Kicking Against the Pricks

Volley No. 4: Undoing Misconstrual

Mr. X,

Thank you for your letter. I offer some comments below:

"So, what do you REALLY think of religion? Your caricature of religion, although probably designed to instill some angry reaction from me, made me laugh so hard It brought tears to my eyes! You accused me of slandering Objectivism and Ayn Rand personally with my statements, all the while spouting every manner of stereotype of religion available! This is all well and good, but in the end, its all 'full of sound a fury, signifying nothing'. Let us both in the future leave such unfounded accusations out of the discussion." [sic]

You refer to my statements about religion as 'caricature,' but I'm not sure to which statements you are referring or why you believe they constitute a caricature or any misrepresentation. So, your point here is under-articulated. As for "spouting every manner of stereotype of religion available," indeed, I keep no such inventory, and make no effort to deliver as such. Where I have not offered considered defense of my treatment of religious ideas in my responses to you, you can find such a defense either on my website or in the sources which I cite. Perhaps what disturbs you is that I do not treat religion on its own level. Indeed, I recognize no such obligation to do so, as I am not a religionist. Also, I would also consider that any 'stereotypes' of religion of which you are aware are most likely well earned to begin with, so I don't know what the point of your grumbling here is.

You may not agree with my pathology of religion; that is fine, you are free to ignore it or disparage it all you like. Not surprisingly, you may like to know, I have received comments similar to yours accusing me of misunderstanding my subject matter from other religionists. However, several religionists have written to confide to me that they have come to see their own views in a much different light, and actually wrote to thank me for my work. I am not out to convince anyone any more than one cares to consider what I have to say and investigate the matters I deal with in their own time.

As for the implied objection that I "do not understand the Bible," my prior rebuttal to this still holds.

Religion, Mr. X, is a primitive (i.e., pre-scientific) attempt to offer man a comprehensive view of reality and life. This is how I view religion, and this is how I treat it in my work, like it or not. It is man's earliest attempts to answer fundamental questions about his existence, such as "what is it?" "how do I know it?" and "what should we do?" In my work, I concentrate on exposing the problems generated by the attempts of religious views to deal with these questions, views which all entail the primacy of consciousness as their foundation. Objectivism holds the key to unraveling the confusion of primacy of consciousness position. I do not expect you to agree, but then again, that's the beauty of a nation founded on individual rights: neither of us have the "right" to go and knock each other on the head simply because we do not agree. (But you can extend your middle finger at me if it makes you feel better.)

"You have indeed asked me a great number of questions. That I have not answered them should not be an indication of evasion on my part, but rather indicative of the fact that I still await an answer to my original question."

Somehow, I suspect that no matter how much effort I put into answering your one question, you will probably never get around to answering any of mine. I may be wrong on this, but my suspicions so far appear to be accurate, for here you submit to me your fourth message, and all I get at this point is a stalling excuse, even though I have dealt with your question to a fine degree. That's fine. Some of my questions are indeed complicated, I agree, and you may be quite unprepared to answer them. I would not hold this as a strike against you, as we are all born pretty ignorant and must start somewhere. But, should you wish to continue your correspondence with me, I would insist that you identify what you believe are your starting points, why you believe they are primary and valid, and what particular purpose they serve your cognition. This is something that you should demand of yourself, if indeed you care to attempt to find fault with a competing view's starting points.

"To get back to the original discussion, let us return to the question I posed in the beginning.

"It is the Objectivist philosophy that 'Reality exists independent of consciousness'. In other words, the universe, matter, time, and space would all exist irregardless whether there were any sentient beings (Man, squid, porpoise, aliens...etc.) to consciously perceive it....the universe exists whether or not I am here to perceive it, correct?" [sic]

Roughly speaking, yes, this is correct. Existence does not depend on a form of consciousness in order to exist. This is a recognition entailed in the Objectivist axiomatic concepts: 'existence', 'identity' and 'consciousness' and the primacy of existence view of reality. These concepts are implicit in every act of awareness and cognition in which man engages. You can find much discussion of these axioms in the Objectivist literature, with which I recommend you familiarize yourself if you wish to understand Objectivism. I would suggest beginning with Dr. Leonard Peikoff's summary Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, beginning with chapter one "Reality."

"Based on this concept, I then posed the question: 'If reality exists independent of consciousness, how can you be certain that there does not exist a higher level of reality beyond our ability to consciously perceive it?'

"To this you responded: "If you cannot percieve it, then on what basis do you accept such claims as knowledge of reality?" Such a statement contradicts the Objectivist philosophy. Let me clarify.

"You have asserted that, in order for a 'higher level of reality beyond our current ability to perceive' to exist, I must have some amount of 'proof' for this existence, in other words, I must be 'conscious' of it, and therefore be able to prove such a reality exists by rational means. But according to the Objectivist philosophy, Reality does not need sentient beings in order to exist--It simply exists. Therefore, to state that the 'supernatural' reality cannot exist because it cannot be perceived nor proved by rational means is completely contradictory and therefore invalidates the Objectivist philosophy. How? On the one hand you say that, 'Reality exists, independent of consciousness', while on the other hand stating, How can it exist if you cannot perceive it? i.e., the Supernatural reality cannot exist unless one is rationally conscious of it. Blank out!" [sic]

The error of your inferences here is quite easy to identify. For the most part, the problem here is that you drop context. Let's re-examine my original question in response to yours. I had asked:

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

Then, in attempting to re-interpret my question, you offer the following re-phrasing:

"You have asserted that, in order for a 'higher level of reality beyond our current ability to perceive' to exist, I must have some amount of 'proof' for this existence," (indeed, I made no such assertion whatsoever...)

Now, let's see if there's a difference. If there's a fundamental difference between my original question and your re-phrasing of it, then your re-phrasing of my question may be shown to incorporate an error that I did not commit in my original question. (There we will discover where precisely the blank out occurs, and on whose part it is committed.)

My question basically asks on what basis do you accept as knowledge the claim that something for which you have no evidence exists. My question does not assert, as intimated in your re-phrasing of it, that you must have proof or evidence of the object in question in order for it to exist. This is a fundamental difference. Therefore, the question I had originally posed is not equivalent to your re-phrasing of it. Thus, your objection to Objectivist philosophy fails; you uncover no contradiction whatsoever here.

Basically, in order to maintain the integrity of my question, your re-phrasing should have been:

"You have asserted that, in order to accept as knowledge the assertion of a 'higher level of reality beyond our current ability to perceive' to exist, I must have some amount of 'proof' for this existence,"

or something along those lines.

Do you see the problem now, Mr. X?

"But according to the Objectivist philosophy, Reality does not need sentient beings in order to exist--It simply exists."

This is true. Existence exists, and existence exists independent of consciousness. Existence does not depend on a form (or act) of consciousness in order to exist. This is a primary recognition of reality. Investigate it for yourself, see if it bears out. For instance, try wishing a mountain into existence. Or, try wishing a mountain out of existence. Or, do as Jesus suggested, try wishing a mountain into the sea (Matt. 17:20). Watch what happens.

The point here that you must not overlook, Mr. X, is a point that Rand stressed: It is our identification of existence which depends on our consciousness, but the identity of existence does not depend on our consciousness. A mountain exists, regardless of who perceives it, or even if no one perceives it. Existence exists, and to exist is to be something, something specific. That mountain which exists, exists as a mountain regardless of whether or not anyone perceives it. In other words, existence is identity; to exist is to be something, to be something of a specific nature, of a specific identity. A is A. If A should exist, it must be A. These are axiomatic recognitions of reality, and they are implicit in all our cognition, even if we attempt to deny them or posit some kind of entity or agency prior to them.

Additionally, but now reaching a more complicated level of philosophy, we come to the matter of identification. Objectivism's fundamental metaphysical position can expressed in rough form in the following: Existence is identity, consciousness is identification. Are you with me so far? (Again, all this is fully explained and developed in the Objectivist literature to which I have already referred you in prior messages.)

Thus, when you say:

"But according to the Objectivist philosophy, Reality does not need sentient beings in order to exist--It simply exists. Therefore, to state that the 'supernatural' reality cannot exist because it cannot be perceived nor proved by rational means is completely contradictory and therefore invalidates the Objectivist philosophy"

You miss the point (because you drop the context identified above). There are many reasons why Objectivism holds that the 'supernatural' cannot exist (primarily for the contradictions associated with such notions). But I did not need to go into those reasons in any of my last messages primarily because you had already admitted to a condition which proves fatal to your assertion of it: you had admitted that this 'supernatural reality' which you posit is by nature "beyond your ability to perceive." In other words, you have no evidential basis to justify your assertion that this alleged 'supernatural reality' exists. I do not hold that the 'supernatural reality' you posit does not exist because it cannot be perceived; indeed, I hold that your assertion that it exists is unjustified because you can never perceive it.

Let's look at it in another way. There may be a planet that is circling the star Arcturus in the constellation Boötes. But I have no means of perceiving this planet. Do I hold that this planet cannot exist? No, of course not. The existence of planets is a proven fact, a fact we can recognize by perceptual reference to reality. It just happens to be that the planets of which we are aware are quite close to us, revolving around the same sun as does our own earth. Thus, positing 'planet' as an entity in reality is not problematic when integrated with other knowledge we have of reality. And indeed, if there be a planet circling another star, such as Arcturus, its existence certainly does not depend on our perception of it (again, existence exists independently of consciousness).

"On the one hand you say that, 'Reality exists, independent of consciousness', while on the other hand stating, How can it exist if you cannot perceive it? i.e., the Supernatural reality cannot exist unless one is rationally conscious of it. Blank out!"

You are in error here (as shown above). Your attempts to re-phrase the Objectivist position (and my statements) are a dismal failure here, Mr. X.

Nowhere do I say that something cannot exist simply because one does not perceive it. If this is your interpretation, your analysis was quite hasty, indeed sloppy. My position simply asks you to justify asserting something for which you admittedly have no evidential basis to assert. So far, you offer nothing beyond "that is the nature of faith" and "I believe it because my whole mind and being is drawn to it." [sic] Such 'justification' has been offered for the equivalent assertions that 'god' exists, that 'allah' exists, that Joseph Smith is a 'prophet of god', that David Koresh was the 'son of god', etc. We see where some of these personalities have led men. I had asked you a number of questions regarding the "nature of faith," and still you have not answered any of them. So far, you're more concerned with my reasoning for not accepting your claims than you seem to be with presenting your reasoning for accepting your claims. If you cannot even present any solid reasoning for accepting the claims to which you hold, why should I even entertain them? Again, BLANK OUT!

In order to make your above question more representative of the Objectivist position, I would suggest the following revision:

"How can you assert that it exist[s] if you cannot perceive it?"

That is why I asked: "If you cannot perceive it, then on what basis do you accept such claims as knowledge of reality?"

Certainly, I am not asking for you to delineate conditions upon which existence depend (indeed, this would be asking you to hold to stolen concepts, which I would not ask of you). Instead, I ask you to delineate the conditions upon which you accept as knowledge certain claims which have been pre-conditionally stipulated to be divorced of reference to reality. After attempting to misrepresent my view (which I have now corrected above), you not only accuse me of misrepresenting yours (to the point of laughter, as you claim above), you insist on going on a merry-go-round in order to determine why I resist accepting as knowledge claims for which you have yet to offer any rational justification to accept. Why is this, Mr. X?

"I would also like to clarify my previous closing statement. When I wrote, 'Isn't it a convenient 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,' I should clarify that when I said 'accepted belief of society', I meant in god-based beliefs in general. This includes all religions of the world, whatever the particulars of their beliefs. Objectivism asserts that there is no higher consciousness--no god. Every culture in the world, from the complex philosophical reasoning of the Catholic Church to primitive rain forest aborigines, believes in some form of higher consciousness, therefore it is upon the Objectivist, as a proponent for a new system of thought, to prove that such a consciousness does not and cannot exist in reality."

First of all, 'society' does not refer to an entity, but to a group of entities, namely individual human beings. A society as such does not accept beliefs, only individual human beings do. Therefore, I would point out that a claim does not achieve any kind of special truth status by virtue of the fact that multitudes of individuals accept it. Each individual in that society accepting a claim as knowledge faces the same philosophical issues that the next individual does. There is no exemption from arguing for your position simply because that position is accepted by the general population of a specific region. Truth is not subject to popular vote any more than reason is an exercise of the collective. Each must think for his own sake, and each individual should be willing to allow the assertions he expects others to accept to stand trial by those he seeks to convince.

Second, while it is generally true that most cultures subscribed to some version of god-belief, my question to this is: So what? Does this fact obligate me in some manner? I do not accept any obligation as a result of this fact. Many cultures subscribed to animism, astrology, sun-worship, ancestor-worship and belief in reincarnation. Does this mean I must disprove these notions? I don't think so. On what basis would you argue that I inherit such an obligation? By virtue of the fact that people in another culture accept these views? Mr. X, you're going to have to do better than this. What one person accepts as knowledge of reality is ultimately his own business, and he will have to suffer the consequences of that belief should it turn out to be in error, or he may enjoy its benefits in the event that they are true. But the fact that 100,000 pygmies hold the notion that shrinking heads will endow the tribe with special 'supernatural' powers does not obligate me, or you, or anyone else for that matter, to engage in a refutation of such a view. Suppose 50 million Frenchmen hold that there is no lake California called Lopez Lake. Am I obligated to prove to each of these individuals that they're wrong before I go swimming in it? Good grief, Mr. X! What lunacy are you going to suggest next?

Third, your statement "therefore it is upon the Objectivist, as a proponent for a new system of thought, to prove that such a consciousness does not and cannot exist in reality" is grotesquely naive, philosophically speaking. And I believe I've explained this before. The concept 'proof' presupposes the concept 'evidence.' But evidence applies to that which exists, not to that which does not exist. How can I provide evidence that the tooth fairy does not exist? There is no such evidence. I can only offer evidence, and therefore proof, in the context of existential claims, in support of those which claim the positive. If, for example, I claim that the tooth fairy exists, you would be right to ask me to offer evidence in support of that claim in the effort to prove that claim. However, if you claim that there is no tooth fairy, are you prepared to "prove" that the tooth fairy does not exist? Mr. X, HOW would you go about such a proof? What evidence can you provide to support the conclusion that the tooth fairy does not exist???

It's quite apparent that it disturbs you that I do not accept the claims of the supernatural. I realize this disturbs many people. And what's more, I ask that those who do accept such beliefs to justify them for me. Many consider this an outrage and accuse me in return of all kinds of invented crimes. My advise is: Get over it!

"Mr. Thorn, you have asked many, MANY legitimate questions, all deserving of answers.

Indeed. Agreed.

"But I am afraid that any answer I could give, no matter how soundly it is reasoned, will fall short of acceptance by you, simply out of your unfounded ignorance and hatred for religion."

Try me. Until you attempt such answers, acceptance of this conclusion is premature. You can remedy this, however. Start addressing my questions.

"I must therefore ask, is it your assertion that, if I have faith in God, then I am unable to think for myself, to create, to prosper; that I must sit in a corner and flagellate myself in order to 'please' my God? Please understand that it is not my intention to be sarcastic here; I truly wish to understand your position here. Most of your claims against religion, Christianity in particular, show a serious amount of ignorance regarding the cultural, historical, and psychological significance of Christianity, instead generalizing that anyone who believes in God must be a mindless automaton, and that anyone preaching said beliefs is a 'crackpot'." [sic]

Mr. X, I don't know what you do in the privacy of your life, and I have no idea how seriously you take your god-believe notions, and you know what? I don't give a damn, either. However, I do argue to defend your right to do whatever makes you happy, so long as you do not violate the rights of others. Just be careful, try not to poke out your eyes. :-)

"You use examples such as the Declaration of Independence and the building of the Empire State Building as examples of the achievements that Man can aspire to if only freed from the 'bondage' of religion, as if my beliefs cannot allow me to achieve such greatness? The Declaration of Independence had as its foundation Christian thought, but we certainly don't consider Thomas Jefferson and his peers as 'mindless automatons' or 'crackpots'. There are European Cathedrals rivaling even the tallest skyscrapers in their beauty and genius, but is their dedication to God any less tribute to the genius of the men who built them? If you truly believe that to have faith in God is to surrender your personal freedom, then I understand what appeals to you in the philosophy of Objectivism, but you have never been more wrong."

Mr. X, can you identify where in the Bible, for instance, the objective doctrine of individual rights is articulated and defended? Can you cite one 'scripture' in the Bible that prohibits the ownership of slaves? People are all up in arms about the 10 Commandments these days, but not one of those 10 Commandments is a prohibition against the practice of owning slaves or against the initiation of the use of force. Why is that?

The central crux of the Declaration of Independence is the acknowledgement that Man has the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." How do you link this idea with "Christian thought"? Where does the Bible articulate that I have the right to pursue my happiness? Where does the Bible articulate that I have the right to enjoy my life even though I have no god-belief? Please explain yourself here, Mr. X. Think very carefully here.

As for the grand architectural feats exemplified by temples, cathedrals and other buildings of religious worship: So what? Were these buildings built "by faith"? I.e., were they built by ignoring the facts of reality and dismissing man's need to deal with reality by use of his perceptual faculties, by rejecting the fact that knowledge is hierarchical in nature and by simply wishing them into existence? Or, did the men who built these monuments recognize the fact that such endeavors required the use of their minds, that before the structures in question could be built, they had to be designed, that men had to think, and use reason - not blank out and rely on 'faith' - in order to achieve their goals? Please explain how piety, which is encouraged by religious thought, make the erection of great cathedrals possible, while rationality, which is despised by religious thought, was suffocated by priestly edict (such as I Corinthians 1)?

"p.s.--'MATERIALISM': 1: The philosophical theory that physical matter in its movements and modifications is the only reality, and that everything else in the universe, including thought, feeling, the mind, and the will can be explained in terms of physical laws 2: The theory or doctrine that physical well-being and worldy possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life."

Please cite one primary Objectivist source that concurs with these ideas. Please demonstrate how Objectivism entails this view word for word, and do so without misrepresenting the Objectivist position on these matters. Also, please prove that there is no doctrine in Objectivism that contradicts the position outlined above.

"'NIHILISM': 1: Rejection of all distinctions in moral value, constituting a willingness to refute all previous theories of morality. 2: The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.

Please cite one primary Objectivist source that concurs with these ideas. Please demonstrate how Objectivism entails this view word for word, and do so without misrepresenting the Objectivist position on these matters. Also, please prove that there is no doctrine in Objectivism that contradicts the position outlined above.

"'OBJECTIVISM': 'Materialism + Nihilism'"

You have your work cut out for you if you indeed wish to make this connection. Good luck!

"Also, my '100 million God fans can't be wrong!' statement was only meant to see if you had a sense of humor....I guess not."

Perhaps this is simply a matter of humor for you. If so...

May you get what you deserve,

Anton Thorn

___________________________________________________________________