Observations

Part I:

Thanks for your message. I'm always glad to get "fan mail."

"Although I agree with many of your observations, I am surprised at how much effort you interested in attempting to deconstruct the Judeo-Christian model, and how little support was given for your own position." [sic]

"Deconstruct"? I'm not certain if that's the term I would use, but it is malleable enough to fit most occasions these days, so be my guest. I do use this term, however, in one of my volleys with a Catholic who raised objections against my atheism.

As for "how little support was given for [my] position..." How many of my articles have you read, and how well have you understood them? Have you reviewed the sources which I cite? What kind of support are you looking for? What kind of support do you think is warranted, yet lacking in my arguments? (If you have legitimate criticisms, and would like to point to some specifics, rather than leave your objections without reference, I'd love to hear your thoughts.)

I see. Do you have a particular "Christian thinker" in mind who would "take [me] to task in pretty short order regarding some of [my] conclusions" about the areas of philosophy you mention? If so, he/she is welcome to speak for him/herself. Don't you think?

Then again, if you yourself know of any particular points in any of my articles and essays which you consider to be weak and/or insufficiently buttressed, you are certainly welcome to bring them forward for a second review.

This is actually a great question. However, I think it makes an assumption which may very well not be the case. And that assumption is: that for some reason or another I am "trying to convert religiously minded persons to [my] cause." Actually, I keep no score cards, and I am hardly interested in how many "kills" can be claimed on behalf of my criticism of religious philosophy. Whether an individual who has read and taken the time to comprehend my arguments is "deconverted" from his religious commitments, is ultimately of little concern to me. My website is merely a vehicle for publishing the work I have produced as I consider the material it covers. As you intimate, should any Christian believers (or believers of any other mystical views) not share my worldview, indeed, why should I "waste my time trying to convert them" to it? And I have no intention of "trying to convert" anyone, lest he/she truly seeks to familiarize him/herself with my ideas and the ideas of Objectivism, and cares to pursue them in an integrated fashion.

My website is a means of making public the verdicts which I have reached in regard to the areas I have studied and on which I have written. It is a profoundly selfish endeavor, my website. I invite you, and anyone else who may be at all interested in the matters I cover, to read, enjoy, agree, disagree, applaud, boo, hiss, snicker and dismiss as you see fit. Convert anyone? I am hardly so arrogant! To be honest, I doubt most people have the time or the attention span necessary to read even one of my longwinded posts, let alone take the time to be completely deprogrammed from his religious viewpoints. I leave such matters up to individual readers themselves. The intellectual welfare of my readers is simply not my responsibility.

After all, if I were "out to convert" people, wouldn't I be challenging you on your self-professed agnosticism by this point?

My hope is, for anyone who takes the time to digest any of my material, that he/she simply take the ideas which I present seriously and consider the reasoning I offer in their support. I use the subjunctive here because I think this is a long shot.

Thank you. I'm glad you've enjoyed what you've read so far. If what I write interests you, please return some time, as I have more material on the way.

Part II:

Thank you for your message. I enjoy your questions, and I appreciate the points you are trying to make with your counter-statements.

Okay, let me see how this conversation goes. I'll add comments where appropriate.

Objectivism grants no incongruity between rationality and sense perception. Indeed, Objectivism is utterly forthright and explicit in its recognition of the crucial, harmonious, hierarchical relationship between the two. Simply, there is no rationality without sense perception, for without sense perception, rationality would have no object.

Thus, to put it briefly, I think those who want to take the course which you suggest would do well to have a firm understanding of their definitions in mind, and to treat such distinctions rather carefully. The request to identify further definitions of such crucial terms as 'knowledge', 'truth', 'reality', etc., as well as a clear understanding of the objective relationship between emotion and knowledge (which religious views of knowledge invariably have reversed), would of course follow, assuming the direction of conversation could bear it. If such distinctions are intentionally ignored or rejected by someone with whom I'm conversing, why should I continue the conversation?

But if these distinctions are accepted, as I believe they should in order to conduct any rigorous philosophical discussion without compromising objectivity, these points would no doubt generate numerous questions which would give such discussion profound depth.

Overall, the issue of one's starting points is of dire concern to any such exchange. So I think your question has definite relevance.

If one wants to claim that they possess a sensory organ which I lack, let him show me that organ and explain how it works. Where in the human body is it located, and why do I lack it? What purpose does this supposed sensory organ serve? How is it necessary to life on earth? (Of course, my only concern is life on earth, so if I'm lacking a supposed sensory organ which has no use except to commune with the supernatural, indeed I lack nothing.) Also, he will need to show if that means of sensation can be verified by the other senses (as the five senses we have can do to some extent). Additionally, let us find other candidates who possess this alleged sensory organ (supposing such could be found), and conduct a blind interview: each claiming to possess this supposed organ could privately record precisely that of which it gains him awareness. Each would be welcome to identify what he is supposedly aware of in the most detailed manner. Then their responses could be compared. Experiments like these are in order for those who are serious about their claim to some sixth-sense means of perception.

If someone wants to convince me of his extraordinary claims, he will have to pose serious explanations on such matters. Quite typically, however, one's epistemology is scrutinized and mischaracterized to a horrific extent when he does not accept the mystic's claims, while the mystic himself is either silent or completely vague on the particulars of his epistemology allegedly justifying those claims.

Yes, Eric, I see precisely what's going on in such instances. And I think you're 100% right on this as well: if we reject reason ("…the Christian thinker will grind away at the foundation of consciousness and epistemology…"), then anything is valid ("…believing in God is just as valid as not believing in God"). However, reality cannot be cheated, and at the heart of such an attack on man's mind will be the unchecked premises and stolen concepts which Objectivist philosophy so rightly detects, and rejects. Those who are rehearsed at religious apologetic schemes are quick to focus all conversation and debate on the non-believer's non-acceptance of the apologist's claims. His aim is not to establish the truth of his claims by appealing consistently to the facts of objective reality; instead, his aim is to drag the focus off his own faith claims and proceed to invalidate man's mind and to discredit his capacity to reason effectively to the point that he gives up and throws his arms in open embrace of the arbitrary. The result is a philosophy built on fear and on the enshrinement of the incomprehensible, and tutored Christians defend this self-negation explicitly and tirelessly.

Other articles on my site may also shed some light on these issues. The objections and points to which you allude are confidently addressed by Objectivism. But don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself.

I'm sure this will generate plenty of questions, so I invite your response.

Anyway, thanks again for your message.

Best regards,

_______________________________________

[1] I assuming that Eric meant to write "how much effort you have invested in attempting to deconstruct…"

[2] I consider any time someone condemns me or anyone else to "going to hell" and "suffering all eternity" simply for not accepting mystical ideas, to constitute a death threat. The threat of hell has only one purpose: to compel obedience. Believers who employ this threat to badger or intimidate non-believers simply reveal their own worldview's elevation of death to a place of high importance and their own worship thereof. In this sense, I agree completely with George H. Smith, who writes:

[3] Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, (New York, Signet: 1964), p. 28.

[4] Ibid., 22.

[5] The development of the two opposing schools of philosophy, namely the skepticists a la David Hume and the rationalists a la Rene Descartes, is the result of failing to recognize that man's sensory, perceptual and conceptual levels of consciousness are integrated and thus not in conflict with each other. Objectivism avoids this common pitfall thanks to Rand's unique conception of objectivity.

[6] Pg. 936.

[7] Bernstein, Andrew, "The Primacy of Consciousness Versus the Objectivist Ethics", lecture, tape 2, side A.

[8] April, 1981, pp. 8-12.

[9] And we even have the causal explanation for such so-called illusions: light refraction. So we not only have the assumption of the validity of the senses found built-in in such arguments (since it is by sense perception that we know that the pencil is actually straight), thus committing one to a classic stolen concept, we also know the causality of the pencil appearing bent when standing in a glass of water, given the form of our perception. See David Kelley, "Concepts of Sensory Qualities," The Evidence of the Senses, (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1986), pp. 228-242.