It has come to my attention that I must clarify a certain point with respect to my nonfiction books.
Some of my recent books have focused on religion and have mentioned the fact that I advocate for it.
I am, of course, noted as a highly successful Objectivist philosopher. (This is a low bar to meet, since there aren't very many of us, so being near the top is not that difficult.) The question, then, is whether I have renounced Objectivism as a result of my religion, given that Objectivism is widely regarded as an atheistic philosophy.
But, to this, I reply: why should I renounce Objectivism, when it is true?
I did not, do not, and never will, renounce Objectivism. That having been said, yes, it is true, I believe in God.
So, let me present my thoughts on why this is not a contradiction, in greater detail.
First, Objectivism is, at its core, nothing other than a belief that objective truth exists. Therefore, weird though this may sound at first, if it is objectively true that God exists, then Objectivism as a philosophy would contain the belief that God exists.
Second, a critic might accuse me of betraying reason, since, as Rand taught, faith and reason are opposed. But, in my nonfiction book, "An Essay on the Philosophy of Religion," I provided a demonstrative deductive proof of the existence of God, using reason and rational argument. Other philosophers, such as Rand, cling to the idea that reason and faith are opposed, but I do not. (It is worth noting that Thomas Aquinas, a philosopher whom Rand liked and approved of, also did not.)
And you might say, the attempt to defend religion using reason is bullshit. And you would be right--if you were referring to other people's attempts. I have my own unique arguments, which are not copied from other thinkers. If you want to talk to me about my arguments, we can have that discussion. But please, do not critique me on the basis of arguments made by other people which I myself never made and which I do not subscribe to. Indeed, in the aforementioned book, I explain that Descartes' famous effort to use reason to prove faith is actually a highly effective argument for atheism and against faith. The history of philosophy views the attempt to defend religion using reason as bullshit only because the people who made that attempt before did it so poorly.
Third, with respect to Ayn Rand and those who obey her every edict, I would point to the quote attributed to Aristotle 2000 years ago, when he said, speaking of his mentor and teacher Plato, that "Plato is dear to me, but the truth is dearer still." Objectivism is dear to me, but my loyalty as a philosopher is to the truth, not to any specific doctrine or belief. I go where the truth leads me. And this is where the truth has led me.
That having been said, although I have recently taken a far more religious turn, my theology is far different from that of most traditional religions. I won't go into the details here, but I lay them out in my two books, "An Essay on the Philosophy of Religion" and "An Essay on the Seven Deadly Sins and the Ten Commandments." If you want to know more, read them.
