The Reality of Original Sin
Ayn Rand's Feminism vs. Dostoevsky's Inquisitive Theology
โThe Expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradiseโ by Benjamin West, 1791
Original sin is foundational to the Bible and the Christian faith. Humans were made for good but fell in the Garden of Eden after choosing evil, then became corrupted by sin and death unto the depths of their bodies and souls.
Even a cursory reading of Scripture illustrates that. As does a rudimentary knowledge of human history.
Left to their own devices to do what is right in their own eyes, humans have a propensity toward evil. From birth.
Yet there are some who find original sin to be a hindrance. An absurdity, even.
One atheist reached out to me on Substack a couple days ago with this quote from Ayn Rand:
โYour code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not. It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon himโit does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man. The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.โ
He finds original sin ridiculous. Although, ironically, via his comment Ken exposed the real absurdity: The inability of an atheistic-naturalistic universe to define right from wrong, good from evil.
I discuss the moral problems with atheism in my Atheist Conversion Manual, but today, I going to go through this quote from Rand and explain why it proves the opposite of what Ken thinks it does. That it proves the necessity of God for good. Then Iโm going to counter with an idea from Dostoevsky which proves Jesus, his sacrifice and resurrection, is the only way out of the grave.
Depravity Without Proof
Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof.
Rand picks the wrong starting point.
The Bible doesnโt begin with original sin. It begins with a perfect Creator making a very good creation, including Adam and Eve, who have been given the opportunity to choose the good (weโll get into this deeper below).
Therefore, depravity isnโt manโs โfirst proof of virtue.โ
Depravity is, however, manโs first proof that on his own without some sort of help or intervention, without some higher guidance, heโs guaranteed to devolve into an evil monster. And that guarantee is backed up by history.
Every ancient culture, even ones held dear like the Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, was leaned toward immense savagery and brutality. Civilizations are celebrated only because outliers who resisted the trend of savagery came along, said enough is enough to most savagery, and fought to build just societies.
Goodness is abysmally rare.
In the ancient world one tribe attacked another to prove dominance, which would include raping and pillaging of the loser. Power and control reigned supreme.
Men were weighed by functionality and usefulness, not by any sort of inherent value.
Children in particular suffered the most. They would be sacrificed on altars, left unwanted in the elements to die, and/or the ones who were kept alive, they would, in many cultures, be treated like chattel or sold into slavery to pay back debts for struggling families. Many times to viscious slave masters who would beat and torture them.
Despite how much they are romanticized these days, Native American tribes were the worst. Always in endless wars that would end not only with the losing tribe raped and pillaged but men and women would be scalped, their hair and headdresses claimed as gory trophies. There are stories of Native American victors even tying boy infants from the losing tribes to horses and having them dragged across the land until they were unrecognizable pulps of still, bloodied flesh.
Evil strikes through every human heart, as Alexandr Solzeneitzen said, and history makes that fact plain as day.
Rand herself isnโt a paragon of perfection. She was a racist, eugenicist, and avid advocate of murdering unwanted children in the womb. The only reason she is idolized is because she was a prolific and creative writer, mainly for the feminist cause, which earned her an automatic place in boss lady hall of fame.
We humans are depraved beyond measure. So where is the good? Atheism has no adequate answer.
Define Good from Evil
It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.
Rand thinks man is left to define good from evil. But in an atheistic world, there is no good or evil.
I explain in The Atheist Conversion Manual that evil is the absence of good. You can have good without evil, but evil isnโt a thing and therefore cannot exist unless there is an original, higher goodness that exists and continues to exist.
I cited Frank Turekโs analogy of the rusty car. You can have the car without the rust, but not the rust without the car.
Evil is the erosion of good.
Therefore, it cannot be the definition of good. No one thinks that. People can mistake evil for good, but no one thinks good comes from evil.
So Randโs assertion is attacking a straw man.
The real question is why is there good at all in such an evil world? And the only valid answer is this world was made for good by a perfect Designer, then later corrupted by the curse of sin and death.
The Good is Non-Man
It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon himโit does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man. The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.
She says this quote as if itโs a problem but never establishes why. Why does the good have to be man? Why canโt it be non-man?
Furthermore, how can man be the good? What is good? What is bad?
Answers to these questions are just presumed in the quote and in atheism, and whenever atheists are asked to present specifics, they cite benefits of the good as if those are actual standards for the good, i.e. well-being, lack of suffering, wealth, thriving, etc. Benefits that allude to an ideal state without articulating where that ideal state comes from or wether itโs the correct ideal state. Another question atheists canโt answer because in an atheist-naturalist world abstractions like right or wrong, well-being vs. suffering, etc., donโt and canโt exist. Everything just is.
Rand presumes God is made up even though her own position is vacuous. Unable to ground truth and morality without the Creator.
What Rand is really mad about is that humanity was given a choice between good and evil and then chose against God, unleashing sin and death into this world. She and all atheists hate God for that because they donโt understand free will. They would rather God have treated all his creation, including humans, like robots. Cattle.
Atheists donโt realize, though, that should that desire be enacted, they would be rendered incapable ofโฆanything.
Dostoevsky wrestled with the same question of free will and artfully explained why free will is necessary despite the evil Adam and Eve brought down upon creation...
This has been a preview of our weekly paid article for Allegiant Faith VIPs. Become a paid subscriber to get access to the full article and more:
Courageous Chrisโs โ30-Day Evangelist: How to Share, Defend, and Live Your Christian Faith in a Secular World.โ
An eBook copy of Courageous Chrisโs The Atheist Conversion Manual: 17 Cases that Destroy Secular Religion, Prove God, and Show You the Way to Eternal Life.
Copies of all future published works.
Access to our full archive of articles
An exclusive subscriber chat
2 articles every week
Your support means the world to us and helps us continue to grow online.
Click below and upgrade!
