Exapologist's Message to Non-Theists

In the comments section of the blog "No evidence?? Really??" by Victor Reppert, Exapologist wrote the following message to non-believers:

A message to my non-theistic buddies with full sincerity and respect: prima facie, the universe is a contingent being; prima facie, the fundamental constants are fine-tuned so as to permit the emergence of life; prima facie, consciousness is not reducible to any standard account of the physical. Taken together, they can legitimately used to offer decent support to the hypothesis of theism. Maybe you could add the Moreland/Reppert argument from reason -- I don't know enough about the relevant literature to pretend to know. Against this backdrop, it makes sense to talk about the principle of credulity and religious experience. This isn't shabby inductive or abductive support for some form of theism.

I want to say up front that I do appreciate Exapologist's concern to warn non-believers from overstating their certainties. Many non-believers seem prone to affirming more than they could possibly know when it comes to considering religious defenses. However, I wanted to post some thoughts in response to his three “prima facie” points, as they are in desperate need of correction. For there are many things that we can know and affirm without the theistic believer's approval.


The first of Exapologist's points was the following:

prima facie, the universe is a contingent being;

One could accept this position only if he first accepted a host of unstated assumptions packed into his understanding of the concept of ‘universe’. For instance, that the universe is not all that there is, that it “came into existence” somehow, that maybe it “arose from chance,” that something outside it caused it to exist, or that it depends on something outside itself for its existence, etc. None of these assumptions themselves are prima facie true, and I know of no good reasons to accept any of them.

It is important, when making general statements about the universe as a whole, to clarify what we mean by the word ‘universe’. At minimum we need to know what we’re talking about. Exapologist did not do this in his brief message to his non-theistic buddies, so I will. The universe is the sum totality of everything that exists. By this definition, it includes anything and everything that exists. This is not an arbitrary definition nor a fiat stipulation, for it serves a legitimate conceptual need: we need a concept which encompasses the sum totality of all that exists. Universe is that concept. By definition, then, there could be no such thing as something that exists “outside” the universe, for this would constitute a contradiction. Also, since ‘universe’ includes everything that exists, if there are things that are necessary and there are things that are contingent, they would both exist within the universe; they would both be part of the universe.

Also, the universe is not an entity – it is not a single entity to be distinguished from other entities. To say that the universe is one entity to be distinguished from other entities would ignore the fact that there are no entities that exist “outside” the universe; there is no “outside” the universe. On the contrary, the universe is a collection of entities – the collection of all entities – not a single entity as such. So what we can be certain of, is the fact that the universe exists, and only the universe exists.

So on this definition, how could it make sense to posit something that exists outside the universe? How could we posit something that exists outside the totality of all existence? If one objects to this definition of ‘universe’, it falls upon him defend an alternative definition of ‘universe’ and also identify an alternative concept which performs the conceptual task that ‘universe’ performs as I have defined it here. If ‘universe’ does not denote the sum totality of all existence, what does it denote, why does it include some things and not others, and what concept does denote the sum totality of all that exists?

Now for those who insist that something exists beyond the universe, however they wish to define it, there’s a fundamental problem which they need to address: How could they know this? By what means of awareness would one have awareness of something that exists beyond the cosmos, for example? This is where we find theism at its murkiest, in its disguised failures to answer questions about the acquisition and validation of knowledge. This is because theism, especially Christianity, fundamentally misidentifies the nature of the human mind, selling it short on the abilities that it does have (denouncing them summarily as expressions of “autonomy”) while holding it responsible for knowing things one could never discover and validate even if they were true (resting on the notion of “revelation”).

Consider this: If someone handed you a sealed box which you never saw before, and asked you to tell him what is inside it, how would you know? The exterior of the box has no markings to indicate where it came from, to whom it is destined, or what is inside it. So how would you know until you looked inside it? In the end, you’d have to say you didn’t know. So if you cannot know what is inside a box that is two feet before your eyes without looking in it, how could you know what exists “beyond” the universe without looking “beyond” it?

Here the theist will say that his god is not known by means of the senses. Well, we know this. This is essentially an admission to the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of what theists describe as their god. Theists then typically try to discredit the epistemological importance of sense experience in some way (which is their way of telling us that they believe knowledge can be held without consciousness). They then hasten to tell us that we can know their god by some alternative means, a means without any identifiable or understood method, one which they dub ‘revelation’ but which is indistinguishable from imagination. It is by turning inward, consulting internal impulses, misconstruing the mind’s own operations as evidence for supernatural things and projecting attributes that have been inflated beyond any actual measures found in nature, and casting those projections imaginatively “beyond” the universe. Well, if there is nothing “outside” the universe in the first place, then it makes no sense to speak of something that exists “beyond” the universe. So the theist can defend an alternative conception of the universe, one which allows us to assert the existence of something “beyond” it and can explain how one can “know” what exists “beyond” the universe even though we cannot know what is inside a sealed box two feet before our own eyes, then he has just accepted a stolen concept by asserting existence outside of existence, i.e., in a context which denies existence. This is absurd, but in fact it is inevitable when it comes to theism.


Exapologist’s second point was a follows:

prima facie, the fundamental constants are fine-tuned so as to permit the emergence of life;

This statement could make sense only if we assume that the requirements of life come first, and then the universe, in which those “fundamental constants” have been installed, were subsequently created, fashioned, or modified to accommodate those requirements somehow. But again this assumption commits the fallacy of the stolen concept by affirming the concept ‘life’ outside of or prior to the sum totality of existence. The universe is the sum totality of existence (see above). And even if this conception of ‘universe’ is denied (which invites its own set of problems – again see above), it commits the fallacy of the stolen concept by implicitly affirming the concept ‘life’ outside the environment in which life’s required constants obtain. If life requires certain preconditions (and this of course is true), how could the concept ‘life’ have any meaning outside a context which includes those preconditions which life requires? Blank out.

To make matters worse, we should note that theism holds that the agent which allegedly “fine-tuned” the universe to accommodate life, is itself alive. So if life requires certain preconditions (or “fundamental constants”), and those preconditions needed to be installed and “fine-tuned” by some agent which itself is said to be alive, we invite ourselves into the never-ending morass of an infinite regress: a living agent is needed to explain the fine-tuned fundamental constants of one class of living beings, and another living agent is needed to explain the fine-tuned fundamental constants of the living agent that explained the fine-tuned fundamental constants of that class of living beings, and so on ad nauseum. Since this is unsatisfying, the theist wants to arbitrarily stop the chain of inference with his god, which he can only “know” by means of imagining it. This is the essential substance of what can be appropriately called the tape-loop apologetic antics of presuppositionalism. As a debating ploy, presuppositional apologists will challenge non-believers to “account for” what they call “the immaterial,” while the apologist himself “accounts for” what he calls “the immaterial” but by pointing to something he says is “immaterial.”

The tendency among religious defenses which seek to single out life as some sort of evidence for a supernatural deity, is to treat life as if it were some kind of exception to the natural world. By smuggling such assumptions into one’s conception of the world at the beginning, he’s on the path to confirming the stolen concepts identified above. Since life is thought to be something alien to the universe, we need to posit something outside the universe to explain it (something that is itself said to be alive).

However, biology is not an exception to nature. Indeed, it is part of nature. Biological causality is a type of causation, and it has identity just as mechanical, geothermal, chemical and other forms of causation. Moreover, inherent in biological causality is an organism’s ability to adapt to the environment in which it exists, at least to a certain extent. If it does not or cannot adapt to its environment, it will need to find an environment to which it can adapt itself, or it will die. The environment does not rearrange itself to accommodate life’s requirements; organisms need to act in order to meet their own life requirements, or they stop living. None of these points in any way diminishes our curiosity of it, or renders our discoveries about how life functions insignificant or impertinent to our endeavors. They simply allow us to constrain science to the rational context it requires by slashing off arbitrary notions at their base, before they can grow like weeds and choke our reasoning.

The standard problem of theism is that, as an explanation, it simply pushes the original question back a step, but unfortunately into the fake environment of an imaginary realm. For instance, if the agent which allegedly “fine-tuned” the fundamental constants of the universe to accommodate life is itself alive, what fine-tuned the fundamental constants of supernatural reality to accommodate its life? The original question still remains unanswered, and now there’s a new question to occupy us, one that leads us to losing sight of the importance of the original issue and replacing it with nonsense that could have no value for human life. So asserting the existence of a god does not offer any bankable explanations, and it simply complicates matters all the more. Even worse, it invites arbitrary standards which could only be based in one’s imagination.


Exapologist’s third point was the following:

prima facie, consciousness is not reducible to any standard account of the physical.

Why suppose that consciousness needs to be “reducible to any... account of the physical” in the first place? Consciousness is irreducible, both conceptually and metaphysically. This fact does not imply theism any more than it implies that The Wizard of Oz is true. Man is an integrated being of matter and consciousness. So are other animals. If only reptiles and fishes existed, would we need a god to “account for” these?

Consciousness is both axiomatic and natural. When asking for an explanation of consciousness, what exactly is being sought? Consciousness is its own kind of existence, just as rock salt is its own kind of existence, and the element of helium is its own kind of existence. Each has its specific identity. Consciousness is no exception to this - it has its own identity.

That consciousness is irreducible means that we can identify it without needing to come to our awareness of it by first understanding it in terms of some non-conscious components which make it up. That is, we do not need to argue for its existence, for argumentation presupposes the reality of consciousness by virtue of the fact that argumentation is a conscious activity. What it does not mean is that consciousness is by itself an entity. Consciousness is an attribute of entities, not an entity all its own. An organism’s consciousness is an integral part of the organism possessing it, and it depends on a very complex set of physiological systems which support it. So while consciousness need not reduce to the physical, it does nevertheless depend on the physical. Both rational philosophy and science concur on these points.

Meanwhile, I have seen no credible evidence which suggests that consciousness is possible without the neurophysiological processes which have been discovered and understood through scientific research. Again, we can imagine disembodied “spirits” which float around and inhabit a magic kingdom beyond the reach of our senses, but this is the stuff of fairy tales and storybooks.

When men fail to understand the nature of their own consciousness and choose not to put forth the needed effort to discover and understand their consciousness, they often resort to misusing it in their efforts to “explain” it. But again we come back to the tape-loop apologetic antics of presuppositionalism: how does positing a conscious deity “explain” man’s consciousness? How does asserting the existence of a conscious agent explain the consciousness which we possess?

It doesn’t.

by Dawson Bethrick

The Ominous Parallels Between Presuppositionalism and Drug Addiction

In his essay The Pulling Down of Strongholds: The Power of Presuppositional Apologetics, Christian apologist Michael Butler writes:

Refuting a non-Christian worldview does not establish the Christian worldview, though. It may be that both his worldview and ours is false. So to prove the Christian worldview, we demonstrate that it and it alone can account for human experience. This leads to the second step. In this step we do not answer the fool according to his folly. Rather we invite the unbeliever to come inside our worldview in order to show him that Christianity makes sense of our experience. It provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge.

It is true that proving one position wrong does not necessarily establish the truth of a rival position. As Butler acknowledges, both may be false. But Butler insists that the Christian worldview is true, and declares that he can “demonstrate that it and it alone can account for human experience,” and this would supposedly serve to prove that Christianity is true. And although the claim to be able to “account for human experience” is rather ambiguous, presuppositionalists are in the habit of making it with gusto, apparently putting a lot of stock in this professed ability of theirs. Demonstrating this alleged ability of Christianity to “account for human experience” constitutes “the second step” of the presuppositionalist program. How does the presuppositionalist do this? Butler describes the procedure as follows:

we invite the unbeliever to come inside our worldview in order to show him that Christianity makes perfect sense of our experience. It provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge.

Readers of this can be forgiven for having the impression we're being invited to take on what sounds like a drug addiction. To outsiders, taking the drug is foolish and self-destructive; but to the addicts themselves, the drug is a doorway to a wondrous, mind-altering experience, as precious if not more so than food and water. And this drug is available for "free"; it is not illegal, and it won't cost you a penny to get a hold of some on the street. And its power to alter the mind is tremendous. Many addicts love the drug so much that they will kill for it, and most addicts confess that they are willing to die for it. And while they are under the influence of the drug, everything seems to "make sense" finally and once and for all, as it offers a completely different way of looking at the world and at oneself.

Surely, if one becomes a drug addict, he will see the world through the eyes of a drug addict, and drug addicts are well known for their ability to rationalize their self-destructive habit. They may even claim that only while they are on the drug will their experience “make sense,” for certainly their addiction can “account for” their altered experience.

However, it would not follow from this drug-induced delusion that the drug and/or their addiction to it “provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge.” It is still a drug, and this drug has potentially lethal side effects. Thus we would be wise to politely decline Butler’s invitation to sip from the trough of mystical Kool-Aid that he so eagerly wants to serve.

by Dawson Bethrick

Faith as Belief Without Understanding

Let's ring in the New Year with a little Bahnsen burning...

A Deliberate Ambiguity

It should not be a surprise that presuppositional apologists tend to avoid the issue of faith in their skirmishes with Christianity’s critics. When it does come up in debate, it is typically glossed over as casually as if it were no more than a preposition. It is as if the believer expects everyone to “just know” what is meant by the word. Why elaborate on something everyone “just knows” already? However, the reason why presuppositionalists are happy not to elaborate on the issue of faith is that it is riddled with so much confusion and conflict, and unlocking this confusion and conflict is sure to give away the game. Indeed, there are few things in Christianity that are riddled with more lack of clarity than the meaning and role of faith (those which are even more confused would be the issues of salvation, justification, atonement, etc.). Some apologists often like to blame non-believers for this confusion, treating them like spoilsports who stubbornly refuse to just go along with the scheme by asking troublesome questions. But occasionally an apologist will acknowledge that believers themselves are often responsible for the persisting and embarrassing quagmire arising from the bible’s total and unflinching embrace of faith. But even those occasional few are powerless to remedy the situation.

Both as a former Christian and now as a critic of Christianity, my long-held impression is that Christians themselves are confused about the nature and function of faith, given their own statements as an indication of their level of understanding. There are two basic reasons for this confusion.

One is that the bible is painfully ambiguous in its use of the word 'faith'. It uses ‘faith’ in a wide variety of contexts with no consistent meaning. Even when we get to the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, which is often cited as providing an authoritative definition of ‘faith’, it gives us confusion or worse. It defines faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (v. 1). This definition seems to have been designed to play a trick on the mind of the eager believer. Hoping for something does not produce assurance. I could hope for a million dollars, but there’s no assurance in this of receiving it. Needless to say, my hoping does not assure its own fulfillment. Similarly, “things not seen” does not give a man conviction. Objectively speaking, I do not “see” myself breathing water one day if I should happen to drive my car into the frigid waters of the Columbia River, but imagining (“seeing the unseen”) that I will breathe water does not give me the conviction that I will have this ability should my survival require it. O me of little faith? Elsewhere the word faith seems deliberately vague and tends to have a new meaning with each author, sometimes signifying belief (cf, Mt. 8:5-10, Rom. 4:5), sometimes implying the means by which belief or knowledge is acquired (cf. I Cor. 2:5f; II Cor. 5:7), sometimes meaning a mental power to alter a present state of affairs (cf. Mt. 15:22-28; 17:20, etc.), sometimes referring to an act of will (cf. Heb. 11), sometimes suggesting a mystical faculty by which one allegedly receives revelatory transmissions from supernatural sources (cf. Rom. 1:17, 10:6). Still other passages, such as those telling stories of miracle cures of blindness, palsy or other ailments, give the impression that believing something (e.g., “having faith”) will make it so. For instance, apparently if I believe (or "have faith") that my nearsightedness will be corrected, it should be corrected. If it is not corrected, it must be due to my not believing strongly enough – i.e., having too little faith. But when Christian believers themselves were invited to pray for this correction, no correction came about. Perhaps they did not pray, or perhaps they did not have sufficient faith. Or, it could be that their teaching is simply wrong. At any rate, with such a wide variety of meanings, given its varying use, it is no wonder that Christians would be confused by what faith is supposed to really mean.

The other reason for their confusion is that Christians are not honest to themselves about the nature of their beliefs and the means by which those beliefs are accepted as secured truths. Indeed, it is this same dishonesty which conflicted the authors of the bible and led to their use of the term as we find it in their stories and teachings. They are not honest about their beliefs because they are not honest about reality. At the most fundamental level of knowledge they want to believe that reality conforms to the consciousness of a being they can only imagine, which constitutes a double error. First they confuse their imagination with reality by supposing that what they imagine is actually real, and second they assume the metaphysical primacy of consciousness by granting to the being they imagine conscious power over the universe. Believers as well as non-believers can sense this dishonesty, but few acknowledge it, and even fewer are willing to put their finger on it. The pathological dishonesty comes in the form of trying to defend and propagate such a view. This is where the trickery of theological casuistry, which I will briefly survey below, comes in. Judging by what Christian theologians, apologists and believers say about faith, one can easily get the impression that faith is a very complicated matter. The truth of the matter, however, is not at all so complicated. In fact, all the confusion that Christians have built up around the word faith over the decades and centuries is intended to hide a truth that is too uncomfortable for them to bear.

Now it must be borne in mind that faith is always viewed positively in the bible, for it never seems to allow faith to be the instrument of the damned. The bible’s fantastical stories and teachings associate faith with "the righteousness" of the Christian god (cf. Rom. 3:22, 4:5, 13, Phil. 3:9), which is seen to be the source of all virtue, while the damned are associated with deceit and deception. So we should expect Christians to defend the doctrine of faith, regardless of how confused and complicated the bible's and their statements may be, for this is a major pillar in their worldview and thus integral to the confessional investment that they are determined to protect at all costs. They have to defend it, because the bible affirms it. I would not be surprised if a lot of apologists would secretly prefer that the bible not be filled with so many mentions of faith, for it makes their task not only insurmountably difficult, but in fact quite embarrassing to adult thinkers.

For the Record

In seeking the definition of faith that is assumed by presuppositional apologetics, I turned to Greg Bahnsen’s mammoth Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis. There, I thought, I would find the definitive presuppositionalist ruling on the matter. I flipped to the index, and under the heading “faith” I found a reference to its “definition” on page 115, footnote 83. When I saw this, my hopes were stoked, and I thought “Aha! Maybe Bahnsen does give a definition of ‘faith’ in his master tome!” I quickly turned to page 115 and read the following statement under note 83:

Notice here how all claims about ‘faith’ are taken as referring to the same kind of thing, namely, adopting an outlook that is mysterious, unreasoned, or unprovable. Different people do not necessarily mean the same thing by ‘faith’ any more than they do by ‘love’.

This is very disappointing, but unfortunately not at all surprising. As I pointed out above, many Christians mean different things by “faith,” and I think this is ultimately the bible’s fault. One would expect if not simply hope that those Christians who want to spread Christian belief and who also acknowledge the fact that “different people do not necessarily mean the same thing by ‘faith’,” would make an effort to bring both clarity and finality to the issue. But notice that note 83 on page 115 of Bahnsen’s book does not even give a definition of ‘faith’! This was the only point referenced in the index of Bahnsen’s massive tome as giving a definition of ‘faith’. Presuppositionalists like Bahnsen seem to complain a lot when thinkers, whether Christian or non-Christian, mean something by ‘faith’ that they don’t like (for instance, they spit and stammer when non-believing critics view faith and reason as mutually opposed). But why merely complain? Why not try to correct the record? Why not lay out a clear definition of ‘faith’? I know what reason is, and I have a good idea of what faith is. Fundamentally, reason stands on the primacy of existence, while faith assumes the primacy of consciousness. The fact that faith’s metaphysical premises contradict those of reason is what is responsible for the millennia-old conflict.

Even John Frame, in his A Van Til Glossary, does not give an entry for defining ‘faith’. When faith appears, it is in the definition of a term denoting a view that presuppositionalists verbally reject, which is fideism, the “belief that God is known by faith and not by reason.” Of course, the glossary does not include a definition of ‘reason’ either, and neither does the bible, so we may never know what Christians mean when they use the word ‘reason’. By not offering definitions of their key terms, Christian apologists can always respond to their critics by saying "that's not what we mean." But what they do mean always remains shrouded in mystery. One can be forgiven for getting the impression that they don't know themselves what they mean.

Belief Without Understanding

Let’s have a look at some other statements by Bahnsen to see just what a confused mess presuppositionalists are standing in. Remember, my task here is to find out just what Bahnsen thinks faith is, what its role might be, how it works in the believer’s epistemology, and what inferences can be drawn from what is stated.

For Bahnsen, faith is essentially just another word for belief. He writes:

To ‘have faith’ that something is true (e.g., that Elvis is alive and residing in Idaho) is the same as ‘believing’ that the claim in question is true; these are different semantic ways of expressing the same thing. Accordingly, when a person says he ‘believes’ something ‘simply on faith’ (without specifying further), he has merely told us that ‘he believes because he believes’. (Always Ready, p. 202n.1)

It should be noted that Bahnsen does not cite any passages from the bible to support his equation of faith with belief, and some Christians might even find this move objectionable. The examples of faith in Hebrews 11, for instance, do not seem to be examples of belief, but rather powers of will (and as such, they are examples of Christianity's commitment to the primacy of consciousness). Nonetheless, Bahnsen has made his position clear for the record. He also states that faith (which now we understand to be belief) is fundamental. He writes:

Faith is the precondition of a proper understanding... faith precedes knowledgeable understanding. (Ibid., p. 88)

So, faith is belief, and this belief must come before “a proper understanding” since it is “the precondition” thereof. This could only mean that, as a belief, faith must be accepted before one understands what it is he is accepting as truth. Thus faith is belief without understanding, for it comes before any understanding. So, accordingly, the Christian starts out accepting as truth a belief claim which he does not understand and thus could not know whether or not it is true. On this measure, it makes no difference what the content of that belief may be, for at this point the believer is in no position to tell the difference between truth and falsehood. It is at this point, before the believer can distinguish between fact and fiction, that Christianity seeks to nab human minds and invest them with its belief program. This is why Christian adults are so eager to get a hold of people’s children, for it is while they are children that a human being is suggestible, moldable, vulnerable to fictitious beliefs and defenseless before the presumed authority of predatory adults who have themselves fallen for Christianity’s deceptive gimmicks.

Believing a claim before understanding it (and thus before knowing whether or not it is true) is the basic model of conversion: get the new convert to make a belief commitment before he understands everything. Then slowly unravel the “mysteries” in small doses, so that he doesn’t question them or, worse, exit the front doors of the church in an act of self-preservation.

Christians do not want to admit that they have no understanding, they simply want to make their faith a fundamental requirement to understanding. While faith is belief without understanding, the “understanding” comes later, after the commitment has been cinched. Why believe it? Well, not because it is thought to be true, but because of fear, specifically the fear of any consequences which might occur if it is not believed. John 4:18 explains the motivation for believing without knowledgeable understanding:

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

If an individual does not believe the religious man’s claims (regardless of whether or not he understands them or thinks they are true), he is “condemned already,” as if he were utterly worthless because of his “failure” to believe. This is the primacy of consciousness making its debut into epistemology: what one believes is eternally all-determining, for believing is sufficient to make it so. If one believes, he is “not condemned”; if he does not believe, he is “condemned already.” One's actions and choices are of no moral consequence, for what one believes trumps what one does. This helps explain why so many believers in Christianity are found on the wrong side of the law.

Notice how Bahnsen’s interpretation of Proverbs 1:7 corroborates my analysis. He writes:

"The beginning (i.e., the first and controlling principle) of knowledge is the fear (or reverent submission) of the Lord" (Prov. 1:7). (Always Ready, p. 87)

Submission is an action, one performed by choice unless one is forced against his will. If an act of submission, whether chosen or forced, is itself “the beginning of knowledge,” this could only mean that the act of submitting was undertaken without the benefit of knowledge, for it purportedly comes before any knowledge has been acquired. Thus it was a mindless act of submission, and this mindless act is the foundation of the believer’s “knowledge.” Knowledge of what? Who knows. Does it really matter at this point? The believer sure doesn’t know (cf. Frame), for what his worldview calls knowledge, is nothing close to real knowledge, for real knowledge does not base itself on mindless actions of will. As Frame admits of Christian believers, “We know without knowing how we know.” (Presuppositional Apologetics: An Introduction (Part I))

Frame makes this statement when trying to answer the question “How did Abraham come to know that the voice calling him to sacrifice his son (Gen. 22:1-18; cf. Heb. 11:17-19; James 2:21-24) was the voice of God?” Frame’s own ignorance of how one can know that the voice he might hear in his head are “the voice of God” should not surprise us. But it is not an accident when Bahnsen tells us “There can be no doubt that Scripture sets forth Abraham to us as the paradigm of faith.” (Always Ready, p. 91) Even though the Old Testament story in Genesis 22 of Abraham and his willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac nowhere chalks up Abraham's actions to faith, Abraham is seen in the New Testament as the exemplary model of faith, but how did he know that the voice in his head commanding him to sacrifice his own son was “the voice of God”? Who knows! The underlying message here is: it doesn’t matter how one knows (i.e., epistemology is for the dogs), what matters is that he believes. Knowledge and faith are thus contrary vehicles of cognition.

Now of course, all this explains why thinkers throughout history have considered faith to be opposed to reason, for reason does not threaten individuals to accept its conclusions on the basis of fear. Reason enables a thinker to think for himself, allowing him to draw his own conclusions and form his own judgments independent of any threats that others might pronounce against him. Of course, this independence of one’s mental self-conduct is condemned by presuppositionalism as “autonomous thinking,” and rightly so given what’s at stake for Christianity: intellectual liberty will only break the spell of god-belief if allowed to flourish. Theologians and apologists, however, look for ways to conceal their animosity for intellectual liberty while posing as the mind's defenders.

A Hapless Contradiction

But is Bahnsen himself consistent with his own conception of faith as a precondition for knowledgeable understanding? Other statements from the same book indicate that even he was prone to forgetfulness when it comes to keeping the party line straight. The issue which throws him is, ironically, the hierarchical nature of knowledge itself, for it is here where we find Bahnsen’s constant breaching. I say “ironically” because the alleged thrust of “presuppositionalism” is to peer below the level of casual assumptions one takes for granted, to dig into the soil of those “presuppositions” which underlie beliefs resting at the surface of one’s worldview. When presuppositionalists themselves are so clumsy with the knowledge hierarchy, it can only indicate that something is wrong.

Consider the following statement by Bahnsen:

As J. Gresham Machen boldly put the matter in his book, What is Faith?, “we believe that Christianity flourishes not in the darkness, but in the light.” Machen wrote that “one of the means which the Spirit will use” to bring a revival of the Christian religion “is an awakening of the intellect.” He fervently resisted “the false and disastrous opposition which has been set up between knowledge and faith,” arguing that “at no point is faith independent of the knowledge upon which it is logically based. (Always Ready, p. 195)

Notice that last statement in particular: “at no point is faith independent of the knowledge upon which it is logically based.” This explicitly affirms that some knowledge logically precedes faith, and that faith logically depends on that prior knowledge. How can this be integrated with the view expressed earlier in Bahnsen’s book that “faith is the precondition of a proper understanding,” that “faith precedes knowledgeable understanding” (p. 88)? These statements tell us that there can be no knowledge which precedes faith, but the Machen statement that Bahnsen approvingly quotes tells us that there’s no faith without the prior “knowledge upon which it is logically based.” In one moment faith is fundamental, in the next is not fundamental.

Bahnsen devotes a whole chapter in his book Always Ready to discussing “The Problem of Faith” (pp. 193-203). But it is most unhelpful. In it Bahnsen seeks to challenge the well-warranted suspicion that faith and reason are in conflict, but he fails completely in defending the claim that "the content of our faith is what any reasonable man should endorse" because accepting that content on the basis of faith, by his own admissions, can only mean that he is in no position to even know whether what he accepts is fact or fiction, or "completely accords with logic," or that "without the Christian worldview 'reason' itself becomes arbitrary or meaningless - becomes unintelligible" (p. 196). Christianity's own commitment to the primacy of consciousness metaphysics guarantees that Bahnsen's view is false. Moreover, Bahnsen does not even give a clear indication of what faith is, other than that it is merely another word for belief. So why do we need two words to mean the same thing? Earlier in his book, as pointed out above, he claims that “faith is the precondition to a proper understanding” and that it “precedes knowledgeable understanding” (p. 88), but neither there or in the present chapter does he explain why this is the case, nor what exactly faith is. Is he merely saying that belief is a precondition to understanding? If so, why doesn't he just say that?

Faith and Imagination

There are strong, repeated indications that the word 'faith' is used as a disguise for relying on one's imagination instead of reason to justify his claims and beliefs. It is clear enough from examples in the bible, such as when Peter learns that he can walk on water by having sufficient faith (cf. Mt. 14:26-31; this pericope is obviously one of Matthew's elaborations on the more primitive model found in Mark 6), that imagination is involved in faith. Peter, seeing Jesus walk on the water, had to imagine himself doing the same thing. And reality obeyed accordingly, so long as he kept up the imagination in his mind, i.e., so long as he had "faith."

Bahnsen unwittingly corroborates this point when he writes:

Faith does not rely upon man’s autonomous thinking and what it “sees” but rather begins with a presuppositional conviction about the veracity of God’s word. That which is not seen in human ability is seen by faith which submits to the Lord’s self-attesting word (Heb. 11:27).

Now what faculty of the mind can “see” something “which is not seen in human ability”? Walking on unfrozen water, healing the blind by spitting into their eyes, turning water into wine, feeding 5,000 people with just a handful of bread loaves and fishes, casting mountains into the sea, and raising the dead from the grave, are “not seen in human ability.” So we cannot objectively look out at the world and find evidences of such things (i.e., we cannot "see" these things through "autonomous thinking"). To “see” these things, one must turn inward, into the subjective contrivances of the imagination. There “anything can happen,” which is the signature notion of god-belief (cf. the cartoon universe of theism).

Faith, then, is code for granting belief the power of altering the believer and/or the believed. Since "autonomous thinking" - i.e., relying on one's own perception and reasoning to identify reality according to facts gathered from the objects of perception and draw inferences about what is real in the world on the basis of objective inputs - is to be regarded as "foolishness" (cf. Bahnsen, Always Ready, pp. 55-57 et al.), an alternative approach is called for. In place of objective inputs gathered from the world around us by means of sense perception, faith lets the imagination loose on one's cognition, supplanting facts with fictions wherever it sees fit. If the facts that "autonomous thinking" discovers do not fit the religious doctrine, well, to hell with facts! Faith sees to it that facts need not get in the way of belief. On the Christian view, faith has the power to turn everything around. Simply by believing a prescribed set of claims, one can be cured of all kinds of ailments, both physical and moral, whether it is drug addiction, wife-beating, brain tumors, incontinence or irregularity. Just believe, and everything will be alright, is the lesson we are to learn from Christianity.

For instance, consider the following:

Rom. 3:22: “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.”

Rom. 4:5: “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

Just believe - or "just have faith" - and you're automatically included in the league of the just, just like that. It doesn't matter what you've done or the damage you may have caused others. You can be "justified" simply by signing on with the bandwagon of faith. That's an irresistible incentive to "believe" for those who seek the unearned in redemption.

Now consider: if one wanted to claim that the unreal is real, and he was called to explain (cf. “account for”) how he knows it, what answer could he give which both conceals and protects his deception? He would not come out and admit that his claims are not true, for he wants others to believe what he claims. To the extent that he would identify his means of knowledge, he would also have to conceal the fact that he was trying to evade reality. And since there is no means to identify other than his imagination and desire to deceive, his answer will need to appeal to something other than reason, maybe even come up with ways of discounting reason, such that his audience is discouraged from using reason as a means of evaluating his claims. A lie needs an additional lie to support it, so he makes up a fictitious means of knowledge by claiming to have received this knowledge from an unreal source, stamped with the guarantee of that unreal source’s alleged authority. Christianity provides a blueprint for just this kind of intellectual fraud.

Faith-talk, then, signals the call to retreat into the imagination of god-belief, and along with this a long tradition of deceit. It is when one insists on taking an objective approach that one finds himself on the wrong side of faith. See for instance the following passage in Romans 9:31-33:

But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; as it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

The “stumblingblock” in mind here is encountered when one misses the cue to dive into his imagination in order to “understand” the doctrinal point in question, for “faith is the precondition of a proper understanding” and “faith precedes knowledgeable understanding” (Bahnsen, Always Ready, p. 88). If "to 'have faith' that something is true... is the same as 'believing' that the claim in question is true" (Ibid., p. 202n.1), then as a "precondition for a proper understanding" faith is belief without understanding. And since faith is said to be "the substance of things hoped for" (Heb. 11:1 ) and this enables enables one to see "that which is not seen in human ability" (Always Ready, p. 92), the substance of faith can only be imagination.

by Dawson Bethrick

Paul's "Necessary Propositions"

In his lengthy and often torturously confused diatribe against me, Christian apologist Paul Manata tried to make hay out of the issue of so-called “necessary propositions.” He tried to raise this issue in previous correspondence, stating “I don't see how necessary propositions would exist without a mind,” as if I had affirmed that there could be any propositions without a mind to form them. I corrected him by explaining that propositions are functions of a consciousness, and this seems to be problematic for Paul given his commitment to the analytic-synthetic dichotomy.

Paul had written:

Dawson has made this claim: “Propositions are functions of a consciousness.” And so the problem here is what to do with necessary propositions? Granting Dawson’s claim that propositions are functions of consciousness, it would appear that he’d need to have a necessary consciousness that exists in all possible worlds.

And I responded:

Wrong. For one, I reject the necessary-contingent dichotomy that the conception rooting Paul's alleged problem takes for granted.

Paul then replied:

And why does Dawson reject this, he doesn’t tell us. Maybe we’re supposed to be scared because he abruptly says, “Wrong?” Maybe it’s because he authoritatively tells us “I reject the necessity-contingent dichotomy?” Who knows?

I did not elaborate on why I reject the necessary-contingent dichotomy because a) I thought Paul was already familiar with Objectivism and simply needed to be reminded of this (see below), and b) the purpose of my blog was not to restate what has already been well stated (again, see below). But for my readers' sake, let me briefly explain. I reject the necessary-contingent dichotomy that is unquestioningly embraced in most philosophical circles because I think it’s false. Why would I embrace something I think is false? Blank out. Why do I think it's false? Because it assumes a false understanding of concepts. Specifically the necessary-contingent dichotomy confuses concepts with their definitions, a confusion which the objective theory of concepts avoids. The dichotomy in question arises because of this confusion and could not arise without it.

Paul then stated:

I know that Piekoff wrote on the “analytic/synthetic dichotomy,” but that’s not the only kind of “necessary-contingent dichotomy” there is.

Paul acknowledges that Peikoff has written on the topic (see his comprehensive essay "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pp. 88-121), but he demonstrates that he’s not familiar with Peikoff’s criticism of the issue in question. I quote Peikoff:

Objectivism rejects the theory of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy as false – in principle, at root, and in every one of its variants. (ITOE, p. 94; emphasis added)

In his essay, Peikoff focuses on numerous expressions of this insidious idea, and explains why they are false. They are false because they assume a false theory of concepts. And it should already be apparent that Paul will not be able to counteract this by running to the bible, for it does not present a theory of concepts, nor does basing a theory of concepts on the musings of an imaginary deity bring any value to the matter.

Paul continued:

Furthermore, as usual, Rand and other Objectivists only serve to show how ignorant they really are of philosophy when they make the claims they do.

Rejecting bad ideas does not mean one is ignorant of philosophy. In fact, it is because of knowledge that we can have good reasons to reject bad ideas. But rather than take the time and effort he needs in order to understand the criticisms that Peikoff raises or offer any intelligent input on the matter, Paul wants to turn this into an opportunity to ridicule me. Observe:

My guess is that Dawson will play the fool as well. But, again, we don’t know because he tried to bully us rather than argue.

I suppose no matter what I have to say, Paul is going to want to call me a fool regardless. And look how much effort and time he spends trying (however poorly) to refute someone he wants to call a fool. Why not just call me a fool, and leave it at that? Again, does Paul really consider what he’s saying? And he says I’m trying to bully my readers? Does Paul feel bullied? To my recollection, no one else has complained about this. Paul can call people who don’t believe in his invisible magic being “fools” (and disparaging names like “baboon,” “monkey,” “hack,” etc.) any time he likes, but when they take time to carefully explain why they think theism is false or interact with his defenses, he feels bullied. This is most interesting.

Paul continues:

What does it mean to say Dawson rejects necessary and contingent propositions? Does he mean to tell us that 2+2=4 is not necessary, or is? Does he mean to tell us that his wearing a green shirt on Friday is not contingnent [sic], or is? Does he mean to say that both of these are necessary, or both are contingent? He never tells us.

I reject the artificial dichotomizing of propositions into two mutually opposed types because I reject the theory of concepts that this procedure assumes. In my view, to qualify something as “necessary” is only contextually meaningful when considering purposes, and purposes vary from situation to situation, context to context, and often depend on the needs of the moment rather than on “eternal considerations” under which the notion of “necessary propositions” poses. I realize that this is anathema to the proponents of the necessary-contingent and related dichotomies, because they (whether they realize it or not) hold to the intrinsic view of concepts (or to nominalist borrowings from the same). It holds that “necessity” is intrinsic to (some) propositions, and implies that “propositions” (like “universals”) “exist” in some nether dimension independent of human cognition. Dig down to find out why, and you’ll find a heap of arbitrary notions and unjustifiable assumptions holding it all up.

Propositions are not irreducible primaries. They are composed of concepts, and without concepts there would be no propositions. Concept-formation is a volitional process; nothing in reality forces us to undertake it. When we look out at the world, we see concrete entities, not "propositions." We form propositions to identify what we conceive, remember, project, etc., but only after we have formed concepts which identify the entities, attributes, actions, etc. Nothing forces us to do this, we do this because we choose to do this. If the content of any given proposition is valid concepts denoting data we have gathered from objects we have discovered (i.e., facts), and its purpose is to denote those facts, then that proposition would be describing fact(s). Must the proposition "existence exists" describe a fact? It does denote a basic fact, but not because the proposition itself "must" do so. It does because of a human epistemological need, a need which we have as a result of our desire for knowledge, and knowledge requires a starting point. The proposition itself has no needs of its own to satisfy, as if it were going to be starved if we do not feed it something, or as if it had the ability to condemn us to an eternity of torment unless we sacrifice burnt offerings to it. It is true that 2+2=4, but readers will see below that whether or not propositions are true is the issue to which I tried to direct the discussion. Moreover, wearing a green shirt as opposed to a red one on Friday is not propositional. It is a physical state of affairs, since the person wearing the shirt and the shirt itself are physical, not propositional. On such matters, Objectivism does recognize the distinction between “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made” (see Rand’s essay of this title in her book Philosophy: Who Needs It).

I had written:

Also, the concern here should be for truth, not some vague notion called “necessary propositions” which could mean anything and nothing.

Paul responded:

55. Despite the hand-waving, this is just stupid.

55. The question is, are there any propositions that, because of their specific content, must describe facts.

I’m not sure which point 55 Paul wanted me to address (perhaps Paul really does have a problem counting?), but I have answers for both of them.

In the case of the first point, it seems that Paul is saying that my concern for whether or not a proposition is true constitutes “hand-waving” and is “just stupid.” This is a most autobiographical Kodak moment in Paul’s diatribe. Each reader should pause to consider it.

In the case of the second point, Paul wants me to weigh in on the question, “are there any propositions that, because of their content, must describe facts.” There are numerous ways to answer this legitimately, but none of them lead to positive outcomes for Paul’s theism. What comes to mind initially is a statement from the above-mentioned essay by Peikoff. He writes:

In the realm of propositions, there is only one basic epistemological distinction: truth vs. falsehood, and only one fundamental issue: By what method is truth discovered and validated? To plant a dichotomy at the base of human knowledge – to claim that there are opposite *methods* of validation and opposite types of truth – is a procedure without grounds or justification.
(ITOE, p. 101)

So again, I think the important issue in considering the value of any proposition is whether or not it is true. But when I raised this concern, Paul pooh-poohed it, calling it “stupid.”

But for those who put their stock in the analytic-synthetic dichotomy and its nefarious offspring, Paul’s question points to the self-contradiction inherent in this jumble of confusion. On the dichotomy-laden view that Paul’s question assumes, any “facts” which a “proposition” might describe could only be contingent, and therefore not “necessary.” For instance, it may be a “fact” that man breathes air. But this is not “necessary” in all “possible worlds.” Those who put stock in the notion of testing claims against the standard of “possible worlds” would have to agree that there is a “possible world” in which man breathes sulfuric acid. So a proposition describing man’s need for air to breathe could not be a “necessary proposition.” Facts, according to the view assumed by Paul’s beloved dichotomy, “could have been otherwise,” as the saying goes. So Paul may be seduced into thinking that at least some “propositions..., because of their specific content, must describe facts,” but all is for naught on this view, for “facts” can vary according to whim, both the philosopher’s and the Christian god’s. Paul’s personal idol Cornelius Van Til makes this explicitly clear:

According to the doctrine of the Reformed faith all the facts of nature and of history are what they are, do what they do and undergo what they undergo, in according with the one comprehensive counsel of God. All that may be known by man is already known by God. And it is already known by God because it is controlled by God. (The Defense of the Faith, p. 99)

On this view, man’s need to breathe air instead of sulfuric acid, is up to “the one comprehensive counsel of God.” And who knows what this might be? Does Paul have the inside scoop on what his god plans? We should be careful here, because each believer tends to transpose his own will for his alleged god’s will at one point or another, as I explained in an earlier response to Paul. I had written:

Paul thinks that he can say that his god does not wish, because Paul determines what his god is and is not, what his god can and cannot do. The reason why Christians have so many internal disagreements is because one Christian will imagine his god one way, while another Christian imagines his god another way, and never shall the two meet.

Amazingly, the Christian’s god seems to want to have things just as they are and continue to be in reality. Isn’t that amazing? It must take a lot of talent to imagine a deity which has "counseled" to have things just as they are in this world.

So the "necessary propositions" issue may not be the land of promise that Paul had initially hoped it to be.

Paul asks:

Why doesn’t he understand what a “necessary proposition” is? Is he that backwards?

Yes, I must really be "that backwards." This is what Paul was after all the time: not to teach or inform, but to ridicule and name-call. This is what we can expect from presuppositionalists when their elusive argument is shown to be ineffective. It goes sort of like this:

Presuppositionalist: God exists because without Him, you couldn’t argue your way out of a paper bag.

Atheist: Really? How do you reckon?

Presuppositionalist: Because of the impossibility of the contrary. For instance, how do you account for necessary propositions?

Atheist: Duh, I donno. I’m not sure there is such a thing as a "necessary proposition" to begin with.

Presuppositionalist: You bafoon! Are you really that backwards? The question is, are there any propositions that, because of their specific content, must describe facts?

Atheist: Really, I was just wondering why you believe a god exists in the first place when it's so obvious that such a belief has its basis in the believer's imagination.

Presuppositionalist: I’m telling you why, you goof ball!

Atheist: Please, try to compose yourself. I was hoping we could have a civil discussion.

Presuppositionalist: How can civility be possible when you rebel against the preconditions of civility!!?

Atheist: Well, I’m trying my best to have a civil discussion with you. One of the preconditions of a civil discussion is the willingness of both parties to consider the other's viewpoint. But that's just it, you don't seem to be able to present your viewpoint.

Presuppositionalist: I've already sliced and diced your viewpoint, you monkey!

Atheist: Why don’t you just tell me where you began and how you ended up believing that your god exists? Can you do that?

Presuppositionalist: I began with God’s word, baboon!

Atheist: Well, that explains everything then. No wonder you believe this stuff. You began by swallowing it all hook, line and sinker. I know Muslims who do this with the Koran, and Buddhists who do this with Buddhist teachings.

Presuppositionalist: The Koranic god is self-refuting. Buddhist teachings are a jumble of absurdities!

Atheist: And now you should have a good idea of why I don’t believe in your god either.

Presuppositionalist: Why you stupid, ignorant fool! Don’t you realize that without God, you couldn’t argue your way out of a paper bag?

Atheist: Well, you did say this at the beginning, but so far you’ve made no progress in supporting this statement. Instead, you seem anxious to insult me rather than teach me what you might know. I’m willing to consider what you have to say, but you trash every opportunity I extend to you.

Presuppositionalist: You’re just trying to get the hoi polloi and all the teenagers to think you’re “hot stuff”!

Atheist: I see. I wasn’t aware that I had their attention. Regardless, aren’t you going to threaten me with hellfire and brimstone? That’s what the old churchmen used to do.

That’s about the sum of it. We learn nothing from Paul other than that he’s easily frustrated and that his feelings are easily hurt when someone doesn’t believe in his invisible magic being on his say so.

by Dawson Bethrick

Theism and Subjective Metaphysics

Below I continue my examination of Paul Manata's lengthy diatribe against me. In this post I will survey some of Paul's "more substantive" points which were intended to exonerate Christianity from the charge of subjectivism. Those who are familiar with my criticisms of Christianity already know that one of my primary contentions against any religious worldview is that it assumes a subjective metaphysics, particularly in its assertion of a supernatural subject to which the objects of the universe conform. Here we will see that efforts to overcome this criticism are doomed to failure.

I wrote:

I've seen many Objectivist assemble arguments against theism, many of them pointing to the metaphysical subjectivism inherent in theism as its own defeater.

Paul responded:

Ah yes, Dawson’ (in)famous argument from metaphysical subjectivsm. Let’s address it. Bethrick wants to capitalize on the common undertsanding people have of “subjectivism.” Sometimes it’s taken to mean “relativism.” Now, if reality were dependant on multiple human minds, then we’d have relativism.

It is important to understand the distinction and relationship of the various types of subjectivism. In his lecture series The Primacy of Consciousness Versus the Objectivist Ethics, Bernstein identifies three general categories of primacy of consciousness. They are the personal, the social, and the cosmic or supernatural. The personal primacy of consciousness holds that reality conforms to one’s own conscious druthers. This is the orientation assumed by the solipsist. (But see also: Confessions of a Vantillian Subjectivist.)

The social primacy of consciousness is the subjectivism of the collectivist. He holds the view that reality conforms to the consciousnesses of a group of individuals, whether it is all human beings or some subset of them, such as a race, or those sharing a certain belief system (cf. “the elect,” etc.). The cosmic or supernatural primacy of consciousness is the subjectivism assumed by religious god-belief. On this view, man’s mind is essentially impotent, unable to do anything by itself. But a supernatural personality, which according to the believer’s imagination exists beyond the universe, is omnipotent, and reality conforms to its every whim (only the believer typically prefers to call it a “plan” or some other term to give it some implication of principle and structure). All three share the same basic essential: the primacy of consciousness. All three are invalid for the same reason, namely that they reverse the proper orientation between subject and object.

Of course, either view is held by an individual, and as such, the personal primacy of consciousness is always implied to some degree. In the case of the social or cosmic primacy of consciousness, for instance, the view held by the individual essentially says that reality conforms to collective or supernatural will because he wants it to. This is why it is important to ask apologists who become frustrated with non-believers in the midst of debate, whether or not they think we should believer their religious claims on their say so. Typically they will deny that this is what they expect, and hasten to replace their own say so with what they say belongs to their god: “No, don’t believe because I say so, believe because God says so!” This simply removes the issue back one step as the believer tries to disguise his assumption of the personal primacy of consciousness with the authority of an imaginary deity.

Then Paul conceded that the theistic view of reality is ultimately subjective:

But in theism, there’s a sense in which reality is subjective - based on the divine mind

What more need I say? Paul has finally come to admit that the theistic view of reality is subjective in nature. Note how obvious an error it is to assume that “reality is... based on [a] mind.” Is that mind not also supposed to be real? If so, then how can reality be based on it? If not, then how can reality be based on it? Either way, the theist comes up all blanks.

In spite of this admission, Paul wants to add a qualification to dilute it:

but it’s still objective for us humans.

Qualifications like this simply demonstrate that theists have no consistent metaphysic to begin with. Paul is essentially saying that reality is both subjective and objective, as if the orientation between subject and object could be redirected by the flipping of a switch, or as if one could strike a compromise between the two and integrate them into a non-contradictory worldview. The problem is that the assumption that the orientation between subject and object can be redirected at will itself reduces to subjectivism, and that subjective and objective metaphysics cannot be integrated without contradiction. What happens when one tries to mix food with poison? One can still swallow it, but it will no longer be fit for human life.

According to theism (as Paul has clearly admitted), reality is ultimately subjective, and that’s all there is to say. It’s not “objective” for anyone, for everything must ultimately conform to the dictates of a consciousness. Theistic creationism essentially teaches that the universe came into being as a result of supernatural wishing. You cannot get any more subjective than this. Any “objectivity” that the theist wants to claim, is borrowed from a rival worldview, one which holds diametrically opposite foundations and principles. And even within the Christian worldview, to whatever extent it might ostensibly seem to “make sense” to claim objectivity in regard to some method or assessment, it is always subject to being overturned by the whims of the ruling consciousness. Every believer can be made a liar by the turn of the deity’s tail. Objectivity simply does not apply, for the preconditions of objectivity simply do not exist in such a universe. In theism, reality is comparable to silly putty: ever-pliant, conforming to whatever shape is desired. We should not forget the implications that metaphysical subjectivism has in epistemology. Knowledge on such a view ultimately reduces to sheer imagination. That is why tokens such as faith, prayer, belief unto salvation, et al., are so common in religious worldviews. They follow naturally from the subjective metaphysics of religious doctrines.

Paul writes:

There are some respects which reality is the product of human consciousness. For example, Dawson’s mind causes blog posts to appear in the world.

This is so wrong-headed it’s childish. My consciousness does not cause blog posts to appear in the world. My physical actions do. Without a functioning computer hooked up to the internet and without my fingers busily typing away and pointing and clicking hyperlinks, etc., I would not be able to post even one word on my blog. My mind does not put the blog on the internet, my actions, along with the electronic mechanics of my computer and www.blogger.com, do.

Just last week I was editing a post on blogger.com when a storm outside caused the power to fail temporarily. I lost the edits that I had been making. My wishing was not sufficient to prevent this, nor was my wishing able to restore those edits once the power came back on. If my consciousness causes posts to appear in the world, my wishing should have been sufficient to do all this. But reality does not conform to consciousness. On the contrary, to get the job done, I had to start over, physically going through each paragraph again to review what was written and make any edits that needed to be made.

Paul writes:

The meaning of these posts is dependant upon consciousness. No consciousness, no meaning. If meaning is real, then it is subject to the primacy of consciousness. If it’s not real, then Bethrick lives in a relativistic universe. We make up our own meaning and there is no meaning that is the meaning.

This is quite convoluted. Meaning is the domain of concepts, and concepts are formed from objective inputs according to an objective method. Concepts are not formed by consciousness in an input-free void, without the benefit of objects which supply them with content. On the contrary, concepts are informed by the data we gather from the objects of our awareness. Consequently the meaning of any post is dependent on the subject-object relationship. This is why the principle of objectivity (i.e., object primacy) is so important. Without it, meaning would not be possible. Objectivity is the principle application of the primacy of existence metaphysics to knowledge and the choices we make. So contrary to what Paul insinuates, if meaning is real, it must depend on the primacy of existence orientation in the subject-object relationship. If consciousness did not have an object to consider and use as a guide for knowledge, there could be no meaning. Meaningfulness is not possible without both a subject and an object. In a theistic realm, meaning is ultimately subject to an invisible magic being’s whims: its wants are the only standard, the only guide, the only criterion which generates and informs any meaning, to the degree that meaning is even possible at that point. This is quite ironic, for many Christian apologists often make the topic of "meaning" a debating point, insisting that there would be no meaning whatsoever if their invisible magic being did not exist. Ravi Zacharias, for instance, asserts that

In a world without God there is no essential meaning or sanctity to humanity. (No Meaning from Matter)

Unfortunately for the theist, he cannot say that the meaning that his god allegedly creates is objective in character, for the objects on which it would base any meaning would themselves be meaningless creations. Granting the Christian mythology for argument's sake, the objects that the Christian god creates would be merely empty vessels whose identity would be assigned according to its pleasure (cf. Ps. 115:3) and revisable at will (cf. doctrine of miracles). Van Til confirms this explicitly:

According to the doctrine of the Reformed faith all the facts of nature and of history are what they are, do what they do and undergo what they undergo, in accord with the one comprehensive counsel of God. All that may be known by man is already known by God. And it is already known by God because it is controlled by God.” (The Protestant Doctrine of Scripture, p. 57; quoted in Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, p. 106)

So the things that the theist would claim as objects of his god's awareness, would not be objects as we know them. In the non-cartoon universe of atheism, the objects of our consciousness are what they are independent of consciousness, and the task of consciousness is to perceive them and identify their nature. But in the cartoon universe of theism, the objects of the Christian god's consciousness could not be said to be what they are independent of consciousness. Its consciousness creates its objects and assigns their nature by divine fiat (cf. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p. 26). So there is no objectivity in the theistic worldview after all. All is subjective whim, all is arbitrary. Indeed, to call theism arbitrary is a redundancy.

Paul wrote:

The Christian position is that an eternally existing and conscious God creates everything distinct from him (including you, the universe, and me).

This reduces to the fallacy of pure self-reference. For details, see here. Some apologists have suggested that the only way around this criticism is to compromise the doctrine of divine simplicity by asserting that the Christian god has "parts" which can serve as objects of its consciousness. Thus to overcome a fallacy, an arbitrary worldview will have to double cross some of its stated positions.

Paul wrote:

Note that this position entails that: [a] some existence is not the result of consciousness (since God does not create himself). Thus, the Christian position is not metaphysical subjectivism, the idea that all existence finds its source in a form of consciousness. [b] Our consciousness is a result of existence (God's existence), thus satisfying the central impulse of metaphysical objectivism.

Notice that Paul is trying (again!) to make Christianity square with the primacy of existence principle, while earlier he argued that it has no basis. Why would he now try to make his position cohere with something he earlier indicated to be baseless? At any rate, [a] simply concedes the whole shebang to Objectivism, for it acknowledges the inescapability of the primacy of existence. But [a] is not sufficient to rid a position of its metaphysical subjectivism. The metaphysical subjectivism is still there. According to Christianity, it’s here with us, in the universe of finite objects, the created reality made of pliant silly putty, the cartoon universe in which “God controls whatsoever comes to pass.” Christianity teaches that the whole universe was created by an act of divine will, i.e., that the entire universe finds its source in a form of consciousness, and that all the objects therein conform to its intentions. This teaching grants metaphysical primacy to the subject over its objects, and is thus sufficient to convict Christianity of metaphysical subjectivism. Contrary to what Paul insinuates here, a position does not need to affirm that "all existence finds its source in a form of consciousness" to commit itself to metaphysical subjectivism. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. The issue is the orientation between a subject and its objects. The assertion that any external object directly depends on and/or conforms to the will of a consciousness for its existence and or nature entails metaphysical subjectivism. This is all over Christianity. It can be found in Christian ontology (e.g., “creationism,” “miracles,” etc.), epistemology (e.g., faith in revelations), morality (e.g., divine commandments, pietism, self-denial and self-sacrifice, etc.), social theory (e.g., Christian collectivism, the “body of Christ,” etc.).

[b] gives Christian teachings the short shrift by downplaying the divine sovereignty of the Christian god. The objects that the Christian god are not, according to Christian teaching, a result of merely the existence of said god, as if their creation were automatic, unintentional or accidental. Rather, Christianity holds that they are a deliberate result of its will, i.e., its conscious activity.

God’s ‘thought content’ actively makes these things so (i.e., actively makes the truth). (Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, p. 227n.152).

Accordingly, the Christian god wishes, and POOF! Whatever it wishes magically comes to pass. Then to make matters even worse, once the Christian god got around to creating human beings, Christianity’s doctrines can only mean that they are puppets, like characters in a cartoon, since “God controls whatsoever comes to pass.” This same god

controls all events and outcomes (even those that come about by human choice and activity) and is far more capable and powerful than modern machines. (Van Til's Apologetic, p. 489n.43)

So [b] takes for granted something that is not logically compatible with Christian teaching, namely the assumption that human beings are actually conscious. On the contrary, according to what Christianity teaches, human beings are nothing more than mere puppets dangling on a string and being moved about to and fro according to an all-sovereign plan instigated by an all-sovereign invisible magic being long before they even existed. Puppets are not alive. They are not conscious organisms. Ironically, given its commitment to sheer determinism (which follows naturally from the primacy of consciousness metaphysics), Christianity's view of man cannot break past the gravitational pull of mere Hobbesian mechanism.

Additionally, [b] would also imply:

1) a lack of consistent metaphysics (Paul wants to flip-flop back and forth between the subjective and the objective orientation),

2) the inability of the Christian god serving as the standard of man's knowledge - for man's standard needs to be consistent with the nature of his consciousness and the orientation it has with its objects (see here), and

3) fatal implications for the notion that man was created in the image of this god viz. rationality, for man's rationality is premised on the primacy of existence, while the Christian god enjoys the primacy of consciousness.

Needless to say, Paul's defenses are falling down pretty hard.Let's see what else he said.

Paul wrote:

Since Christianity does not claim that all existence is the result of consciousness - because God doesn’t create Himself, He’s not a “result” - then Christianity claims that some existence is the result of consciousness.

If the Christian god did not create itself, then its nature is not something it ever intended. Its nature is a mere cosmic accident, a fluke, a product of chance. This is the implication of presuppositionalism's own kind of reasoning:

If the mind of God does not sovereignly determine the relationship of every event to every other event according to His wise plan, then the way things are in the world and what happens there are random and indeterminate.(Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, p. 110n.64)

The gist of this kind of reasoning is clear enough: if something is not under the control of the Christian god, then it must be "random and indeterminate." Since, as Paul explicitly states, this same god did not create itself, its existence and the nature it has could not be a "result" of its own intentions. So it's "just by chance" that it is what it is. No overseeing consciousness can be said to have been responsible for ensuring the Christian god's nature is rational or coherent. The Christian doctrine of god falls by presuppositionalism's own sword.

Paul asked:

Now, does Bethrick hold to: (a) all existence is the result of a consciousness; (b) some existence is the result of consciousness, (c) no existence is the result of consciousness?

My view is that there is always a distinction between an object and the cognitive faculty by which one is aware of it. Cognition does not create the objects it perceives, nor does it dictate what their nature is. In other words, my worldview holds that the objects of cognition always hold metaphysical primacy over the subject of cognition. Hence "Objectivism." Christianity, however, gives us the notion of a god, “an isolation of actual characteristics of man combined with the projection of impossible, irrational characteristics which do not arise from reality – such as omnipotence and omniscience.” (ITOE, p. 148) This being allegedly possesses a consciousness which has the power to wish entire universes into existence and manipulate the identity of any object it chooses. The result is a blurring between subject and object, a reversal of metaphysical primacy, and a worldview built on stolen concepts and choking in floating abstractions.

Paul writes:

If he holds to (a) then he’s a metaphysical subjectivist. Christianity holds to (b) and since Bethrick thinks Christianity holds to metaphysical subjectivism Bethrick can’t hold to (b). That leaves (c}. Bethrick must maintain that no existence is the result of consciousness. So, since thoughts exist they must not be the result or creation of consciousness. So, we have eternally existing thoughts.

Again, my view is that the objects of consciousness are distinct from the process by which we are conscious of them, that the objects are what they are independent of consciousness, that our consciousness does not create its own objects but rather perceives and/or considers them. My position has been unflinchingly consistent on this: reality is not a creation of consciousness, nor does reality conform to the dictates of consciousness.

Paul somehow thinks that thoughts or ideas constitute a counter-example to this, but in fact they do not. Thinking is the action of a consciousness capable of conceptualized cognition. Since consciousness is an active faculty, no new existence is "created" when consciousness performs its functions. It is the nature of consciousness to act. When a man thinks, nothing new in the universe comes into existence. It simply doesn't work that way. His consciousness already existed, and he did not create his own consciousness by an act of his consciousness. Again, consciousness is axiomatic.

Paul asked:

Just how, exactly, does Bethrick’s position deny “invisible magic beings?”

By consistently embracing the primacy of existence metaphysics and avoiding the fallacies inherent in believing that invisible magic beings and other constructs of the imagination are real.

We have seen time and time again that Paul's efforts to criticize my position continue to fail as he body-slams himself into the wall of rational philosophy. Full of self-inflicted cuts and bruises, he has been unable to cohere his god-belief with the primacy of existence, which we need as the basis of rationality. And he has been unable to undermine the primacy of existence as the foundation of a rational philosophy. Is this the best that presuppositionalism has to offer? If so, it's in big trouble.

by Dawson Bethrick

Apologetic Evasion Overload

We continue now with more examination of Paul's lengthy, problem-filled diatribe against me. In this installment, we will find numerous attempts by Paul to evade points that have been explained to him repeatedly. There's a reason why my initial encounters with Paul Manata in the spring of 2004 inspired me to compose a one-act play. If it seems prophetic, Paul can thank himself for this, for he has fulfilled what I saw.


I asked:

How is that “mak[ing] a mountain out of a molehill”? Does Paul have any sustainable objection to make against Objectivism?

Paul responded:

I suppose I could just spout unjustified assertions as you are.

This does not answer either of my questions. This is a persistent habit of Paul's: avoid interacting with direct questions which probe his own assertions and assessments. And if you pay attention, you just might find that his own evasive ploys divulge his own modus operandi, which he projects onto his interlocutor. For instance, so far, that’s all Paul has been doing: spouting unjustified assertions, the very thing he accuses me of doing. But he wouldn’t be able to do this if the axioms were not true. Meanwhile, it’s obvious that he has no sustainable objection to make against Objectivism. But he still tries, however inadequately, to recover his reputation as a thinker. Observe.

I wrote:

Does [Paul] begin by identifying a starting point that does not assume the truth of mine? No, he begins by mischaracterizing the Objectivist axiom 'existence exists', which he shouldn't need to do if he were so confident in his contention…

Paul responded:

But above he said my understanding was “pretty close.” So, a “pretty close” characterization of Objectivism is a “mischaracterization” in Dawson’s little sophistic world. Can the guy even keep his thoughts straight from sentence to sentence?

If Paul had read carefully, he would have noted that my “pretty close” was in regard to one paragraph in particular that he had written (and that I quoted in full), which was a brief outline description of the points he has chosen to criticize. My assessment was not in regard to his attempts to criticize the points in question. In his brief paragraph, he identified the three primary axioms of Objectivism. Things began to fall apart quickly for Paul after that. In his criticism, he chose not to integrate the points he himself had identified. For instance, we saw that he assumed that Objectivism derives the primacy of existence principle from merely one axiom, the axiom of existence. But the primacy of existence characterizes the proper relationship between existence and consciousness. Thus he failed to recognize the importance of the axiom of consciousness to the primacy of existence. Having listed the axiom of consciousness in his brief description of the points which he has chosen to criticize, he has no excuse for this. How can one assess a principle identifying the proper relationship between existence and consciousness when you forget to include the axiom of consciousness, a vital element in that relationship, in your examination of that principle? Blank out. Integration of rational principles is basic methodology to Objectivism, and Paul tries to criticize Objectivism without understanding this. Simply listing points does not assure understanding. So “pretty close” is just not close enough. What excuse does Paul have? I’ve seen none to suppose his attempts to criticize Objectivism are authentic and sincere.

I wrote:

How will making an argument cause “existence exists” to no longer be axiomatic?

Paul responded:

Because you just told us that “existence exists” really means that “unconscious stuff has always existed” and this isn’t axiomatic. Got it?

Paul does not show how making an argument will cause the axiom ‘existence exists’ to no longer be axiomatic, even though this is what he had affirmed. Instead, he gives us the red herring dodge that I have inserted a questionable meaning into that axiom when in fact I have nowhere done this. I reviewed my post to find where I equated the axiom of existence with an affirmation that “unconscious stuff has always existed,” and did not find it. So Paul is deliberately trying to spread misinformation here, which is deceitful.My position has been clear and consistent. Even if there are things that exist which possess consciousness (and I explicitly recognize that there are with the axiom of consciousness), the axiom ‘existence exists’ still applies. If Paul is concerned that others might think that “unconscious stuff has always existed” (a statement which I have nowhere affirmed), why doesn’t he present his reasoning for supposing that “unconscious stuff has not always existed”? Why does he continue to play hide and seek like this?

Contrary to Paul’s interpolation, the axiom ‘existence exists’ does not stipulate what exists or what must exist. Our knowledge of the specific nature of what exists requires discovery, which can only come after the initial recognition of existence. Now, if we later learn that everything is physical (a view which I have not affirmed), my bases are still covered, for if it exists and is physical, the axiom ‘existence exists’ still applies. If, however, we later learn that consciousness exists (which I explicitly affirm with the axiom of consciousness), my bases are still covered, for if consciousness exists, it is part of existence by virtue of the fact that it exists. "Existence exists - and only existence exists." (ITOE, p. 109, emphasis added.)

If we discover out that “unconscious stuff has always existed,” what would it profit me to deny this fact? Blank out. Paul is simply wearing his feelings on his sleeve for all to see: he doesn’t like it when other thinkers might think outside his little religious box and accept facts they discover in reality. Religionists for millennia have sought to control this, but they never will be able to. And this causes them deep resentment.

I wrote:

What “epistemological missiles” could have any meaning if the axiom ‘existence exists’ were not true?

Paul responded:

My statements can have meaning apart from the claim that “unconscious stuff exists.”

Again, Paul fails to address my question. Specifically he fails to explain how his criticism could have any meaning if the axiom of existence were not true. If the axiom of existence were not true, that would mean there’s no existence whatsoever. Even Paul would not exist in that case, nor would his criticisms, nor would what he wants to criticize. Does Paul think that meaning exists in a vacuum? Even if he thought this, there could be no meaning existing in a vacuum if there were nothing existed to begin with, for if nothing exists, then meaning doesn't exist either. Paul’s habit of blanking out is his childishness raging out of control.

He continued:

“Unconscious” because Dawson contrasts the primacy of existence with the primacy of consciusness. [sic] So, the existence that exists must be “unconscious.”

Again this does not address my question, and only digs him deeper into the pits of deliberate misrepresentation. For one thing, I do not contrast the primacy of existence with “the primacy of consciusness.” [sic] Rather, I contrast it with the primacy of consciousness. But that’s not what I asked about. I asked how something could have meaning if the axiom of existence were not true. Instead of addressing this question, he offers a broken-down dodge.

Moreover, I do not equate existence with “unconscious,” a la John Robbins. (Doesn’t Paul have any original criticisms of his own?) This would be a stolen concept for it would be asserting a concept while ignoring its conceptual roots. The concept ‘unconscious’ is only available to us after the concept ‘consciousness’ is available to us, and even then it only applies in certain contexts. Moreover, the concept ‘existence’ includes both non-conscious as well as conscious entities. For instance, the concept ‘existence’ applies, among other things, to rocks, water molecules, gold anklets, asteroids, quasars, etc. But I would not say that these things are “unconscious,” as if they’ve been put under anesthesia and will eventually "wake up." Again, my bases are covered, and Paul is the one who needs to wake up.

I wrote:

“The axioms are invulnerable; they have to be true for anyone to launch any "epistemological missles"[sic] in the first place.”

Paul responded:

Not your axioms, as we’ve seen. Notice though that all Dawson does is repetes [sic] himself, over and over and over again. He thinsk [sic] this counts as an argument.

I have shown how well Paul’s efforts to disprove the axioms have fared. (See here, here, here and here for instance.) By complaining that I “repete” [sic] myself “over and over and over again,” Paul implicitly acknowledges that I have at least been consistent (while he’s been tossed to and fro, like a discarded Styrofoam coffee cup on the side of a busy road). For it is when a position is repeated that inconsistencies, if they are present, can be detected (I'm reminded of the gospels here). And I doubt any inconsistency in my position would get by the razor-sharp wits of Sherlock Manata.

It is interesting, however, to find Paul complaining about me repeating myself “over and over and over again.” That’s the impression I get whenever I pick up Bahnsen’s Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis. It says pretty much the same thing in different ways from cover to cover: “God exists, unbeliever bad! God exists, unbeliever bad!” But you don’t see Paul accusing Bahnsen of thinking that this counts as an argument.

Also, if Paul thinks I’m simply repeating myself, why doesn’t he just deal with whatever it is that I’m supposedly repeating in one shot, and get it over with once and for all?

Paul writes:

I launch missiles, not “missles,” whatever those are.

I hope Paul invites us to his next launch. I’d really like to see how well his missiles fly. Hopefully better than his concept-stealing, self-negating attempts to criticize Objectivism! So far there’s been a lot of red glare, but nothing’s been able to break beyond earth’s gravity.

Paul had written:

So the objectivist has two options: (a) keep his axiom and loose his critique against Christianity or (b) loose his axiom and be forced to defend a position not unlike this one: “existence exists means that only indestructible hard bits of matter exist and even an omnipotent God cannot affect them.”

And in response, I wrote:

I was hoping that Paul would explain how assembling an argument (any argument?) would cause 'existence exists' to lose its status as an axiom. Instead, he does a drive-by on this and assumes that's sufficient, then lists two alternatives (as is so common with religious apologists: they love to back people in between an imaginary rock and a fictitious hard place) from which we're supposed to make some difficult choices. The question is: Why are Paul's (a) and (b) our only two options?

Paul responded as follows:

Because they way you understand “existence exists” isn’t axiomatic.

I explained how I understand “existence exists,” and it is in fact axiomatic. It is the general, conceptually irreducible recognition that things exist, formulated as an explicit single-concept affirmation. In my use the axiom ‘existence exists’ it has remained conceptually irreducible and its denotation of perceptually self-evident facts has remained constant. Paul has not shown otherwise, and again seems to think that cognition has some strange need to stop with the axiom of existence, when in fact it initiates it. The problem for Paul is that his criticism requires cognition to stop with the first recognition, because he's afraid of integrating it with additional recognitions and grasping the fundamental principles to which they lead.

Rand herself was emphatic on this point:

An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest... The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness.” One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory; it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.) (ITOE, p. 55)

Rand also pointed out that there is a big difference between grasping the axiom of existence and affirming that the physical world exists:

...what’s the difference between saying ‘existence exists’ and ‘the physical world exists’? ‘Existence exists’ does not specify what exists. It is a formula which would cover the first sensation of an infant or the most complex knowledge of a scientist. It applies equally to both. It is only the fact of recognizing: there is something... The concept “matter,” which we all take for granted, is an enormously complex scientific concept. And I think it was probably one of the greatest achievements of thinkers ever to arrive at the concept “matter,” and to recognize that that is what the physical world outside is composed of, and that’s what we mean by the term “physical.” (ITOE, 247)

So, contrary to what Paul alleged above, the axiom of existence does not mean "unconscious stuff has always existed." It does not because it cannot. If the concepts “matter” and “physical” are complex conceptual formulations as Rand held, then obviously they would not be available at the level of fundamental axioms. Rand was simply cohering her view with the hierarchical structure of conceptual knowledge, which is what makes logic both useful and necessary. But Paul seems unable to grasp the difference between fundamental recognitions like those identified by the axioms, and higher-level formulations which involve many prior concepts and take into account a broad category of discoveries made well after those initial recognitions. For his efforts to criticize Objectivism continually play havoc with the knowledge hierarchy, as if fundamental truths could be swapped out and replaced by higher-level formulations. What is so hard to understand about any of this? Paul again gives me the impression that he’s flip-flopping on the matter: one minute it is so obviously true that it is “uninteresting” or worse, the next it is so racked with controversy that no one should accept it. Contrary to what he has stated, I am able to keep my axiom and my critique against Christianity, for my axiom states a fundamental truth, and Christianity is not able to stand with it. Paul’s back-and-forth pussyfooting is merely a confirmation of this. The axioms together form the primacy of existence principle, since together they explicitly recognize that the objects of awareness do not depend on the process by which we are aware of them. I.e., existence exists independent of consciousness. Paul has to struggle against this premise because it is so obvious that Christianity affirms the opposite view: that objects ultimately depend on a form of consciousness.

Paul wrote:

There are two options. Either your view is axiomatic, or it’s not.

To say that the concept ‘existence’ is not axiomatic, is to say it stands on prior concepts, concepts which name something that comes before existence, concepts which give the concept ‘existence’ is content, concepts which the concept ‘existence’ assumes. Has Paul identified any concepts which come prior to the concept ‘existence’, or any concepts which name something that comes before existence? Of course he hasn’t. And he won’t be able to. “Something’s got to be at the base [of man’s knowledge], and [the axiom of existence] is it.” (Kelley, The Primacy of Existence) Paul does not suggest what could be more fundamental than Objectivism’s axioms. Instead, he simply plays the naysayer, inventing non-objections and pretending that they're devastating objections, not recognizing the self-inflicted fallacies he’s committing along the way.

The opponents of these axioms pose as defenders of truth, but it is only a pose. Their attack on the self-evident amounts to the charge: “Your belief in an idea doesn’t necessarily make it true; you must prove it, because facts are what they are independent of your beliefs.” Every element of this charge relies on the very axioms that these people are questioning and supposedly setting aside. (OPAR, p. 10)

Consequently, since my use of “existence exists” maintains its status as an axiom, then there is no reason to accept the false alternatives that Paul has proposed. There is in fact a third alternative which he finds uncomfortable and has been trying to evade, but which is invulnerable to his attacks: I can have my axiom, and my critique of Christianity, too. Why? Because a) the primacy of existence principle (the principle which states that an object of awareness exists independent of the cognitive functions by which one is aware of it) is a corollary of the axioms (cf. OPAR, 19), b) this principle is necessary to knowledge (cf. ITOE pp. 55-61), and c) Christianity contradicts the primacy of existence by affirming the primacy of consciousness in its metaphysics, epistemology, morality and other branches of philosophy.

I wrote:

Namely: Begin with the fact that existence exists, recognize that it exists independent of consciousness, and move on from there. What’s wrong with that?

Paul responds:

Where’s the argument for this? Nowhere.

Paul was asked to explain what is wrong with the basic procedure I described above. But he does not identify anything that is wrong with it. Instead, he asks for an argument. But this is absurd, since the axiom of existence does not rest on arguments. Arguments are possible only if the axioms are true. Moreover, Paul has not identified anything that is more fundamental than existence. If existence is irreducible and primary, and we are aware of it, then why shouldn’t we start there? Why start with higher-level assumptions without identifying (or understanding) what they assume, without recognizing their hierarchical dependence on something more fundamental? If the axioms are in fact axioms (Peikoff provides a proof for this in OPAR, pp. 9-11; see also Probing Mr. Manata’s Poor Understanding of the Axioms), then a) they do not need to be established by an argument (ITOE, pp. 55-61), b) they are justified by any and every act of perception (ARTK, p. 217), c) they are conceptually preconditional to any argument (see below), b) attempting to establish them by means of argument would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept (ITOE, p. 55), e) denying them is self-refuting (OPAR, pp. 9-11), etc.

By asking for an argument, Paul essentially wants me to produce an argument to prove the facts that a) things exists, b) we are aware of things that exist, c) there is a fundamental distinction between the objects of awareness and the processes by which we are aware of them, and d) knowledge requires a specific orientation between a consciousness and its objects. But consider: What is an argument? Generally speaking, an argument is the conceptual derivation of a truth from prior truths on which it depends by means of a specific method (i.e., logic). Argument is vastly more sophisticated than merely grasping axiomatic truths, and necessarily assumes that knowledge has a hierarchical structure (otherwise logic would not be applicable). So the axioms would have to be true before an argument could be assembled for any conclusion, whether true or false. Does Paul not realize that argumentation requires a conceptual foundation? If he realizes this, does he not also realize that the foundation required for argumentation to be possible need not be established by argumentation (since that foundation logically comes prior to argumentation)? Indeed, for Paul to assemble an argument (even a bad one), he would first have to exist (there’s the axiom of existence), an argument would have to have a certain structure to qualify as an argument (there’s the axiom of identity), and Paul would have to be conscious in order to formulate it (there’s the axiom of consciousness).

Paul needs to come clean on this: does reality depend on consciousness? Or, does reality exist independent of consciousness? When he offers childish comebacks and smart-alecky wordplay in response to straightforward questions like this, then we know he’s cornered and has no defense.

Paul continues:

Indeed, I argued that “existence exists” is dependant upon consciousness since “existence” is a term, or universal, and thus created by consciousnesses.

This statement is a dance in equivocations if it is supposed to be a criticism of Objectivism. It’s trying to pass itself off as an internal critique, but as such it fails due to its own clumsiness. As a criticism it is similar to efforts that Paul has tried before in that it seeks to trade on his own (and probably many of his readers’) confusion between subject and object, a confusion which Objectivism safely avoids. Yes, there is the concept ‘existence’, but there is also what the concept ‘existence’ denotes. It is the distinction between the concept and what it denotes that Paul’s statement above is intended to blur. The concept ‘existence’ was formed by a cognitive method; it is the form in which a consciousness identifies a basic fact which it perceives or experiences directly. But the fact which the concept ‘existence’ denotes was not formed by consciousness, nor does it depend on consciousness. This is not problematic for Objectivism, because Objectivism recognizes that we need to use concepts to identify such facts and recognize the distinction between what concepts identify and the process by which we form concepts. Ironically, the antidote to Paul’s confusion is the position he’s seeking to discredit. As we have seen, in order to argue against Objectivism, Paul has continually found it necessary to confuse epistemology and metaphysics, which he can do precisely because he rejects the fact that there is an objective distinction between the objects of awareness and the means of awareness. Paul is confusing the fact identified by the axiom ‘existence exists’, which is metaphysical, with the act of recognizing it in explicit conceptual form, which is epistemological. Essentially, Paul is objecting to conceptualization as such. If one does not understand the distinction between conscious activity and the objects of consciousness, he may be prone to confusing the two, as Paul has done. But this is precisely why Objectivism is so badly needed here.

Axiomatic concepts distinguish the objects known from the function, means and experience of knowing them.” (ARTK, p. 215)

It is axiomatic concepts that identify the precondition of knowledge: the distinction between existence and consciousness, between reality and the awareness of reality, between the object and the subject of cognition. (ITOE, p. 57)

It is true that the concept ‘existence’ is universal (for it applies to everything that exists in the universe) and, qua concept, ‘existence’ is formed by a cognitive process. But the fact which the concept ‘existence’ denotes is not itself conceptual, nor was it produced by a cognitive process. When Objectivists affirm “existence exists” as an axiom, they are making an affirmation about the fact, not about the concept. It appears that Paul is in bad need of a dose of objectivity!

It is also important to note that we are able to talk about concepts – their nature, their usage, their formation and their denotation – only after we’ve formed some and thus have some units to serve as secondary objects of our awareness, which is possible through introspection. Introspection is a profoundly selfish activity (for it is a deliberate focus inwards on one’s self), one which those who accept as a moral imperative the command to “deny himself” cannot perform without guilt.

Paul then asked:

Does Bethrick think that “existence” exists? I mean, could he take a picture of it? What does “existence” look like?

Not that it matters to Paul, but yes, I think that existence exists, as what Objectivism means by this statement. It would have to in order for Paul to ask his question and for me to consider how to respond to it. And yes, I can take a picture of existence. Any picture I take will be a picture of something that exists, i.e., of existence.

Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the existents... The units of the concepts “existence” and “identity” are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will exist. (ITOE, p. 56)

... anybody who’s seen an existent has seen existence. Then what does existence look like? Well, what color is a rainbow? If you’ve seen anything real, you’ve seen existence too. But perhaps you haven’t; perhaps you’ve only introspected your sensations, your feelings or your linguistic experience. Too bad, you’ve missed a lot. But you have eyes: look! You’ll see things, real things. And you’ll see existence too. (ARTK, p. 205)

Now Paul will expend his energy to make this look silly. He has to, otherwise he gives up on trying to save face. But it will not be an internal critique, which is what he needs if he is going to be successful in discrediting Objectivism.

by Dawson Bethrick