Kicking Against the Pricks

Volley No. 5: Rescuing Reason from Plunder

Mr. X,

I was expecting to see something from you today. You're right on time. I realize that given the foregoing correspondence between us, it will be difficult for you to let things lie as they were last left, and that further nitpicking must be in order in order to preserve any dignity which your reputation may have. Don't worry, you have nothing to prove to me (indeed!). You had some more comments, and below I offer you my responses.

"Concerning my assertion that your philosophy is contradictory, you offered this point: 'If you cannot perceive it, then on WHAT BASIS DO YOU ACCEPT SUCH CLAIMS AS KNOWLEDGE of reality?' I rephrased the question by using the word 'proof' in place of 'basis'. The difference here is merely semantic; the American Heritage Dictionary gives the primary definition of 'proof' as, 'The evidence establishing the validity of a given assertion'. 'Basis' is defined thusly: 'A supporting element or foundation of a theory or philosophy'. Any supporting element to any theory constitutes 'proof' on some level in favor of said theory. I must therefore assume that, when you ask on 'what basis' do I accept such claims as knowledge, you are in fact, asking for 'proof'."

Wrong. 'Proof' and 'basis' are not fundamentally equivalent. The concept 'basis' as I employ it is indeed much broader than a formal proof. 'Basis' in the sense that I use it in my question refers to some supporting element, as your quoted definition suggests, but this is far from the rigors of a formal proof. Get a good book on logic (I recommend Patrick J. Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic [Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing, 3^rd ed., 1988], though there are many other authorities on the subject) and see for yourself. For instance, I see before myself a computer monitor with all kinds of detail meaningful to the process of composing a response to you. While I have plenty of perceptual basis to assert that there is a computer monitor before me now, I have no way of proving this fact by way of erecting a formal proof without presupposing this fact already. Indeed, the fact that I am seeing a computer monitor now is beyond the scope of a formal (i.e., conceptual) proof based on propositions referring to reality. Also, given these facts in the context of the present exercise, claiming that a distinction of essentials is a "merely semantic" difference misses the point and only cheapens one's own arguments. You've used this maneuver before (the accusation of semantics), but still it does not achieve your goal - which is to discredit my position. Keep trying, though. The entertainment factor here is delightful!

But this is a good sign, you're actually starting to consult sources (okay, a dictionary) and look things up. I'm happy to see this.

"Your stance is that, since I have no basis (or proof) to start from to accept such a belief in an 'alternate reality', then there can be no reasonable assumption that such a reality exists. Therefore I concluded that, according to your line of reasoning, in order to accept that such a reality could exist, proof must be offered for its existence, thus making your argument that 'reality exists independent of consciousness' contradictory because you have placed the condition of 'proof' of reality on the possibility of its very existence. That I do not have physical 'proof' of a higher level of reality does not negate the possibility of its existence; surely we can agree that it is POSSIBLE for such a level of reality to exist, just not PROVABLE?"

You have far too many instances of epistemological incoherence for me to take you by the hand and show you how your method of inference here is completely drawing a blank. (I simply do not have any more time for this fruitless handholding now.) The bottom line is, Mr. X, you have not even begun to identify your starting points (points which are preconditions of proof and therefore beyond the scope of proof, but assumed even if one attempts to dispute them, such as the Objectivist's 'existence', 'identity' and 'consciousness'), which only proves fatal for your own position, nor have you offered any evidence whatsoever from which you could even have a hope to construct a proof. Remember that 'evidence' (an element of support, or perceptual basis) is not conceptually equivalent to a proof (see above). You had already stipulated that your magic kingdom is by nature beyond the access of the senses. So, far from even hoping for any kind of proof, formal or otherwise, you slash off your own assertions from any verification by reference to reality. And still, you resist offering any support in favor of your assertion that said magic kingdom exists. You simply assert it, and expect others to accept it as knowledge, regardless of its cognitive bereavement and incapacity to independent validation. Basically, Mr. X, you kick against the pricks. That you have no rational basis for this belief that you accept is your problem, not mine. You work out the details.

"I don't know what the Objectivist stance is on the cosmological event known as 'Big Bang', but it is nearly universally accepted in the scientific community as fact, albeit there are disagreements in the finer details. In a nutshell, the basis of the theory is this: 15- 20 billion years ago, all matter in the universe was contained in a nucleus known as a singularity, a particle of near-infinite density, with temperatures so high that all matter exists only as energy. What you and I call 'reality' did not exist in this state, as the four forces that govern observed natural law--Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Electromagnetic Force, and Gravity--did not exist independent of one another, but as one force known as a 'Superforce'. SInce matter, time and space cease to exist at the Singularity State, science can no longer hypothesize its nature, nor hypothesize what force would spark the initial creation event. The scientific law of Causality (the axiom that 'Cause must precede Effect') demands an event in which such a SIngularity could be created, but its cause is unknown. What most scientists call 'unknown', theologians call a 'supernatural creation'. The argument against this is Causality itself, i.e. 'if a Creator created the universe, who or what created the Creator?' But this argument is invalid, since time does not exist prior to the creation event, Causality no longer applies. I would be interested to know what the Objectivist position is on this science." [sic]

Even if it can be established as a certainty that this supposed "Singularity" existed at one time as the prior "state of reality," this still does not contradict the Objectivist metaphysics in any way, shape or form. Why? Because existence is still posited as a starting point (as opposed to a form of consciousness). Again, I had already referred you to some articles on my site that dealt with this 'problem', and the fact that you trudge it up now only demonstrates that you have not done your homework. Again, this is your problem. Then again, these are only theories, often best guesses made on inferences based on perceptual facts that are now available to us. Proving these theories may itself prove very difficult, if even possible.

But Thorn asks: So what? Existence exists, this is the only objective starting point, and no valid scientific theory can overturn this fact. Besides, the manner or form in which the universe might have existed several billions of years ago properly belongs to the "big deal?" bin. I do not govern my life or the method by which I determine the truth status of your assertions (or anyone else's) on the alleged probability that at one time all existence existed as a tiny clump some call 'a singularity' and other's call 'divine omniscience'. You're thinking is stranded on thin ice here, and you have no hope of demonstrating relevance here to your contentions against Objectivist doctrine.

In the end, your entire argument here is nothing more than a red herring designed (possibly unconsciously) to draw the spotlight off the fact that you fail to answer any of the questions posed to you thus far, that you fail to do your homework and that every time you attempt to raise some objection against my thought proves itself to be in error or in some way deficient. Remember my last note to you? Good grief, Mr. X! When will you stop kicking against the pricks, and start putting your best foot forward? (Yes, I see what you mean about laughing until tears come to your eyes!)

Also, here's a riddle for you, if you should wish to attempt it: Can you argue for the position that existence is a creation WITHOUT first presupposing existence?

Any takers here?

"I have agreed with you that there is only one reality, but disagreed on the idea that there could be a level of reality beyond our limited human perception."

Mr. X: If you posit a "reality beyond our limited human perception," what means do you have at your disposal to identify this alleged reality as one thing (e.g., 'supernatural') as opposed to something else (e.g., regular, natural existence)? Please identify this means, and explain how it works. Also, if you can offer some means independent of that which you offer that may serve as verification of this means, please identify that as well.

"You scoff at the religionist's insistence on the existence of this higher reality, calling it nonsense."

Well, Mr. X, you're the one who said it was beyond our senses. If no sense perception can be employed at any point to verify such assertions, they are by definition nonsense. No sense... nonsense... That's rather easy.

"Let us consider then certain aspects of Quantum Theory--since science is reliant on

facts and provable quantities,"

You mention that "facts and provable quantities..." are involved here. Please explain how are these "facts" acquired/or and how are they proven? You mention "provable quantities." Quantities of what? Is there no reference to reality here?

"I wonder if you would consider science 'nonsense' as well if it contradicts Objectivism?"

Indeed, there's a lot of crap "science" out there, even you might admit this. N'est-ce pas?

"Now, I do not attempt to imply that I have intimate understanding of the mechanics of Quantum theory--not many do--but I do understand the concepts."

How were these concepts formed? By what process, and integrating what units of perception? Failing to be able to answer such questions may only imperil the points you attempt to demonstrate here. Please, I urge you, be very careful here, Mr. X.

"One theory of Quantum Mechanics states that, as there are an infinite number of choices and variables to existence, so there are an infinite number of realities. In other words, for every choice you make in this reality, there are an infinite number of other choices, and thus an infinite number of 'alternate' realities where these choices are played out. Since such 'alternate' realities are provable in theory through Quantum Mechanics, would you accept the possibility, at least in theory, even if they are mathematically feasible?"

Check your premises. Indeed, what are your premises? What are your starting points? Is an attempt at science any better than the flawed philosophical foundations guiding its procedures? It would be best for you to stick to the topics at hand. Such indulgences here do little for any case you may be attempting to erect at this point.

"You wrote: '...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 [in] California called Lopez Lake. Am I obligated to prove to each of these individuals that they are wrong?' And then this from your web site: 'Atheology can be treated in several ways: It can assume as its task the refutation of theistic arguments; it can offer arguments in favor of atheism (which essentially offers a negative, not a positive); or, it can do both of these while offering a rational philosophical alternative in place of religious god-belief. My atheology takes this third approach: By applying the principles of Objectivism, the philosophy of Reason, I have reviewed god-belief claims and exposed their root errors. I have been working on this project for several years now and with this web site announce to the world my discoveries.' This is what obligates you, Mr. Thorn. You have made the bold claim that you can 'refute' god-based religions by applying the principles of Objectivism."

Agreed. I am obliged by my commitment to my own announced goals. However, this is far different from suggesting that the fact that "100,000 pygmies [holding] the notion that shrinking heads will endow the tribe with special 'supernatural' powers" somehow obligates me to a course of action. Do you see the difference here, Mr. X?

As for any lingering assumption that I have fallen short of the task to which I have committed myself, I would ask: Is this assumption based on a full and thorough-going review of the entire contents of my website (and thorough-going attempts to refute my conclusions as entailed in my website)? Or, is it based on the hopeful premise that such refutations are by nature impossible? If the former, is this assuming that the content of my website is currently resting at a completed state? (I.e., is it assuming that there is no more content currently in the works? Please document your homework.) If so, how was this assumption established? If the latter, what is the reasoning that supports this?

"But what little information you have on your website to 'refute' Christianity only displays a fundamental lack of comprehension of the different literary styles employed by the writer(s), misrepresenting symbolism as literal, and a childish attempt to 'turn the tables' on apologists by using out-of-context Scripture passages. In short, you attempt to 'refute' Christianity by misrepresentation."

Aha! I must be hitting some raw nerves to see remarks like this!

In relation to "a childish attempt to 'turn the tables' on apologists by using out-of-context Scripture passages," would you explain this characterization please? Perhaps you are referring to my insistence that believers live up to the boasts of their "Scriptures," such as the claim that one can wish a mountain into the sea if he has "faith as a grain of mustard" (Matt. 17:20)? Is there any reason why you can think I should not insist that those claims which others insist that I accept as knowledge of reality (i.e., as truth), should reside beyond the demand for the demonstration of their veracity? If someone tells me that they can cast a mountain into the sea simply by wishing, hoping or "having faith as a grain of mustard seed," and the same source that offers such an idea also states that "nothing shall be impossible unto you" (Matt. 17:20), do you believe I'm out of line for asking for some verification of such extraordinary claims?

Moreover, please keep in mind a simple fact here: I'm just getting started, and you haven't seen nothin' yet!

How many times must you be asked the same question before you submit a response?

"You challenge Apologists to show specifically where in Scripture 'individual rights' are explicitly outlined--a Christian 'Bill of Rights'. You presume that, since no such 'list' exists, it must therefore follow that Christians have no personal rights or freedoms."

Here, Mr. X, the winds of your presumptuousness have blown your reasoning way off course. First of all, I have never intimated anywhere at any point that "Christians have no personal rights or freedoms." This is your own wishful thinking here, not mine, and you will not be able to support this construal by any direct appeal to any literature by my hand. I advise that you promptly retract it, for this is gravely misrepresentative of my position, and as such, it calls into question your reputation as a thinker.

Also, the challenge that I presented in my last message has nothing to do with citing a Christian equivalent to the Bill of Rights. Indeed, at issue here is the development of the objective concept of individual rights, which is absent from the Bible's collection of books. Furthermore, a coherent development of the objective concept of individual rights cannot be integrated with the principles of Christianity as inferred by the books of the Bible. How can one integrate the concept that each individual human being has the right to exist for his own sake with the notions that he "shalt worship no other God before me" (Exodus 20:3), that he is to "resist not evil" (Matt. 5:39), and that he "shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18)? How can one integrate the concept that each individual has the right to exist for his own sake with a set of doctrines that not only makes no effort to prohibit the practice of slave-ownership, but actually makes provisions for such practice?

If Christians insist that "the Declaration of Independence had its foundation in Christian thought," then I will insist that they rise to the challenges I put forth to them. For already we see that such a position is an internally incoherent sham. Shame on you, Mr. X for endorsing it.

"The question is, what are 'Individual rights', and according to who's definition? Objectivists?"

As far as I know, there is no more consistent development and defense of the doctrine of individual rights than that which is found in the Objectivist political doctrine. For this, see Rand, Ayn, The Virtue of Selfishness, specifically chapter 12 "Man's Rights," pp. 92-100; and Rand, Ayn, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, which encapsulates the Objectivist politics. You may know of one which you believe surpasses it? By all means, trot it out for us to review it. But be prepared to do your homework here. Otherwise, don't plan on wasting my time any more on such issues.

"In Objectivism, you have certain criteria that must be upheld in order to conform your life to the Objectivist Principles"

Indeed, you have it reversed. I do not conform my life to Objectivist principles and doctrines; rather, I employ them in the living of my life. Objectivism is not a set of religious obligations.

"--you are not required to live by these principles if you do not wish,"

"...required..."? By what? Again, Objectivism is not a set of religious obligations. You have a poor grasp of your subject matter here. Man must be rational by choice, not by commandments or by obeying some otherworldly authority. Such would be a contradiction in terms.

"but violating them means you can no longer call yourself an 'Objectivist';"

According to whom? Again, Objectivism is not a religious dogma. Besides, why would a rational individual violate his self-interest?

"you consider anyone who does not uphold the Objectivist principles as being in 'denial of reality' or simply 'illogical'."

Have I said this? Please indicate where. Be careful not to drop context here.

"I have FREEWILL. We all do--this is the basic tenet of Christianity"

Can you document this "basic tenet of Christianity" for the record? There are many takes on Christian dogma that hold an opposite position on the matter of free will. Are you prepared to go to battle with advocates of Christian predestination? (This is another area where Christians paint themselves into conceptual - and psychological - corners, but more on that another time...)

"--I can choose to to 'live for my own sake' if I wish to. But if I want to be a Christian and have eternal Life, then there are certain principles I must live by...but I can choose to do otherwise if I wish. Christians call this being a 'sinner'." [sic]

May you get what you deserve.

"In closing I would like to apologize for my comparison of Objectivism to Materialism and Nihilism; my source for the information was not accurate--it was not even accurate as to the true nature of Materialism, so my conclusion was wrong to start with."

You're forgiven. Go, and misrepresent Objectivism no more.

"Also, it is my intention to give to you a detailed explanation into why exactly I believe Scripture to be true at a later date; I'm sure it will be a welcome addition to your efforts in refuting Christian beliefs."

Be my guest. I have no shortage of specimens to "crucify" through my scrutiny. But I would ask you to please articulate one point before doing so. Tell me, Mr. X,

WHOM ARE YOU TRYING TO CONVINCE?

Thanks, Mr. X. I have really enjoyed our correspondence over the last week. I can see you're a real firebrand for your beliefs. However, I would suggest you take a breath and take it a bit easier on yourself so that you can

1. deepen your familiarity with Objectivist philosophy, preferably by studying it from the source;
2. clarify your own purpose in your correspondence;
3. setting before yourself the goal to achieve a clear understanding of the principles with which you seek to demonstrate your points;
4. apply those principles consistently; and
5. never, ever fail to do your homework.

Also, I would suggest that you take a little time off from our correspondence and re-read some of the material I've already suggested in my prior messages to you. You'll find that many of the points you are asking me to enlighten and defend have already been presented - in clearer language and use of principle than I am capable of myself - and criticism of those points and their defense has already been answered. I have no intention of re-inventing the wheel every time someone wants to e-mail me out of the blue.

Also, I would ask that you try to prepare yourself, instead of indulging in the futile nitpicking behavior which has persisted to date in your messages, to actually set forth a position of your own, a position for which you can offer detailed arguments which explicitly presuppose a mutually agreed point of reference (such as the indisputability of the fact of existence - that existence exists), which set before them a clear goal of conclusive achievement (which can be measured throughout its progress), and which can be demonstrated at all times to be internally coherent and coherent with all positions which your statements thus far have intimated. This may seem like I'm asking for a lot. Indeed, I am. It is the least, however, you should be willing to put forth if you attempt to dispute Objectivism and/or establish the truth of your particular version of theism.

Also, please begin by naming your starting points and explaining why they are valid, irreducible and universally inescapable.

Really,

Anton Thorn

___________________________________________________________________