Posted on 06/06/2013 9:36:05 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A Christian scholar and author has taken the experience of growing up under the influence of a stepfather who cherished the objectivism philosophy of Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged) and his biological father who became a follower of Jesus Christ, to write a book about two world views that he feels can come together for the good of society.
Mark David Henderson's book, The Soul of Atlas, begins by asking the question, "Do the two most influential books in modern culture, the Bible and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, share common ground?" Henderson has a unique closeness to the subject of Rand's book – his stepfather (who he simply calls John in his book) produced the movie version of Atlas Shrugged.
"You can imagine these two men having the kind of influence they've had in my life, I was sort of struggling with asking the question, 'Is there a world view that would kind of mesh these two?' And I have to conclude that there probably isn't something called 'Christian objectivism' or 'objective Christianity' because these are not like chocolate and peanut butter where you can sort of mix them," Henderson recently told The Christian Post. "But it was very important to me to reconcile these worldviews as a sort of an intellectual exercise and also to reconcile these two men who, I guess, I [still] long for their approval and long for them to come together because they've shaped my life."
Henderson, who studied Victorian poetry and neuroscience at Brown University and earned an MBA from Columbia Graduate School of Business, is a life-long student of Ayn Rand, a Christian and a former elder and trustee of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City.
He told CP that the two worldviews are "embodied by my two fathers."
Henderson described his stepfather this way: "John is a follower of Ayn Rand, a businessman and entrepreneur, and he's won the U.S. Poker Championship, he has owned race horses, started and taken private and public companies, and he's my stepfather. He's also the producer of 'Atlas Shrugged' the movie, parts one, two, and soon to be three in 2014.
"And he spoke into my life, I lived with him from age 11 until I left the home. I learned about objectivism at the kitchen table in every which way. I was steeped in the philosophy of atheism and Ayn Rand's rationale self-interest."
He also does not give the name of his dad in the book, simply calling him "dad."
"Dad returned to Christianity later in life," Henderson said. "He's a PhD in physiology, he taught at business schools, he worked on the assembly line at general motors, he owns a farm and runs that himself and lives very modestly in the Midwest. He is a devout Christian."
He said both fathers, who each wrote a letter included in the book, have been very supportive of his book, "but from different perspectives, and that is what I kind of get at as the theme for The Soul of Atlas.
"I used these two men to illustrate from a very unbiased perspective these two worldviews and how they interact," Henderson explained. "So, you have John representing Ayn Rand philosophy and speaking it into my life and then dad, who is coming from a Christian perspective of speaking into my life with different principles or in many cases, I contend, the same principles."
He described Ayn Rand's philosophy as based on rational self-interest – "putting your own interests before anything else."
"She believed that the individual is the highest possible occupation of any one person. She believed that one should always occupy their minds, will, and emotions with the highest possible occupation and she believed that would be the self," Henderson said.
Rand believed in objective truths and objective moral values, but that there is no "objective value giver." He said, "She wanted to be known as the greatest enemy to religion that ever lived. She put together this philosophy that is all throughout her writing – from Atlas Shrugged written in 1957, which is still the bestselling novel of all time."
Henderson said that one of the most impactful memories of his Christian father was one in which, as a teenager, he came upon the scene of his father and his wife kneeling inside their apartment praying.
"Now, I had never seen anyone do that before in the privacy of their own home or otherwise," he said. "I thought if they are doing it in the privacy of their own home it's not for show. I certainly hadn't seen my dad, who is this big, strong, macho (in the good sense of the word) guy who just was humbling himself on the floor. It was actually a little bit creepy and I didn't know how to respond and I ended up questioning him at some other point in time. Gradually, over time, his whole transformation was apparent to me not only in our conversations, but also in the way he was living his life. He committed his life to Jesus Christ and a lot of things changed."
Henderson said that the two worldviews discussed in his book have been hugely influential in America's culture and society, and the development of the nation and therefore, if brought together, could also be influential in a positive way.
"My hope is that as Christians and followers of Ayn Rand, or even more broadly, as people of faith and reason come together I want them to find common ground so that we can accomplish much more together than we would separately," he said. "If these two worlds have been so hugely influential independent of one another, by promoting understanding they will engage, by engage I mean be able to work on the things they agree on and accomplish much more then they could separately."
He added, "I don't think it's going to be through a book only. I think it's going to be through an application of these aspects of common ground in the real world – not just on blogs, not just on Twitter, but in person to engage, to seek first to understand, then to be understood, to articulate these two world views, not just these two but others … and then honestly and genuinely find that common ground together."
Your point is well taken. Lincoln made the same point this way: The fox and the sheep see “freedom” differently.
I’ll try to make the best argument I can on behalf of Rand: whoever might be the Nazis today can’t be sure they will be the Nazis forever. So, at some point, it will be in the interest of the ruling class to establish the rule of law so that people will be secure in their person and property. Thus, Benjamin Franklin said no man’s freedom is secure if any man is a slave. In historical fact, however, not many rulers or slaveowners were persuaded by this logic.
The advance of freedom has occurred mostly by the consolidation of random opportunities. This is why I am not giving up on this country. America isn’t the world’s last, best hope. America is the world’s only hope. If we lose out to the socialists, mankind will return to the dark ages.
Now I will quote Reagan. It is as though God raised up the Americas from the great ocean to be a place of refuge for all the freedom loving people of the world. More so, so that the freedom-loving people could have a place to gather and multiply their strength through the creativity that only free people have, and to kick ass with the slaveholders and the Nazis and the Communists and the other bastards out there. As for the Pope, the last war the Pope blessed was the fascist side of the Spanish civil war, so I’m not holding my breadth waiting for his blessing.
and just so I try to stay on topic, I read Atlas so long ago I don’t remember everything well except I got sick of the woman (Dagney?) and her inner fight on and on and on regarding when to throw in the towel.
My biggest take away from the book, if I remember correctly, was how the public reacted to the economy crumbling and who they blamed for it. Just like today. Don’t blame the cause.
LOL! I have a number of Atlas-themed polos that I wear to work. Every now and then, I'll get a positive remark from someone's who read the book. The vast majority of the time, I get a quizzical look.
The title of the book being reviewed, The Soul of Atlas, keys in to the very essence of the matter, the Soul.
Redmen4ever eloquently states - (edited for length, not content) 'In the Jewish perspective both we and the animals are animated or move, hence we both have souls. But, we have a distinctly human soul. The missing link is not to be found in bones. It is all around us. The smartest animals register something like an IQ of 40. An IQ of 60 would be an imbecile amongst us humans. We are amazingly off the charts. There is a huge enormous gap or missing link between us and the closest thing to us. So, simply on a scientific basis, without invoking any religious reference, we are amazing.'
I would like to add that while I agree to the categorical differences stated, we humans are inherently myopic in this regard. The sheer vastness of the universe virtually guarantees us a spot near the bottom of the charts almost imperceptibly different from the 'imbecile' neighbors. That being stated, please understand that it shows just how petty our differences are in the eyes of our Creator.
Continuing on ...'the combination of our mind and our bodies to include our hands enables us to act... ...and make ourselves better off in the future.'
How the meaning of 'ourselves' is understood provides insight into Rands position. Is it to be taken as improving our own selves and thus through summation the betterment of all or is it to be taken as for the good of the collection of selves, without individual merit?
Finishing up ...'There you have it. We are neither ruled by instinct nor by immediate gratification. Hence, we are moral creatures with the power to choose between right and wrong. Ayn Rand argues that right and wrong are not choices, or social mores, or pronouncements from on high, but are scientific facts and that acting based on morality is the most selfish thing you can do.'
Rands unfortunate use of the word 'selfish' is due ,I believe, to the limits of English language. The intent is to provide a focus that unless one prospers it is not possible to help others but instead is a continual struggle to maintain a day to day existence. Charity begins at home.
I think you make several good points. Miss Rand did say that the Christian tenet to love one’s neighbor as oneself is at the very least rational because it does permit one to love one’s self.
I don't hold Rand to the standard of perfection. I just find some deep flaws in her overarching philosophy. Rand is like an art historian at an archaelogical dig. She may have found a few amulets, vases, sculptures etc., which she understands with great vision and clarity, but fails to grasp their role and significance in the greater context of the site.
Specifically, her views on abortion *rights*, I find abhorrent and repulsive from both a logical and emotional standpoint. Furthermore, the historical record strongly suggests that her contempt for the notions of altruism and self-sacrifice, are unworkable at best and self-defeating at worst.
BTW, I get the impression Henderson never read Atlas Shrugged. If somewhere he says he did and offers some kind of interpretation or critique, I’ll stand corrected.
Oh, nonsense. You obviously don't know a thing about Rand's philosophy but just upchuck bits and pieces you've read.
Rand believed that man's only moral obligation is to himself and to those to whom he freely obligates himself. If people followed that dictum, we would be much better off as a society.
Wouldn't you agree?
FReepers who wish to comment on Rand's philosophy would do well to put "Atlas Shrugged" back on the bookshelf and read one of her dozens of non-fiction books and a couple of her hundreds of essays.
Perfect!
RE: Rand believed that man’s only moral obligation is to himself and to those to whom he freely obligates himself.
Given that Ayn Rand does not believe in a moral judge, if a man freely obligates himself to kill another person because he believes it is a moral obligation, I am not sure if that can be called better or worse given the foundation of her worldview.
OH, we all know He’s here. It’s just easier to ignore Him. Some are just to lazy to “take up the cross and follow...”.
btr
That's an absurd distortion of a simple statement. I haven't seen anything from you yet that indicates you have any idea of her, as you call it, "worldview".
RE: That’s an absurd distortion of a simple statement.
Does Ayn Rand believe in God or not?
I believe she does not.
She determined that she was an atheist as early was when she was in high school.
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#cite_note-MJones-172
Is that a distortion of her belief? Maybe you can tell me something that negates what I said...
Now, if she does not believe in God, in what sense are the moral values she espouse objectively binding on others?
All she is telling us is that her beliefs are right without telling us BY WHAT AUTHORITY they are other than to refer to her own.
Of course, she didn't. She was famous for her atheism. That did not, however, mean that she believed you could do as you please morally.
All she is telling us is that her beliefs are right without telling us BY WHAT AUTHORITY they are other than to refer to her own.
If all you know of her philosophy is what you've been told or, perhaps, read in "Atlas Shrugged", I could see why you might think that.
RE: Of course, she didn’t. She was famous for her atheism. That did not, however, mean that she believed you could do as you please morally.
Therein then lies the incoherence of her philosophy.
If we all came from random collision of atoms and are eventually going to go to the same state, what objective or REAL reason is there to NOT do as we morally please?
What objective universal rule in her ultimate worldview makes her morality superior to others?
You seem to know about her philosophy a lot, well, please explain the above to me given her atheism...
A successful life.
What objective universal rule in her ultimate worldview makes her morality superior to others?
Morality is a very vague term. I don't know if you are asking about the morality [I would prefer the term "philosophy", but I'm not sure if that's what you mean] she preached or the morality she lived.
Now, if you are asking about her philosophy, then what I find most compelling is the virtue of selfishness. That each human's only moral obligation is to himself and to those to whom he freely obligates himself [family, friends, etc.]. She believed that the modern concept of sacrifice was morally corrupt.
If, for example, you wish to give food to the family down the street that is hungry, that's fine; an example of man's humanity towards man. But if you take food that would make your own family hungry to give to someone else, she would scold you for ignoring your primary moral obligation.
Now, a lot of people have taken this virtue of selfishness [a term she chose intentionally to be a provocative one] as meaning she believed you shouldn't help others. That isn't true. She just railed against the modern, welfare-state, faux altruism that claims we are all responsible for each other.
We are individuals and should not be slaves to others; either by government decree or church dogma.
Now, all that said, whenever I defend Rand's philosophy, I always feel compelled to add that I am not a member of the cult of personality that surrounded her and, to an extent still does. She was, in my opinion, an extremely brilliant woman whose logic I admire but whose personal life was chaotic and often didn't live up to her lofty ideals.
There are some aspects of her philosophy I strongly disagree with. Abortion is one. She was an early and vociferous advocate for abortion rights and I find that completely counter to her general philosophy of the rights of the individual.
Now, it might have been the times -- science hadn't advanced to the point it has now. Then again, it might have just been her personal feelings impeding on her common sense.
But you don't have to agree with every word a philosopher puts forth to still admire her. It's her thinking that intrigues me. My favorite book of hers is Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology wherein she lays out her theory of concepts and how humans learn.
It's an area of particular interest to me and I can't help but think every teacher in America should memorize it. It's just brilliant.
And if that's not your philosophical cup of tea, I would heartily recommend The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. Her writings on the corruption of American education by the left were prescient -- and her non-fiction is as enjoyable to read as her fiction isn't.
OK. I probably haven't answered your question, but it was thoughtful and I tried to provide a thoughtful -- if, perhaps, incomplete response. If religious people can get past a long-dead woman's opinions of religion, then I think there is much in Rand's writings for them [you?] to like and even to learn from. Cheers.
A successful life.
What objective universal rule in her ultimate worldview makes her morality superior to others?
Morality is a very vague term. I don't know if you are asking about the morality [I would prefer the term "philosophy", but I'm not sure if that's what you mean] she preached or the morality she lived.
Now, if you are asking about her philosophy, then what I find most compelling is the virtue of selfishness. That each human's only moral obligation is to himself and to those to whom he freely obligates himself [family, friends, etc.]. She believed that the modern concept of sacrifice was morally corrupt.
If, for example, you wish to give food to the family down the street that is hungry, that's fine; an example of man's humanity towards man. But if you take food that would make your own family hungry to give to someone else, she would scold you for ignoring your primary moral obligation.
Now, a lot of people have taken this virtue of selfishness [a term she chose intentionally to be a provocative one] as meaning she believed you shouldn't help others. That isn't true. She just railed against the modern, welfare-state, faux altruism that claims we are all responsible for each other.
We are individuals and should not be slaves to others; either by government decree or church dogma.
Now, all that said, whenever I defend Rand's philosophy, I always feel compelled to add that I am not a member of the cult of personality that surrounded her and, to an extent still does. She was, in my opinion, an extremely brilliant woman whose logic I admire but whose personal life was chaotic and often didn't live up to her lofty ideals.
There are some aspects of her philosophy I strongly disagree with. Abortion is one. She was an early and vociferous advocate for abortion rights and I find that completely counter to her general philosophy of the rights of the individual.
Now, it might have been the times -- science hadn't advanced to the point it has now. Then again, it might have just been her personal feelings impeding on her common sense.
But you don't have to agree with every word a philosopher puts forth to still admire her. It's her thinking that intrigues me. My favorite book of hers is Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology wherein she lays out her theory of concepts and how humans learn.
It's an area of particular interest to me and I can't help but think every teacher in America should memorize it. It's just brilliant.
And if that's not your philosophical cup of tea, I would heartily recommend The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. Her writings on the corruption of American education by the left were prescient -- and her non-fiction is as enjoyable to read as her fiction isn't.
OK. I probably haven't answered your question, but it was thoughtful and I tried to provide a thoughtful -- if, perhaps, incomplete response. If religious people can get past a long-dead woman's opinions of religion, then I think there is much in Rand's writings for them [you?] to like and even to learn from. Cheers.
Very thoughtful comments from both of you. Great thread and thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.