Kicking Against the Pricks

Volley No. 2: Clarifying the Onus of Proof

Good evening, Mr. X.

Thank you for your prompt reply. It was a pleasure to receive. Below please find my comments to your message.

"Thank you for your reply. It is not my intention to offend, however, your 'answers' to my questions are not answers at all, but rather similar to political double-talk--a lot of words, but very little substance."

I see. Apparently, Mr. X, you were not satisfied by my responses, and intend to evade a point-by-point response of your own by what I consider a rash dismissal. While it seems rather rude on your part, given the amount of attention I have put into responding to a perfect stranger, I am not offended. After all, it is your loss should you continue to ignore the Philosophy of Reason.

In my experience in corresponding with religionists, it is actually quite expected. The determination to evade rational discourse is not a consequence of holding to sound philosophical principles, but of a desire to protect a psychological neurosis, which the religious view of the world fosters in its believers. Had you chosen to actually contemplate the principles articulated in my last correspondence to you, and had you decided to examine the sources to which I included references, I wonder what your response would be. Objectivism is not remotely "similar to political double-talk" as you say. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Perhaps, Mr. X, you are so destitute of familiarity with principled thought that you cannot recognize it when faced with it. Nonetheless, you choose to evade, which is not surprising, especially if your mission is to find some vulnerability within Objectivism.

"If, as Objectivism states, reality exists independent of consciousness, how then can you determine that there is not a reality beyond the ability of conciousness to perceive?" [Sic]

The crucial question is not "how can you determine that there is not a reality beyond the ability of consciousness to perceive?" Indeed, the question is: If you cannot perceive it, then on what basis do you accept such claims as knowledge of reality? Again, check your premises. What are your starting points? Very few - if any - religionists with whom I have corresponded over the years have been willing to identify their supposed starting points, let alone explain why in fact they are irreducible and inescapable. Many claim that they can, but I have yet to see any really put their money where their mouth is. Perhaps you can break this cycle of disappointment, Mr. X?

However, you are a religious believer, and therefore accept the claim that there is some kind of reality contradicting 'this one'. The question is: Why do you accept such claims? How old were you when you first accepted this notion - in any form whatsoever, and what did your acceptance of this notion accomplish? Do you believe you can establish the truth of the claim that a 'supernatural realm' exists by use of reason? If so, what are your starting points, what is the nature of concepts as you employ them in your scheme, and what is reason and what is its purpose? These would be only a few of the fundamentals that I think you would have to address in order for your god-beliefs to have even the remotest chance of being taken seriously by Rational individuals.

As I mentioned in my prior response to you: the onus of proof belongs to those who assert the existential positive. Remember that I have had Muslims write to me in addition to those representing the farrago of Christian sub-cults, all claiming to 'perceive' a reality which lies beyond our perception (i.e., they argue for a contradiction, just as you do here). Given the impoverishment in our public schools (and even many private institutions as well; an impoverishment resulting from bad philosophy), it is not surprising that so many are so gullible. After all, it's all about believing the 'right' thing, right?

"you wrote: 'Quite simply, it is the Objectivist's stance that Man's ability to perceive is limited to that which exists'."

Yes, Mr. X, I did write this, and I do stand by it. I wonder how one could argue against it.

"Since it is the religionists view that God and the Supernatural reality exist, how is it that you reject the notion of such an existence as nonsense?" [sic]

Again, do you expect me to simply accept your claims - claims that constitute ignoring objective reality and rationality by positing a 'realm' that contradicts objective reality? On what basis do you suppose I would accept this view? No reason to get defensive at this point, Mr. X. I understand it is probably very frustrating for those who have sacrificed their mind to engage in correspondence such as this with those who are not willing to surrender theirs. Your hunger for psychological validation is noted. You will not acquire it by corresponding with me.

"From what I can determine, Objectivism all boils down to semantics: your definition on just what reality and existence is differs completely from the theologist - thats all." [sic]

The statement "From what I can determine, Objectivism all boils down to semantics..." is dishonest, and constitutes another cheap evasion. Indeed, your comment that follows only hints at the fact that you cannot evade defining your terms if your goal is intelligibility. Perhaps this is the presumption that should be re-examined: Are you indeed seeking intelligibility? If so, what are your standards of intelligibility? Conformity of your thoughts to those of the local pastor? Conformity of your thoughts to some theologian you arbitrarily select as an object of your affection and allegiance? Indeed, what standard of intelligibility do you offer, Mr. X? I imagine I shan't hold my breath awaiting an answer to this question, but I won't hesitate in posing it in any case.

As for definitions, this is a crucial point you raise (though not for the reasons that motivated you to introduce it here). It is quite interesting that you mention how the Objectivist's definitions differ from those assumed by theologians. Indeed, this is not the only difference (the difference is even more fundamental than the question of which definitions are appropriate), but it is an important area of concern here. Your statement here suggests that you are aware of particular definitions for terms that apparently prove troublesome for certain parties.

Perhaps you are aware of the definitions for the terms 'reality' and 'existence' as championed by your favorite theologians? By all means, then, why hold your silence? Let us know what these definitions are, what are their source, how they were formed, by what process of concept-formation were they assembled, and how they can be applied consistently in dealing with reality. That is, if you can.

Mentioning that some theologian's definitions are different, but failing to articulate just what those definitions may be and why they should be accepted, is a moot point. I am already well aware of the theologian's problem with his conceptual faculties. Your charge that "Objectivism all boils down to semantics" is indeed on shaky ground here. At least the Objectivist is willing to put forth his definitions and stick to them. Where have you done this?

You are not an Objectivist, Mr. X, so I do not expect you right away to see the scope and efficacy of Objectivism. I do not expect you to be familiar with many of the issues addressed by Objectivism, or with the verdicts reached by Objectivism in addressing those issues. For all I know (and your recent e-mail confirms this), you are completely unfamiliar in these matters (hence your questions to begin with, right?). However, I suspect at this point that your interest in Objectivism is motivated by the ambition merely to develop some proficiency in arguing against it, not to learn it as informed by its primary sources (i.e., the writings of Ayn Rand) in order to discover what Objectivism has to offer. You are free to choose poison over principle. As for me, rather than quibble with some theologian's ideas of how he feels certain terms are to be defined, I would ask what it is he is attempting to accomplish. In other words, what is the theologian's purpose?

Rand was excruciatingly careful to define her terms objectively. Indeed, her entire epistemological philosophy depends on objective concept-formation, one of the most important of her many contributions. Primitive god-belief sources, such as the Bible, show absolutely no awareness for objective concept-formation in its usage of key terms. (For a survey of the Bible's disintegration of concepts, I refer you again to Cohen, Edmund D., The Mind of the Bible-Believer, specifically chapter IV: "The Evangelical Mind-Control System.") Thus, the Bible itself cannot be trusted as a source of rational definitions.

"Since we create things for a purpose, i.e. automobiles for better mobility, clothes and homes for warmth and shelter, etc., what purpose then does existence serve?"

This is a question that the religionist will have to answer. It is not the Objectivist's position that existence is a 'creation'. (The concept 'creation' necessarily presupposes existence, hence the question you ask above commits the fallacy of the stolen concept; you're trying to lift the barstool you're sitting on over your head - can't happen.) Indeed, if existence were a creation, what would be the purpose in creating it? Blank out. Positing a purpose at this point merely presupposes existence. But we already know that existence exists. (I.e., you checkmate yourself.)

Again, such questions demonstrate no awareness of the fallacies and presumptive errors identified by Objectivist philosophy. I have already indicated a number of sources in my prior response to you, sources which clearly and articulately explain these problems. I assumed your interest were sincere at that point. Your prompt reply last night to my initial comments indicates that you have not consulted these sources. Ignore them at your own peril. It costs me nothing if you do not take your investigation more seriously.

Think of it this way, Mr. X: If you claim that existence is a 'creation' then you must posit the existence of a 'creator' - but this gets you right back to the very point you're trying to explain!! In other words, you checkmate yourself again. How is this productive and what possibly can it accomplish?

"Since science has established that the universe had a definite beginning, i.e. a beginning to existence, what then prompted this 'beginning'?"

The universe is the sum total of that which exists. Which scientists or scientific theory posits "a beginning to existence"? I have heard this claimed before by apologists desperate to discredit Objectivism in the past. So far, I know of no instance where this kind of assault on intelligence was successful. Remember, if you argue that existence "had a definite beginning," and that existence is therefore not eternal (even though all standards of time presuppose existence - again Blank out), then you consequently argue that 'god' also had a beginning (since you argue that 'god' belongs to the class of existents by claiming "God exists"), and that 'god' is therefore not eternal. However, this is a position which the religionist will no doubt find very discomforting. So again, the question is: What is it that you are trying to accomplish?

Those who argue that the "universe had a definite beginning" must automatically accept the obligation to prove that at one time, the universe did NOT exist. How would one set out to establish such a conclusion? Blank out.

Furthermore, I can only inquire as to your opinion of the following:

Mr. X, just as you are free to argue those 'verdicts' which you prefer to coddle in your conflicted mind, I am just as free to live my life as I see fit according to the verdicts of my Rational mind. If you have a problem with this, then that problem is all yours. Enjoying my life as I see fit does not constitute a problem in my view. However, this probably heaps hot coals onto yours.

"If I make the statement that 'God exists' and to the Objectivist this presupposes existence and thus, proof, then we must define what 'proof' is."

As for defining "what 'proof' is," I would like to know what your definition of 'proof' is, the source of that definition (is it from the Bible, some anonymous theologian or other academic hack?), and just how the concept 'proof' as defined by your preference can be integrated with your claim that 'God exists'. You are free to exhibit your mental prowess here. Use all the paper you need.

"Proof to the theologian that God exists is existence itself; life, the universe--all these things are proof."

Unfortunately, at this point, Mr. X, your position is plagued with more fallacious appeals than I care to shake a stick at! Amazing!

"What the Objectivist seeks as proof is something along the lines of actual footage of God creating the universe--home movies, as it were."

Well, assuming you are a Christian, you may attempt to put some money on the boasts of 'scripture'. For indeed, the New Testament makes some truly amazing claims, but we are left without demonstration! Perhaps you can remedy the paucity of credibility of this situation? For indeed, in Matthew 17:20 the following:

"If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you."

These words are attributed by the author(s) of Matthew to the 'man-god' Jesus. If indeed Jesus spoke the truth here, as so many claim, then a demonstration of this boast is in order. Indeed, Jesus here says "and NOTHING shall be impossible to you..." (emphasis - Thorn). For those who advocate Christian doctrine as 'truth' (even though most Christians cannot even define the term), I will insist that they buck up to the bar on this matter. After all, as one pastor I know put it, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Okay, I'll indulge you. Let's see a demonstration.

Of course, I suspect you will probably resist even reading any of the sources to which I refer you, let alone accepting those challenges (albeit futile to say the least) to which the Christian's own doctrine commits its believers.

"The idea that 'if I can't see it, it isn't really there' is the truly naive philosophy."

Interesting. I cannot see concepts, however I employ them all the time. Would I argue that man is therefore incapable of forming them? Again, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Objectivism from its primary sources before you presume to launch into misrepresentation.

As for the truly naive approach to the intellect: taking the primitive notions of a superstitious culture on faith is indeed not only naive, it is immoral and life-threatening. (Cf., the bloody Dark Ages, which were ruled by superstition and void of objective principle.)

Again, one must question what is the purpose that a philosophy is intended to satisfy. According to Objectivism, the task of philosophy is to offer man a comprehensive view of reality and his life. Thus, it can be reduced to the questions "What is it?" "How do I know it?" and "What should I do?" It is how a particular philosophic model answers these questions that must be measured. Religion weighs in diametrically opposed to man. Objectivism is there to defend man and make the fulfillment of his life possible.

In closing, Mr. X, I would like to state the following. One can dismiss anything he finds too uncomfortable to contemplate by simply waving his hand and denouncing another's position as "mere semantics" or by any other means of rationalizing such evasion. Care not even be made in showing precisely or otherwise how an opponent's position reduces to "mere semantics" - one simply can choose to evade and rationalize that evasion in whatever manner he feels will cover his shame. I fail to see how such a strategy can be considered honorable, nor can I see how it is profitable for one's intellect.

Perhaps you would argue otherwise?

May you get what you deserve,

Anton Thorn

___________________________________________________________________