Well, you kind've answered your own question by pointing to her own writings.
I believe in God. I don't think that there is a metaphysical "must" in Libertarian thought that requires Atheism. Rand's discussion of God is accurate and defensible. I admit, I am often lured to Atheism for its simplicity of structure.
OTOH, I can't conceive of a world that doesn't have the unmoved mover.....but that is clearly just a limitation of human cognizance. Still, there is no reason to use that as justification to not believe.
That said, I don't view God as a "moral" being in the sense of laying down laws or guiding humanity. I view God more as the director/producer of a play. He's created a set, and lets the actors do as they please within it. Sometimes He speaks to them (or they believe He does), most times He doesn't.
Morality without God is easy. In fact, God gave us the answer Himself: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
All atheistic philosophers have answered the concept of morality without God in one way or another. I don't see that it is a problem.
Morality is just something that happens. I don't believe that man is born into "Original Sin". I believe in the Buddhist philosophy that all men are inherently good, and that circumstances make them evil. Buddhists also believe that intrinsic reactions are inherently good. Hence, the saying "if you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha". The premise is that a good Buddhist knows that Buddha is dead, and there is no other Buddha. Therefore, meeting the Buddha means one is meeting an imposter who is not worthy.....(killing is an analogy, of course). That is not much of a stretch from the Judeo/Christian tenets that oppose iconography (which Judeo/Christians have embraced anyway).
|
