Kicking Against the Pricks

Volley No. 3: Deconstructing Faith

Mr. X,

I appreciate your recent comments and would like to offer you the following response:

"I am the first to admit that my education is probably not on par with that of yours, and that my vocabulary is not nearly as vast. Therefore, I apologize if my replies seem like evasion to you--it is certainly not my intention to evade your conclusions in an effort, as you say, to 'protect a psychological neurosis', but to merely point out that your answer to my inquiries quite simply evades me."

While it may or may not be the case that the level of your educational achievement is on a par with mine (mine is not spectacular), or that your vocabulary "as vast." I do not see this as the problem at all. It is not a question of one's academic record or lexical prowess, but one of willingness to deal with the issues presented. In my prior two responses to you over the last few days, I presented many points to which you do not even acknowledge in your replies, let alone show how a dispute against them can be justified.

In both my prior messages to you, I posed numerous questions to you, and I find that you have not attempted even to answer one. Yet, you still insist on characterizing my statements as "similar to political double-talk" (see below). This is a very rash dismissal and only suggests your unpreparedness to deal with the issues presented; such resignation does not constitute an accurate assessment of the content thus far provided.

My simple question is: Why would you prefer to take this route? Why do you not at least attempt some demonstration to establish this assessment by reference to my statements? To seek out my opinion only to ignore the content I provide in response to your questions, and then to continue correspondence with me in spite of recognizing any of the points I have made so far, is quite disingenuous in my assessment. Do you sincerely believe this is honorable conduct?

If you are unable to take the time to evaluate the points I have made so far, or you lack the confidence to develop a counter argument, that would be one thing. However, your characterization does not suggest that either of these cases apply. I simply wonder at this point what you presume your purpose in corresponding with me to be. In other words, what are you hoping to accomplish?

"I would like to clarify that I never said Objectivism was similar to political double-talk. I said that your answers to my questions were similar to political double-talk, in that they seem to dance around the question without actually answering it. Again, let it be said that I am the first to admit that, perhaps your answer just evades me.

"I posed the question: 'If, as Objectivism states, reality exists independent of consciousness, how then can you determine that there is not a reality beyond the ability of consciousness to perceive?'

"You evade providing an answer to this, but respond with another set of questions:

(Quoting Thorn:)

<< 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? >>

"Your 'answers' to my questions continue in the vein throughout your reply; answering questions with questions. As I have admitted at the beginning of this letter, I am the first to admit when a concept is completely out of my grasp."

Mr. X, in all due respect, there are a few things you may wish to contemplate insofar as rational principle is concerned here. The topic of this particular area of our debate is the nature of claims, and thus belongs to the philosophical province called epistemology. Epistemology's primary focus is what knowledge is and how man achieves it. The concern with how man disputes claims contrary to what he has accepted as true and representative of reality is secondary to discovering the primary facts of reality. For how can one dispute what conflicts with the facts of reality if first he does not know the facts of reality? Indeed, there is a hierarchical nature to knowledge, and therefore also to the proper method of achieving it; I shall endeavor to restrain myself from the presumption that you recognize this.

This is why I choose to inquire in response to your questions: to expose the presumptions shrouded in the approach to knowledge to which you apparently subscribe. Your interrogation as to how I can "determine that there is not a reality beyond the ability of consciousness to perceive" is built on the presumed implication that knowledge of a "reality beyond the ability of consciousness to perceive" is either a known potentiality or a surety. My question in response merely asks how this knowledge of a "reality beyond the ability of consciousness to perceive" is established or intimated according to any rational understanding of knowledge. You resist offering any justification for making this presumption.

Clearly, if you, Mr. X, posit the existence of a "reality beyond the ability of consciousness to perceive," how is it that you are aware of this so-called reality - presuming the condition that it is beyond your perception? Why is this such a difficult question for you to handle?

I still regard my question,

"If you cannot perceive it, then on what basis do you accept such claims as knowledge of reality?"

as a perfectly legitimate response to your prior question,

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

Perhaps another way of explaining my response will result in some understanding on your part. Let's suppose I asked you the following question:

"Mr. X, in what particular non-combinatorial facsimile of undisclosed local priorities of neural networking would the submolecular mitochondrial interruption of intra-systemic binomial references to stratigraphic acid data of localized disturbances of undisclosed local priorities within non-neural autonomic functions result in undifferentiated accumulations of inorganic huss?"

What would your response be? Would you launch into a response presuming an understanding of what was just asked? I would hope not! I suspect you would in inquire back (i.e., answer a question with a question) in order to clarify some point of shady understanding on your part. No? What if I had asked you, "Mr. X, have you stopped beating your wife?" Does this question not presume that you are a) married and b) beating your wife? Your proper response, given our recent acquaintance, would rightly be: 'How do you establish the legitimacy of such a question, Mr. Thorn?'

Similarly, when one asks me

"how can you determine that there is not a reality beyond the ability of consciousness to perceive?"

I can only ask for clarification of what is meant by such a question (i.e., answer a question with a question), as I did in my prior message to you, for such a question is not only internally incoherent, it is also in conflict with reality as I understand it. Hence, it is only rational that I reply with an inquiry into the meaning, indeed, the method by which those notions presumed in such interrogation were reached. Again, the observance of the hierarchical nature of knowledge is of crucial pertinence here. This is what seems to evade you, Mr. X.

So, I'll ask you again:

Now that I have gone to the trouble of explaining why I so annoyingly responded to your question with yet another question (for clarification of the former), would you like to attempt an answer to mine?

"I realize your contempt for myself and those like me; Miss Rand endorsed such contempt for those who do not share her vision of man. So it is with this that I understand that your double-talk is not designed to evade my questions, but rather to belittle my 'primitive' beliefs." [sic]

Mr. X, I have no contempt for you at all. If I had contempt for you, I would not continue to correspond with you, let alone go to the trouble I have in trying to explain what I consider important principles of reasoning in my (now three) messages to you. I have never met you. And while I imagine you're a fine fellow, I deal with ideas. My 'contempt' as you put it, if indeed I have any, is not at all for you; were you and I to sit down over a beer I'm sure we would get along swimmingly and converse a wide variety of topics. If I have any contempt at all, it is for those ideas that have been repeated throughout the ages that are offered with the sole intention of damning man's ability to think for himself and which attempt to undermine his capacity to enjoy his existence and live his life for his own sake. While these ideas are often camouflaged in the garb of doctrines colored by emotionally enticing language, I consider it elemental to my pride as an individual thinking being to evaluate those doctrines and expose that which I find contemptible within them. Can you fault this? Or, do you believe that I should just sit back and not speak up when I know better?

As for Miss Rand's "contempt," I would concur that she may have erred in her judgments of some individuals; Ayn Rand was not infallible, nor did she claim to be. Most seasoned Objectivists will likely recognize this. However, I would not agree with the blanket generalization that all her denouncements of certain individuals on whom she commented were in error, nor would I agree with the related blanket generalization that the reasoning behind her assessments were in error. If you buy this load of slander, you do not only Miss Rand a disservice, but yourself as well. Ayn Rand had one of the keenest - and most honest - minds for fundamentals, principles, reason and philosophic knowledge. I know of no accomplishment in the field of thought that comes remotely close to any of hers (save perhaps some of Aristotle's discoveries, of course). Perhaps you do?

As for your implication that Miss Rand endorsed "contempt for those who do not share her vision of man," I would like to know your sources for this. If anything, Rand did not advocate the sheepishness demanded by religious dogma (indeed, some religions specifically refer to their believers as "sheep"). Objectivism, as a system, recognizes that philosophy is for man, not the other way around. Philosophy should serve its user - in the case of Objectivism, that user is the Man of Reason. Man should not serve the philosophy, as if philosophy had something to gain from his sacrifice. A rational philosophy's success is not measured by man's expense as a result of employing it, but by his ability to profit by applying it in the pursuit of his values and goals. The notion that Miss Rand endorsed "contempt" for others simply on the basis that they did not share her vision of man is contrary to Objectivist principles, even if Miss Rand herself can be shown demonstrably to have indulged in such contempt (though this is doubtful). It is Rand's thought - not so much her example as a model human being - that informs Objectivism.

"you wrote: 'However, you are a religious believer, and therefore accept the claim that there is some kind of reality contradicting 'this one'.' I don't know of any religious thought that accepts the supernatural as 'contradicting' 'this' reality; there is only one reality--one truth."

Of course, religious beliefs would not be expressed in such terms, for this would give the game away. Face it, if a religious sales pitch were put forth with the advertisement that you should "reject reality, accept unearned guilt, worship death, seek unearned redemption, follow your whims and consider them knowledge," (i.e., if religious fundamentals were put in terms of unpretentious essentials), would religious membership boast the numbers it does under its present guises? I trow not. The lure of religion is in its packaging, its grip is in the mind-game that follows. It's one of the oldest tricks in the books (often termed "bait and switch"), but it is quite contagious.

"What we choose to call the supernatural is, for lack of a better description, a higher level of conscious existence beyond our current ability to perceive."

A "higher level" of whose consciousness? A "higher level of conscious existence beyond" whose "current ability to perceive"?

Again, back to my earlier question: "If you cannot perceive it, then on what basis do you accept such claims as knowledge of reality?"

Mr. X, on WHAT BASIS do you accept the claim that there is a "higher level of conscious existence beyond our current ability to perceive"? If you are currently unable to perceive this alleged "higher level of conscious existence," then why should anyone accept the claim that it is possible?

"Can I prove this? No, but then, that is the nature of faith."

Mr. X, thank you! This is the most honest point in any of your recent messages to me. For the record, you admit here that your claims are unsupported by rational means. Let's see where this goes next, however.

"Do I believe it because some robed authority figure told me it was true? No. I believe it because my whole mind and being is drawn to it--not out of 'comfort' as you postulate; for the iscipline of Christianity is certainly not comfortable." [sic]

I'm fully aware of the constant discomfort of the grip of the evangelical mind-game system and its potential to ravage an individual's psychology. Hence I do agree with your last statement here; indeed, the "[d]iscipline of Christianity is certainly not comfortable"!

You mentioned above "that is the nature of faith." Can you tell me a little more about the "nature of faith"? I have a few questions:

You posit a "higher level of conscious existence" which you suggest can only be accepted on the grounds of faith. Correct? Indeed, you offer no rational argument or make any objective reference to reality in support of this assertion. This apparently does not disturb you, that your own rational processes are retired when it comes to accepting such allegations.

But what I ask is: Is this allegation true because you have faith? In other words, does it follow from the fact that you accept such an allegation as knowledge on faith, that such an allegation must therefore be true? Yes or no? Why or why not?

Or:

Do you have faith because you have determined this allegation to be true? In other words, is your acceptance of this allegation warranted by an instance of successfully testing this allegation against the facts of reality and measuring its agreement with these known facts? Yes or no? Why or why not? If yes, please document this process by first identifying your starting points and the reasoning which achieves these conclusions. In other words, please explain how you determined this to be true.

Or:

Is there another alternative which has not been covered so far? Such as: "I know of no indisputable facts of objective reality that support the conclusion that there is a 'higher level of conscious existence beyond my current ability to perceive,' but this does not matter to me, I accept it as knowledge in spite of the fact that rational support for this assertion is absent." Does this describe your position, Mr. X? I am merely attempting to understand "the nature of faith," as you put it yourself above. Can you help me here?

"Nor do I seek God out of fear of the unknown, but out of sheer desire for the Truth."

I admire the pursuit of the truth, but I have grave suspicions here. Therefore, can you please identify for the record the definition of "Truth" as you invoke the term here? What is this definition, what is its source and why should it be accepted? Indeed, by what cognitive process was this concept formed, do you believe? And, can this definition of 'truth' be integrated into all knowledge statements you make about this reality as well as the "higher level of conscious existence" which you posit as legitimate, but for which you fail to offer any rational support? Let's hear some definitions if we are to continue our correspondence. If we cannot agree on these at least, then what can either of us accomplish by continuing our dialogue?

"That Objectivists close their minds to the higher realms of consciousness that is Man's nature to seek out is testimony to its insignificance as a philosophy."

Objectivism rejects the arbitrary - i.e., that for which there is no rational support, either by direct perceptual reference to reality, or by that which is ultimately reducible to perceptual reference of reality. Objectivism is not concerned with the non-existent, the imaginary, the "invisible forces" which mystics posit or any notion that finds its basis in the primacy of consciousness view of reality.

Consider the following dialogue between an elf-believer and a non-believer of elves (inspired by Smith, George H., Atheism: The Case Against God, pp. 225-226):

Elf-Believer (EB): "There is an invisible magic elf sitting on my right shoulder."

Non-believer (NB): [grimaces] "Oh really?"

EB: "You do not believe me? You do not believe that there is an invisible magic elf sitting on my right shoulder?"

NB: "Well, I see no elf... why should I believe you?"

EB: "He's invisible! Of course you can't see him! By definition, that which is invisible is not perceptible to your visual cortex."

NB: "Well, I know, you said that this alleged magic elf is invisible, but how can you prove that it exists?"

EB: "'Proof' for the existence of my invisible magic elf is not something to ask for. One cannot dispute the existence of my invisible magic elf. My entire being is completely aware of his existence."

NB: "Okay, can you then tell me, on what basis I should accept your claim that there is an invisible magic elf sitting on your right shoulder?"

EB: "On what basis should you accept this? No, no, no! You have it all wrong! You're full of double talk! On what basis do you reject my invisible magic elf?"

NB: "Well, I certainly do not perceive its existence by any means. I don't see why I should accept your claim that there is an invisible elf sitting on your shoulder. And you can't offer me any reason to accept your claim, either."

EB: "But I already asked you if you have any basis to dispute the fact that there is an invisible magic elf sitting on my shoulder."

NB: "Can you offer no evidence whatsoever for this claim of yours?"

EB: "Evidence? Why of course I can! Have you ever seen it snow before?"

NB: "Why, sure, I've seen snow falling. Up in the hills last winter I saw snow falling."

EB: "Well, there you go then! Every time it snows, you know that my invisible magic elf is doing his thing! He makes the snow fall!"

NB: "He does?"

EB: "Of course! How could the snow fall unless my invisible magic elf makes it fall? It certainly cannot fall by itself! That would be absurd."

NB: "I see. So, then why should I accept your claim that this alleged invisible magic elf exists and is sitting on your shoulder?"

EB: "Because I told you so. You must simply accept it. To question it is unjustified, since you offer no basis whatsoever to reject it."

NB: "You mean, I am to accept your claim on faith?"

EB: "Call it what you will. Faith, anti-reason, cognitive default, intellectual surrender, mental sacrifice, it doesn't matter. These are merely semantics. You have no choice if you offer no basis to dispute it."

NB: "But I do not see it. Is this not sufficient to reject your claim?"

EB: "Of course not! Silly! You don't see my invisible magic elf because he's invisible! By definition he's beyond your ability to perceive. Besides, even if you could perceive him, you'd most likely deny him anyway! That's the nature of man - he rejects the Truth."

You see, Mr. X, this is PRECISELY how a conversation with a religious devotee proceeds, only "invisible magic elf" is supplanted by equally arbitrary notions, such as "god" or "higher level of conscious existence," etc. The essentials are the same through and through.

One may run to yet more arbitrary principles in defense of such schemes, such as "100 million God fans can't be wrong" (as you do below). But you offer no reason to accept this notion either. If "100 million God fans can't be wrong" is true, what about 200 million Allah fans? What about 500 million Buddha fans? What about 1 billion screaming Brahma fans???? Does mass conformity register as an indicator of the truth status of a claim? Does it really????

What about 50 million Frenchmen? Can 50 million Frenchmen be wrong? Using the reasoning you've offered, apparently not!

At what point does the numerical population conforming to agreement on a notion become significant? Can smaller numbers also register as indicators of a claim's truth status?

How about 5 "god fans"? If 100 million "god fans" can't be wrong, can 5 "god fans" be wrong? Suppose you have 100 million "god fans" disputing something advocated by another 100 million "god fans." Which 100 million is right? Two groups are in disagreement (cf., Catholicism vs. Protestantism), so how can one determine which is correct????? Mr. X, why should I endure more blank outs in my correspondence with you???

Gullibility is not a measure of truth status; it is a measure of one's intellectual default.

"Objectivism is not new; it has its roots in Materialism and Nihilism--systems of thought that have been utterly exposed as fallacy in the light of Christian thought."

"Objectivism... has its roots in Materialism and Nihilism..."? Can you justify this assertion? Please cite your sources supporting this assessment, assuming you are aware of any. If you cannot cite any sources in the Objectivist corpus that clearly demonstrate that "it has its roots in Materialism and Nihilism," then I recommend you retract this gratuitous and dishonest smear. Indeed, learn the subject matter on which you speak, for you demonstrate NO familiarity of Objectivist principles when you make such statements. Objectivism has its roots in aristotelianism for the most part, and to some degree in key points of the philosophy of some relatively more modern thinkers, such as Sir Francis Bacon and John Locke. Ayn Rand did not draw on the thought of personalities such as Thomas Hobbes or David Hume (materialism)or Turgenev, Nietzsche or [Max] Stirner (nihilism) in order to construct her philosophy.

"Like Marxism and all socialistic societies,"

"Marxism and all socialistic societies" are based on the politics of collectivism. Remember your own statement "100 million God fans can't be wrong!" This is an appeal to collectivism, and as such it constitutes yet another presumption of the primacy of consciousness view of reality. For in this mode of the primacy of consciousness view of reality (the social primacy of consciousness), the assertion attempts to offer mass agreement as the justification for the acceptance of a claim's alleged truth status. Presumably, this view of knowledge operates on the principle that the determination of truth is governed by mass agreement; that, if enough people agree with the claim that a mountain can be wished into the sea, it will be cast into the sea when so desired (regardless of the facts of reality).

"Objectivism is flawless in its application as a theoretical 'Utopia', yet Objectivism does not take into account true human nature--only some paradigm of humanity where logic and reason are elevated to god hood."

This is a completely dishonest mischaracterization of Objectivist principles, and shows that either you do not know what you're talking about, or that you are unconcerned with the facts of the case with which you are dealing and have every intention to slander the Philosophy of Reason by misconstruing some second-handed hearsay as a representation of its principles. Objectivism does not endorse the idea of a "theoretical Utopia." I would challenge you to find one statement among the primary sources of the Objectivist corpus which would justify such misrepresentation as you repeat here, Mr. X.

Furthermore, you accuse Objectivism of not taking "into account true human nature..." I disagree completely and emphatically. Miss Rand's work in the area of identifying man's nature is refreshingly novel and, in my assessment, completely accurate. According to Objectivism, man is a being capable of self-made worth, a being capable of the achievement of values of his own choosing, a being capable of building the Empire State Building, of writing the Declaration of Independence, and developing the internet. Tell me you do not benefit on a daily basis from these capacities in Man which Rand considered among his highest virtues.

If anything, Rand did not consider man a sniveling, guilt-ridden, unworthy and empty shell of corruptible flesh in need of mystics to come along and proscribe arbitrary remedies of prayer, fasting and self-denial in order to "transcend" his "human bounds" and achieve some kind of "union" with "the spirit world" which only the mystics could perceive, but repeat, "Oh yes, oh yes, it all exists, it is a higher reality... this is what is good for you..." as you lie their in a muck of ashes and sackcloth, begging for a morsel of hog's dung for dinner.

Again, it comes back to what YOU value, Mr. X. I value rational achievement, not mystical wiping out. I value the civilization which Rational Man has made possible for himself, not the Witch Doctors' proscriptions of remedies for ailments from which man does not suffer. I value the non-contradictory enjoyment of my life - I do not value suffering and I do not value death. Take your choice, choose what you will value yourself, Mr. X, but have the fortitude, the integrity and the honesty to employ those values consistently and live with their consequences.

"Ayn Rand herself admitted that she knew nothing of the psychology of man;"

Where did Miss Rand admit "that she knew nothing of the psychology of man"? I would like to know your sources here. Is this another cheap, second-handed rip-off that you have misconstrued as actual knowledge here? To this point you've demonstrated little understanding of your subject matter, and now you offer yet another mischaracterization as if it were a verified fact. Indeed, what are your sources here?

Let's go to the source itself, Rand's writings, and see if your accusation above bears out.

Rand made some noteworthy contributions to her system of knowledge which have already proven crucial to the development of psychology as a legitimate science. Among those contributions, by far one of the most important is the brand new field of study which she called "psycho-epistemology." "Psycho-epistemology is the study of man's cognitive processes from the aspect of the interaction between the conscious mind and the automatic functions of the subconscious." ["The Psycho-Epistemology of Art," The Romantic Manifesto, 18.] "'Psycho-epistemology,' a term coined by Ayn Rad, pertains not to the content of a man's ideas, but to his method of awareness, i.e., the method by which his mind habitually deals with its content." [Leonard Peikoff, editor's footnote to Ayn Rand's "The Missing Link," Philosophy: Who Needs It, 39.]

As for psychology in the hands of mystics and man-haters, who among them do you believe, Mr. X, represents a keener point of view of man's mind and its subconscious functions? Moses? Jesus? Good grief! St. Paul? Each of these men, as their statements are recorded in the Old and New Testaments, were clearly and extremely deranged people. They were enthralled by their ability to gather gullible sheep among themselves and teach them to obey "commandments" they claimed were issued from another realm. Today we rightly call such people "crackpots" and we have institutions for people who take themselves seriously on this level of rejecting reality. But still so many people take this garbage as "gospel" and are willing not only to die, but to kill for it as well. (Cf. the Dark Ages, the heretic and witch hunts, the crusade wars, the Inquisition, the bloody history of the church...). Rand was completely right: "Faith and force are corollaries." Indeed, behind every faith claim, there is found a threat of force to back that claim up. The priest basically says, "Believe, or go to hell." This is nothing more than an ad baculum - or "argument from the stick" - the appeal to force. It's the bully mentality. Some people STILL accept it, though. It's amazing!

"how then can one accept a Man-Centered philosophy postulated by someone who knows nothing of the nature of Man?"

See above.

"It is interesting to note that, for all its posturing as a 'perfect' philosophy, there is much in-fighting among the different camps of Objectivism--the Ayn Rand Institue, The Institute for Objectivist Studies--fighting amongst themselves over the application of its theories." [sic]

See below.

"I wonder why no attempt has yet been made to create test-society based on Objectivism?"

First of all, how do you know such a society has not been attempted to date? Second, why would this impress you as a surprise? Objectivism was only recently conceived, so far as the history of philosophical thought is concerned, so it would stand to reason that the expectation of the development of an actual society based on Objectivist principles is rather hasty. After all, assuming that the initial essentialized expression of the fundamentals of Objectivism were first laid out in "Galt's Speech" in the novel Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, it has not yet even been fifty years since Objectivism as an identifiably distinct system of thought was originally conceived. It took roughly fifty years after Marx published his first tracts on communism to make its first deep inroads into academia, and only after that were his ideas taken to the street ministries of young rebels in pursuit of the unearned to raise the forces necessary to instigate a putsch on Russian society. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the soil of Russian social life had NINE CENTURIES of Christian Orthodoxy under its belt to prepare for the take-over of the Marxist thugs who eventually transformed Russia from a society of serfs into a society of slaves (remember: Russia was "christianized" under Vladimir I in 988 CE). What was the difference? Merely that the State had taken over from the Church? Blank out!

"Isn't it hypocritical of Objectivists to mock the divisions present in Christianity when you yourselves cannot agree on the application of your 'flawless' philosophy?"

Who's mocking?

As for pointing out the fact that religion in general has a tremendous problem with the diversity of exclusive interpretations, sects and subcults, this is indeed a critical issue. Pointing this out is not at all hypocritical. For indeed, supposing I were to choose to become religious, which variety of religious thought should I choose and how should I choose it? Such a choice would include an overwhelming selection among available candidates.

For instance, under the umbrella of Christianity alone, there are literally hundreds of denominations, many of which claim that theirs is the sole possessor of the "right" take on Christian dogma, and that others are heretical or in some way out of touch with the "higher reality" purported to be their central focus. Suppose I were interested in becoming a Christian; should I choose to become a Catholic, a Protestant, an Eastern Orthodox, or some other class of Christian outside these major groupings? On what basis would I choose to become a Protestant over the others? Indeed, this is a very serious problem.

When Objectivists "become" Objectivist in their thinking, one does not join a group, tow a party line, pay tithes to local parishes, take "the message" to the streets and seek converts, etc. To be an Objectivist, one merely needs to learn to think in rational principle and recognize that his own life is an end in itself - not the end of others, or others his end. The fundamental differences here are wildly disparate. Pointing this out hardly constitutes mocking.

Furthermore, Objectivism does not purport to have originated from infallible sources (as religion does), nor do Objectivists claim to be infallible themselves (as claimed by founders of cult religions). Objectivism as a systematic whole is extremely new, so far as the history of philosophy is concerned. It is only expected that a finally honest attempt to incorporate consistently and seriously the facts of reality into a comprehensive view to experience in its youth certain growing pains as its initiates attempt to learn how to apply its novel principles.

Keep in mind also that the schism(s) to which you refer are not divisions resulting from disagreement over fundamentals, but higher, more abstract issues. (Many Objectivists I know consider these issues in fact to be unimportant in the larger scheme of things.) Of course, there is also the fact that Objectivism does not foster a herdlike mentality of gullibility and thought-conformity among its adherents. Objectivists are motivated to think independently, as is required by man's objective nature, so disagreement among fallible men of independent thought is a high probability.

Religionists, on the other hand, have had thousands of years to get their act together and achieve unity of method. But we find that religionists cannot even agree on fundamentals, much less on secondary doctrines, even though each rival faction under the banner of religious code claims that its source is divinely inspired and infallible.

Given this claim, which has embarrassingly stupid notions offered as its support, it is likely to be the subject of ridicule among some non-believing critics who recognize that such a claim never bears scrutiny (though this ridicule achieves nothing). Had religious systems of thought truly had the infallible bases they are claimed to stem from, this would be a remarkable starting point indeed (assuming Objectivism were not possible for man). How does imperfection follow from perfection when perfection is allegedly in control from the start? Blank out.

No, Mr. X, there is absolutely no hypocrisy on the Objectivist's part here. None whatsoever. Only by ignoring the context identified above can one even hope to have a chance to argue remotely that the Objectivist commits himself to a hypocritical gesture in this regard. Such tactics, however, are shown to fail dismally in the light of Reason.

"I would like to say finally that, I do not find the Objectivist philosophy uncomfortable, or threatening at all, only extraordinarily limiting."

Yes, Objectivism is quite limiting - limiting to the realm of existence, which is reality. It is reason that makes man's life possible. It is his application of rational principles to the problems of his existence that makes his greatness feasible. Objectivism will certainly find no favor in the eyes of those who wish to project a pretend reality beyond their wildest imaginations and call that projection "Truth" - a "Truth" that demands men to sacrifice their minds - indeed their lives - in order to accept. Objectivism does not enshrine the incomprehensible and then expect men to accept it as knowledge. Objectivism endorses none of these contradictory, arbitrary and reality-rejecting notions. If these "extraordinarily limiting" elements of Objectivist thought disappoint you, that is not the Objectivist's problem.

"Objectivists also display an appalling lack of comprehention when it comes to Scripture, or religion in general. Though you may have studied the Bible from cover to cover, and memorized all its passages, it does not therefore follow that you comprehend what you have read; in essence, you mock what you don't understand. Not suprising actually--I could fill a stadium with Christians who don't know a thing about Christianity." [sic]

Why suddenly such emphasis on understanding? Christianity is not about understanding. Indeed, Christians argue that "God" is "incomprehensible," that no man can hope to achieve an understanding of this alleged entity. Besides, the Bible (Proverbs 3:5) exhorts you as a believer to "lean not upon your own understanding." Obviously, one's understanding is not an important tenet of being a good Christian. Also, any verse in Paul's writings or the gospels which appear to advocate understanding as a point of virtue is summarily wiped out by this verse. So, why the fuss about the level of someone else's understanding? I suppose you presume yourself to hold all the keys to Christian understanding? Which particular sect do you represent? Is your understanding of Christianity so far-reaching that you should be considered an authority in all Christian matters? Good grief, Mr. X, your list of absurdities is growing like a field of weeds!

Besides, what's to understand? The arbitrary is by nature beyond comprehension. Again, what does it all accomplish?

"They were handed a Bible one day and told that it was all true, and they believed it." [sic]

Who was "handed a Bible one day and told that it was all true," and who because of this "believed it"? Isn't that what Christians are supposed to do, believe? It appears to me (and yes, you can discount my "understanding" if you prefer) that one need not understand why Christianity should be accepted as the "Truth." You yourself mentioned that you cannot prove the alleged verity of your beliefs, which only means that you cannot understand it either. You stated that it is a matter of "faith." According to several verses cited by Paul in his epistles, "faith" is nothing more than "hope." Is something true simply because you hope it's true? What alternative to "They were handed a Bible one day and told that it was all true, and they believed it" do you propose one should follow? Perhaps you'd like to rethink this? After all, consider this from God's position: Does it matter to Him why a person might believe more than the fact that he does believe? Looks like we've found another weedy lot.

"They can't say why--they just do."

I'm sure if you asked each one of them, they might say something like "I believe because my whole mind and being is [sic] drawn to it." Sound familiar?

"This simple faith confounds you."

The notion of faith does not confound me in the least. I merely ask: What does it accomplish?

"You don't have it, you never felt it, so you dismiss it as a 'neurosis'."

I am a man of Reason, not a man of faith. There is a profound, fundamental difference. However, your admission that faith is a matter of what you feel is noted. The question is: How do you distinguish your feelings from what you accept as knowledge?

"But Objectivist have, as other theologists have rightly observed, simply supplanted one religion with another. Objectivism is your religion; Ayn Rand your god, and her writings your scripture, which you quote with as much veracity as any fundamentalist, and accept just as blindly." [sic]

[Thorn chooses not to respond to this dishonest and intentionally hostile claptrap.]

"Do not believe that I came to this discussion with the intent on finding some flaw in your theory that I may attempt to 'convert' you;"

Then what was your purpose in contacting me to begin with?

"I have no interest in proving my beliefs to you."

Of course, I would think you would have no such interest, rationally speaking anyway, as you admitted above that your beliefs are beyond the scope of proof.

"That you prefer to limit the capacity of your mind to that which you can see, hear, or touch is certainly your choice, but it is for this that I pity you;"

I do no such thing, as this would amount to Humean empiricism and/or materialism, and Objectivism is neither. As an advocate of Reason and objective reality, I happily confine my mind to the limits of reality, against which all religious philosophy is fundamentally opposed. While you may see this as a failing, I see it as a virtue. Why am I happy to confine my mind to the limits of reality? Quite simply, because I do not seek the unearned.

"you will never be complete."

I see. And you know this how? Because I do not accept the arbitrary as knowledge? You assume that my life is not already complete? Would chatter to an imaginary 'friend' somehow make my existence more whole? You are also making a statement about the future - how do you know this?

"As for your question as to why I would believe in such 'fantasy' as religion? Suffice it to say:

'100 million God fans can't be wrong!'"

Can 100 million Buddhists be wrong? You offer a principle that suggests that the truth of a claim is determined by the number of people who accept it? Is correspondence to reality not a factor in your determination of what is true? You may run to yet more arbitrary notions in answering the question above, but you offer no reason why these notions should be accepted. Can 500 million Muslims be wrong? How can 100 million Christians be right if 1 billion Hindustanis are right? Is it a battle of numerical forces now? Appeals to mass acceptance is, at this point, nothing more than appeals to mass conformity and gullibility. Your appeal to collectivism clearly fails.

The problem for the "god fans" is that their fundamental errors can be - and have been - identified and exposed by a single human individual. This is the power of man guided by reason at work. This is the greatness of man who knows the power of applying ideas to his existence.

"P.S.--Isn't it a convienient excuse to say that 'proof belongs to those who assert the existential positive'? If a theory or belief is the accepted belief of society, then the burden is on the antagonist of the accepted norm to prove otherwise. Once again, a hypocritical evasion..." [sic]

So, if you are a Christian living in a predominantly Muslim society, you have the onus of first disproving Islamic thought before you are justified in holding your own thoughts or thoughts of a competing worldview? On the principle of specifically what rational basis would this approach hold? Would you not also be considered engaging in "hypocritical evasion" - your words - if you fail to prove the falsehood of Islam - which is "the accepted belief of [Islamic] society" - because you hold to Christian views (your principle)? Amazing! So, because a society has a prevalence of one system of ideas, you are not free to hold your own, so it seems, according to your view here. Again, the onus of proof principle itself is a solid principle of reasoning, a principle assumed in all rational academic discourse. Why would you have a problem defending your claims? You call it a "hypocritical evasion," but your defense of this aspersion clearly fails, and you yourself admit that you cannot defend your claims. So, what's the fuss?

Mr. X, I shall close here. But I would like to make one last comment: In my responses to you, I have asked you a great number of questions. So far, I have not seen in your responses any attempt to answer even one of these questions. The bottom line is: You don't have a case, either for your god-belief, or against the Philosophy of Reason. You have not dealt with the particulars presented, you have not identified your starting points, you have failed to define your terms, and you have failed to establish by any rational means a system of thought contrary to mine. In short, you offer absolutely no substance whatsoever in your defense. You contact me "out of the blue" for heavens knows what purpose, criticize me for errors I do not make and cling to a presupposed bias that your view is right and that Objectivism is false, even though you demonstrate positively no familiarity with its principles or methods.

Why is that?

Egoistically,

Anton Thorn

___________________________________________________________________