In the comments section of my previous blog entry, Is Math Christian?, a visitor to my blog named Michael Rawlings has engaged me in a fascinating and, I’m happy to say, very civil discussion about Christianity.
Michael does not strike me as the typical apologist for Christianity. His tone is mature and he exhibits a refreshing willingness to examine ideas and take them seriously. He has also expressed admiration for Objectivism, which I find encouraging.
Still, Michael seems to have a persisting hesitancy to address direct questions responding to his statements. To his credit in this regard, he has expressed caution for taking things slowly and addressing issues in a sequential manner. However, the list of outstanding questions has been growing since the discussion first began. In his initial comment, dated 4 Nov., he announced, “Rand never properly understood Christian epistemology.” Just a few hours later, I posted my reply with the following questions:
Michael does not strike me as the typical apologist for Christianity. His tone is mature and he exhibits a refreshing willingness to examine ideas and take them seriously. He has also expressed admiration for Objectivism, which I find encouraging.
Still, Michael seems to have a persisting hesitancy to address direct questions responding to his statements. To his credit in this regard, he has expressed caution for taking things slowly and addressing issues in a sequential manner. However, the list of outstanding questions has been growing since the discussion first began. In his initial comment, dated 4 Nov., he announced, “Rand never properly understood Christian epistemology.” Just a few hours later, I posted my reply with the following questions:
1. Just what exactly *is* “Christian epistemology”? Where can it be found? What does it teach? What does it say knowledge is? What does it say about concepts? What is the process which “Christian epistemology” endorses, and how does it work?
2. Who “properly” understands what you call “Christian epistemology”? There are hundreds if not thousands of different (and often opposing) versions of Christianity as such. For a Christian to say that he understands “Christian epistemology” (as though there were such a thing) means that he is saying that other professing Christians do not understand it.
3. Where precisely does Rand speak on “Christian epistemology,” and how exactly does she get it wrong?
And even though the discussion between Michael and me continued since then, with many replies being posted by both of us, these questions still remain unanswered.
After some pressing on the question of what “Christian epistemology” is, Michael stated that “the epistemology of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy is a rational-empirical construct.” Unfortunately, this response simply raises more questions than it was originally intended to answer. Historically, strict empiricism involves a denial of the conceptual level of cognition, and rationalism involves a denial of the validity of the senses, their role in gathering knowledge, or at any rate an attempt to “deduce” all knowledge from some abstraction, without recourse to integrating facts discovered empirically in the world around us. Uniting these two forms of denial into a single “construct” would simply make knowledge even more elusive than either position would have it on its own. I doubt this is what Michael has in mind, but it is on his shoulders to explain what he has in mind.
And of course, there’s the matter of authenticating whatever view he presents as genuinely Christian. I have read the bible – some portions of it I’ve read many, many times – and I’ve never found any passage which makes this kind of affirmation about epistemology. If a position is not bible-authentic, what justifies calling it Christian-authentic? This is a question that I have raised numerous times in my discussion with Michael, but he has yet to address it.
Also in his initial comment where he charges Rand of never properly understanding Christian epistemology, Michael stated that “Christianity does not hold that finite consciousness has primacy over reality.”
In response to him, I asked:
After some pressing on the question of what “Christian epistemology” is, Michael stated that “the epistemology of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy is a rational-empirical construct.” Unfortunately, this response simply raises more questions than it was originally intended to answer. Historically, strict empiricism involves a denial of the conceptual level of cognition, and rationalism involves a denial of the validity of the senses, their role in gathering knowledge, or at any rate an attempt to “deduce” all knowledge from some abstraction, without recourse to integrating facts discovered empirically in the world around us. Uniting these two forms of denial into a single “construct” would simply make knowledge even more elusive than either position would have it on its own. I doubt this is what Michael has in mind, but it is on his shoulders to explain what he has in mind.
And of course, there’s the matter of authenticating whatever view he presents as genuinely Christian. I have read the bible – some portions of it I’ve read many, many times – and I’ve never found any passage which makes this kind of affirmation about epistemology. If a position is not bible-authentic, what justifies calling it Christian-authentic? This is a question that I have raised numerous times in my discussion with Michael, but he has yet to address it.
Also in his initial comment where he charges Rand of never properly understanding Christian epistemology, Michael stated that “Christianity does not hold that finite consciousness has primacy over reality.”
In response to him, I asked:
Where does “Christianity” state this? Is it in the bible?
Michael has yet to answer this question, too.
What Michael’s position does affirm is quite curious. For instance, on 10 Nov. he wrote:On the whole, despite its atheism, I find that Objectivism has more in common with Judeo-Christianity than any other single system of thought, at least as far as the temporal realm of existence is concerned, though not without some tension, which I have come to appreciate with even greater clarity; and from me, that is saying something, as I am familiar with most all of the various system’s of thought espoused in the history of Western culture.I find this statement quite curious, for Objectivism affirms numerous fundamental philosophical positions which are completely at odds with what Christianity has historically taught. For instance:
1. Existence is not created – it is eternal, absolute, and independent of consciousness – of any consciousness. It rejects as irrational the notion of creation by an act of consciousness, miracles, preordination of human history, etc. Objectivism affirms that consciousness is inherently biological, just as other biological functions are, such as digestion, respiration, circulation, reproduction, etc. There is everything natural about consciousness, and nothing supernatural about it. In contrast to Objectivism, Christianity explicitly affirms the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, whether it is with regard to a deity wishing the universe into existence, that same deity assigning identities to the constituents of the universe is wished into existence, its ability to revise the identities at any time by an act of will, the contingency of every fact in the universe on the will of this deity, its ability to intrude on human consciousness and direct its movements, etc. And for an individual human being interacting with the actual realm in which he lives, no amount of believing is going to enable him to walk on water. Mere “belief” has no ability to alter reality. But this is not what the biblical narrative illustrates.
2. Reason is man’s only means of discovering and validating knowledge, his only standard of judgment, and his only guide to action. It rejects as irrational the notions of “divine revelation,” “sensus divinitatis,” the “indwelling of the Holy Spirit,” faith in invisible magic beings, prayer, etc. The core of Objectivist epistemology is its theory of concepts, which Rand described in her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. By contrast, the bible presents no theory of concepts, and Christian apologists routinely fail to present any distinctively Christian theory of concepts. A theory of concepts explains how the human mind forms concepts from perceptual input. But since Christianity’s most basic “truths” are seated squarely in supernaturalism, those “truths” do not denote things which any human being can perceive. Such “truths” do not constitute conceptual knowledge, for they are not formed ultimately on the basis of perceptual input, and in fact require the believer to ignore perceptual input in forming conceptions of what is possible and what “ultimately” exists. It is for these reasons that Christian apologists typically take delight in playing the skeptic card against non-believers; non-believers, they claim, cannot “account for” the knowledge they possess while remaining consistent with their rejection of theism. This is why the tired “How do you know?” line of interrogation is so commonplace among the more visible presuppositional apologists. The unintended irony of such apologetic strategies is that the very apologists who deploy them in their offenses against non-believers famously show that they themselves cannot answer this very question when it is turned on them.
3. A morality that is proper to man is inherently selfish, since it is premised on the concept of values and is focused on an individual’s pursuit of his own life, his own values, his own happiness; it rejects self-sacrifice in any form and for any purpose. Objectivism does not advocate that an individual “deny himself” and take up an instrument of torturous execution and follow someone who “gave his life” for others. In fact, Objectivism rejects as reprehensible the idea that the ideal should be sacrificed on behalf of the non-ideal, that the virtuous should be sacrificed for the sake of the wretched. Indeed, only by accepting the premise of the primacy of consciousness can a worldview hold an individual guilty of adultery, for instance, merely for looking at another person and entertaining sexual fantasies about that person. The Objectivist view of evil is that it is never morally excusable, while the Christian view is that there can be and is such a thing as “a morally sufficient reason” for allowing, even “ordaining” evil (cf. Bahnsen, Always Ready, p. 172).
4. Objectivism is well-known for its unflinching advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism, as defined and defended by Rand in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Capitalism is the political theory premised on the idea that the individual has a right to live for his own sake, that he is not to set himself up as the collector of other people’s sacrifices, nor is he to sacrifice himself for others. Objectivism rejects any form sacrificial ethics, including the view that man has some “duty” or obligation to sacrifice himself to a deity which he can only imagine, or to his “fellow man.” Christianity was the dominating philosophical influence over Europe from the fall of Rome until the Age of Reason, and no state during this time was capitalistic. This was no accident. What is modeled in the New Testament is the strongest overt indication of what Christianity holds as the proper model for human society, and what the New Testament models (cf. the Acts of the Apostles) is clearly communistic. The treatment of the individual as merely a part of a larger collective is commonplace in Christian thought. The human population is divided into two opposing collectives, the “chosen” vs. the “damned,” and in every thoroughgoing Christian political system, this collectivist division of humanity is of paramount importance. Whether it is Rome’s colonial missionizing of primitive societies, its Inquisitions shoving its nose into individuals’ personal affairs, whether its Calvin’s Consistory condemning individuals for heretical beliefs or Christian “conservatives” actively seeking to limit mutually consensual sexuality to its preferred templates, the underlying premise of Christian political theory has historically been the view that the individual should not be allowed to live his life for his own sake, but must obey some central authority which has a “right” to know everything about the individual’s life and control it.
Naturally, I could go on and on, and I have detailed numerous fundamental antitheses between the Christian worldview and Objectivism in many entries on my blog over the years. But this high-level summary should be sufficient to indicate that Michael’s claim that “Objectivism has more in common with Judeo-Christianity than any other single system of thought,” is at best a minority report (indeed, perhaps a minority of one?) and at worst a tragic failing to grasp the difference of two philosophical systems which really could not be more opposed to one another. Michael seems to believe that Objectivism largely describes the Christian worldview insofar as the relationship between the believer and the universe in which he finds himself is concerned. But of course, Objectivism would agree that it (Objectivism) accurately describes and therefore applies to any individual’s life, since its philosophical tenets are true. But it would not follow from this that Christianity advocates essentially the same views regarding reality, knowledge and values that Objectivism does. Indeed, far from it! It is this antithesis that Michael seems to be challenging, albeit with certain qualifications in place. But again, the question of bible-authenticity remains looming at large here.
Of course, if I have misunderstood him or mischaracterized his position in any way, I am willing to be corrected. I believe these points accurately characterize the essence of our debate, but of course there may be many nuances which he would cite as important. And likewise for myself; it’s hard if not impossible for anyone to be thorough in the confines of a few paragraphs. This goes for me as much as it does for Michael.
While these few observations are hardly sufficient to do justice to the scope of the discussion which Michael and I have been enjoying up to this point, they do highlight the important points which present significant hurdles for Michael’s position. Moreover, Michael has introduced the terms “the transcendence” and “the transcendent,” which he apparently believes denote actually existing things, but which he has yet to define, let alone defend, this in spite of the fact that I have inquired on their meanings on more than one occasion in our discussion.
It is here where we take up the present situation in my discussion with Michael.
In one of his latest replies, Michael wrote:
Of course, if I have misunderstood him or mischaracterized his position in any way, I am willing to be corrected. I believe these points accurately characterize the essence of our debate, but of course there may be many nuances which he would cite as important. And likewise for myself; it’s hard if not impossible for anyone to be thorough in the confines of a few paragraphs. This goes for me as much as it does for Michael.
While these few observations are hardly sufficient to do justice to the scope of the discussion which Michael and I have been enjoying up to this point, they do highlight the important points which present significant hurdles for Michael’s position. Moreover, Michael has introduced the terms “the transcendence” and “the transcendent,” which he apparently believes denote actually existing things, but which he has yet to define, let alone defend, this in spite of the fact that I have inquired on their meanings on more than one occasion in our discussion.
It is here where we take up the present situation in my discussion with Michael.
In one of his latest replies, Michael wrote:
I understand the processes of sound knowledge, the proper course of integration, beginning with concretes at the base of knowledge, with each new inference or abstraction directly linked to the previous. Judeo-Christianity insists on it.
This is what I want to know: Where does Christianity insist on the epistemological elements that he lists in this statement? I just want to know where he thinks “Judeo-Christianity”
a) specifies “processes of sound knowledge,” b) explains “the proper course of integration,” c) indicates that knowledge begins with concretes at the base of knowledge, and d) presents analyses of integration and abstraction as directly linked to more fundamental knowledge.
Indeed, where does the bible ever express concern for guarding against epistemologically confusing one’s imagination with reality? The bible does not do this, but it does make its condemnation of “men’s wisdom” and “the wisdom of the world” very clear. The bible’s god is opposed to “men’s wisdom.” What is “men’s wisdom” and “the wisdom of the world” if not reason itself? Reason is the cognitive faculty by which a man can think independently and rely on his own mind. But throughout its texts, the bible is continually trying to discourage people from relying on their own minds, from thinking independently, from straying from the pack.
And as for the specifics which Michael has listed, I’ve never read anything about any of these things in the bible. I never heard anything about these things when I was a Christian. And after engaging probably several hundred Christian apologists over the past 15 years on the internet, nearly all strike me as fairly out to lunch when it comes to epistemology. They often make statements about epistemology, but typically these are constrained to talking points in their debate strategies and not in the interest of expanding anyone’s understanding of knowledge and how the human mind works. Moreover, when I eventually did learn about these things, it was only after I departed from Christianity and started learning about an atheistic worldview, namely Objectivism, where concern for these things is ever-present and unavoidable.
Indeed, the entire devotional program of Christianity is characterized by accepting belief claims on the basis of ignorance and fear. This is explicit in Christianity, and it is an undeniable part of the entire Christian faith agenda. Defenders of Christianity are constantly deploying apologetic schemes which are designed essentially to goad non-believers into throwing up their hands and saying “I donno, it must be God!” Typical examples include challenges like “How do you account for X” where X could be anything from the uniformity of nature to the “unchanging laws of logic,” from the very existence of life on earth to moral absolutes. The unwritten subtext to all of this is really nothing more than the believer himself didn’t know how to answer these questions rationally, and to whatever extent such questions are meaningful to him, he thinks the only available answer is supplied by pointing to a supernatural being which we can only imagine.
Granted, Michael does not come across as one of these types of Christian apologists. His approach seems more likely to affirm that rational philosophy is in fact true, albeit our understanding of certain components of it needs to be tweaked in order to reveal its basis in a god. This is why he apparently affirms a duplicitous metaphysical paradigm, one which affirms the primacy of existence in the case of man’s cognition, but which holds to the primacy of consciousness on the broader scheme of things. Unfortunately, this actually amounts to affirming a self-contradictory metaphysics, for the primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness are not in any way compatible with one another. I’m supposing that there is more that Michael will need to learn about the issue of metaphysical primacy before he can fully appreciate these matters.
As for Christianity’s appeal to fear, there’s no denying this. It fills the bible’s pages, and Christian apologists often retreat to it as a last resort. The subtext here is essentially: “If you don’t believe, you’ll suffer in hell for eternity.” But threats are not a substitute for reason, and the mind certainly does not validate knowledge claims on the basis of fear. The “process of sound knowledge” does not involve a component in which raising a stick over a thinker’s head will somehow produce sound knowledge, or even supply premises sealing some true conclusion which would otherwise not be available.
Again, what Michael attributes to Christianity is not at all recognizable as Christian in nature. And his lack so far of connecting these specifics of epistemological import to Christian doctrine is not surprising.
If Michael cannot link these things to specific passages in the bible, then what justifies attributing these things to orthodox Christianity proper? Will he cite Augustine, a thinker heavily influenced by Neo-Platonism and Manicheaism? Such views don’t resemble Objectivism in the least. But all throughout this conversation, he’s been essentially maintaining that Judeo-Christianity affirms positions very similar to Objectivism in at least some of its metaphysics and in its epistemology.
It also needs to be noted, so that it is not forgotten or overlooked, that the view of oneself which Christianity insists the believer accept as part of the massage package of Christian belief, is one which denounces his spirit as a depraved misfit that can’t do anything right, either in knowledge or in deed. Rand showed that this is the exact opposite of the view of man which a pro-reason philosophy takes and must take. Reason requires an intact self-esteem, a sense that one is worthy of the knowledge he seeks to earn, indeed, that he can earn it in the first place, and that the fruits of knowledge are a benefit to oneself. Reason is selfish. A “selfless” epistemology would be one which expects its practitioners to sacrifice themselves, to deny the parts of their identity that make them human, to suppress their minds’ cognitive abilities in preference of some content whose claims to truth they could not verify, to ignore what their own mind might discover and validate in preference for commandments issued by an authoritarian source. A rational approach to knowledge does not tell man that he is essentially divided into two warring halves, each vying against the other, causing an unbridgeable rift between what he is expected to affirm as “right” and his desires, insisting that he forego judgment and rely on faith as his guide to action (as we find praised in Hebrews 11). We don’t find discourses put into biblical heroes’ mouths which have them affirming the virtues of rationality and independence, of adherence to reason as our only epistemological norm, of gathering facts from reality to confirm or refute claims one has fielded from others. The bible’s discourses have its heroes constantly referring back to “the book,” for “it is written” in their minds meant that it came from a divine source and is therefore not to be questioned or analyzed. For the bible’s heroes, importance is placed on obedience, not on understanding. The bible is emphatically not a pro-reason text. Far from it!
On the contrary, this “wisdom of the world” – i.e., reason – is condemned as being of the devil. Why else do we find Luther condemning reason over and over again in his writings? Luther thought the church had been contaminated by anti-Christian views. And he was right. We have Aquinas to thank for the incursions of non-Christian thought on Christianity. Luther and other Reformers sought to break from the Aristotelian influences which received the stamp of approval from Aquinas. The Christian who now posts comments on my blog under the name “Richard” (it seems to change from week to week) wrote earlier in the same thread: “Aristotle was wrong about much. It always amazes me that people take him seriously.” The Reformers wanted a revival of the sheer mysticism of the “original” Christianity, what they considered “orthodox” Christianity. Out with all the Aristotelian influences. Aristotle is unbiblical, and reason, “the Devil’s greatest whore,” said Luther, is “the greatest enemy that faith has.” Luther also announced that “reason should be destroyed in all Christians.” My point in citing Luther’s overt anti-rationality is not to broadbrush all Christians as similarly opposed to reason in such an overt manner, but to raise an important question given Michael’s attribution of certain elements to what he calls “Christian epistemology”: here was one of the leading Christian thinkers of his day, having earned a doctorate from the University of Wittenburg, vociferously denouncing reason as essentially satanic. If the things that Michael and I have discussed, from the primacy of existence to the importance of a “process of sound knowledge” in which higher levels of knowledge are abstracted from more fundamental, down to its roots in sense perception, are not merely compatible with Christianity, but “insisted on” by orthodox Christianity, how could someone with so much devotion to and study of Christianity and influence over later generations like Luther be so wrongheaded? Why didn’t Christians the world over simply denounce him as a heretic who strayed from Christianity’s (alleged) insistence on reason and show where he was wrong? To this day, there are millions of Christians who count themselves as Luther’s ecclesiastical ancestors. Anti-reason is the norm among Christianity’s flocks. I’ve already cited the explicit rationalism of folks like Gordon Clark. And let’s not forget the hundreds of Christian drive-bys who have “shared” their contempt for Objectivism right here on my blog and elsewhere.
All this is to say that, coupled with Michael’s lack of citation of evidence even casually suggesting that “Christianity insists on” these epistemological principles, there is overwhelming evidence blaring that quite the opposite is in fact the case. More and more Michael is beginning to resemble a renegade of sorts, a defector from orthodox Christianity who’s trying to revise it somehow.
Michael also wrote:
And as for the specifics which Michael has listed, I’ve never read anything about any of these things in the bible. I never heard anything about these things when I was a Christian. And after engaging probably several hundred Christian apologists over the past 15 years on the internet, nearly all strike me as fairly out to lunch when it comes to epistemology. They often make statements about epistemology, but typically these are constrained to talking points in their debate strategies and not in the interest of expanding anyone’s understanding of knowledge and how the human mind works. Moreover, when I eventually did learn about these things, it was only after I departed from Christianity and started learning about an atheistic worldview, namely Objectivism, where concern for these things is ever-present and unavoidable.
Indeed, the entire devotional program of Christianity is characterized by accepting belief claims on the basis of ignorance and fear. This is explicit in Christianity, and it is an undeniable part of the entire Christian faith agenda. Defenders of Christianity are constantly deploying apologetic schemes which are designed essentially to goad non-believers into throwing up their hands and saying “I donno, it must be God!” Typical examples include challenges like “How do you account for X” where X could be anything from the uniformity of nature to the “unchanging laws of logic,” from the very existence of life on earth to moral absolutes. The unwritten subtext to all of this is really nothing more than the believer himself didn’t know how to answer these questions rationally, and to whatever extent such questions are meaningful to him, he thinks the only available answer is supplied by pointing to a supernatural being which we can only imagine.
Granted, Michael does not come across as one of these types of Christian apologists. His approach seems more likely to affirm that rational philosophy is in fact true, albeit our understanding of certain components of it needs to be tweaked in order to reveal its basis in a god. This is why he apparently affirms a duplicitous metaphysical paradigm, one which affirms the primacy of existence in the case of man’s cognition, but which holds to the primacy of consciousness on the broader scheme of things. Unfortunately, this actually amounts to affirming a self-contradictory metaphysics, for the primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness are not in any way compatible with one another. I’m supposing that there is more that Michael will need to learn about the issue of metaphysical primacy before he can fully appreciate these matters.
As for Christianity’s appeal to fear, there’s no denying this. It fills the bible’s pages, and Christian apologists often retreat to it as a last resort. The subtext here is essentially: “If you don’t believe, you’ll suffer in hell for eternity.” But threats are not a substitute for reason, and the mind certainly does not validate knowledge claims on the basis of fear. The “process of sound knowledge” does not involve a component in which raising a stick over a thinker’s head will somehow produce sound knowledge, or even supply premises sealing some true conclusion which would otherwise not be available.
Again, what Michael attributes to Christianity is not at all recognizable as Christian in nature. And his lack so far of connecting these specifics of epistemological import to Christian doctrine is not surprising.
If Michael cannot link these things to specific passages in the bible, then what justifies attributing these things to orthodox Christianity proper? Will he cite Augustine, a thinker heavily influenced by Neo-Platonism and Manicheaism? Such views don’t resemble Objectivism in the least. But all throughout this conversation, he’s been essentially maintaining that Judeo-Christianity affirms positions very similar to Objectivism in at least some of its metaphysics and in its epistemology.
It also needs to be noted, so that it is not forgotten or overlooked, that the view of oneself which Christianity insists the believer accept as part of the massage package of Christian belief, is one which denounces his spirit as a depraved misfit that can’t do anything right, either in knowledge or in deed. Rand showed that this is the exact opposite of the view of man which a pro-reason philosophy takes and must take. Reason requires an intact self-esteem, a sense that one is worthy of the knowledge he seeks to earn, indeed, that he can earn it in the first place, and that the fruits of knowledge are a benefit to oneself. Reason is selfish. A “selfless” epistemology would be one which expects its practitioners to sacrifice themselves, to deny the parts of their identity that make them human, to suppress their minds’ cognitive abilities in preference of some content whose claims to truth they could not verify, to ignore what their own mind might discover and validate in preference for commandments issued by an authoritarian source. A rational approach to knowledge does not tell man that he is essentially divided into two warring halves, each vying against the other, causing an unbridgeable rift between what he is expected to affirm as “right” and his desires, insisting that he forego judgment and rely on faith as his guide to action (as we find praised in Hebrews 11). We don’t find discourses put into biblical heroes’ mouths which have them affirming the virtues of rationality and independence, of adherence to reason as our only epistemological norm, of gathering facts from reality to confirm or refute claims one has fielded from others. The bible’s discourses have its heroes constantly referring back to “the book,” for “it is written” in their minds meant that it came from a divine source and is therefore not to be questioned or analyzed. For the bible’s heroes, importance is placed on obedience, not on understanding. The bible is emphatically not a pro-reason text. Far from it!
On the contrary, this “wisdom of the world” – i.e., reason – is condemned as being of the devil. Why else do we find Luther condemning reason over and over again in his writings? Luther thought the church had been contaminated by anti-Christian views. And he was right. We have Aquinas to thank for the incursions of non-Christian thought on Christianity. Luther and other Reformers sought to break from the Aristotelian influences which received the stamp of approval from Aquinas. The Christian who now posts comments on my blog under the name “Richard” (it seems to change from week to week) wrote earlier in the same thread: “Aristotle was wrong about much. It always amazes me that people take him seriously.” The Reformers wanted a revival of the sheer mysticism of the “original” Christianity, what they considered “orthodox” Christianity. Out with all the Aristotelian influences. Aristotle is unbiblical, and reason, “the Devil’s greatest whore,” said Luther, is “the greatest enemy that faith has.” Luther also announced that “reason should be destroyed in all Christians.” My point in citing Luther’s overt anti-rationality is not to broadbrush all Christians as similarly opposed to reason in such an overt manner, but to raise an important question given Michael’s attribution of certain elements to what he calls “Christian epistemology”: here was one of the leading Christian thinkers of his day, having earned a doctorate from the University of Wittenburg, vociferously denouncing reason as essentially satanic. If the things that Michael and I have discussed, from the primacy of existence to the importance of a “process of sound knowledge” in which higher levels of knowledge are abstracted from more fundamental, down to its roots in sense perception, are not merely compatible with Christianity, but “insisted on” by orthodox Christianity, how could someone with so much devotion to and study of Christianity and influence over later generations like Luther be so wrongheaded? Why didn’t Christians the world over simply denounce him as a heretic who strayed from Christianity’s (alleged) insistence on reason and show where he was wrong? To this day, there are millions of Christians who count themselves as Luther’s ecclesiastical ancestors. Anti-reason is the norm among Christianity’s flocks. I’ve already cited the explicit rationalism of folks like Gordon Clark. And let’s not forget the hundreds of Christian drive-bys who have “shared” their contempt for Objectivism right here on my blog and elsewhere.
All this is to say that, coupled with Michael’s lack of citation of evidence even casually suggesting that “Christianity insists on” these epistemological principles, there is overwhelming evidence blaring that quite the opposite is in fact the case. More and more Michael is beginning to resemble a renegade of sorts, a defector from orthodox Christianity who’s trying to revise it somehow.
Michael also wrote:
But you need to appreciate that according to Judeo-Christianity truth is from God and no other.
While I’ve been hearing this claim virtually all my life (people seem to repeat it without knowing what they’re saying), it has never made sense to me, and even after attempting to understand it from many Christians over the past decade and a half, it still doesn’t make sense. Specifically, it is not at all coherent with what I know truth to be. Truth is an aspect of conceptualization. It has nothing to do with any god. The Christian god is said to be omniscience, which can only mean that it would not have its knowledge in conceptual form (as I have argued here). The attempt to link truth to such a being, notwithstanding its basis in imagination, only exposes a very poor understanding of the cognitive nature of truth. Truth is the objective, non-contradictory identification of fact, and it is obtainable within reality between human consciousness and the objects they perceive and identify. There’s nothing “otherworldly” about truth; there’s nothing supernatural or mystical about it. It certainly is not supernatural in origin. It has everything to do with this world and its occupants.
So, while Michael says that I “need to appreciate” this position, it remains beyond my understanding what exactly I’m being asked to appreciate. Maybe I’m just too dumb to understand it. And while I may not be the smartest guy around, I do understand some pretty complicated things. So I’m open to examining the premises of such a claim.
Michael wrote:
So, while Michael says that I “need to appreciate” this position, it remains beyond my understanding what exactly I’m being asked to appreciate. Maybe I’m just too dumb to understand it. And while I may not be the smartest guy around, I do understand some pretty complicated things. So I’m open to examining the premises of such a claim.
Michael wrote:
True knowledge is analogical. The believer's reasoning is analogical, the non-believer's, univocal.
While the distinctions which Michael has in mind with such categories need to be explained and clarified, what he affirms here implies that “the non-believer’s” knowledge is not “true knowledge,” since “true knowledge” is said to be “analogical” and the non-believer’s reasoning is “univocal” instead of “analogical.” But this seems nonsensical; there are many truths that I know, and I have knowledge that can only be characterized as true knowledge, beginning with my knowledge that there is a reality. Objectivists begin with an incontestable truth. The truths that I know are conceptual identifications formed ultimately on the basis of perceptual input and according to an objective process. If that’s “univocal reasoning,” that’s good enough for me, for it conforms to the nature of my mind and its interaction with the world of fact around me, and it enables me to identify those facts in an objective, non-contradictory manner.
On 11 Nov., Michael posted two comments entries summarizing points regarding the biblical view of creatio ex nihilo. While I did read these posts no less than two times, their relevance to our discussion was not entirely clear to me. I’m already aware of the fact that Christianity affirms the notion of creatio ex nihilo. What I did note in reading Michael’s statements on this matter, is that he is apparently an “old-earth creationist” to the extent that he affirms creationism as such. He states, for instance, that “the immanent realm” (i.e., the universe in which we exist) is “approximately 14 billion light-years old, and it’s thought to be more than 150 billion light-years in diameter and expanding at an accelerated rate.” This is not the typical YEC version of Christianity! Michael also seems to believe that the Jews of the OT times were flat-earthers. He writes: “back in the geocentric realm of the ancients, the world was flat, literally supported by pillars anchored in the foundations of the Earth below.” There are passages in the OT which do in fact suggest this. In fact, at a cursory glance at least, Michael seems to be confirming certain details in Robert Schadewald’s The Flat-Earth Bible. At least, it was Schadewald’s paper, which I had read many years ago, that Michael’s own comments brought to my mind. I am not trying to suggest that Michael affirms everything in Schadewald’s paper, but rather simply noting that the statements he included in his comments on my blog resemble certain elements propounded by Schadewald in his controversial thesis. Michael writes:
I’m gratified that Michael had “a very good reason for going into the sort of detail” that he provided on this matter. But I must admit that his reason(s) for doing so have successfully eluded me, at least to this point in the discussion. I am aware of what the bible teaches. What I’m interested in is how biblical teaching supports his claims that Objectivism and Christianity agree at certain fundamental points. Objectivism rejects the notion that the universe was created.
So it is unclear how Michaels recapitulation of biblical teaching regarding creatio ex nihilo supports his claim that Christianity agrees with Objectivism at any point. So these are the issues on the table before us. There’s a lot here, and I appreciate Michael’s time and willingness to examine these things. There are many issues, an entire mountain range to traverse. Where do we go from here? How do we begin our next steps? I would propose that the best course for continuing the conversation is to start fleshing out some of the Christian categories which Michael introduced earlier in the discussion so that it will be clear to me what exactly he is talking about. I would also hope to see some effort to support his attributions of certain positions to Christianity proper with citations from the bible, what Greg Bahnsen called “the sourcebook and standard of Christianity” (Always Ready, p. 195).
by Dawson Bethrick
On 11 Nov., Michael posted two comments entries summarizing points regarding the biblical view of creatio ex nihilo. While I did read these posts no less than two times, their relevance to our discussion was not entirely clear to me. I’m already aware of the fact that Christianity affirms the notion of creatio ex nihilo. What I did note in reading Michael’s statements on this matter, is that he is apparently an “old-earth creationist” to the extent that he affirms creationism as such. He states, for instance, that “the immanent realm” (i.e., the universe in which we exist) is “approximately 14 billion light-years old, and it’s thought to be more than 150 billion light-years in diameter and expanding at an accelerated rate.” This is not the typical YEC version of Christianity! Michael also seems to believe that the Jews of the OT times were flat-earthers. He writes: “back in the geocentric realm of the ancients, the world was flat, literally supported by pillars anchored in the foundations of the Earth below.” There are passages in the OT which do in fact suggest this. In fact, at a cursory glance at least, Michael seems to be confirming certain details in Robert Schadewald’s The Flat-Earth Bible. At least, it was Schadewald’s paper, which I had read many years ago, that Michael’s own comments brought to my mind. I am not trying to suggest that Michael affirms everything in Schadewald’s paper, but rather simply noting that the statements he included in his comments on my blog resemble certain elements propounded by Schadewald in his controversial thesis. Michael writes:
I have a very good reason for going into the sort of detail that I did with regard to the construct of creatio ex nihilo (anchored in scripture), the fact of the immanent realm’s existence, it's essence and extent, the detailed state of our current knowledge as compared to that of the ancients (the latter anchored in scripture). As we examine the transcendence, I will be drawing from these facts and their implications as I expound the Bible’s metaphysics and epistemology.
I’m gratified that Michael had “a very good reason for going into the sort of detail” that he provided on this matter. But I must admit that his reason(s) for doing so have successfully eluded me, at least to this point in the discussion. I am aware of what the bible teaches. What I’m interested in is how biblical teaching supports his claims that Objectivism and Christianity agree at certain fundamental points. Objectivism rejects the notion that the universe was created.
So it is unclear how Michaels recapitulation of biblical teaching regarding creatio ex nihilo supports his claim that Christianity agrees with Objectivism at any point. So these are the issues on the table before us. There’s a lot here, and I appreciate Michael’s time and willingness to examine these things. There are many issues, an entire mountain range to traverse. Where do we go from here? How do we begin our next steps? I would propose that the best course for continuing the conversation is to start fleshing out some of the Christian categories which Michael introduced earlier in the discussion so that it will be clear to me what exactly he is talking about. I would also hope to see some effort to support his attributions of certain positions to Christianity proper with citations from the bible, what Greg Bahnsen called “the sourcebook and standard of Christianity” (Always Ready, p. 195).
by Dawson Bethrick
370 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 370 of 370Someone had mentioned Dawson was regurgitating one of his old straw man arguments, and the commenter was right:
"god-belief is subjective because it ascribes metaphysical primacy to a subject (e.g., “God’s will”) over any and all of its objects."
I had torched this straw man some time ago, and I'm glad to see that Dawson has added some more kindling for the flame. Though the refutation is a bit long for a Blogger comment box, here's the link if anyone is interested in a comfy little bonfire of the vanities.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/11/refuting-dawson-bethricks-objectivist.html
Michael,
I’ve had a very busy work week, but now it’s my weekend now, and I finally have a chance to consider your latest comments directed to me.
You wrote: “Dawson, the same logic applies to both system's of thought. Why? Because the fundamental principles of logic are universal.”
Please recognize something here: to say that the principles of logic are universal, is at minimum to say that they always hold, regardless of what anyone thinks, feels, wishes, prefers, imagines, etc. Would you not agree with this?
But that’s the primacy of existence! The primacy of existence is explicitly essential to my “perspective.” It’s clearly essential to yours as well, but you haven’t explicitly grasped this. It is not a principle which the bible self-consciously teaches. Indeed, it teaches its opposite.
You see, Michael, if we hold that the principles of logic are universal, i.e., they obtain independent of any individual’s particular perspective, then we implicitly grant that existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness. That puts us right back onto the turf of Objectivism.
You go on to say: “What is not universal are the premises of a univocal worldview. The premises of Judeo-Christianity's analogical worldview are not the same as yours.”
Well, however you want to categorize my worldview, Michael, one thing that you need to realize is that it explicitly affirms certain fundamentals which no position can consistently escape. As Ydemoc has rightly pointed out, “you yourself co-mingle Objectivist principles with Judeo-Christianity,” and you do this in spite of the fact that those principles are not compatible with Chrisitanity. You will never find an explicitly and self-conscious affirmation of the primacy of existence anywhere in the bible. But it is implicit any time a person affirms anything as truthful. The problem is that, for non-Objectivists, it has not been explicitly identified and understood, so the worldview that results has no chance of consistently integrating it into its various doctrines and tenets. What does result is a worldview with a mixed metaphysics – part primacy of existence and part primacy of consciousness. And in the case of Christianity, the primacy of consciousness is explicit, affirmed throughout and given fundamental importance, and any hint of the primacy of existence is suffocated and all but extinguished.
But perhaps you disagree and suppose that the points that I have affirmed here are simply my perspective on things and not in line with the universal principles of logic owing to the “univocal” premises of my worldview (in spite of your previous admissions concerning the issue of metaphysical primacy). If so, then this is where you need to start doing some defining, Michael. Lay out precisely and explicitly what *you* mean by “analogical reasoning” and “univocal reasoning,” what *you* mean by “analogical worldview” and “univocal worldview,” explain what distinguishes them from one another, and how one can determine which if either is the proper perspective to hold. You continue to use these terms without stating *your* intended definitions and without much explanation, quite frankly, which only holds up the discussion. I can of course consult my own sources on what these terms mean, but they seem to vary either in substance or at least in nuance from author to author. So I think it would be best for you to state your definitions.
[continued…]
Michael,
I’ve had a very busy work week, but now it’s my weekend now, and I finally have a chance to consider your latest comments directed to me.
You wrote: “Dawson, the same logic applies to both system's of thought. Why? Because the fundamental principles of logic are universal.”
Please recognize something here: to say that the principles of logic are universal, is at minimum to say that they always hold, regardless of what anyone thinks, feels, wishes, prefers, imagines, etc. Would you not agree with this?
But that’s the primacy of existence! The primacy of existence is explicitly essential to my “perspective.” It’s clearly essential to yours as well, but you haven’t explicitly grasped this. It is not a principle which the bible self-consciously teaches. Indeed, it teaches its opposite.
You see, Michael, if we hold that the principles of logic are universal, i.e., they obtain independent of any individual’s particular perspective, then we implicitly grant that existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness. That puts us right back onto the turf of Objectivism.
You go on to say: “What is not universal are the premises of a univocal worldview. The premises of Judeo-Christianity's analogical worldview are not the same as yours.”
Well, however you want to categorize my worldview, Michael, one thing that you need to realize is that it explicitly affirms certain fundamentals which no position can consistently escape. As Ydemoc has rightly pointed out, “you yourself co-mingle Objectivist principles with Judeo-Christianity,” and you do this in spite of the fact that those principles are not compatible with Chrisitanity. You will never find an explicitly and self-conscious affirmation of the primacy of existence anywhere in the bible. But it is implicit any time a person affirms anything as truthful. The problem is that, for non-Objectivists, it has not been explicitly identified and understood, so the worldview that results has no chance of consistently integrating it into its various doctrines and tenets. What does result is a worldview with a mixed metaphysics – part primacy of existence and part primacy of consciousness. And in the case of Christianity, the primacy of consciousness is explicit, affirmed throughout and given fundamental importance, and any hint of the primacy of existence is suffocated and all but extinguished.
But perhaps you disagree and suppose that the points that I have affirmed here are simply my perspective on things and not in line with the universal principles of logic owing to the “univocal” premises of my worldview (in spite of your previous admissions concerning the issue of metaphysical primacy). If so, then this is where you need to start doing some defining, Michael. Lay out precisely and explicitly what *you* mean by “analogical reasoning” and “univocal reasoning,” what *you* mean by “analogical worldview” and “univocal worldview,” explain what distinguishes them from one another, and how one can determine which if either is the proper perspective to hold. You continue to use these terms without stating *your* intended definitions and without much explanation, quite frankly, which only holds up the discussion. I can of course consult my own sources on what these terms mean, but they seem to vary either in substance or at least in nuance from author to author. So I think it would be best for you to state your definitions.
[continued…]
You might also tell what your worldview’s starting point is. By this I mean a *conceptually irreducible* primary. Really, this would cut out a lot of extraneous digressions and contentious disputing. It would go to the heart of the matter. If your worldview does indeed have a theory of concepts, you should understand what a conceptually irreducible primary is. You should be able to explain why you think the starting point you identify is conceptually irreducible. You should be able to identify the means by which you are aware of it. If you have to infer it from something else, then it’s clearly not fundamental – other knowledge came before it. So this would be a good exercise for you and any other thinker to work on.
Beyond that, I’m not sure what to say in response to your complaint, since it is not entirely clear what you are asking me to do. If you are asking me to “step out” of my perspective, I would say that’s really impossible to do, at least fully, even for the sake of argument. Argument as such is not contextually vacuous: to argue something implies that things are a certain way given certain facts, i.e., that things are a certain independent of anyone’s thoughts, wishes, feelings, preferences, dictates, imagination, etc. I.e., argument as such can only make sense on the basis of the primacy of existence. But that’s my perspective, Michael! Since truth depends on the primacy of existence, and my “perspective” entails explicit affirmation of this principle and its consistent application throughout knowledge, stepping outside my perspective is guaranteed to lead to something other than truth.
I’m reminded of Douglas Jones, who, in his paper Why & What: A Brief Introduction to Christianity, opens his explication of Christianity with the following instruction to the reader:
<< Imagine that you are mistaken about everything you hold dear. >>
There are many things which I hold dear. Jones’ defense of Christianity asks me to “imagine” that I am “mistaken” about all of them. One of the things I “hold dear” is the fact that imagination is distinct from reality, that reality does not conform to imaginations. Since Jones wants me to “imagine” that I am “mistaken about” such things, in order to perform his thought experiment I would have to pretend that I’m wrong about reality and imagination being fundamentally distinct. I would have to abandon any differentiation between the two. Jones sets the terms of his thought experiment, so this is what I would have to do in order to give it a whirl. My question in just considering this is: Why? What is to be gained by such a move?
[continued…]
You say: “I have no problem shifting my perspective to grasp the inherent logic of your worldview.”
That is because you depend on Objectivism’s fundamentals already. Not only is Objectivism logically consistent with its fundamentals, but the content of those fundamentals is inescapably true (we both live in the same reality), just as the statement that “the principles of logic are universal” assumes the primacy of existence. Since logic is essentially inert without input from reality to inform it, saying that a worldview is internally logical may not really be saying that much to recommend it. A syllogism can be valid, but the important question is: Is it sound? One can say that a Harry Potter novel is “’logical,” and I’m sure in some ways it is. But it is not appropriate to base one’s worldview on its content.
Similarly with the concept ‘consciousness’. For the concept to have any objective meaning, it must have reference to reality. But if there’s a distinction between reality and imagination, then we have to take this into account when we form and apply this concept. Should I just ignore what I do know about consciousness in order to affirm the “logic” of a worldview which sacrifices this crucially important concept on the altar of mysticism? Should I ignore what I know about the number five in order to affirm the “logic” of a worldview which affirms the super-reality of “pure five”?
This seems to be what you’re asking me to do. If not, then you need to clarify.
Regards,
Dawson
Andrew,
Welcome back to my blog. It’s good that you come back to me.
You wrote: “The point is, Dawson is expecting Michael to give an account for God that’s based upon Objectivist’s intuitions…”
Actually, I’m not expecting this from Michael. I already know that no god-belief can be vindicated on the basis of the primacy of existence. Michael has made two claims that I’ve been patiently waiting for him to support:
1) That Ayn Rand “never properly understood Christian epistemology” (4 Nov.) and
2) that “Judeo-Christianity does have a theory of concepts” (21 Nov.)
In regard to the first claim, I’m happy to grant that this may be true, if Michael can demonstrate its truth. But so far, Michael has not explicated what he calls “Christian epistemology.” Given that, the jury is still without a verdict as to whether or not there is something called “Christian epistemology,” let alone whether or not Rand made statements about it which prove that she “never properly understood” it. Most statements that Rand published regarding Christianity specifically can be found in Atlas Shrugged (primarily in “Galt’s Speech”) and in her Playboy interview (March 1964).
In regard to the second claim, Michael said (in the very same breath): “And we’re about to see that very clearly.” That was over a week ago now. He still has not delivered on this promise. I remain as unenlightened on this as I was on the day he issued this pledge – I still know of no passages in the bible which lay out a theory of concepts. There’s no way anyone can blame me for this. I’m the one who’s been asking for this all along!!!
Andrew continued: “The problems here are obvious, A.) Michael is clearly not an Objectivist, so doesn’t play by Objectivist presupp’s, and B.) Neither side can really demonstrate the validity of their worldview, and at the same time no one is willing to give any ground.”
Since I’m not “expecting Michael to give an account for God” in the first place, the fact that Michael is not an Objectivist means nothing on this score. I already don’t expect it in the first place. But to say that Michael “doesn’t play by Objectivist presupp’s” ignores a crucial fact: Michael has already acknowledged that the primacy of existence obtains in the case of human consciousness (see his 11 Nov. comments on this blog). This is Objectivism’s fundamental rule. As I have explained already, if one concedes the primacy of existence, his epistemology will need to be consistent with this principle. Otherwise his concession is merely idle lip service.
As for the claim that Objectivism cannot “demonstrate [its] validity,” this opinion strikes me as suffering from the lack of a solid grasp of what Objectivism teaches. Any appeal to fact will implicitly demonstrate the validity of Objectivism. An appeal to fact is an appeal to something that is assumed and understood to be the case independent of conscious activity. So an appeal to fact would necessarily be an appeal to something which is what it is independent of anyone’s thoughts, wishes, preferences, feelings, imagination, etc. So an appeal to fact would be implicitly involve an appeal to the primacy of existence, a principle which Michael has already granted in the case of human consciousness. In essence then, any appeal to fact is a demonstration of the truth of Objectivism’s fundamentals. But I’ve explained all this already. I don’t know why it needs to be explained again.
Regards,
Dawson
Andrew wrote: “I mean look, axioms are not justifications for circular reasoning,”
In the case of Objectivism, its axioms are not proposed as “justifications for circular reasoning” in the first case. It’s hard to see how anyone familiar with Objectivism would get the impression that they are.
Andrew: “they are simply that which all our actions, speaking and reason flows from – or even we may presume to follow from.”
An important point needs to be made here regarding Objectivism’s axioms: Objectivism does not hold that the entire philosophy of Objectivism follows *deductively* from the content of its axioms. Objectivists affirm as explicit, perceptually self-evident truths that there is a reality, that we are conscious of things that exist, that to exist is to be something specific independent of consciousness, and that the things we perceive in the world are distinct from and independent of the activity by which we perceive them. But Objectivism does not hold that this dismisses the need for gathering specific facts relevant to the many varieties (in terms of fields) of knowledge that we are capable of gathering. We do not say “existence exists” and the rest follows logically from this. That is not Objectivism’s understanding of the purpose of an axiom. As Porter notes (Ayn Rand’s Theory of Knowledge, pp. 214-215):
<< Explicit axiomatic concepts are constants. They state the necessary conditions of knowledge. They’re cognitive integrators in that they include and fundamentally relate all knowledge and its objects. They’re epistemic guidelines because they distinguish knowledge from error. They protect the continuity of cognition by identifying the continuity of the condition of cognition, the primacy of existence… Axiomatic concepts distinguish the objects known from the function, means and experience of knowing them. >>
Andrew: “You guys aren’t even having a debate here, you’re just arm waving over the other with mindless factoids about your own positions.”
If you’re interested in observing something that you don’t think is taking place here, why are you observing? Michael and I are having a discussion, and Michael is leading the way, whether he realizes it or not. I’m simply responding to what he says with my own insights, counterpoints and criticisms. I really don’t understand how anyone, whether from Michael’s perspective or from yours, could really have a problem with this. What is it that you want from me? Make it explicit. Stop cursing the darkness; light a light.
[continued…]
Andrew: “You’re saying, ‘what you said here isn’t consistent with my Objectivist world-view’.”
Actually, I’ve been pointing out something a little more local so far as Michael is concerned: he has acknowledged the truth of the primacy of existence. I’ve been showing how certain statements of his conflict with this acknowledgement, such as when he affirms the existence of a ‘consciousness’ while ignoring the fundamentals of the concept ‘consciousness’. That’s a big problem. But frankly I don’t expect everyone to see it. Many people are accustomed to implicitly accepting conflicting and contradictory premises. That is how tyrants get elected to public office.
Andrew: “On the one hand, and ‘Well your objectivist world view is consistent with mine’. On the other, and you both claim to have the ‘Right’ world-view, as if anyone knows what that really is.”
Several points:
1. Michael has already conceded that a key fundamental of Objectivism, namely the primacy of existence, applies in the case of human consciousness. His plea for me to somehow change even implicitly appeals to this very principle.
2. To the extent that Michael then says that Christianity differs from Objectivism, he must be speaking of things which depart from or are inconsistent with the primacy of existence, which elsewhere he has affirmed as a fundamental principle which obtains in the case of human cognition.
3. Your comment, “as if anyone knows what that really is,” is rather concerning, for your sake anyway. It suggests that you think it is impossible or at any rate unlikely that anyone really knows what the right worldview is. Is that correct?
Regards,
Dawson
Rick Warden wrote: “Someone had mentioned Dawson was regurgitating one of his old straw man arguments, and the commenter was right:
[quoting me] << god-belief is subjective because it ascribes metaphysical primacy to a subject (e.g., “God’s will”) over any and all of its objects. >>
“I had torched this straw man some time ago,”
But Rick, Michael has already conceded this point. In a 17 Nov. comment in this very blog (scroll up!), Michael stated:
<< yes, indeed, according to Judeo-Christianity, ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence >>
When the bible characterizes its god as essentially willing something into existence, altering its identity, causing it to perform some action, all by an act of will, it’s clearly and unmistakably ascribing metaphysical primacy to a subject over its objects.
So there’s no mischaracterization here. I’m simply pointing something out, and Michael, a Christian who assures us that his pedigree of credentials is impressive, openly acknowledges this.
So perhaps you’re just uncomfortable with the truth. Earlier discussions with you have shown precisely this.
Regards,
Dawson
>But Rick, Michael has already conceded this point.
- Did I state that I was interested in defending Michael or his views? No. I simply offered an invitation to read about why your straw-man argument is flawed.
If anyone is interested in understanding why Dawson's contorted straw-man version of God is flawed, there are a number of reasons I've pointed out at my blog.
For example, nowhere in scripture is it implied that God's own nature is subservient to His will. Numbers 29.13, for example, implies that God's will is metaphysically subservient to His nature: "he is God, that cannot lie."
Which holds metaphysical precedence, unchanging aspects of a person's inherent nature, or a person's volition?
" "he is God, that cannot lie."
Taking his word on that are you? And just how would you confirm his word old Ricky?
photosynthesis,
My supposed lack of clarity is nothing more than your lack of thought, and my supposed anger is nothing than the projection of your hurt feelings. I don’t tolerate foolishness. It’s as simply as that.
Rick Warden, I too hold that God is bound by His nature. I have clearly stated that in this thread and nothing other than that. God’s will is whatever He pleases, albeit, within the parameters of His nature. God is Truth. God is Love. That is Who and What He is. As you put it, He is not subservient to any construct of will. Agree. He is bound by His nature. Period.
I'm clarifying this just in case you're getting the wrong impression about what I’ve asserted in the above from the things Dawson has said.
God is a spirit of pure consciousness. That's what He is. Consciousness is not something He has. Hence, ultimately, consciousness most certainly does have primacy over existence. God is the ultimate essence of existence and the necessary ground of all that exists apart from Him. These observations in no way, shape or form mean or lead to the silly notion that God will or can do something contrary to His nature.
We are on the same page, Rick. Don’t let Dawson’s habit of filtering everything through the miasma of Objectivism, whereby he ends up imagining others to be asserting things they’re not, throw ya.
On the other hand, I think I see what's throwing Dawson.
Dawson, according to the Bible, God is a spirit of pure consciousness. That’s His very essence. In terms of identity, He is Perfect Love and Truth. Consciousness is not something God has! Truth and love are not things God has! Rather, He is all of these things at once, immutably and indivisibly so. Hence, His will and his nature are one in the sense that He cannot will anything contrary to His nature; otherwise, He would be or become something He’s not. That would be absurd. Hence, the primacy of divine consciousness over existence inherently applies to Him (the necessary entity that is immutable and indivisible) and absolutely applies to all other things apart from Him (the contingent entities that are mutable and divisible).
Andrew, you write:
"I gotta tell you, Michael makes a great point here; probably the one and only highlight of everything he’s said thus far. The point is, Dawson is expecting Michael to give an account for God that’s based upon Objectivist’s intuitions, or the Objectivist’s philosophical game if you prefer. The problems here are obvious, A.) Michael is clearly not an Objectivist, so doesn’t play by Objectivist presupp’s, and B.) Neither side can really demonstrate the validity of their worldview, and at the same time no one is willing to give any ground."
Andrew, this is close, but wrong for so many reasons.
You mention axioms and circular reasoning in your second post. You also suggest that both Dawson and I are arguing from axioms in a circular fashion. That’s wrong. I’m not quite sure yet what Dawson’s arguments are doing. They appear to be violating Objectivism’s law of primacy at some point or another, or restating the premise as the conclusion. I’m trying to get to the bottom of this. Your “both sides are doing it” is distracting and can only obscure the findings of that effort.
My arguments do no such thing. You’re mistaken.
The path from biblical metaphysics to epistemology is strictly linear. The metaphysical axioms of the Bible are the same as Objectivism’s. And the Bible’s law of primacy promotes divine consciousness over existence. Hence, the only way its arguments could violate its law of primacy is by contradictorily asserting the primacy of finite consciousness over divinity. But how could that happen? By definition, the creature cannot have primacy over the Creator. That’s absurd. In other words, the biblical position can never be violated by the means of reasoning (the stuff of consciousness), only misstated.
Regardless of the misapprehensions of those who apparently cannot break out of their univocal perspective and grasp the distinction between contingent and non-contingent consciousnesses in the Bible’s analogical scheme of things, I certainly have not misstated its position.
____________________________
Continued . . .
Formal axioms, of course, are asseverations whose existences must necessarily be acknowledged in the denials of their existences. In other words, they’re at the base of knowledge.
Objectivism holds that the propositions (1) existence exists, (2) consciousness exists and (3) the law of identity universally obtains are axioms. Indeed, collectively, these comprise the foundation of its metaphysics. Ditto Judeo-Christianity!
So what’s all the fuss?
Objectivism holds that reality consists of only one level of being; Judeo-Christianity holds that it consists of two levels of being. Hence, the conceptualization of these axioms are dramatically different.
You’re with me so far, I’m sure.
Since I recognize the fact that the transcendent can only be contemplated by reason (at least initially) from axiomatic propositions, but not proven to one who rejects the actuality of an analogical model of being, since I recognize—for the sake of argument, at a glance for crying out loud!—that Objectivism’s univocal model of realty is logically consistent throughout, insofar as it stays within the boundaries of the same and avoids circular reasoning, since I recognize that if the conceptualizations of Objectivism’s axioms are true, Judeo-Christianity’s model and its subsequent conclusions are false: how do you figure, as you put it, that “[n]either side . . . is willing to give any ground”?
I made these sentiments known from the beginning and have argued accordingly.
On the other hand, Dawson, instead of rightly rendering the biblical worldview on its own terms, from its perspective, and thereby grasping how the universal principles of logic apply in an analogical scheme of things: he incessantly declares, variously, that the concepts of biblical metaphysics are impossible, imaginary, contradictory, illogical.
Question: What is the essence of these allegations?
Answer: The concepts of biblical metaphysics are inconsistent with the imperatives of Objectivism’s univocal model of being!
He’s arguing with himself. He’s arguing with phantoms.
1. Your implication is false, Andrew. Sorry. But I clearly do understand the situation in its entirety. You’re generalization is off the mark.
2. Your characterization of pertinent concepts, including those of Objectivism, as “mindless factoids” is silly. Sorry. These concepts comprise the corpus of these systems of thought, respectively, and must be rightly understood individually on their own terms in order that these systems of thought be rightly understood in their entirety.
3. Your statement about my observation regarding the necessity of academic objectivity being “the one and only highlight of everything” I’ve “said thus far” is false too. I’ve been saying that very same thing all along as I’ve simultaneously shown that Dawson’s wrong about what the Bible holds on a number of points.
These are numerous, factual errors apparent to learned scholarship; moreover, these errors have absolutely nothing to do with the fundamental, ideological conflict between Objectivism and Judeo-Christianity proper. They are objectively known to be false as a matter of sheer academics.
How do you figure that my exposure of these factual errors do not count as highlights?
a. Once again, it’s a fact that within an analogical model of being the construct of an eternally existent now is consistently logical and necessary, and once properly rendered, may be readily appended as such by all. The immediate ramifications of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience yields an original Apprehender of an actually existent Self and an actually existent other. That’s why you won’t find any objection in the centuries-old corpus of philosophical or theological thought raised against theism on the basis of the law of identity.
How do you figure that observation isn’t a highlight?
It’s identity is specific and comprehensive. It’s cogency apparent at a glance. It can be expressed graphically and parallels the theoretical motifs of general relativity and quantum physics. Finally, not only does it fulfill the criteria of the objection raised in “Divine Lonesomeness,” it annihilates it.
Highlight!
Dawson mistook the impressions of the less-learned Christians of his previous experience for the actual biblical notion of divinity as he simultaneously confounded the distinction that obtains between a univocal model of being and an analogical model of being. Dawson had never before considered the ramifications of perfect divinity as depicted by the Bible. He had never before considered the essence of an eternally existent now. He never saw it coming, and He’s still pretending not to see it.
Highlight!
b. How do you figure that my exposure of Dawson’s conflation of the distinction between the power of will over substance and the power of primacy over existence relative to the Bible’s analogical model is not a highlight?
(See my post below which makes that even more emphatically clear.)
c. For the moment, forget about the theological predication of God’s specific identity per the Bible—that He is perfect Love or Truth.
Continued . . .
That additional detail confuses Dawson, and though it’s nice to know that he loves his wife and child, his three or four paragraphs of objections and “questions” are uninteresting and irrelevant.
It does not follow that infinity has no specific identity and, therefore, cannot exist, from the fact that a line, a number or any given physical substance cannot be infinity divided by finite consciousness. Hogwash. The fact that the actual number of divided segments will always be a finite number for finite consciousness does not demonstrate that infinity has no identity or actuality. The always finite number of segments has no bearing on the issues of identity and actuality proper. This is yet another conflation of categorically distinct things. The finite number of segments are merely the tautological consequence of finite consciousness, nothing more.
Simultaneously, the finite mind readily apprehends that any divisible entity may be divided without end. That is a perfectly rational, mathematical axiom. It follows, infinity is that which is indivisible and has no beginning or end. That’s its identity expressed philosophically. That’s Aristotle’s point, and centuries before him, that’s Moses’ point and that of the other inspired authors of the Bible (Grasp the implications of divinity as depicted by the Bible, thoroughly expounded in the above and voluminously backed by scripture!). That is not an instance of circular reasoning at all. It’s linear.
As for infinity’s actuality, on the contrary, what we have here is a very strong reason to believe that some actual realm of origin exists beyond the divisible realm of the finite, something that can divide the divisible without end. Otherwise, we are aware of a mathematical axiom that is cogent yet gratuitous.
That’s odd.
Wrap your head around that highlight for awhile and get back to me.
What does appear to be an instance of circular reasoning is Peikoff’s notion that only the finite can exist. He seems to be arguing that because consciousness can only apprehend the potentiality of infinity, not its realization, infinity doesn’t exist. More at, infinity allegedly has no identity that consciousness can pin down with anything but a referent and, therefore, cannot be said to have any discernable actuality. But that appears to suggest that some sort of consciousness is imposing a constraint on existence. I can’t quite put my finger on how the finite nature of consciousness coherently limits the nature or the extension of existence within a model that holds existence to have primacy over consciousness. While the finiteness of the consciousness he has mind is self-evident, the finiteness of existence isn’t . Hmm.
Apparently, I’ve got this all wrong somehow.
Maybe it’s because existence is finite, consciousness is finite; hence, the notion of infinity is necessarily illusory, whether its implications be of an axiomatic complexion or not. But that can’t be right either. That still seems to be tainted by the stench of circular reasoning and the primacy of consciousness.
Continued . . .
In the meantime, in my experience, the only “concept” that has nothing more than a negatively defined referent with which we may pin it down in our heads is nothingness, not infinity, as the very act of contemplating the former seems to constitute an inherent contradiction which yields an incomprehensible thing, while the latter seems to be rationally necessary and mathematically definable.
Highlight!
d. Of course, Judeo-Christianity doesn’t encounter this problem as its path is linear and ultimately yields the primacy of consciousness above the level of the finite. Hence, the link between Judeo-Christianity’s metaphysical axioms—existence, consciousness and the collective expression of identity in the three classic laws of logic—and its analogical model of being is the inherent issue of existence itself, namely, the axiomatic problem of origin.
Highlight!
e. In any event, as I said in the above, now inversely expressed, the suggestion that Aristotle overlooked the actual implication of his very own observation is absurd.
Of course, Aristotle and Objectivism don’t agree. That was my whole point. What in the world was Dawson doing explaining to me what I had just explained to him in my response to Peikoff’s extrapolation? I clearly stated that Objectivism rejects the implication of Aristotle’s observation yielded by the distinction between the actual and the potential, albeit, relative to the limitations of finite consciousness: the glaringly obvious implication, namely, the existence of an indivisible infinity, which Objectivism arbitrarily disregards in what appears to be a circuitous detour.
I think we’ve got another highlight on our hands. What do you say?
END
Dawson,
THE POWER OF WILL OVER SUBSTANCE and THE POWER OF PRIMACY OVER EXISTENCE
In regard to this distinction, you wondered why it wouldn't be "by decree" rather than "by definition." Actually, both are pertinent. Your observation is astute. Another detail. We could go on “forever” adding details, but my primary concern at the time had to do with the issue of primacy. According to the Bible, that obtains “by definition,” not decree. Decree applies to the actions of created or contingent entities, not to God.
By definition, a creature cannot have primacy over its Creator. That would be absurd. According to the Bible, God is the Creator, not the creature (See scriptural citations in the above.).
(I’m reduced to stating things in converse tautologies because, apparently, a more expansive style of prose causes “problems” over matters that should be readily self-evident.)
The Bible holds that God is the ground of all existence (See scriptural citations in the above.).
Hence, created entities cannot have primacy over existence according to the Bible. By the definition of the terms creature and Creator, the former cannot have primacy over God.
Now as for the power of will over the substances of created existents possessed by some created and, therefore, finite entities on which you were wanting more detail. . . .
Obviously, inanimate things don’t possess the power of will over the substances of existents. However, they do have properties that can alter the substances of other things via any number of interactions and vice versa. The power of will behind the substances and properties and interactions of these existents is ultimately that of God Who created all things and set them in motion according to the natural laws of His decree. The power of will over the substances of existents resides in consciousness. It’s the power to conceive and carry out actions that produce alterations in the substances of created existents. Hence, the following only pertains to created entities that possess consciousness, which, in the temporal realm, only occurs among the higher orders of living organisms.
Finite beings have the power of will over the substances of created existents to the extent that the latter are amendable to modification, i.e., within the parameters of their nature as decreed by God (for example, Genesis 1:26). All created substances are subject to modifications actualized by finite beings within the parameters of the innate abilities endowed them by God. So we have an inverse dynamic obtaining within an existence that consists of two levels of being. With regard to the apparent concerns of the dichotomy is-ought or ought-ought not, God further governs the actions of finite beings by the constraints of His sovereign or perfect will, which by decree electively binds their actions in spite of the potentialities of their innate abilities. In other words, whether they be aware of it or not, sometimes God says, “No.”
Earlier, you clearly conflated the power of will over the substances of created existents possessed by finite beings with the power of primacy over existence itself when you alleged that the Bible holds that angels and other celestial beings possess the latter. The Bible holds no such thing. The Bible doesn’t give examples of any such thing. On the contrary, according to the Bible, the power of primacy over existence is possessed by God and by no other being but God. According to the Bible, definitively, logically, only God possesses that power.
Ydemoc, you write:
“How can Dawson possibly avoid talking about Objectivism or refrain from using, what you have termed "univocal reasoning," when you yourself have admittedly embraced the primacy of existence, a major principle in Objectivism! (At least, that's how I read it -- according to you, you have embraced this principle insofar as it pertains to, as you have called it, "the immanent realm.") See for example, your November 11 comment, where you write: "The parenthetical caveat in the above should read: 'It should be noted, however, that this argument in no way undermines Objectivism’s idea that existence has primacy over consciousness with regard to the science of knowledge, i.e., epistemology . . . insofar as immanently based instances of consciousness are concerned.’ ”
I’m not objecting to Dawson talking about Objectivism. That’s a necessary aspect of the exchange, so I’m not sure what you mean. In this instance, I was trying to determine whether or not there might be another practical “nexus of agreement” between the two systems of thought that would help us keep the preeminent distinction between them in mind as we defined terms: namely, Objectivism holds to a univocal model of being; Judeo-Christianity holds to an analogical model of being. In this instance I used the term “the immanent realm” trying to avoid the problems of the natural-supernatural and finite-infinite dichotomies. Recall, Judeo-Christianity holds that all instances of consciousness are finite but God; i.e., existence has primacy over all instances of finite consciousness, and this includes the transcendent consciousnesses of angels and other celestial beings. So I couldn’t include the latter in the nexus. Ultimately, Judeo-Christianity holds that consciousness does have primacy over existence, albeit, only divine consciousness, while Objectivism holds that consciousness cannot have primacy over existence at all.
Dawson is right. It doesn’t work. There’s really no way to express this strictly “coincidental” intersecting point of contingent consciousness without confounding the matter, so I abandoned it. I just didn’t fully appreciate the difficulties, one of semantics against the current of larger conceptual implications, until after Dawson pointed them out. I thought it might be a useful tool, not a bone of contention. Don’t worry about. It no longer matters.
Continued . . .
You write:
“Technically speaking, since you've explicitly staked out this particular position, i.e., of existence having primacy over existence in a particular realm, it would not at all be outside the bounds of fairness for Dawson to supply answers from an Objectivist perspective to every single thing you've stated! I mean, according to Objectivism, the primacy of existence is inescapable -- and you have explicitly embraced that principle and therefore its inescapably, at least insofar as the "immanent realm" is concerned. So it is obtaining with your every action. (I'm assuming, of course, that you yourself are in the "immanent realm")”
This is where you might be confused. Dawson’s objections cogently obtain to my original proposition of a nexus of agreement. I conceded that and abandoned it. At the time, as one still trying to get one’s head around the objectivist worldview on that score, I had yet to grasp the problem. I’ve got it now. But in no way, shape or form do Dawson’s objections obtain beyond that point. Objectivism’s absolute primacy of existence over consciousness is not an inescapable imperative in an analogical model of being. It doesn’t apply.
I’ve never embraced that principle. Not once. Not ever. Finite minds, whether they exist in the immanent or in the transcendent realm of being do not have primacy over existence according to the Bible. How could they? They’re creatures. But divine consciousness does have primacy over existence as it is the very essence of or the foundation of all reality.
*Sigh*
Univocal model of being. Analogical model of being. These are not the same thing. Dawson’s objections are not relevant to the latter. Come on, man! This is simple. Obvious. Self-evident. Move on!
Moreover, Objectivism’s attempts to universally assert its principles of identity in regard to the dichotomy of self-other and the finiteness of existence are futile. In other words, while they logically hold up within the parameters of a univocal model of being relative to their premises, as asserted beyond these parameters they are bogus and just plain silly. To thusly assert them is to unnecessarily undermine Objectivism or highlight the alternatives it overlooks. It’s proponents can’t coherently assert them that way, and that flies right over their heads!
Continued . . .
Finally you write:
“And then: "Finally, yes, indeed, the two systems of thought are ultimately incompatible, but insofar as Objectivism is unwittingly informed by the Imago Dei, the existence of which it denies, it's correct."
And then: "There is some light in Objectivism . . . obscured by the darkness."
Also, in response this, by Dawson: “To identify something as one thing is to mean it is not something else. This recognition concisely tracks reality: to exist is to be one thing as opposed to something else. A is A; A is not both A and something more than A. This is to say, if something exists, it is finite.”
You reply with: "But this evinces the univocal reasoning of the materialist."
Wouldn't you agree that it would be silly for Dawson not to answer these statements of yours, and answer them according to his worldview?
How is it all fair to accuse Dawson of using his worldview as Objectivism informs it, to critique your worldview as Judeo-Christianity informs it, when you yourself co-mingle Objectivist principles with Judeo-Christianity?
In all sincerity, I don't get it. Can you explain this to me?”
I think you’ve got something here. My intent here was to acknowledge those aspects of Objectivism that intersect with Judeo-Christianity, however imperfectly, as we went along. But I take your point. Such contrasts, while valid in the context of direct refutation, are perhaps not helpful in the process of defining terms. I will try to avoid them in the future as statements like this are akin to the “nexus of agreement” misadventure and lead to unnecessary disputes. However, I won’t tolerate the notion that the few instances of the unwitting or marginal lapses of objectivity on my part justify Dawson’s habitual abuse of biblical concepts—his obvious grotesqueries—as illegitimately filtered through Objectivism’s univocal prism, and by the way, my statement that his recitation of Objectivist jargon “evinces the univocal reasoning of the materialist,” alludes to the sort of knee-jerk reactionism that typically confounds things: the essence of my contrasts, clearly, were not A is both A and something more than A, but, rather, A reflects aspects of B. Right?
Also, Dawson says Objectivism doesn’t assert materialism. That’s one of the points I want to get clearer on as it appears to me that it asserts things that are commonly associated with materialism. Fine. We’ll see.
Dawson’s constant yammering about “outstanding questions” is especially annoying since I’ve given him a number of very significant answers. The problem is that they keep coming back to me in “Chinese.” Also, Dawson’s air is that of one who doesn’t expect that his objections or questions or concerns or whatever can be satisfactorily resolved by the Bible.
He’s been powerfully refuted on some very significant issues already whether he gets it or will admit it or not, and there’s a lot more surprises coming his way.
Finally, I get the impression from him that he seems to think that the particulars of his formulaic descriptions of existence as the Objectivist sees it are readily apparent. I’ve been doing this for many years. Frankly, nailing down the precise essence and limitations of the Objectivist’s allegedly finite and independently determined existence appears to be a rather elusive enterprise. I have some outstanding questions of my own.
My approach is methodical; his insinuations regarding the reasons and the nature of my pace are sheer sophistry.
Also, Ydemoc, see what I wrote to Andrew.
Also, see what I wrote to Dawson on the issue of primacy, as a matter of further clarification. Perhaps this will help:
"On the other hand, I think I see what's throwing Dawson.
Dawson, according to the Bible, God is a spirit of pure consciousness. That’s His very essence. In terms of identity, He is Perfect Love and Truth. Consciousness is not something God has! Truth and love are not things God has! Rather, He is all of these things at once, immutably and indivisibly so. Hence, His will and his nature are one in the sense that He cannot will anything contrary to His nature; otherwise, He would be or become something He’s not. That would be absurd. Hence, the primacy of divine consciousness over existence inherently applies to Him (the necessary entity that is immutable and indivisible) and absolutely applies to all other things apart from Him (the contingent entities that are mutable and divisible)."
END
Looks like "Richard" is stirring things up on Rick Warden's blog as well. Probably because Warden is now taking shots at you.
Reynold,
I said nothing, nothing!!!!
Honestly, I was coerced.
Doesnt matter, Dawson is my homeboy.
Michael,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I'll give it some consideration and, if worthwhile to do so, I shall respond, (at this point, I don't want to waste too much time, sidetracking the discussion over some of the issues that I raised).
However, I do have a couple technical questions that have occurred to me after reading your replies. The first one, Dawson asked earlier:
1) Could you supply a definition for the terms "anological reasoning" and "univocal reasoning"?
2) Could you tell us what you mean by "univocal model of being" and "analogical model of being."
(maybe you've answered these two already and I've missed it)
3) Would you say that the term "analogical reasoning" is or is not "univocal"?
4) Would you say that the term "univocal" is or is not "analogical."?
5) How would you go about validating each of these concepts? Would you consider your method of validating to be "univocal" or "analogical"?
If the last three questions are incoherent, perhaps you can blame it on, as you might put it, my "be[ing] confused," due to ignorance as to what precisely these terms mean, as used by you, in the context you are using them.
I mean, I have a sense of what you mean, and I've researched these concepts a little on my own, but perhaps you could set me straight; and if my questions are indeed incoherent, offer an explanation as to why that's the case, (of course, if you're so inclined to do so.)
Then again, maybe all this will come out in the wash anyway. It usually does.
Thanks.
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
Analogical reasoning = thinking God's thoughs after him.
Univocal reasoning = thinking Santan's thought after him.
Enjoy.
Michael,
You have offered good points with regard to the unique nature of God.
The main problem with Dawson and "objectivism" is that there is no real possibility of thinking objectively when people's minds are blinded to the truth. This is obvious in the basic outline of Dawson's argument:
"The objective argument which I defend (actually special pleading) is not that god-belief is subjective because its god allegedly created itself (straw-man: excluding the nature of God's creativity) . Rather, the argument is that god-belief is subjective because it ascribes metaphysical primacy to a subject..."(12/26/08).
As noted in the previous quote, Dawson's main "objective" argument includes at least two logical fallacies. Firstly, in accordance with the tenets of critical thing, Dawson is not offering an objective argument at all, which is a bit ironic. According to both the scientific method and the basics of critical thinking, any influential variables should be included in any hypothesis in order to achieve valid, objective results. The nature of God's creative abilities is certainly a valid aspect to consider when attempting to honestly evaluate subject-object relationships and Theism. But Dawson arbitrarily removes this question because it disproves his argument. "The objective argument which I defend" ahem, is a subjective one. As Dawson states in the article, "Now it’s well and good that a system of god-belief holds that its god did not create itself." This subject is actually not very "well and good" for Dawson's argument, because this is quite enough to show that volition and consciousness do not hold metaphysical primacy in Theism. If God cannot whimsically cause Himself to exist and not exist, then there is no metaphysical primacy of volition is Theism. By excluding this important point, Dawson is committing the fallacy of special pleading and he is offering a straw-man God whose unique creative abilities are being ignored in the subject object relationships of Theism.
So, Dawson chooses to avoid first causes and God's creative nature, well, Dawson's straw men pop up in other areas as well, as noted at his website:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/11/refuting-dawson-bethricks-objectivist.html
Not a fan of postapalooza style debating – but to each their own.
You state pretty much the same old issues:
1.) Any appeal to fact will implicitly demonstrate the validity of Objectivism.
How is this not question begging?
2.) Facts exist independent of consciousness…. independent of anyone’s thoughts, wishes, preferences, feelings, imagination, etc.
Is it a fact that this is the nature of facts, is this an axiom too (just another objectivist claim) or can you actually demonstrate this?
3.) Objectivism does not hold that the entire philosophy of Objectivism follows *deductively* from the content of its axioms….
Great, so you admit then that some of your claims will be conjecture. Are items 1 and 2 derived deductively, or inductively?
"Objectivism" - "I've made up my mind - don't confuse me with the facts."
Dawson is essentially limiting the parameters of his argument to conditions that suit him. There is no objective reason to limit the discussion of primacy in Theism to a Creator-created, subject-object relationship. According to the philosophical definition of subjective reality, God's own mind and God's own existence satisfy the qualifications for discerning that reality in accordance with God's existence is not subjective.
The philosophical definition of subjective offers: relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
The distinction between knowing and being is enough to disprove Dawson's argument. If God cannot will Himself to exist or not to exist, then God's actual existence is not subject to the knowledge of His existence or God's own will. If God cannot will Himself to sin or to lie - against His eternal nature - then God's actual nature is not subject to the knowledge of his nature or His will to change it.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/11/refuting-dawson-bethricks-objectivist.html
Rick,
You amaze me with how much confusion you are capable of creating for yourself. Based on what you have written in your comments here, it’s clear that you have not grasped the issue of metaphysical primacy. Your attempt to refute my argument is so sloppy and inconsistent that its utter ineptness is bewildering. Let’s take a look at what you’ve written here.
You wrote: “The main problem with Dawson and ‘objectivism’ is that there is no real possibility of thinking objectively when people's minds are blinded to the truth.”
I readily agree that someone who has chosen to tune out facts from his thinking is incapable of thinking objectively. But you nowhere show that this is what is happening in anything that I’ve argued.
You quoted a portion of my blog The Inherent Subjectivism of God-belief, where I wrote:
"The objective argument which I defend is not that god-belief is subjective because its god allegedly created itself. Rather, the argument is that god-belief is subjective because it ascribes metaphysical primacy to a subject..."(12/26/08).
It is curious how you left out a very important part – a part which I address explicitly in my blog which addresses your very point of contention against my argument.
Here’s the full quote:
<< In both cases, the objection here is that Christian god-belief is not subjective because it holds that the Christian god did not create itself. Now it’s well and good that a system of god-belief holds that its god did not create itself. Unfortunately, this does not sanitize god-belief from its inherent subjectivism. The Objectivist argument which I defend is not that god-belief is subjective because its god allegedly created itself. Rather, the argument is that god-belief is subjective because it ascribes metaphysical primacy to a subject (e.g., “God’s will”) over any and all of its objects, regardless of whether or not that subject is said to have created itself. That is where the root of subjectivism lies in the Christian worldview: in the relationship between its god as a subject and any objects distinct from itself. >>
The issue of metaphysical primacy has to do with the relationship between a consciousness (the subject) and its objects. Since the Christian god is said to be a consciousness, we can examine god-belief claims in terms of metaphysical primacy – i.e., in terms of the nature of the relationship which those claims imply between the god-consciousness and its objects.
[continued…]
The quote above was given in response to a statement by Christian Drew Lewis, who wrote:
“I believe that God exists objectively and based on no subjective cause. He didn't create Himself. I do believe that whatever else exists is created by Him.”
Certain statements by Lewis indicated that he did not think the primacy of consciousness applied to his god-belief since an important component of his belief system is the premise that his god did not create itself. I was simply pointing out to Lewis that this was not sufficient to dismiss the charge of subjectivism (i.e., primacy of the subject in the subject-object relationship), since saying that “God did not create himself” says nothing about the relationship between god-consciousness and the objects distinct from itself, such as everything it is said to have created (by an act of will!). I explicitly spelled this out in my blog entry on the matter, and you, Rick Warden, have completely ignored this! But your errors do not stop there.
You wrote: “Firstly, in accordance with the tenets of critical thing, Dawson is not offering an objective argument at all, which is a bit ironic. According to both the scientific method and the basics of critical thinking, any influential variables should be included in any hypothesis in order to achieve valid, objective results. The nature of God's creative abilities is certainly a valid aspect to consider when attempting to honestly evaluate subject-object relationships and Theism. But Dawson arbitrarily removes this question because it disproves his argument.”
Did you grasp the point I was making in response to Drew Lewis? The argument from metaphysical primacy takes into account the very relevant “variables” which explicitly grant metaphysical primacy to the god-consciousness over the objects which it is said to have created. It wills the universe into existence; it ascribes identity to all of its contents by an act of will; it can revise their identities by an act of will; it can cause entities to act contrary to their nature by an act of will (cf. human beings walking on water). It even promises this orientation to the faithful (cf. Mt. 17:20 et al.). Contrary to what you state here, these evidences secure my argument’s conclusion. I really don’t understand why this is so difficult for you to grasp, but I’m guessing you’ll continue to stumble around in your own self-inflicted blindness.
On the contrary, Rick, it appears that you’re the one who wants to exclude these evidences from the assessment.
[continued…]
You then say that the argument which I have defended “is a subjective one.” But this is completely inconsistent to your own methodology. For one, I have not created my own existence, and you’re arbitrarily excluding the orientation between myself as a subject and the objects of my awareness. Notice what you stated next.
You wrote: “As Dawson states in the article, ‘Now it’s well and good that a system of god-belief holds that its god did not create itself’. This subject is actually not very ‘well and good’ for Dawson's argument, because this is quite enough to show that volition and consciousness do not hold metaphysical primacy in Theism.”
Here you’re committing the fallacy of non sequitur: you’re saying that since your god did not create itself, it follows “that volition and consciousness do not hold metaphysical primacy in Theism.” But this in fact does not follow, for it ignores a huge canvass of objects it is said to have created by an act of will, which it is said to “sustain” by an act of will, an entire universe of objects which conform directly to its conscious intentions. Again, this was essentially my point to Drew Lewis. I really don’t see how you missed it as badly as you have.
You make your non sequitur embarrassingly clear when you write: “If God cannot whimsically cause Himself to exist and not exist, then there is no metaphysical primacy of volition is Theism.”
The applicability of argument from metaphysical primacy to Christianity nowhere depends on Christianity holding that its god created itself. That Christianity holds that its god did not create itself, is wildly insufficient to rebut the argument from metaphysical primacy. There’s the relationship which Christianity affirms between its god and all the objects in the universe to be considered. It is you, Rick, who has done precisely what you’ve accused me of doing.
[continued…]
You wrote: “By excluding this important point, Dawson is committing the fallacy of special pleading and he is offering a straw-man God whose unique creative abilities are being ignored in the subject object relationships of Theism.”
There is no special pleading here, Rick. Nor is there any straw-manning going on either. I’m simply going by what Christianity affirms: it affirms that its god’s consciousness has all these amazing powers to bring objects into existence by a sheer act of conscious will. It basically wishes them into being. You can’t get more subjective than that! The only way to escape this is to ‘undeify’ Christianity’s god, to strip it of the powers which Christianity attributes to it and place it on the same orientation human beings have with respect to the objects of their consciousness. But then your entire theism would vanish. The metaphysical primacy of the subject over objects is a distinctive feature of theism. To deny this is to deny your god’s intentional power.
Rick, don’t you even remember what Michael stated? I’ll remind you again. He wrote (above, on 17 Nov.):
<< according to Judeo-Christianity, ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence. >>
Michael has admitted that Christianity’s ultimate metaphysics is characterized by the primacy of consciousness – i.e., the metaphysical primacy of the subject of consciousness over its objects. Why can’t you admit this? Your worldview explicitly affirms this throughout its teachings!
Wow! Just wow!
I’m glad these aren’t my problems!
Regards,
Dawson
Andrew,
In response to the statement: “1.) Any appeal to fact will implicitly demonstrate the validity of Objectivism.”
you asked: “How is this not question begging?”
It’s not question-begging because it’s not the conclusion of an argument which assumes it in its premises. That’s how. I’d think that this should be pretty easy to grasp: by appealing to facts to support one’s identifications, he’s implicitly acknowledging that truth rests on something that is what it is independent of anyone’s say so, wishing, imagining, temper tantrums, etc. By contrast, if a person thought that truth conformed to his wishing and commands, he would not appeal to facts to support his identifications. He’d simply say: “This is the way it is because I want it to be that way.” So by appealing to facts, one implicitly acknowledges the principle of the primacy of existence. That puts a thinker on the turf of Objectivism, whether he is willing to recognize this or not. (Many are not!)
In response to the statement: “2.) Facts exist independent of consciousness…. independent of anyone’s thoughts, wishes, preferences, feelings, imagination, etc.”
you asked: “Is it a fact that this is the nature of facts, is this an axiom too (just another objectivist claim) or can you actually demonstrate this?”
It is a fact that facts exist independent of consciousness – of anyone’s consciousness. This is an application of the primacy of existence to our understanding of what facts are. Can it be demonstrated? Sure, very easily. Focus on a fact, any fact. Now imagine it differently somehow. Check the fact again. Has the fact changed? Did it conform to your imagination? Try wishing that the fact is different from what it is. Does this change it? Does the fact conform to your wishing? When you wish, imagine, command or hope that something is different from what it really is, does your conscious activity revise it? Or, does it continue being what it is in spite of your conscious efforts to will it into something different?
In response to the statement: “3.) Objectivism does not hold that the entire philosophy of Objectivism follows *deductively* from the content of its axioms….”
You wrote: “Great, so you admit then that some of your claims will be conjecture.”
That is not what my statement above is saying, Andrew. Are you capable of interacting with a position honestly? My point was – and I stated this very clearly in the section of the quote that you did not include here – that we still need to gather facts from reality in order to build our knowledge of reality. This is not the same thing as conjecture. The axioms set the limits on what our knowledge can be about. They are inductive in the sense that other conceptualizations are inductive. Concepts are formed on the basis of small samples, but due to the process of measurement-omission they are open-ended in their scope of reference. For example, I have not seen every ball. But I have formed the concept ‘ball’ – and id so at a very young age – which includes every ball that exists, which has existed and will exist. It is because of a concept’s open-endedness that we need to use modifiers when speaking, e.g., “this ball“ as opposed to other objects which fit the essentials of the concept.
Hope that helps!
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
So then, a “…fact will implicitly demonstrate the validity of Objectivism.” Is “…not question-begging because it’s not the conclusion of an argument which assumes it in its premises.”
What’s the conclusion of the argument that “fact will…”?
Is this the conclusion, or just an expansion on your original assertion?
“by appealing to facts to support one’s identifications, he’s implicitly acknowledging that truth rests on something that is what it is independent of anyone’s say so, wishing, imagining, temper tantrums, etc.”
Interestingly you follow with this:
“By contrast, if a person thought that truth conformed to his wishing and commands, he would not appeal to facts to support his identifications.”
But this adds nothing to the idea of facts, and again is question begging, if not a false dichotomy as well.
Then to your proof on the nature of facts you state:
“Focus on a fact, any fact. Now imagine it differently somehow. Check the fact again. Has the fact changed?”
Is this supposed to be philosophy? This is like proving to someone that something has taste by making them put it in their mouth and say, see, it has taste. But you’re appealing to privileged access here, i.e. you’re simply reverting back to your axiom that consciousness exists, but haven’t established it. To put it another way you leave from ‘existence exists’ (and facts with it) and vacillate over to ‘consciousness exists’ to justify it… Then you vacillate back to ‘existence exists’; again, extremely circular. In another way you’re appealing to intuition, or previously help philosophical dogmas.
On deductive vs. inductive, the point is, Dawson, that you cannot have epistemic certainty with facts as they relate to inductive reasoning. Now perhaps you don’t care about epistemic certainty, perhaps Objectivism takes a somewhat ‘nominalist’ approach to certain things, I don’t know.
Don't mind the disposition, Dawson, I to talk with a beer in my hand.
Andrew: “What’s the conclusion of the argument that ‘fact will…’?”
“…fact will…” is not an argument. It’s not even a complete thought.
Andrew: “Is this the conclusion, or just an expansion on your original assertion?”
It’s neither – “…fact will…” is merely a sentence fragment.
I wrote: “by appealing to facts to support one’s identifications, he’s implicitly acknowledging that truth rests on something that is what it is independent of anyone’s say so, wishing, imagining, temper tantrums, etc.”
I also wrote: “By contrast, if a person thought that truth conformed to his wishing and commands, he would not appeal to facts to support his identifications.”
Andrew: “But this adds nothing to the idea of facts, and again is question begging, if not a false dichotomy as well.”
Three points:
1. It was not intended to add something to the idea of facts. It’s highlighting two fundamentally opposite orientations to truth – one which acknowledges that truth rests on something that obtains and is what it is independent of consciousness, and one which abandons facts altogether and seats truth on one’s wishes, imaginations, commands, etc.
2. It is not question-begging. Again, this is not a conclusion drawn from an argument which assumes its conclusion in its premises. If you think it is, you will need to show where it does this rather than simply charge “It’s question begging!” without supporting your contention. You seem to be offering examples of the view that seats truth on one’s whims.
3. If there’s a third alternative which is not a variation or mixture of the two I’ve highlighted, please point it out to us. Truth based on facts, or truth based on whim. What’s your preferred alternative, Andrew? Please, come out into the light. Show us yourself.
[continued…]
Andrew wanted to know how one could demonstrate whether or not facts are independent of conscious intentions. I suggested a thought experiment, including the following instruction: “Focus on a fact, any fact. Now imagine it differently somehow. Check the fact again. Has the fact changed?”
Andrew: “Is this supposed to be philosophy?”
It’s not rocket science, Andrew. Yes, it is philosophy. It’s an attempt to help you put your knowledge in contact with reality. I know, what a novel concept!
Andrew: “This is like proving to someone that something has taste by making them put it in their mouth and say, see, it has taste.”
I frankly don’t see what’s wrong with that. If something is not harmful, and someone wanted to know what it tastes like, I could describe it, but this would not be the same thing as tasting it first hand. Recall that proof is ultimately a process of making the logical relationship between something that is not perceptually self-evident to that which is perceptually self-evident explicit.
Andrew: “But you’re appealing to privileged access here,”
I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. My thought experiment begins with the instruction, “Focus on a fact, any fact” (emphasis added). Do you have no access to any facts? You’re stating that something is the case. By doing so, you’re implying that you have access to facts.
Andrew: “i.e. you’re simply reverting back to your axiom that consciousness exists, but haven’t established it.”
It’s not clear what you mean by “reverting back” to the axiom of consciousness here. I grant that you are conscious. Don’t you? If you are skeptical of your own consciousness, why put the responsibility of establishing the fact that you are conscious on me? This is your problem, Andrew, not mine.
Andrew: “To put it another way you leave from ‘existence exists’ (and facts with it) and vacillate over to ‘consciousness exists’ to justify it… Then you vacillate back to ‘existence exists’; again, extremely circular.”
You seem to be simply making up charges as you go. None of what you say here bears any resemblance on what I’ve stated in this discussion.
Andrew: “On deductive vs. inductive, the point is, Dawson, that you cannot have epistemic certainty with facts as they relate to inductive reasoning.”
Is that a fact, Andrew? Are you certain? How is this not inductive? You’re saying that something is the case in all instances involving facts. Which means: you’re affirming an inductive conclusion as a certainty and offering it as a fact. But you’re also saying that this cannot be done. You performatively contradict yourself.
Of course, I don’t accept the view which denies certainty to inductive generalizations. Human beings are biological organisms. This is a fact, I know it inductively, and I am certain of it. Notice there’s a big difference between “all human beings are biological organisms” and “all human beings wear size 10 sneakers.” I would not affirm the latter as a fact. Not ever!
Andrew: “Now perhaps you don’t care about epistemic certainty, perhaps Objectivism takes a somewhat ‘nominalist’ approach to certain things, I don’t know.”
It’s the very last one – you just don’t know.
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson
>I’m simply going by what Christianity affirms: it affirms that its god’s consciousness has all these amazing powers to bring objects into existence by a sheer act of conscious will.
- Right - you are simply defining God by a very limited set of parameters in order to suit your purposes - I know.
Additionally, The Bible also says God cannot lie and there is no indication that God can destroy and create himself at will in scripture.
The philosophical definition of subjective is as follows: relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
That was a pretty standard definition that may be found at various Internet sites. Why should we rely on your own personal definition and parameters of "subjective" when there are more commonly accepted definitions? When we cast off Dawson's subjective defintions, then we may understand this subject in light of God's existence alone.
The distinction between God's knowledge and God's abilities is defineable. If God cannot will Himself to exist or not to exist, then God's existence is not subject to the knowledge of His existence or God's will. If God cannot will Himself to sin or to lie - against His eternal nature - then God's nature is not subject to the knowledge of his nature or His will to change it.
Dawson's emphasis on subject-object, Creator-created relationships is an arbitrary distinction. Creating one's own definitons in order to prove one's own point is rather disingenuous. Once conventional definitons are used, the arbitray nature of Dawson's parameters becomes evident. Dawson's straw man fallacy is evidenced in other areas as well, as noted at websites linked:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/11/refuting-dawson-bethricks-objectivist.html
I wrote: “I’m simply going by what Christianity affirms: it affirms that its god’s consciousness has all these amazing powers to bring objects into existence by a sheer act of conscious will.”
Rick: “Right - you are simply going by a very limited set of parameters in order to define God - I know.”
I am not even seeking “to define God.” I’m going by what Christians say about their god. What part of this don’t you get?
Rick: “Additionally, The Bible also says God cannot lie and there is no indication that God can destroy and create himself at will in scripture.”
That’s fine. But it’s irrelevant to my argument.
Rick: “The philosophical definition of subjective is as follows: relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.”
This is Kantian. My definition of subjective is not Kantian. I was very clear in stating what I mean by ‘subjective’. It is a view which affirms either implicitly or explicitly the primacy of the subject in the subject-object relationship in any way. A salient example would be the view that wishing makes something so. The view that wishing makes it so attributes metaphysical primacy to the conscious activity of a subject with respect to the objects of its consciousness. That’s subjectivism.
Rick: “That was a pretty standard definition that may be found at various Internet sites, such as this one.”
I suggest you be more discriminating when it comes to definitions. They are very important.
Rick: “Why should we rely on your own personal definition and parameters of ‘subjective’ when there are more commonly accepted definitions?”
Rick, do you want to understand my argument? If so, then you’ll have to pay attention to its premises, including the definitions which inform their key terms.
Rick: “When we cast off Dawson's subjective defintions, then we may understand this subject in light of God's existence alone.”
Rick, understanding is not what your god-belief is about. It’s about faith, i.e., sacrificing your entire self, beginning with your mind and moving immediately to your values. This is as basic to Christianity as Abraham’s ready willingness to sacrifice his own son is upheld by the New Testament as a praiseworthy model of faith.
[continued…]
Rick: “The distinction between God's knowledge and God's abilities is defineable.”
So is the distinction between Harry Potter and the broomstick he rides. But with regard to my argument, it’s ultimately irrelevant. Does your god create things by an act of will? If yes, then we have subjectivism as my argument informs it (since it represents a form of consciousness enjoying metaphysical primacy over its objects).
Rick: “If God cannot will Himself to exist or not to exist, then God's existence is not subject to the knowledge of His existence or God's will.”
To the degree that this has any bearing on my argument, it only shows that the Christian cannot maintain the primacy of consciousness consistently even in imagining his god. The haze of a mixed metaphysics plays a leading role in the theist’s intellectual dilemmas.
Rick: “Dawson's emphasis on subject-object, Creator-created relationships is an arbitrary distinction.”
The distinction between the subject of consciousness and its objects “is an arbitrary distinction”? If that’s your view, you’re even more hopelessly confused that I had originally figured. But this does explain a lot.
Rick: “Creating one's own definitons in order to prove one's own point is rather disingenuous.”
Why? Definitions are important. They spell out explicitly what one means by the terms he’s using. And the definition which Objectivism provides for the concept ‘subjective’ is entirely consistent with its metaphysics and epistemology. It’s a huge improvement over the obfuscating Kantian notions that are swirling in your mind. If you probe the Kantian view just a little bit, don’t be surprised to find out that all knowledge on his view is ultimately subjective. If you want a good example of an arbitrary distinction, look to Kant’s worldview. It’s like saying there’s New York City as it really exists, then there’s New York City as it is entered via Interstate 80. If you entered New York City via Interstate 80, you’ve only entered New York City as it is entered via Interstate 80, not New York City as it really is. It’s so obviously stupid it’s amazing anyone still gets conned by this stuff.
Rick: “Once conventional definitons are used, the arbitray nature of Dawson's parameters becomes evident.”
Translation: once we analyze things according to arbitrary Kantian distinctions, we can position ourselves to conclude whatever we want to conclude. That is the doorway which Kant represents, Rick. I’m sorry you’ve passed through it without realizing what you’ve done. Like I said, I’m glad these aren’t my problems!
Regards,
Dawson
So then, a “…fact will implicitly demonstrate the validity of Objectivism.” Is “…not question-begging because it’s not the conclusion of an argument which assumes it in its premises.”
Not sure what you’re missing here. What is the conclusion of the claim that “… fact will implicitly demonstrate…” from the above?
You state:
“Andrew wanted to know how one could demonstrate whether or not facts are independent of conscious intentions (this should be consciousness in general, not just intentions. You said: “Facts exist independent of consciousness…. independent of anyone’s thoughts, wishes, preferences, feelings, imagination, etc.”. I suggested a thought experiment, including the following instruction: “Focus on a fact, any fact. Now imagine it differently somehow. Check the fact again. Has the fact changed?””
Again, I’m not sure what you’re missing in all this. You want to say that existence exists (and facts exist independently of consciousness) and in order to show this you simply pose a question for me. How is that a philosophical proof? If that’s all you need to prove objectivism, then write that one page book and collect your Nobel.
Andrew: “On deductive vs. inductive, the point is, Dawson, that you cannot have epistemic certainty with facts as they relate to inductive reasoning.”
You state:
“Is that a fact, Andrew? Are you certain? How is this not inductive? You’re saying that something is the case in all instances involving facts. Which means: you’re affirming an inductive conclusion as a certainty and offering it as a fact. But you’re also saying that this cannot be done. You performatively contradict yourself.”
No, I’m not saying “in all instances involving facts”. I quite explicitly said where they [facts] relate to inductive reasoning, i.e. facts derived via induction. So the deductive argument would be,
A.) Inductive arguments are probabilistic, i.e. perhaps likely, but not true with certainty.
B.) Fact “X” was derived via an inductive argument.
C.) Therefore Fact “X” is uncertain and probabilistic.
In any case, we’ve already had the correspondence, representation, correlation conversation as it relates to truth and facts, so no need to re-hash all of that. I just have a little stick in my butt about where our positions differ; and it’s been growing, haha! Do me a favor if you can; there must be something you can direct me to on the net that draws out all the arguments nicely, I’d like to give it a read. What I’m really interested in is what is Rand doing with Aristotle, what’s her epistemic rout, how does she handle Hume, how does she handle Kant, how does she deal with Descartes, what’s her theory of truth? etc. etc. I’ll do my best to do service to your position and we’ll talk again. Fair enough?
Andrew,
You have charged my statement “Any appeal to fact will implicitly demonstrate the validity of Objectivism” with begging the question. I responded by saying it cannot be an instance of begging the question since “it’s not the conclusion of an argument which assumes it in its premises.” Indeed, you have not explained why he might think it’s question-begging. Rather, your whole approach so far has been for me to defend it against this charge even though you have not offered any reasons to support this charge.
Now you write: “Not sure what you’re missing here. What is the conclusion of the claim that ‘… fact will implicitly demonstrate…’ from the above?”
Andrew, my statement “Any appeal to fact will implicitly demonstrate the validity of Objectivism” is essentially an observation. I presented my rationale for supposing it is true. An appeal to fact implicitly grants the truth of the primacy of existence principle. In this way, a person who appeals to facts to support his view is conceding vital ground to the Objectivist position. The person may not intend to be doing this, but that’s why I say it’s implicit. A person very well may not recognize it.
An argument generally needs at least two premises to support a conclusion. You ask “What is the conclusion of” the observation I give above. The answer to this depends on what other premise(s) is coupled with it. But I was not making use of this observation in such a manner. Rather, I was simply affirming the observation in response to your insinuation that Objectivism cannot demonstrate its validity, and I gave sufficient reasons to support it. So while you say you’re “not sure what [I’m] missing here,” I’d suggest that it’s not me who’s missing something here. Perhaps you are.
[continued…]
You wrote: “Again, I’m not sure what you’re missing in all this. You want to say that existence exists (and facts exist independently of consciousness) and in order to show this you simply pose a question for me. How is that a philosophical proof?”
Andrew, it’s not intended to be a proof in the first place. The primacy of existence is axiomatic. It is a precondition of proof. One does not need to prove it. The thought experiment that I proposed was an attempt to provide you with a means of grasping its truth by yourself, specifically by comparing your conscious actions in regard to facts with the facts themselves in order to see if those facts would change as a result of the various conscious actions suggested in that experiment. Did you try it? What happened?
You see, Andrew, even if one were to say, “The primacy of existence is not true,” he’s implicitly affirming its truth by saying that something is the case in reality. Unless he’s simply declaring “The primacy of existence is not true because I don’t like it and I don’t want it to be true,” he’s saying that something is the case regardless of what anyone else might think, say, believe, understand, wish, imagine, etc., that reality is a certain way and we need to accept it – we need to conform the content of our knowledge to this fact.
Rand put it very succinctly in Atlas Shrugged:
<< An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it. >>
Hence, writes Peikoff, “The axioms are invulnerable.” (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 10)
[continued…]
Andrew wrote: “On deductive vs. inductive, the point is, Dawson, that you cannot have epistemic certainty with facts as they relate to inductive reasoning.”
I responded: “Is that a fact, Andrew? Are you certain? How is this not inductive? You’re saying that something is the case in all instances involving facts. Which means: you’re affirming an inductive conclusion as a certainty and offering it as a fact. But you’re also saying that this cannot be done. You performatively contradict yourself.”
Andrew now says: “No, I’m not saying ‘in all instances involving facts’. I quite explicitly said where they [facts] relate to inductive reasoning, i.e. facts derived via induction.”
The correction here is trivial; it does nothing to undermine my overall point. You’re still affirming an inductive generalization as though it were incontestably certain. This is evident in the argument that you suggested. Observe:
<< A.) Inductive arguments are probabilistic, i.e. perhaps likely, but not true with certainty.
B.) Fact “X” was derived via an inductive argument.
C.) Therefore Fact “X” is uncertain and probabilistic. >>
Take a look at Premise A in your argument. It is a broad generality, and the conclusion of your argument depends directly on it. If Premise A cannot be accepted as certain, how can any conclusion drawn from it suddenly acquire certainty? Why suppose Premise A is true? How do you establish Premise A without relying on induction?
Do you think it is merely probabilistic that human beings are biological organisms? Do you think there could be exceptions to this? If so, on what inputs did you form the concept ‘human being’ which allow for exceptions to biology?
You wrote: “In any case, we’ve already had the correspondence, representation, correlation conversation as it relates to truth and facts, so no need to re-hash all of that. I just have a little stick in my butt about where our positions differ; and it’s been growing, haha!”
You share a most curious kinship with Michael. Several days ago he exploded with similar references to anal fixations. I must say, it seems to be contagious among some.
You wrote: “Do me a favor if you can; there must be something you can direct me to on the net that draws out all the arguments nicely, I’d like to give it a read. What I’m really interested in is what is Rand doing with Aristotle, what’s her epistemic rout, how does she handle Hume, how does she handle Kant, how does she deal with Descartes, what’s her theory of truth? etc. etc.”
I can’t think of a single source where all this is laid out. And I don’t think it would be the proper place to begin your study of Objectivism. I first started studying Rand’s philosophy with her expository writings. I picked up her book For the New Intellectual one day back in 1993 when I was living in San Francisco. I remember reading the initial pages of the first chapter on the L Taraval and being riveted by the points she was making. As I read it, I couldn’t shake the growing impression: “I’ve been thinking this for years!” I suspect it would affect you differently since you’ve already built up some antagonism towards Objectivism. That’s too bad. You’re missing out on something amazing. The title article touches on several of the things you’re interested in, but primarily in developing a broader thesis. I’m not aware of it being available anywhere on the net.
Regards,
Dawson
>And the definition which Objectivism provides for the concept ‘subjective’ is entirely consistent with its metaphysics and epistemology.
- Let me see, that must be why all the objectivists are all on the same page and in perfect agreement with these "entirely consistent" mind/body explanations: "Nathaniel Branden has tentatively plumped for panpsychism. Roger Bissell holds what appears to be a version of identity theory, with hard-deterministic implications. Binswanger has the above causal substance dualism, which is apparently "controversial" among Objectivists. But it is hardly any "spookier" than Rand and Peikoff's position, which from what can be made out, is a vague but interactionist position."
Objectivist Myths 2: Rand Solved The Mind/Body Problem
http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2007/09/objectivist-myths-2-rand-solved_14.html
So, Dawson, is your personal mind/body explanation "entirely consistent" with panpsychism, identity theory, causal substance dualism, or Pekoff's interactionist position? Or, do you offer yet a fifth perfectly consistent theory?
Dawson,
I just noticed this. You write:
"Actually, I’ve been pointing out something a little more local so far as Michael is concerned: he has acknowledged the truth of the primacy of existence."
What?! I haven’t acknowledged any such thing in the sense that you mean. Not once. Not ever. This claim is utter claptrap.
You’re either a liar or as dense as a pile of bricks.
Ydemoc
Something that is "univocal" has only one meaning or expression. In this case, Objectivism holds that existence consists of only one level of being: the natural, the empirical, the material, the physical. . . .
Something that is analogical has at least two or more meanings or expressions. An analogy is a comparison between at least two distinction things that are alike in some respect(s). Judeo-Christianity holds that existence consists of two levels of being: the natural realm of being and the supernatural realm of being, the temporal and the eternal, the immanent and the transcendent, the physical and the spiritual. . . .
The Bible holds that they are directly related and parallel one another. Hence, they have things in common -- substantially and rationally.
The reasoning that obtains to a univocal conceptualization/expression of being, the idea that all of reality is strictly physical or natural in some sense or another, would necessarily be different than that which obtains to an analogical conceptualization/expression of being, which in this case entails both a physical substratum and a spiritual substratum.
The logic applied to them in the process of their exegeses would be the same; however, the respective axioms and subsequent premises and conclusions would be dramatically different. A univocal expression is simpler than an analogical expression. Things that might be rational or necessarily true within the former would not be rational or necessarily true within the latter, and vice versa.
Examining an analogical expression of being from the perspective of a univocal expression of being would not divulge a realization of the latter’s premises and conclusions, would not reveal an apprehension of the latter as it is, but only redundantly expound the premises of the former and the conclusive contradictions between the two expressions, and vice versa. Nothing new of any real significance would be revealed or learned that way.
To rightly render either one, one must step out of one’s perspective and objectively stand above and beyond both in order to see each of them as they are relative to their respective premises and contrast them accordingly.
You write: “Would you say that the term "analogical reasoning" is or is not "univocal"?”
It entails both.
Recall, an analogy is a comparison between two distinct things that are alike or related in some sense or another. To rightly distinguish their likenesses from their differences requires the implementation of the rational processes of objectivity, wherein each is simultaneously considered univocally and analogically. In this case, objectively speaking in terms of a definitive analogy whereby each is comprehensively contrasted with the other, the constituents of each model are regarded as a collectively singular whole, as a comprehensively univocal vision of reality as compared to the other, whether the complexion within either be analogical or not.
Do you follow?
Continued . . .
You write: “Would you say that the term "univocal" is or is not "analogical."?”
I’m not sure what you’re asking me, but it appears that you are asking me something profound, and if you are asking me what I’m think you are, bravo for you!
I would say that recognizing the meaning of the concept denoted by the term “univocal” requires an analogical consideration of its likenesses and differences as compared to the nature of the concept denoted by the term “analogical.”
Now I have a question for you. Since the realization of the meaning of any given univocal expression is necessarily encompassed by and contingent to the analogical, what does that suggest to you about the nature of reality itself? You do now apprehend, I hope, that objectivity cannot be actualized by turning this reciprocatory relationship on its head. The univocal cannot encompass or authoritatively exert itself against the analogical! It’s the other way around.
That is why I can understand Dawson almost perfectly, sans certain details subjectively held within his head beyond my purview (merely a matter of process), while he errantly believes that theists are overlooking this or that problem when they exclaim, “You don’t understand me!” Dawson is used to hearing that alright, but what hasn’t yet sunk in with him is the realization that he in fact does not understand the theist and that the learned theist sees the problems he imagines for the nothings they are at a glance. The thought processes of the analogical inherently entail an understanding of the univocal (I wake up to the univocal and deal with it within the larger context of the analogical everyday!) per the imperatives of objectivity.
You write:
“How would you go about validating each of these concepts? Would you consider your method of validating to be "univocal" or "analogical"?
This appears to be the same question, really, but I’m not sure what you have in mind here.
Let me make an observation and perhaps in its light and in the light of that discussed in the above, you’re question will be answered or your attention will be directed to another way of phrasing it. No worries. I have to ask the same kind questions of others and mostly especially of God and then come and rephrase them all the time. We all do.
The reason I’m having such difficulty grasping what Dawson has in his head regarding the essences and the extent of reality as he sees it, from an objective perspective in which I attempt to disregard the parameters of mine, is because in his univocal vision of things there is nothing against which it may be definitively contrasted, contained, bounded, juxtaposed. Apparently, wondering what Objectivism holds to be the constraints of essences and the extensions of reality is illegitimate! What the?!
Continued . . .
Existence exists tells us nothing of any metaphysical solidity. Reality doesn’t interpret itself. Given that for him an infinite, overarching rationality of a higher order of substance which put down the parameters of ascertainable distinctions within the objective realm of an analogical imperative does not exist, given that he must necessarily hold that consciousness is the result of a series of staggeringly complex coincidences actualized by a collection of mindless things and processes: if his view of consciousness, for example, is not inevitably materialistic, the sum of physiological structures and biochemical interactions, a gratuitous ornamentation of the inanimate, than what is it?
Exclamations that deny the charge of materialism followed by formulaic recitations of axioms tell me nothing!
I can’t seem to get out of him any discernibly solid affirmations of a linear complexion. Recall, while he’s confounding things and raising what are in fact a litany of irrelevant and imaginary objections, which I’ve shown here and there to be the case insofar as I can keep up with them, I’ve been taking in everything he’s been saying as I systemically nail down the pertinent issues one at a time. It’s rather strange that terms like “empirical” or “natural” or “physical” are okay in some instances but not in others. And it appears that when they are okay, they don’t divulge much about the Objectivist’s reality beyond themselves, i.e., these referents, anytime one tries to dig into them.
Clearly, existence, whatever that is for the Objectivist, is not the agent of primacy! It’s either that or the agency of consciousness of little use as rendered.
END
Michael,
Thanks for addressing my questions.
Let me digest what you've written, and if there's anything (on this matter or matters that come up further on down the line) which I might need clarification on, I'll chime back in.
Ydemoc
Michael,
I wrote: "Actually, I’ve been pointing out something a little more local so far as Michael is concerned: he has acknowledged the truth of the primacy of existence."
You responded: “What?! I haven’t acknowledged any such thing in the sense that you mean. Not once. Not ever. This claim is utter claptrap. You’re either a liar or as dense as a pile of bricks.”
Well, since I’m going by your own repeated statements, I suppose I must be a dense pile of bricks. (Does that make you feel better?) Here are a few examples from your own comments:
In the previous blog’s comments, your very first comment on 4 Nov. initiating your discussion with me contained the following affirmation by you: “Christianity does not hold that finite consciousness has primacy over reality.”
After some probing, you then wrote in the same thread on 11 Nov.: “It should be noted, however, that this argument in no way undermines Objectivism’s idea that existence has primacy over consciousness with regard to the science of knowledge, i.e., epistemology . . . insofar as immanently based instances of consciousness are concerned." (emphasis yours)
On 17 Nov. in this comments thread above, you wrote: “Finite consciousnesses do not have primacy over existence (Psalm 36:9, I Samuel 2:2). The latter is simply not possible. Period.”
Then on 19 Nov., also above, you wrote: “Nowhere in scripture is it asserted that a finite mind (subject) can have primacy over an existent (object).”
[continued…]
All these statements (and there are probably more; I don’t have time to go looking for any more) clearly and uniformly affirm the truth of the primacy of existence in the case of human (“finite”) consciousness.
As for the “sense” that I had in mind in my response to Andrew, the conflict that I mentioned is the violation of the epistemological razor which your affirmation of the primacy of existence with respect to human consciousness necessarily entails: if you acknowledge the truth of the primacy of existence in the case of human consciousness (as your above comments clearly do), then your epistemology must be consistent with it. But look at what you’ve done to the concept ‘consciousness’ in order to apply it to something allegedly existing in some realm other than the one in which we live.
Incidentally, regarding scripture passages on the topic, you cited Psalm 36:9 above. It states: “For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.” The other passage you cited is I Samuel 2:2, which states: “There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.”
You cited these passages right after saying “Finite consciousnesses do not have primacy over existence,” supposedly meaning that these passages constitute biblical support for your statement. I must be as dense as a pile of bricks, Michael, for I don’t see at all how they support the claim that “finite consciousnesses do not have primacy over existence.”
Now in response to your statement “Nowhere in scripture is it asserted that a finite mind (subject) can have primacy over an existent (object),” I would have to disagree. I’ve already cited Matthew 17:20. Do you recall what it says? Here’s what it says:
<< And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. >>
The context here is Jesus talking to human worshipers, i.e., human beings. A mountain obeying a person’s command to remove itself would be a clear instance of consciousness holding metaphysical primacy over an object.
There are others passages which imply the primacy of consciousness in the case of human consciousness, such as the “ask and ye shall receive” promises uttered by Jesus, but Mt. 17:20 clearly extends the primacy of consciousness to human consciousness. It’s saying that, if a person has enough faith, even a mountain will obey one’s commands. Curiously we never see this happening, and Christians often like to turn this into saying something other than what it plainly says. But it certainly does not corroborate your statement about “nowhere in scripture.”
Regards,
Dawson
Rick,
You wrote: “Let me see, that must be why all the objectivists are all on the same page and in perfect agreement with these ‘entirely consistent’ mind/body explanations: ‘Nathaniel Branden has tentatively plumped for panpsychism. Roger Bissell holds what appears to be a version of identity theory, with hard-deterministic implications. Binswanger has the above causal substance dualism, which is apparently ‘controversial’ among Objectivists. But it is hardly any ‘spookier’ than Rand and Peikoff's position, which from what can be made out, is a vague but interactionist position’."
For one thing, what I stated in my comment to you had to do with the consistency of a *definition* with fundamental principles of Objectivist metaphysics. Now you want me to answer for what certain *personalities* have allegedly affirmed somewhere. And you don’t even quote what those persons have themselves affirmed. Rather, you’re quoting from a source which clearly has an ax to grind against Objectivism. All this is to say, you’re really reaching here. I suppose you have no options left though, since you’ve been summarily answered on your “refutation” of my argument.
Branden left Objectivism a long time ago, and I have not followed him closely. He has stated many things that strike me as reasonable, and others that seem far-fetched. But I see no reason why I would need to try to reconcile his views with mine. Same with Bissell and Binswanger as they are interpreted by the “aynrandcontrahumannature” blog.
There really is no “mind/body problem” in Objectivism. Consciousness is biological, just as other functions of an organism are. Rand puts it clearly in Atlas Shrugged:
<< Man is an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and consciousness, and . . . he may permit no breach between body and mind, between action and thought, between his life and his convictions. >>
The “mystery” here is essentially residue from thousands of years of thinkers trying to reconcile human nature with the mystical premise that it is the creation of a supernatural consciousness. This is not Objectivism’s problem.
As for what Binswanger, Bissell, Peikoff and Branden have affirmed, I strongly, strongly urge you to go directly to the source on these things. The fellow who runs the blog you’ve run to for help is simply promoting a smear campaign.
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
You write: "All these statements (and there are probably more; I don’t have time to go looking for any more) clearly and uniformly affirm the truth of the primacy of existence in the case of human (“finite”) consciousness."
Right! But then this statement contains the qualifier (in bold) that the following statement does not:
"Michael . . . has acknowledged the truth of the primacy of existence."
Without the qualifying phrase, the meaning of the latter can readily be read or interpreted to mean the metaphysical primacy of existence in the Objectivist sense, which you know I do not hold to, as it would preclude divine consciousness as the agent of ultimate primacy, i.e., as the ultimate foundation of existence.
Further, under the latter, you go on to allege contradiction in regard to the concerns of consciousness in keeping with the misleading meaning yielded as a result of the missing qualifier!
I note in the above that you rediscovered it. Hmm.
So you did not just simply leave out a pertinent detail the first time around, you in fact did assign to me the Objectivist premise to which I do not hold.
Dude.
Dawson,
Actually, I need to ask you a very serious question.
Whether you know it or not, you are habitually misstating premises or leaving out pertinent details, whereby you make me out to be asserting things I have never asserted.
One of two things are going here: either you really don't grasp these premises as they are or you are intentionally abusing them.
I don't know what state is worse given the danger of spiritual blindness, but if it is the latter, if you are intentionally muddling biblical premises or intentionally disregarding pertinent aspects of them (same thing, really): that is, if you recognize that the arguments of Objectivism do not hold up against anything but stawmen, why are you still promoting Objectivism?
Dude.
RICK,
I agree that Dawson attempts to remove God's nature as asserted by scripture from the evaluation of the subject-object relationship. But the arbitrary removal of God’s nature primarily goes to the Objectivist’s argument against infinity (or divine perfection).
Dawson also attempts to remove the ramifications of God's attributes from the equation, and that more perfectly goes to the Objectivist’s argument regarding the Self-other or Subject-object relationship.
1. His argument is annihilated when the arbitrarily removed nature of God is restored to the equation, whether God’s nature be express in the Bible’s theological terms of identity (the One Who is perfect Love and Truth) or it be expressed in the more universal, philosophical terms of identity (the One Who is infinitely immutable and indivisible).
Stay with me. . . .
2. It’s redundantly annihilated when the arbitrarily removed ramifications of God’s attributes are restored to the equation. All you need do there is hit him with the construct of the eternally existent now. God is the original, eternal Apprehender of an actually existent Self and an actually existent other apart from Himself.
Finally, apprehend how the context of these two refutations encompass what is essentially the same, objectively irrefutable truth via a linear course of logic, not circular as Andrew initially and mistakenly thought.
I must say, however, that I’m not clear on your position about something. I believe the Bible holds that God is a spirit of pure consciousness, not a spirit that has a consciousness. I strongly believe that rendering divine consciousness as something synonymous with or of the same nature as volition evinces a schism in God’s composition. But in any event we both clearly see the same problem with Dawson’s reasoning. He obviates his conclusions. (Also, he incessantly changes the complexion of my arguments or utterly disregards the actuality or the nature of my premises every time I turn around.) It’s very strange. LOL!
See the following below. . . .
I. THE IDENTITY AND NECESSARY ACTUALITY OF DIVINE INFINITY (OR DIVINE PERFECTION)
II. THE ETERNALLY EXISTENT NOW!
III. CONSCIOUSNESS AND VOLITION ARE NOT SYNONOMOUS OR PARALLELS: THE ISSUE IS VOLITION OR NATURE AS SUBSUMMED BY DIVINE CONSCIOUSNESS
I. THE IDENTITY AND NECESSARY ACTUALITY OF DIVINE INFINITY (OR DIVINE PERFECTION)
As related to Andrew in the above. . . .
For the moment, forget about the theological predication of God’s specific identity per the Bible—that He is perfect Love and perfect Truth. That additional detail confuses Dawson, and though it’s nice to know that he loves his wife and child, his three or four paragraphs of objections and “questions” are uninteresting and irrelevant.
It does not follow that infinity has no specific identity and, therefore, cannot exist, from the fact that a line, a number or any given physical substance cannot be infinity divided by a finite consciousness. Hogwash. The fact that the actual number of divided segments will always be a finite number for a finite consciousness does not demonstrate that infinity has no identity or actuality. The always finite number of segments for a finite consciousness has no bearing on the issues of identity and actuality proper. This is yet another conflation of categorically distinct things. The finite number of segments are merely the tautological consequence of finite consciousness, nothing more.
Simultaneously, the finite mind readily apprehends that any divisible entity may be divided without end. That is a perfectly rational, mathematical axiom. It follows, infinity is that which is indivisible, immutable and has no beginning or end. That’s its identity expressed philosophically. That’s Aristotle’s point, and centuries before him, that’s Moses’ point and that of the other inspired authors of the Bible. . . . That is not an instance of circular reasoning at all. It’s linear.
As for infinity’s actuality, on the contrary, what we have here is a very strong reason to believe that some actual realm of origin exists beyond the divisible realm of the finite, something that can divide the divisible without end. Otherwise, we are aware of a mathematical axiom that is impeccably cogent if not inescapable, yet gratuitous?!
That’s odd. That’s very, very odd. . . .
. . . What does appear to be an instance of circular reasoning is Peikoff’s notion that only the finite can exist. He seems to be arguing that because consciousness can only apprehend the potentiality of infinity, but not its realization, infinity doesn’t exist. More at, infinity allegedly has no identity that consciousness can pin down with anything but a referent and, therefore, cannot be said to have any discernable actuality. But that appears to suggest that some sort of consciousness is imposing a constraint on existence. I can’t quite put my finger on how the finite nature of consciousness coherently limits the nature or the extension of existence within a model that holds existence to have primacy over consciousness. While the finiteness of the consciousness he has mind is self-evident, the finiteness of existence isn’t (Rawlings, December 01, 2012 11:23 AM). . . .
. . . In the meantime, in my experience, the only “concept” that has nothing more than a negatively defined referent with which we may pin it down in our heads is nothingness, not infinity, as the very act of contemplating the former seems to constitute an inherent contradiction which yields an incomprehensible thing, while the latter seems to be rationally necessary and mathematically definable. . . .
. . . Of course, Aristotle and Objectivism don’t agree. That was my whole point. What in the world was Dawson doing explaining to me what I had just explained to him in my response to Peikoff’s extrapolation? I clearly stated that Objectivism rejects the implication of Aristotle’s observation yielded by the distinction between the actual and the potential, albeit, relative to the limitations of finite consciousness and nothing other than those of finite consciousness: the glaringly obvious implication, namely, the apparent necessity or existence of an indivisible and immutable infinity, which Objectivism arbitrarily disregards in what appears to be a circuitous detour (Rawlings, December 01, 2012 11:24 AM).
Let me underscore this: This is an example of an objectively derived and universally apparent conclusion premised on an axiom. Clearly, the logic is linear, not circular or tautological. That is self-evident. The nature of the conclusion is not subjective in any way, shape or form. That is self-evident.
1. Any divisible entity can be divided without end.
2. Finite conscious (the mutable and divisible) cannot realize this maxim.
3. That which is indivisible and immutable and, therefore, has no beginning or end can realize this maxim.
4. Infiniteness has identity.
Conclusion: The existence of an infinite entity cannot be justifiably denied unless the limitations of finite consciousness do in fact correspond with the limitations of existence.
Hello!
In the finale analysis, all the Objectivist is really saying with any credibility is that finiteness and infiniteness are distinctly different things, and that finiteness cannot realize infiniteness. (1) These are tautologies that necessarily presuppose the identity of infiniteness contrary to the Objectivist’s claim that infiniteness has no identity. (2) The Objectivist cannot show that the limitations of finite consciousness correspond with the limitations of existence. (3) The Objectivist cannot claim to show this without imposing the primacy of finite consciousness over existence.
The funniest thing about all this is that Dawson in the above thought to show that Judeo-Christianity contradictorily espouses the idea that finite consciousness has primacy over existence! Of course, it does no such thing. Dawson merely premised his argument on a conflation of two distinctly different and relationally unparallel things.
Continued . . .
II. THE ETERNALLY EXISTENT NOW!
Dawson proposes that God would necessarily require an object apart from Himself in order to be aware of Himself; rather, there can be no consciousness of self without consciousness of something other than oneself. Or as Dawson puts it, “[i]n regard to the problem of divine lonesomeness, the fundamental question behind this problem is: what would a consciousness which is said to have created everything that exists distinct from itself be conscious of prior to creating anything distinct from itself?” In other words, “consciousness being conscious only of itself” is a contradiction in terms, as consciousness is to be conscious of something other than oneself first.
In response, I observed that this notion of his exists nowhere in the historical corpus of philosophical or theological thought except perhaps in the literature of Objectivism. How could it? The immediate ramification of divine perfection utterly negates this objection, one ultimately premised on the ramifications of identity as comprehensively exemplified by the three classic laws of logic, before it can even be raised!
The first time I explained this ramification to him, it was clear that he sincerely did not grasp the thrust of it, as he merely repeated the same argument as before in the tone of one patiently explaining something to a child. The second time around he did not so much as try to explain why I was wrong from his perspective as much as he recounted pertinent statements of mine stripped of definitively vital phrases. Now, I was suspicious. So, finally, the third time around, I put it down in no uncertain terms and included a scriptural citation that spelled it out in excruciating detail.
That time, finally, he did acknowledge what I had been telling him all along, albeit, from behind a wall of bluster and deceit. That is, he acknowledge the essence of the idea, albeit, as he improperly rendered the pertinent shift in perspective between that of timelessness and that of the space-time continuum.
Dawson, you bloody well do understand the immediate ramification of divine perfection (i.e., the construct of the eternally existent now), and the only reason you will not frankly and openly acknowledge this is because to do so is to admit that your article “Divine Lonesomeness” is a voluminous waste of time and space, and an embarrassingly stupid thesis to boot!
Continued . . .
I wrote:
“Once again, it’s a fact that within an analogical model of being the construct of an eternally existent now is consistently logical and necessary, and once properly rendered, may be readily appended as such by all. The immediate ramifications of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience yields an original Apprehender of an actually existent Self and an actually existent other. That’s why you won’t find any objection in the centuries-old corpus of philosophical or theological thought raised against theism on the basis of the law of identity. . . .
It’s identity is specific and comprehensive. It’s cogency apparent at a glance. It can be expressed graphically and parallels the theoretical motifs of general relativity and quantum physics. Finally, not only does it fulfill the criteria of the objection raised in Dawson’s “Divine Lonesomeness,” it annihilates it.
Dawson mistook the impressions of the less-learned Christians of his previous experience for the actual biblical notion of divinity as he simultaneously confounded the distinction that obtains between a univocal model of being and an analogical model of being. Dawson had never before considered the ramifications of perfect divinity as depicted by the Bible. He had never before considered the essence of an eternally existent now. He never saw it coming, and He’s still pretending not to see it.”
___________________________________
From November 23, 2012 5:45 PM, I wrote:
“The God of the Bible exists in the eternal now! Therefore, the God of the Bible eternally apprehends actually existent objects apart from Him! He has always appended actually existent objects apart from Him. There has never been a “time” when He did not append actually existent objects apart from Him. He has never been alone!
“O Lord, You have searched me and known me. You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off. You comprehend my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word on my tongue, but behold, O Lord, You know it altogether. You have hedged me behind and before, and laid Your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it. . . .
. . . For You formed my inward parts. You covered me in my mother’s womb. . . . My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in secret. . . . Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them” (Psalm 139:1-6, 13, 14-16).
Continued . . .
“For God, there was never “a time” when David did not exist. There was never “a time” when David was not the King of Israel. There was never a time when David’s body did not die and his soul tarry in Sheol awaiting Christ’s crucifixion.
The American Revolution is occurring for God right now, as is the creation of the cosmos within which it was fought . . . not merely in His mind, but as actual existents apart from Him. What you and I will think or say or do or dream a week from now, relative to our perspective of things, is occurring for God right now, again, not merely in His mind, but as actual existents apart from Him! Right now we exist for Him in some place or another--on Earth, in Heaven or in Hell. He exists everywhere and in every instance of “time” right now.
For God, the cosmos and everything contained in it and everything that has ever happened in it has never been that which at some time did not exist or potentially exist. It has always actually existed.
In short, there is no past or present for God. Everything is now!”
Continued . . .
III. CONSCIOUSNESS AND VOLITION ARE NOT SYNONOMOUS TERMS OR EQUVILENTS: THE ISSUE IS VOLITION OR NATURE AS SUBSUMMED BY DIVINE CONSCIOUSNESS
Rick, with regard to God's nature, you and I are essentially saying the same thing, conceptually speaking; however, assuming I understand you correctly, I believe there is a problem with your semantics.
You write:
"This subject [not self-created, but eternally self-subsistent] is actually not very "well and good" for Dawson's argument, because this is quite enough to show that volition and consciousness do not hold metaphysical primacy in Theism."
Actually, divine consciousness does hold metaphysical primacy over existence. You are making consciousness out to be synonymous with volition or something akin to volition in nature. They are not synonymous or of an equivalent rank in terms of nature.
The issue is whether or not God’s actions are governed by His nature or His volition (will), not by His nature or His volition and consciousness! God is a spirit of pure consciousness Whose volition is bound by His nature. Your statement implies that divine consciousness is a component (perhaps a contingent attribute in some sense) of God’s substratum, rather than the essence of His substratum.
It’s His volition that is a component of His essence. Divine consciousness and God’s volition are not synonymous; they are not equivalents.
Hence, I wrote for further clarification:
"On the other hand, I think I see what's throwing Dawson.
Dawson, according to the Bible, God is a spirit of pure consciousness. That’s His very essence. In terms of identity, He is Perfect Love and Truth. Consciousness is not something God has! Truth and love are not things God has! Rather, He is all of these things at once, immutably and indivisibly so. Hence, His will and his nature are one in the sense that He cannot will anything contrary to His nature; otherwise, He would be or become something He’s not. Hence, the primacy of divine consciousness over existence inherently applies to Him (the necessary entity that is immutable and indivisible) and absolutely applies to all other things apart from Him (the contingent entities that are mutable and divisible)."
END
Dawson, per your earlier question. . .
QUESTION: What precisely is the human body-soul dichotomy according to the Bible, and what is the biblical substance or justification of this notion that the central nervous system is at the nexus of the body-soul interaction?
The Bible holds that human beings consist of physical bodies and souls. The substance of the latter is spiritual and is immortal. Ultimately, human beings are souls, their bodies, temporary vessels in which their souls interdimensionally reside within the larger matrix of existence (Matthew 10:28).
Of course the Bible doesn't talk about a central nervous system as such.
__________________________________________________
The inspired writers employ the Hebrew term nephesh (literally, “breath” or “breath of life,” translated “soul”) or the Greek term psūchê, variously translated “soul,” “heart,” “psyche” or “mind,” for example, to denote, depending on the context, (1) a living human body (rare), (2) that component(s) of a living human body that somehow or another meshes with the ultimate, immaterial essence of a human being or (3) the ultimate, immaterial essence of a human being itself, the soul proper (Psalm 63:1, 84:2).
(Note: Below, the various terms and their meanings are confined to human beings, celestial beings or God, as the term nephesh, for example, applies to all animal life forms, though not in the same way as it does to man. Also, to keep things simple, the wider applications of the Hebrew and Greek terms that do not directly touch on the vital issues of the referents body, soul or spirit as such, are not discussed.)
While the Hebrew word for “body” is gewiyah, there really is no precise Old Testament word that means “a human body” in the sense of a unified living organism as distinguished from “the soul.” Gewiyah is more at “carcass” or is used to denote the body of a certain kind of celestial creature describe in Ezekiel (1:11). The Hebrew term adamah (variously translated “clay,” “ground,” “dirt,” “man” or “Adam” depending on the context) is akin to the concept of body in the sense of its natural, elemental composition, but is more at “man” or “mankind” in taxonomic terms. It is also rendered “Adam,” the name given by God to the first human being whose body was formed by God out of the Earth’s adamah (or “clay”). In other words, the Hebrew term nephesh (or “soul”) denotes a human being or person. The phrase “a living soul” means “a person within a living body” i.e., “an animated vessel of flesh” wherein the animating aspect is immortal.
The “soul” is “the breath of life,” that is to say, the animating force of life for the body imparted by God and the essential entity of consciousness composed of a spiritual substance (Genesis 2:7). From this we may see that humans are designed in such a way that they are not complete without some kind of body in which the soul may reside, and the New Testament confirms what the inspired authors’ reluctance to more finely distinguish in the Old Testament suggests. God had yet to make it clear. Except for prophecy, He had yet to reveal the cure in the space-time continuum for what ails us, which is more precisely understood in the light of yet another component of human composition explained below.
Continued . . .
The Greek term for “body” is somo, but the more doctrinally significant term sarx, translated “flesh,” typically denotes the insatiably hostile or sinfully incompatible urges of the human body or its members relative to spiritual purity and righteousness. The human body of flesh is a temporary and unsalvageable component of life (Romans 7:24, I Corinthians 15:50).
The Greek term psūchê, most often translated as “soul” in the Old Testament sense, is sometimes translated “mind” to denote consciousness’ faculty of logic or reason, which includes man’s rational sense of morality and aesthetics, or translated “heart” to denote the emotional aspect of human consciousness, which includes man’s instinctual sense of morality and aesthetics as sheer passion. Nephesh is alternately translated “heart” or “soul” in the King James Version (Deuteronomy 4:29), wherein the former denotes the emotional aspect of consciousness and the latter, the rational aspect, for example, “with all your heart and soul,” both being essential aspects of the soul (the conscious self). In fact, most translations render this conceptual juxtaposition as “heart-mind” in a more clearly parallel and idiomatically contemporary fashion as subsumed by the concept denoted by the referent soul.
When denoting the ultimate essence of human beings, the immaterial and imperishable self, the terms “soul” and “spirit” are sometimes used interchangeably in scripture, unless juxtaposed in the same statement. In the latter case the term “soul” would denote the subject’s living body or that component of the body that intersects with the immaterial self, and the term “spirit” would denote the subject’s immaterial self (soul proper).
The Greek term for “spirit” is pneuma (ruah or neshamah in Hebrew). God and celestial beings are pure spirits (not “souls” as they are not any type of animal life), and the latter apparently have spiritual bodies of some sort, as will the departed in Christ upon the resurrection when they will be reunited with their bodies, albeit, as transliterated spiritual replicas without blemish. In the meantime, the souls of the departed in Christ are “clothed” in God’s spiritual substratum.
The reason the terms “soul” and “spirit” are seldom used interchangeably and the reason the term “spirit” is virtually never applied to humans in the Old Testament, except in the sense of “soul” proper in juxtapositions, is because it’s the human spirit that perished in the Fall (Genesis 2:17). The human spirit is not the seat of consciousness, i.e., the existential self or soul. It is, however, to the soul, after a fashion, what the soul is to the human body, and something more: essentially, it’s the consciousness of God as linked to the human soul and yet individually possessed by the soul in some way; it’s a distinct component of one’s being that serves as a conduit or a direct connection to God Himself.
Unlike the soul it’s not necessarily immortal but subject to death as a result of sin. In short, only believers have living spirits recreated in them by God upon conversion, and only believers are living spirits as new creations in Christ Jesus. In other words, the human spirit is at the core of us in the sense that it is the essence of true life, for to be separated from God is to be dead for all practical intents and purposes in terms of what it means to be fully human, to be fully free, alive and well. To be separated from God and, in the next world, a disembodied consciousness for all eternity is a hellish existence. Initially, humans weren’t designed to exist in such a reduced state.
Hence, man was initially created as a triadic being in God’s Trinitarian image or likeness. However, this is but one aspect of the Imago Dei.
__________________________
Dawson, Continued . . .
The inspired writers of the Bible simply did not know what we know today about the physiological structures and biochemical processes of the human organism. They knew next to nothing about the apparatus that directly governs and coordinates, not only certain bodily functions, but the body’s voluntary features as well. The tangible aspect of consciousness, namely, the central nervous system, which operationally interfaces with the immortal consciousness or soul, was beyond their range of knowledge.
I’m not telling you anything new, really. The ancients’ had the very same conceptualization of things, i.e., that the body necessarily housed a tangible aspect of consciousness of an adequately nature to interface with the immaterial aspect of consciousness, the soul proper. In fact, they had some very specific opinions on the matter, namely, that the various aspects of physiological consciousness as orchestrated by the soul were distributed throughout the body among its various organs that actually held and processed information so that the immaterial soul could interact with the material realm of being. Variously, these organs were the bowels, the kidneys, the testicles/ovaries, the heart, the brain. . . .
Is this construct regarding the role of the central nervous system at the nexus of this union between the former and the soul an extrapolation? Yes. Is it reasonable? Yes. Is it extra-biblical? Yes and no. The inspired authors of the Bible write of its existence, wrongfully, of course, in terms of identity, but their conceptualization of the matter is essentially the same. This is the sort of thing that God leaves to us to discover via our examination of yet another aspect of God’s revelation to man, i.e., the immanent realm of creation itself.
With these things down, I'd like to talk about the Bible's epistemology. Understanding man's detailed metaphysical composition is the starting place. Just digest for now, will ya?
END
Dawson,
I haven't forgotten about your comments and questions on innate knowledge or abilities.
That was a discussion you had going on with Richard, but it was over a passage from an article I had written. First, forget about classic Idealism and Cartesian rationalism. The Bible’s view on the nature of innate ideas and knowledge leans much heavier than these toward the empirical side of the rational-empirical equation, but with a twist that may surprise you. Recall, Judeo-Christianity’s epistemology rejects the rational-empirical dichotomy as a false alternative. Sensibly, it holds to a rational-empirical construct as one might expect from a system of thought that places so much emphasis on life, including bodily life, in an analogical scheme of things. You wrote a lot of words over a snippet from my article that’s way off the Bible’s paradigm.
Dude, babies jumping out of the womb talking and spouting geometry and the like. Come on. Not that I took you very seriously there, but I assure you, the Bible’s epistemology is in many ways vastly more complex and subtle than most secular systems.
But first, I need to get some things straight with you so I have a better idea of how to relate the Bible’s epistemology to you, and I haven’t been able to make much sense from what you’ve shared so far in terms of specifics about Objectivism’s metaphysics, particularly as it applies to human composition.
I’d appreciate it if we could keep things tight, focused . . . small. I’m quite satisfied that you have been powerfully refuted with regard to your arguments against theism proper, i.e., the existence of God, namely, the nonsense about infinity and subject-object. If you wish to keep going on with your stawman arguments which disregard those aspects of the biblical view, as if they didn’t exist, which refute/destroy your arguments , fine. I’m all copy and paste mode on those. But the ideas you have mangled so far will keep confronting you as applied to Christian epistemology.
_______________________________
In regard to your further exegesis of Rand’s notion of existence immediately following the end of my summation of the transcendent realm of being. . . .
Yes. I follow what Rand believes. While I agree that the concepts denoted by terms like material or physical are “highly advanced abstractions, certainly way beyond the level of axiomatic concepts”, as you say, I do not concur that “these concepts” are “scientific rather than philosophical.” They are both, for “specialized scientific knowledge” is contingent to or necessarily rests on ontological presuppositions of one kind or another, and the object of scientific inquiry cannot be directly known by sensory perception. (Yes, yes, I caught your discourse on the various levels of consciousness. So what? That had nothing to do with what I had in mind. More on that later.)
_____________________________
I write: “My understanding is that Objectivism holds that consciousness is the sum of physiological structures and biochemical reactions. Yes?”
You respond: “I would say no. Perhaps you can cite where you got this understanding about what Objectivism holds regarding the nature of consciousness?”
I’m asking, not telling.
You write: “Objectivism holds that man, for instance (an organism possessing the attribute of consciousness), is an indivisible integration of matter and consciousness.”
Yes, well, why doesn’t “the sum of physiological structures and biochemical reactions” amount to the same thing as an “indivisible integration of matter and consciousness”? Physiological structures and biochemical reactions seem to pertain to the “indivisible integration of matter”, and the sum of these things seem to pertain to “consciousness,” which is not necessarily material in your scheme of things or mine, but would appear to be materialistic in yours. These are distinct terms: material, materialism/materialistic. You objected to the latter. I don’t see why or how you can.
Moreover, I used the term physical because the concept denoted subsumes not only the physical compositions, properties and structures of inanimate matter and energy, including their subsequent processes and interactions, but also the sum of the physiological compositions, properties, structures, processes and interactions of any given organism’s consciousness, in terms of your view . . . insofar as the consciousness wielding the constituents of scientific methodology can reliably ascertain.
Now, I’m prodding you a bit, but I’m trying to get at what phrases like “an organism possessing the attribute of consciousness” and “an indivisible integration of matter and consciousness” mean precisely in terms of something I can sink my teeth into and chaw on.
_______________________________
Hence, I'd like to focus on terms like physical, material, empirical, natural . . . as they relate to Objectivism‘s metaphysics and the concerns of science, and get at the bottom of consciousness according to Objectivism.
Surely, Objectivism has more to say about the compositions or substances of existence than what you've shared so far relative to the findings of science, and Objectivists have some notion about how current science on consciousness -- specifics! -- jives with or is understood/interpreted by Objectivist’s relative to the imperatives of their system of thought.
Judeo-Christianity does these things; surely Objectivism does these things.
Rushing a bit, there might be some typos or rough transitions. Bear with me.
Andrew,
By the way, any thoughts on all those highlights I discussed.
A clearer understanding of things reveals a multitude of highlights, doesn’t it?
LOL!
Michael,
I wrote: "All these statements (and there are probably more; I don’t have time to go looking for any more) clearly and uniformly affirm the truth of the primacy of existence in the case of human (“finite”) consciousness."
You responded: “Right! But then this statement contains the qualifier (in bold) that the following statement does not: [quoting me] ‘Michael . . . has acknowledged the truth of the primacy of existence’."
You continued: “Without the qualifying phrase, the meaning of the latter can readily be read or interpreted to mean the metaphysical primacy of existence in the Objectivist sense, which you know I do not hold to, as it would preclude divine consciousness as the agent of ultimate primacy, i.e., as the ultimate foundation of existence.”
Michael, I think you may be jumping the gun here a bit. Calm down. I was not trying to deceive or mislead in any way. I have quoted several statements of yours affirming the truth of the primacy of existence, and yes, you hastened to qualify this affirmation with respect to human consciousness. I realize that, and if Andrew’s been following the conversation, which apparently he has, he should be aware of this. My point to Andrew was rather simple.
Recall Andrew’s statement. He wrote: “You guys aren’t even having a debate here, you’re just arm waving over the other with mindless factoids about your own positions. You’re saying, ‘what you said here isn’t consistent with my Objectivist world-view’.”
My point to Andrew, by pointing out your previous affirmations of the truth of the primacy of existence, was that certain affirmations on your part do in fact concede certain truths of Objectivism. But even more than this, that while both my feet are firmly planted on the principle of the primacy of existence, you have one foot on the primacy of existence, and another on the primacy of consciousness. Now, perhaps I should have worded it this way, but I didn’t expect my point to raise your ire as it has.
As for the “sense” of the primacy of existence that you have affirmed, I’m afraid I know of only one sense of the primacy of existence. To affirm the primacy of existence is to affirm its truth as Objectivism informs it. I know of no other meaning or sense to the concept. I grant that you don’t think it applies universally, but this is a question of its application, not its sense as I understand it.
[continued…]
Now it is interesting to note that my discussion with Rick has uncovered a point which poses a bit of a snafu for the Christian.
Recall that Rick had stated: “If God cannot will Himself to exist or not to exist, then God's existence is not subject to the knowledge of His existence or God's will.”
My response to Rick was: “To the degree that this has any bearing on my argument, it only shows that the Christian cannot maintain the primacy of consciousness consistently even in imagining his god.”
The point is that even the Christian cannot maintain a wholly consistent affirmation of the primacy of consciousness, even with respect to the god he enshrines in his imagination. Since the Christian will insist that his god did not create itself, that it cannot alter its own nature by an act of will, and the like, he is essentially saying that the primacy of existence applies at least with respect to his god as an object of its own consciousness. So the mixed metaphysics of Christianity spills over even into the “transcendent realm” of the god he imagines.
Of course, Objectivists are going to see this as a consequence of the presence of contradiction within one’s metaphysics.
[continued…]
Michael wrote: “Whether you know it or not, you are habitually misstating premises or leaving out pertinent details, whereby you make me out to be asserting things I have never asserted. One of two things are going here: either you really don't grasp these premises as they are or you are intentionally abusing them.”
I must admit, this is rather frustrating to read, Michael, especially considering all the patience, time and energy I’ve devoted to this discussion. I have asked you, in some cases repeatedly, on several occasions throughout the discussion, numerous questions aimed at helping me understand statements of yours and the positions you’ve affirmed, many of which you’ve affirmed without explanation or at best with a fog of vague ambiguities that disintegrate into meaningless jargon.
I’m reminded of what you wrote on 26 Nov.: “Let us compare Dawson’s idea of defining terms with mine. The former is nothing but obfuscating jargon…”
I really have to take serious exception to this, Michael. I’ve been very careful to define terms and explain concepts like the Objectivist conception of existence and reality, the primacy of existence, reason, et al., and I’ve been open to further questions on these matters. I am careful to cite my sources and point to entries on my blog where I have already addressed an issue or to point you to where you can find out more about things I hold and have argued. To call what I have delivered “obfuscating jargon” is simply your own animosity erupting into belligerence (don’t deny this!). It is certainly not an expression of gratitude for my time, effort and care in contributing to our discussion.
Meanwhile, I have asked you numerous times for your position’s definitions, and you’ve given precious few (though slowly you’re starting to change this). Even in the case of the immanent/transcendent realm terminology, you gave brief and rather uninformative definitions (basically pulled from an online dictionary). I asked a number of questions about these definitions, and you have not addressed them. I have asked you repeatedly to offer up the bible’s definition of ‘concept’, and you still have not answered this. I’ve looked in my bibles for such a definition, but I’ve never found anything that strikes me as pertinent. But you have insisted that Christianity does indeed have its own, presumably distinctively Christian theory of concepts, and yet there’s no hide nor hair of it to be found in any of your comments. I have asked you to identify your conceptually irreducible starting point. But crickets is all I get on this, even though it’s probably one of the most important questions on the table.
Recall, Michael, that you blew into my blog’s comments spewing forth unargued accusations and assertions, have ignored direct questions to you, have found it necessary on several occasions to abandon certain strategies and recalibrate your approach, not really dealing with the substance of many of my criticisms. Then your frustration kicked in and you had a public meltdown the likes of which I’ve never quite seen on my blog before. And now you come back accusing me of dishonest tactics when in fact it appears that you’re really just being over-sensitive to certain things that are not at all intended to mischaracterize your statements.
I asked before, but I haven’t really seen an answer so far, so I’ll ask again: what exactly is your purpose in coming here? If you’re trying to vindicate Christianity, you’re doing a terrible job of it. If you’re trying to correct me on certain things, you’re not doing a very good job of that either.
[continued…]
You stated to Rick: “I agree that Dawson attempts to remove God's nature as asserted by scripture from the evaluation of the subject-object relationship.”
Michael, you have affirmed that your god is a consciousness, that its nature is a form of consciousness. How am I “remov[ing] God’s nature as asserted by scripture from the evaluation of the subject-object relationship”? If it is a conscious subject, then it must have objects that it’s conscious of, and this implies a relationship. When you state that “according to Judeo-Christianity, ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence,” you’re confirming, so far as I can tell, that I’ve accurately assessed Christianity with respect to the issue of metaphysical primacy. So I’ve accurately assess Christianity in this manner, even though I’ve “removed God’s nature as asserted by scripture” in that assessment?
In your comment to Rick, you made statements to the effect that my argument is “annihilated when the arbitrarily removed nature of God is restored to the equation, whether God’s nature be express[ed] in the Bible’s theological terms of identity (the One Who is perfect Love and Truth) or it be expressed in the more universal, philosophical terms of identity (the One Who is infinitely immutable and indivisible).”
I’m afraid I don’t see how any of these notions have any bearing on my argument. With your concession that “according to Judeo-Christianity, ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence,” you’ve essentially conceded that my argument can only hold up. The argument that Rick and I were discussing, you’ll recall, is my argument that Christianity ultimately reduces to subjectivism, as I present it in this blog. Rick sought to refute this argument by trying to show that the primacy of consciousness does not accurately describe Christian metaphysics on the basis that Christianity holds that its god did not create itself. I put this to rest by showing that this is not a sufficient objection to show that the Christian god as a consciousness does not hold metaphysical primacy with respect to objects other than itself. So you’ve conceded the crucial premise of my argument, Michael, and you now seem to have encountered conflict with Rick’s understanding of Christianity. Surprise!
Subjectivism is any view which grants metaphysical primacy to the subject of consciousness in the subject-object relationship. I have argued that Christianity grants metaphysical primacy to the subject of consciousness in the case of its god. (I would argue that it does this in the case of other consciousnesses as well, and I gave Mt. 17:20 as solid evidence that the New Testament does this explicitly.) Given this, it follows that Christianity essentially reduces to subjectivism. Your concession that “according to Judeo-Christianity, ultimately, consciousness does have primacy over existence” concedes the premise of my argument which Rick sought to refute.
As I’ve pointed out in the past, the only alternative to Objectivism is some form of subjectivism.
[continued…]
But in spite of Christianity’s being founded on metaphysical subjectivism, Christianity tells us that its god is truth. But one can only wonder what Christians mean by ‘truth’. It’s certainly not what Objectivism means by this concept. Truth presupposes exclusively the primacy of existence. It makes no sense whatsoever to seat truth on the basis of the primacy of consciousness. This is like saying truth presupposes the view that wishing makes it so. This can only mean that, on Christian theism, there is ultimately no objectivity. None of the mystical jargon, floating abstractions, or stolen concepts can rescue the Christian from this.
You wrote: “It does not follow that infinity has no specific identity and, therefore, cannot exist, from the fact that a line, a number or any given physical substance cannot be infinity divided by a finite consciousness.”
Your rejection of this line of argument seems rather circular, given that it assumes this limitation is simply a constraint of what you call a “finite consciousness,” which in turn implies the reality of an “infinite consciousness,” which is what is in question.
In fact, however, the argument against an actual infinity that I cited earlier does not go: “a number or any given physical substance cannot be [infinitely] divided by a finite consciousness,” therefore an actual infinite cannot exist. More on this below.
You write: “The fact that the actual number of divided segments will always be a finite number for a finite consciousness does not demonstrate that infinity has no identity or actuality.”
Really, to me, it seems that an actual number would necessarily be finite, period. The notion that an actual number could be at the same time infinite seems incoherent, even if one wants to posit the notion of an “infinite consciousness.” Rand/Peikoff’s point is that the actual necessarily has a specific identity, and that it is therefore finite. Objectivism ties this view to the concept of measurement when we get to concept-formation. The actual always exists in some specific quantity. A specific quantity is necessarily finite. By contrast, ‘infinite’ would be beyond any specific quantity, beyond any specific measurement. It follows that that which is beyond any specific measure simply has no identity, and thus could not be actual. We might be able to imagine it, but the imaginary is not real (at least, according to Objectivism). What non-imaginary entity exists that is ontologically beyond specific measurement? You can’t say “God” because this is merely imaginary. We have no alternative but to imagine it.
But let me ask, given the way you’ve stated things above: You say that “the actual number of divided segments will always be finite for a finite consciousness.” Is this meant to imply that an actual number could be infinite for an “infinite consciousness”?
Indeed, I really have no idea what an “infinite consciousness” could be. It is literally and utterly nonsensical.
[continued…]
You write: “The always finite number of segments for a finite consciousness has no bearing on the issues of identity and actuality proper.”
Well, the notion of segments is only introduced in the sense of dividing something, an area where Objectivism holds that the concept ‘infinite’ has at least some legitimacy (the other being the ability to continue adding to something). It is not fundamental. Entities are fundamental. That is where Rand/Peikoff are working from. Entities have identity. (I’m guessing we both would agree on this?) Where we seem to part ways is over the implications that identity has for finitude. The Objectivist view makes complete sense to me: to be actual is to be specific, and the specific is always finite. The view you seem to be proposing – which seems to have in mind no definable identity that I can grasp at this point – defies rational comprehension.
You write: “Simultaneously, the finite mind readily apprehends that any divisible entity may be divided without end. That is a perfectly rational, mathematical axiom. It follows, infinity is that which is indivisible, immutable and has no beginning or end. That’s its identity expressed philosophically.”
Even if we grant that “it follows” from the assumption that “the finite mind readily apprehends that any divisible entity may be divided without end” that “infinity is that which is indivisible, immutable and has no beginning or end” (and I’m not even sure I would grant that without more context to support it), it does not follow that the concept ‘infinity’ so-defined denotes something that is actual. And that’s the dispute we seem to be having.
Speaking to this, you write: “As for infinity’s actuality, on the contrary, what we have here is a very strong reason to believe that some actual realm of origin exists beyond the divisible realm of the finite, something that can divide the divisible without end. Otherwise, we are aware of a mathematical axiom that is impeccably cogent if not inescapable, yet gratuitous?! That’s odd. That’s very, very odd. . . .”
I’m not sure I follow. Again, suppose that I’m dense as a pile of bricks here. You seem to be saying that our ability (in this realm) to divide a divisible entity without end (and here Binswanger would disagree that this ability is itself actual or realizable; he considers it merely hypothetical) is “a very strong reason to believe that some actual realm of origin exists beyond the divisible realm of the finite.” Am I reading you correctly? If so, it’s not at all clear what you think this “very strong reason” is, unless it’s a disguised appeal to ignorance or incredulity.
[continued…]
As for our awareness of what you call “a mathematical axiom,” Objectivism would say that this is implicit in the very process of concept-formation. (This might explain why it seems appropriate to call it an axiom.) Rand notes:
”A concept is not formed by observing every concrete subsumed under it, and does not specify the number of such concretes. A concept is like an arithmetical sequence of specifically defined units, going off in both directions, open at both ends and including all units of that particular kind. For instance, the concept ‘man’ includes all men who live at the present, who have ever lived or who will ever live. An arithmetical sequence extends into infinity, without implying that infinity actually exists; such extension means only that whatever number of unit does exist, it is to be included in the same sequence. The same principle applies to concepts: the concept ‘man’ does not (and need not) specify what number of men will ultimately have existed – it specifies only the characteristics of man, and means that any number of entities possessing these characteristics is to be identified as ‘men’.” (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pp. 17-18)
So far from suggesting that “infinity” really exists, or that an actual entity can in fact be “infinite,” the mathematical axiom which you have mentioned really points to our ability to conceptualize, not to something existing in some supernatural realm. Again, I can’t over-stress the importance of a good theory of concepts. I’ve found no theory of concepts in the bible, not even a bad one. But again, perhaps I’m just dense.
[continued…]
You wrote: “What does appear to be an instance of circular reasoning is Peikoff’s notion that only the finite can exist. He seems to be arguing that because consciousness can only apprehend the potentiality of infinity, but not its realization, infinity doesn’t exist. More at, infinity allegedly has no identity that consciousness can pin down with anything but a referent and, therefore, cannot be said to have any discernable actuality. But that appears to suggest that some sort of consciousness is imposing a constraint on existence.”
That’s not how I understand Peikoff at all. Let’s look at what he says again. He writes (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pp. 31-32):
<< ’Infinite’ does not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity, i.e., of no specific quantity. An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. But A is A. Every entity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well. As Aristotle was the first to observe, the concept of ‘infinity’ denotes merely a potentiality of indefinite addition or subtraction. For example, one can continually subdivide a line; but however many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more. The actual is always finite. >>
Notice that he says that “an infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity.” He bases this observation directly on the definition he just gave, namely that ‘infinity’ “means larger than any specific quantity.” Since the actual always exists in some (i.e., specific) quantity, the actual is therefore always finite. He’s not saying that anything here which suggests or implies that consciousness puts some kind of constraint on what can or cannot exist. He cites the “potentiality of indefinite addition or subtraction,” not to prove his point (since it’s not based on this), but to demonstrate it in action: “however many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more,” i.e., finite.
[continued…]
The rest of what you wrote on this topic was uninteresting and irrelevant, since a) your interpretation of Peikoff does not correspond to what he actually argues; b) there’s nothing in what you present (or even what I have found in reality) which cogently suggests that ‘infinity’ as you have defined it denotes something that is actual; and c) the implications of the mathematical axiom that you cited point to the arithmetical aspects of conceptualization, not to an actually existing infinite consciousness in some “transcendent” realm. In fact, the line of reasoning which you have offered seems to be an example of the primacy of consciousness directing epistemology. This would constitute a violation of the razor I cited earlier in our discussion (cf. your affirmation of the primacy of existence with regard to human consciousness).
However, I do think that Christianity espouses the primacy of consciousness with regard to human consciousness. I have already cited Mt. 17:20, where Jesus tells his followers essentially that if they have enough “faith,” a mountain will obey their command to remove itself into the sea. There are many other examples, but this is one that is glaringly obvious.
[continued…]
You wrote: “Dawson, you bloody well do understand the immediate ramification of divine perfection (i.e., the construct of the eternally existent now), and the only reason you will not frankly and openly acknowledge this is because to do so is to admit that your article ‘Divine Lonesomeness’ is a voluminous waste of time and space, and an embarrassingly stupid thesis to boot!”
Actually, Michael, not to hurt your feelings, but I frankly find this whole notion of “the eternally existent now,” given that it is intended to refer to a form of consciousness, completely incomprehensible. I already pointed out that your acknowledgment of Christianity’s assumption of the primacy of consciousness ultimately means that there would be no mind-independent existents for your god to b conscious of in the final analysis. I’m guessing you haven’t really grasped this since you still copy-and-paste sections of your writings which are completely obviated by this point. Indeed, I cannot rationally integrate into my understanding the notion of a consciousness which is outside of time, which is not biological, which has no existential purpose, etc. There are certainly no inputs from reality that I can objectively gather and identify to corroborate such a bizarre and confounding phantasm. Your claim that “The American Revolution is occurring for God right now, as is the creation of the cosmos within which it was fought . . . not merely in His mind, but as actual existents apart from Him” is utterly nonsensical. That many theologians throughout history have had no problem affirming it, does not impress me in the least, nor should it.
Contrary to what you have insinuated, Michael, I’m simply being honest here. Completely so. I suspect that your mind has been marinating on all this “eternally existent now” stuff for so long, that you must think it’s perfectly sensible, beyond legitimate doubt, clear and obvious, self-evident, what have you. Such is the case with a set of imaginations in which one has been confessionally investing himself for a period of years or decades: it all seems so real and natural and immediate; it’s intimately bound up throughout your psychology, providing a mystical backdrop to all your waking experiences like a cancer that has spread throughout your cognition, infecting your entire perspective on the world and disguising the detachment of that perspective from reality as some higher “spiritual” truth which should not be held to mundane standards. It will only be worse if you’ve got years of schooling in all this stuff and/or hold a position in some church community. You’ve invested yourself so much in it that your desire to believe it’s all true has crippled your capacity for objectivity.
As I’ve said, I’m glad these aren’t my problems.
I had many other reactions to what you’ve written, but this will have to suffice for now.
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
You write:
“[Y]ou have one foot on the primacy of existence, and another on the primacy of consciousness. Now, perhaps I should have worded it this way, but I didn’t expect my point to raise your ire as it has.
As for the “sense” of the primacy of existence that you have affirmed, I’m afraid I know of only one sense of the primacy of existence. To affirm the primacy of existence is to affirm its truth as Objectivism informs it. I know of no other meaning or sense to the concept. I grant that you don’t think it applies universally, but this is a question of its application, not its sense as I understand it.”
Indeed. I can clearly see the problem now and understand. My apologies. I spotted this problem earlier and attempted to correct it.
Recall what I wrote:
“On the other hand, I think I see what's throwing Dawson.
Dawson, according to the Bible, God is a Spirit of pure consciousness. That’s His very essence. In terms of identity, He is perfect Love and Truth. Consciousness is not something God has. Truth and love are not things God has. Rather, He is all of these things at once, immutably and indivisibly so. Hence, His volition and his nature are one in the sense that He cannot will anything contrary to His nature; otherwise, He would be or become something He’s not. A is A. Hence, the primacy of divine consciousness over existence inherently applies to Him (the necessary entity that is immutable and indivisible) and absolutely applies to all other things apart from Him (the contingent entities that are mutable and divisible)."
In other instances, I have stated that the God of the Bible is the sustaining essence of all existence and the foundation of all that exists, including Himself. God is in all things in the sense that His will and His word, not only brought the cosmos into existence, but continually maintain its existence. This is the fundamental aspect of His omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience (John 1:3, Romans 11:36, Colossians 1:16-17). Hence, He is eternally and immediately in all places and aware of all things simultaneously as He upholds them with His power, His presence and His knowledge, yet He is “above and beyond” all other things apart from Him as His “center“ of existence resides outside the space-time continuum to which He is in no way, shape or form bound.
Hence, God is the essence of existence. All other existents are utterly subordinate, contingent, dependent. God is an eternal Spirit of pure consciousness, Love and Truth. That is His nature. To say that existence has primacy over existence, while that be true in this case, tells us nothing unless we understand that the former is a Person of consciousness Whose nature has primacy over His will, otherwise a contingent thing, volition, something consciousness has, would have primacy over nature, something consciousness is. A is A, not something other than A.
Moreover, to say that existence exists is to say that something exists, and to say that existence has primacy over our consciousness is to say something we already know. A teller is a knower, not merely a something, but a Someone. Existence, as the Objectivist would have it, is a finite thing that tells things about itself to itself, yet declares itself to have primacy over the only thing that can know and tell more. Obviously, the original, necessary knower and teller of things would have to be infinitely conscious in nature, not mindless, finite or contingent.
Now that observation is the ultimate irreducible primary of things.
Dawson,
Funny, I didn't see any answer to my question in your longwinded answer.
"So, Dawson, is your personal mind/body explanation "entirely consistent" with panpsychism, identity theory, causal substance dualism, or Pekoff's interactionist position? Or, do you offer yet a fifth perfectly consistent theory?"
Whenever you are ready for specifics, Dawson let's see some.
Dawson,
You write: "The point is that even the Christian cannot maintain a wholly consistent affirmation of the primacy of consciousness, even with respect to the god he enshrines in his imagination."
Nonsense. And this is why I pointed out to Rick that consciousness is not something God has as Rick’s earlier statements would appear to have it.
Recall, Rick apparently equated divine consciousness to volition. This was merely a slip of the tongue or reason, I'm sure. It's easy to make these errors. I do it all the time. I just happened to catch that one. I’m quite sure that upon reflection, Rick would agree. That’s why I brought it to his attention. Sometimes it's difficult to think and say things right.
To make an argument against Rick’s slip of the tongue or reason changes nothing. Regardless of it’s source, a stawman is a stawman. And in any event, his refutation of your original argument stands. His slip merely caused you to raise a new objection.
Rick's error doesn’t change what the Bible actually teaches. A is A.
Consciousness and volition are not synonymous. Volition is something God has.
Ultimate existence is divine consciousness, and divine consciousness is ultimate existence. They are synonymous. And consciousness has primacy over existence in the sense that nature has primacy over volition, and the matter is expressed that way because it divulges the identity of ultimate existence.
But grasping this should be easy for you now that you have all the particulars, as Objectivism holds that will and action follow nature too. Right? Ditto, the Bible. It’s not and cannot be the other way around. A is A
That’s why I interceded in your discussion with Rick, and then spoke directly to him on the matter. That’s why I propounded the matter in greater detail in the post just above this one once I saw that it was still not clearly understood.
In this instance, you clearly did not mean to deceive. As I said, I see that now. Obviously, the matter over which I barked at you are more than just related, they’re entwined.
I must say, I feel horrible about my remark, humbled and profoundly sorry. Forgive me.
Nevertheless, it still appears that you are holding out on me on a number of issues, particularly in regard to the construct of the eternally existent now and the distinction between the power of will over substances and the power of primacy over existence. It’s imperative that we get these straight.
Dawson,
You are an exemplar of patience. Rick's stupidity mixed with Michael's mere assertions disguised of scholarship ...
Rick,
Funny, I didn't see any answer to my question in your longwinded answer.
That's because your question was not a proper question, but a fallacy of the loaded question. Dawson attempted to explain to you that he has no reason to answer to a "problem" that does not come from objectivism, but from some misinterpretation/mischaracterization of objectivism coming from that place that you consulted. If you payed attention you would not commit the stupidity of repeating the very question that Dawson told you did not refer to objectivism. Remember that you are charging Dawson with a straw-man fallacy. Why would you then try to get Dawson to answer to a series of straw-man fallacies about objectivism summarized in that question of yours?
Got it? So if you want Dawson to answer something, do as Dawson suggested and consult the actual objectivists, rather than cartoons drawn by some third party. Otherwise you risk appearing to be quite the inept.
Michael,
I wrote: "The point is that even the Christian cannot maintain a wholly consistent affirmation of the primacy of consciousness, even with respect to the god he enshrines in his imagination."
You responded: “Nonsense. And this is why I pointed out to Rick that consciousness is not something God has as Rick’s earlier statements would appear to have it.”
It’s not nonsense, Michael. You just haven’t thought through the implications yet. The inconsistency is present even in the reason you cite here: is it the case that “consciousness is not something God has” is a result of conscious activity – whether volitional or not, whether the consciousness in question is “God” or someone else (the primacy of consciousness), or is it the case that “consciousness is not something God has” obtains independent of any conscious activity? The question is not incoherent, and unwitting admissions like Rick’s cannot be dismissed as mere slips of the tongue (that’s funny!). Questions of this sort are driving at the orientation of the condition you’re describing with respect to consciousness, whether that consciousness is yours as your god’s imaginer, or the god which you imagine. All subject-object relationships are open to inquiry.
Like Rick, although in less explicit manner, you treat the matter as though it obtains independent of anyone’s consciousness– as though “consciousness is not something God has” is the case independent of its own conscious activity, of your conscious activity, of my conscious activity, etc. – that it is a fact about its nature independent of anyone’s conscious activity, even its own. Since it did not create itself (I’m assuming you agree with Rick here), it certainly did not will itself into being, its nature is not a creation of conscious activity (volitional or otherwise) – it is what it is independent of any conscious activity, it is a precondition of any conscious activity, per what you have described. That’s what I’m seeing here, Michael. No position, affirmation, assertion, belief, etc., is exempt from implications with regard to the issue of metaphysical primacy. Objectivists have pointed out for a long time that the primacy of consciousness cannot be consistently maintained. It always secretly borrows from the primacy of existence. The explanation you give does not immunize your view from this.
But this is really only icing on the cake. The damage is already done by your open embracing of the primacy of consciousness to begin with. It’s as pure a form of subjectivism as one could get.
Regards,
Dawson
Michael,
You wrote: “In this instance, you clearly did not mean to deceive. As I said, I see that now. Obviously, the matter over which I barked at you are more than just related, they’re entwined. I must say, I feel horrible about my remark, humbled and profoundly sorry. Forgive me.”
I see. I fear, Michael, that you have a habit of making accusations before you have sufficient basis to do so. I’ve sensed this from the very beginning of our discussion. It gets in your way. It impedes your progress. You say that “it still appears that [I am] holding out on [you] on a number of issues,” and while there’s everything under the sun we could talk about, and so many issues that have come up in our discussion already, I have only so much time, as do you, and I can only address a limited number of things given my practical constraints. Also, to be rather blunt, repeated accusations of deceit and dishonesty when in fact I’ve been trying my best and devoting much time and effort to our discussion to explain certain fundamentals to you and tease out your position on matters that are important to the discussion, suggests some hostility on your part. I gather that you are willing to try to suppress this once it’s pointed out to you, but then it comes back. So I admit I’m discouraged on your behalf.
As for the notion of “the eternally existent now,” I explained in my last round of responses that it is incoherent, particularly because it is packaged with your acontextualized notion of consciousness. It’s as wildly meaningless as the notion of “pure five.” You might call it a “Twilight Zone abruption of crazy.” I really don’t know what else to say beyond that – it sums up the matter for me.
Regards,
Dawson
Photo wrote:
<< You are an exemplar of patience. Rick's stupidity mixed with Michael's mere assertions disguised of scholarship ... >>
Thanks, Photo! I’m glad someone out there appreciates my efforts. It is a labor of love, you know! And look what has transpired! My oh my! I couldn’t have hoped for better outcomes.
And as for your reply to Rick, thank you for that! Very well put.
Like I asked in an earlier comment: what exactly do these people want from me? I suspect even they don’t know. They don’t dare put it into words.
Regards,
Dawson
Michael,
Your problem seems to be that you think that taking a few passages from the Bible (while ignoring everything else), then calling your eisegesis "hermeneutics and exegesis," then expanding it into everything else we humanity have tried and discovered in philosophy and science, thus giving it the meaning some "Theologian" wants it to mean, or you want it to mean, can be called "Christian epistemology" and "Christian theory of concepts," when it is not but unwarranted adaptations of biblical crap into whatever the current human knowledge might be. All in grandiose terms. Mere, again, eisegesis. Giving the texts meanings they do not have.
You would be better off accepting that there is no such thing as Christian epistemology, but rather Biblically "informed" attempts at getting away with deriving a philosophy by adapting whatever the theologian wants to believe, Christian teaching, et cetera, to philosophies and science discoveries.
Since all theologians do is exactly what I have described, there is no such thing as a single, biblical-based set of philosophical Christian principles. It's all adaptations, and thus, they vary from generation to generation as theologians have further and further sources to give themselves excuses to appear intellectual.
This is why all you can give us are your assertions. I am quite sure that you have tried to find something clear and biblical, and all you have found are the biblical excuses followed by flourishing imaginings informed of whatever the philosophies of the times of the theologian(s) in question.
Just for your info, I read around, and, according to a several apologists, you are in contradiction with Van Til about univocal and analogical knowledge. And other theologians had different definitions to Van Til's (for example). So, when you claim to come with Christian orthodoxy shit, what you meant was your personal flavour of Christian orthodoxy shit. So, no, not every orthodox Christian would agree with your crap.
I have little patience towards stupidity. I have even less patience for stupidity that tries so hard to hide behind the pretence of scholarship. Unfortunately for you, despite I was too quick to judge, you proved to be exactly what I thought you were.
"Like I asked in an earlier comment: what exactly do these people want from me? I suspect even they don’t know. They don’t dare put it into words."
Well, for one Dawson, you can finally give us a proof for the reality you claim that's "out there."
How is it that I'm not imagining you, Dawson?
Anyway, the last time I tried this we ended getting into an extremely hilarious conversation. remember?
I wrote: "Like I asked in an earlier comment: what exactly do these people want from me? I suspect even they don’t know. They don’t dare put it into words."
Nide: “Well, for one Dawson, you can finally give us a proof for the reality you claim that's ‘out there’."
We don’t need a proof for this, Nide. Existence exists. Our knowledge of this is axiomatic. As I explained earlier, a proof is the formal process of showing the logical connection between that which is not perceptually self-evident to that which is perceptually self-evident. It’s hard to see how this could be controversial. But I realize it probably is for those whose worldview is choking with stolen concepts.
Nide: “How is it that I'm not imagining you, Dawson?”
I’m supposing you do imagine me: you imagine what I look like, how tall I am, my eye color, hair color, whether or not I have facial hair, curly or straight hair, or perhaps balding, etc. You likely have an impression of what I might look like when you read what I write. The image you have in your mind is imaginary, for you have never seen me. When we read a person’s writings, especially if we read their writings a lot, and the author we read tends to write in his own 'voice', as we all do in comments of this sort, we tend to want to put a face to the author we’re reading. However, I am very real, and my existence is not a product of anyone’s imagination, either yours or the god you imagine. But you may very well be imagining me, in the sense that I’ve described here, when you read my writings. But the image you imagine is most likely way off from what I actually do look like.
Nide: “Anyway, the last time I tried this we ended getting into an extremely hilarious conversation. remember?”
When I think of you, Nide, and hilarity, together, perhaps some of the choicest moments (really, it’s hard to pick) were on the Fundamentally Flawed’s podcast featuring you, from which I transcribed a portion here. Remember?
Seriously, talk about double face-palm!
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
Just what I expected.
First you'll repeat rand's tired and worn out slogan "existence exists"
Then you'll tell me I'm stealing.
Finally, you'll manufacture a little moment for your followers to hopefully laugh while patting yourself on the back.
Yea, Dawson, I've known you all my life. nothing new here.
Stupid is as stupid does, photosynthesis
1. Dawson claims "Objectivism provides for the concept ‘subjective’ is entirely consistent with its metaphysics and epistemology."
2. When twice asked to summarize his theory that defines the mind/body relationship (a fundamental issue regarding subjectivism) with respect to a number of other explanations offered by objectivists, Dawson is apparently unwilling to.
3. Therefore, Dawson, in his apparent unwillingness to clarify his own definitions with respect to the many other inconsistent variants, is underscoring the fact that Objectivism does NOT allow for definitions entirely consistent with its metaphysics and epistemology.
Rick wrote: “1. Dawson claims ‘Objectivism provides for the concept ‘subjective’ is entirely consistent with its metaphysics and epistemology’."
Your snipping skills need refining, Rick. Here’s what I wrote:
<< And the definition which Objectivism provides for the concept ‘subjective’ is entirely consistent with its metaphysics and epistemology >>
Notice that the verb “is” has a subject – namely “the definition” – which your snippet omitted.
Rick wrote: “2. When twice asked to summarize his theory that defines the mind/body relationship (a fundamental issue regarding subjectivism) with respect to a number of other explanations offered by objectivists, Dawson is apparently unwilling to.”
Two things:
First, the fundamental issue regarding subjectivism vs. objectivism is the subject-object relationship, regardless of what one’s theory regarding the mind/body relationship may be. The issue of metaphysical primacy (i.e., the issue concerning the proper nature of the relationship between a subject and its objects) is vastly more fundamental than a theory about the relationship between the mind and the body. They simply aren’t the same.
Second, contrary to what you have stated here, I have been willing to summarize the Objectivist view on the mind/body “problem.” And I did! I stated that the Objectivist view is that consciousness is biological, and I quoted Ayn Rand on the matter:
<< Man is an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and consciousness, and . . . he may permit no breach between body and mind, between action and thought, between his life and his convictions. >>
There is no justification whatsoever, after I’ve addressed your question, for you to now say that I’m “apparently unwilling” to address your question!
And some suggest that I’m as dense as a pile of bricks! Wow!
Rick wrote: “3. Therefore, Dawson, in his apparent unwillingness to clarify his own definitions with respect to the many other inconsistent variants, is underscoring the fact that Objectivism does NOT allow for definitions entirely consistent with its metaphysics and epistemology.”
Here I will refer you to Photo’s comment. He dealt with it very nicely.
I will only add that, in addition to you not going to Objectivist sources themselves to get the Objectivist view that you pretend to be interested in learning more about, it may very well be that the views that have been attributed to the personalities you specified earlier simply are not part of Objectivism.
Regards,
Dawson
Michael,
On 3 Dec., you wrote (quoting an earlier statement of yours): “My understanding is that Objectivism holds that consciousness is the sum of physiological structures and biochemical reactions. Yes?”
I responded: “I would say no. Perhaps you can cite where you got this understanding about what Objectivism holds regarding the nature of consciousness?”
You then stated: “I’m asking, not telling.”
And I responded to the question (“Yes?”). But since you stated that what you described was your understanding, I was wondering where you got it. You have not indicated where you got this understanding, so I’m still curious.
I wrote: “Objectivism holds that man, for instance (an organism possessing the attribute of consciousness), is an indivisible integration of matter and consciousness.”
Michael replied: “Yes, well, why doesn’t ‘the sum of physiological structures and biochemical reactions’ amount to the same thing as an ‘indivisible integration of matter and consciousness’?”
Do you see how you switched the topic here, Michael? In your initial question above, you asked specifically about consciousness. Then when I stated the view that man is an indivisible integration of matter and consciousness, you asked why the characterization you asked about with regard specifically to consciousness does not apply to the entire integration of matter and consciousness which is man.
Please don’t tell me that you don’t see the switch here.
Now go back to what you had stated to me elsewhere: “Whether you know it or not, you are habitually misstating premises or leaving out pertinent details, whereby you make me out to be asserting things I have never asserted.”
I’m sure this was an innocent mistake. I’m willing to grant that possibility and assume that’s precisely what it was. You’re human just as I am, and with the growing volume of our discourse, the opportunity for such mistakes also grows. But I have to say, I’m reminded of the question which Mt. 7:3 puts into Jesus’ mouth: “why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
As you wrote on 25 Nov., “This is my touché.”
Regards,
Dawson
Michael,
>I pointed out to Rick that consciousness is not something God has as Rick’s earlier statements would appear to have it.
- That's a good point to clarify.
>Consciousness and volition are not synonymous. Volition is something God has.
Yes, and as you've pointed out, God's consciousness, God's volition and God's nature are all unique aspects of God's eternal existence.
The question of primacy for God is somewhat analogous to the human condition in that humans also have an individual conscience, volition, and nature.
You stated, "will and action follow nature." which also alludes to boundaries and primacy, e.g., "God cannot lie - God is love"
A Venn diagram might be helpful at some point to help visualize the nature of God's attributes.
>And consciousness has primacy over existence in the sense that nature has primacy over volition,
I think we need to be careful of jumping the gun in assuming primacy where there may not be any. Consider that God's volition is in perfect harmony with his nature and then there may not be a question of primacy.
I know I tend to think in human terms and so I am prone to make mistakes regarding this subject. If there was a contest between God's will and God's nature then there would be an aspect of primacy, but because there is apparently no contest, there is no such aspect. When we read, "God cannot lie" it sounds as though God may try to do so, but I don't think that's an issue. It seems there may be no contest between primacy of existence or primacy consciousness in God.
>There is no justification whatsoever, after I’ve addressed your question, for you to now say that I’m “apparently unwilling” to address your question!
- Dare I attempt to translate the obtuse Dawsonspeak of the last reply into an answer that actually addresses the specifics my question? Let's have a go at it:
Dawson Bethrick does not agree with other explanations by noted objectivists regarding the mind/body relationship, such as panpsychism, identity theory, causal substance dualism, or Pekoff's interactionist position. Dawson does not wish to label his personal philosophical position on the subject, rather, Dawson simply wishes to offer an Ayn Rand quote as his own answer.
I was a little concerned that Dawson might attempt to seek out a more sure philosophical footing than popping off an old Ayn Rand quote in order to try justify his beliefs. But, no worries.
So, here is the noted Rand bald faced assertion:
"Man is an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and consciousness, and . . . he may permit no breach between body and mind, between action and thought, between his life and his convictions."
No actual logic or reasoning here, just an assertion. But why settle for this quote, Dawson, why not another Rand quote on the same subject? How about this one:
"Just as there can be no dichotomy between mind and body, so there can be none between the true and the good. Even in regard to metaphysically given facts, cognition and evaluation cannot be sundered. Cognition apart from evaluation is purposeless; it becomes the arbitrary desire for “pure knowledge” as an end in itself. Evaluation apart from cognition is non-objective; it becomes the whim of pursuing an “I wish” not based on any “It is.”
Rand is quite wrong. The differences between true and good are in no way similar to the differences between mind and body. Rand again is simply offering a bald assertion - which is a logical fallacy.
The mind is not the brain and has no known substance. It is not quantifiable as the body is. Truth and goodness do not offer these types of contrasts in any way. As a comparison and juxtaposition it is a terrible misfit.
If Rand is so sloppy in her attempts to address important foundational issues, such as her evaluation of mind / body duality, why should we accept these types of sloppy bald faced assertions as true metaphysical conditions? And why should we pretend there there is "metaphysical consistency" within objectivism when people such as Dawson pretend such definitions imply objectivism offers a solid and cohesive metaphysical argument?
Rick: “Dawson Bethrick does not agree with other explanations by noted objectivists regarding the mind/body relationship, such as panpsychism, identity theory, causal substance dualism, or Pekoff's interactionist position. Dawson does not wish to label his personal philosophical position on the subject, rather, Dawson simply wishes to offer an Ayn Rand quote as his own answer.”
Rick, this has already been explained to you. You are getting your information from a filter that is known for its hostility to Objectivism. You are not getting it directly from their original sources, and even then you’re only giving labels for positions without any details concerning their content. Then you’re asking me to comment on them. Why?
If a “label” is all your interested in, the Objectivist view can be called mind-body integration. But I’m guessing this won’t satisfy you, since you’ve been summarily defeated in this discussion, and you’re after pay-back. You won’t succeed at this. All you end up doing is continuing to make yourself look silly, petty and vindictive. It is not the behavior of a rational adult.
Rick: “I was a little concerned that Dawson might attempt to seek out a more sure philosophical footing than popping off an old Ayn Rand quote in order to try justify his beliefs. But, no worries.”
You asked an Objectivist what Objectivism teaches on a certain topic. Why wouldn’t I cite Ayn Rand? And if there are “no worries,” why do you continue to harp on the topic?
Rick gave his reaction to the quote I cited from Rand: “No actual logic or reasoning here, just an assertion.”
Notice in Rick’s evaluation, there’s no logic or reasoning here, just a series of bald assertions.
Then he asks a question, which is not a substitute for an argument: “But why settle for this quote, Dawson, why not another Rand quote on the same subject?”
The answer to this is easy: the quote I cited from Rand speaks directly to your earlier question.
In response to the alternative quote that Rick went and found, he wrote: “Rand is quite wrong.”
Here’s another Rick Warden bald assertion.
Rick: “The differences between true and good are in no way similar to the differences between mind and body.”
And here we have yet another Rick Warden bald assertion.
And yet another: “Rand again is simply offering a bald assertion - which is a logical fallacy.”
Rick, if “simply offering a bald assertion… is a logical fallacy,” then the Christian bible is one very long string of logical fallacies, from its very first verse in Genesis to the very last verse in the Book of Revelation. That’s all your religion gives us. And now you’re excoriating other systems for allegedly resting on bald assertions? You’re too much, Rick!
Rick wrote: “The mind is not the brain and has no known substance.”
Okay, another bald assertion. But consider: if it’s the case that “the mind… has no known substance,” then when Christians refer to their god as a mind which is also a “substance,” they’re referring to the unknown. It thus answers nothing. Good grief, man, do you guys ever stop hanging yourselves with your bald assertions?
Rick: “It is not quantifiable as the body is.”
Another bald assertion. Are you saying that the mind is inherently unquantifiable, or are you simply saying that *you* yourself do not know of any way to quantify it? There’s a big difference here, but you don’t indicate either way here.
Rick: “Truth and goodness do not offer these types of contrasts in any way.”
Another bald assertion. No logic or reasoning here. Just vacuous assertion. As is the rest of what you write.
Regards,
Dawson
Rick,
- Dare I attempt to translate the obtuse Dawsonspeak of the last reply into an answer that actually addresses the specifics my question? Let's have a go at it:
Drumroll ...
Dawson Bethrick does not agree with other explanations by noted objectivists regarding the mind/body relationship ...
Oh shit Rick. No, no, and no. How many times do you need to have something explained? Here I go:
Dawson does not agree with your mischaracterizing source about what other objectivists propose, but would rather ask you to go and check what objectivists actually think, directly, rather than insist with what your your source, which is anti-objectivist, has deformed from the originals. Got it?
You said that stupid is as stupid does ... well, you do the part quite well. Yes, you imbecile. It's been: 1. explained by Dawson, 2. explained by myself, 3. Dawson referred you to my explanation with a little addition, 4. Dawson tells you that this was already explained to you, yet repeats/rephrases the explanation, 5. my explanation right here. Five times Rick! How mentally challenged are you really?
Rick,
"I think we need to be careful of jumping the gun in assuming primacy where there may not be any. Consider that God's volition is in perfect harmony with his nature and then there may not be a question of primacy."
But I’m not jumping the gun, Rick. I am being careful. Very careful and precise. As I wrote in the above, God's will and His nature are one. The observation regarding the primacy of nature, which includes the fact that His nature is pure spiritual consciousness, goes to the reason they are necessarily and unmistakably one, united, indivisible. In other words, there cannot be any division in God because of His nature, because of What and Who He is. Considered in isolation, volition tells us nothing to that effect, while the nature of perfect divinity does. Nature goes to identity. Volition, ultimately, goes to action. Volition “follows” nature in the sense that nature has definitive precedence (priority) over volition. That is, define one's nature and you define one's will.
There’s no suggestion of a contest here. There’s no suggestion that God can be tempted. On the contrary, the suggestion of a contest only arises if one somehow or another puts volition, something God has, on the same footing as divine consciousness, something God is. That’s all. Ultimate existence is divine consciousness; divine consciousness is ultimate existence. They’re synonymous. Again, there’s no division.
Hence, for the Christian to say that consciousness has primacy over existence is to say that the consciousness that has primacy is perfect divinity and nothing other. Identity. Understanding this is the key to recognizing the essence of Paul’s observation in Romans 1:18-28 and, for example, the fallacy that is Objectivism. Indeed, it is the key to recognizing why any univocal system of thought is antithetical to objectivity, ultimately subjective and relativistic. Objectivity is analogical, as the analogical subsumes the univocal.
Saying that existence exits or that existence has primacy over consciousness is to tell us something we already know. The Objectivist imagines that his second claim applies to consciousness itself.
Let me state that another way.
To say that existence exists is to say that something exists.
The immediate question that arises: what is this something that exists?
The revelation of this question: our consciousness doesn’t have primacy over existence, otherwise we wouldn’t have to ask the question. Where does the Objectivist get the idea that existence has primacy over consciousness?
1. Existence has primacy over our consciousness.
2. Existence has primacy over consciousness.
[Continued . . .]
These are not the same propositions at all. The latter is not contained in the inherent imperative of the original question. It’s a gratuitous insertion unwittingly perpetrated by a finite consciousness in spite of existence. It didn’t “hear” that. It tells itself that. Once again, a univocal existence cannot tell us anything we don’t already know; we would necessarily have to be the tellers in that case. But that’s absurd as this would violate the imperative that is proposition one.
God is talking to us all the time. God is talking to Dawson when He tells him that the only thing that may be extrapolated from the question’s inherent imperative is the first proposition. The second is an illusion.
Passive entities don’t know or say anything. Persons do. Since I don’t have primacy over existence and a univocal existence cannot know or tell me anything about itself, what is this existence that has primacy?
It’s consciousness. It’s a Person.
God is talking to us all the time. Dawson only listens to himself.
END.
Hi Michael,
I'm still trying to digest your previous response to me. It has sent me on a quest to learn more about these terms: univocal, analogical, and equivocal, as they pertain to the matters at hand.
Given that my current level of understanding is as deficient as it is with respect to these terms, I realize my questions run the risk of being incoherent. However, I'm hoping that in asking them, your answers (no matter what they may be) will shed further light on this issue, for me.
Here's what you wrote above: "Indeed, it is the key to recognizing why any univocal system of thought is antithetical to objectivity, ultimately subjective and relativistic."
And then you continued with: "Objectivity is analogical, as the analogical subsumes the univocal."
How would you characterize each of these statements themselves? Are they both univocal or are they both analogical? Or is one univocal and the other analogical? Or are such terms inapplicable to your statements?
Like I said, my current level of understanding is deficient, and this particular inquiry of mine is only intended to close that gap.
If you tell me my questions make no sense, then so be it -- for that too will be a step toward closing that gap, as I learn why this might be the case.
Ydemoc
Dawson raised a very good point about the Christian's inability to maintain a consistent affirmation of the primacy of consciousness back on the 4th.
It’s not nonsense, Michael. You just haven’t thought through the implications yet. The inconsistency is present even in the reason you cite here: is it the case that “consciousness is not something God has” is a result of conscious activity – whether volitional or not, whether the consciousness in question is “God” or someone else (the primacy of consciousness), or is it the case that “consciousness is not something God has” obtains independent of any conscious activity? The question is not incoherent, and unwitting admissions like Rick’s cannot be dismissed as mere slips of the tongue (that’s funny!). Questions of this sort are driving at the orientation of the condition you’re describing with respect to consciousness, whether that consciousness is yours as your god’s imaginer, or the god which you imagine. All subject-object relationships are open to inquiry.
Like Rick, although in less explicit manner, you treat the matter as though it obtains independent of anyone’s consciousness– as though “consciousness is not something God has” is the case independent of its own conscious activity, of your conscious activity, of my conscious activity, etc. – that it is a fact about its nature independent of anyone’s conscious activity, even its own. Since it did not create itself (I’m assuming you agree with Rick here), it certainly did not will itself into being, its nature is not a creation of conscious activity (volitional or otherwise) – it is what it is independent of any conscious activity, it is a precondition of any conscious activity, per what you have described. That’s what I’m seeing here, Michael. No position, affirmation, assertion, belief, etc., is exempt from implications with regard to the issue of metaphysical primacy. Objectivists have pointed out for a long time that the primacy of consciousness cannot be consistently maintained. It always secretly borrows from the primacy of existence. The explanation you give does not immunize your view from this.
Did you miss this originally or were you hoping we wouldn't notice you dodge the issue?
Michael,
"God is talking to us all the time"
Any good news from the fort lately?(smiling)
Don't mind ydemoc he's usually clueless.
So, what's up, Mich?
Ydemoc,
You have to find both, analogical and univocal together with "knowledge" and in relation to Christian BullShitters (CBS: synonym to theologians and apologists). They do not include equivocal. The trio has something to do with philosophy in general, but not with Christianity in particular.
Analogical, per Van Til is the classic pressupo canard "thinking God's thoughts after him." With Van Til "univocal" is the way "God" thinks (independently). I found that other CBS had different definitions for these, but no clear explanation. Since this ass-hole named Michael says that we think "univocally" he might have something different in mind. So far he just won't define his terms, despite apologists from different schools would disagree on their meaning (so much for "orthodox").
See ya.
Ydemoc,
Sorry, I just found that Christians also use the equivocal word. Also with their own special meaning (depending on the CBS).
The crap is a no-starter.
Good job photo. looks like your all caught up on your van til.
Photo,
Thanks for that information. With my limited knowledge on this particular matter, it certainly helps increase my understanding of what's really going on with such terms.
Ydemoc
freddies_dead,
You write: "Dawson raised a very good point about the Christian's inability to maintain a consistent affirmation of the primacy of consciousness back on the 4th."
LOL!
You continue: "Did you miss this originally or were you hoping we wouldn't notice you dodge the issue?"
LOL!
Richard, are you seeing this?
freddies_dead, Dawson is not arguing against the construct of perfect divinity. He's arguing against his very own premise. And it just flies right over your head.
Imbeciles.
photosynthesis,
I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know; that is, I’m not telling you anything you can’t see for yourself. The construct of divine perfection does not contingently rest on revealed religion in any way, shape or form. The problem of existence and, therefore, the construct of divine perfection is objectively self-evident to all. In other words, the idea of God objectively exists in and of itself; it imposes itself on our minds without our willing that it do so. It’s axiomatic. It resides at the base of knowledge, and the atheist proves this every time he opens his yap to deny that there be any actuality behind it.
In his stupid argument against theism (“Divine Lonesomeness”), Dawson necessarily acknowledges that the idea of God refers to a Being Who existed prior to all other existents as the Creator of all other existents apart from Him, WHICH OBVIOUSLY INCLUDES THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM! Hence, the constraints of the latter do not apply to the Being of the idea that Dawson necessarily holds—albeit, initially, as one utterly unaware of the implications, now fully aware of them and lying to us all about the matter—as the premise of his very own argument. In other words, Dawson simultaneously argues the eternally existent now and argues against it, proving it’s cogency as encompassed by the construct of divine perfection.
Dawson, the nincompoop of nincompoops is arguing that the idea of a self-subsistent Creator Who resides outside and independently of the space-time continuum is irrational because this idea of a self-subsistent Creator Who resides outside and independently of the space-time continuum would not have an actually existent object to apprehend apart from Himself in His timeless existence because He doesn’t reside outside and independently of the space-time continuum! The Twilight-Zone abruption, the hocus-pocus, as it were, the bait-and-switch slight of hand of his premise flies right over your head, photosynthesis. And of course the reason it flies over head is because your head is not where it’s supposed be. . . .
It’s not the idea of God that’s inherently contradictory; it’s Dawson’s bunkum.
[Continued . . .]
Moreover, the immediate ramification of the problem of origin consists of two inescapable alternatives:
Let's not spend too much time here rehashing the impotency of the atheist's bland assertions in the face of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin, as the atheist, whether he realizes it or not, necessarily acknowledges these imperatives in his denial. The idea of God is not a figment of human culture. It resides "at the base of knowledge", for the idea that something can arise from nothing (that existence can arise from nonexistence) is inconceivable. . . .
. . . This impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) matter has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a being who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent.
That does not mean, however, that this objectively apparent impression constitutes a proof for either alternative. It demonstrates that it's at the base of knowledge, that it's derived from reason, not faith.
I have no interest in proving God's existence to anyone, just in demonstrating the absurdities that arise from the denial of the possibility, which, incidentally, do not plague the unqualified conclusion that God must be, whatsoever. The reason for this is self-evident: the idea of God pertains to the origin of matter, not to its nonexistence, while the unqualified denial of God's existence detours around an inescapable imperative: the undeniable possibility. The former stems from larger considerations that do not interrupt the natural course of logic; the latter is akin to the blind devotion of religious fanaticism (“Objectivism: The Uninspired Religion of Reason”, Michael David Rawlings).
The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied out right. It cannot be done! Any such argument will always entail an inherent, self-negating contradiction! Contrary to their syphilitic delusions, Objectivists have not reinvented the wheel.
Oh, that’s right, photosynthesis, you’re not an Objectivist. You just mindlessly follow one.
Now precisely where did I have to appeal to scripture at any point during the exposition of these self-evident, inescapable commands of logic?
My scriptural citations were not shared on this blog to demonstrate anything in the above; rather, they were shared to demonstrate that the metaphysics of Judeo-Christianity expounds a Deity of the same nature and of the same attributes as the universally apprehended construct of divine perfection. So when you implied in the above that the biblical affirmations cited by me had no bearing or claim whatsoever on the realm of objectively apparent ideas beyond personal belief, you were stupidly and thoughtlessly wrong, weren’t you?
[Continued ...]
So Judeo-Christianity has no epistemology, eh? Well, one thing’s for sure, unlike Judeo-Christianity, no atheistic system of thought can point to a rationally coherent foundation for its epistemology.
Indeed, what we now have here is Judeo-Christianity’s declaration that (1) existence exists, (2) consciousness exists (3), consciousness apprehends the essence of identity (Self-other, Subject-object) as comprehensively expressed in the three classic laws of logic (4) relative to the axiomatic problem of existence which (5) encompasses the objectively inescapable alternatives of origin: inanimateness or consciousness. And unlike the former, the latter can be positively asserted without violating the laws of logic. Hence, Judeo-Christianity’s epistemology, from percept to abstraction, continuously flows without interruption from a foundation that rests on the firma of some of reality’s most significant imperatives, which are objectively and universally apparent to all. Moreover, because the Bible asserts a two-fold revelation from God, it asserts a rational-empirical construct of epistemology of an analogical complexion and is, therefore indisputably objective in nature, subject to the scrutiny and rigors of historical and scientific verification.
Beyond the individually unique experiences of its adherent’s encounters with God, Judeo-Christianity is in no way, shape or form a subjective system of thought.
Now as for your other stupidity regarding scripture. . . .
You write: "Your problem seems to be that you think that taking a few passages from the Bible (while ignoring everything else). . . ."
I thought no such thing. I’ve been propounding self-evident universals and merely comparing them to what scripture says about them. You’re just making things up as you go along because you cannot refute the universals. You and Dawson are simply pretending not to see them. You guys are the only intellectual minimalists around here.
What is the substance of this "everything else" you claim I'm ignoring? Let’s put aside the fact that I have given you considerably more than just “a few passages”, by the way, that you are unwittingly acknowledging the cogency of those passages relative to my observations as the basis of your allegation and that you apparently learned nothing from the drubbing I gave Dawson when he uttered this very same stupidity: you’re implying that scripture teaches something different in this “everything else” of yours.
Prove it!
All you’re really saying throughout your post is that you’re not going to believe or accept anything I show you. Period. You’re not going to think about anything I show you. Period. And at the same time, you’re not going to provide any substance—either in terms of objectively ascertainable argumentation or biblical scholarship—to back up your monkey that sees nothing, hears nothing and says nothing but the most embarrassingly stupid things.
This is essentially the same nothingness you popped off with last time. You were handed your backside then, it’s been kicked to curb now. Do you have 911 on your speed dial?
If and when you come up with something more substantial than this monkey business, let me know.
END.
DAWSON,
We all know photosynthesis is a dull light bulb. But you? My earlier Twilight-Zone-Moment statements directed at you stand. I see that you intend to play games from here on out, rattling off incoherent discourses intended to obscure logical errors exposed by Rick and me, pretending not to understand the nature of the very same things on which you had previously prefaced your own arguments, you know, the arguments in which you had initially failed to appreciate the nature of certain things.
If you don’t wish to accept my apology over the nature of what was in fact and remains your misunderstanding, fine. But don’t try to use my apology to obscure or justify your confusion on that and many other matters.
Until you show me otherwise, I have no reason to believe that you haven’t been disingenuous. All of your arguments against the existence of God, for example, amount to you obviating your conclusions with the nonsense that God is B when in fact divine perfection is A!
Fine. Have it your way. Let’s say that it’s not dishonesty. Let’s call it what it must be if not dishonesty: namely, stupidity.
1. First you argue that God cannot have an actually existent object by imagining Him to be an entity trapped inside the space-time continuum, obviating your conclusion. Rather, you began by arguing that He is not trapped inside the continuum and then shift your premise to the other without notice. When you’re shown that your god, your B, could not possibly be what is conceptually understood in the history of philosophical and theological proofs to be an entity of divine perfection existing outside the space-time continuum, you respond as if you don’t understand.
Fine. You‘re not a liar, you‘re stupid!
2. When you are shown that the limitations of finite consciousness (your god, your B, in fact, yourself nancing about and spouting stupidities) are categorically distinct things from the issues of identity and actuality; when you’re shown that infinity is a definitive, axiomatic, mathematical principle of necessity: you respond as if you don’t understand!
Fine. You‘re not a liar, you‘re stupid!
3. When you are shown that your god, your B, is bound by volition rather than nature and, therefore, that the construct of perfect divinity could not possibly or logically be this strawman of yours, you respond as if you don’t understand!
Fine. You‘re not a liar, you‘re stupid!
4. When you are shown—what was, in fact, self-evident all along, i.e., that ultimate existence relative to divine perfection (A!) necessarily is divine consciousness, that the two are one and the same thing—you still defend the following claptrap of B as if you didn’t understand:
“[Y]ou have one foot on the primacy of existence, and another on the primacy of consciousness. Now, perhaps I should have worded it this way, but I didn’t expect my point to raise your ire as it has.”
No. You shouldn’t have uttered this stupidity at all. But I offered you an olive branch, an opportunity to recant unsustainable arguments due to your failure to grasp this particular aspect of the problem and to do so with dignity. Instead, you respond with more of the same idiocy and have the temerity to make me out to be the bad guy, the one who doesn‘t get it. LOL! You are beyond my ire. It’s my contempt with which I regard you now.
[Continued . . .]
The only things being imagined around here are the result of your obvious violations of logic and common sense. None of these things have to do with an appeal to scripture, you drooling idiot. The implications of divine perfection are centuries-old, universally, imperatively, objectively, self-evident proofs. Axioms! And you necessarily demonstrate that fact every time you open your pie hole and pretend—oops!—rather, stupidly argue that A is a B trapped inside the space-time continuum!
Ultimately, all of your arguments are premised on that stupidity. Obviously, the concept denoted by the referent God—Creator, Origin, First Cause, Unmoved Mover—is not a creature of the space-time continuum. The concept refers to a necessary, eternally existent entity that is the Author of the space-time continuum.
Moron! Dimwit! Braying jackass! LIAR! (Oops! Sorry. Slip of the tongue.) Retard. Meathead. Dolt. Idiot. Oaf. Simpleton.
I don’t need to cite scripture to expose your asinine drivel. Your stupidity, rather, your dishon . . . (oops! never mind) is self-evident. The scripture cited merely shows that the God depicted by the Bible is the A of the historically understood concept, not your inexorably addled B.
And I don’t need scripture to expose your stupidity (?) when you fail to grasp that the definition for the power of will over substances goes to nothing more exotic than what humans do everyday when they make plastics out of oil, you nincompoop!
I would say that you’re not telling the truth about objectively obvious propositional proofs, but then that would be to suggest that you are a liar, indeed an habitual liar, something akin to a sociopath, but, of course, that can’t be the case as you say, so clearly your confusion is due to stupidity raised to the infinite power.
The only persons you’re fooling with this crap of yours are the likes of photosynthesis.
The objectivity of the Objectivist. *pfff* What a crock.
And your mindless bloviation about how consciousness, which would necessarily be finite according to Objectivism, might have always existed or how the matter, as presented by you, could not be determined either way, is utterly overthrown by the centuries-old philosophical-theological imperatives: the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin. Clearly, the ramifications of these objectively apparent challenges have never occurred to you either. But what difference would it make, for as soon as you grasped them, you would merely pretend, once again, not to understand. . . .
END.
"Richard, are you seeing this?"
Yea and I like what I see
However, I am really enjoying how lost Ydemoc is.
"Moron! Dimwit! Braying jackass! LIAR! (Oops! Sorry. Slip of the tongue.) Retard. Meathead. Dolt. Idiot. Oaf. Simpleton."
Yea, That sounds like Ydemoc to me.
Mich,
These fellows haven't been reflecting. They need to search their souls.
Where the soul is, there you will find God.
Blessings.
Dear Michael,
It would help you if you tried to keep your comments for me, ahem, for me, rather than mix and match with whatever you think I might have in common with Dawson. That, if you want to be understood.
Did the truth hurt? Well, I was honestly trying to help you. I am pretty sure that you know that my description of the process is spot on. That what you call "Judeo-Christian" whatever, is adaptations of other philosophies to try and develop a "Judeo-Christian" one while attempting to make the Bible the centre of it all. Remember that it is you who says such stupid and infantile comments like "LOL, of course Christianity has a theory of concepts!"
But you gave me a lot of "proof" about it. Your comment about Christian epistemology steals from all kinds f other philosophies, and your list starts with steals from objectivism and classic [Greek] philosophy. So, far from being "Christian declarations." Thanks for doing the job you wanted me to do.
I hope you have 911 in your speed dial. You are hurting yourself badly.
...
Michael,
So Judeo-Christianity has no epistemology, eh? Well, one thing’s for sure, unlike Judeo-Christianity, no atheistic system of thought can point to a rationally coherent foundation for its epistemology.
Ironically stated just to follow with a list of philosophical stances stolen from objectivism, which, last time I saw, was inherently atheistic. Ironically using also philosophies that predate Judeo-Christianity.
Calling 911 yet?
...
Michael,
But I know that the reason you are so angry is because you noticed that my comment about how "Judeo-Christian" "philosophies" are developed are spot on. You know so because you have studied them, haven't you? You have read and witnessed, for example, how Van Til takes one passage from the Bible and grows it into realms it was not really intended to go, haven't you? But, because you think that this book of stories is "divinely inspired" you let it go because if it's divinely inspired you assume that those realms were actually intended. Well, that's eisegesis for you Michael.
You're welcome.
...
DAWSON
I must admit, this is rather frustrating to read, Michael, especially considering all the patience, time and energy I’ve devoted to this discussion. I have asked you, in some cases repeatedly, on several occasions throughout the discussion, numerous questions aimed at helping me understand statements of yours and the positions you’ve affirmed, many of which you’ve affirmed without explanation or at best with a fog of vague ambiguities that disintegrate into meaningless jargon. —Dawson
Sorry, Dawson, I can't help you with your stupidity, much less your psychopathy.
I’m afraid I don’t see how any of these notions have any bearing on my argument. —Dawson
I must agree. Neither do I, i.e., not in any direct sense in regard to the revised version of your argument. And something seems to be missing from mine too. Hmm. Let's see. You mentioned consciousness in terms of substantive nature. Check! You mentioned Love and Truth in terms of identity. Check! Ah! I see the problem. You left out the attributes of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience (you know, the part that does address your original argument directly . . . before you changed it along with mine) because once those are included, we have the A that exposes your stawman. B
How did that happen?
LIAR.
Is this meant to imply that an actual number could be infinite for an “infinite consciousness”? —Dawson
Why are you asking me? The substance being divided is finite, not infinite. And the God of your very own premise in “Divine Lonesomeness” is infinite, uh, before you switched it to the finite. Of course, the peanut gallery is clueless, my point flying right over their heads. But you get it.
LIAR.
Indeed, I really have no idea what an “infinite consciousness” could be. —Dawson
Really? Now, were you suffering from this bout of amnesia before or after you premised your argument on it in “Divine Lonesomeness”? that is, before you switched your premise in your futile attempt to make your argument work, a bit subterfuge that evinces a very good understanding of the distinction between them and, thus, their respective identities.
LIAR.
It is literally and utterly nonsensical. —Dawson
Right. And Aristotle and Moses were buffoons. But tell me something, genius, since you don’t grasp the axiomatic, mathematical necessity of infinity (you know, the pertinent imperative you left out of my argument), how did you refute the A of divine perfection? Are you saying you don’t grasp the mathematical axiom and so that’s why you left it out? Or are you imply that you do get it, but need not directly refute it?
Oh, the tangled webs we weave. . . .
I’m not sure I follow. Again, suppose that I’m dense as a pile of bricks here. You seem to be saying that our ability (in this realm) to divide a divisible entity without end. . . . —Dawson
Our ability? Who said anything about our ability in this regard? The obvious meaning of the phrase “something that can divide the divisible without end” is that we, you and I, can’t! which makes all the difference in the world. Oh, you followed that alright as your misrepresentation is the very essence of your evasion. “Dense as a pile of bricks”? Did I say that? I misspoke. Let me revise that.
Liar. Punk. Whore. Snake. Coward. Sociopath.
No need to go on . . . the rest of your posts are more of same without end.
Ydemoc,
"Objectivity is analogical, as the analogical subsumes the univocal" (Rawlings).
Grammatically, it's a univocal expression, as are all literal expressions. Conceptually, it's strictly analogical, as the truth of it cannot be grasped from a univocal perspective. And the distinction I just made is analogical too.
Hope that helps.
Michael,
And, since I am having so much fun, let me explain a few things to you.
Let's not spend too much time here rehashing the impotency of the atheist's bland assertions in the face of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin, as the atheist, whether he realizes it or not, necessarily acknowledges these imperatives in his denial.
Good that you rather not rehash atheist's "bland" assertions. Lest we discover the roots of your mischaracterizations. How many unwarranted premises in this art Michael? What infinite regression? Who denies what? When?
The idea of God is not a figment of human culture.
Oh, yes it is. We have witnessed volcanoes and thunder become gods in the minds of primitive cultures, we have witnessed those cultures offering sacrifices to these gods to the point of offering bloody sacrifices, because what could be more valuable than our food and our lives? Then those bloody gods becoming a single god, then an all "benevolent" god who still needs a bloody sacrifice to be appeased. To forgive our sins. A god that wants human blood, then lamb blood, then divine blood. Gods are mere anthropomorphisms. Things that have needs, sacrifices that provide for such needs. That this undeniable fact eludes you is beyond comprehension.
It resides "at the base of knowledge",
Nope, it resides at the base of fear of the unknown, of the uncontrollable.
for the idea that something can arise from nothing (that existence can arise from nonexistence) is inconceivable. . . .
Who has such an idea Michael? It's inconceivable to whom? Obviously if somebody has such an idea, then it is not unconceivable. Aren't you mistaking scientists with atheists? Aren't you mistaking some hot branches of science still under hot debate with atheism? Don't you know that there's atheists in all kinds of endeavours?
. . . This impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) matter has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a being who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent.
Where from this false dichotomy Michael? Why just matter? Why not anti-matter? Energy? Quantum fluctuations? Why "always"? What if there is timelessness? How do you deal with such "unconceivable" state of affairs that time might not be always there, that it might depend on how fast we move? Where do you get the second unique "conscious" being if not as a post-rationalization of your beliefs? With all those characteristics: "necessarily transcendent being of unlimited genius and power" What about a non-trascendent being of unlimited stupidity but huge power? There's many combinations. What about one stupid "sparking" the universe by accident? What about many beings rather than one? What about one who dies at creating the whole thing? Hey, since it's up to imagination, then we can propose all kinds of beings, no? By your own standards denying their possibility would be irrational. By your own standards all these are derived from "reason," not faith.
If all this goes above your head it is because you don't have it where it should be.
There you have it. Your own stupidity in grand display. Enjoy it.
You're welcome again.
Richard,
Michael,
"God is talking to us all the time"
Any good news from the fort lately?(smiling)
Don't mind ydemoc he's usually clueless.
So, what's up, Mich?
_____________________
It's always good news.
I suspect Ydemoc is disappointed that Dawson's earlier characterization of my distinction between the analogical and the univocal didn't pan out, i.e., that I was talking about something entirely different from the beginning.
Ydemoc's a little coy, ain't he? LOL!
What's up? Well, I just dropped in to box some heads.
Atheists really are notoriously bad thinkers, you know, and dishonest too boot. After all, atheism is a form of psychopathy. And what should one make of a person who incessantly changes his and other’s arguments when caught out? A normal person would abandon such a woefully craven system of thought, but not our Dawson. His depravity knows no bounds!
Dawson apparently thinks his song and dance is something I've never seen before. I too was being coy when I earlier said that I’d never seen anything quite like Dawson’s stupidity before. LOL!
And we were getting along so well for awhile. LOL!
photo,
Why are you asking me about the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin, punk?
And worse, commenting on them as if you knew what I was I talking about. LOL!
These are famous philosophical and theological imperatives. Look 'em up, you disingenuous little snail.
Then explain to us how the atheist overcomes them.
That would be a hoot.
You're dismissed.
Michael,
Yea, Ydemoc adores Dawson.
Thanks for making his day last week. I bet he really enjoyed seeing his heroes behind.
By the way, what do you think about the TAG,
Have you ever read or listened to anything by Greg Bahnsen?
Michael,
What about you read the whole thing ass-hole? I know that those terms are "theological" bullshit. This is why I pointed them back at you. Because you started with unstated atheists "bland assertions" and connected them to your own theological/apologetic bullshit. So, why and how would I answer to your "bland assertions" if they are so charged with unargued premises? Would you rather have me put words in your mouth?
How atheism overcomes what? Problems created by your belief system? Not my problems. Again, read the whole thing ass-hole. If you can't read and understand something so simple, how can you even pretend that you read what Dawson wrote to you? How you hypocrite?
I hope you had some lubricant handy before I put your bullshit back into your ass.
Be dismissed. Unless you enjoy the feeling of your crap going back where it came from.
photo,
You imbecile, there's nothing new about the fundamental observations in the history of philosophy or theology regarding the existents of existence and consciousness. Are you stupid or something? How could that be? Duh! Name two things you woke up to this morning.
I'm using Objectivist terms, albeit, in relation to Judeo-Christianity's take on things . . . mockingly! . . . you slow slope. I AM that I AM is the existence of Christianity! And the Consciousness thereof is One and Same.
Moreover, long before Objectivism fouled the air we breath, Moses and Daniel and Plato and Aristotle and Paul and Augustine and Aquinas and Descartes and Berkeley . . . made the very same observations, albeit, not in any blind, deaf, dumb or dunderheaded, univocal sense.
Moreover, Objectivism is Aristotelianism without the genius, Aristotle’s retarded cousin.
You don’t fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect, but that’s not your real problem, for what are my musings next to God’s. Your problem is one of integrity.
Now you're dismissed.
Have you ever read or listened to anything by Greg Bahnsen?
Of course he has Richard. Haven't you read what this ass-hole wrote? He made "TAG" several times. Just asserted them "casually" here and there.
Michael,
you slow slope. I AM that I AM is the existence of Christianity
Oh, finally. I was waiting for this one Michael. The post-rationalization of these words. the going into realms they were not really intended to go. What's the context of this shit Michael? What's happening in exodus 3? What's thus the meaning? Why then make it into "existence exist"? Because you rather try and make it look as a philosophical stance, rather than a god who is just saying that it is obvious who he is. So, again, resting on the shoulders of philosophers, searching for some words that might look like the law of identity, and there you go. Instant Judeo-Christian logic and philosophy! Thanks Mike for providing. I knew you would. Sooner or later.
Any more eisegesis there Mike? Have more lubricant handy ass-hole.
"Have more lubricant handy ass-hole."
Well, If anybody has, as dawson put it, homoerotic anal fixations, it me must photo.
That was a good one Richard.
Photo,
You're welcome.
Richard,
Ha! Excellent. You are learning a bit after all. I am so proud of you!
Michael,
It's been fun watching your stupidity trying so hard to hide behind a wall of "scholarship" and "mastery" of "vocabulary." I understand that you must work so hard, and you must have had such congratulatory words for your "intellect" and such from much lesser minds. I understand that you have bought into your own deception. But, alas, sooner or later you have to write for people who can actually read and expose yourself to your own reality. I hope you get something better from this than your anger and hurt ego.
Go lick your wounds and try and think for once. I wrote some stuff. Dawson wrote some stuff. Clearly you did not read a lot of it. At the very least you did not try to actually understand any of it.
I am off for the night at least. Behave.
typo corrections:
"Or are you implying that you do get it, but need not directly refute it?"
"tangle web [no "s"]. . . ."
"a bit of subterfuge. . . ."
"Ha! Excellent. You are learning a bit after all. I am so proud of you!"
I bet you are. how does it feel?
Let me put down a summary of things, as some might be wondering what I’ve been about. This seems especially important given that Dawson has me going about the business of “stalling” and “refusing” to answer questions or “ignoring” questions, which is nonsense. First, I have answered a lot of questions, addressed a multitude of issues and most of all a number of significant objections raised by Dawson touching on the existence of God and several issues related to primacy . . . more than once. At the same time I’ve put down Judeo-Christianity’s metaphysics which must be ACCURATELY UNDERSTOOD FIRST! NON-JUDEO-CHRISTIAN IDEAS ON METAPHYSICS WON’T HELP.
Dawson’s arguing against Judeo-Christianity’s metaphysics is one thing. Incessantly arguing against what is not Judeo-Christianity’s metaphysics as if it were is something else. I have evaded nothing! Dawson has evaded what he’s been told! IT IS HE WHO HAS HELD THINGS UP, MADE IT NECESSARY TO GO OVER THE SAME THINGS REPEATEDLY. For to accurately acknowledge what he’s been told exposes the silliness of his arguments that intentionally leave out important truths that demolish the same.
So everything is in place . . . finally! Jesus. Joseph. Mary. I might have been able to answer some of his other questions too had I not been so busy untangling his nonsense all along the way.
BIBLICAL METAPHYSICS
The Immanent: The Physical Realm of Being
The Cosmology of the Ancients in the Bible
The Transcendent: The Spiritual Realm of Being
Theological Morphology: God, Celestial Creatures
The Construct of Divine Perfection
The Power of Primacy Over Existence
The Power of Will Over Substances
Identity: Self-Other, Infinite-Finite
Anthropological Morphology: Man
__________________________________
Once again, what we now have here is Judeo-Christianity’s declaration that (1) existence exists, (2) consciousness exists (3), consciousness apprehends the essence of identity (Self-other, Subject-object) as comprehensively expressed in the three classic laws of logic (4) relative to the axiomatic problem of existence which (5) encompasses the objectively inescapable alternatives of origin: inanimateness or consciousness. And unlike the former, the latter can be positively asserted without violating the laws of logic. Hence, Judeo-Christianity’s epistemology, from percept to abstraction, continuously flows without interruption from a foundation that rests on the firma of some of reality’s most significant imperatives, which are objectively and universally apparent to all. Moreover, because the Bible asserts a two-fold revelation from God, it asserts a rational-empirical construct of epistemology of an analogical complexion and is, therefore indisputably objective in nature, subject to the scrutiny and rigors of historical and scientific verification.
Beyond the individually unique experiences of its adherent’s encounters with God, Judeo-Christianity is in no way, shape or form a subjective system of thought.
__________________________________
That’s all I have time for today. Let it sink in. Let the nature of Dawson’s behavior sink in, for make no mistake about it, he’s not only trying to hide the fact of his embarrassingly stupid arguments, but he’s trying to obscure the objective nature of Judeo-Christianity’s metaphysical foundation.
I’m out of town ’til Sunday evening. When I get back, beginning on Monday, I will start on Judeo-Christianity’s epistemology proper expounded via Romans 1:18-28. . . .
Wow, Michael has really spit the dummy out this time. Toys thrown well and truly out of his pram.
I asked Michael if he would comment on a criticism of his position whereby he was unable to maintain consistency regarding the primacy of consciousness and rather than actually respond to the criticism all Michael could manage was:
LOL! x 2
Simply conceding that you have no answer to the criticism would have sufficed Michael.
freddies_dead, Dawson is not arguing against the construct of perfect divinity. He's arguing against his very own premise. And it just flies right over your head.
Except that Dawson's criticism was made in reference to your own description of this perfect divinity that you imagine exists. He's arguing against your premise Michael and I'm guessing it didn't fly over your head because you realised how devastating it was to your position. It's pissed you off so much you've had a complete breakdown all over this blog.
Imbeciles.
No need to be angry at us for pointing out the shortcomings in your beliefs Michael. I'm sure there are some other people somewhere who share your delusion and will be only too happy to kiss your arse and tell you how clever you are. Unfortunate for you that they are not here. Bye now.
Change of plans, guys, I will be home for the weekend after all.
freddies_dead,
You write: "Simply conceding that you have no answer to the criticism would have sufficed Michael."
That’s a lie, isn’t it?
"Except that Dawson's criticism was made in reference to your own description of this perfect divinity that you imagine exists."
No. It was not.
"He's arguing against your premise Michael."
No. He is not.
Obviously, you’re reading Dawson and taking his word on what the construct of divine perfection is., and it’s not my premise as such, except in the sense that it serves as the premise for my observations. The construct itself is universally understood. I don’t own it. The fact that you’re babbling about an imaginary God, which you think is clever, shows just how stupid you are. Obviously, in order to deny God’s existence, one must deny a specific notion of God. Otherwise, what are you denying, Dimwit? Do you just go around arbitrary dismissing things you don’t understand?
You quoted Dawson and called that my premise. You quoted Dawson and called that the construct. How do you know that’s my premise? How do you know that’s the actual construct? You never once stated it in you own words or mine. You assumed!
Now, your claim that he refuted the actual construct of divine perfection presupposes that you know what that construct entails. So tell us, genius, so we can all see that you actually know what you’re talking about in your own right, what does the construct entail?
Tell us something, genius, how did you fail to read my counterargument that clearly shows that Dawson is NOT refuting the actual construct, but a stawman?
You got my contempt because you deserve my contempt, and until you come on this blog and accurately state what that construct is in your own terms, demonstrating that you understand it, you will continue to get nothing but my contempt.
No. Punk. It is you who came on this blog treating people with disrespect, making claims for which you provided absolutely no basis in your own right. It is you who assumed, who didn’t know what was going on, you just popped off a bunch of trash as if you knew what was going on. It is you who essentially told me to kiss your ass without any justification given.
If you think you can hang with me, Jackass, when it comes to taking on the actual construct, jump aboard . . . but be aware that if you lie like Dawson you will get the same treatment I gave him.
Now put up, punk, or shut up!
Michael,
In your "reading" of freddie's comments you failed awfully at reading comprehension. A few examples:
You quoted Dawson and called that my premise
No, he didn't. He quoted Dawson and said that it was an answer to your premise. Not once did Freddie said that what the quote was your premise.
Now, your claim that he refuted the actual construct of divine perfection
Freddie didn't even use those words. Freddie's comment started with this bit:
the Christian's inability to maintain a consistent affirmation of the primacy of consciousness
So, that's the problem argued against. Not "divine perfection" (a concept, by the way, that is far from axiomatic, being rather an irrational, even if eloquent, construct, but let's leave that aside for the moment).
More of your lack of reading comprehension:
It is you who assumed, who didn’t know what was going on
Says the guy who could not read a few paragraphs properly.
It is you who essentially told me to kiss your [freddies_dead's] ass without any justification given (Square parentheses added by me for clarification, since Mike can't read very well.)
No, he clearly said that there must be people who would kiss your (Michael's) ass, but that they were not here.
I would suggest Mike, that you wrote an actual answer to what freddie actually wrote.
You're welcome.
Michael,
There's much more about your lack of reading comprehension. It seems to be behind the frustrating and endless circles you go around and around before you started trying to offer some substance (other than the mere assertions you were providing before). You still fail, but at least now there's some stuff we could argue.
But you are right about one thing, maybe someone should start by showing some understanding of what the other wrote. You fail at that ominously. For example, you insisted at least three times on putting materialism into the objectivist's viewpoints ignoring each time Dawson's explanations, which can only mean that you did not read very well what Dawson said.
So, as Dawson cited before; Matt 7:3 (7:4 and 7:5 also work): And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
"Change of plans, guys, I will be home for the weekend after all."
Great!!!!
I have been thinking about it,Mich. We don't need to give in to the demands of the atheists.
The problem is theories of knowledge have been debated since the beginning of philosophy. So, in spite of what the so called objectivists want to beleive, the matter is way beyond being settled.
However, I am not worried about it. The book of proverbs is good enough for me.
photo,
freddies wrote the following statement:
"Dawson raised a very good point about the Christian's inability to maintain a consistent affirmation of the primacy of consciousness back on the 4th."
Then he quoted Dawson's malarkey.
Then he asked me this rhetorical question:
"Did you miss this originally or were you hoping we wouldn't notice you dodge the issue?"
He's necessarily holding that Dawson's malarkey accurately addresses the construct of divine perfection, which of course, it doesn't.
The construct is universally self-evident. It has nothing to do with scripture. freddies doesn’t know what it is, and he accused me of something without bothering to confirm anything firsthand.
Shut up, photo. You’re accusation is false too, ya hypercritic, liar.
photo,
And know what? This is especially disgusting coming you or Dawson.
I have had no problem at all of revising comments or ideas based on misunderstandings on my part. Not once. Not ever. You guys just lie and lie and lie and lie and correct nothing.
DAWSON,
Photo, just brought this to my attention. I had yet to review your answer.
Yes, on 3 December, I asked you the following question:
“My understanding is that Objectivism holds that consciousness is the sum of physiological structures and biochemical reactions. Yes?”
And your answer was: “I would say no. Perhaps you can cite where you got this understanding about what Objectivism holds regarding the nature of consciousness?”
My response: “I’m asking, not telling.” In other words, it’s not irrelevant. But if you must know, I got that impression from the fact that Objectivism holds that the only things that can exist are finite coupled with a statement akin to yours on an Objectivist site several weeks ago. I don’t recall if the site was yours or some other.
That is my best guess based on that information; i.e., it appears to me that Objectivism is saying that “consciousness is the sum of physiological structures and biochemical reactions.” That’s it. There’s nothing more to it.
Your answer: “Objectivism holds that man, for instance (an organism possessing the attribute of consciousness), is an indivisible integration of matter and consciousness.”
Fine. I see that now. I conflated the whole of your answer with the part of my question. No problem, Dawson. It’s was an honest mistake, not intentional. That’s all. After all, my question was about the part, not the whole.
So let me restate the question again. What is consciousness comprised of according to Objectivism.
What is this “consciousness” you’re talking about? What is it’s substance?
What does it consist of?
What is the substance of this “indivisible integration” of the two, i.e., matter and consciousness?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Michael,
Again, it would be less embarrassing to see your stupidity displaying if you just read the whole of what we say, rather than read a few words and assume the rest.
Yet another example:
You’re accusation is false too
What accusation? That you did not read freddies_dead comment completely and correctly? I stand by it. You mistook whose ass was being kissed, and you mistook what the argument was about (primacy of consciousness, not "divine perfection.")
Then you claim that divine perfection is self evident, well, your saying so does not make it so. Try as you might you will fail. But I am running ahead of myself. Let's start there. From what you said, "divine perfection" means "divine infinity." Why would infinity be a synonym with perfection is beyond me, but that's what your comment about it seems to mean. Anything I am missing? How is divine infinity self-evident and how does it become so magically "divine perfection" and axiomatic?
Let's take a look at your capitalized crap:
I. THE IDENTITY AND NECESSARY ACTUALITY OF DIVINE INFINITY (OR DIVINE PERFECTION)
So, how is that shit self-evident mr ass-hole? Remember that you said it was axiomatic too, so this means that no matter where we start, we should end right there whether we want to or not. As a basis Michael. Not as something dependent on something else to even make some minimal sense.
After you make a fool of yourself trying to show how axiomatic and self-evident that crap is, I will show you that the mere concept is nonsensical, and, perhaps, that it contradicts Christianity (so much for self consistency). I know, I am running ahead of myself again. But so be it.
"So, how is that shit self-evident mr ass-hole?"
Michael, one has to wonder if photo is making some kind of erotic pass at you.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. But I would keep both eyes open.
Photo what's your problem? Don't you have any decency?
Richard,
While those words can have many meanings, the nature of the context should make it very clear, after all you have shown some capabilities for learning, that I am far from "making an erotic pass" at Michael. As per decency, I am giving Michael what he sowed. He displays stupidity, I call him stupid, he brings forth crap, I shall call him an ass-hole.
You're welcome.
Photo,
That may be true. However, this is the most you have ever talked.
Looks like michael has lit your little fire.
On serious note, try and have some manners.
Richard,
Why don't you ask Michael to have some manners too? Or are his uncalled for insults all right? I am not talking about myself. I insulted him first. I am talking about the others who did not insult the guy once, yet got called all kinds of things.
As for lighting a fire. Did you read Michael's posts after he broke down into tears and accusations about tones and such imbecilic shit, followed by plenty of insulting? You commented on one you compared to Ydemoc's demeanour, and you seemed quite happy to witness Michael writing such shit. Are you guys subject to different standards on manners?
To end this. OK. I might try and have a tad more tact. But I don't promise that I won't take any opportunity to make fun of the guy if Michael shows the products of his ass rather than his mind next time around.
Photo,
Hilarious. It seems like there have been a lot of asses around here lately. I wonder where Ydemoc is?
On a serious note,
Have you ever interacted with Sye?
If you have, can you provide the links?
I bet their hilarious.
Hi again, Michael,
To be honest, I was beginning to feel a little left out in that I hadn't been directly labeled a dolt, meathead, oaf, simpleton, idiot, etc., etc., etc. But then I noticed Richard's comment and all my concerns evaporated.
Anyway, would you mind briefly sharing your understanding as to why it is that theologians chose to apply "analogical reasoning" to god and/or god belief? According to you, what was their main purpose for doing so?
Ydemoc
photo,
You write: "There's much more about your lack of reading comprehension. It seems to be behind the frustrating and endless circles you go around and around before you started trying to offer some substance (other than the mere assertions you were providing before). You still fail, but at least now there's some stuff we could argue."
Bull! I told you from the beginning that I was putting down the metaphysics of the Bible first!
Dawson agreed that made sense!
Don't tell me I've been going in circles, you punk. That's a lie! Dawson has lots of things all wrong that need to be corrected! So do you! That’s the circles you’re babbling about.
“"For example, you insisted at least three times on putting materialism into the objectivist's viewpoints ignoring each time Dawson's explanations, which can only mean that you did not read very well what Dawson said."
Bull! You’re just reading whatever you want into my statements. I have stated that it appears to me that Objectivism asserts either a classic form of materialism or some other variation thereof. I’ve made no mystery about that impression or tried to insinuate it without warning or qualification. Liar!
I heard Dawson plainly. I understood Dawson plainly. He says that’s not the case. Idiot. I heard him loud and clear, and I acknowledge that loud and clear. Dummy. That’s why, now that the metaphysics are down, I’m trying to go back over pertinent items on both systems of thought that need to be further clarified.
Also, as you pointed out to me, earlier Dawson was trying to get my attention over my misreading of his post, wherein I unwittingly conflated the whole of the organism (man) with the part (consciousness) relative to his answer. That was not intentional! I hadn’t even gotten to that post yet. I would have seen it on my own from his response. I asked about the part. He answered with the whole, and I missed the transition. So what?
Why? Because whether we are talking about the whole or the part, as you shall see, matter and consciousness will inevitably come into play at both levels.
But I see that he was talking about the whole now. We were merely at cross purposes. Hence, I rephrased the question. That’s all. For crying out loud!
Back off, punk! Dawson is not merely failing to listen carefully in regard to his arguments against God’s existence. He is intentionally pretending not to understand. He is well past the point of mere errors of cognitional transitions.
[Continued . . .]
For example, his nonsense about the mathematical axiom of division! Are you friggin’ kidding me? That’s a basic, necessary, indispensable mathematic imperative! We cannot even begin to comprehend mathematics, let alone deal with calculi of algebra, geometry, trigonometry or calculus without accepting the obviously rational fact of the linear scale of numeric infinity on either side of “0”. What do you think the implications of Pi and the apparent impossibly, albeit, constructional necessity of squaring the circle are? Peikoff and Dawson are prattling lunacy! No wonder Objectivism is not respected by the academic community at large. Pseudo-mathematical blather! And you drooling idiots are giving him a pass on that? You give him a pass on his argument in “Divine Lonesomeness” where he necessarily has to acknowledge the construct of divine perfection in order to refute it. And then later he pretends not to understand it! And that’s just for starters.
SHUT UP! THAT’S WAY YOU’RE GETTING NOTHING BUT MY CONTEMPT NOW.
Punk. I know you can see what Dawson’s doing. Instead of simply coming clean, he’s lying! So you take your “both-sides-are-doing-it” bull and shove it.
I don’t play those kinds of games and never have. Not once. Not ever in this discussion. Once brought to my attention and once fully understood by me, WHEN HAVE I EVER FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE COGNITIVE ERRORS?
You think Dawson hasn’t made any? Dummy. His bloviations are riddle with them.
Take your biases and, therefore, your disgusting disregard for fairness, objectivity, academic even-handedness, truth and accuracy and shove ‘em. The only hypocrisy being peddled around here is with the likes of you.
RIchard,
Sye was the first presuppositionalist I met. I therefore assumed, too soon, that every pressupo was equally both an ass-hole and a hypocrite. But I have found that some profess the TAG/pressup beliefs in honesty and just can't understand the inconsistencies. Then there was a Michael (not this Michael), who was a lot of fun to talk to (easy to spot his problems, thus easy to expose them, but also someone you could have a conversation with regardless of tones and such), then some others.
I can't find any conversations though. Seems like the forums have disappeared. (I just googled and found none alive.)
G'night Richard.
Typo correction: "the apparent impossibility, albeit, constructional necessity . . ."
Michael,
(To be fair, you did admit to some cognitive errors.) I read your posts man, and you restated the materialism at least twice after being corrected the first time. I neither supported nor challenged Dawson's "divine lonesomeness" argument at all. I did not even mention it. I do not pretend, and will not pretend, to be fair. I just noted your hypocrisy. Obviously that hurt because you first admitted to the mistake only to take it back this time. But I don't give a damn. The issue here is that in all your two-posts rant you came nowhere near answering my question: show me exactly how the divine infinity/perfection is self-evident and axiomatic. So far you have done no such thing.
I suspect you think that because we can abstract the idea of infinity therefore infinity is something real, but that we can imagine things, and that our imaginings can be useful in, say, math, does not make infinities a reality, let alone a divine one. You came nowhere close to show that mathematical abstractions about infinities makes room for divine infinity/perfection in any way. Let alone show it to be self-evident and axiomatic. So, again, how do you get self-evident axiomatic divine infinity/perfection? So far, just your say so, now accompanied by a non-sequitur (since we can imagine mathematical infinity, therefore divine infinity, which, besides being an unwarranted jump, is still far from axiomatic and self-evident).
So?
G'night.
P.S. I might not come back but til tomorrow Mike. So you have time to actually think about it before posting an answer. I would do so if I were you.
P.S.P.S. I re-read everything since you mentioned divine perfection to Dawson and nothing there justified the self-evident axiomatic nature you claim it to have. I noticed a mistake that I made, I had only read your comments in the previous thread, none of which had any biblical crap, when I said you did not give biblical support. In any event, your biblical support later on was exactly what I have described, pure unadulterated eisegesis. But no need to go there for now, let's see about self-evident axiomatic divine perfection/infinity.
I just posted a video on my blog that will be of interest to the randians.
Just a question to any "objectivist" that may be "out there"
Why should any person believe anything you say being that the guy who influenced your philosophy was wrong about nearly everything?
Your philosophy is pretty much a joke. "existence exist" is simply a foolish and laughable slogan.
By the way, I have Aristotle's complete works collecting dust in my book shelf(just in case anybody wants to challenge me). I must say his works are a really good hypnotic.
photo,
I didn't have time today to post.
However, this is wrong, man!
"I read your posts man, and you restated the materialism at least twice after being corrected the first time."
Being corrected?! Why? Because Dawson says so? My later musings about materialism strictly went to my view that it appears to involve some form of materialism regardless of what the Objectivist claims. My jury is still out on that. That's all I've said. I repeat, these statements were qualified, and I made it clear that my mind is not made up on this yet, and that's why I'm engaging Dawson on the matter now to see what Dawson’s explanation is.
Screw you and your allegations of hypocrisy! They are not fair or accurate with regard to the nature of my inquiry. And I don't have to adhere to the Objectivist’s claims. The Objectivist also claims that his system of thought doesn't assert a naive realism either, but I'm beginning to wonder if that's true.
We'll see. I’m not convinced yet, and I reserve the right. . . .
I'm qualified to make these assessments once I have all the facts. I don't yet. There's nothing wrong or hypocritical with suggesting the problems as I see it, pressing the matter, testing the claim, asking why not.
You haven’t seem me make any systematic argument to that effect yet. Make no mistake about it, if and when the time comes, you’ll see the difference between that and my previous, clearly qualified musings.
Dude!
"The issue here is that in all your two-posts rant you came nowhere near answering my question: show me exactly how the divine infinity/perfection is self-evident and axiomatic. So far you have done no such thing."
If you say so, but tomorrow I'll address it again with you . . . for the sixth time, I believe, on this blog.
Michael,
I read all six "explanations" about infinities and math. All of them lack any mathematical/reality/whatever connection to both, actual infinity, and to "divine" anything. None of your explanations jump as being self-evident and axiomatic. Actually they depend on many other things (just see how many times you tried to explain it, yet it does not become any more evident, that should tell you that something is wrong with your definitions/understanding of what axiomatic and self-evident mean).
There's also a few mistakes/equivocations in the math itself, just where you jump, because the parts you miss before jumping into "therefore infinities are indivisible and have no beginning no end" should be talking about zero, rather than infinity, and there's no connections yet to reality nor with divinity.
So, take that into account before writing your next piece. Don't just repeat. Show us exactly how those things connect. Show us exactly the "steps" you just assumed.
See ya tomorrow, maybe. (I have to finish some analyses for a publication.) Please use the new thread. I really find it difficult to keep reading in this one.
Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...
Change of plans, guys, I will be home for the weekend after all.
Oh goody.
freddies_dead,
You write: "Simply conceding that you have no answer to the criticism would have sufficed Michael."
That’s a lie, isn’t it?
No, a concession really would have sufficed.
"Except that Dawson's criticism was made in reference to your own description of this perfect divinity that you imagine exists."
No. It was not.
So they weren't your words he was responding to? You didn't say that "consciousness is not something God has"? Odd, it certainly seems like you did. And if that's not part of your description of the perfect divinity then what is it and for what purpose did you make the statement?
"He's arguing against your premise Michael."
No. He is not.
So it's not your premise (or at least one of them) that "consciousness is not something God has"? If not then why have you stated it as such?
Obviously, you’re reading Dawson and taking his word on what the construct of divine perfection is.,
The question was about maintaining consistency with the claim that consciousness holds primacy. To highlight it once more: is what you claim ("consciousness is not something God has") as it is due to conscious activity or not? You seem to think simply stating that your God is "divine perfection" means the problem of maintaining consistency just goes away but you don't explain how. Dawson's comment was just him pointing out that even though you've claimed consciousness holds primacy, you then argue as if existence actually holds primacy - that "consciousness is not something God has" is as it is irrespective of what anyone - including God - wants.
and it’s not my premise as such, except in the sense that it serves as the premise for my observations. The construct itself is universally understood.
Obviously not or you wouldn't be here whining about how we don't understand the construct.
I don’t own it. The fact that you’re babbling about an imaginary God, which you think is clever, shows just how stupid you are.
I state that it's imaginary because you've so far failed to show how we can distinguish this God from something you've merely imagined.
cont'd...
cont'd...
Obviously, in order to deny God’s existence, one must deny a specific notion of God. Otherwise, what are you denying, Dimwit? Do you just go around arbitrary dismissing things you don’t understand?
You've stated that your worldview affirms that consciousness holds primacy and I deny it on that basis. I'm not sure why you think knowing every single detail of how theologians describe your God would make a difference? Does this construct somehow explain how "consciousness is not something God has" is actually consistent with the primacy of consciousness? Perhaps your construct states that God wishes that "consciousness is not something God has" and that's how it happens?
You quoted Dawson and called that my premise.
I quoted Dawson interacting with your statement. If that statement isn't at least part of your premise why make it?
You quoted Dawson and called that the construct.
I didn't call anything a construct but if those words you said aren't at least part of your construct then why say them?
How do you know that’s my premise? How do you know that’s the actual construct? You never once stated it in you own words or mine. You assumed!
My assumption was based on a months worth of back and forth on this blog. I was willing to accept that the words you say on here are part of your premises and describe your construct. If I'm wrong to assume that I apologise but can only ask "why?". Why make such statements and descriptions if they don't form part of your premises and constructs? Is it solely so you can then insult people for only responding to what you've said?
Now, your claim that he refuted the actual construct of divine perfection presupposes that you know what that construct entails.
I never claimed any such thing. I merely pointed out your failure to respond to Dawson's criticism about your inability to maintain consistency on the issue of primacy.
So tell us, genius, so we can all see that you actually know what you’re talking about in your own right, what does the construct entail?
So you have a huge shitfit about how Dawson isn't responding to the "correct" construct, but instead one of his own making, and now you ask me to come up with a construct, lol.
Tell us something, genius, how did you fail to read my counterargument that clearly shows that Dawson is NOT refuting the actual construct, but a stawman?
Your counterargument was bullshit. Firstly Dawson wasn't refuting some construct, he was pointing out the inconsistency of your position by responding to your words. If those words represent a straw man why on earth did you post them?
You got my contempt because you deserve my contempt, and until you come on this blog and accurately state what that construct is in your own terms, demonstrating that you understand it, you will continue to get nothing but my contempt.
Like I could give two shits about your contempt, lol.
No. Punk. It is you who came on this blog treating people with disrespect, making claims for which you provided absolutely no basis in your own right. It is you who assumed, who didn’t know what was going on, you just popped off a bunch of trash as if you knew what was going on. It is you who essentially told me to kiss your ass without any justification given.
I don't want you anywhere near my ass thank you very much.
If you think you can hang with me, Jackass, when it comes to taking on the actual construct, jump aboard . . . but be aware that if you lie like Dawson you will get the same treatment I gave him.
No-one wants to hang with you - except maybe Nide and that really doesn't help your credibility on here.
Now put up, punk, or shut up!
Answer the original criticism wankstain!
Post a Comment