, dishonesty … all the tell-tale signs of demonic possession, and all on flagrant display here. Like a skilfully coded Trojan, Objectivism’s first target is its host’s defences against infection. Objectivism quickly disables the mind’s rational faculty, often to such an extent that an Objectivist will mistake a mantra for an argument.

Hatred, vilification and scapegoating of Christianity are further conspicuous Objectivist traits … Satan’s near. If you don’t believe in demonic possession … think of Objectivism as an insidious mind virus.

Atheism, Ayn Rand

Was Ayn Rand a Satanist?

1 Comment

There’s a quotation doing the atheist rounds. It is purportedly due to someone called Stephen F. Roberts.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.

I contend that we are both monotheists. I just believe in one more god than he does.

In an article in the New Statesman, Ciarán Hanway explains that he’s not a man of faith … he’s an atheist. The article is titled I believe in one less god than monotheists…. Hanway explains

Let’s start with the basics. What does “Atheism” mean? It’s a word derived from the Greek word “theos”, meaning “God”, and the prefix “a-“, meaning “without”. An atheist is someone without a belief in god. It is as simple as that. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a belief system that tells me how to behave or what to eat. It is a simple statement of my lack of belief in God. I could be a fascist, a communist, a monetarist, a narcissist.

… or a rock, or a puddle, or … Rocks and puddles are things without a belief in god. Indeed, rocks and puddles are things with no beliefs at all.

Monotheists reject all other gods but their own. I just happen to believe in one less god than they do.

Ayn Rand was an atheist. She “just happened” to believe in one less god than I do. I believe in the existence of God … but I also believe in the existence of Satan. If Ayn Rand literally believes in one less god than I do, she must believe in Satan … but not in God. So … Ayn Rand is a Satanist!

I leave it as an exercise for the Objectivist reader to identify the flaw(s) in my argument.

Ayn Rand, Consciousness, Exegesis, John, Keep it Metal!, Lamb of God, Philosophy of Mind, Semantics

Are you lego or logos?

2 Comments

Are you lego or logos?

And man became a living being.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Philosopher Nicholas F. Gier explains the Logos Christology of the Gospel of John.

The famous prologue begins: “In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God.” The standard English translation of logos is Word, following the basic meaning of lego as to say or speak. In other words, God is the author of the logic of the world, and his son is the expression of this logic. Furthermore, in the Genesis account of creation God speaks, or as Leonard Bernstein has suggested, sings the structure of the world into being. In Christian theology Christ is the one who orders the world; he is the one who puts it together, gives it meaning, and then redeems it from its fallen state. As Paul states: “For in him all things were created . . . and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:16-17).

The etymology of the logos, the Greek word behind “reason” and “logic,” shows that the idea of synthesis is at the origin of these words. The Greek logos is the verbal noun of lego, which, if we follow one root leg means “to gather,” “to collect,” “to pick up,” “to put together,” and later “to speak or say.” We already have the basic ideas of any rational endeavor. We begin by collecting individual facts and thoughts and put them together in an orderly way and usually say something about what we have created.

There are three Reasons that I prefer Andrew Sullivan’s translation (and mine) of λόγος.

In the beginning was Reason, and Reason was with God, and Reason was God.

[Proudly powered by LOGOS™.]