Atlas Flubbed

For my birthday, I received Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged in audio book form, brilliantly read by Edward Herrmann. I just realized this is an abridged edition (I wondered how one could read an 1100-page book in 11 hours), but the plot is so intricate I can't imagine what details might be been omitted.

So far I have found the story incredibly fascinating and far more thrilling than I imagined a treatise on libertarian capitalism could be. The book is regarded as the second most influential book in America, next to the Bible. An interesting fact, given that Rand set herself in direct opposition to Biblical teaching in the portion I listened to this morning.

In a lengthy speech by the book's central character (No spoilers for now - I'll save those for a more complete review later), Rand presents her Objectivist manifesto. Without going into detail, some core premises of her philosophy/religion are:

- Self-interest is the greatest good.
- Self-sacrifice is at best a waste and at worst evil.
- Humans are born with no evil inclinations or "original sin."

When she denounced the existence of "original sin," the first question in my head was, "Did Rand have any children?" (The answer is no: "The only children she wanted was her books.") If you put two babies in a room with a hammer, how long do you think it will be before one is clubbing the other in the head with it?

As the speech went on, I was struck by how badly Rand misunderstood Christianity. Objectivism regards individual productivity as the highest ethic. Christianity's emphasis on mercy and generosity are antithetical, engendering laziness. Somehow, Rand missed the Bible's overwhelming denunciations of slothfulness, particularly Paul's declaration: "If anyone isn't willing to work, he should not eat." Rand would counter that Christianity advocates working for the common good, leading to socialism.

I found that Rand challenged one of my favorite Christian authors, C.S. Lewis, in her critique of The Abolotion of Man. Rand's comments were published posthumously in a book titled Ayn Rand's Marginalia. From the reviews of this book at Amazon.com, it seems Rand makes a habit of misreading other philosophers. One reviewer, Steve Jackson, writes:

Even worse is Rand's misunderstanding of C.S. Lewis's work THE ABOLITION OF MAN. Lewis makes the point that planners use the power they have gained from science to dominate man. He concludes that any power won by man is also a power over man. Rand goes bonkers and comments "So when you cure men of . . . [diseases] - you make them weaker!!!" Uh, that wasn't exactly his point. She even accuses Lewis (an Anglican) of wanting science subservient to the Pope!

I hoped Lewis might have critiqued Rand's writings at some point, but I have found no such critique. (If anyone knows of one, I would love to read it.)

I have to state that I am unapologetically capitalist. The reason Atlas Shrugged is so compelling to me so far is that I believe industry and innovation are virtues to be promoted and rewarded, not taxed and regulated. Wealth is an incentive to productivity and is not to be discouraged or redistributed by government. I agree with Fr. Robert Sirico that a free market is the best system under which humans can exercise their divinely-bestowed drive to create. In this sense, Christianity and capitalism are complementary philosophies.

Rand lauds the United States for being the first society in history to use the expression, "to make money," that is, that wealth is not to be acquired by force or by looting, but that it is produced by the work of men's minds. What Rand seems to miss is that the right of individuals to be free to receive the fruits of their labors is a Divine right, given not by the government nor by other men. If there is no God, there is no freedom because there is no one else objectively qualified to bestow rights. This is in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. Democracy and free markets cannot exist without a Creator.

What is sad to me is that I find so much in Rand's philosophy to agree with, but she sets herself at odds with Christians like Sirico or Lewis because of her preconceptions and prejudices about Christianity. I question whether she would allow them to agree with her.

As I say this, I know that I am an intellectual pipsqueak who could not hold my own in a debate with Ayn Rand or her successors, but I would have given money to see her debate C.S. Lewis or some of the other Christian champions of liberty and reason.

I'll be finishing Rand's book within the week, after which I am looking forward to hearing Fr. Sirico's, "Who Was Ayn Rand?" I'll hope to blog about it later.