Rick Warden’s Ill-fated Effort to Refute the Argument from Metaphysical Primacy

Precisely one year ago today, on November 25, 2012, Rick Warden of the Templestream blog posted a blog entry titled A Refutation of Dawson Bethrick's Central Argument Against Theism. In this blog entry, Warden set out to achieve what the title suggests: he attempted to refute the argument from metaphysical primacy.

You see, Warden really wants his god to be real, and he wants his god-beliefs to be true. And like every good Christian, he wants everyone else to believe likewise and submit. Unfortunately, his zeal to vindicate his god-beliefs has clouded his critical faculties to a devastating degree.

In summary, the argument from metaphysical primacy concludes that the claim “God exists” cannot be true (and consequently, that god-belief is inherently irrational) because it necessarily assumes the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, which is not true.

Things do not look good for Warden from the very beginning. Early on in his blog, he made an ill-fated attempt to interact with the axiom of existence. He wrote:

No matter what the given subject, Randian objectivists hold to an underlying set of presuppositions referred to as axioms that are supposedly rock-solid, conceptually sound truths. For example, one Randian axiom is, "existence exists." As others have noted, the word existence is an abstract concept. Existence does not exist because existence is nothing in particular at all. Matter exists, people exist, and, in very real sense, the laws of physics exist, even though though we may not be able to see them.

Warden would have a chance of doing much better than this if he did a little homework. In Objectivism, “’Existence’ is a collective noun, denoting the sum of existents” (Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 4). This is elementary Objectivism 101 stuff. When Objectivism affirms the axiom ‘existence exists’, it is not saying that the abstract concept ‘existence’ exists out there some place, but rather that the things denoted by the concept ‘existence’ exist. This is not unusual, for people generally use concepts precisely this way. When we say “man exists,” we are not making a statement about the concept ‘man’; rather we are making a statement about the things denoted by the concept ‘man’. If we say “the internet exists,” we are not talking about the concept ‘internet’, but rather the vast electronic networks known collectively as “the internet.” Thus the axiom of existence is simply a general, fundamental and explicit recognition that things exist stated in a single-concept axiom.

This elementary blunder gives us a foretaste of things to come: in his zeal to refute and devastate non-Christian points of view, Warden is happy to destroy everything and anything in his path, including his own chances for understanding fundamental truths.

Warden then wrote:

Even if you forgive the blunder of this summarized statement, presuming that things in the universe "just exist" with no metaphysical cause or explanation is nothing more than a metaphysical presupposition.

Warden needs to give his own criticisms more critical thought. The axiom ‘existence exists’ denotes a basic fact of which we are first aware. When we look out at the world, the first thing we notice is that it exists. Thus we have the axiom of existence, which explicitly formalizes this fundamental recognition. Warden can deny the fact that existence exists all he likes, but he would have to exist first in order to do this, thus refuting himself even before he opened his lips. If by ‘presupposition’ Warden simply means a “faith commitment,” then clearly the axiom of existence does not qualify as such. The axiom of existence identifies a fact that is perceptually self-evident, and thus its truth is not known by means of looking inward (as would be the case in faith-based “truths”), but by looking outward. The axiom of existence is an undeniably true recognition.

But notice that Warden wants to raise the notion that existence is the product of some prior cause. But also notice that this notion is utterly absurd: causality presupposes existence. Existence does not presuppose causality. If something is caused, something must do the causing, which means: existence is a precondition for causality. There could be no causality without something first existing, just as there could be no dance without a dancer. Causality is the law of identity applied to action: it is the identity of action as such. And we know that action has identity, otherwise verbs like ‘walk’, ‘think’, ‘run’, ‘fly’, ‘swim’, ‘eat’, ‘argue’, ‘change’, etc., would be impossible. These concepts are possible because actions have identity and therefore are distinct from one another, which means we can identify them – just as we do with the verbs which our language supplies.

Warden wrote:

It is not a metaphysically incontrovertible axiom.

The only way that the axiom of existence could not be incontrovertible would be if nothing at all existed. But if that were the case, we could not be here disputing the meaning of ‘existence exists’. Again, Warden could have avoided elementary blunders such as this if he had only done a little honest homework. I know… that’ll be the day!

Warden himself cites my paper Does Logic Presuppose the Christian God? But he does not seem to have read it very carefully. In fact, in his paper, he quoted from the following paragraph; unfortunately he did not quote its very first sentence, and throughout his attempt to refute my argument, he has ignored the advice given in this sentence. The paragraph in full reads:

It is important to keep in mind that objectivity has ultimately to do with therelationship between a subject of consciousness and its objects. In metaphysics the objective position is the view that the objects of consciousness are what they are independent of any subject’s conscious activity, while the subjective position is the view that the objects of consciousness depend in some way on a subject’s conscious activity, either for their nature, the actions they perform, their very existence, etc. Given this explicit understanding of these two antithetical metaphysical viewpoints, it should not be difficult to see how theism rests on the subjective orientation in the subject-object relationship, particularly in the case of its object of worship, a universe-creating, reality-ruling consciousness which sovereignly calls all the shots. The notion that the universe as a whole is a cosmic king’s whipping boy, obediently conforming to its commands and dutifully carrying out its wishes, undeniably assumes the metaphysical primacy of consciousness.

In reaction to this paragraph, Warden wrote:

As noted, Dawson offers that there is an "objective position" and "subjective position" that are "antithetical metaphysical viewpoints" in an either-or dichotomy. Dawson believes his objective position is true and the subjective position is false.

As I have noted elsewhere on my blog, the primacy of existence is universally and absolutely attested throughout nature: every organism which possesses the faculty of consciousness is an example of the primacy of existence in reality, and therefore evidence for its truth. In each case, whether it is a fish, a reptile, a fox, a horse, a chimpanzee, or a man, an organism’s consciousness gives it awareness of objects which exist and are what they are independent of its conscious activity.

Suppose I sit at my desk and look at my bookshelf some 10 feet away. I focus on one of the books on the shelf – say one of Bahnsen’s apologetics books. Here I am the perceiving subject, conscious of an object, and the book on the shelf that I’m looking at is the object of my conscious activity. Now while I focus on that book, I make a wish: I wish that it withdraw itself from the stack and float over to my table so that I don’t have to get up and get it physically. In terms of “an either-or dichotomy” as Warden puts it, either the book obeys my wishing, or it doesn’t. What do you think will happen? Unfortunately, the book did not obey my wishes. Now I will simply imagine the book pulling itself out of the bookshelf and levitating over to my table. I close my eyes and imagine. But when I open my eyes, I do not find that the book has moved at all. Apparently I must be doing something wrong if in fact the primacy of consciousness is true. So this time I verbally command the book to withdraw itself and float over to my table. Sadly, the book remains on the shelf completely unaltered.

Then I try praying: I pray to whatever ruling consciousness supposedly exists in some supernatural realm to give me “a sign” that it is real and move the book from the bookshelf to my table for me. I pray fervently. I plead with the ruling consciousness to demonstrate its power. Well, what do you think happened? Even Christians will have to admit that the book remained where it was all along.

Now, this should not be difficult for anyone to understand, especially if they are honest with themselves. One can try this experiment anywhere, any time. Just focus on some object that you’re perceiving, and submit it to various experiments of conscious intension, such as wishing, imagining, commanding, pleading, praying, etc. You will find that the objects of your consciousness do not conform to your conscious activity. This is obviously true. It is so obviously true that people simply take it for granted while never explicitly recognizing or understanding it. And yet, we continually hear, even from Christian apologists, things like “Just because you don’t believe it, doesn’t mean it’s true” or “truth does not hinge on your likes and preferences.” Or the old, “wishing doesn’t make it so.” These are all true statements, but they do not get to the heart of the matter, which is: the proper relationship between the subject of consciousness and its objects.

Warden continued:

In accordance with criticisms he has received, at some point, Dawson had refined his argument to exclude a key aspect of God's nature, questions related to God's creative ability,

This is misleading and it ignores an important point. For one, I never had to alter the essence of my argument. And in spite of Warden’s insinuation that I have had to change my argument in response to criticisms, Warden does not show that I have done this. That having been said, in attempting to clarify the argument for those who have gone out of their way to misrepresent it, naturally I have had to correct numerous critics of my argument.

For example, it has been suggested that I’m trying to “define” the Christian god out of existence. But this is false, and I explain why here. This was an accusation from a Christian. But consider: what would be wrong with trying to “define” something out of existence? Clearly it would be an instance of assuming the primacy of consciousness; in essence, it would be the claim that reality conforms to whatever definitions we concocted, and if I concoct a definition which excludes the Christian god from existence, then I would be assuming the primacy of consciousness. Essentially, the complaint that I am trying to define the Christian god out of existence is the complaint that I’m relying on the primacy of consciousness, and yet this is exactly what the theist wants to preserve – the primacy of consciousness. Again, we have an indication that people are so casually unaware of the issue of metaphysical primacy that they are not aware of what side their stated position stands on.

On another occasion it was asserted that my argument does not succeed because, according to Christianity, its god did not create itself. Thus, it is assumed, if the Christian god did not create itself, then there’s no instance of metaphysical subjectivism here. I deal with this objection here. In this blog, I make the following clarification:

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.

Clearly what I’m doing here is trying to correct misunderstandings and possible misrepresentations of my argument. This is not the same thing as altering it from what it originally argued.

Notice the very last line which focuses on where the subjectivism in the Christian worldview is to be found: in the relationship between its god as a subject and any objects distinct from itself. All this is laid out very clearly.

But in spite of this, Warden still says that my argument is flawed. He writes:

at least two logical fallacies are noted in a post from (12/26/08).

The date in parentheses in this quote contains a link to my blog The Inherent Subjectivism of God-belief, which I have replicated here.

Warden then quotes from the passage I quoted above, but for reasons that are not explained, he leaves out significant portions. Below is the same portion of the paragraph that I quoted above; the italics here indicate the portions which Warden has left out in his citation of it:

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.

Also notice that where my statement begins with “The Objectivist argument which I defend…,” Warden quotes it as “The objective argument which I defend…” Also, Warden inserts two parenthetical statements of his own in his quotation of my statement: (1) after the word ‘defend’, Warden adds parenthetically “(actually special pleading)”; and (2) after the words “allegedly created itself” Warden adds “(straw-man: excluding the nature of God’s creativity)”. In addition to omitting the portion of the quote indicated by italics above, Warden critically ignores my own parenthetical “(e.g., ‘God’s will’).” The “e.g.,” here indicates that what follows is merely an example of the point that I am making; it does not in any way restrict my point exclusively to the example that I cite. This will have some importance as we examine Warden’s objections.

But to be clear, Warden is charging my argument with two fallacies, namely special pleading and mischaracterization. Assuming that these are the extent of his objections, then, if it turns out that my argument can be vindicated of these charges, then Warden should have no further objections to it and thus must accept its conclusion as soundly established. But something tells me that Warden will continue to resist my argument’s conclusion even if it can be shown that his charges of fallacy are untenable.

Also, I might point out that it is somewhat ironic that Warden would charge my argument with straw-manning Christianity when in fact he straw-man’s my argument! As we can see above, he does not even give it justice in his selective omissions of my statement of it. But I’m used to this; I do not know Christians for their honesty.

But Warden does say that my argument is not objective to begin with. He writes:

in accordance with the tenets of critical thinking, 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.

If my argument were an attempt to draw conclusions based on scientific experimentation, this objection might hold water, but even then we would have to consider the specifics of the case. However, my argument does not proceed on the basis of findings from experiments other than the experiments one can perform on his own to verify the primacy of existence, such as the experiment I described above about the book on the shelf. The results in that case are clear and undeniable, for they clearly and undeniably point to the absolute truth of the primacy of existence.

But what Warden seems to be insinuating here is that I have failed to integrate what he refers to as “influential variables” in my argument about the Christian god. Actually, I didn’t know that the Christian god had any “variables” – it is supposed to be “absolute” and “unchanging,” thus nothing about the Christian god is supposed to be “variable” in the first place. But let’s suppose that Warden means that I’m ignoring certain relevant factors that somehow mitigate the conclusion of my argument. Since the issue of metaphysical primacy is focused directly on the relationship between the subject of consciousness and its objects, and since my argument explores precisely this relationship as it would apply in the case of the Christian god as it is described by Christianity, I do not think I’ve overlooked any such factors at all. On the contrary, what I suspect has happened is that Warden has misunderstood the argument and/or that he is trying to divert attention away from this relationship in order to salvage his god-belief from the scrutiny of the argument from metaphysical primacy.

In his charge that I have mischaracterized Christian theism, Warden writes:

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's metaphysics conveniently removes this question that would disprove his argument.

I can only wonder what Warden thinks my argument is or whether or not he actually read my blog which he himself cites and quotes. For as evidence supporting my argument, I explicitly cite the Christian doctrine of creation. Notice my methodology: first I explain what the primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness entail, and then I examine what Christianity teaches to see which orientation the Christian worldview attributes to its god.

To explain what the primacy of existence is, I offered the following thought experiment, essentially similar to the one I gave above:

For example, suppose I see a stapler on my desk. My seeing the stapler does not bring the stapler into existence. It exists independent of my perception of it, my awareness did not cause it to exist. Now if I wish that the stapler be full of staples when in fact it has already run out, my wishing will not automatically reload it so that it is full again. Wishing does not have this power, and that is because the objects of consciousness hold metaphysical primacy over consciousness. If I want the stapler reloaded, I would have to physically reload it, and I could do this only if I have a set of staples to put into it. I could command that the stapler levitate itself to my hand if it is out of my reach, but will the stapler obey my command? No, it won't. Again, it exists independent of my conscious activity. I could imagine that the stapler is really an Asian elephant, but does my imagination turn the stapler into an elephant? No it does not: it remains a stapler all the same, and that’s because existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness, the objects of consciousness are what they are regardless of conscious activity. I could forget that my stapler is on my desk. But when I turn around, it’s still there. Why? Because it exists independent even of my forgetfulness, too. I could continue this experiment and test other conscious functions, but the result will always be the same: existence exists independent of consciousness. The primacy of existence cannot be defeated.

It should be noted that nothing in my position has changed here: the objects of consciousness do not conform to conscious activity. One can wish, imagine, command, etc., that an object of his consciousness do what one desires, but the objects do not obey conscious actions. No amount of mere wishing, imagining, commanding, etc., will cause an object to do what is desired of it. This is the primacy of existence: the objects of consciousness exist and are what they are independent of conscious activity.

Then I consider whether or not this relationship – the primacy of existence – is what Christianity attributes to the relationship between its god as a conscious agent and the universe of objects it is said by the Christian worldview to have created. Observe what I wrote:

Now does this principle, the primacy of existence, characterize the orientation which the Christian god is supposed to enjoy between itself as a conscious subject and any objects in its awareness? It’s hard to see how a theistic believer would think so. A brief look at the Christian god’s career, as described in the bible, is sufficient to settle this question definitively. One need look no further than the opening verses of the book of Genesis, where we read that the god it describes “created the earth and the heaven.” Christians typically take this act of creation by their god to be comprehensive.

I then gave several quotes from Christians themselves who confirm precisely what I am saying. In fact, I did this expressly to avoid the hazard of mischaracterizing the Christian position. Since Warden apparently missed every one of these quotes, I shall re-quote them here:

We find the following quote from Cornelius Van Til, writes:

Christianity holds that God is the creator of every fact... God’s thought is placed back of every fact. (Christian Theistic-Evidences, p. 88; quoted in Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, p. 378)

Christians usually describe their god’s creation of the universe as an act of will. Again we have Van Til, who wrote:

God wills, that is, creates the universe. God wills, that is, by his providence controls the course of development of the created universe and brings it to its climax. (“Apologetics,” 1959)

Elsewhere Van Til wrote:

We now know that the world exists simply because God wills it. (“The Election of All Men in Christ,” The Great Debate Today, 1970)

Or, as one source puts it (this is now a broken link; the PDF page from which the following was quoted in Dec. 2008 has now been removed from the internet):

Fact: God willed the universe into being. Fact: He willed the universe into being by simply speaking it into existence instantaneously. References: Psalm 33:6,9 Psalm 148:5 Hebrews 11:3 Thought: He did not have to speak in order to create, but He did. God could have just thought the universe into being. Instead, He spoke it into being. He used His word to create.

Similarly, apologist Douglas Wilson, in his article The Metaphorical Word, writes:

God spoke the created universe into being. God the Father "God-the-Son-ed" light, and there was light. God the Speaker Worded the heavens and the earth, and so they came to be.

In addressing the question What Do Christians Believe? Answering Islam’s Terrell Smith states:

God is Creator of everything, this vast universe. All was created by His Word. He spoke it into being. It is written: (Genesis 1:3) And God said... and it was so. His Word is powerful... God's Word spoke the universe into being. His Word is powerful beyond our comprehension.

Likewise, in answer to the question Can you explain why God created the universe? Christian author Mike Scott writes:

All things came into being through the will of God. It was God's pleasure that the universe and everything in it be created.

And lastly, Jack Cottrell, in his Sovereignty and Free Will, explains:

God's will is the final and exclusively determinative power of whatsoever comes to pass. The nature of any created thing is what it is because of an act of determination in relation to it on the part of God.

These quotes were all given in my blog entry, which Warden himself cites, to substantiate my point, relative to my overall case regarding the Christian worldview’s affirmation of the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, that Christianity attributes to its god the power to create things at will – i.e., essentially by wishing, commanding, and/or speaking them into being. Thus it is hard to see why Warden thinks I have ignored the “the nature of God's creative abilities” which he thinks “is certainly a valid aspect to consider when attempting to honestly evaluate subject-object relationships and Theism.” Indeed, I cite this aspect of Christianity’s notion of its god explicitly and emphatically.

Warden asserts that my argument “is basically a subjective one” and goes on to say:

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 [in] Theism.

Clearly Warden has not read my blog entry - either at all, or at any rate carefully. Several points can be cited in defense of my argument here. For one, Warden’s “if… then…” argument here is a textbook example of a non sequitur: it does not follow from the fact that Christianity holds that its god did not create itself that metaphysical subjectivism is therefore not instantiated in Christianity. Indeed, this is one of the points I make in response to Drew Lewis and David Parker in my blog entry which Warden himself purports to be refuting. Second, as I did above, I made the point that Christianity asserts that its god has the power to bring things into existence by means of an act of will. I quoted numerous Christian sources affirming this. This means that, even if the Christian god is not imagined as having created itself, it is still imagined as having created everything distinct from itself, including the universe as well as other supernatural beings and destinations – such as angels, demons, devils, heaven, hell, etc. In all these cases, according to Christianity, the Christian god essentially “thought” them into being. This is the primacy of the subject over its objects. Indeed, one cannot get more subjective than this!

So already, in his attempt to cite me with mischaracterizing Christianity, Warden shows that he must ignore basic elements of the argument I have presented, disregard the many quotes that I presented to substantiate my characterization of Christianity, and engage in non sequitur reasoning in order to sidestep the serrated edge of my argument against theism. These fallacious maneuvers on Warden’s part fail to do justice to my argument and only succeed to make him look desperate to protect his god-belief.

In fact, if you want some irony of the juiciest sort, observe what Rick Warden has to say in reaction to the claim made by scientist Robert Lanza (known for his work on stem cell research and cloning), namely that “the theory of biocentrism teaches that death as we know it is an illusion created by our consciousness” (per this Mail Online article). In reaction to Lanza’s claim, Warden recently wrote:

In essence, Lanza proposes that consciousness holds supremacy over the material world. This, of course, is in keeping with the biblical account of Genesis in which the material world was created by the consciousness and will of God. (Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife, claims scientist)

Now all of a sudden Warden finds it expedient to endorse Christianity’s primacy of consciousness metaphysics explicitly. And he makes it clear that this has been “the biblical account” all along, as I had already pointed out in the blog entry which Warden sought to critique!

So who’s special-pleading here?

Warden goes on (in his post critiquing mine) to say that:

By excluding this important issue, 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.

How can Warden say that I am “excluding this important issue” – namely the “unique creative abilities” which Christianity attributes to its god – when I cite them explicitly as evidence supporting my argument’s premises?

Warden then cites an unidentified source regarding the nature of subjectivism. He writes:

According to the standard 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 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.

It is not at all uncommon for a term to carry a variety of definitions, one of which applies in a given circumstance depending on attending context. If Warden took the definition he cites above from an online dictionary (such as Dictionary.com, which gives the definition he cites here verbatim), then clearly he selected it specifically from a collection of definitions, some of which may indeed be more in line with the way I am using the term ‘subjective’. For example, the same online source offers the following definition of ‘subjective’:

belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered

The “proceeding from” aspect here is closer to how I have used it in my blog, and Warden should be sharp enough to recognize this.

At any rate, it should be clear in my blog entry what I mean by ‘subjective’ when I write:

in the case of the Christian god the subject of consciousness is described as holding metaphysical primacy over its objects (i.e., subjectivism).

Indeed, if objectivity is the fundamental recognition that the objects of consciousness exist and are what they are independent of the conscious activity by which a subject is aware of them, how can the theist claim that this is the relationship which obtains between his god and the universe?

At this point, Warden is frustrated that I am using definitions which hinge explicitly on the issue of metaphysical primacy. He writes:

Why should we rely on Dawson's own personal definition of "subjective" when there are more commonly accepted definitions? The impetus is on Dawson to convince us why this is necessary, but, instead of strong reasoning, we find confusion within the ranks of objectivists as to how to define the mind / body relationship.

For one thing, how various individuals define “the mind / body relationship” is entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Here Warden is simply trying to send the reader down new rabbit trails that distract attention from the issue at hand. He speaks of “find[ing] confusion,” and yet he is the one who is expressly trying to create it here. If Warden were truly confident that my argument is so flawed, why would he find it necessary to draw the reader’s attention away from it in this manner?

The case for the definition of ‘subjectivism’ that my argument assumes is entailed in the issue of metaphysical primacy and the need for concepts which identify applications of the primacy of consciousness in worldview positions. Subjectivism in metaphysics is clearly the position which grants metaphysical primacy to the subject in the subject-object relationship. That is where the “subject” in “subjectivism” comes from.

Consider the definition of ‘subjective’ which Warden cites: “relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.” What knowledge of objects is exempt from subjectivism according to this definition? Since knowledge of an object is in fact distinct from the object itself, using this definition seems to render all knowledge subjective, even if that knowledge is acquired by applying an objective methodology. Thus knowledge based on reason and “knowledge” based on emotions, imagination, wishing, etc., are all equally subjective on this definition, to the degree that said knowledge is knowledge of any object. No distinction between objective methodology and subjective processes are taken into consideration here. To the extent that this is the case with this definition, it is philosophically deficient. And notably, Warden makes no argument for its philosophical legitimacy other than that it happens to be what he found in a dictionary.

Consider the points that I made in reply to Christian apologist Chris Bolt in a comment on my blog How Theism Violates the Primacy of Existence. In a discussion with Bolt, note my questions and Bolt’s answers:

Me: "You hold that the existence of the universe depends on your god’s conscious activity, do you not?" Bolt: “I do.” Me: "You believe it created the universe, gave everything in the universe its identity, and controls everything that happens in the universe by means of its will – i.e., by some conscious activity. Right?" Bolt: “Right.”

I then replied to Bolt:

Look at what you just affirmed - that the existence of the universe depends on your god's conscious activity. That's existence depending on consciousness. Do you not see how your god’s “sovereignty” and “control” of everything in the universe constitutes an expression of the primacy of consciousness? Does not your god’s will (a form of consciousness) call all the shots always, everywhere and in every thing? Is anything distinct from your god’s consciousness independent of its will, its “plan,” its intentions? Isn’t everything subject to its will? What holds metaphysical primacy in the relationship between your god as a consciousness and everything in its scope of awareness: your god as conscious subject, or the objects it is said to have created? Everything Christians say about their god points to their god as the one holding metaphysical primacy, and all its objects conforming to its will. That’s the primacy of consciousness, Chris.

How is this not clear? How am I ignoring the “unique creative abilities” which Christianity attributes to its god? How am I mischaracterizing the Christian worldview? Christians affirm its subjective tenets explicitly. Why is Warden so out of sync with other Christians?

Warden writes:

The distinction between God's knowledge and God's nature is definable and rationally understood in the context of Theism.

This is wholly irrelevant to the matter.

Warden writes:

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.

This too is irrelevant. The view that the Christian god created itself is not a necessary condition for the primacy of consciousness to apply in the Christian worldview. Warden implies that this is the case, but he nowhere presents any argument for this assumption. On the contrary, the presence of subjectivism in Christian metaphysics is unmistakable given the relationship which the Christian worldview attributes between the Christian god as conscious subject and every object distinct from itself, which is claimed to have been created by an act of the Christian god’s will.

Indeed, the view that the Christian god could not have created itself is just confirmation of the fact that the primacy of existence is unavoidably true. This of course does not help theism. It only shows that it trades on two mutually contradictory metaphysical paradigms: it affirms metaphysical subjectivism (“God created the universe”; “God controls whatsoever comes to pass”; “every detail of human history proceeds according to God’s will,” etc.) while tacitly conceding that the primacy of existence is inescapable in the final analysis. This tells us explicitly that Christianity has no consistent metaphysics in terms of the issue of metaphysical primacy. That’s not the Objectivist’s problem.

Warden writes:

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.

Again, this is irrelevant. The instantiation of metaphysical subjectivism in Christianity according to my argument is not between the Christian god as knowing subject and itself as an object of its own consciousness, but between the Christian god as knowing subject and everything that exists which is distinct from the Christian god, such as the universe, the world, everyone in the world, every atom, molecule and subatomic particle that it is said to have created, etc. At no point does Warden acknowledge the legitimacy of the relationship that my argument focuses on (even though one of the major points of my blog entry was to clarify this for those who were similarly confused), let alone address it! It’s as if Warden didn’t even know that his worldview posits such a relationship, even though it is central to Christian teaching.

In fact, in this regard, he writes:

Dawson's emphasis on the Creator-created relationship is an arbitrary condition used to display his subject-object argument.

Warden provides no argument for this. And why would we consider this emphasis “arbitrary”? Indeed, it is central to Christian teaching. From the Old Testament through the New Testament, from pastors addressing their congregants to street preachers seeking to net men in their fishing nets, the constant factor is the same: our relationship to the Christian god, its commandments for us, our alleged transgressions of its law, its plan for human history, our place within that plan, our obligation to “submit,” its “love” for the world, its son’s sacrifice for us, etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps when apologists tell us that we need to “get right” with their god, we can tell them, per Rick Warden, that their emphasis on our relationship with the Christian god is arbitrary.

One wonders how deep into worldview-denial Warden’s desperation will take him.

Warden writes:

He avoids the more subtle distinctions between personal volition and personal nature that would undermine his argument.

The so-called “more subtle distinctions between personal volition and personal nature” that Warden has in mind here are presumed by him to be contained within his god – its personal volition with regard to its personal nature. But since my argument has nothing to do with this, it is irrelevant. This is simply not the issue at hand, and I explain why in my blog entry. Warden is showing the world that he simply cannot deal with my argument on its own terms.

Warden writes:

Dawson's argument conveniently eliminates aspects of God's nature by using the unique definition of 'subjective' offered by objectivists, which, as I'll show, has no justification. In creating his own definitions and defining limited arbitrary parameters, Dawson is only advancing his own disconnected definitions and theories. It is a straw man argument supported by straw-man definitions utilizing a straw-man God. Once conventional definitions are used, the arbitrary nature of Dawson's God and Dawson's argument parameters becomes evident.

Several points here:

1. What “aspects of God’s nature” does my argument “conveniently eliminate”? My argument focuses on the relationship which the Christian worldview attributes to the Christian god vis-à-vis any and all objects distinct from itself. If the Christian god were real and it were conscious and if it were conscious of things that are distinct from itself, then this relationship would necessarily obtain. No other “aspects of God’s nature” would negate this relationship. Only if this relationship were not implied by Christian teaching would my argument be guilty of mischaracterizing Christianity.

2. Warden is free to reject my definitions, but simply rejecting them does not mean that they are not philosophically viable.

3. Warden prefers “conventional definitions,” but he offers no reason for doing so. What should be noted is that he does not offer biblical definitions on behalf of the terms in question. But this is because the bible nowhere presents any informed discussion on the nature of the relationship between consciousness and its objects. Indeed, observe how confused Warden himself on the matter is.

Warden writes:

When asked to justify his unique definition of 'subjective,' Dawson stated, "And the definition which Objectivism provides for the concept ‘subjective’ is entirely consistent with its metaphysics and epistemology."  

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 refused to actually define it in philosophical terms within this context.  

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.

Several points here:

1. The issue of metaphysical primacy and a “theory that defines the mind/body relationship” are two fundamentally different things. The former has to do with the relationship between consciousness and its objects, regardless of how we come to understand the nature of the relationship between consciousness and the organism which possesses it. That Warden wants to shift focus on this only shows that he cannot deal with my argument on its own terms.

2. I have not been unwilling to clarify my definitions. On the contrary, I’ve been at pains to lay them out and correct deliberate efforts to misrepresent them, such as Warden’s own. I predict that Warden still won’t get it, not because I haven’t been clear and not because he’s not intelligent enough, but because he seeks to disintegrate knowledge rather than integrate it.

3. Let’s examine what actually happened in the exchange that Warden cites and see if I really was so “unwilling” to state my position as he says I was:

Rick 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’."

I responded

”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.

I stated this last point because rather than getting the facts from their source, Warden chose to go with what he learned from Daniel Barnes at the “aynrandcontrahumannature” blog, a group known for their hatred of Rand and pretty much anything that smacks of objectivity. To date I’ve seen no indication that Warden has acted on my advice.

Presumably Warden would not suppose that I should get my information about Christian teachings from those who are perceived be Christians to be hostile towards Christianity, such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Christopher HItchens. By the same token, Warden should be show himself to be more concerned about accuracy than about blindly repeating sources that are explicitly hostile towards Objectivism, and consult primary sources on the matters relevant to the issues at hand. I suggest that Warden swallow his pride and follow my example of quoting sources that are sympathetic to the position under consideration.

Now, since the topic of mind/body dualism is irrelevant to my argument, it warrants no further response. The only thing that I would point out here is that, regardless of Warden’s criticisms of Rand’s views on other matters, such as mind/body dualism, this in no way constitutes a rational basis to reject the definition of subjectivism that I have been using. (And Warden wants to complain about fallacies?)

Warden writes:

We theists… do not summarize God merely as a personal will that has a sovereign volition. By narrowing God down to one characteristic and focusing only on God's volition, Dawson is offering another straw man version of God.

It’s very simple. A direct question will best cut to the chase on the issue here:

Can Warden cite one thing that exists in the universe which, according to Christianity, is not subject to the Christian god’s will?

I’m tending to think not. And even if there were a few things here and there that Warden thinks are not subject to his god’s will, clearly as a Christian he thinks at least some things are subject to the Christian god’s will. Thus my argument’s relevance to Christianity is thereby firmly established.

Warden writes:

God is not merely a personal being with volition, God is also eternally conscious and eternally existent, and, therefore, in a temporal sense, there is no dichotomy according to the ultimate metaphysical reality proposed in Theism according to the true theist "notion" of reality.

Statements like this again confirm that Warden does not understand the issue of metaphysical primacy. The issue of metaphysical primacy has to do with the relationship between consciousness and its objects. Warden does affirm that his god is a conscious agent; that it is said to be “eternally existent” is neither here nor there. If the Christian god is supposed to be conscious, then it must be conscious of something, in which case, it would be conscious of some object(s). Thus a relationship between the Christian god as a conscious subject and that object(s) would obtain. Therefore we can examine the implications of Christian theism’s view of its god in terms of metaphysical primacy – i.e., in terms of the orientation between the Christian god as a conscious subject and any object(s) it is said to be conscious of.

Once consciousness enters into the picture, there must be some object the said consciousness would be conscious of. Therefore, once consciousness enters the picture, the issue of metaphysical primacy becomes fundamentally relevant. There is no way to sidestep this.

Warden writes:

All the three main branches of Theism underscore that God is an eternal being. For example, Isaiah 57.15 offers that God is the "High and Lofty One...who lives forever." Even if a skeptic were to propose an absurd notion that God could create Himself, that would be irrelevant to this argument, because that is not what scripture offers.

Everything Warden states here is irrelevant to my argument. None of it vies against my argument’s pertinence as a critique of theistic metaphysics.

Warden then wrote several brief paragraphs summarizing points about “The True Nature of God.” In this section, we find damning hints of Warden’s true lack of understanding of my argument.

Warden wrote:

Ultimately, Theism ascribes metaphysical primacy to all aspects of God in harmony - God's existence, God's consciousness, God's glory, God's holiness, God's truth, God's nature, God's omnipotence, God's omniscience, God's omnipresence, all hold metaphysical unity and primacy in the universe and there is no dichotomy between these aspects of God.

To the extent that any of this is relevant to criticizing my argument, it actually confirms the pertinence and relevance of my argument as well as its central premise that the Christian god as conscious subject holds metaphysical primacy over all objects distinct from itself. Thus Warden offers a crucial concession to my argument (as he did in his blog entry on Robert Lanza). Since Christian theism attributes metaphysical primacy to a subject in the subject-object relationship, we have in Christian theism the affirmation of metaphysical subjectivism. That’s what my argument argues. Here Warden basically gives away the farm.

Warden writes:

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."

Even if this is true, it is irrelevant. It is clear that, according to the Christian worldview, everything that the Christian god is alleged to have created is subservient to its will. The Christian god simply thinks of something and wishes it into being, like magic. That’s the primacy of consciousness. It’s most puzzling that Warden does not grasp this.

Warden writes:

Unchanging aspects of a person's inherent nature hold metaphysical primacy over a person's volition.

To the extent that this is relevant, it only proves that Christianity has no consistent metaphysics in terms of metaphysical primacy. At times the primacy of existence obtains (such as in the case of the relationship between the Christian god’s conscious activity and the Christian god’s nature as such), and at other times the primacy of consciousness obtains (such as in the relationship between the Christian god as conscious subject and the universe of objects distinct from the Christian god and alleged to have been spoken into being by the Christian god). Thus we have fundamental contradictory metaphysics characterizing the very root structure of Christian theism. Thanks for confirming this, Rick Warden!

Warden wrote:

What holds ultimate metaphysically primacy (God's existence) represents the most significant aspects of reality in the universe.

And to the extent that the Christian god is said to have providential power over everything that exists in the universe, such that it can will things into existence (e.g., the doctrine of creation), it assigns existents their identity (e.g., as we see in the Genesis tale of the creation of animals), it can alter causal relations (e.g., the doctrine of miracles), all by an act of will, then we have the primacy of consciousness metaphysics in full force. Warden is free to reject these things, but he would thereby be rejecting staple tenets of the Christian worldview. Cornelius Van Til tells us that “miracles are at the heart of the Christian position” (The Defense of the Faith, p. 27) and elsewhere he writes “kill miracle and you kill Christianity” (Christian-Theistic Evidences, p. i).

Warden wrote:

Because there is no dualism or primacy between existence and consciousness in the eternal unchanging God, then there is no dualism or primacy in the most significant aspects of reality in the universe.

Again Warden seems to be confusing mind/body dualism with the issue of metaphysical primacy, which is an elementary blunder on his part. It’s very simple: if the Christian god is said to have created things that exist, and/or that those things which exist distinct from the Christian god conform to its will, then the metaphysical primacy of consciousness obtains in Christian teaching.

Warden wrote:

It is quite clear that Dawson is offering convoluted straw-man arguments based on anything that will possibly help his case and justify the world view he has chosen to believe, no matter how he has mischaracterized his "objective" argument and the true nature of God.

It is quite clear that Warden simply has not grasped the fundamental nature of my argument. Part of this is due to the fact that his own worldview, Christianity, does not teach its adherents to be aware of and understand the nature of the relationship between consciousness and its objects. Another part of this is due to Warden’s own zeal to refute first and never understand later. None of these failings point to flaws in my argument. The flaws here are squarely on his shoulders.

Warden wrote:

Because Ayn Rand, Dawson Bethrick and other objectivists are quite intelligent and aware that the theist God is described in scripture as a much more than simply task master barking commands, then one is forced to surmise that either their arguments against God's existence are based upon an intentional dishonesty, or, as the Bible describes, their minds are "blinded" to the point where they cannot perceive logical fallacies such as their straw-man arguments.

No part of the argument from metaphysical primacy stems either from misunderstanding of what Christianity affirms about its god or from a dishonest desire to attack religious worldviews. Since the issue of metaphysical primacy is the most fundamental issue in all philosophy, and since the Christian worldview attributes consciousness to the god which its adherents are to enshrine in their imagination, the Christian god as a religious construct (i.e., so “defined” by the Christian worldview) can be examined in terms of the relationship between itself as a conscious subject and any objects existing distinct from itself – e.g., the universe of finite, corruptible concretes which it is said to have created by an act of will. The implications of such notions in terms of metaphysical primacy are unmistakable.

Warden wrote:

So, what do you believe is the case with Dawson Bethrick? Why does he perpetuate obvious straw-man arguments against Theism? Do you believe he is intentionally disingenuous, or do you believe he is simply blinded to the reality of his own straw-man God?

At the time of this writing (November 25, 2013), there have been 94 comments left on Warden’s blog entry critiquing my argument. Of these, the only comments defending Warden’s criticism of my argument are his own. All the others are to one degree or another attempting to expose Warden’s own misunderstandings, misrepresentations and dishonest debating tactics, save for a few confused and unhelpful offerings supplied by Nidiot. Where are all those whom Warden persuaded with his critique of my argument?

Warden wrote:

The fact that this type of argument has been perpetuated since Ayn Rand was alive and many people continue to support it implies that these people simply aren't conscious of the fact that their "objective" philosophy and arguments are loaded with materialistic preconceptions.

If this argument has been so widely promulgated, why is Warden forced to do all his criticizing on his own? Rand died in 1982. Most of her major philosophical works were published in the 1960s. It seems that, by now (Warden wrote his critique of my argument in 2012), there’d be vast literature in the Christian corpus from which Warden should have been able to draw in constructing his critique. In fact, however, quite the opposite is the case: here we find Warden hopelessly groping for whatever he can grasp in order to attack the argument from metaphysical primacy, all the while simply succeeding in showing the world that he has not understood it from its very foundations. That’s not a formula for success if one’s goal is to effectively critique an argument.

Warden wrote:

These "objectivists" have truly believed that their arguments against Theism are logical and valid.

And what’s more, we know that our argument is sound. Nothing Warden has supplied in his attempt to critique my argument shows Objectivists to be wrong on this.

Warden wrote:

Thus, the biblical explanation of their actions seems to hold more veracity as an answer, that they are simply blinded to the truth.

There is no “biblical explanation” for my actions any more than there is a “biblical explanation” of the proper relationship between consciousness and its objects. On the former matter, there is just a series of assertions given in the bible to reinforce the us-vs.-them mentality desired of worshipers; on the latter, there is deafening silence.

Warden wrote:

Though fraught with problems, Free Thought Blogs recommends Bethrick's blog and calls presuppositionionalism "intellectually dishonest" - as though Bethrick is offering an intellectually honest and valid argument against God's existence.

Hey, someone out there besides Rick Warden is plugging my blog. That’s great news!

Warden wrote:

Is it logical to answer theist presuppositionalism with atheist presuppositionalism? Hardly.

Is it illogical to examine a worldview’s implications with respect to the issue of metaphysical primacy, the most fundamental issue in all philosophy, an issue that is inescapable once consciousness enters the mix? Hardly!

Warden wrote:

Why am I not surprised Free Thought Blogs would recommend Dawson Bethrick? Free Thought Blogs is the home of PZ Myers - who rails on theism and offers no logical arguments for his beliefs whatsoever.

I have heard of PZ Myers, but I am unfamiliar with the particulars of his views, so I cannot speak on this.

But I can say that Warden’s attempts to critique my argument have fallen at the first hurdle – namely the point at which he should have first sought to understand what my argument argues rather than seeking instead to mutilate it for an easy kill (which even Warden doesn’t manage to pull off). And no, merely quoting statements of mine in no way guarantees that Warden has understood the points I raise against theism.

In the final analysis, we should not expect someone like Rick Warden to be persuaded by any anti-theistic argument. Warden walks by faith, not by reason. Like Christian apologist Mike Licona, Warden wants Christianity to be true. His desire to see only positive outcomes for his religious belief effectively blinds him to the true nature of facts. That is the power of faith; its efficacy can be measured in the degree to which one denies the facts of reality.

by Dawson Bethrick