AYN RAND SHRUGGED

The latest manufactured kerfuffle on Capitol Hill has been Paul Ryan's sudden rebuke of the once heralded conservative philosopher Ayn Rand. The man who once said, “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” now rejects her philosophy and in lieu of the objectivist viewpoint, now claims to prefer the much more Catholic-approved Thomas Aquinas.

I guess Paul Ryan is no longer John Galt.

You have to wonder sometimes if these politicians haven't heard about the Google—a wonderful new invention that can prove someone is lying in about 3 seconds.

Why the sudden rebuke of Ayn Rand from our favorite House budget author and restorer of America's promise? It's not the cold-hearted rational egoism philosophy or the embrace of the widely discredited and plutocratic laissez faire capitalism. It's not the inherent greed and callousness of philosophical objectivism or her staunch promotion of child labor. No, no.

Here’s the reason Paul Ryan now rejects his former hero:

The tune is changing in this election year for the vice presidential wannabe to a more dulcet religious tone and Ayn Rand was--GASP! GULP! YELP! SAY WHAT?-an Atheist. Now Congressman Ryan claims, "I reject her philosophy. It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.

I don’t care that Paul Ryan has suddenly seen the error of his ways in his Randist philosophy. The political maneuver should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain. Not to mention, none of this matters anyway. It's a manufactured controversy and nobody but a few wing nut Christians and a few liberal opportunists is really concerned about the Ryan/Rand connection.

My question is about the blatant atheophobia in America. You probably have a better chance of winning public office in this country if you’re a black, gay, Muslim than if you’re openly atheist. Why are Americans afraid of atheists? Why the necessity for some faith-based belief in a “higher power?”  You don’t have to believe in their God, just as long as they believe in some God, but non-belief—that’s unacceptable.

I’m quite confident that it's because religious people can't comprehend that morality can exist without God. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, they believe morality is derived from only God and, therefore, without God there is no morality. This is ridiculous, of course. Morality isn't derived from God but out of an evolutionary necessity to live together in a commuity. Atheists don’t blow up buildings in the name of atheism, atheists don’t bomb abortion clinics in the name of atheism, atheists don’t commit genocide in the name of atheism. The view of the “immoral/amoral atheist” is a conjured up straw man used by the religious in order to explain away all the ills of the world.

But Stalin was an atheist…so more people have been killed in the name of atheism than any other philosophy.

Because Stalin was an atheists does not mean his murder streak was in the name of atheism. Atheism was a part of the larger Communist philosophy. Stalin was a totalitarian psychopath. Besides, Stalin was educated in an Orthodox seminary—it’s just as arguable that his religious upbringing and education had plenty to do with his violence. There’s a reason they call them the “formative years.”

But, Lemon, Hitler was an atheist.

Um…no he wasn’t. Do a little research before you start throwing out easily disprovable lies that you heard from some right wing loony tune.

I don’t support the larger part of Ayn Rand objectivism. I’m a liberal. I believe that there is a place for the collective good over self-interest. Objectivism is a cold, heartless philosophy not based in any sort of realistic vision of society or people in general and, frankly, I think it’s just wrong. First, quantum physics is starting to disprove the metaphysical aspect of objectivism (that reality exists independent of man’s conscious observations—for a great quantum read, I suggest Biocentrism by Robert Lanza). I’m far less Aristotelian than Rand. Aristotle, was (ironically) irrationally optimistic about man. While I agree that reason and logic should be man’s way of acquiring knowledge, the empirical evidence shows that man’s worldview is not based on logic or reason. Take religion, for example. The vast majority of people in the world have some sort of religious belief. Studies show that belief decreases with an increase in analytical thinking. Religion is, by nature, irrational. If ration was man’s default, there would be far less religion in the world. Objectivism is a rather ironic viewpoint in that it’s an idealistic view of man rather than a view based on the empirical evidence. Besides, as a liberal, I don’t believe that man’s default is total rejection of the collective good in the name of self-interest and no good Christian ethicist should believe that either. Remember the whole basis of your religion? JC died for you, not for him (apparently). 

I don’t support objectivism, but Ayn Rand nailed it on the head with her views on religion.

In response to the question, “has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?” Ayn Rand answered:

“Qua religion, no - in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very - how should I say it? - dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith.”—Playboy Interview, 1964

That is a reasonable opinion. So why do so many people fear reason? Why does religion get a free pass from being questioned? Is it because if people were asked to defend their religion, they might sound a little ridiculous? This is particularly true of intelligent people. A less intelligent person has no problem saying that a man lived in a big fish for three days or Lazarus was raised from the dead. Smart people hedge at the thought of hearing themselves defending talking snakes and virginal births. So instead of defending the book they use to condemn whole segments of society, many religious people just claim the Bible is symbolism. Frankly, I’m of the belief that religion is far less about God than it is about a perceived social obligation—but that’s just me.

Atheophobia is, in itself, irrational. The evidence points out that the areligious, in terms of basic moral decency, are actually more moral than their religious counterparts. More secularized countries and more secularized states in America are less violent than the more religious countries and states.

The amoral atheist is just a plain lie and I’m sick of the automatic correlation between religiosity and moralism. There’s just no link. Tell me a man is religious, fine—so they believe in a prescribed set of philosophies. Is he moral? That’s a different question and it’s not based on his chosen religion.

And for those of you, like Paul Ryan, who still believe or at least portray that Christianity/Religiosity should be a prerequisite for public office, I would simply remind you of Article VI, paragraph 3 of our own Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.