Zenphamy- I appreciate your thorough answer to my question. Actually, it is more of a quest for me to find a way to reconcile two conflicting views that I hold dear.

I do take issue with one part of your answer though. I definitely agree with the objectivist ideal that A=A, and if we can't experience it, it must not exist. My issue is that, in my heart, I do feel that I experience the existence of God. In addition, I feel that I have as much "proof" that God exists as those who disagree feel they do. With all the major breakthroughs in Science, we are still no closer to finding out how this little rock of ours came to support advanced life. I feel that an objective (not objectivist, but objective) view of this dilemma could reasonably come to the conclusion that, given the great search and lack of progress, there may be something more out there. There is as much proof that God created the earth as there is that it was a random cataclysmic event (no proof in either case, only theories). When I look at my daughter, I cannot reconcile her beauty to me with a random combination of atoms.

That is the basic root of my struggle. I cannot find a way to make A=A when searching for answers without a God. Science has not provided me with an answer that I can reconcile. This struggle really began for me when my daughter was born. She is by no means perfect, however, she is perfect for me. I have a hard time believing that this perfect child for me ended up in my life purely by physical chance. In my mind, it is easier to reconcile some sort of divine intervention, than random chance. So, in that, I guess I could say that, as an objectivist, I do "sense or experience the superhuman or super-stitional gods of religion" as you said. In my life, I find it easier to credit divine intervention than random chance. I no longer attend an organized church for many of the same reasons Ayn spoke out against the church. In my experience, churches, much like governments, like to preach self sacrifice with the sole goal of separating me from my money. I am completely on board with Rand in that respect. I don't feel the need to go somewhere every Sunday to listen to someone try to make me experience guilt because of my success. I refuse to allow others to make me feel guilty for my success.

The difficult part for me is, as a student of Rand, I want to find a way to make A=A in my existence. However, when it comes to the creation of life I have not been able to find the A that is supposed to equal A. I would think with all of our huge scientific advancements we would have found that A, and the fact that we haven't makes me sometimes think there isn't one.

I know this is rambling, but it is an interesting subject to me.

Now you're making me blush. Txs
edit: mis-spelling

I agree. I got a lot out of your comment, Zenphamy

Wow. That was good.

KS; The difficulty in this arises in your first sentence in which you frame your interest with the 'anti-religion aspect of Objectivism.' Objectivism is not anti-religion anymore than it's anti-anything, other than anti-reasoning and anti-rationality. Objectivism, at it's base is pro-life (not the PC mis-definition) and pro-human. Objectivism finds our ability to determine the reality within which we live, as that available from our five senses and our ability to reason in a rationally logical manner. And further, that emotional responses must be subjected to reasoned, rationally, and logical analysis compared against reality before acting on them. Objectivism also demands identity and definition, i.e. A=A. Religion has an identity and definition (the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods) which does not equal those of philosophy (the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.) The two are obviously separate.

An Objectivist, sensing reality within which he lives and experiences, does not sense or experience the superhuman or super-stitional gods of religions, can find no evidence or proof of such beings, and therefor rationally and logically, reasons that no such thing exists. Objectivist also find a set of morals which finds that altruism, as expressed in so many religions, rather than being helpful to either side of altruism is actually harmful to life and the individual and does express an antipathy towards any altruistic act of justification for such. So any belief or reliance in a religion, an anti-human and anti-life act justified by that religion, or an argument that relies on a super-stional or superhuman existence or interaction with such is antithetical with philosophy, particularly that of Objectivism.

I might suggest that rather than working backwards from Objectivist ideals and attempting to rationalize those with 37 years of religious programming, that you spend a little time looking at the basis of Objectivism, i.e. A=A, Existence=Existence.

The book Mamaemma mentioned, Mark Henderson's "The Soul of Atlas": http://store.atlasshruggedmovie.com/the-...

Mark Henderson has written a book, The Soul of Atlas, which I think would address your question well.

K, I have only been in the Gulch about a month and a half, and I have already seen several heated discussions about this topic. Some people point out that strict adherence to Objectivism does not allow for any religious beliefs. Some religious Gulchers get quite incensed and try to convince others that they are right in their beliefs.

For the life of me, I just don't feel it is that important. I am an avid fan of Ayn Rand. I am not anywhere near as advanced in philosophy as a lot of people on this site, but I choose to not engage in the religious debate and instead to learn as much as possible here.

Communicating with Gulchers makes my heart sing! And I have a lot of fun, too.

There have been many discussions on the topic. You can do a search and find them.