|
Author
|
Topic: Ayn Rand
|
Philip James
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Johnson:
[QB] I recently read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. No book I have ever read before made me question my faith. I have a hard time walking around her argument, and I was hoping someone can help.
Basically she says that before we know anything, we only know one thing: That I am me. I am I, and cannot be someone else.
Hello,
well her argument breaks down on this very first assumption. Consider a newborn child. Does is know "I am I"? Or does it merely experienece discomfort until its mother (or other caretaker) provides the stimulus to comfort it (feeding, warmth, touch etc..). And through these stimuli (and others)it comes to an awareness of 'I'.
quote:
The Law of Identity, as you may recall from geometry class, states that property A equals property A. A=A, and that’s all we know about A. Yet, she claims that christianity wants us to believe that A is not A, that God is non-man, soul is non-body, and heaven is non-earth. God has no affirmative definition. He is simply immortal. Therefore, A in itself is not defined.
I'm not quite sure I follow the argument here. God has defined Himself as Love and shown Himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ. Thus we do have an affirmative definition of God. And Christianity asks us to believe that within God all things (A,B,C...) subsist. Thus God IS and all else depends on Him for its existence.
quote:
It’s defined as Anti-A. One is to give his life, as a devout, to what is not.
As I showed above God is not anti-A, but the infinite set that contains A, thus, if you like, is supra-A.
And here is the true flaw in the argument. As a devout, one gives himself to the ONE WHO IS and upon Whom all else depends.
quote:
In so long as our faith relies on what isn’t,
Ah, but our Faith relies on the ONE WHO IS;
quote:
the absolute logic behind the Law of Identity, that which is reinforced by rationality, will conflict with the Christian faith.
And thus there is no conflict with logic, identitiy and rationality. Because it is in realizing that we subsist in HIM that we truly find our own identity. (And the Truth shall make us free!)
quote:
So long as one live for something else, something that cannot be defined, one will be an other to oneself. And the problem I have with this is simple: she seems to be offering the choices: To think, or to believe.
no, she is offering you the choice to think wrongly.For if we are made to be loved (and to love) and yet we spurn the very love that gives us life, if we choose not to remain in the set (A,B,C...) that is Love and Life, we have nothing. All else is darkness.
Marriage gives us a glimpse of this love that we are called to. For it is in giving ourselves completely to our spouse (living for something else) that we find our true identity as a member of the'body' that is the family. And how much more do we find our identity, that is, who God created us to be, when we give ourselves completely to Him and become a member of His family!
quote:
To live as man, or to die as soul. To live, or not to live. To be, or not to be.
That is indeed the question, but the argument is flawed because it bases its argument on a God who Isn't. Thus it comes to the opposite conclusion of the Truth! Thus to live IN Christ IS to "live as man" and to reject Him is to "die as soul"
"To live or not to live" is indeed the choice: To LIVE in Christ, or to perish....choose wisely!
Hope that helped!
Peace and LOVE!
PJ
IP: Logged | 
|
|
|
|
WhiteEagle
Advanced Member
Member # 3728
|
posted
Ayn Rand seems to follow a humanistic philosophy, in that the human spirit is all there is, and that what we can see, feel, taste, touch, and hear are all there is to life.
If one believes that the human spirit is the highest and only authority, then one will always be looking at themselves or other people for answers to life's problems and questions.
The Bible teaches that they is hope. That there is more to life, than just material things, and material worries. It teaches that life in our bodies is just a passing thing, and that we have an eternity waiting for us. There IS a BEING greater than ourselves. He is God the Creator, our Father, our origin of LIfe and Love.
Jesus taught us to seek first the kingdom of God. and all these things would be added unto us. Life is more than eating and working, and playing.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, evidence of things unseen.
I pray that you keep searching, God can be found. He is real.
Posts: 1392 | From: Maine | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Glassnobody
Advanced Member
Member # 2434
|
posted
I don’t believe the argument you described in your opening post is either valid or sound.
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Johnson:
Yet, she claims that christianity wants us to believe that A is not A, that God is non-man, soul is non-body, and heaven is non-earth. God has no affirmative definition. He is simply immortal. Therefore, A in itself is not defined. It’s defined as Anti-A.
First of all there are plenty of affirmative definitions of traits of God in the Bible. For instance: “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God”, etc.
Second, even if an affirmative definition of God’s identity or his properties is never established, it does not imply that they does not exist. An example: even if I do not give you an affirmative definition of the color the object is in my hand, it does not imply that the object does not have a color.
Third, it is perfectly fine to define something in terms of what it is not. You even explicitly contradicted your proposition that A is not defined without realizing it when you said “It’s defined as Anti-A”. I don’t know if you have studied set theory yet or not but you can define a new set by taking an existing one and taking out various elements. For instance, consider a bag of M&M’s to be your set. You can define the set of your favorite M&M’s by saying “my favorite M&M’s are the ones that are not blue”. In much the same way, if you consider the set of everything, to say “God is non-man” is valid and true. Admittedly it is not a complete definition of God as there are many other things in the set he is not but by no means is this incomplete definition of God justification to assert He is not defined or that the law of identity does not hold true.
Without this assertion of God not being defined, the rest of the argument you gave is of little worth.
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Johnson:
she seems to be offering the choices: To think, or to believe.
If you take “thinking” to be logical reasoning (which I’m guessing is what you are referring to here), then it is silly to think that you can only do one or the other. The fact of the matter is that at the very foundation of logic is belief. With any system of logic, there will always be propositions that you assume to be true, that can not be proven, but that you in turn rely upon to build arguments upon. Take gravity for instance. No one has proved it to be true (mathematically or logically), we simply assume it to be true because we continually observe the effects of it in our paradigm of reality. In the same way, people have beliefs in God because in one way or another, they have more or less continually observed the effects of God (or something) in their paradigm of reality. Religious beliefs are simply an expansion of the beliefs people already have (but call facts for convenience to distinguish how easily observed they are).
Hope this helped.
Posts: 65 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
LaurieFL
Advanced Member
Member # 3794
|
posted
Jack, I apologize if I came off as hostile. In your profile, it says NO to the question "are you a born again Christian" which I took to mean that you were not a Christian, as the two terms are synonymous to me. Based on that information, it seemed to me that you were not genuinely seeking answers or discourse but were seeking to riducule and/or inflame.
Now that I have a better idea where you are coming from (and wow, God bless you for trying to live a Godly life in berkley, california), I can add a little something tomy post, but not much, as I still find it difficult to articulate my faith.
I believe all your answers are found in the Bible. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, I stated above - and to me that means, read the Bible. The Bible says that whoever asks the Lord genuinely for His wisdom, His knowledge, His discernment - He will freely give it.
Daily time spent in the Bible has meant the world to me and how I see the world.
Posts: 700 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Aaron
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Johnson:
[QUOTE]I see. It makes sense actually. Since I am confused about my faith, I fail to see the higher meaning of God's values, and believe it to be illogical. One question though.. What is this "natural man"? A man without faith? Isn't every man natural? Personally, do you receive "things of the Spirit of God?" If what it means to be a natural man is one who lives for sensual pleasures of life, then I must be a semi-natural man, and you must be the faithful man. Then, are the "things of the spirit of God" foolishness to you? If not, there must be a mental capacity that I'm missing that you've acquired through your faith. How do I acquire it?
This is the matter of faith: we were designed to live by the Spirit of God, i.e. by His power and providence. Because of sin man lost the life God intended for him to live. Dominance of the natural man is the consequence of the fall from grace. Although all may live according to the natural man, life according to our design is only available to those who have recovered what was lost. This is done through Christ.
The capacity you lack is the capacity to discern spiritual things. This is not a matter of appropriate mental exercises...it is a matter of faith. Your flesh (or natural man) cannot comprehend God. But through faith your spirit lives and by your spirit you commune with God: spirit to Spirit.
Any questions?
Aaron
IP: Logged |
|
|
Eduardo Grequi
Advanced Member
Member # 3984
|
posted
Hello Jack-
If you are looking to find an answer to this age old question, "Is there a God?" "Is the bible trully what it says it is- the word of God?" Then you must first start with yourself. The Book of Hebrews declare that it is by faith we believe in God and it is by faith we choose to believe in what the bible says! If you have already chosen not to believe in the Jesus of the bible then you have declared your choice. Philosophy is neither christian nor athesitic, however it chooses to deny the authority of God and try to explain away human existance as- it is okay to be you as long as you do not go around hurting other people in the process- however philosophy also teaches that the alpha personality will step on people and use them to their distinct advantage and toss them and run from them once you have taken everything you can get from them and move on.
Mr.Jackson- have you ever heard of Josh McDowell? There are two books he wrote. Evidence That Demands A Verdict? and the other More Evidence That Demand A Verdict. The choice is yours. It is the same as- " You can lead a horse to water but you can not make it drink. Josh McDowell started out in life as an atheist but some how he found Jesus! Why don't you read his books if you are open minded?
Posts: 771 | From: Belvidere, IL | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Jack Johnson
New Member
Member # 4676
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron:
I agree LaurieFL.
"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
It seems Ms. Rand has insight into the fall of man and its subsequent restriction(s) imposed upon men's lives. Some may think it great philosophy (that of the "self") but it is quite elementary in light of God's original desire for man-kind.
Gotta go. I may return later.
Aaron
I see. It makes sense actually. Since I am confused about my faith, I fail to see the higher meaning of God's values, and believe it to be illogical. One question though.. What is this "natural man"? A man without faith? Isn't every man natural? Personally, do you receive "things of the Spirit of God?" If what it means to be a natural man is one who lives for sensual pleasures of life, then I must be a semi-natural man, and you must be the faithful man. Then, are the "things of the spirit of God" foolishness to you? If not, there must be a mental capacity that I'm missing that you've acquired through your faith. How do I acquire it?
--------------------
Don't believe everything you think. Think about everything you believe.
Posts: 5 | From: Berkeley | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
No problem - I also was afraid that I might be chasing you away. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
IP: Logged |
|
|
Jack Johnson
New Member
Member # 4676
|
posted
I didn't mean to respond with negativity. It's just that it is already hard trying to stay christian in berkeley ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) so i try to ask people who have absolute faith. Back in berkeley, -> I <- am the 1 who must defend God, so I should know better, and I am sorry if I've shown disrespect.
--------------------
Don't believe everything you think. Think about everything you believe.
Posts: 5 | From: Berkeley | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
Sorry, I am not trying to make you feel unwelcome but I am not very good at thinking in mathematical terms.
All I can say is that I have experienced a very spiritual inner personal relationship with Christ and it is difficult explain to those who don't understand.
I am not trying to tell you to go away. I honestly don't know how to answer your questions to make sense in an intellectual way.
I hope others make you feel welcome and are able to help you. I feel as if you are not trying to be argumentive, but just are seeking answers.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Jack Johnson
New Member
Member # 4676
|
posted
n where does say that i am not a christian? i'm not a "born-again" christian, if that is what you are referring to. there are personal reasons for that specification. i say again, that I have a curious soul, but with the socialization of christian values, which obviously conflicts me to ask. if my intellectual curiosity is not welcome, and faith is something I cannot question, then I guess you are right, "you cannot help me."
on a side note, I know faith is not something to be questioned rationally. faith does not require reason, but the law of identity goes beyond reason; it is truth. Law of identity is mathematical truth, and THAT is why I am conflicted with what she says. think u can still help?
--------------------
Don't believe everything you think. Think about everything you believe.
Posts: 5 | From: Berkeley | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Jack Johnson
New Member
Member # 4676
|
posted
well yes u are right, i am into philosophy. but so was my philosophy professor, with whom, ironically, I spoke about the issue of religion more than philosophy. It has been a personal struggle for me, since I have always been an apathetic church goer with christian family. Then, I went to berkeley for college, and everything was brought into question. I continually read philosophy books, and I am in a stage of life where I'm struggling to hold on or give up what I once believed in without question. Ayn rand's book happens to be a recent summer read. anyhow, if seclusion is the intent of your assumption, then i guess i'm not welcome here.
--------------------
Don't believe everything you think. Think about everything you believe.
Posts: 5 | From: Berkeley | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
Welcome Jack Johnson. I have heard it said that there is no way to explain God or the Bible by using logic.
So if you don't agree with us that the only way to believe in God is by faith, maybe we can't help you.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Aaron
unregistered
|
posted
Just got back from a delicious lunch with my wife and two daughters. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
God's gospel is one of reconciliation or, rather, the restoration of what was lost.
Man lost his identity in the fall and gained what, today, we call "the self". Through Jesus, however, we are reconciled into "the begotten of God"...a new creature, fit for eternal works of righteousness.
Amen!
Aaron
IP: Logged |
|
|
Aaron
unregistered
|
posted
I agree LaurieFL.
"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
It seems Ms. Rand has insight into the fall of man and its subsequent restriction(s) imposed upon men's lives. Some may think it great philosophy (that of the "self") but it is quite elementary in light of God's original desire for man-kind.
Gotta go. I may return later.
Aaron
IP: Logged |
|
|
LaurieFL
Advanced Member
Member # 3794
|
posted
Well, your profile says quite emphatically (in caps, even!) that you are not a Christian and that you are a "philosopher." I can only imagine that your objective here is to start a debate or an argument and to convince us who do believe that we can't think or use our minds if we believe such a thing.
The Bible says that our faith is foolishness to the man whose eyes are blind, which means we cannot even explain it to someone who does not believe, nor do I feel the need to do so. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Posts: 700 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Jack Johnson
New Member
Member # 4676
|
posted
I recently read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. No book I have ever read before made me question my faith. I have a hard time walking around her argument, and I was hoping someone can help.
Basically she says that before we know anything, we only know one thing: That I am me. I am I, and cannot be someone else. The Law of Identity, as you may recall from geometry class, states that property A equals property A. A=A, and that’s all we know about A. Yet, she claims that christianity wants us to believe that A is not A, that God is non-man, soul is non-body, and heaven is non-earth. God has no affirmative definition. He is simply immortal. Therefore, A in itself is not defined. It’s defined as Anti-A. One is to give his life, as a devout, to what is not. In so long as our faith relies on what isn’t, the absolute logic behind the Law of Identity, that which is reinforced by rationality, will conflict with the Christian faith. So long as one live for something else, something that cannot be defined, one will be an other to oneself. And the problem I have with this is simple: she seems to be offering the choices: To think, or to believe. To live as man, or to die as soul. To live, or not to live. To be, or not to be. I don't question my values, but I don't question mathematics either. I like to think that I still have the will to think, but she is arguing for the opposite. Please help me out of this dilemma.
--------------------
Don't believe everything you think. Think about everything you believe.
Posts: 5 | From: Berkeley | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
