Can you love Ayn Rand and God?

Can you love Ayn Rand and God? #Religion #AynRand

[@Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang]

The answer is yes, you can evade truth, but the you shouldn't. If the question is merely if it possible, it certainly is, but as Ayn Rand herself put it, to surrender reason even a little bit, is to surrender it entirely.

[@mikeblain9973]

If you are religious, then you can't be an objectivist, but you can still love Rands novels.

[@genestone4951]

Sure, love the novels without understanding them and without integrating them.

[@David-yw2lv]

I agree with most of her Objectivist beliefs,but not her atheism.That is by far my biggest disagreement.

[@David-yw2lv]

I like Ayn Rand,I don't love her.I do love God.I see very little of the core philosophy of Objectivism that is in Christian.

[@LSebastien]

If religious people are fans of Ayn Rand, then they clearly don't understand her philosophy.

[@eksortso]

Rand, though, was never a militant anti-theist, as we call them today. Her atheism stemmed from her view that consciousness devoid of physical existence is contradictory; to be conscious means to be conscious of _something_ that exists. If you believe God to be the sum of all reality, then there's no serious conflict. But I'm not a professional philosopher, so check my premises, and compare them with your own.

[@LSebastien]

@@eksortsoObjectivism does not permit the 'invention' of facts. So objectivists only believe in the things that can be empirically or logically proven. Believing in something that is outside the ability of your mind to comprehend is committing treason against your mind. Therefore, self professed fans of Ayn Rand that are religious don't seem to understand that she disapproves of the way they think. The sum of all reality already has a name - the universe. Giving it the proper noun 'God' is an attempt to make it more 'human', which of course, is irrational.

[@w4ris]

@@eksortso christian faith and morality are pure opposites to objectivist morality and world view...

[@nostorystagnates-ernieboxa5312]

I wonder if Ayn Rand would care less about the society or the question.

[@EatRawGarlic]

I'm lacking words to describe how much I despise that what substituted religion, i.e. "social justice". However, that doesn't take away all the flaws in the religions before it that I'm familiar with. Why would you try to reconcile religion with anything in the first place? It's not even a dilemma, they're not mutually exclusive, religion and the mentioned alternative can be flawed at the same time.

[@leeuwbama9433]

TL;DW: Don't bother about being consistent and fundamentally true. Just cherrypick your way through ideas that are already resonating with you.

[@w4ris]

If you still are religious after reading Rand you have not understood her one bit.

[@genestone4951]

Well said.

[@genestone4951]

Or maybe Ayn Rand was right about that too, eh? Perhaps common ppl need religion just as they need collectivism. Perhaps Objectivsm is only for those who REALLY NEED TO KNOW.

[@grahamgillard3722]

Honestly, the two are irreconcilable. And honesty must be your highest value. We Objectivists tolerate religionists to a point. But only to a point. I can be friends with a religionist, I could go into business with one, but I couldn’t marry one. I think Rand eventually gave up tolerating religionists.

[@Stonegoal]

People are fake religious. Why wouldn't you marry someone who plays make believe if they were amazing at so many other things. Some churches give you a new friend group which most people are missing now a days which is very needed. Have you ever watched or listened to people at parties. Most of them do and say lots of nothing. They go to parties just to be with other people, hang out and make friends. How is being bored at church or being bored at a church different. One has the pretense of being good(listening to the law) and one has the pretense of being bad(feasting to obsess and using mind altering drugs). But in the past both helped connect to others.

[@danielw7290]

So Ayn Rand got God and love wrong. She’s allowed to get some things wrong.

[@fredflinstime6676]

Ayn Rand is God. The only one I need.

[@eksortso]

That's kinda sad. You're still alive, and to the extent that this one author, who passed away over 40 years ago, has inspired you, that's probably plenty (if you're serious) but it's not everything. There's still a whole lot more surrounding you that's worth taking care of than that one author's memory, isn't there?

[@88SunsetStrip]

Objectivism is like Scientology but much weaker. Scientology is more rational.

[@eksortso]

I think spending any amount of time reviewing the nonsense that Scientology puts out to its believers will disprove that notion. Plenty of ex-Scientologists on KZbin got stories to tell! Meanwhile, the Atlas Society sponsors philosophers who seriously engage with Rand's and others' ideas, and they're not expected to accept them dogmatically.

[@88SunsetStrip]

Objectivism is dogma.@@eksortso

[@HANU8]

It is impossible that Objectivism is dogma. Objectivist concepts are contextual and hierarchical. Dogma are absolute rules, dogmatism is intrinsicism. (Intrinsicism and Subjectivism are not Objectivism). There are no absolutes in Objectivism, there can not be. As far as I can tell Scientology is popularized Platonist epistemology. Scientology does not believe in the primacy of existence. It is therefore promoting evasion, and thus it will lead to unreality in thought and make an enemy of reality. Since we live in the real worth this is dangerous. I have attempted to understand Scientology mainly from the free Scientology TV content on philosophy. One thing I like was that (from what the documentary on Scientology TV was saying) Hubbard tried to make philosophy understandable by all. The word Scientology and Epistemology are similar, the one is in Latin, the other in Greek. But I think it is evident that Scientology is a primacy of consciousness epistemology and therefore wrong. Basically, Scientology has the wrong metaphysics, that lead to the wrong basis for knowledge and then a wrong scientific method. Scientology is a religion. @@88SunsetStrip

[@88SunsetStrip]

Read: "Trust Your Atoms" for a giant wake-up call. This will turn your world up-side down. @@HANU8

[@88SunsetStrip]

One example of objectivist dogma is "individual rights." These rights are imagined and do not exist as a feature of humans. Another is the statement, "existence exists." This is pure dogma and a circular argument. Read, Trust Your Atoms for a complete explanation. @@HANU8