tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post134119408152768263..comments2024-03-29T07:36:41.429-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: A Reply to Tennant on Theistic Foundationalism vs. the Objectivist AxiomsBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-48100741666879339902008-10-28T08:55:00.000-04:002008-10-28T08:55:00.000-04:00Hi Justin,These are great questions!Justin: “My qu...Hi Justin,<BR/><BR/>These are great questions!<BR/><BR/>Justin: “My question pertains to the definitions of metaphysical subjectivism and metaphysical objectivism. Would not subjectivism be just the mere possibility of a subjective relationship between even one consciousness and its objects of awareness even in a limited fashion, even over a limited period of time.”<BR/><BR/>Metaphysical subjectivism obtains any time one affirms or implies that that the objects of consciousness conform in some way to the subject of consciousness. It does not need to affirm such a reversal in the case of all subjects. Affirming such a relationship in the case of just one consciousness is sufficient to occasion this error. Some theists have attempted to salvage their religion’s claim to objectivity by essentially saying that the primacy of consciousness occurs only in the case of one consciousness, namely their god. For instance, internet apologist Paul Manata once wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>in theism, there’s a sense in which reality is subjective - based on the divine mind, but it’s still objective for us humans.</I><BR/><BR/>The implication behind this kind of disclaimer is that, for a worldview to violate the primacy of existence, it would have to do so in the case of every acknowledged consciousness. But what supports applying this universal criterion? No rational principle is offered to support it. It’s simply an attempt to slither out of the charge of subjectivism. You can see my response to Manata in my blog <A HREF="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2006/12/theism-and-subjective-metaphysics.html" REL="nofollow">Theism and Metaphysical Subjectivism</A>, which interacts directly with this attempted evasion.<BR/><BR/>Keep in mind that it is not the case that Christianity affirms the primacy of consciousness only in the case of its god. Christianity also affirms the primacy of consciousness in the case of other consciousnesses, both fictional and factual. For instance, Christianity posits the existences of devils, demons, angels, and other supernatural beings, which to varying extents are characterized as possessing certain powers which involve conforming objects to intentions. For instance, demons and devils can strike human beings with diseases or other afflictions. They can throw obstacles in the path of the righteous intended to make them trip and displease the ruling consciousness. Demons and angels can manipulate men’s thoughts, dreams, feelings, decisions, etc. Some believe that calling on angels can summon a rescue from a bad situation, sort of like calling Superman when you’re in distress. Only in the case of Superman, you really see your rescuer, whereas in the case of angels they remain invisible and locked inside the believer’s imagination. Christianity also grants primacy of consciousness to believers in certain circumstances, such as in the doctrine of faith, which allows the believer to blur the factual with the imaginary, sometimes even allowing the believer to command reality to obey his wishes. I’m reminded of a story which Andrew Bernstein related in one of his lectures which he learned from watching the PTL Club or the 700 Club (or some other religious program like these) where the parents of a diabetic boy were interviewed after the boy died from his condition. The parents, faithful believers all the way, decided to take their child off insulin therapy because they thought faith and prayer to their god should suffice to cure him. So they had the boy’s doctors take him off insulin and any other medical treatments he was getting, and began to pray to their god. The boy’s condition of course did not get better, it started to get worse. So they prayed and prayed more, but the boy’s condition continued to get worse. So the parents stayed up every night, depriving themselves and their son of sleep, binging on a marathon of prayer ritualizing, but eventually the boy’s condition got so bad that he eventually died. The parents of course felt very bad about this outcome, but their reaction to it was not to question their religious beliefs, but to conclude that they simply did not have enough faith, that had their faith been stronger, the miracle cure would have kicked in and saved their child from diabetes. The underlying assumption to all this of course is that faith is the license to believe that reality will obey your desires if those desires are strong enough. That’s the primacy of consciousness no matter how you look at it, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Justin: “Where objectivism would be defined as a universal relationship between all acts of consciousness and excluding the possibility of subjectivism in any form no matter how limited. In this fashion then the two forms of metaphysics become mutually exhaustive and mutually exclusive. You're thoughts?”<BR/><BR/>Objectivism recognizes that there are no exceptions to the primacy of existence, no matter how badly one wishes otherwise. Wishes do not alter the metaphysically given. Only in a fictional environment, such as in the confines of a storybook, does wishing enjoy metaphysical primacy. This is possible in a storybook because a storybook can be informed by the author’s imagination.<BR/><BR/>Justin: “In my discussions with theists, they often try to have it both ways. We have a objective relationship and god has a subjective relationship. I have given theses definitions as a way to cut that line of argumentation of at the start.”<BR/><BR/>Right, I’ve seen this as well. As I pointed out in my response to Paul Manata, “Qualifications like this simply demonstrate that theists have no consistent metaphysic to begin with.” Philosophically, that's a pretty bad place to be.<BR/><BR/>Justin: “And thank you again for you time that you have given to this web site. You have been a great resource to point people too, that do not necessarily wish to go purchase a bunch of books by Rand.”<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the compliment. But please, do not suppose that my blog is a suitable substitute for Rand’s or anyone else’s writings. Most of Rand’s books are pretty cheap, and they're fascinating to read. You can probably find most of them for $5 or less at a used book store. You can find many excerpts from her books on the online version of <A HREF="http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/" REL="nofollow">The Ayn Rand Lexicon</A> as well. And on <A HREF="http://www.originresearch.com/documents/home.cfm" REL="nofollow">Origin Research</A>, there are a couple chapters from her book <I>Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology</I>. But I would urge you to get Rand’s philosophy from its original source, her own writings. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I hope I answered your question. If not, please let me know.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-82854290827151650252008-10-27T09:45:00.000-04:002008-10-27T09:45:00.000-04:00Dawson, a question for you, and I hope I am not be...Dawson, a question for you, and I hope I am not being a bother on this thread, I feel that I do not have the same caliber of mind of some of the others that you regularly interact with here. My question pertains to the definitions of metaphysical subjectivism and metaphysical objectivism. Would not subjectivism be just the mere possibility of a subjective relationship between even one consciousness and its objects of awareness even in a limited fashion, even over a limited period of time. Where objectivism would be defined as a universal relationship between all acts of consciousness and excluding the possibility of subjectivism in any form no matter how limited. In this fashion then the two forms of metaphysics become mutually exhaustive and mutually exclusive. You're thoughts?<BR/><BR/>In my discussions with theists, they often try to have it both ways. We have a objective relationship and god has a subjective relationship. I have given theses definitions as a way to cut that line of argumentation of at the start.<BR/><BR/><BR/>And thank you again for you time that you have given to this web site. You have been a great resource to point people too, that do not necessarily wish to go purchase a bunch of books by Rand.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-79163250200582007932008-10-27T09:03:00.000-04:002008-10-27T09:03:00.000-04:00Greetings Madmax and Openly Atheist,Thanks again f...Greetings Madmax and Openly Atheist,<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for all your comments. (Yes, Madmax, you’re allowed more than three comments per day... in fact, there is no limit, especially good stuff like yours.)<BR/><BR/>Greg Nyquist.... [groan] I’ve seen a number of his blogs and articles before. You’re right – he’s a terrible philosopher and not at all honest as well. When I read Nyquist’s stuff, I’m reminded of Scott Ryan’s and John Robbins’ stuff as well. I get the strong impression that it is mostly motivated by spite for Rand herself. That’s a terrible way to try to critique a position.<BR/><BR/>Look at the first Nyquist quote that Madmax cited:<BR/><BR/>“Rand claims that those who deny the primacy of existence believe that existence is ‘created’ by consciousness. Plato, Christianity, and German Idealism are all presented as advocates of this view. Unfortunately, no Objectivist has ever provided any evidence of a genuine platonist or Christian or German Idealist who actually holds that view.”<BR/><BR/>Really? Christians tell us all the time that their god created the universe. The universe is existence. How did it create the universe? By an act of will: it “spoke” and the universe came into existence as a result. I’ve seen a lot of fancy footwork in trying to characterize the religious doctrine of creation ex nihilo as meaning something other than consciousness creating things that exist, but they aren’t very convincing to say the least. Stephen Parrish, for instance, in his “God and Objectivism” (<I>The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies</I>, Spring 2007, pp. 169-210), says that “a theist does not have to say that ‘existence’ is dependent upon consciousness, but rather on a being, God, who possesses consciousness” (p. 177). I’ve tried to see how this is saying something other than existence is dependent on existence, which would be completely redundant and, from what I can tell, totally unnecessary, but in all honesty I don’t know what else it could be saying. In the same breath, Parrish claims that “God’s consciousness is vastly greater than that of human beings,” which is not very specific (“greater” in what way?), but implied in this is that his god does have the power to create existence. If “God” is more than just consciousness, but also has a “being,” what role does this “being,” however it is distinct from its consciousness, play in the creative process (if we can call it a process)? It seems to be mere smoke and mirrors tactics to me. Did this god choose to create the universe? Did the material from which it created the universe exist already, and, like a cabinet-maker, he simply reworked that material and put it together, obeying its nature in order to work with it? Theists, particularly Christians, do not allow this interpretation of divine creation. Typically they claim creation ex nihilo, that none of the substance, material, existents or what have you which populate the universe existed prior to the divine act of creation. But Parrish seems to be trying to hedge his position so that something other than his god’s consciousness is involved in the creative act. If so, what is that something else? <BR/><BR/>Consider the words of Christian apologist Mike Warren, who writes:<BR/><BR/><I>In knowing a flower, for example, God knows everything about the flower. Humans can have that flower as an object of their knowledge as well, so there is a similarity in the knowledge; but a difference is that humans cannot know the flower exhaustively. Not only is there a quantitative difference between divine and human knowledge of the flower, but there are qualitative differences. God knows the flower originally. Everything about the flower originates from His own consciousness. Indeed, God's thinking about the flower makes it so.</I><BR/><BR/>(For references, see my blog <A HREF="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2006/03/confessions-of-vantillian-subjectivist.html" REL="nofollow">Confessions of a Vantillian Subjectivist</A>.<BR/><BR/>Warren’s pretty explicit: “Everything about the flower originates from His own consciousness. Indeed, God’s thinking about the flower makes it so.”<BR/><BR/>I don’t think you can get more explicitly subjective than this, and it flies directly in the face of Nyquist’s denials.<BR/><BR/>Besides, consciousness creating its own objects is not the only expression of the primacy of consciousness. It is occasioned any time one attempts to give the subject in the subject-object relationship the upper hand in that relationship. And we find this in religion all over the place, from the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (as we just saw), to the doctrine of miracles, to the doctrine of faith, to the doctrine of exorcism, etc. There’s no denying the dependence of Christianity on the primacy of consciousness.<BR/><BR/>Nyquist continues, saying “What they believe in is the primacy of the contents of consciousness—which is something different."<BR/><BR/>Did he perchance explain what the difference between the primacy of consciousness and the primacy of the contents of consciousness might be? <BR/><BR/>Openly Atheist linked to Michael Prescott’s blog entry, where Prescott writes:<BR/><BR/><I>When I first became acquainted with the Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, I was very impressed with the idea that one could derive an entire, logically consistent worldview from a few simple axiomatic premises. This approach promised total certitude in philosophizing. It took me quite a few years to understand that, as appealing as this promise may seem, it is a promise that cannot be kept.</I><BR/><BR/>This is the same mistake Tennant made (and which I corrected in my present blog). Please, someone, find me one quote from Rand where she “promises” that her whole philosophy can be deduced or derived directly from the three axioms? I’ve never seen this kind of claim about the axioms in the Objectivist corpus. Like Tennant, Prescott is looking at Objectivism through rationalist goggles. <BR/><BR/>I wish I could linger and write more... but I have to get ready for work.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-42677775347691580172008-10-27T02:21:00.000-04:002008-10-27T02:21:00.000-04:00Hey Dawson,I was perusing this thread the other da...Hey Dawson,<BR/><BR/>I was perusing this thread the other day and thought of you: <A HREF="http://freeratio.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=255099" REL="nofollow">Existence Exists, but what if it didn't?</A><BR/><BR/>It lead to this blog post: <A HREF="http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/05/yes_virginia_ex.html" REL="nofollow">Yes, Virginia, existence exists<BR/></A><BR/>As well as this old blog post <A HREF="http://maverickphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/05/is-ayn-rand-good-philosopher.html#comments" REL="nofollow">criticizing Objectivism</A>.<BR/><BR/>And so on…<BR/><BR/>I know that discussion of the axioms are an integral part of your blog. Perhaps these links can offer you some cannon fodder for future articles. Keep up the good work.openlyatheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03799132607816184980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-16198736723430612952008-10-26T23:12:00.000-04:002008-10-26T23:12:00.000-04:00Dawson,If I may be forgiven for three posts, let m...Dawson,<BR/><BR/>If I may be forgiven for three posts, let me bring to your attention (if you haven't seen it already) Nyquists attack against the Objectivist axioms. They're a little different than the ones I've usually seen from apologists. Nyquist is a weird mix, a kind of Conservative who is also an empiricist. Here is arguments against the axioms:<BR/><BR/>http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2008/06/objectivism-religion-part-11.html<BR/><BR/>Some samples:<BR/><BR/>"Rand claims that those who deny the primacy of existence believe that existence is “created” by consciousness. Plato, Christianity, and German Idealism are all presented as advocates of this view. Unfortunately, no Objectivist has ever provided any evidence of a genuine platonist or Christian or German Idealist who actually holds that view. Idealists don’t believe consciousness creates existence. Nor do they believe in the primacy of consciousness. What they believe in is the primacy of the contents of consciousness—which is something different."<BR/><BR/>"When Peikoff declares that God can’t be the creator of existence because existence is primary, what has he established? He’s established nothing. No theist, Christian or otherwise, ever asserted that God created existence. God, it is claimed, created the “heavens and the earth” or the “universe”—which, again, is something different. Since God existed before the creation of the universe, any notion of God creating “existence” is absurd. Peikoff is here playing fast and loose with the term existence, trying to use it as if it were a precise synonym for universe or material world."<BR/><BR/>"This implicit premise of Objectivism, masked by the often repeated mantra A is A, is problematic in several directions. While it is true that intelligibility is a precondition of knowledge, this does not mean that intelligibility is also a precondition of existence as well—not if we wish to be consistent with realism. Realism asserts that material objects have a place, movement, origin and destiny of their own, regardless of what the individual may think or fail to think about them. Embedded in this view is the possibility of both error and unintelligibility. Since the object of knowledge lays beyond the realm of consciousness, the possibility not only of error, but of partial unknowability cannot be ruled out of hand... ...Not every aspect of the universe exists for the convenience of our intellects. To think otherwise is to flounder into the morass of idealism."<BR/><BR/>He's a skeptic alright and a sophist to boot.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-41571270412729124102008-10-26T22:59:00.000-04:002008-10-26T22:59:00.000-04:00Madmax had anyone ever challenged Nyquist on the f...Madmax had anyone ever challenged Nyquist on the fundamental principles that science relies on to even work that Rand made explicit? When I have debated persons who attempt to discredit Rand, they rarely actually refute the core axioms or their relationship to each other, they just don't like the logical consequences of them. I think people just get ticked off that Rand calls out there dishonesty or inconsistencies. It would seem to me that if Nyquist grants such authority to science then he is already in agreement with Rand on the fundamentals of her world view. I honestly didn't know of this man until this thread, just curious.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-76002622071482337972008-10-26T22:22:00.000-04:002008-10-26T22:22:00.000-04:00John,I think you did an admirable job in your deba...John,<BR/><BR/>I think you did an admirable job in your debate against Greg Nyquist. You should know that Nyquist is perhaps the biggest Rand-hater on the internet. The other contender for that distinction would probably be Neil Parille. These are people who have dedicated themselves to challenging and attacking pretty much everything Rand stood for.<BR/><BR/>Their main goal is to discredit Rand as a philosopher and demonstrate that she didn't know anything she was talking about. Their biggest argument is that Rand was naive and scientifically uninformed. She was so uninformed that she didn't know how important Christianity was for the development of the West and how important religion is for man in general. Add to that the fact that she didn't validate her philosophy with scientific experiments and that she didn't cite at least 1000 scientific studies and this is all undeniable proof that she was a fraud. You get the point. Nyquist is a terrible philosopher and dishonest to boot. And as you picked up on, he is a religious apologist as well. Its good to engage him every now and then, but such a person will go to his grave hating Rand. IMO, personality types like Nyquist make the average Christian apologist seem almost rational and benevolent by comparison.<BR/><BR/>Also, thanks for the info about Peikoff and the 50s and 60s. Very useful.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-66598433797016427952008-10-26T21:16:00.000-04:002008-10-26T21:16:00.000-04:00Dawson, Thanks for the response. I'm glad to see t...Dawson, <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the response. I'm glad to see that a book may be somewhere in your future. If and when you publish it, I for one will definitely buy it. As for the "Four Horseman" (love the name), here is an article by Alan Germani of The Objective Standard on the subject of the "New Atheists":<BR/><BR/>http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mystical-ethics-new-atheists.asp<BR/><BR/>It does an excellent job of exposing their irrationality, especially in ethics. Almost without exception, every atheist I encounter is a philosophical skeptic and a committed altruist. You have occasionally intimated that today's skeptics are such because they have been conditioned by religious epistemology. I hope you develop that one day in a blog post because I suspect there is alot of truth to it.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, let me say that I have read close to 3/4 of your archives and my understanding of rational atheism, religious apologism, as well as Objectivism has improved dramatically. I can't thank you enough.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-45870747431555420362008-10-26T13:14:00.000-04:002008-10-26T13:14:00.000-04:00Thank you Dawson, its good to see you once again g...Thank you Dawson, its good to see you once again getting back to basics. Only a few weeks ago I had an encounter on the street with a pair of orthodox Jews who where attempting to preform instant Bar Mitzvahs for anyone of proper heritage. Namely you're mother had better be Jewish. I made the mistake of answering honestly that my mother was and got dragged into a discussion as they were keen to understand why I was an atheist.<BR/><BR/>I launched into what I hope was a good explanation of why even to say god exists, where we define god as a conscious that enjoys a subjective relationship with the objects of its awareness would necessitate a contradiction. For altho the form of the statement god exists (x is y) implicitly assumes metaphysical objectivism, the actual content of the statement explicitly states metaphysical subjectivism. They seemed confused by this and thought that I was asking how they could tell weather god was lying or not, which of course is one of the pit falls of subjectivism. However they seemed to fail completely to understand that I was addressing fundamentals and stressing there importance. Once you cease to use concepts willy nilly devoid of there roots, it can be hard to fathom why others continue to do so. However to under score what John discussed, once you realize just how silly and nonsensical religion is, you can lose interest in debating it. The topic really is not worthy of debate.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Dawson keep up the good work, the non existent god knows I don't have the time:)<BR/><BR/>Justin Dewitt Hall<BR/>Portland OregonJustin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-6248358427690717352008-10-26T11:32:00.000-04:002008-10-26T11:32:00.000-04:00Hi Madmax,Thanks for your comments. Insightful as ...Hi Madmax,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments. Insightful as always!<BR/><BR/>To your question about writing a book, it’s been an ambition of mine for years, and I have enough material probably for 10 or more books (of course, it would take 10 years just to edit what I have already!). It’s a matter of time and resources at this point, though I also think more research on my part is needed. Eventually, hopefully I can get to doing something like that in the future. For now, my blog is my work bench. That’s why I like the comments feature in blogging so much – it allows for interaction on the topic and proposed arguments, something not possible in a book.<BR/><BR/>Of course I think you’re entirely correct about Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins and Harris, the so-called ‘four horsemen’ of the 'New Atheism'. You’ll notice that I do not rely on their work, nor do I even refer to their arguments. Their primary fault, as far as I see it, is that they’re arguing for atheism per se. But atheism is simply absence of god-belief; it’s a negation, not a worldview. They aren’t defenders of a rational worldview, nor are they trying to promote a rational worldview. <BR/><BR/>I remember some years ago I attended a conference at UC Berkeley where Dan Barker gave a presentation on morality. I was reluctant to go in the first place, since I could only imagine what Barker was going to say. But at the persistent urging of a close friend of mine I decided I’d go. Barker did not let my low expectations down. Throughout his lecture, which was about morality and religion, he never once defined what he meant by ‘morality’. Finally the issue came up in the Q & A period following his lecture, and he gave his definition of morality, which was “minimizing harm.” I was almost nauseous at this point. But this is what passes as informed standard among many circles today, not just among religionists, but also among atheists. Now, not to knock Barker entirely. He’s made some good points here and there, but in the end he’s part of the problem, not the solution. <BR/><BR/>I wholly agree with Porter when he announces, “I think the primacy of existence is the most important issue in philosophy” (ARTK, p. 198). It is the ultimate standard which any claim to knowledge needs to pass. But the “New Atheists” (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al.) seem to think that atheism as such should be the ultimate standard. Or maybe this is too generous; maybe they are not even this principled. I am no authority on these folks as I’ve not read a lot of their work. But what little I have read of them is enough for me. <BR/><BR/>As for the growth of a rational atheist movement, I think the growth of a rational movement would be sufficient. Atheism would come as a rightful consequence. <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Credo.htm" REL="nofollow">Anton Thorn</A> puts it perfectly: “My atheism is not a primary, but a consequence of my allegiance to Reason.”<BR/><BR/>As for Peikoff’s comment about paying more attention to religion if he were writing <I>The Ominous Parallels</I> today, John Donahue’s comments are interesting. I don’t know much about the culture of NYU in the 60’s and 70’s, but it would not surprise me if born-again Christians were absent from the scene. It’s been a while since I’ve been on a college campus. I attended SFSU in the early 90s, and while there were a couple small pockets of born-again Christians and other religious groups around, they were pretty much laughed at. But what would you expect in a city like San Francisco? This was back during the first Gulf War, and the biggest thing on most people’s minds were the plight of Iraqi refugees and pro-Palestinian demonstrations (they turned the whole place into a ‘shanty town’ using dumpsters collected from across the campus).<BR/><BR/>Regardless, religion in our culture has made a come-back, particularly in the philosophy departments, and this is a consequence of the perverse irrationality which has predominated in academia throughout the 20th century. Today’s religionists are simply filling a void left by the academics’ collective failure. Objectivism is the only antidote. The ‘New Atheism’ we see gaining popularity today will only deepen that void and give more opportunities to any form of mysticism which comes along and seeks to fill it.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-30284644725191863502008-10-26T00:39:00.000-04:002008-10-26T00:39:00.000-04:00Hi, I'm in the midst of a consuming weekend and so...Hi, I'm in the midst of a consuming weekend and so cannot respond to your responses at the moment. I will do so, however. I'm glad to have discovered your blog.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile on the subject of Dr. Peikoff and religion.....<BR/><BR/>1) he was at NYU for many years, and certainly there were no born-agains in the foxholes there!<BR/>2) being older, I remember a similar truth....in the 50s and 60s 'religion' was Catholics and MildProtestants.; it was before the rabid born-agains. Frankly, we just did not believe the religion could rise again, either in the US or world...and now look at what we've got.<BR/>3) I don't know if this was the source of the point about Rand and religious characters, but I responded with that idea last April on a seriously smarmy website that was attempting to shove forth the idea that Rand was a "militant" atheist. Not my responses, nor other brilliant counters, nor a direct quote from Ayn Rand, could deter this person from a 14-part essay whose entire purpose was to construct Ayn Rand's unreligious principles as a virulent enemy position, therefore glorifying her 'enemy', namely the author of the site. You can see my 2nd comment about 1/2 way down the page. Caution: In my opinion this dishonest site is merely an apology for religion. He makes no overt mission statement, nor will he admit it when called on it. He is very slippery.and very determined.<BR/>http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2008/04/objectivism-religion-part-1.html<BR/>Here's what I said:<BR/>[Rand is a-theist; her philosophy is fully conceived, articulated and extrapolated with no mention of God whatsoever. There is no way that can be denied, or a case made that this per se forms “militancy.”Meanwhile, and secondarily, she is only anti-religion for the amount of time needed to swat down historical aggression – physical and philosophical -- by every variant of religion/mystical persuasion. Thus, in Galt’s speech, the identification and condemnation of the shaman. In the narrative portion of her novels, Ayn Rand did not even bother to create one of her famous bad guys as 'of the cloth.' Except for the Stoddard Temple incident, and for one famous and hugely ironic joke at the end of Atlas Shrugged, she ignores religion as not worthy of mention. As for her non-fiction writings, you can be sure that if religious people did not keep thrusting in her face their (unproven) premise and attempting everything from outright condemnation on the basis of godlessness to begging for rapprochement (which amount to ‘Love me or hate me Miss Rand but I will not be ignored’), she would not mention religion at all.]<BR/><BR/>More later, <BR/><BR/>John Donohue<BR/>Pasadena, CAJohn Donohuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15002005729072165615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-952105839378741132008-10-25T02:44:00.000-04:002008-10-25T02:44:00.000-04:00Also, I wanted to add that I too found Peikoff's c...Also, I wanted to add that I too found Peikoff's comment on religion and The Ominous Parallels interesting. I would have thought that in 1968 religion would have been enough of a cultural force to take notice of but apparently it wasn't. <BR/><BR/>An Objectivist made a good point to me recently saying that in all of Ayn Rand's novels there is not one religious villain. All her villains are Marxist/socialists. When she was writing in the 30's, 40's, 50s religion was not the same type of cultural force that it is now. I have a feeling if she were writing today, she would have religious villains. There would definitely be theocrats and Christian socialists (like Bush) in her novels.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-58809053728204015862008-10-25T02:31:00.000-04:002008-10-25T02:31:00.000-04:00Dawson,Another great post. Have you thought of wri...Dawson,<BR/><BR/>Another great post. Have you thought of writing a book on the subject? Books on atheism have become very popular as the success of authors such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dale Dennet and Richard Dawkins indicate. But all of these atheists are of the skeptic variety. It would be great to see a popular atheist book debunking religion from the perspective of Objectivism. <BR/><BR/>In many ways today's atheists scare me almost as much as today's religionists. They tend to be serious skeptics, relativists, egalitarians and socialists (and rabid subjectivists). I would love to see the growth of a rational atheistic movement. I don't know if book writing is a long term ambition of yours but I believe you certainly are knowledgeable enough for it.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-9836913058866420502008-10-25T01:08:00.000-04:002008-10-25T01:08:00.000-04:00John said:”Hi Dawson, first time visitor.”Hi, John...John said:<BR/><BR/>”Hi Dawson, first time visitor.”<BR/><BR/>Hi, John. Welcome to my blog! I’m glad you dropped by and left a comment.<BR/><BR/>John: ”That's quite a monumental rejoinder to theists attempting to establish objective validity.”<BR/><BR/>I guess it is rather long for a blog. But that’s how I am I guess. I love to write, I love to make points. I love to make counter-points. <BR/><BR/>John: ”They must be either highly persistent or influential for you to be at such pains.”<BR/><BR/>Actually, it’s pleasure and joy to grapple with these things. That is my primary motivation to keep a blog – it’s purely selfish enjoyment for me. But there are other reasons as well. When asked if he would make any changes to his book <I>The Ominous Parallels</I> on its 25th anniversary, <A HREF="http://www.peikoff.com/" REL="nofollow">Leonard Peikoff replied</A>:<BR/><BR/><B>Yes. Though I <I>do</I> cover religion, I would place more emphasis on it both in Weimar Germany and in recent America, along with its importance in the rise of dictatorship, even one that professes to be secular. The explanation of my error is the fact that, when I wrote the book (I started it in 1968), I could not have imagined the recent religious upsurge in America. In my youth, religion was regarded by educated people as a joke—a stagnant backwater of the passive and mindless specimens concentrated in the Bible Belt.</B><BR/><BR/>In reading this, I wonder if Peikoff was simply sheltered or not paying attention, or if explicitly religious positions were simply not openly endorsed in the academia of his day. His words suggest the latter alternative, but I know that there’s been virtually no let-up among Christians in cooking their apologetic and theological viewpoints and publishing their tomes. Though arguably it’s become more mainstream in recent years. I know that in my own circles, religion (usually Christianity) is typically at best a muted afterthought, a topic which is only tangentially encountered, like an occasional bumper sticker one sees in traffic, or in a passing expression of anxiety or frustration (e.g., “Lord, help me get through this today!”). But I don’t tend to “hang out” with religious people in the first place. But even in the work place, the people I work with tend to be mostly secular. A handful are churchgoers, but you wouldn’t know this from their day-to-day conversation. I don’t raise the topic of religion if they don’t first. And if it comes up once, you can be pretty sure it won’t come up again after I’ve had my two minutes’ say. (Really, they stay clear of me on that subject from then on.) <BR/><BR/>The internet, of course, is a different story. On the internet, there are mystics of every stripe all over the place. Christianity on the web has become a frothing rabid dog.<BR/><BR/>John: ”For as much obliterating of their claims you can accomplish, salute, but your post has other value for Objectivists wanting better ways to stand on the Axioms of Objectivism; you've assembled an excellent array of formulations, yours and Dr. Peikoff's.”<BR/><BR/>Thank you, John. In fact, I do think there are better ways to express many of the truths which Rand, Peikoff and other Objectivist literati have defended. I don’t think they were wrong in how they’ve presented Objectivism. I just don’t think their presentation is optimally geared toward atheological application, which of course is my area of focus. Principles like the primacy of existence can and should be explained better, in terms of the subject-object relationship. I realized this about a decade ago when I tried to explain it to my brother. It was not easy to lead him to an understanding, but eventually he got it and wondered why it was so difficult to understand at first. The reason for why it was difficult to understand at first is because he simply wasn’t accustomed to thinking in terms of fundamentals. Neither was I when I first encountered rational philosophy.<BR/><BR/>John: ”Would your response be any different if they claimed their foundation to be ‘God Is’?" <BR/><BR/>Essentially no. I would still measure such a proposal against the criteria I listed in my blog, namely the following:<BR/><BR/><B>It names a perceptually self-evident fact<BR/>Its truth is not inferred from prior truths<BR/>Its truth is conceptually irreducible<BR/>Its truth is implicit in all perception<BR/>Its truth is implicit in all knowledge and any statement<BR/>Its truth must be assumed even in denying it</B><BR/><BR/>It would be up to the theist defending the statement “God is” as an irreducible foundation to defend it as such, and in order to do so I would expect him to explain how it fulfills these criteria. A god is typically supposed to be invisible, imperceptible, beyond empirical access, impervious to scientific examination. If that’s the case, its existence could not be a perceptually self-evident fact. That leaves open the question of how the theist supposedly acquires awareness of what he calls “God.” If it is not by means of perception, then how? It is usually at this point that they redirect to a discussion of abstractions (as if they understood what abstractions are; it’s clear to me that they don’t). We don’t perceive ‘liberty’ or ‘justice’, they’ll say, as if our understanding of these concepts were comparable to their awareness of what they call “God.” Well, as Objectivists, we can understand how these higher abstractions are formed on the basis of more fundamental abstractions. What’s important to keep in mind at this point is that the concepts of liberty and justice, and other similar higher-level abstractions, to not denote <I>entities</I>. ‘Justice’ is conceptual; it does not denote a species of entities running around in the world. As a concept, ‘justice’ is an abstraction produced by the human mind, based on objective inputs. Because it is something which the mind produces, the concept ‘justice’ has a certain characteristic which is essential to the believer’s notion of “God,” namely his mind’s activity in forming it. But the input source is not objective fact, but his imagination. What the Christian, for example, takes as a substitute for objective fact in forming the fantasy he calls “God,” is the inputs he selects from a storybook, such as the bible. <BR/><BR/>For some further insights, see my blog <A HREF="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2007/10/lord-odas-problem-with-pain.html" REL="nofollow">Lord Oda’s “Problem with Pain”</A> for my response to a theistic apologetic which seeks to put one’s experience of pain as analogous to the believer’s experience of his god. Theists like to think of their god as something that is so close to them and their daily experience that it is analogous to one’s experience of pain. (It is noteworthy that Lord Oda did not associate his experience of his god with the experience of pleasure.) But while pain is not an independently existing entity, the theist claims that his god is neither an invention of his imagination nor a mistaken identification of some metaphysical experience of his biology, like pain or pleasure. So how is he aware of it? Good luck getting a theist to answer this in a way which avoids subjective implications.<BR/><BR/>If the statement “God is” does not identify a perceptually self-evident fact, then why accept it as a truth? Historically theists have offered arguments to defend this claim. In other words, it is a “truth” (according to them) which can be <I>inferred</I>. In other words, it’s a conclusion of a prior argument. Which means: other truths are more fundamental than the claim in question. So on this score, “God is” loses as a foundational claim. Other assumptions, presuppositions, recognitions, or what have you, would be more fundamental and thus would need to be identified as one’s foundational truth.<BR/><BR/>Is the claim “God is” conceptually irreducible? Well, the fist question I might ask a theist proposing such a statement as his starting point, might be: Where did you get the concept ‘is’? What does it mean? To what does it refer? I would ask the same about the “God” part as well, but as Rand rightly pointed out, “’God’... is not a concept. At best, one could say it is a concept in the sense in which a dramatist uses concepts to create a character. It is 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.... Besides, God isn’t even supposed to be a concept: he is sui generis, so that nothing relevant to man or the rest of nature is supposed, by the proponents of that viewpoint, to apply to God. A concept has to involve two or more concretes, and there is nothing like God. He is supposed to be unique. Therefore, by their own terms of setting up the problem, they have taken God out of the conceptual realm. And quite properly, because he is out of reality.” (ITOE, p. 148) Rand is correct here: ‘God’ could not be a concept, at least as the objective theory of concepts understands what concepts are. But this does not keep theists from making slips like “God is defined as conscious, which is certainly true in the classical concept of God and many others” (Parrish). Definitions apply to concepts, not to entities; we do not define entities, we identify them. But theists themselves treat “God” as definable in terms of prior concepts, which means – on their own terms – that “God” is not conceptually irreducible; some set of prior concepts comes first, i.e., <I>logically</I> first. But if it is recognized that “God” could not be a concept (since it is not integrating two or more similar units; there’s supposed to be only one, right? Or is it three?), then we must ask: to what does the word ‘God’ refer? And this will take us back to the earlier question: by what means do you have awareness of this thing you call ‘God’? Lurking in the background of course will be the question of how the theist who attempts to identify the means by which he is supposedly aware of his god or any other allegedly supernatural being, distinguishes this supposed mode of awareness from his own imagination. I’ve challenged numerous theistic apologists to address this question, and so far I’ve not seen any intelligible responses.<BR/><BR/>By this point, it should be clear that the statement “God is” could not meet any of the criteria which the Objectivist axioms elegantly and more than satisfactorily fulfill. Indeed, the axioms are truths which theists wish they had on their side, because they score a winning knock-out every time.<BR/><BR/>John: ”I've always thought that to be the First Principle of theists in its purest form.”<BR/><BR/>It may be what they should be expected to say if they’ve put some genuine thought into the matter. But on the other hand, I don’t think most theists really have put any good thought into the question of what truly grounds their knowledge of the world. Rather, I think what typically happens is that they’re trying to use questions about the grounding of knowledge as an opportunity to develop some apologetic agenda, to hijack knowledge from its foundations. The Objectivist axioms, properly applied, show not only how this doesn’t work, but also how it’s doomed to failure.<BR/><BR/>John: “I think that formulation is the most ‘honest’ representation of the theist position.”<BR/><BR/>I’m guessing you’re more generous than I am. I question whether honesty is possible once one attempts to defend theism. Straight out of Galt’s Speech: “Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value...”<BR/><BR/>John: “However, I believe you hinted above at why the prefer to argue ‘The Bible is the Word of God’. Gives them something tangible on which to hitch a rope.”<BR/><BR/>Right. They recognize, at least implicitly, that some semblance of an <I>objective</I> standard is required. Hence they want to point to a storybook which exists on virtually any library shelf and translated into virtually every language that has been spoken over the last four or five hundred years. They want to be able to claim that their god’s words are “the same today, yesterday and forever,” which is supposed to somehow satisfy the requirement for an objective basis. But printing millions of copies of <I>Harry Potter</I> in various languages will not make it a true story.<BR/><BR/>John: “I usually try to funnel any argument to ‘God Is’ because then it is easy to demonstrate that both sides claim irrefutable certainty, the difference being the Objectivist's evidence being everywhere and everything, the theist's none and nowhere.”<BR/><BR/>Yep. And when you point out that the theist in fact assumes the truth of your worldview’s starting point – the starting point of (horrids!) an <I>atheistic</I> worldview, that’s liable to cause quite a stir. <BR/><BR/>Stir like mad, I say!<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-16118812975536387712008-10-24T11:19:00.000-04:002008-10-24T11:19:00.000-04:00Hi Dawson, first time visitor. That's quite a monu...Hi Dawson, first time visitor. That's quite a monumental rejoinder to theists attempting to establish objective validity. They must be either highly persistent or influential for you to be at such pains. For as much obliterating of their claims you can accomplish, salute, but your post has other value for Objectivists wanting better ways to stand on the Axioms of Objectivism; you've assembled an excellent array of formulations, yours and Dr. Peikoff's.<BR/><BR/>Would your response be any different if they claimed their foundation to be "God Is?" I've always thought that to be the First Principle of theists in its purest form. I think that formulation is the most "honest" representation of the theist position. However, I believe you hinted above at why the prefer to argue "The Bible is the Word of God". Gives them something tangible on which to hitch a rope. I usually try to funnel any argument to "God Is" because then it is easy to demonstrate that both sides claim irrefutable certainty, the difference being the Objectivist's evidence being everywhere and everything, the theist's none and nowhere.<BR/><BR/>John Donohue<BR/>Pasadena, CAJohn Donohuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15002005729072165615noreply@blogger.com