To the Anti-Religious

[Vile Atheist]

^ Fair enough.

 

[Kathryn]

Atlas Shrugged is one of the worst fiction books I have ever read. I could think of one or two that were worse, though, but it is near the bottom.

Rand's writing was flat, repetitive, and lifeless. Her characters were exactly like her writing. The plot was boring and repetitive. Although Rand's philosophy is somewhat interesting, she did not need twelve hundred pages to express her ideas, and the strawman arguments she set up against communism and socialism were ineptly portrayed and executed.

Rand also failed to extrapolate on the effects of her philosophies, which we should reasonably expect when she is basically writing a twelve hundred page supporting document for Objectivism. For example, if everyone is busy making money, and the government has been removed (as depicted in the final chapter of the novel), how will the environment be protected? How will a police force or emergency rescue service be maintained? What sort of system will be set up to protect the country from invading armed forces? These are all fairly simple questions that Rand should have anticipated when writing her door-stopper, but she fails to address any of these issues in twelve hundred pages.

No, I didn't think much of the book at all.

LIke I said - the book has a lot of weaknesses. But it's characterizations of government bureaucrats are pure genius!

What I do like about Ayn Rand's writings are that we can see so many of her characters all around us in daily life. When I watch the talking heads on TV, I see Wesley Mouches and Jim Taggart's all over the place.

I am not a huge Ayn Rand fan, in part because I believe her version of atheism leaves a huge abyss in the application of her beliefs on ethics. But I don't limit my reading to books or authors that I agree with. I think people who do that stunt their brains.

 

[Kathryn]

I've said this before -- and I'll say it again -- but the best advice I ever got was from my great-grandmother: "Try to enjoy your life; it's gonna go by faster than you think. It seems like yesterday I was in my father's house."

Awww, what a sweet, poignant image that brings to mind.

 

[Kathryn]

Well said, Most of our founding Fathers were adamant about keeping their religion (or lack thereof) private, because they knew first-hand the dangers of religious intolerance.

Unfortunately, this trait has been largely lost in modern day religion in America, where it seems the first thing out of politicians or many people's mouth's in a public setting is a statement of their belief in god.

It's sad that we have regressed this far, really.

Good grief, surely you're not saying that the Founding Fathers kept their belief in God a secret?????????????

 

[rojse]

LIke I said - the book has a lot of weaknesses. But it's characterizations of government bureaucrats are pure genius!

What I do like about Ayn Rand's writings are that we can see so many of her characters all around us in daily life. When I watch the talking heads on TV, I see Wesley Mouches and Jim Taggart's all over the place.

I am not a huge Ayn Rand fan, in part because I believe her version of atheism leaves a huge abyss in the application of her beliefs on ethics. But I don't limit my reading to books or authors that I agree with. I think people who do that stunt their brains.

It's not merely that I disagree with Rand (my favourite book is about a man who goes on a metaphysical journey in search for God, but that is not relevant here) it is that Rand could only make strawmans of her opponent's ideas. Oh, and her bad writing needs to be brought up. And her cliched plot, and caricartures that would generously be called characters...

 

[Kathryn]

It's not merely that I disagree with Rand (my favourite book is about a man who goes on a metaphysical journey in search for God, but that is not relevant here) it is that Rand could only make strawmans of her opponent's ideas. Oh, and her bad writing needs to be brought up. And her cliched plot, and caricartures that would generously be called characters...

I'm sure our personal libraries differ greatly. And that's ok. But surely you hear echoes of Rand's characters in the politicians of today.

Sometimes I read authors that I don't even particularly like in order to gain insight into philosophies and mindsets. I usually learn something anyway, even when I don't agree with them. Of course, I don't waste a lot of time slogging through something that's poorly written - which is why I am not reading Atlas Shrugged all the way through this time. I picked it back up to re acquaint myself with Rand's philosophy. I think the book is repetitive and about four times longer than it needs to be.

I much prefer GK Chesterton's take on political systems! What a writer! And he seemed to have his head on straight as well. He's a guest at my fantasy dinner.

 

[rojse]

I'm sure our personal libraries differ greatly. And that's ok. But surely you hear echoes of Rand's characters in the politicians of today.

Sometimes I read authors that I don't even particularly like in order to gain insight into philosophies and mindsets. I usually learn something anyway, even when I don't agree with them. Of course, I don't waste a lot of time slogging through something that's poorly written - which is why I am not reading Atlas Shrugged all the way through this time. I picked it back up to re acquaint myself with Rand's philosophy. I think the book is repetitive and about four times longer than it needs to be.

I much prefer GK Chesterton's take on political systems! What a writer! And he seemed to have his head on straight as well. He's a guest at my fantasy dinner.

Well, here is my library (well, what I've entered online, about eighty percent of my books):

LibraryThing | Catalog your books online

There is a lot of SF in my library (almost two hundred-odd books), but also a variety of other authors and genres - fantasy, some mainstream novelists, some crime fiction, and a few other assorted authors. LibraryThing is a great site, particularly for getting book recommendations, but I've plugged it before on RF.

And I do agree with you on your main point - it's important to have a look at different political ideas and social systems, even if you don't agree with them. Rand was interesting for that, and kudos to her for writing a philosophical novel, even if done it with the grace of a fattened pig.

And seeing as though you suggested it, I'll have a look at GK Chesterton's works. What sort of writer is he?

 

[Kathryn]

Hey, that LibraryThing sounds great - I love Netflix and this sounds like sort of the same thing when it comes to rating what you've read. I am definitely going to check that out! Thanks for the link.

Chesterton was an interesting person. He was a member of the same little group as Tolkein and CS Lewis. Apparently they sat around and drank and smoked together quite a bit. However, of the three, I find Chesterton to be the wittiest. His sense of humor is very endearing. He didn't write a lot of fiction - most of his books are about Christianity, philosophy, and social issues.

If you like British writing and British humor you will probably like him. If not, you'll definitely hate him.

His two best books, in my opinion, are Orthodoxy and What's Wrong With the World. The second one was written over 100 years ago but the concepts sound as fresh as if it were written last month, even though the examples he gives are a century old.

 

[Kathryn]

Hey, Rojse, have you ever read CS Lewis' science fiction trilogy?

 

[rojse]

Hey, Rojse, have you ever read CS Lewis' science fiction trilogy?

I do own the trilogy, and have read the first novel, "Out of the Silent Planet". The first part was a rather ordinary early twentieth-century pulp-SF "explorers on another planet", and was riddled with cliches and scientific problems. The second half was more interesting, particularly in a theological sense, but nothing that I haven't encountered elsewhere.

I've promised myself I will read the entire trilogy one day (actually, I want to re-read all of my books and put a review up for each of them), but other books keep distracting me.

EDIT: Just as an interesting aside, one of the reasons Lewis wrote "Out of the Silent Planet" was to respond to Olaf Stapledon's "Last and First Men" - particularly Stapledon's depictions of humanity colonising other planets with intelligent life. I believe it is the character "Devine" that voice's Lewis's understanding of Stapledon's opinions (it's been a while since I read Lewis's novel) but I don't think Lewis quite does Stapledon's opinion justice.

"Last and First Men" is an extremely demanding read, and quite different to most other novels I have read, but I think it is quite worth the effort.

 

[Kathryn]

I agree with you that the first book of the CS Lewis trilogy was not awe inspiring. When you get around to reading That Hideous Strength, let me know - to me it was definitely the most arresting of the three. It reminds me of some other book, but I can't recall right offhand.

I just thought that SF was an interesting genre for Lewis to dive off into.

As far as SF goes, I'm not a huge SF reader. But I do dearly love anything I've ever read by Ray Bradbury - in fact, I think I've read all his books.

 

[rojse]

I agree with you that the first book of the CS Lewis trilogy was not awe inspiring. When you get around to reading That Hideous Strength, let me know - to me it was definitely the most arresting of the three. It reminds me of some other book, but I can't recall right offhand.

I just thought that SF was an interesting genre for Lewis to dive off into.

As far as SF goes, I'm not a huge SF reader. But I do dearly love anything I've ever read by Ray Bradbury - in fact, I think I've read all his books.

I loved Bradbury's Martian Chronicles, particularly the chapter with the Christian missionary. More ideas here than in many entire religious-themed novels.

Oh, I edited my previous response.

SF and religion might initially seem like strange bedfellows, but you can use SF to ask religious questions that would be difficult to ask in another medium.

For Christian-flavoured SF, I need to recommend "A Canticle For Leibowitz", by Walter M Miller, Jnr. It's about monks that work to preserve valuable prehistoric artefacts after a worldwide apocalypse.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

I read (and write) a lot of SF. (Sadly, read better than I write but that is another matter.) One the SF novels that has stuck me with all these years is Clarke’s Childhood’s End. I 1st read it in my early teens (when I got big enough to be able to physically resist going to church) and it had a great effect. He answered one of the big questions I had at the time. If religion is fantasy why do so many believe it? I thought – and still think – his answer (that there is something real about it; just not what they think) has a lot of merit.

The novel also contains a small twist that I am sure Clarke put in just too irate Christians. During the 50’s when the country was caught up in the anti-communist pro God frenzy many books and authors were banned from the mails by Brownell (Ike’s Attorney General). For awhile Childhood’s End was on his radar for no other reason than this small (trivial really) anti-Christian plot twist. But the fact that it was made a big impression on me. I learned that the religious are at root fanatical and anti-reason folks who just KNOW they are right and that all who disagree are wrong or evil or both. It is a lesson that has stayed with me all these decades.

 

[logician]

Good grief, surely you're not saying that the Founding Fathers kept their belief in God a secret?????????????

Learn to read for comprehension, the founding fathers didn't go around in public praising god and announcing to the world their belief in same, like today's politicians do so blatantly. Religion has become a sideshow in America.

 

[PureX]

I used to be more anti-religion than I am now days. I'm not sure what's changed except that I have found the same flaws that I used to attribute specifically to the religious, in so many of the anti-religious. And I have likewise found many gifts in people of both persuasions, too. Anymore, I really don't think it matters much what we "believe", because who we are ends up deciding that. If we are jerks, we will still be jerks regardless of whether we are religiously inclined or not. And if we are good people, we will likewise remain good people regardless of of our religion or lack thereof.

And where I once saw religion as the main promoter of willful ignorance: something I find both dangerous and repulsive among we human beings, I now see as a vice being engaged in across both sides of the theological debate. Many an atheist's worship of perceived 'logic and reason' is just as biased, ill-conceived and short-sighted as any magical religious claim I've come across.

In the end I find that who people are is mostly not effected by what they believe. Rather, it's the other way round: what we choose to believe is a result of who we already are. Understanding this means that as I've gotten older, I've found that I have to take people as they come, and judge them at face value, because who they think they are and what they claim to believe in just doesn't mean much.

 

[Kathryn]

Learn to read for comprehension, the founding fathers didn't go around in public praising god and announcing to the world their belief in same, like today's politicians do so blatantly. Religion has become a sideshow in America.

All you have to do is read the documents and speeches of our Founding Fathers to see that their religious views played a HUGE part in their public actions.

That's the only issue I was addressing - my statement had nothing to do with today's politicians.

By the way, why do you feel the need to be so sarcastic? That nasty little side of your personality does nothing to enhance your credibility.

 

[Kathryn]

I used to be more anti-religion than I am now days. I'm not sure what's changed except that I have found the same flaws that I used to attribute specifically to the religious, in so many of the anti-religious. And I have likewise found many gifts in people of both persuasions, too. Anymore, I really don't think it matters much what we "believe", because who we are ends up deciding that. If we are jerks, we will still be jerks regardless of whether we are religiously inclined or not. And if we are good people, we will likewise remain good people regardless of of our religion or lack thereof.

And where I once saw religion as the main promoter of willful ignorance: something I find both dangerous and repulsive among we human beings, I now see as a vice being engaged in across both sides of the theological debate. Many an atheist's worship of perceived 'logic and reason' is just as biased, ill-conceived and short-sighted as any magical religious claim I've come across.

In the end I find that who people are is mostly not effected by what they believe. Rather, it's the other way round: what we choose to believe is a result of who we already are. Understanding this means that as I've gotten older, I've found that I have to take people as they come, and judge them at face value, because who they think they are and what they claim to believe in just doesn't mean much.

Wow, Purex, what a wonderful mindset. Really shows your maturity level. KUDOS!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Learn to read for comprehension, the founding fathers didn't go around in public praising god and announcing to the world their belief in same, like today's politicians do so blatantly.

Some did, some didn't. The American Founding Fathers didn't have a single, unified opinion on the subject.

 

[C_U_N_Hell]

Seems we've had an influx of anti-religious atheists lately, making statements like "religion poisons everything," and "a rational religious person is... an oxymoron."

You guys do realize that a goodly number of the religious you love to bash are atheists, right? Agnostics, too. There are strictly atheistic sects of Buddhism and Hinduism. Atheists (along with everyone else) are embraced by UU, and constitute a good chunk of our faith. There are even atheistic neopagans and occultists.

So, how do you deal with these people? Are they subject to your bashing, or do you just ignore their existence?

Storm, there is a BIG difference between bashing one's beliefs and bashing people. Ever heard of 'love the sinner, hate the sin?' Its the very same concept. I am friends with wiccans (mostly the really hot ones lol), jews, a muslim, hell, even CATHOLICS!!!
And yet I hate everything about the beliefs, and they hate my lack thereof, but at the end of the day we agree to disagree.

 

[Quiddity]

Storm, there is a BIG difference between bashing one's beliefs and bashing people. Ever heard of 'love the sinner, hate the sin?' Its the very same concept. I am friends with wiccans (mostly the really hot ones lol), jews, a muslim, hell, even CATHOLICS!!!
And yet I hate everything about the beliefs, and they hate my lack thereof, but at the end of the day we agree to disagree.

You took it too far making catholic friends!

The fact anyone feels the need to "bash" speaks more about there character then it does about any argument they may have.

Of course, when you bash, I'm sure all you are trying to do is understand them.