Relevant to the Development of an Objective Atheology
Anton Thorn
DEFINITIONS
There are a number of terms which are key to the case presented by the Argument from the Fact of Existence (AFE), and therefore bear mentioning of their definitions. As an Objectivist, I am very careful about the definitions of the terms which I use in my writing. Many of these definitions are not what one would expect to find in most dictionaries. Dictionaries are very useful tools, however general reference dictionaries tend not to be associated with a particular philosophical perspective, and thus the criteriological guides for determining proper definitions do not necessarily stem from an objective, integrated standard.
The lexicon which I provide here is by no means intended to be exhaustive. For a more comprehensive listing of terms and their definitions, readers are recommended to visit J. Gregory Wharton's Objectivist Philosophical Glossary which contains many more terms. Like Mr. Wharton's Glossary, the definitions and related points which I am giving here are found in or developed from Objectivist literature as related specifically to their use in AFE. I have arranged them by order of topical relevance in the three following categories:
Existence
Reality
Universe
Consciousness
Metaphysical Primacy
Primacy of Existence
Objectivity
Laws of Nature
Primacy of Consciousness
Subjectivism, Metaphysical
Epistemological Terms:
Axioms and Axiomatic Concepts
Principle
Reason
Logic
Knowledge
True
False
Arbitrary
Subjectivism, Epistemological
Rand's Razor
Relevant Fallacies:
Note: Readers should bear in mind that these definitions and explanations are not taken from allegedly holy texts, such as the Bible or the Koran.
Metaphysical Terms
Existence: According to Objectivism, the concept 'existence' is an axiomatic concept. Thus, the concept 'existence' cannot be defined by prior concepts; there are no concepts denoting "something prior" to existence, for all concepts presuppose the fact of existence. The concept 'existence' is "a collective noun denoting the sum of existents." [1] An 'existent' is "something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action." [2] Objectivism as a philosophy finds its starting point in a single axiom: existence exists, which is perceptually self-evident, irreducible, undeniable, inescapable, universal, and constant. 'Existence' is the widest of all concepts, for its reference is everything which exists.
It should also be noted that rational philosophy rejects the idea that there are degrees or gradations of existence. One existent does not exist "more" than another. Something either exists, or it does not exist. Some may say that an entity's existence is "contingent" because it is possible that it could not exist or that its elements may exist in a different form or arrangement. This kind of reasoning betrays the tendency to confuse the epistemological (the concept 'possible' is epistemological in nature) with the metaphysical. For instance, a drinking glass exists, but it is conceivable that it may shatter if dropped on a hard surface. Thus, it would no longer exist as a drinking glass if this were to happen. But so long as it has not happened, it is still a drinking glass, and the possibilities which one can conceive are metaphysically irrelevant to this fact: it does not change the fact that the glass exists. And supposing the glass does fall and shatter into a hundred bits, those bits still exist. Either way, it is a non-negotiable fact that existence exists.
Rational philosophy holds that the question "Why does something exist rather than nothing?" amounts essentially to the question "Why does existence exist?", which is invalid. I explore this issue in Letter 7: Correcting Common Errors of the Letters to a Young Atheologist.
Reality: "Reality is that which exists; the unreal does not exist; the unreal is merely that negation of existence which is the content of a human consciousness when it attempts to abandon reason." [3] Reality, which is the realm of existence, is not the product of consciousness, but exists independently of any mind. Reality is not to be divided into two or more exclusive realms or categories which correspond to assumed epistemological dichotomies (e.g., mind vs. body, the analytic vs. the synthetic, the logical vs. the practical, etc.), which are often found or implied in the work of many modern philosophers. Since there are no "degrees" of existence (see above), there are also no degrees of reality. Reality is the object of perception, and therefore the object of consciousness.
Universe: According to Objectivism, the universe is "the total of that which exists." [4] Unfortunately, more frequently than not, theists, like most physicists, are reluctant to put a definition to the concept 'universe' and typically abandon their use of this term to the conceptual chaos of implicit assumptions. On the definition provided here, however, it is obvious that the idea of something being required to "create" the universe is invalid. If everything which exists is regarded to be part of the universe, there is nothing outside the universe. "Outside the universe" has no reference or meaning. Objectivism thus holds that the universe is uncreated, eternal and indestructible. See Alex Silverman's essay The Eternality of the Universe for a very enlightening discussion of this over-abused concept.
Consciousness: Like 'existence', the concept 'consciousness' is also axiomatic in nature. Objectivism affirms that existence exists, and that consciousness also exists. Consciousness is consciousness of existence, and is therefore dependent upon existence for three primary reasons: first, since consciousness is consciousness of objects, i.e., of existence, any act of consciousness presupposes existence cognitively in that it has an object(s) (i.e., there can be no consciousness without existence, without something to be conscious of); second, cosciousness presupposes existence biologically (the senses and perceptual integration, neurology, etc.), and therefore a physical body; third, consciousness presupposes existence teleologically in that it has a purpose, namely the survival activity of the organism possessing consciousness.
The axiom 'existence exists' implies another fundamental truth, namely that one exists "possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. Consciousness is not inherent in the fact of existence as such; a world without conscious organisms is possible. But consciousness is inherent in [one's] grasp of existence. Inherent in saying 'There is something - of which I am aware' is: 'There is something - of which I am aware.'" [5] Consciousness is metaphysically passive - it does not create its objects, but epistemologically active - it identifies its objects through a volitional process of reason.
Metaphysical Primacy: Ayn Rand wrote, "I use the word 'metaphysical' to mean: that which pertains to reality, to the nature of things, to existence." [6] Primacy means the state of ranking first. When one says that A holds primacy over B, it means that A comes logically prior to B. In the case of the issue of metaphysical primacy, we ask: what comes first? What holds metaphysical primacy? Thus, the issue of metaphysical primacy is an area of most fundamental importance in one's philosophical view of reality. It is at this point when, by principle, a distinction between that which exists (existence) and the means by which one is aware (consciousness) of that which exists is made explicit. This distinction, given the above points about 'existence' and 'consciousness', implies a necessarily hierarchical relationship between the two. In other words, there is an order of logical dependence between that which exists, and the means by which we are aware of that which exists. The issue of metaphysical primacy identifies this dependent relationship as a principle of objectivity.
Primacy of Existence: The primacy of existence (i.e., of reality) is the recognition that existence exists, that existence exists independent of consciousness, and consequently that existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness, that the task of consciousness is not to create or revise existence, but to perceive it and identify it through a process of reason. Since consciousness is consciousness of existence, and since there can be no consciousness apart from existence, existence as such holds metaphysical primacy over existence throughout any act of consciousness, including namely cognition. The primacy of existence principle is the basis of objectivity. See my essay The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy for a validation of the metaphysical primacy of existence principle.
Objectivity: "Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver's (man's) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic)." [7] "The objective approach to concepts leads to the view that, beyond the perceptual level, knowledge is the grasp of an object through an active, reality-based process chosen by the subject [i.e., by the knower]. Concepts, like every other mode of cognition, must conform to the facts of reality. Human knowledge, therefore, is the grasp, not the creation, of an object. Beyond the perceptual level, however, such conformity can be attained only by a complex process of abstraction and integration. Since this process is not automatic, it is not automatically right, either." [8]
Laws of Nature: The laws of nature (or laws of logic) are principles of reasoning which stem directly from the axioms, first by corollary in the case of fundamental principles, and then by extended inference in the case of secondary or derivative principles. All laws of logic ultimately find their objective basis in the axiom 'existence exists'. This axiom, which identifies a perceptually self-evident, universal fact, can be seen as a contraction of the tautology "that which exists is that which exists," i.e., A is A, the law of identity. Acceptance of the law of identity as true necessarily implies the primacy of existence principle, the guiding principle of objectivity and the fundamental presupposition of logic. When one asserts something as true about reality, he asserts it as true independent of his own consciousness; i.e., the truth of the matter in question is not assumed to be true as a consequence of one's assent or wishing that it is so, but that it is so of reality and one can accept it or not accept it, and it will still be true.
The facts of reality do not depend on consciousness in that one's acceptance or rejection of those facts is irrelevant to their factuality. Thus, it is invalid to say that the laws of nature or logic find their source in a form of consciousness, for this would contradict the primacy of existence, which is assumed in order to hold that the laws of nature are true, absolute and universal. They are true because they correspond to the primary facts of reality without contradicting them. They are absolute because their truth is not altered by an act of consciousness and are thus inviolate. They are universal because they apply wherever existence exists, as 'universe' refers to the sum total of existence.
If the laws of nature do not find their source in a form of consciousness, then it cannot be said that they have a theistic basis. Some theistic philosophers frequently maintain that the laws of nature are a reflection of God's absolute character, meaning that the natural is merely a reflection of the supernatural. This view amounts to the claim that existence is the reflection of non-existence, that reality is the expression of the non-real, that truth is the product of whim. Such philosophers attempt to justify their assumptions by pointing out that the laws of nature cannot find their source in nature itself because the world is in "constant flux," with change rather than stability as the norm. The absolute cannot be a reflection of that which is constantly changing, and the immutable does not find its source in the mutable, goes the reasoning.
But such reasoning overlooks the fact that the laws of nature are principles drawing from the general, fundamental facts of reality, not from particular details which are subject to change by their very nature. The fact that existence exists, for instance, does not change, nor does the fact that, if something exists, it is something rather than nothing or anything but itself. These simple, immutable facts, facts which are taken completely for granted and dismissed as philosophically irrelevant by most philosophers, are the very facts which provide the foundation to a proper view of reality and of knowledge. Why? Because knowledge, if it is legitimate, is knowledge of reality, and therefore one must be able to demonstrate a tie between what he considers knowledge and that which which is real.
Primacy of Consciousness: The primacy of consciousness metaphysics assumes either implicitly or explicitly the view that consciousness, in some form, capacity or degree, holds metaphysical primacy over existence. The acceptance of the metaphysical primacy of consciousness is the result of the acceptance of a stolen concept. Since the metaphysical primacy of consciousness is a reversal of the objective relationship between that which exists and that by which one is aware of existence, the assumption that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over existence has, philosophically, system-wide implications which are unavoidable so long as this assumption goes unchecked.
The primacy of consciousness is the basis of metaphysical and epistemological forms of subjectivism. Both forms of subjectivism result from the obliteration of the distinction between existence and consciousness and/or the proper hierarchy between the two. I.e., both are consequences of the failure to recognize the metaphysical primacy of existence as an inviolate absolute.
There are three forms of the primacy of consciousness metaphysics: the personal (e.g., hedonism, "irrational egoism"), the social (e.g., Hegel, Marx, etc.), and the supernatural or cosmic (e.g., religious god-belief). The personal primacy of consciousness is the view that one's own consciousness is the consciousness which holds metaphysical primacy over existence. The social primacy of consciousness is the view that the consciousness of a group or of all men (as a collective) holds metaphysical primacy over existence. The supernatural primacy of consciousness is the view that the consciousness holding metaphysical primacy over existence belongs to a supernatural entity (e.g., God). The primacy of interchangeable consciousnesses, identified by Andrew Bernstein [9], is the view which expediently toggles back and forth among these three forms of the primacy of consciousness, and this tendency to equivocate fundamentals may in fact be present or implicit in any philosophical view stemming from the primacy of consciousness metaphysics.
Subjectivism, metaphysical: Subjectivism in metaphysics is the view that existence (i.e., reality) finds its source in a form of consciousness. Essentially, this view holds that reality, the realm of existence, is a creation or fabrication of some mind (or a collection of minds), that reality is little more than an expression of ideas which are said to exist in a seperate dimension (cf. Platonism), or the product of a supernatural conscious being (cf. God) which is thought to be able to create entire universes through an act of will (i.e., by an act of consciousness). Metaphysical subjectivism in some form results from the acceptance of the primacy of consciousness metaphysics and essentially amounts to solipsism, either psychological or divine. Subjectivism in any form is antagonistic to objectivity.
Epistemological Terms
Axioms and Axiomatic Concepts: "An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it." [10] "One knows that the axioms are true not by inference of any kind, but by sense perception. When one perceives a tomato, for example, there is no evdience that it exists, beyond the fact that one perceives it; there is no evidence that it is something, beyond the fact that one perceives it; and there is no evdience that one is aware, beyond the fact that one is perceiving it. Axioms are perceptual self-evidencies. There is nothing to be said in their behalf except: look at reality." [11] "We directly perceive the facts which the axioms identify." [12]
The first axiom of Objectivism is: Existence exists. In addition to this axiom are its primary corollaries: To exist is to have identity and consciousness is consciousness of something, i.e., of existence. Each axiom is implicit in any statement one makes, even if that statement is not factual. The axioms identify truths which are absolute, undeniable and inescapable. Since to be conscious is to have awareness of existence (i.e., of things or entities which we perceive), the recognition of the fact of existence is the starting point of our certainty and thus the cornerstone of all rational thought.
But axioms are to be contrasted from axiomatic concepts: "Axioms are usually considered to be propositions identifying a fundamental, self-evident truth. But explicit propositions as such are not primaries: they are made of concepts. The base of man's knowledge - of all other concepts, all axioms, propositions and thought - consists of axiomatic concepts... An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but upon which all proofs and explanations rests... The first and primary axiomatic concepts are 'existence', 'identity' (which is a corollary of 'existence') and 'consciousness'. One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or 'prove') existence as such, or consciousness as such. these are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to 'prove' them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to 'prove' existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.)" [13]
Principle: "A principle is 'a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.' Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes." [14] "Concrete problems cannot even be grasped, let alone judged or solved, without reference to abstract principles... When men abandon principles (i.e., their conceptual faculty), two of the major results are: individually, the inability to project the future; socially, the impossibility of communication... Only fundamental principles, rationally validated, clearly understood and voluntarily accepted, can create a desirable kind of unity among men." [15]
"Every science and every field of thought involves the discovery and application of principles. Leaving aside certain special cases, a principle may be described as a fundamental reached by induction. Such knowledge is necessary to a conceptual consciousness for the same reason that induction and the grasp of fundamentals are necessary." [16]
Reason: "Reason is the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." [17] "Reason integrates man's perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man's knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic - and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification." [18] "Reason is man's only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge - and, therefore, the rejection of reason means that men should act regardless of and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality." [19]
Man's initial contact with reality is by means of sense-perception. It is with his senses that he first comes into contact with existence and begins to discover the world.
Logic: "...logic is the art of non-contradictory identification." [20]
"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one's thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one's mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality." [21]
"Logic is man's method of reaching conclusions objectively by deriving them without contradiction from the facts of reality - ultimately, from the evidence provided by man's senses. If men reject logic, then the tie between their mental processes and reality is severed; all cognitive standards are repudiated, and anything goes; any contradiction, on any subject, may be endorsed (and simultaneously rejected) by anyone, as and when he feels like it." [22]
"Any theory that propounds an opposition between the logical and the empirical, represents a failure to grasp the nature of logic and its role in human cognition. Man's knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience or by experience apart from logic, but by the application of logic to experience. All truths are the products of a logical identification of the facts of experience." [23]
"Logic has a single law, the Law of Identity, and its various corollaries." [24] The basis of the law of identity is the fact that existence exists, not a conscious will which dictates it into validity. Since we are first aware of the fact that existence exists by our perception of things which exist, the objects of our perception are the starting point of our knowledge of reality. We need to identify the starting point of our knowledge because knowledge is hierarchical in nature. We do not master calculus before we grasp why 2+2=4. "Logic requires a recognition of context and of hierarchy... A logical conclusion is one which has been related without contradiction to the rest of man's conclusions (the task of integration) - and which has been related step by step to perceptual data (the task of reduction). Between the two processes, man achieves a double check on his accuracy. Every conclusion must stand the test of his other knowledge and (through the necessary intermediate chain) the test of direct experience." [25]
It is through logic that we build and scale - ascend and descend - the hierarchy of knowledge, from our core foundations and initial certainty, to the highest levels of our abstract thought. It is by logic that we integrate the facts we discover about reality to establish truths, and it is by logic that we reduce abstractions to their constituent concepts and ultimately to our perceptual starting points, which are identified by the axioms.
Knowledge: "'Knowledge' is... a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation." [26]
"This definition [of 'knowledge']... can serve as a summary of the Objectivist epistemology. It also indicates our rejection of two widespread viewpoints. Contrary to skepticism, the definition affirms that man can 'grasp reality.' Contrary to mysticism, it affirms that such grasp is achieved only by observation and/or reason." [27]
Because knowledge is knowledge of reality (i.e., objective), reality, i.e., existence, is the final court of appeal. The standard of knowledge is reason. Since the objects of perception do not conform to the dictates of our desires and emotions, knowledge of reality is only possible on the primacy of existence principle: existence exists independent of consciousness, to exist is to have identity, and consciousness guided by reason is man's means of identifying that which exists.
True: "Truth is the recognition of reality; reason, man's only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth." [28] The standard of reason, then, is reality, the realm of existence. "Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes these concepts into propositions - and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the trth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics." [29]
False: Dr. Peikoff points out that, "'True' and 'false' are assessments within the field of human cognition: they designate a relationship [of] correspondence or contradiction between an idea and reality... The false is established as false by reference to a body of evidence and within a context, and is pronounced false because it contradicts the evidence.' [30] Peikoff also states:
Every truth about a given existent(s) reduces, in basic pattern, to: "X is: one or more of the things which it is." The predicate in such a case states some characteristic(s) of the subject; but since it is a characteristic of the subject, the concept(s) designating the subject in fact includes the predicate from the outset. If one wishes to use the term "tautology" in this context, then all truths are "tautological." (And, by the same reasoning, all falsehoods are self-contradictions.)
When making a statement about an existent, one has, ultimately, only two alternatives: "X (which means X, the existent, including all its characteristics) is what it is" - or: "X is not what it is." The choice between truth and falsehood is the choice between "tautology" (in the sense explained) and self-contradiction. [31]
The Argument from Existence points out that the claim that God exists is false because it must assume a false view of reality. That false view of reality, the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, a view which is implicit in any philosophy ascribing to a form of god-belief, is contradictory to the facts of reality. Thus, any claim which assumes either implicitly or explicitly the primacy of consciousness view of reality, is consequently false itself.
Arbitrary: "'Arbitrary' means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual; its basis is neither direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. [An arbitrary idea is] a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality." [32] The notion of a universe-creating, reality-ruling consciousness (i.e., "God") is an arbitrary idea; it is an idea which has no legitimate supporting evidence. However, with the rise of the western mind's dependence on reason, theistic philosophers and apologists can no longer find their recourses to "sheer assertion" persuasive to many of the minds which they hope to convince. Consequently, such philosophers and apologists have attempted various avenues of constructing arguments in order to provide the pretense that this notorious, arbitrary idea has a credible perceptual and/or conceptual basis, thus removing it from the purely arbitrary status it originally had.
Dr. Peikoff clarifies this point when he states the following:
Now let us note that some arbitrary claims (though by no means all) can be transferred to a cognitive context and converted thereby into true or false statements, which demonstrably correspond to or contradict established fact. It is not mere words wthat determine epistemological status, but their relation to the evidence. A savage's memorized recital of an arithmetical sum, for example, would be like the parrot's [because it lacks context]; but the same utterance by a man who understands the reason behind it would constitute a truth [because it has contextual support]. Or consider the claim that there is an infinite, omnipotent creator of the universe. If this claim is viewed as a product of faith or fantasy, apart from any relation to evidence, it has no cognitive standing. If one wishes, however, one can relate this claim to an established context...: one can demonstrate that the idea of God contradicts all the fundamentals of a rational philosophy. Thanks to such a process of integration, what was initially arbitrary attains cognitive status - in this instance, as a falsehood. [33]
For centuries theologians, apologists and philosophers have been building and adding to the contextual morass allegedly supporting god-belief. As such, based on Dr. Peikoff's point here, god-belief is a set of arbitrary notions which have been "transferred to a cognitive context" by a pretense to reason. Thus, instead of dismissing god-belief as simply arbitrary, a rational person should be able to demontrate why god-beliefs and god-belief claims are false.
Subjectivism, epistemological: Subjectivism in epistemology is the view that knowledge of reality can be acquired exclusively by introspection, resulting in the confusion between the emotions one experiences and the facts of reality. Just as metaphysical subjectivism is the philosophical basis of epistemological subjectivism, epistemological subjectivism is the philosophical basis of mysticism, which is the acceptance of ideational content void of evidence, proof or rational (i.e., non-contradictory) inference from perceptually available facts. The 'method' of mysticism is faith or any supposed means of "just knowing" (i.e., knowledge without means) or "revelation" (i.e., "because the ruling consciousness says so"). Epistemological subjectivism amounts to the doctrine that consciousness dictates what is true about reality, as opposed to a process of objectivity, which is the doctrine that consciousness discovers and identifies what is true about reality. Thus, epistemological subjectivism is opposed to the primacy of existence metaphysics.
"In epistemology... subjectivists hold that a man need not concern himself with the facts of reality; instead, to arrive at knowledge or truth, he need mrely turn his attention inward, consulting the appropriate contents of consciousness, the ones with the power to make reality conform to their dictates. According to the most widespread form of subjectivism, the elements which possess this power are feelings." [34]
Rand's Razor: "The requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological 'razor': concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity - the corollary to which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity." [35]
"A 'razor' is a principle that slashes off a whole category of false and/or useless ideas. Rand's Razor is addressed to anyone who enters the field of philosophy. It states: name your primaries. Identify your starting points, including the concepts you take to be irreducible, and then establish that these are objective axioms. Put negatively: do not begin to philosophize midstream. Do not begin with some derivative concept or issue, while ignoring its roots, however much such issue interests you. Philosophical knowledge, too, is hierarchical." [36]
The Argument from Existence can be seen as a formal implementation of Rand's Razor in that it focuses the atheological debate on the question of fundamentals. It challenges theists and non-theists alike to identify their starting points in terms of explicit essentials and to argue for their validity. It also underscores the fact that theists must assume the metaphysical primacy of existence, even though their conclusions contradict this principle. [37]
Relevant Fallacies
Floating Abstractions: Another conceptual fallacy which proliferates theistic philosophies is the floating abstraction. Dr. Leonard Peikoff states:
['Floating abstraction'] is Ayn Rand's term for concepts detached from existents, concepts that a person takes over from other men without knowing what specific units the concepts denote. A floating abstraction is not an integration of factual data; it is a memorized linguistic custom representing in the person's mind a hash made of random concretes, habits and feelings that blend imperceptibly into other hashes which are the content of other, similarly floating abstractions. The 'concepts' of such a mind are not cognitive devices. They are parrotlike imitations of language backed in essence by patches of fog. [38]
The notion 'God' is a prime example of a floating abstraction. This notion is asserted constantly by theists as the causal agent to everything we find in reality, even though it is a notion which is completely detached conceptually from the existents it purportedly generates. A floating abstraction essentially has no tie to reality, and is therefore not a legitimate concept. See also Floating Abstractions and Stolen Concepts by J. William Pierce.
Package-Deal: The following is taken from my essay on Common Fallacies:
An improper and suspicious equation of essentially distinct terms or concepts. A package-deal is "the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or ‘package,’ elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value." (Leornard Peikoff, editor’s note to Ayn Rand’s "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made," Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24.) A package-deal uses "the shabby old gimmick of equating opposites by substituting non-essentials for their essential characteristics, obliterating the differences." ("How to Read (and Not to Write)," The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 26, 3.)
The failure to discriminate between crucial differences may incline one to accept a mass of assumptions under a single heading, thus treating that mass of assumptions as a single unit. Many apologists have stated in their private correspondence, when asked to identify their cognitive starting point, that their starting point is "the triune Christian God of the Bible." This indicates the proclivity to treat as one's starting point an enormous group of assumptions, even though this blatantly defies the what a starting point is all about. Since there is no logical consequence connecting the ideas involved (the assertion of the notion of a ruling consciousness does not logically lead to the assumption that this ruling consciousness created the earth in six days, rested on the seventh, brought a worldwide flood to the earth saving only eight individuals, had an "only begotten Son," born of a virgin, crucified and resurrected, etc.; the acceptance of the first idea in no way implies any of the others; these must all be accepted as part of the same package), the acceptance of all these positions as one's starting point is to accept a colossal package-deal as one's fundamental premise.
Such believers actually attempt to found their entire philosophy on their acceptance of a fallacy as their cognitive starting point. The very idea of logical consequence necessarily implies hierarchical structure and therefore a fundamental starting point. Thus, even if these ideas could be shown to have logical consequence, it would not justify the acceptance of them all as a single, unitary starting point. However, it is suspected that it is precisely because these ideas are not logically consequential from any single starting point that they are accepted as a whole. The acceptance of a package-deal is the result of failing to integrate the concepts which one does accept as valid. It is a denial of the objectively hierarchical nature of knowledge as such which makes the acceptance of package-deals possible.
Stolen Concept: The following is taken from my essay on Common Fallacies:
First identified by Ayn Rand, a concept is 'stolen' when one asserts a concept while denying or ignoring its epistemological or genetic roots.The most common instances of this fallacy that one will encounter in debates with religious apologists usually entail a denial - almost always implicit - of the fact of existence. For example, in constructing arguments of a cosmological nature, the apologist will attempt to posit either causality or consciousness as if they were not dependent on existence – as if they could ‘exist’ prior to - and therefore without - existence. This is the primary fallacy exposed by the Argument from Existence.
This fallacy can be graphically compared to one trying to lift the stool he's sitting on - it can't happen and it won't happen. Similarly, how can one posit a concept while denying its prior roots? The religionist, of course, will not admit to committing this fallacy for he usually does not see the breach; after all, he might not say outright that existence does not exist. However, this is exactly what he does say when he argues that he requires an explanation for existence (cf. "Why does anything exist?" or "How does the non-believer 'account for' existence?") or that the universe itself had a beginning. Fundamentally - if the religionist were consistent in his principles - the only appeal that could satisfy such arbitrary questions would be to non-existence, which cannot account for anything.
Identification of this fallacy is one of the most critical steps in dealing with the fundamental errors of god-belief. A firm grasp of this fallacy, what it means and how to correct it are essential in understanding the Argument from Existence. For a more detailed study of this fallacy, how it is necessarily entailed in the construction of any god-belief assertion and why the commission of this fallacy at the root level (axioms) of a philosophic code commits one to a whole series of further errors throughout consequent philosophic doctrines, see the section on the Argument from Existence.
This fallacy was first identified by Ayn Rand. See Atlas Shrugged - particularly John Galt's Speech, Philosophy: Who Needs It, specifically chapter 2, "Philosophical Detection", and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, specifically the chapter titled "Axiomatic Concepts".
See also: The Stolen Concept by Nathaniel Branden.
Notes:
[1] Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, (New York: Meridian, 1993), p. 4.
[2] Ayn Rand, "Cognition and Measurement," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Second Expanded Edition, (New York: Meridian, 1990), p. 5.
[3] Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, pp. 934-935.
[4] Cf. The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z, s.v. 'universe'.
[5] Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 5.
[6] "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, (New York: Signet, 1964), p. 14.
[7] Ayn Rand, "Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?" The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1965, p. 7.
[8] Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 116.
[9] See Bernstein's lecture "The Primacy of Consciousness Versus the Objectivist Ethics," (1994), Second Renaissance Books, Tape 2.
[10] Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p. 956.
[11] Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 8.
[12] David Kelley, "The Primacy of Existence," (1999) Lecture Tape, Side A; available through Principle Source.
[13] Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 55.
[14] Ayn Rand, "The Anatomy of Compromise," Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, (New York: Signet, 1967), p. 144.
[15] Ayn Rand, "Credibility and Polarization," The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 1, 3.
[16] Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 218.
[17] Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 20.
[18] Ayn Rand, "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 62.
[19] Ayn Rand, "The Left: Old and New," The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, (New York: Signet, 1971), p. 84.
[20] Ayn Rand, "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 62.
[21] Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p. 934.
[22] Leonard Peikoff, "Nazism to Subjectivism," The Objectivist, Feb. 1971, 12.
[23] Leonard Peikoff, "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Expanded Second Edition, p. 112.
[24] Ayn Rand, "Philosophical Detection," Philosophy: Who Needs It, (New York: Signet, 1984), p. 15.
[25] Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 138.
[26] Ayn Rand, "Concepts of Consciousness," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Second Revised Edition, p. 35.
[27] Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 182.
[28] Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p. 935.
[29] Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Second Expanded Edition, p. 48.
[30] "The Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture series (1976), Lecture 6; quoted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism A to Z, s.v. 'Falsehood'.
[31] Leonard Peikoff, "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy," from Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Second Revised Edition, (New York: Meridian, 1990), pp. 100-101.
[32] Dr. Leonard Peikoff, "The Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture series (1976), Lecture 6; quoted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism A to Z, s.v. 'Arbitrary'.
[33] Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 166.
[34] Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, (New York: Meridian, 1982), p. 62.
[35] Ayn Rand, "The Cognitive Role of Concepts," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Second Revised Edition, p. 72.
[36] Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 139.
[37] See How the Theist Checkmates Himself.
[38] Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 96.
© Copyright by Anton Thorn 2001. All rights reserved.
[Back to the Argument from Existence]
[Back to Anton Thorn's Objectivist Atheology]