Atheism: Autopsy of a Failed Faith

As part of my “Debate With Atheists About…Well…Just About Everything,” I wrote…

Just for the record, I DO think an atheist can be an advocate for the “good”, but it’s very, very hard, and even when it CAN be done, it’s still unnecessarily vulnerable to folks who want to say “Homey don’t play that.” Exhibit A: Islamic fundamentalists.

Needless to say, this statement – just like everything I wrote – would be vigorously opposed by most atheists. They insist that faith in God is NOT necessary for “the good.” A belief in Darwinism, materialism, atheism, etc. is sufficient for a healthy moral order.

And what IS a “healthy moral order?” That depends. There is some disagreement within the atheist community. However, I’ll tentatively divide those guys into 3 categories: The Nihilists (“all morality is an illusion;” think Nietzsche); the Objectivists (“morality DOES exist and is universal;” think Ayn Rand) and the Sentimentalists (“morality sort of exists, but is always relative;” think Richard Rorty).

I just made up the term “Sentimentalist Atheist.” And I would argue that they make up the vast majority of atheists (probably about 80%). What makes them “sentimental?” Even though they vocally loathe religion, they behave morally (for the most part) and have no interest in shedding their morality (think of Richard Dawkins or E.O. Wilson). In fact, if you studied them on a purely behavioral level – and knew nothing of their personal beliefs – you might find no difference between them and most Christians (except for praying and going to church, obviously). They marry and have children. They hold the door open for the person walking behind them. They say “Sorry” when they bump into strangers accidentally. They pay their taxes. They abstain from crime. And they even donate to charity (except to religious charities, of course).

How do we account for this behavior? Is it “logical” for an atheist to behave this way? And would a society completely composed of atheists behave this way? Let’s find out.



For starters, let's look at a brief dialogue between me and “Grant,” which arose from the comment section of one of my previous essays.

Todd: Personally, when I was an atheist, I was just as “moral” as I am today as a theist, but it was a “folk morality.” I knew – on an intellectual level – that morality was an illusion, but I “liked” being moral, and why? Probably because I had spent 15 years absorbed in a Christian culture, and still had the residue of faith on my soul. Being “bad” morally made me feel “bad” emotionally…

I think the morality of atheists is a consequence of being born and raised in a religious culture for a long, long time before they even begin to question their faith. As religious culture fades away (partly because of the efforts of atheists, btw) morality (among atheists and theists, too) is likely to wither away…

In today’s age, an atheist almost certainly has to be a materialist, and a materialist almost certainly has to be a Reductionist. And how do Reductionists see human beings? According to them, we're just mindless meat puppets manipulated by our selfish genes to survive and reproduce. Does that seem like a positive attitude toward humanity? Is that an ideology that can sustain human dignity? I think not. And once we absorb that attitude toward our fellow man, is there anything beyond fear of the law that can motivate a person to respect the lives of others? No. Once you start peeling the onion a little bit, you see that atheism is intellectually defenseless against the subjection and destruction of humanity. One caveat, though: It is not so much the disbelief in God that is lethal; it is the reductionist materialism that is the foundation of atheism…

Grant: While it's fascinating to hear you explain to me what I almost certainly must be I think I'll fall back on the fact that I have known hundreds of atheists and never met a single one who thinks people are "mindless meat puppets."

Todd: Ah, now we’re coming to the nub of the matter. I’ll try to incorporate your statement into a new observation: While atheists DO think people are “mindless meat puppets” in a scientific sense (sorry, but that is exactly how atheism is articulated by people like Dawkins and Dennett), the atheists DON’T ACT like people are “mindless meat puppets.” They still act like people have inherent dignity. And that’s good! They are resisting the teachings of their leaders. They can’t overcome their desire to live in a teleological, moral order. And again, that’s good! So the question becomes…Why can’t atheists understand that? Why can’t they see the discrepancy between their philosophical atheism and their daily behavior? If they COULD see it, they might question their atheism, and start groping toward a new spirituality.

Grant is a “sentimental atheist.” He is an all-too-common child of modern civilization. He assumes he’s the pinnacle of civilization because he’s smart, tolerant, and liberal. In truth, he’s the red-headed stepchild of civilization. The rest of the family doesn’t accept him. And why should they? They realize what the atheist does not: The atheist is a luxury of civilization, not a creator of it. I’m almost tempted to call atheists “free riders” on the Western moral tradition. A harsher person might call them “parasites” (drawing nutrition from their hosts, while weakening them), but I’ll refrain from using such a pejorative term.

“NO!!” shout the atheists. “You have us all wrong!!!” For Christ’s sake, how many times do we have to tell you: You don’t need God to be ‘good!’”



Larry Anhart is one of those atheists. He is a professor at Northern Illinois University, author of the book, Darwinian Conservatism, and the main contributor of a blog by the same name. I haven’t read Prof. Arnhart’s book, but I did read one of his most recent blog entries: Do Human Rights Require Religious Beliefs?


Prof. Arnhart realizes that most people would automatically answer: “Yes, it does.” He opens…

What difference would it make if we accepted what Bernard Williams has called "Nietzsche's thought"--"there is, not only no God, but no metaphysical order of any kind"?

One consequence, Nietzsche suggested, is that we could no longer believe that human beings were created by God in His Image and thus endowed with equal dignity. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche wrote: "The masses blink and say: 'We are all equal.--Man is but man, before God--we are all equal.' Before God! But now this God has died." The modern morality of human equality is secularized Christian morality that cannot be continued after the death of God.

Does this mean, then, that we could no longer hold it to be self-evident that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights?...

These are the questions raised by Michael J. Perry in his book Toward a Theory of Human Rights… Perry asks: "For one who believes that the universe is utterly bereft of transcendent meaning, why--in virtue of what--is it the case that every human being has inherent dignity?". If we have no answer to that question, Perry insists, then we have no answer to those human beings who assert that they have the right to exploit and abuse other human beings because what we call right is really just the rule of the stronger…

The failure to provide a cosmic standard of value is also why Perry rejects the positions of Martha Nussbaum and Richard Rorty, who say that human rights rest upon human sympathy and solidarity. Nussbaum and Rorty believe that the lives of human beings have value in so far as we care for them. The idea of human rights is promoted by extending our moral sentiments to embrace ever wider circles of humanity.

Perry objects to this sentimental morality that although normal human beings--those who are not psychopaths--do care for some other human beings, particularly those of their family or tribe, it is not true that normal human beings care for all other human beings equally and impartially…

William Schulz is the former Executive Director of Amnesty International USA. In his book In Our Own Best Interest: How Defending Human Rights Benefits Us All, he dismisses appeals to God or Nature or Reason as insufficient to sustain the morality of human rights. Instead, he agrees with Richard Rorty in relying on David Hume's insight that morality depends on sympathy and the moral emotions that incline us to care for our fellow human beings…

He goes on to say:

"Robert Frost once observed that poems begin with a lump in the throat, and I think human rights do too. . . . far better than by appeals to God or Nature, is to point to the capacity to identify with others, the capacity for human empathy or solidarity"...

But notice the implications of this. This view of morality as rooted in the moral emotions of evolved human nature does not appeal to any metaphysical "beyond" for cosmic support. Those like Plato, Kant, Nietzsche, and Perry would say that without such a metaphysical foundation, morality is impossible. Those analytic philosophers today who look to pure logic to prove the principles of moral obligation as inherent in the logical order of things continue in this Platonic tradition...

There is a foundation for human dignity, but it's not a transcendent or transhuman foundation--God, Nature, or Reason--but the empirical foundation of evolved human nature as the source of sympathy and the moral sense.

I give Prof. Arnhart a lot of credit: This is probably the best defense of how morality can be justified by Darwinian atheism that we will ever see. The question is: Does it work?

As you would probably expect, I have to answer “No.” Why? Well, because there’s a few contradictions. And they’re big ones. In the heart of his essay, Arnhart writes…

[Perry] hasn't made a good case for his claim that religious belief necessarily supports a morality of universal love or egalitarian humanitarianism. He admits that in practice, much of the history of religion is a history of brutality. But he would say that this comes from the failure of believers to live up to the true teaching of their religion.

Assuming Arnhart agrees with Perry’s criticism of religion (and I think that’s an excellent assumption), we have several unresolved questions that need to be addressed.

First, if humanity has experienced a “history of brutality” – whether in the name of religion, racism, class struggle, or whatever – it certainly puts a major cramp on the idea that humanity has an intuitive moral sense.



The idea that morality is “innate” has been pushed by Darwinists who account for morality as a product of evolution, but it is also very popular among certain Christians, who say it’s evidence of God’s existence and His benevolence.

Personally, I strongly disagree with the idea of an intuitive “moral law.” That’s one of the reasons I find C.S. Lewis – arguably the most famous Christian apologist – so useless.

Last year, I wrote…

According to Mr. Lewis, every human being is born with an “intuitive” understanding of “right and wrong.” This is just plain false. Every mother and father will confirm that NO child is born with an “intuitive” sense of “right and wrong.” Rather, those children must be TAUGHT to understand the difference – and the best way to understand THAT difference is through REASON (although, especially in the early years, social conformity and a few spankings might help).

Lewis’ further explanation that the Holocaust is proof of this “moral law” that is “commonly known to all human beings?” Oh really? I would beg to differ. The fact that SS guards laughed while shooting innocent women and children in the concentration camps and then mailed photos of their crimes to their families back home certainly negates any theory that “right and wrong” is “intuitive” in human beings. The fact that even today, in most Muslim cultures, teenage girls who are raped are then MURDERED by their own parents (to cleanse the “shame” on their family) shows that there are no universal, intuitive standards of “right and wrong.”

While both Christians and Darwinists are wrong to posit an intuitive “moral law,” it is the Darwinists who suffer most if such a law does not exist. Why? Because – as Arnhart’s essay shows – the idea of a “moral sense” is the only thing stitching together a coherent atheist defense of morality. If the “moral sense” goes, so does the idea of atheist morality.

However, an atheist might argue: Even if you’re right, how do you account for Arnhart’s observation that emotional appeals to compassion work on both atheists and believers (as demonstrated by the founder of Amnesty’s experience)?

Easy. See my discussion with “Grant” above. “Amnesty” is a product of modern Western Civilization. The people who finance “Amnesty” – which include Christians AND Atheists - are also products of that civilization. They were raised on the nourishment of that civilization, whose food is faith, and whose water is reason.

As I wrote on Sep. 22:

For thousands of years of human history, life all across the world life was - to quote Hobbes - "nasty, brutish, and short." Then, in one small region of the world in one brief window of time, a civilization emerged in which people (on average) lived for 75+ years in excellent health, enjoyed an economic quality of life unimaginable to their ancestors, experienced freedom from tyranny and violence, and entertained nearly limitless opportunities for creativity and self-expression.

This civilization (first blossoming in the US, Great Britain, France, and Holland in the 18th century, spreading to most of Western Europe by the late 19th century, and spreading even into remote corners like Latin America by late 20th century) was no accident. And it was not inevitable. It was a coming together of a religion and a philosophy.

As I wrote in January...

I've never felt comfortable when politicians describe America as a "Judeo-Christian country" or reaffirm the need to preserve our "Judeo-Christian values"...It defines our country, our values, and our heritage through religion alone.

About a year ago, I coined the term "Christian-Enlightenment" because it combines the religion of the West (Christianity) with the ground-breaking Enlightenment ideas (freedom, reason, the Scientific Method, etc.) that enabled the West to dominate the world.

Ethiopia is a "Judeo-Christian" country, but it's one of the worst countries on Earth because it doesn't have the Enlightenment heritage of Europe and the United States.

The West is a product of the "Christian-Enlightenment." The "Christian Enlightenment" unlocked the "genius of man" - the genius of the rational man - unencumbered by religious superstition or political oppression. But how many people in the West realize that? Not many. And therein lies our problem. How can we preserve Western civilization when so few of us understand it?

The atheists obviously don’t understand it. If faith and reason are the vital ingredients of our civilization, to claim (as they do) that atheism and emotion can – by themselves – sustain our civilization is a pure fantasy, to put it mildly (For more on this topic, see my essay, “Will Western Civilization End in Your Lifetime? Yes, Probably”).

So Anhart’s theory is dead. There is no intuitive moral sense, and whatever morality we DO possess is TAUGHT to us by a civilization that requires faith, not atheism. The “Sentimental Atheists” – like Arnhart – are free to live their lives and advocate their ideas, but the rest of us have no obligation to take their ideas seriously.

So if the Sentimental Atheists can’t defend morality, and the nihilistic atheists obviously deny morality, can ANY form of atheism work in a moral sense? The only remaining candidate is “Objectivism” – the gospel of reason articulated by Ayn Rand and her followers.



I am sympathetic to Objectivism (without the atheism, of course), because I share the Objectivists’ belief that 2 axioms are the foundation of any moral order: 1) Reality exists, and 2) Reason is the best means to master Reality. From those 2 axioms, Rand developed a cohesive, self-confident moral philosophy, expressed in Atlas Shrugged.

But does it work? Well, it used to. But not now.

As I wrote on Sep. 18...

I think--at one time, decades ago--it was possible for an atheist to be a full partner in the fight to preserve Western civilization. Ayn Rand comes to mind. So does Karl Popper. They loved freedom and America, and just as importantly, they loved mankind. They also lived in a more innocent time (1940s/50s)--a time before Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Daniel Dennett, and the rest of the Reductionist movement.

Today, atheism equals reductionism. Reductionism is the idea that we're all mindless meat puppets manipulated by our selfish genes to survive and reproduce. Even human reason (which was championed by Rand) is impotent in the reductionist/atheist worldview. As David Brooks says, "Reason is just the press secretary of the emotions."

As we've discussed before, a free republic has to believe that its citizens have the capacity for reason and morality (two things denied by the atheist/reductionist crowd). Otherwise, it is intellectually defenseless against Washington elites who want to lead their brethren around by the nose.

In conclusion, for me, it's not the principle of atheism ("no God") that is incompatible with Western civilization; it is the modern practice of atheism ("reductionism") which denies not only God's existence, but the existence of a truly rational, moral human being.

Ayn Rand belonged to a more innocent time. In her era, one could be a materialist/atheist, and still believe in reason/morality. But if the materialist insists that reason is an illusion, where does that leave rational moralists, like today’s Objectivists? The Objectivists are like dinosaurs who are still groping around the Earth after the asteroid destroyed their habitat. With Reductionism toxifying their intellectual landscape, they have no way to survive. Today, the only “fit” atheist is a Reductionist – whether of the nihilist kind or the sentimental kind.

Of course, as Reductionism gains more intellectual power, even the sentimental atheists will lose ground. After all, the Western Civilization that nurtures their sentimentalism is dying. And thus, in the coming decades, the nihilists will predominate in the atheist community. "Sentimental Atheists" like E.O Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Larry Arnhart, Dennis Mangan, and Luke Muehlhauser are all products of their time, and “the times, they are a changing.”

So to quote Casey Stengel: “Can ANYONE play this game?” Yes, one type of atheist. The atheist who acknowledges that atheism IS toxic – both to the individual and society – but is still an atheist because – with a heavy heart – they've concluded that atheism must be true. And how many atheists advance such a view? Very few. I certainly haven’t met any in my online discussions. And in the culture at large, I cant even think of anyone– although I’m tempted to put John Derbyshire on the list.



Derbyshire is a Darwinist, a Reductionist, and officially a “Myseterian” – which, in practice, is little different from atheism. So let’s call Derbyshire an atheist, shall we? Why does he have value? Because he’s honest enough to admit the problems with atheism, and thus – despite his atheism – he can show the advantages of faith. What kind of atheism is this? Let’s call it “Self-Loathing Atheism.”

At the start of this essay, I wrote…

I DO think an atheist can be an advocate for the “good”, but it’s very, very hard, and even when it CAN be done, it’s still unnecessarily vulnerable to folks who want to say “Homey don’t play that.” Exhibit A: Islamic fundamentalists.

I stand by all that. Atheism can’t advance the "good." Indeed, it directly opposes the "good." The modern synthesis of atheism with reductive materialism is a triumph of nihilism. In that sense, the most "logical" form of atheism is nihilism. That's why the power of nihilism will grow. And that's also why - from society's perspective - the only useful atheist is one who acknowledges the horror of atheism. In short, a “self-loathing atheist.”

And yet, I’m still supposed to believe that atheism is the wave of the future? If it is, it’s a very bleak future indeed.


**UPDATE, DEC. 20, 2009**


Part of this essay - along with some new commentary - has been cross-posted at Larry Auster's website.

Larry wrote...

Did you coin the category, "sentimental atheists"? It is brilliant. That's exactly what they are. Having no solid, rational basis for moral truth, they are sentimental and emotional about moral truth. There are these things such as morality or conservatism that they WANT to believe in, though they have no solid grounds for them. This makes them sentimentalists.

I also wrote:

Not to sound like Hegel or anything, but I believe that--over time--major philosophical contradictions are unsustainable. They will inevitably resolve themselves. We see that, for instance, in modern America: Our decades-long mix of socialism with freedom has brought us to a crossroads: Will we have socialism? Or will we have freedom? Because we are rapidly reaching a point where it will be impossible to have both. In the same vein, "sentimental atheism" is a strange mix of something good (love of morality), and something awful (atheism), but the awful part is becoming so big that a choice will have to be made: Morality or Atheism? And if you can't make a choice, you will become irrelevant.

Dennis Mangan picked up on Auster's entry and responded here.


Dennis wrote (in part)...

We know that many atheists, perhaps the great majority, behave morally, e.g., they care for their children, are not common criminals, and so on. Therefore moral behavior does not require religious belief.

I responded...

I think the relevant question isn’t so much “can an individual be moral without religious belief?” Yes, I think he can. And the evidence you cite above is sufficient. That is the behavior of a “sentimental atheist.” The better question is, “can atheism – by itself – be a motivator for moral behavior?” As I said in my essay (which I encourage you to read), I think the answer is "no."

In your entire blog post today, you never articulate what is the motivation for an atheist to be moral. That’s because there is none. What looks like motivation is merely the product of being born and raised in a Christian-Enlightenment culture, and developing an understandable attachment to such a great culture. It’s not the behavior of atheists that’s at issue; it’s their lack of appreciation for how religion itself – specifically, Christianity – has built the entire artifice that surrounds you. A purely atheist culture (or even a mostly atheist culture) would descend into barbarism very quickly, as I explained in my essay.

An atheist who understood this essential point might have different policy priorities, including ensuring that religion continues to be an active part of U.S. society (in contrast to say, Europe). As you point out, an atheist wouldn’t necessarily become an advocate of open borders (to use your example). But he might, say, be comfortable with allowing criticism of Darwinism to be taught in public schools. That’s just one example.

**UPDATE, JAN. 4, 2010**

To see the best of Mangan's comment thread, Sentimental Theists, click here.

Why Ayn Rand Still Resonates

Last week, FoxNews.com ran a fine piece by Dr. Onkar Ghate, a teacher at the Objectivist Academic Center, defending Ayn Rand's influence on America's youth...

From the pages of The New York Times to the signs of tea party protesters to Jon Stewart’s "Daily Show," Ayn Rand is everywhere…

As an educator I can attest to the fact that she is wildly popular among the young, who typically are not very political. Some 27,000 students submitted entries this year to essay contests on her novels and, in the past three years alone, high-school teachers have requested over 900,000 copies of "Anthem" and "The Fountainhead" to use in their classrooms. They know that students respond to her stories and heroes as to few other books.

Sadly, however, it remains all too common for a young person to be told--as I was told in high school--that interest in Rand is a stage he will (or should) grow out of. You may have seen versions of this attitude in the many recent stories about her. “It’s fine to believe in that now,” the refrain goes, “but wait until you’re older. You’ll discover that life isn’t like that…”

The key to Rand’s enduring popularity is that she appeals not to the immaturity but to the idealism of youth…To sustain this youthful conviction throughout life, Rand teaches, you must achieve a radical independence of mind. Independence does not mean doing whatever you feel like doing but rather forging your convictions and choosing your actions rationally, carefully, scientifically. It is refusal to subordinate your ideas or values to the “public interest,” as liberals demand, or to the “glory of God,” as conservatives demand. It is refusal to grant obedience to any authority, human or divine.

The independent mind rejects faith -- secular or supernatural -- and embraces reason as an absolute. “The noblest act you have ever performed,” declares the hero of "Atlas Shrugged," “is the act of your mind in the process of grasping that two and two make four.” Rand meant it…

Hold your own life as your highest value, follow reason, submit to no authority, pursue unwaveringly the true and the good, create a life of productive achievement and personal, selfish joy--enact these demanding values and virtues, Rand teaches, and an ideal world, here on earth, is “real, it's possible--it's yours.”

Does an adult world that dismisses this philosophy as “simplistic” not convict itself?

Thankfully, Rand had the courage to take on that world and challenge its rampant skepticism, eager cynicism and unyielding demand for compromise, to portray and explain--at the most fundamental level--the heroic in man.

Atlas Hugs

In the most recent issue of Newsweek, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has a very insightful piece about the value of Ayn Rand's work...

When I first read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in the 1980s, I was blown away. Those books portray the power of the free individual in ways I had never thought about before. Since then, I've grown more critical of Rand's outlook because it doesn't include the human needs we have for grace, love, faith, or any form of social compact. Yet I still believe firmly that her books deserve attention…

Atlas has sold more than 6 million copies since it was published just over 50 years ago…Over the past year, we've seen Washington try to solve all our problems—chiefly by borrowing billions from future generations—to little effect. In that sense, this is a very good time for a Rand resurgence. She's more relevant than ever.

Yes, Ayn Rand is more relevant than ever, and I do share Gov. Sanford's critique of her philosophy (known as "Objectivism")." While Objectivism contains many vital and unique truths (which have greatly influenced me), it isn't sufficient for happiness and success. For that, Gov. Sanford is correct: A good philosophy must address the "human need" for "grace, love, and faith." That's why I created "Spiritual Rationalism."

One final note: These days, Gov. Sanford is probably best known for his affair with an Argentinian woman, but that's really unfortunate. While there's no excusing the Governor's behavior, he took full responsibility for his action and is trying to atone for it. Indeed, he's handled the situation about as well as any human being could under the circumstances.

Gov. Sanford's affair shouldn't preclude him from having a voice in our national affairs (pun intended). Throughout his political career, he has been a smart, fearless voice for freedom, individual rights, and limited government. One example: The piece above. Think about it: How many other politicians would choose to spend their political capital by defending Ayn Rand and advancing her ideas? With the exception of Ron Paul, I can't think of anyone else.

The Miracle of Google

On Tuesday, I noted that the economic crisis has reduced the salience of "Culture War issues" (at least for the time being). In particular, when it comes to the issue of Intelligent Design, I noted that the release of the 2008 documentary Expelled (which focused on the I.D. controversy) did not generate as much attention as I would have expected (considering how "hot" that issue was a few years ago). I speculated that the reason for Expelled's performance was that it came out during a recession, and after all, when people's jobs are in jeopardy, they are less likely to participate in Culture War battles.

Now, thanks to the miracle of Google, I have some solid evidence to back up my claim.

If you go to the Google News Archive page, you can enter a search term (say, "gay marriage"), and if you click the "Show Timeline" button, you can see a year-by-year chart on the number of news articles which contain that term.

Well, I entered a few terms which pertain to The Mustard Seed, and here is what I found (as of today, May 14, 2009)...

"Intelligent Design:" First sign of life comes in 1987...level of interest holds steady until 1999... then there's a small jump...then in 2004 comes a big jump...then in 2005 and early 2006 there is an explosion of interest...however, by late 2006, interest peters out, and plateaus at a low level where it remains today...even so, interest in 2009 remains higher than it was in 2004.

"Atheism:" Relatively constant from 1900 to 1925...then there's a medium bulge of interest which peters out by 1945...holds steady until 1984...then there's another slight increase until mid-2006...then there's an even BIGGER bulge, which continues through today...indeed, interest in atheism has never been higher.

"Atlas Shrugged:" As I noted in April, interest in Atlas Shrugged seems to be growing these days...and the Google data bears that out...when the book was released in 1957, there was huge explosion of interest, which quickly died down the following year...then, for the next 3 decades, interest remained at a relatively constistent low level...then, around 1992, there's a small blip upwards that continues through 2004...then, in 2005, there's another blip upwards...finally, in early 2009 (with the inauguration of President Obama) comes an explosion of interest which continues through today...indeed, it's the largest amount of interest in the book in 52 years.

"Objectivism:" While interest in Atlas Shrugged is booming, new sales of the book don't seem to be having a positive effect on the philosophy contained in Atlas Shrugged: "Objectivism." The Google numbers show a big burst of interest in Objectivism when the book came out in 1957...interest remained high in the 60s...lower in the 70s...higher again in the 80s...and just a tad higher again in the 90s and early 2000s...however, since the Mortgage Meltdown began in 2007, interest has reached an all-time...unfortunately, though, we seem to have reached another plateau...indeed, interest in April 2009 was lower than in December 2007.

So what do I make of all this? Well, it seems that two of my gut reactions were correct...the economic crisis has increased interest in Atlas Shrugged, while lowering interest in Intelligent Design...however, I am surprised that interest in "atheism" has continued to increase since 2006 (even though it has fallen for I.D.)...I'm also somewhat surprised that the surge of interest in Atlas Shrugged hasn't necessarily correlated with a newfound love of Objectivism...Those twin surprises are a little disappointing...but the point of my original post on the economic crisis was that if the recession deepens AND persists, there is real potential for a major paradigm shift...so things could look very different tomorrow.

-Todd


**UPDATE, SEP. 3, 2009**


According to the pro-I.D. website, Uncommon Descent, their visits from unique addresses grew over 40% from April to August 2009. Last month, they had 117,161 unique visitors. That's good news.

-Todd

Would Rand Still Be An Atheist Today?

Honestly, I don't think so. In light of the scientific developments since her death in 1982, I think Ayn Rand would be a "believer" if she were alive today. Like another prominent atheist, Anthony Flew, I'm pretty sure she would "follow the evidence wherever it leads" - even if it directly contradicted literally decades of her literary work. After all, atheism was never fundamental to "Objectivism." It was only a product of it. And therefore, it could be removed relatively easily.

In fact, if I recall correctly, when I read the book, The Letters of Ayn Rand a few years back, there was a letter from Ms. Rand in which she said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "I know plenty of good reasons for the existence of God, but they're not the ones other people mention." There was also a note from the editor saying that Ms. Rand never elaborated on what those reasons might be! Talk about a missed opportunity! Anyway, I tried finding this quote through the Internet, but I wasn't successful. And I no longer have a copy of the book. So you'll just have to take my word for it!

But I digress...while looking for that quote, I found some intellectual nuggets on the relationship between Ayn Rand and Darwinism...

The Conservapedia page on Objectivism relates this story...

Rand was not willing to accept the theory of evolution as more than an hypothesis. She couldn't accept creation, but evolution discomfited her nevertheless--perhaps because it blurred the distinction between man and animal.

In regard to this last: Diana Mertz Hsieh accuses Branden of distorting Rand on this point, and says that Rand refused to endorse evolution merely because she believed she did not have the required scientific knowledge to make an informed judgement.

In actual fact, Branden details that conversation: I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, "After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis."

I asked her, "Ayn, you mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms, including humans, evolved from less complex life forms?"

She shrugged and responded, "I'm really not prepared to say," or words to that effect.

I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God's creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable.

What that something was, Branden never said. Neil Parille offers this explanation: that evolution cannot explain the development of consciousness, and that some of evolution's proponents, among them Ernst Haeckel, put Rand off by their explicit rejection of the human will.

Then there's this article, Ayn Rand and Evolution, by Neil Parille...

Parille quotes Rand...

"I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent. But a certain hypothesis has haunted me for years; I want to stress that it is only hypothesis. There is an enormous breach of continuity between nature and man’s consciousness, in its distinctive characteristic: his conceptual faculty. It is as if, after aeons of physiological development, the evolutionary process altered its course, and the higher stages of development focused primarily on the consciousness of living species, not their bodies. But the development of a man’s consciousness is volitional: no matter what the innate degree of intelligence he must develop it, he must learn how to use it, he must become human by choice. What if he does not choose to? Then he becomes a transitional phenomenon—a desperate creature that struggles frantically against his own nature, longing for effortless “safety” of an animal’s consciousness, which he cannot recapture, and rebelling against a human consciousness, which he is afraid to achieve." (Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, p. 45.)

According to Parille: "What is must curious about Rand’s hypothesis is her statement that it has 'haunted' her 'for years.' One wonders if what haunted Rand is the implication of her theory (which she made explicit in her journals) that at least some non-rational human beings are literally sub-human. Later, he says… Rand’s hesitation about evolution calls for an explanation. As Rand must have been aware, many religious conservatives (who were a frequent target of hers) reject evolution. There are a few possibilities for this hesitation.

First, evolution is generally seen as a deterministic and ultimately hostile to free will. (Machan, Ayn Rand, pp. 142-43.) For example, evolutionist Ernest Haeckel (1834-1919) asserted that free will had to be rejected along with other “cherished ideas” such as human immortality and a personal god. (Schwarz, Creation, p. 7.) Even before the advent of Darwinian evolution, materialists from Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) forward often rejected free will.

Second, if biological evolution is true, then many areas of philosophy might need to be reexamined. For example, how can man have a qualitatively different value from animals if is every bit a part of nature as animals?...One of La Mettrie’s (1709-1751) followers was the Marquis de Sade (1740-1814) who argued that 'If human passions are mere physiological itches, man’s proverbial dignity is a fraud, and there is nothing—not even our normal revulsion against rape and torture—to stand in the way of treating other human beings as sex tools. From the materialistic perspective, nothing can be entirely unnatural.'"

Clearly, Rand's followers today consider Objectivism to remain an atheist creed. But it's still intriguing that Rand herself was so ambiguous about Darwinism, and even offered hint of a possible spark of faith inside her. One can only wonder what she would say today.

-Todd

Spiritual Rationalism: The Biography of an Idea

In the preface to The Mustard Seed, I wrote the following...

"This is a work of fiction. However, the plot and characters in this book are based on my authentic spiritual and intellectual journey. That journey occurred in my early-to-mid twenties as I adjusted to the peaks and valleys of the 'Real World.' Before I entered that world – back when I was in high school and college - I always hungered for a book that could address 'life issues' in an honest, straightforward, and dare I say inspiring way. Since I couldn’t find such a book, I decided to write one of my own."

In retrospect, some of that of language is misleading. I shouldn't say that my "spiritual and intellectual journey" occurred during "my early-to-mind twenties." Actually, the journey began much earlier than that; the period that spanned my "early-to-mid twenties" was rather, the climax of my journey because that is when I formulated the concept of "Spiritual Rationalism" (which, of course, became the basis of The Mustard Seed).

I don't want to spend a lot of time describing that journey step-by-step (I could literally write an entire separate book about it), but I do want to touch on a few items (with the possibility of expanding on them in a later blog post).

From the earliest days of my childhood until the age of 9, I was an extremely happy boy, and my thoughts on religious matters were limited to the unformed, traditional idea that there was a benevolent God who ruled over the universe (although I never dwelled on it too much).

At 9 years old, my grandfather died. This led to a severe drop in my quality of life, although ironically, it led to a much stronger focus and commitment to Christianity (because, like many folks before me, I saw it as a way to salve my grief and provide meaning to my loss).

This period of religious intensity (and deep emotional investment in Christianity) continued through my early teens, when unfortunately, the quality of my life took another jump into the abyss, and my faith, after years of being unrewarded, started to wane. During high school, the influence of "progressive ideas" started to seep into my brain. Science and history classes joining together to undermine my sense of self. Even worse, I was spending my own free time reading books like Darwin's Dangerous Idea, The Selfish Gene, and The Astonishing Hypothesis, and taking their "reductionist" propaganda as gospel.

Let me provide some context by telling a quick story...In the final weeks of my senior year of high school (spring 1997), I went to have lunch at McDonald's with a friend of mine. I remember telling my friend that I wanted to write a book one day about the dangers of "reductionism." I had just discovered the word "reductionism," and I loved it in a linguistic sense. Wikipedia defines "reductionism" as "an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts." In science, "reductionism" is radical materialism, and all the ideas that come with it - atheism, Darwinism, Behaviorism, etc. But "reductionism" is more than just science; it's also an entire philosophy with tentacles in literature, history, and especially politics. The phrase reminded me of a scientist examining a beautiful woman, and instead of standing back and admiring her beauty, he grabs his microscope, and starts putting body parts under his lens, so that he can study her cells and thus "truly" understand her. I hated "reductionism." But I thought it was the truth. So what could I truly say? I had no counterpoint; no compelling alternative to offer.

Like Brian Raines, I enjoyed my college years, and with the improvement in my quality of life, my "hardened atheism" melted into a "dreary agnosticism." I didn't spend a whole time thinking about religion. I wasn't confident that I could handle it.

Eventually, it was my entrance into the "Real World" that sparked a renewal in my spiritual search. There were 2 books that were especially influential to me. The first was Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch (which I read in 2001). The second was Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (which I read in 2004). I found the ideas in both books compelling, but they were directly opposed on 2 points. Rand was a militant atheist; Walsch was (and is) a firm believer. Rand prized "reason" as the guide to human ethics and action; Walsch was hung up on a hippie-light version of emotionalism and communitarianism. As for me, I was sympathetic to Walsh's faith, but not his program for living; for that, I preferred Rand's emphasis on the mind, individual rights, and political libertarianism.

If only there was a way to blend the two philosophies...

If only there was a way to blend reason and faith...

If only we had Spiritual Rationalism.

What is spiritual rationalism? See my Dec. 2, 2008 blog post for a brief description.

But enough about that...I started this blog post to 1) share my story about McDonald's, and 2) have a follow-up thought (12 years later) about the dangers of "reductionism."

Clearly, at the climax of my spiritual journey, I understand that "reductionism" is wrong. Wrong in every sense of the word. If I had to define "reductionism," I would say...

"Reductionism's mission is to kill the joy out of life - not by spreading truth, but by spreading lies."

A few other thoughts:

Even back in 1997, when I believed in "reductionism," I never understood how other people (whether they were the teachers or the students) could casually accept it (in contrast to me, who mentally resisted its power and hated it deeply). Even worse that, I couldn't understand how other people actually liked reductionism, saw it as a "good and healthy thing" and sought to spread it into society. Even today, I have no genuine explanation for that. Actually, that's not true; I do have one theory (but that's a blog post for another time).

As you can see, my spiritual journey has been sliced, diced, and implanted into all four characters in The Mustard Seed - Brian, Mark, Troy, and Heather.

And there's some stuff that's truly all my own.

More on that another time. Maybe.

-Todd