Recently I saw a brief video on Youtube of Christian apologist Frank Turek interrogating someone who appears to be a student in some kind of public venue, like a seminar or classroom setting. The clip is clearly an excerpt from some longer broadcast, but I have not seen the whole thing. The clip is just under a minute long (what is called a “short” on Youtube) and was apparently deemed worthy enough to publish as a standalone piece of entertainment.
The interaction here exemplifies an all-too common tactic in apologetics: the apologist demands that another person (presumably a non-Christian) present an explanation of something of a general nature about reality, and if the thinker cannot satisfy this demand, the apologist affirms “God” as the correct explanation, and the thinker’s inability to provide an alternative is construed as confirmation of the theistic worldview. On this strategy, a child repeating the affirmation of the existence of a god that he learned from adults in his life would be treated as having supplied an informed explanation. In essence, it is an appeal to ignorance packaged as a seemingly innocent gesture of philosophical inquiry. We must never forget that gods always come in the shape of man’s ignorance. The purpose of apologetics is to mask this ignorance as a recondite form of insight.
The interaction here exemplifies an all-too common tactic in apologetics: the apologist demands that another person (presumably a non-Christian) present an explanation of something of a general nature about reality, and if the thinker cannot satisfy this demand, the apologist affirms “God” as the correct explanation, and the thinker’s inability to provide an alternative is construed as confirmation of the theistic worldview. On this strategy, a child repeating the affirmation of the existence of a god that he learned from adults in his life would be treated as having supplied an informed explanation. In essence, it is an appeal to ignorance packaged as a seemingly innocent gesture of philosophical inquiry. We must never forget that gods always come in the shape of man’s ignorance. The purpose of apologetics is to mask this ignorance as a recondite form of insight.
Here is my transcript of the clip:
Turek: Where do laws come from?
Student: Laws come from proven evidence over time that..
Turek (interrupting): No. The laws themselves. Where do they come from? Where do the laws of nature come from?
Student: Laws of nature come from men who have definitively done the same experiments with the scientific method and…
Turek: No, no, no. I don’t mean us discovering the laws of nature. The laws themselves – the force of gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces. Why are they there and why are they so persistent and consistent?
Student: I don’t know.
Turek: Well see, I’m saying that’s the product of a mind. Laws come from law givers. And the reason why the laws of nature are so consistent and precise is because this universe was put together and fine tuned and sustained by a mind. And that’s why we can do science. We can’t do science if the laws of nature changed every 10 minutes.
Student: That’s true.
Turek: So I’m saying to get behind all this, there’s a mind behind the universe. And that’s why science makes sense.
Now if what essentially reduces to “Where does X come from?/I don’t know./Therefore, God exists” passes as a serious argument in the apologist’s mind, I would think that his apologetic strategies would not net very many converts. Then again, there are many Christians out there, so perhaps such strategies are effective on philosophically defenseless minds, such as we find in children and many college graduates. What is clear is that such a strategy does not set out to draw the conclusion “God exists” from a set of clearly stated, positively affirmed premises whose truth can be logically traced to what is perceptually self-evident. Rather, it postures as revealing something that’s been there all along, a “hidden mystery,” even though no logical inference has been presented. It constitutes an attempt to wedge mystical assumptions into daunting voids in a person’s knowledge structure.
It is not accurate to suppose that people believe in a god already and then are persuaded by such subterfuge as Turek models here into supposing that Christianity is true. Apologists rely on statements found in Romans 1 to contrive such self-serving pretense. Rather, I think an argument can be made that most people have very likely implicitly assumed some expression of the primacy of consciousness since a young age (this commonly begins with a child’s ascent to parental authority) and, having never examined, questioned or corrected this false orientation to reality, they are consequently susceptible to the religious view of the world. This would not only explain why various religions around the world persist in distinct cultures, it would also help explain why apologetic strategies such as Turek’s can so easily gain a foothold in an individual’s background assumptions and exploit them for purposes of apologetic manipulation. A thinker unfamiliar with the issue of metaphysical primacy may very well take for granted the foggy notion that reality is controlled by conscious activity, and this underlying premise thus predisposes him to religious suggestion. In her novel Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand observed that “Faith in the supernatural begins as faith in the superiority of others.” It’s not implausible in the least to suppose that faith in the superiority of other minds, neither infallible nor omniscient, begins in childhood and can remain in one form or another entrenched in one’s view of the world well into adulthood. Indeed, let us ask: what philosophy other than Objectivism puts comparable emphasis on explicitly grasping the proper relationship between consciousness and its objects? Religious worldviews certainly do not!
In this light, I would say that Matthew 18:3, where the words “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” are inserted into Jesus’ mouth, are more fitting than what we read in Romans 1 (see here). And while many Christians tell the story of their conversion in adolescence or adulthood, it is very common that they were raised from an early age in households which embraced the religious worldview to some degree or another. Most certainly we do not find believers who discovered and grasped the primacy of existence as a fundamental philosophical principle and later rejected it in favor of a worldview based on the primacy of consciousness. At least I certainly have not.
The conversion story of Saul of Tarsus is perhaps the most famous, with those of Augustine of Hippo, John Calvin, Larry Flynt and Gary Busey following not far behind. Among noted apologists, Cornelius Van Til relates in his Why I Believe in God how he was just a child when he prayed for conversion while being terrified of ghosts that he imagined, and he explains talk of Christian notions “was the sort of thing that constituted the atmosphere of our daily life,” clearly suggesting that religious beliefs had already been impressed on him at a very early and impressionable age. Apologist John Frame states in his bio that he “received Christ as my personal Savior and Lord at around age thirteen.” The late Steve Hays of Triablogue related in this blog entry how he “became a Christian at 16 simply by reading the Bible, beginning with Matthew,” noting also that he “grew up in a moderately Christian home.” In this video clip Turek himself says that he was “brought up in the Catholic church and went to Catholic high school.” It seems they took the suggestion found in Matthew 18:3.
It is not accurate to suppose that people believe in a god already and then are persuaded by such subterfuge as Turek models here into supposing that Christianity is true. Apologists rely on statements found in Romans 1 to contrive such self-serving pretense. Rather, I think an argument can be made that most people have very likely implicitly assumed some expression of the primacy of consciousness since a young age (this commonly begins with a child’s ascent to parental authority) and, having never examined, questioned or corrected this false orientation to reality, they are consequently susceptible to the religious view of the world. This would not only explain why various religions around the world persist in distinct cultures, it would also help explain why apologetic strategies such as Turek’s can so easily gain a foothold in an individual’s background assumptions and exploit them for purposes of apologetic manipulation. A thinker unfamiliar with the issue of metaphysical primacy may very well take for granted the foggy notion that reality is controlled by conscious activity, and this underlying premise thus predisposes him to religious suggestion. In her novel Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand observed that “Faith in the supernatural begins as faith in the superiority of others.” It’s not implausible in the least to suppose that faith in the superiority of other minds, neither infallible nor omniscient, begins in childhood and can remain in one form or another entrenched in one’s view of the world well into adulthood. Indeed, let us ask: what philosophy other than Objectivism puts comparable emphasis on explicitly grasping the proper relationship between consciousness and its objects? Religious worldviews certainly do not!
In this light, I would say that Matthew 18:3, where the words “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” are inserted into Jesus’ mouth, are more fitting than what we read in Romans 1 (see here). And while many Christians tell the story of their conversion in adolescence or adulthood, it is very common that they were raised from an early age in households which embraced the religious worldview to some degree or another. Most certainly we do not find believers who discovered and grasped the primacy of existence as a fundamental philosophical principle and later rejected it in favor of a worldview based on the primacy of consciousness. At least I certainly have not.
The conversion story of Saul of Tarsus is perhaps the most famous, with those of Augustine of Hippo, John Calvin, Larry Flynt and Gary Busey following not far behind. Among noted apologists, Cornelius Van Til relates in his Why I Believe in God how he was just a child when he prayed for conversion while being terrified of ghosts that he imagined, and he explains talk of Christian notions “was the sort of thing that constituted the atmosphere of our daily life,” clearly suggesting that religious beliefs had already been impressed on him at a very early and impressionable age. Apologist John Frame states in his bio that he “received Christ as my personal Savior and Lord at around age thirteen.” The late Steve Hays of Triablogue related in this blog entry how he “became a Christian at 16 simply by reading the Bible, beginning with Matthew,” noting also that he “grew up in a moderately Christian home.” In this video clip Turek himself says that he was “brought up in the Catholic church and went to Catholic high school.” It seems they took the suggestion found in Matthew 18:3.
Even many who have emphatically renounced theistic religion may still have deep in the benthic levels of their thinking about the world the presumption of the primacy of consciousness working in some capacity to shape their worldview. Scratch the surface of an antitheist and do not be surprised nevertheless to find a deep-rooted commitment to metaphysical subjectivism. For example, in a conversion testimony titled I Escaped from Iran, but Not from God and bearing the subtitle “As a child of the Iranian Revolution, I wanted nothing to do with religion,” Christian evangelist David Nasser begins his story by chronically relating a most telling starting point: “I was nine years old when I decided that I hated God. I hated him because I believed he hated me first.” One does not hate something that he doesn’t think exists. Fortunately, he and his family did escape Iran, but states that “our country had been victimized by religion gone wrong.” Rather, what history shows is what happens when religion is taken seriously at the civic level to its logical conclusion.
Getting back to Turek, how can we answer his seemingly disarming question?
If Turek or any other theist were to ask me the question, “Where do laws of nature come from?” I’d answer this very directly: They come from existence.
How would Turek react to this answer? Would he deny this and claim that the laws of nature come from non-existence? What is the alternative to existence if not non-existence? If Turek agrees that the laws of nature are real, that what we call ‘laws of nature’ refer to principles which human beings have conceptualized to denote constants which have been consistently observed in nature, and Turek insists that these laws “come from” somewhere, from where else could they have come if not from existence? It seems that the available options at this level are clear: either they came from existence, or they did not come from existence. If Turek insists that the laws of nature came from somewhere but denies that they came from existence (he probably wouldn’t want to concede the point to an atheist’s perspective, would he?), then would he find it sufficient to say that the laws of nature came from non-existence?
Turek may be hard-pressed to agree with my answer to his question, not only because it would defuse his theistic gambit, but also because the Christian worldview itself has a very difficult time coming to terms with existence as a primary. Readers of this blog may recall my 2016 entry Exchange with a Presuppositionalist in which the apologist, who posts under the moniker “Annoyed Pinoy,” infamously insisted that “Existence doesn’t exist. Existence is a property of things that do exist.”
Then there’s this excruciatingly contorted series of statements from a rescued essay by apologist Peter Pike:
Turek may be hard-pressed to agree with my answer to his question, not only because it would defuse his theistic gambit, but also because the Christian worldview itself has a very difficult time coming to terms with existence as a primary. Readers of this blog may recall my 2016 entry Exchange with a Presuppositionalist in which the apologist, who posts under the moniker “Annoyed Pinoy,” infamously insisted that “Existence doesn’t exist. Existence is a property of things that do exist.”
Then there’s this excruciatingly contorted series of statements from a rescued essay by apologist Peter Pike:
Contrary to Ayn Rand, it is not true that “existence exists” however. Existence is an attribute that describes some other thing. That is, whether material or immaterial, objects that exist have the attribute of existence. Existence itself cannot exist, for it is not an object but an attribute of objects. Existence, therefore, presupposes objects.
Years ago over on Triablogue, a blog entry which was, if I recall, written by Paul Manata – it now says “posted by Error,” which is not exactly imprecise – includes the following statement:
A problem here, though, is that "existence" doesn't "exist" on a materialist and nominalist understanding of the world. "Existence" is a universal that can be said to be exemplified by exisTENTS. Thus I can kick a rock, I can't kick "existence." Thus I can blow up a house, I can't blow up "existence." Therefore, "existence" doesn't "exist" on a materialist and nominalist understanding of the world
It remains unexplained why “a materialist and nominalist understanding of the world” is so relevant that it needed to be called out. Either existence exists, or it does not. But apologists cannot help but dance around this most fundamental of recognitions, even though their own pronouncements put them in the dubious position of affirming on the one hand that existence is an “attribute” of things which do exist while on the other insisting this “attribute” itself cannot exist. I suspect that they sense the impending doom that the Objectivist axioms have for a worldview which treats existence as a product of wishing. Apologetics as a vocation has a way of committing its practitioners to extremes of contrarianism for the sake of being contrary.
Turek could agree with my answer that the laws of nature come from existence, but then press the question further and ask how they came from existence. But questions of how something happens will necessarily invoke the law of causality, one of the very laws of nature in question. Thus, the question “How did the laws of nature come from existence?” would in effect hinge on the acceptance of a stolen concept by making use of a concept while simultaneously requiring one to deny its genetic roots. Because of this, I do not think pursuing this track would be philosophically fruitful. Of course, Turek wants ultimate causation to be a form of conscious activity, like wishing matter into existence. I have seen no evidence in all my years that conscious activity has the ability to zap into being even a tiny grain of sand, let alone an entire universe or the laws of nature. And while there is no evidence for such phenomena, one can still imagine it, and one can even pretend that what they imagine is real.
And of course, Turek could respond to my answer by asking, “Where did existence come from?” But this too would be a philosophical dead-end: what else is there besides existence? As Peikoff puts it, “Existence exists, and only existence exists” (“The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,” in Ayn Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 109). Moreover, just looking at the constituent concepts of such a question should betray its reliance on stolen concepts. The concept ‘where’, for example, can only have meaning within the context of what exists; there is no “where” outside existence. The compound verb “come from” presupposes not only some existent capable of motion in some sense or another, but also a source of origination, which would have to exist in the first place to serve as a source of origination. The usage of past tense in such a question can only imply temporal distinctions, but temporal distinctions would not apply outside existence.
As he makes clear in the video clip, Turek wants it all to come from a form of consciousness. At the very foundation of his worldview, he has in essence adopted the primacy of wishing as his ultimate starting point. The laws of nature are a product of wishing because existence as such must be a product of wishing. No argument is offered to support such a view, and yet its indispensability to theism is undeniable. Turek has imagined that there exists a supernatural mind which has the power to wish even the laws of nature into existence, and he wants everyone to pretend along with him that what he imagines is real. And if you don’t, well, maybe soon it will be time to unpocket those threats of eternal damnation, for how dare you think for yourself!
My assessment should not be mistaken as outlandish exaggeration. The quotes cited above, even from Turek’s own video clip, should make it clear that Christianity has a very difficult time wrestling with these matters. I recall a series of exchanges nearly a dozen years ago with Sye Ten Bruggencate who stubbornly resisted addressing the question of whether or not on his view, the Christian worldview, the uniformity of nature was caused by conscious activity. After much pushing, he finally affirmed that yes, on his view, the uniformity we observe in nature was caused by conscious activity. (See here; this is also archived on the Wayback Machine here.)
When apologists are confronted with Objectivism’s fundamentals, even though they are undeniably true and clearly fundamental, they find themselves compelled to reject them somehow, even though doing so only exposes their own commitment to absurdity. They pay lip-service to “the Truth” while denying the most fundamental truths upon which all other truths logically rest. And while many apologists are clearly intelligent persons, they have apparently mastered a habit of compartmentalization such that they can wall off the contradictions festering between their religious confession and fundamental facts whose implications they refuse to fully grasp so that the two never come into direct contact.
I’m glad these aren’t my problems!
by Dawson Bethrick
Turek could agree with my answer that the laws of nature come from existence, but then press the question further and ask how they came from existence. But questions of how something happens will necessarily invoke the law of causality, one of the very laws of nature in question. Thus, the question “How did the laws of nature come from existence?” would in effect hinge on the acceptance of a stolen concept by making use of a concept while simultaneously requiring one to deny its genetic roots. Because of this, I do not think pursuing this track would be philosophically fruitful. Of course, Turek wants ultimate causation to be a form of conscious activity, like wishing matter into existence. I have seen no evidence in all my years that conscious activity has the ability to zap into being even a tiny grain of sand, let alone an entire universe or the laws of nature. And while there is no evidence for such phenomena, one can still imagine it, and one can even pretend that what they imagine is real.
And of course, Turek could respond to my answer by asking, “Where did existence come from?” But this too would be a philosophical dead-end: what else is there besides existence? As Peikoff puts it, “Existence exists, and only existence exists” (“The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,” in Ayn Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 109). Moreover, just looking at the constituent concepts of such a question should betray its reliance on stolen concepts. The concept ‘where’, for example, can only have meaning within the context of what exists; there is no “where” outside existence. The compound verb “come from” presupposes not only some existent capable of motion in some sense or another, but also a source of origination, which would have to exist in the first place to serve as a source of origination. The usage of past tense in such a question can only imply temporal distinctions, but temporal distinctions would not apply outside existence.
As he makes clear in the video clip, Turek wants it all to come from a form of consciousness. At the very foundation of his worldview, he has in essence adopted the primacy of wishing as his ultimate starting point. The laws of nature are a product of wishing because existence as such must be a product of wishing. No argument is offered to support such a view, and yet its indispensability to theism is undeniable. Turek has imagined that there exists a supernatural mind which has the power to wish even the laws of nature into existence, and he wants everyone to pretend along with him that what he imagines is real. And if you don’t, well, maybe soon it will be time to unpocket those threats of eternal damnation, for how dare you think for yourself!
My assessment should not be mistaken as outlandish exaggeration. The quotes cited above, even from Turek’s own video clip, should make it clear that Christianity has a very difficult time wrestling with these matters. I recall a series of exchanges nearly a dozen years ago with Sye Ten Bruggencate who stubbornly resisted addressing the question of whether or not on his view, the Christian worldview, the uniformity of nature was caused by conscious activity. After much pushing, he finally affirmed that yes, on his view, the uniformity we observe in nature was caused by conscious activity. (See here; this is also archived on the Wayback Machine here.)
When apologists are confronted with Objectivism’s fundamentals, even though they are undeniably true and clearly fundamental, they find themselves compelled to reject them somehow, even though doing so only exposes their own commitment to absurdity. They pay lip-service to “the Truth” while denying the most fundamental truths upon which all other truths logically rest. And while many apologists are clearly intelligent persons, they have apparently mastered a habit of compartmentalization such that they can wall off the contradictions festering between their religious confession and fundamental facts whose implications they refuse to fully grasp so that the two never come into direct contact.
I’m glad these aren’t my problems!
by Dawson Bethrick
This is an excellent post, Dawson.
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly that almost everyone implicitly holds to a primacy of consciousness metaphysics. It’s common to witness atheists counter theistic morality (rooted in the dictates of a divine subject) by rooting it in culture or what most people believe in society.
Failing to grasp existence as a primary is the fundamental error that infects all of cognition. On my view, existence is both an attribute and a thing. Every existent that exists has the attribute of existence, the attribute of being. In that sense existence is an attribute. But since every existent in existence has the attribute of existence - the attribute of being - we can refer to the whole of existence *collectively* as if it were a single thing. That is, we can gesture towards everything and say “this is what I mean by existence!” If everything had the attribute “red,” we could gesture toward all of existence and say “this is what I mean by red!”
It’s precisely because not everything exists in the same way that theists conflate their imagination (the psychological) with ontological existence. Ontological existents are those existents that exist independent of anyone knowing about them. They are physical extra-mental phenomena such as mountains, trees and planets. But also include non physical attributes such as life, consciousness, and mind.
Epistemological existents are those existents that depend on the human mind for their existence. They include all knowledge, human methods such as logic, language and math, all ideas, fictions, superstition, religion etc). Failure to make this distinction leads to the reification of the epistemological. Getting theists to distinguish the two and keep them separate is the great challenge. As you have stated many times, once the mind is habituated to such reification, where the epistemological ends and the ontological begins is one big blur.
Yet another great entry!
ReplyDeleteThanks again, Dawson!
Ydemoc
Good post!
ReplyDeleteSeems to me this "where do laws of nature come from?" question reifies the "laws", or the behaviour, of aspects of nature.
We've got stuff, and that stuff has behaviour. The behaviour of stuff is part of stuff being what it is, its identity.
You can ask why stuff persists in being what it is. Well, why would it change? Seems that behavioural change would be the sort of thing that needs explanation. Non-change in the absence of a cause-for-change would be expected. That's my intuition. Maybe some intuit the opposite, that we ought start looking for some cause-for-stability when we find something that doesn't undergo constant change. But I doubt they posit a need for some external cause of God's stability.
(As aside: Turek mentions, as examples of "laws", or perhaps an exhaustive list of them, gravity and the 3 forces of the Standard Model of physics. But these aren't "consistent" - the SM and gravity haven't been integrated into a coherent, complete Theory of Everything. Physics is still a work in progress.)
I have some thoughts on conversion too. Despite stories in their text about dramatic conversions, I think religions are quite self-aware about the fact that their propagation mostly relies on their members procreating and raising children in the faith. Note I say religions are quite self-aware, but their members may be unaware. Conversion is rare. Evangelism and apologetics really serve other socio-psychological functions.
And conversion is rare because, I say, these religions don't really want outsiders to join! A cradle-raised devotee is less likely to defect. Religions have developed aspects which are decidedly unattractive to outsiders, and even cause some offspring of devotees to, despite their upbringing, reject it and leave. This leaves those remaining as a more loyal, cohesive social organism.
"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." - Revelation 3:16
They knew!
Jason
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Dawson,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: I’m curious if anything happened! If you can share, please do. Lessons from the field are always opportunities to learn.
The subject didn't come up. I was really surprised. A lot of the older ones are starting to die and the younger generations don't seem to be as fervent. A lot didn't make it because of the airline cancellations. I was dreading it. Still, I like to try different approaches. I usually try to keep the discussion at the level of fundamentals but I find that theists really aren't aware of their fundamentals.
Thanks for asking,
Robert Kidd
Speaking of field experience, I'm engaged with a Christian right now in the comment section of a youtube video. The YouTuber asked in a pinned comment for atheists to give their reasons for not believing. I stated that it was the integration of the primacy of existence principle that caused me to become an anti-theist.
ReplyDeleteHe is following the exact procedure you outlined in your post. He is demanding that I prove that DNA created itself without the need for intelligence or else I have "no argument!" to justify my atheism. I explained to him why the issue of primacy is much more fundamental than DNA and told him that until he deals with Christianity's explicit affirmation of the primacy of consciousness then I reject any evidence that he provides on the grounds that it rests on stolen concepts. Let's see if he continues to evade.
I'm guessing he will.
Robert Kidd
Update:
ReplyDeleteWell, he's stopped responding. I wouldn't let him move the discussion onto evolution and instead kept steering the discussion back to the primacy of existence and he left, never having addressed the issue.
Robert Kidd
Hi Robert,
ReplyDeleteJust saw your two comments. That's impressive! Thank you for sharing.
So, either "DNA created itself" or "God exists"?
If he comes back, ask him how he can reliably distinguish between what he calls "God" and what he may simply be imagining. Also ask him if he thinks wishing makes it so. See where it goes.
I agree: no need to debate "evolution." That's a distraction. If he's asking why you don't "believe" what Christianity teaches, why would evolution need to have any bearing? What more is needed than the primacy of existence?
It's very possible on certain topics to be "I don't know," and yet still not "believe" in or ascribe to notions which clearly violate the fundamentals of knowledge and truth.
However the first DNA molecules came to be, they came to be by means of some causal activity. Causation is not possible outside existence. For X to cause Y, X must exist. Existing is a precondition of action. Existence is not a product of some prior causal activity. Activity is activity of something that exists and acts.
Please keep us posted! I love this kind of stuff!
Regards,
Dawson
Yeah, that's it. His exact words were "UNLESS 'you' can provide a 'valid' explanation as to exactly HOW the genetic code created 'itself' WITHOUT the advantage of 'intelligent' thought'.
ReplyDeleteIf you have no such explanation... then you have no argument!"
I never brought up evolution as my reason for not believing. I said that I became a deist because I couldn't believe that the Christian God created us with this amazing mind but then punished us for using it. I became an atheist when I found that all the arguments for gods were flawed or incomplete. I became anti-theist when I integrated the primacy of existence into my thinking. I was trying to show the progression of my thinking from the age of 12 until 2008 to the present.
Of course he pounced on my rejection of the arguments for gods and honed in on Evolution as it probably is his go to issue, even though my thinking and reason for not believing have evolved past that. In fact I never saw evolution as a defeator for theism since I never took the creation story seriously. Since he was attacking me, I did not feel the need to explain my reasoning to him. He can do his own homework.
Here's the link to the vidoe if you want to read the short exchange. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7urcE4IwMf0&lc=UgzlpgOJPJqd9vlgQEB4AaABAg.9rxcTsSaPKU9s1V3GJ8FBN. Mine is the comment at the top of the page. I don't think he will comment again but maybe he's furiously googling right now trying to learn about the primacy of existence principle. If so I bet I can guess his comeback: Oh, well that's Ayn Rand so it's disqualified. You know she was a jew and she smoked and took social security. She's a fake philosopher. That follower of her's, Alan Greenspan, wrecked the economy.
I've come to the conclusion, after 25 years of reading debates between atheists and theists that neither side accepts reason as a means of knowledge. They just like to argue for the sake of arguing, like it's some kind of game. That's why I call myself an anti-theist. It really sets both sides to growling and spitting. You see the same exact arguments and the same pithy responses over and over again without any resolution.
I have asked your question about reliably distinguishing between God and something imaginary and you can guess the responses. Actually two people said that there wasn't a relieable method. I've also asked what evidence there is that anything has ever been brought into existence by essentially wishing it. They take issue and want to argue over my use of the term whishing instead of answering the question. OK, hoping then or wanting or willing. It makes no difference which type of conscious activity you pick.
Anyway, that's my report. Thanks for asking about it.
Robert Kidd
Robert: His exact words were "UNLESS 'you' can provide a 'valid' explanation as to exactly HOW the genetic code created 'itself' WITHOUT the advantage of 'intelligent' thought'. If you have no such explanation... then you have no argument!”
ReplyDeleteHe’s just trying to commandeer the debate by laying burdens on you that do not actually rest on your shoulders. It’s as though it were a sporting event and he’s trying to sabotage your ability to move down the field. His view on this seems to hinge on an unstated dichotomy: either DNA was created by some “intelligent thought,” or it created itself. Why are these the only two alternatives he’s willing to consider? "I won't consider any other alternative" is just unreasonable stubbornness.
Can he explain “exactly HOW the genetic code” was created by “intelligent thought”? If the genetic code had to be created by “intelligent thought,” then the thinker responsible for performing this “intelligent thought” could not itself depend on any genetic code. But if consciousness is biological, then there’s no such thing as “intelligent thought” absent of biological structures containing a genetic code. Does he explain “exactly HOW” there can be “intelligent thought” without biological structures containing a genetic code? All actual examples of consciousness (not the kind theists imagine) are examples belonging to biological organisms possessing a genetic code. “Intelligent thought” in this context, then, is just another stolen concept.
My question is: if he were truly confident in his theism, would he find it necessary to resort to such underhanded tactics (false dichotomies, stolen concepts, unwillingness to explore questions rationally...)? I don’t think so. The path he has chosen is not “I’ve discovered something amazing – yeah, it may seem outlandish, but hear me out! If you still don’t believe me, well I get it, none of this is reducible to what we can actually perceive,” but rather “Unless you meet the qualifications that I impose on you, well, you’re not worth my time.” He probably recognizes deep down that he has no rational defense, so he goes on the offensive. Apologists have largely adopted this approach. It’s just more vanity.
And yes, you’re right, we’ve seen how thinkers will dismiss the objective basis of rational thought because they find something about Ayn Rand personally objectionable. But what’s their alternative? The only alternative to objectivity is some form of subjectivism.
Again, thanks for sharing another case study from the field!
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time to respond. I'm getting better at debate, not to say great but I'm learning. I've been studying Piekoff's lecture on the principles of informal debate. I've listened to that lecture dozens of times trying to gain every kernel of insight. I've encountered all of the tactics that he outlines in that lecture. I've learned to focus on the fundamental points and not to go down rabbit holes with them.
The most frustrating thing is that apologists like to ask questions but they almost never address mine and if they do they answer a different question than I asked. I never have a problem answering questions directly and I enjoy being able to answer them. I'm eager to show the power of Objectivism and I don't fear any questions. They do, which should really be a red flag to them.
Thanks for your time.
Robert Kidd
Dawson,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "If the genetic code had to be created by “intelligent thought,” then the thinker responsible for performing this “intelligent thought” could not itself depend on any genetic code. But if consciousness is biological, then there’s no such thing as “intelligent thought” absent of biological structures containing a genetic code. Does he explain “exactly HOW” there can be “intelligent thought” without biological structures containing a genetic code? All actual examples of consciousness (not the kind theists imagine) are examples belonging to biological organisms possessing a genetic code. “Intelligent thought” in this context, then, is just another stolen
concept."
That is an excellent point that I didn't pick up on. I'm sure he would just say that God's consciousness is different and we're supposed to just accept this on his say so. How much different can it be and still be considered consciousness?
Robert Kidd
Dawson,
ReplyDeleteI have another one engaging: "what are the odds of some small lifeforms coming up out of a pond and turn into what we see in man today without a designer? Look at the human brain how it works and your body how it’s made was that a big accident? Doesn’t that suggest that someone designed it and created it not just happenstance? That’s like looking at a Rolex watch laying in a desert and believing that sand Blowing around came together over millions of years and formed how this watch works, except that doesn’t approach how intelligently designed humanity is, atheism is a ridiculous Leap"
I answered: "What are the odds? 100%. There are no accidents when we are talking about nature. Nature doesn't work by chance and any alternative to existence is unthinkable. The only alternative to existence is non-existence.
If complex things like man's brain and body require a designer then the designer of such things would also require a designer. Who or what designed it? You do realize that you are setting up an infinite regress of designers, right? Or was it a big accident?"
I'm curious, Dawson, what your response would be?
Robert
Good morning visitors and commenters,
ReplyDeleteFirst I want to notify Robert that I have replied to his most recent comment in a new blog entry – that can be found here: ”What are the odds…?”
Second, I want to apologize to both Jason MC and James P. Caputo for confusing them in my 9 July comments! That’s quite a fundamental distinction to miss I must say! I mistakenly attributed all of James’ comments to Jason and in fact I don’t think I replied to anything Jason stated. I just discovered this gaff this morning and have removed those comments and am reposting them now with proper attribution. I’m so sorry about this!
James P. Caputo: “I agree wholeheartedly that almost everyone implicitly holds to a primacy of consciousness metaphysics.”
What I have observed, so it appears, is that most people seem to operate on a mixed metaphysics – sometimes implicitly recognizing that reality holds metaphysical primacy, and at others espousing views which presume to some degree or another the primacy of consciousness. Since they have not learned to make this distinction clear and understand its importance to knowledge, judgements, inferences, etc., the nature of the tensions in their thinking persist unidentified. While they may not understand the cause of these tensions, their reluctance to engage certain topics or get defensive when they’re probed probably indicates that they realize they’ve not done their rudimentary homework.
A family member of mine has been seeing therapists and counselors for well over two decades now. On numerous occasions I have tried to explain to her the importance of philosophy and its primacy over psychology, but she won’t hear any of that. She has invested so much in chasing answers to her problems in the psychologist’s chair that she has resisted considering any alternative. And yet, her angst continues and her descriptions of her woes are remarkably similar to what she described many years ago. Like there’s no progress. She insists that she’s improved, but she still suffers depression and believes that medications and continued sessions with psychologists are the key, and incidents that scarred her years ago continue to occupy her. I do not mean to suggest that simply understanding the issue of metaphysical primacy and its importance to thinking will magically make everything better, but if she continues to have this unresolved tension in the subterranean layers of her thought processes, those contradictions will continue to haunt her. I think the point here goes back to how Rand defines ‘happiness’ as “a state of non-contradictory joy.” That’s the best rendering, that I know, of a concept which has eluded so many thinkers through the ages. If the presence of contradictions in our thinking and worldview undermines one’s happiness, then a mixed metaphysics is a sure recipe for being unfulfilled in life.
Continued…
James P. Caputo: “It’s common to witness atheists counter theistic morality (rooted in the dictates of a divine subject) by rooting it in culture or what most people believe in society.”
ReplyDeleteYes, I’ve noted this in my encounters with atheist activists since I first grasped the primacy of existence and its importance for philosophy. These activists are really giving raw meat to the apologetic charge that non-believers are “borrowing” from the Christian worldview. Both viewpoints are seated in a worship of power, of force over other human beings, the presumption that the moral must entail some expression of self-sacrifice or surrender to others, a willingness to suppose that the end justifies the means, expressions of determinism, etc. It really should not surprise anyone that many atheists seem quite happy with the idea of an authoritarian overlord, like Christianity’s god, so long as they’re on its good side, just as Christians like to imagine themselves as being on the Christian god’s good side. Many self-confessed atheists are former religionists, and while they may have rejected church teachings and religious allegories, their worldview is still seated on the primacy of consciousness and they seem aloof to the baggage they still carry.
Continued…
James P. Caputo: “On my view, existence is both an attribute and a thing. Every existent that exists has the attribute of existence, the attribute of being.”
ReplyDeleteI think there’s a danger in categorizing existence as an attribute. For one, it puts existence on the same footing with other attributes, and thus implicitly denies their existence. Take for example a common schoolyard ball: the ball is round, made of rubber, eight inches in diameter, inflated with air, bouncy, poppable, etc. All of these attributes actually exist. But to say that such a ball has these attributes and also the attribute of existence, seems to conflict with the observation that these other attributes also exist. Would we then say that these attributes also have the attribute of existence as well? But while a ball’s specific attributes can be isolated from the ball – think of its size, its resilience qualities or its capacity to be deflated with a good poke, its existence cannot be in this sense. Either it exists or it doesn’t, while the other attributes exist in some measure – it’s resilient under some circumstances, such as when bounced on pavement, but not on others, such as when thrown onto shag carpet or into a swimming pool. Also, these other qualities, these attributes, certainly do not share the fundamentality as a metaphysical phenomenon that existence enjoys. The shape of a ball is not a fundamental metaphysical phenomenon, but it is an attribute of a ball.
Speaking of the axiomatic concept of existence, Rand makes the following point in chapter 6 of ITOE:
<< It is not the abstraction of an attribute from a group of existents, but of a basic fact from all facts. Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the existents. >>
Elsewhere in ITO Rand makes an important point when she explains her concept of ‘measurement omission’ in ITOE:
<< Bear firmly in mind that the term “measurements omitted” does not mean, in this context, that measurements are regarded as non-existent; it means that measurements exist, but are not specified. That measurements must exist is an essential part of the process. The principle is: the relevant measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. >>
The point here is that all the attributes of a thing do in fact exist, but are also measurable. This reinforces, in my understanding at least, that existence cannot be merely one of a thing’s attributes, for all of its attributes exist, and while these other attributes exist in some measure, quantifiably, existence is not something that is subject to degrees – either something exists or it does not. We cannot say that the baseball bat exists “more” than the baseball, or that Joe is more existent than Sally. We can say that the baseball bat is bigger than the baseball, or that Joe is heavier than Sally, but that’s because size is an attribute and therefore subject to measurability. Not the same with existence.
Continued…
Continued…
ReplyDeleteJames P. Caputo: “It’s precisely because not everything exists in the same way that theists conflate their imagination (the psychological) with ontological existence. Ontological existents are those existents that exist independent of anyone knowing about them. They are physical extra-mental phenomena such as mountains, trees and planets. But also include non physical attributes such as life, consciousness, and mind.”
I think part of the problem theists (and other thinkers) have, is that they fail to distinguish adequately between the metaphysical and the epistemological. Historically philosophers have conceived of the problem of universals as a metaphysical problem – if universals exist, how do they exist, where do they exist, what is their relationship to concretes, are concretes “exemplifications” of some “form” which exists in another world. This view of course sets particulars in opposition to universals, in effect reversing their proper relationship, while ignoring the epistemological functions performed by man’s mind in expanding his awareness beyond things that are immediately perceived. If “universals” really are concepts, however, this puts age-old questions into alignment between metaphysics and epistemology, thus challenging thinkers to better understand the relationship of the latter to the former, which is, in my estimation, one of the most remarkable of Rand’s achievements. But so long as the quandary here remains conceived of as a strictly metaphysical issue, then naturally thinkers are going to categorize other psychological phenomena as though they were mind-independent metaphysical entities – cf. “abstract entities,” “immaterial entities,” etc., which invite treating what is merely imaginary as though it were real.
James P. Caputo: “Epistemological existents are those existents that depend on the human mind for their existence. They include all knowledge, human methods such as logic, language and math, all ideas, fictions, superstition, religion etc).”
Here I tend to think of the category as psychological, including not only conceptual functions, but also memory, emotion, intentions, imagination, impulses, associations, etc. which we experience or perform as conscious agents. When theists speak of “the concept of God,” they’re signaling, whether they mean to or not, their acknowledgement that the god they worship is in fact something psychological, in their mind, not a mind-independent being of whose existence they have some kind of objective awareness, as when we perceive a tree or hold a spoon. Even on their own terms, “God” could not be a concept, for it’s supposed to be sui generis, being wholly unique. Thus “God” could only be a proper name, not a concept denoting numerous similar existents.
Continued…
James P. Caputo: “Failure to make this distinction leads to the reification of the epistemological.”
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that’s at least very likely to happen. Cf. the notion of “abstract entities,” or Bahnsen’s categorization of the laws of logic as “immaterial” phenomena, as though logical principles were independent of man’s conceptual activity. Abstraction is a type of conscious activity; there are no abstractions existing as mind-independent entities. This is a category mistake.
James P. Caputo: “Getting theists to distinguish the two and keep them separate is the great challenge. As you have stated many times, once the mind is habituated to such reification, where the epistemological ends and the ontological begins is one big blur.”
The blurring of such a critical fundamental distinction is indispensable to the theistic worldview. On their view, reality is fundamentally a projection of a consciousness which can only be imagined. Anything that challenges or undermines this will be rejected as soon as its threat to mystical assumptions is sensed.
Robert: “Six or seven years ago some Jehovah's Witnesses ventured onto my property and they started out by pointing to my Cottonwood tree and asked me where I thought it came from. I replied that it came from existence. She didn't know what to say and they left. I still remember the look of utter defeat on her face.”
Yes, exactly what I would expect. Given their religious devotion, they’re desperate for anything to reinforce the assumption that everything in existence originated in conscious activity. But when confronted with existence affirmed as an irreducible primary, it’s like an instant short-circuit. They literally “cannot compute.” Nice work, Robert!
Robert: “I'm going to be helping out at a family reunion this week and the side of the family that is coming is mostly evangelical Christians. I will not bring up the subject but I'm anticipating being asked if I am a believer and I am anticipating the ‘where did it all come from then’ question. Should be interesting to see their response.”
I’m curious if anything happened! If you can share, please do. Lessons from the field are always opportunities to learn.
Regards,
Dawson