Reblogged: PJ Media’s Walter Hudson Previews Bernstein-D’Souza Deb

[Blog Auto Feed Retired]

<p><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-6076" title="dsouza_bernstein-300x194" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/dsouza_bernstein-300x1941.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="194" />Writing for PJ Media, Walter Hudson, a Christian, <a href="http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/02/07/5-common-accusations-leveled-at-christianity/?singlepage=true" target="_blank">offers</a> a good summary of key differences between Christianity and <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/ayn-rand/objectivism.asp" target="_blank">Objectivism</a>, the secular philosophy of Ayn Rand. Hudson previews topics likely to be debated tonight in Austin, Texas, when Christian Dinesh D’Souza and Objectivist Andrew Bernstein square off over the question, “Christianity: Good or Bad for Mankind?”</p>

<p>Access to the Livestream presentation of the debate can be purchased for $5 <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/events/live_stream.asp" target="_blank">here</a>; the debate starts at 7p.m. CST.</p>

<p>In his preview, Hudson briefly discusses four main areas (broken into five points): the source of knowledge, the nature of reality, the justification for ethics, and the history of Christianity. Here I will address only the first three issues; Bernstein’s <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/tragedy-of-theology.asp" target="_blank">essay on the Dark Ages</a> addresses the essentials of the third.</p>

<p>Regarding knowledge, Hudson points out that the “Christian worldview . . . allows for revelation from a supernatural source.” Indeed, not only does Christianity (and every religion) allow for revelation or faith, it depends on it. Objectivism, on the other hand, holds that all knowledge derives from the evidence of the senses and logical inference from that evidence. (Hudson correctly summarizes this, except he refers to the process merely as “deduction” when logic consists primarily in induction and secondarily in deduction.)</p>

<p>Regarding reality, Hudson explains, Christianity holds that God exists in a supernatural dimension, whereas Objectivism holds that there is only one reality, the natural world, the world in which we live.</p>

<p>Regarding ethics, Hudson correctly notes that Rand rejects “original sin” and self-sacrifice, advocating instead rational self-interest. Hudson writes that according to Rand “altruism is not merely caring for others. . . . In Rand’s view, altruism is irrationally living for others at the expense of self, and egoism is living intentionally in service of rational long-term self-interest.” That’s essentially correct, but the implication that one might rationally live for others is contrary to Objectivism. Rand held that each individual properly lives for himself and that doing so involves dealing with others in ways that are good for one’s life, such as treating others justly, respecting their rights, and developing deep bonds of friendship and love.</p>

<p>On the issue of ethics, Hudson makes a confusing comment in claiming that, for Rand, “The concept of sin is unceremoniously rejected by a metaphysics which denies the existence of any god we need to live up to.” Certainly Rand did not conceive of “sin” in relation to a god or a supernatural dimension. However, Rand <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/special/atlas-shrugged-ayn-rand-morality-egoism.asp" target="_blank">recognized</a> absolute right and wrong, good and bad; she <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451163931/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=theobjestan-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0451163931" target="_blank">held</a>, “that which furthers [one’s] life is the good, that which threatens it is the <em>evil</em>.”</p>

<p>Oddly, despite his largely accurate portrayal of Rand’s philosophy (unusual in the media, where we often see only smears and misrepresentations of her work), Hudson believes that Christianity and Objectivism “are not . . . wholly irreconcilable.” Hudson even says that in a future essay he will reveal a “Christian virtue of selfishness.”</p>

<p>However, ultimately these issues are either/or: Either reason is man’s means of knowledge, or it is not; either faith begets knowledge, or it doesn’t; either the natural world is all there is, or not; either the individual should live for himself, or he shouldn’t.</p>

<p>Still, it is refreshing to read a basically accurate and respectful review of Rand’s ideas from someone who disagrees with the fundamentals of those ideas.</p>

<p>If you are interested in these issues, be sure to sign up for the <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/events/live_stream.asp" target="_blank">Livestream of the debate tonight</a>; it promises to offer plenty for Christians, atheists, and Objectivists alike.</p>

<p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p>

<p><strong>Related:</strong></p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/tragedy-of-theology.asp" target="_blank">The Tragedy of Theology: How Religion Caused and Extended the Dark Ages</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/01/andrew-bernstein-on-religion-vs-morality/" target="_blank">Andrew Bernstein on Religion vs. Morality</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/special/atlas-shrugged-ayn-rand-morality-egoism.asp" target="_blank">Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand’s Morality of Egoism</a></li>

</ul>

Link to Original

[FeatherFall]

Did anyone see this? I had to work, but I'd very much like to hear about it.

[MDRNPRMTV]

I went. I enjoyed seeing Andrew Bernstein again. Honestly, I have never been to a formal debate so all I can go on is my experience with low level non academic debates. Based on this Bernstein put forth an air tight case later in the debate, but I don't think that anyone not familiar with Objectivism would have followed very well.

Rebuttals from Bernstein were spot on. My wife (not an objectivist) had a hard time with how convincing Bernstein was.  

 

All in all I had a good time. I was on the front row next to a microphone for Q&A and got to see a lot of the facial expressions and cool little aspects of each of the guys physical reactions.

 

Any thing in particular you want to hear about?

[FeatherFall]

I guess I just wanted general impressions and descriptions of moments you thought were noteworthy. I'll watch it shortly after it hits The Objective Standard's youtube page.

[softwareNerd]

My wife (not an objectivist) had a hard time with how convincing Bernstein was.

Do you mean he was or was not convincing to a non-Objectivist? Non-Objectivists are the main target of a debate like this, so I'm curious about this.

[MDRNPRMTV]

Bear in mind this is a conversation I have been having with my wife since the debate and no one else. He left my wife with an impression that something was missing from his argument. Bernstein did not break down the ethical implications in enough detail for her. I personally thought that Bernstein did a fantastic job of stating the atrocities that the fundamental concepts of Christianity lead to. The main break was that you had to understand and except objective axiomatic concepts as well as their corollaries to follow Bernstein's direction, there was not an explicit break down of each of the horrors from politics, to ethics, to epistemology, to metaphysics.

 

There was not enough time to break each and every one of them down. He did a fantastic job of presenting the primacy of consciousness as false through explaining the primacy of existence in terms that my thirteen year old can grasp. There was not enough explicit discussion surrounding the links up through epistemology to ethics. I get that logical chain of ideas that follow from each of these premises. I have also been reading Rand and applying Objectivism throughout my life for twenty yrs. You argue for the good and integrate your concepts down to A is A and I got ya. Anyone there who just became familiar with these concepts, or an in depth discussion of them probably needed more time with them. 

 

D'Souza had such weak arguments that I did not think it was needed. Until the car ride home with my wife. I am not sure how Bernstein could have used a different track that would have been more compelling. I have never heard of D'Souza before and thought based on the discussions I have had with Christians he played almost all of the same cards. Mostly the good of altruism and the charity it inspires in Americans to help the global community. Bernstein did not rip this apart. He presented a case for the value of mans life, each mans life, in terms of a value system based in reality. Very professional and almost classy by not shredding such a terrible ethical system outright. Base the good in a reality based metaphysics, or Christianity's option, a reality where consciousness is the primary and anything goes. 

 

D'Souza did use as attacks on atheism examples of atheist horrors perpetuated on humanity by the likes of Pol Pot, Marxist Russia, and Adolf Hitler. Could have been convincing if Bernstein had not shown that these were not men and movements  that had their roots in a system that accepted the primacy of existence. That they still followed from a primacy of consciousness based philosophy, maybe not Christianity, but they were the same fundamental system.

 

I had a great time seeing Bernstein in action again. I attended The Mind as Hero in Atlas Shrugged lecture way back when at The University of Houston . It was a real pleasure to see that Bernstein had all of the same passion and energy from so many years ago.