Posted on 03/06/2014 8:38:51 AM PST by jonno
On the 32nd anniversary of her death, Pastor John Piper discusses the life and influence of Ayn Rand (~11 min interview).
https://dwynrhh6bluza.cloudfront.net/website_uploads/audio_files/interviews/292_Ayn_Rand_s_Tragic_Trajectory.mp3
She rejected faith as a means of cognition.
She simply is using the definition 'belief which is not based on proof'.
But the other meaning of faith is 'confidence or trust in a person or thing'.
That trust and confidence is based on various proofs.
Christianity never claimed that one should believe it's claims without proof.
In fact, it claimed it could defend it's claims of Christ's resurrection with 'many infallible proofs (Acts 1:3)
It is not faith that starts your car in the morning, but it is faith that it will start in the morning. Sometimes it doesn't for some reason unknown to us (leaving the lights on)
No doubt the system that the U.S. has adopted is fascism, as Rand predicted when she observed John F. Kennedy's administration.
Are you suggesting that religious agreement (or uniformity) should be a precondition of law making (politics)?
I'm happy to swap the word "faith" with "belief" if it improves our ability to share thoughts and concepts without confusion.
In the quote above, she does state her view on a legitimate place for faith. A private choice. She said:
"When it's a private matter, it's fine, it can even be a kind of inspiration to people. Faith is what each man may choose for himself, if he wishes. I don't."
If you read that as "belief," it should still work. Either way, if there is infallible proof of something to rely on or validate, Rand does not reject having confidence or trust in that thing. (I'm the same way, I love infallible proof. ) So I think we can both agree that we can have confidence and trust in infallible proof, and it is not something that you merely "believe" in.
Let's not be insulting.
I had understood that you introduced some quotes by Rand that she offered in a manner to negotiate the issue of her robust atheism. The quote seemed to say that her beliefs were little more than a way of saying religious belief was faith and since she felt all questions could only be addressed in public society by rationalism, religious belief must always be set aside in public decision making.
I was suggesting that Miss Rand was self-serving in such an argument -- take it or leave it if you don't agree as I am not disputing you, but objecting to Rand.
Thank you for the discussion, I appreciate your insight.
An audio interview of a fundamentalist Baptist pastor and his critique of Rand’s atheism.
Who cares what a fundamentalist Baptist minister thinks about Ayn Rand?
If you read through the thread you will find others who care as well.
Some important points are proffered and well worth consideration.
A member of our book club suggested I ping the group on this.
I meant, why should I care about a believer’s opinion about an atheist? You tell me.
The need to keep the discourse in the spiritual realm is a necessity to avoid rational debate.
And yet there is (dare I say it?) a similarity in the strong belief in a supreme being and the vehement denial of one. It is an oddity that self proclaimed spiritual leaders feel threatened by proponents of atheism, after all, didn't God create atheists?
I apologize if you took that as an insult. It was not intended to be insulting in any way. It seems we are taking away different messages from the Rand quote I posted regarding religion in politics. My question to you was an honest one to see if you disagreed with the meaning of her answer. I read it literally and agree with the reasoning.
I know Rand argues that if charity is said to be a moral "duty" then it corrupts or perverts the concept "benevolence".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.