I wanted to add a few comments to AirwaveBoy's responses to Justin's entry.

1. The "my worst enemies" issue (I really hope this is going to be the last of it):

AirwaveBoy writes:

Quoting Justin: "When you make a statement like 'I don't want to hear anyone talk about how abortionists are my worst enemies" it is directed at anyone who is pro life unless you name a specific person."

AirwaveBoy responded: "Tindrbox was referring to a comment Sfinfidel made along the lines of 'Objectivists are my sworn enemies.' He was using a parallel construction to illustrate his point. He was talking about the tone that Sfinfidel was using, not about pro-lifers."

First of all, I want to thank you, AirwaveBoy, for echoing my earlier attempts to clear up this matter. I really wish it weren't necessary to begin with. The extract quoting Justin above was a response that he (Justin) submitted to one of my letters to the group, dated Feb. 21. In my original letter, I was indeed alluding by restatement to a comment that was made in response to my big e-mail the day prior. However, that response was NOT MADE by Sfinfidel as AirwaveBoy indicates in his otherwise accurate rejoinder. The original comment using the words "…my sworn enemies…" belonged to SlackerInc, who apparently does not like Objectivists. Sfinfidel made no such comment.

Secondly, I would like to point out, in case no one noticed, that I have never identified myself to the group as an Objectivist, and consider SlackerInc's hostile statement that he regards all Objectivists as his "sworn enemies" to be inappropriate to any reasoned response to my argument, and completely unnecessary to the forum. I did not intend to cause enmity between myself and any of you, SlackerInc included; I merely quoted a passage of Ayn Rand's writing which I thought was appropriate to the argument I was making. In all candor, when I was writing that letter to you all that day, I did hesitate to include Rand's comments about abortion, as I know that reaction to her name and her philosophy can be rather impassioned, to say the least.

Thirdly, as AirwaveBoy correctly notes above, my parody of SlackerInc's comment was not direct to anyone except SlackerInc himself, if only as a hint, and certainly not as a generalized projection to those who disagreed with my argument about abortion. I certainly did not anticipate Justin's interpretation, which was unintended, but arguably understandable. I have already offered my apology privately to Justin and do so now also to any of you who may have garnered the same interpretation. My aim is not to alienate anyone as a consequence of partaking in this forum.

May this issue, and any resulting fall-out, rest in peace!

*******************************************************

2. The "unknown" vs. the "unknowable":

Not only is it possible that "things about God are 'beyond comprehension' because they are neither logical, rational, nor real," this is the only answer that is possible. Virtually any religious philosophy, in the attempt to validate the apotheosis of superstition and ignorance, will make the assertion that some (if not all) knowledge is UNKNOWABLE. This means that there is knowledge that cannot be known, which is a contradiction in concepts. This has directly to do with the epistemology of religious philosophies. [For those who are not familiar with the term, epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge.]

According to religious epistemology, which is broadly referred to as MYSTICISM, knowledge is not possible to man on his own cognizance. Which means: he must appeal to some 'higher' source for his knowledge. MYSTICISM is defined as: the acceptance of allegations without evidence and against one's own reasoning to the contrary. Its method is: FAITH. All mysticism is based on the notion that reason is impotent, and therefore that MAN'S MIND is impotent. Mysticism posits arbitrary claims that are rationally indefensible or unsupportable, and then expect man to accept those claims on faith.

Thus, as the arbitrary claims become deeper and deeper entangled into utterly nonsensical assertions and doctrines (such as supernatural entities, immortality, virgin births, resurrections, sickness healed by mere touching of garments, men walking on water, etc.), the mystic has only one choice when faced with reasoned criticism: he must posit the UNKNOWABLE. By 'unknowable', the mystic means: no matter what means man uses ON HIS OWN to discover and arrive at verified knowledge, he will not be able to achieve knowledge.

A common tactic to substantiate this ruse is for the mystic to point to some field of study in which man has not yet gained full knowledge, such as: the extent of the universe. The mystic will designate such instances of incomplete knowledge as evidence that some knowledge is unknowable.

However, for example, although men have not discovered if there are planets revolving the star Aldebaron at this time, it is one thing to say that our current technology inhibits us from finding this out, and quite another to say that, no matter what technology we invent, we will never be able to know if Aldebaron has a solar system. The fact is, once men have created the telescopes required for such a feat, we will be able to determine and affirm as knowledge whether or not there are planetoid bodies revolving around Aldebaron. Such knowledge is at this time unknown, but NOT unknowable.

Notice the above comment in Justin's quote. It is NOT unusual to see Christians attempting to posit something as 'incomprehensible' as a guise for his supernatural assertions' irrationality. "You can't be certain of anything," say many religionists when debating the issue of his god's existence, unaware of the contradiction that he is certain that no one can be certain of anything. Certainly he's certain about his god, isn't he?

What is the true aim of the mystic's position of the unknowable or 'incomprehensible'? An assault on man's mind, and consequently, an assault on man. The assertion that some knowledge is unknowable to man in general can only serve to discredit man's mind and therefore debilitate him mentally and spiritually. Once this is accomplished (which can only happen when individuals choose to accept the mystic's claims), the individual so persuaded will doubt his own efficacy as a rational being and consequently surrender his mind - and ultimately his life - to those who he believes know the (alleged) truth, which he accepts as beyond his comprehension.

This is a very brief explanation of the psychology of mysticism as I understand it. I'm sure that what I have stated above will create as many questions as it hopes to address and answer.

I invite your comments.

There are many other things in AirwaveBoy's collection of responses to Justin that I would like to add to. This will have to wait until another time.

As for now, I must retire, as it is getting rather late for me.

Thank you,

Tindrbox

_________________________________