Broken Not Crushed life as a statement, not an apology

A philospher of Ayn Rand’s stature should avoid freshman-level logical fallacies. But in reading her work, and the writings of her followers, I see straw men being knocked down with abandon.

There is a LOT I like about her work. Her critique of the evils of the “common good” is spot-on, and the parallels between Atlas Shrugged and modern liberal politics are eerie. Her focus on reason, on rational self-interest, and her analyses of both “altruism” and “sacrifice” are compelling. She has woven together a very consistent, very powerful philosophy, one that should be required reading for every American (or at least every voter and politician!).

When she turns to faith, however, her commitment to reason seems to fly out the window. She habitually misrepresents her opponents’ positions, and engages in arguments that are self-referentially inconsistent.

Her position? Faith is unacceptable because it does not flow from reason. People of faith are pledging their allegiance to an outside authority, based on blind faith, not reason, and are therefore not acting according to rational self-interest.

Dr. Leonard Peikoff, a friend and student of Ayn Rand for over thirty years, sums up her position well:

These two essentials underlie every totalitarian regime—from the medieval Christians preaching worshipful faith in and service to God (Christianity is the historical originator of totalitarianism)…The result…was rule by institutionalized brutality—the Inquisition, the GPU, the Gestapo—with all of its anti-life consequences: mass impoverishment, mass terror, and piles of corpses.

Conservatives uphold faith as against reason; and morality, their faith tells them, is service to God (which includes sacrifice for the sub groups of have-nots picked out by the Bible).

While some of these statements are true of the institutionalized church, they are NOT true of the tenets of Christianity. This ignorance is understandable from someone who has not devoted her life to rational thought; from Ayn Rand it’s inexcusable, and it costs her credibility. If she or her “disciples” wish to talk about Christianity, they should read the source material and seek to understand those who call themselves Christians.

Christianity is NOT against reason; quite the contrary. Nowhere in Scripture do you see a command: “Just follow what the authority tells you. Never ask for reasons, never use your brain, and never test what you are told. Give blind assent.”

To say that faith and reason are opposed is to misunderstand Christian faith. Reason plays a critical role in Christian thought, from the early church fathers to today. The earliest “proofs” for the existence of God utilize reason. (Whether you find the proofs convincing or not is irrelevant; they rely on reason.) The early church in Berea is praised for searching the Scriptures to see if what they had been told is true. Paul exhorted Timothy to “study to show himself approved”, and told the Thessalonians to “test everything“. The epistles to the Romans and to the Hebrews textbook examples of rational argument.

In a brilliant exchange, Paul reasons with the Athenian philosophers on Mars Hill, using rational arguments to attempt to persuade them to faith. He also spent considerable time in the synagogues, reasoning with the Jews, making the case from their writings that Jesus was the Messiah. Contemporary apologetics is full of appeals to reason, not to blind faith.

Even in the Old Testament, God never asks for blind allegiance. From Moses to Gideon to Job, God respects questions, and provides answers.

The charge that faith is counter to reason is a straw man.

Christianity begins with a set of historical propositions, subject to rational inquiry. Believe them or don’t believe them, but they are subject to argument and inspection. “Did the Resurrection happen?” is a testable theory…produce a body and Christianity goes away.

Kierkegaard (among others) encourages a “leap of faith”. But not a blind leap, and only after reason takes you as far as it can. Reason is the tool that gets you to the place of saying either, “I believe this is true, and I’d like to put my trust into it” or “I’m not yet convinced.”

In any relationship (which is what Christianity claims to be), there is risk, as you place your trust in another person and vice-versa. No would-be groom is CERTAIN that his bride will say “Yes”. He knows, or he thinks he knows, or he hopes he knows, through reason and experience, that his bride will accept, but his proposal is his leap of faith. It’s acting on what his reason tells him, without the guarantee that he is right. She could always say “No”. This does require faith, but doesn’t ask him to “check his brain at the door” and blindly leap.

It’s the issue of trust on which faith hangs. The basic question is this: “Based on your reason, do you find the story Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam) tells to be rational?” If yes, is it not in your rational self-interest to live it out by putting your trust in a person who may ask you to do things you don’t understand? Trust, not blind obedience to authority, is what is central to Christianity.

After (and only after) that trust is established, can the Christ-follower see that serving others is not a sacrifice (trading the greater value for the lesser), but rather a benefit, in accordance with her own rational self-interest. This is what the critic, refusing to enter into that relationship, fails to understand about Christianity.

The definitive Christian passage on faith, Hebrews 11, defines faith as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” It’s not about unthinking assent to an authority. It’s about certainty, based on reason and experience, no different than the certainty that your bride loves you, although you can never verify it rationally.

Which leads to my other problem with Rand’s view of faith: she fails to acknowledge the limits of reason. Her trust in reason and reason alone is not a position that can be arrived at through reason alone. There can be no proof written that establishes, “Reason is the only vehicle for arriving at truth.” So if you come to that conclusion it cannot be through reason alone.

Which makes it self-referentially inconsistent.

We don’t really believe only things we can prove through reason. Descartes tried it, and it didn’t work. There are areas reason can’t touch: relationships, metaphysics, origins, purpose – the “whys” of life. But faith does address them, and precisely because they are beyond the purview of reason. You cannot scientifically study what was before the big bang, before space and time – the natural world – came into existence. For that you need supernatural thinking.

Ayn Rand is brilliant, and I hope her works only become more and more widespread. Her ideas need to be heard. But they are also unreasonably biased against faith, making them incomplete. Her prejudice against faith was not arrived at purely through reason.

Some might call that a faith statement.