The Soul of Atlas: Ayn Rand, Christianity, a Quest for Common Ground

What I like about this book is Mark David Henderson’s self-reflection, his recognition of how his personal experiences affect his beliefs and values, his attempt to set into conversation two (seemingly) disparate world views, and his expressed desire to engage with people who hold to a different world view than his own.All of these could be enhanced with a fuller engagement with postmodernism. Lacking this likely limits his audience to those who accept his own modernist assumptions. To my mind, it is actually an illustration of the very postmodern contention that he dismisses on p. 180-181: truth claim = power play. Ignoring postmodernism, arguably the major philosophical movement of the last 50 years, can be seen as a strategic move, in that it’s a lot easier to promote absolute truth and universal values when one does not have to respond to those pesky postmodernists, with their insistence on the unavoidable slippage between language and real things, their insistence on the self-interestedness of all truth claims, etc. A second-hand quote of Foucault via Tim Keller really does not cut the mustard..If Henderson had more fully engaged with Foucault and others’ (Saussure, Barthes, Derrida, Bhabha) assertions about the constructed nature of truth, perhaps he would recognize how artificially constructed and therefore non-universal are the truth claims of his own book. Perhaps he would better realize and acknowledge how the many choices he made in shaping his book (who he converses with — why not his mother? what “truth" is communicated by leaving her out? who he cites -- why primarily white, first-world, educated, well-fed males? are there possibly valid and important insights they can’t be expected to represent? which topics he selects and avoids) affect what is talked about, what is not talked about, who matters to the conversation, who is left out, and how all these contribute to conceptions of “truth.”Even the fact that Henderson has the personal connections to get his book published, resources that many other people who also may have deep convictions about truth, faith and reason don’t have, reveals how subjective and incomplete human conceptions of truth are. Because the influence of an idea, its acceptance, just might be far more closely related to who has the resources to obtain a larger megaphone than to whose idea has more “validity." Right?Postmodern concepts would also help Henderson in his depiction of Faith and Reason, Christianity and Objectivism, etc., as "philosophical dichotomies” (209) which he is laboring so hard to rethink. Postmodernism loves breaking down those binaries, pointing out how they distort reality, privilege one belief over another, and always attempt to control and manipulate what we understand to be “truth.”Yes, Henderson manages to find common ground between Objectivism and Christianity. I was not too terribly impressed with this for two reasons: 1) Can’t we find something in common with any two world views, if we try? How hard is that? And 2) In this instance, the commonality that Mark David Henderson finds between Objectivism and Christianity is largely because of the particular version of Christianity that he presents, an American, Western-enlightenment version. Because Objectivism is also American and Western-enlightenment influenced, it’s no wonder these two portrayals are both found to value rugged individualism, personal agency, hero worship, etc. But I question whether African, Latin American, Middle Eastern and so on understandings of Christianity, with emphases on such things as group identity, the preferential option for the poor, and so on, could be seen to share so much in common with Objectivism.I look forward to seeing whether Henderson expands his conversation to include world views that have even less in common than Objectivism and (American, 20th century) Christianity. What about Modernism and Postmodernism, or Christianity and Marxist-Feminism, or Objectivism and Marxist-Feminist-Christianity? To quote Mark to Mark: “”I envy the adventure that awaits you.” (xiii).

I share a lot in common with Mark: my parents divorced at age 10, I turned to wrestling, and my wrestling career ended with injury (albeit not as serious as Mark's). My reading for the last fourteen years has been a steady dose of Christian theology and libertarianism of various flavors. As a priest in The Episcopal Church, I find very few who read the likes of Augustine, Piper, and Keller, even fewer who read Ayn Rand, and almost none who read both. For this reason, I felt a special kinship with Mark from the opening moments of this book.What Mark has created with The Soul of Atlas gives me great hope, not only that others have had similar thoughts to my own, but that a movement is afoot that could revitalize both church and nation. His insights are simply written but deep. His reasoning is easily followed but tight. His writing style is conversational AND substantial. This work is just the right length and highly readable (took me two days to finish). And the Gospel is shown to be the supreme joy that it is.Read it. Please. Read this book.Mark, well done brother. Let's get this book into the hands of many.

A wonderful read, even for Objectivists. The author provides an interesting personal dialogue about two philosophies which remain fundamentally opposed. I heard about the book on Fox and assumed it was another attempt to rationalize faith by linking Christianity to Rand. I was mistaken. The personal appeal of the book pulled me in very quickly. For me it is a story about a man's journey to find happiness. His vantage point is unique... in many ways opposite the experience many go through after growing up in religion then discovering philosophical independence. I admire the standards of his faith that result, and found myself wondering how religion would be different if children weren't so often indoctrinated without a choice.There were times when I rolled my eyes at the author's philosophical compromises. I was often frustrated with his interpretation of Rand's philosophy and the limits of his conclusions about Objectivism. The fact that he doesn't address her axioms head-on caused me to question the book's intention at times. Regardless, I think the message is valiant and his personal quest can be well received by the most Randian of fans. I certainly walked away with a more compassionate appreciation of the dance between reason and faith, and a desire to hear (understand) more.I'm adding the author to my list of interesting people I'd love to have lunch with.

In an age when the most common form of debate is to shout ever louder, so that no one can hear your opponents ... or worse, to increase the level of fury and batter them into submission, Mark David Henderson swims against the current. In The Soul of Atlas, he actually reduces the volume to a whisper. He methodically extracts perspectives on topics such as the meaning of life, and how one should approach the topics of sex, money, and power - from both the Objectivist and Christian viewpoints.He sanctifies this Conversation by drawing us into the intimacy of its most poignant struggles. His unique journey includes fathers of both the Objectivist and Christian viewpoint, and he skillfully relates his pursuit to find common ground from the people closest to him.Subtle and approachable, yet deep and nuanced, like any fine meal, be careful with this book lest you over-indulge. It is best taken in measured doses, perhaps a chapter a day. I'd also recommend an excellent digestif - that you start your own conversation along the way!I hope that the Conversation doesn't end here; we need more dialogues modeled after this one, where we first seek to understand prior to being understood. Perhaps the first discussion could be titled, "Who was more selfish? Jesus, or Ayn Rand?" Bravo, Mark, for kicking off the Conversation!