From my journal 1993:
BIG ENOUGH
Oktoberfest Munich 1991, with Paul Comeaux
I wrote this poem related to why I don’t believe in God (atheism) or government (anarchism), and why I think these views are complementary and consistent, and both correct as well. When I went to the Oktoberfest in Munich in 1991 (3 Oct. 1991, I believe it was), one night we met several folks at one of the beer halls. One of the waitresses was a girl named Bettina, whom I talked with for quite a while. She ended up sitting down and talking philosophy with me for about 30 minutes or maybe longer, even though that meant she was missing out on tips. She was Austrian, beautiful, and a student. And a feminist type who hated waiting tables–despite the fact that she did it voluntarily and was well paid. She thought it degrading etc. Well she was interested in a philosophy book I happened to have with me that night in my fanny-pack, called From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest, by T.Z. Lavine. And I recommended some other books for her to read. Well, being European, of course she was a socialist (and even admitted it), but she at least had the good sense to be an atheist. I asked her why she was an atheist, and she said, “because it’s too easy to believe in God.” I thought about it, and really liked that reasoning, skimpy though it was.
From 1990, the year before, with Paul Comeaux and Tony Tramontana
So I told her, “Yes, but don’t you see that it’s also too easy to believe in government?” Which she didn’t grasp, again validating my theory above that socialism is inferior to capitalism. But anyway, it inspired me to write a poem, called “Big Enough. ” I actually think of it more as a song, sung by Edie Brickell of the New Bohemians. Here it is:
Big Enough
You know it’s hard to believe
That so many believe
What they believe
It’s so hard to believe
What they believe
And it’s hard to believe
It’s so easy to believe
It’s too easy
It’s too easy
To believe in God and Government
Oh, the fools who believe
In the God of Government
To believe
It’s too easy
The world is big enough
To believe in it
And I am big enough
To believe in me
You are big enough–
Are you big enough?–
To believe in you
Are you big enough
For me to believe in you?
It’s not that easy . . .
It’s not too easy to believe
To believe in the fools
Who are not big enough
It’s too easy
The Government of God
Is not big enough
It’s smaller than the world
The world is smaller than me
If you are smaller than the world
You are not big enough
You’re too easy
The God of Government
Is not big enough
To believe in
It’s smaller than the Government of God
Where is your size?
Where lies?
I am bigger than–
If you are bigger than–
Then it’s all easy
***
Update: see Legal Positivists Are Natural Lawyers: The error is thinking there is a tradeoff between mysticism and relativism. The theists usually side with mysticism to avoid relativism (natural law types do too—they just substitute natural law for God—me, if I’m gonna accept the stupid dichotomy, I’d take mysticism over relativism (since my choosing good unavoidably does this), and if I’m gonna take mysticism, I’ll take a real, established religion rather than a fake, pretend, in-denial one like “natural law,” or, worse, stateocracy).
See also KOL461 | Haman Nature Hn 119: Atheism, Objectivism & Artificial Intelligence; The HUGE Flag.
Ayn Rand Lexicon, “Religion“:
- PLAYBOY
- Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?
- RAND
- Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very—how should I say it?—dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith.
