Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2388Re: [biblicalapologetics] Ayn Rand on Original Sin

Expand Messages
  • tcmadd2@aol.com
    Jul 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      Ah, my old friend Ayn Rand.  One has to admit, she was a great rhetoritician. She could really blast things she opposed.  It was one of her diatribes against collectivism that awakened me from my passive acceptance of the Fabian Socialism advocated by my professors during my undergraduate years back in the 1960's.

      Although I agreed with her about collectivism, and still do, her ideas had some serious flaws, one of which underlies the diatribe you have presented to us. She taught that one could base morality on rational arguments. Her starting point was " self-interest". Outside of her disciples I doubt if anyone would attempt to make this argument today. How is one to know if altruism, hedonism, or the preservation of apple pie is the starting point or not?

      Her argument against her straw man doctrine of original sin is actually based on her own self-invented morality. It boils down to something like "this is not fair so it is not true."  Ayn Rand is actually protesting the violation of "moral standards" that she invented herself.  Actually, in a materialistic universe there can be no true basis for morality. Everything can be explained as the evolution of hydrogen according to the laws of physics. This includes our consciousness and ideas on good and evil. No lawgiver, no laws.

      What Rand does here is to show that she herself has the fallen nature the Bible describes. She has bought into the false promise that, "You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil". Her behaviour is an illustration of the effects of our fallen nature.

      I believe that it was Gilbert K Chesterton who said, "The doctring of original sin is the most empirically demonstrable of all Biblical doctrines".

      Tom Maddux

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Heinz Schmitz <christian_skeptic@...>
      To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wed, Jul 1, 2009 5:51 am
      Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Ayn Rand on Original Sin

      This has to be the best denunciation of Original Sin I have ever read:

      This is an excerpt from John Galt's speech in the novel Atlas Shrugged-

      "Damnation is the start of your morality, destruction is its purpose, means and end. Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accepts his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.

      It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some explicable claim upon him - it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.

      The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin. A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man's sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

      Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a 'tendency' to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

      What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge - he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil - he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor - he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire - he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy - all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was - that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love - he was not man.

      Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man."

      Happy Canada Day everyone.


    • Show all 24 messages in this topic