Kicking Against the Pricks

Volley No. 11: The Final Word

Below you will read my response to Mr. X's last message to me, to which I did not respond due to the deterioration of the civility of his correspondence. I offer the following as my final word to our correspondence.

"Hmm. Lets see....I don't remember you sending me any links to sites laying out specific 'individual rights', but I could be wrong."

"Where do you get these rights?"

What does Mr. X mean here by this question? Do rights that pertain to the human being originate from something apart from the human being? How can this be so? Rights are not "intrinsic entities" (as if such a notion had any rational meaning) which man "finds" in some source outside his nature. When one asks the question "Where do you get these rights?" the assumption suggested is that rights are 'things' that one must locate and ascertain. This is quite misleading.

To quote Ayn Rand,

Thus, as Rand elucidates here, 'rights' are conceptual in nature. Thus, rights are an abstract identification of the recognition that man must be free within a social context in order to pursue his moral ends. Rand goes on to say,

Rand is correct to point out that

Here Rand anticipates many misunderstandings regarding the nature of man's rights which have been perpetuated since their first philosophical inception and development. The notion that rights are derived from some source outside man's nature, be that alleged source the wrath-saturated deity of Christianity (as if there were one) or the supposed benevolent generosity of Society (as if society were an entity), is a frequently encountered misconception which is rarely if ever corrected outside the context of rational philosophy.

The former notion, that man's rights spring from the religious view of the world, is a farce of grand proportions. Make no mistake: the idea of man's individual rights is neither compatible nor reconcilable to the notion of self-sacrificial ethics in service to a universe-ruling consciousness. The fact that a religiously dominated Dark Ages, where the state and the church were one, perpetuated tyranny of unprecedented proportions, is no accident. The facts that faith and force are corollaries (see Rand), and that the principle of man's individual rights are the first line of his defense against the initiation of the use of force, assure us that an objective development of the concept of man's individual rights cannot find its source in religious philosophy. The fact that religion and man's individual rights are ultimately incompatible (such as in the case that religious philosophy is taken seriously and implemented on a societal level), is undeniable and supportable by reference to a mountain of historical evidence, in spite of the constant claims we routinely hear that America's founding principles were Christian in derivation. Such a lie must be countered every time it is uttered.

The latter notion, that man's individual rights find their source in society's edicts and/or whims, is another farce of grand proportion. Much of this view is merely a secularization of its farcical religious counterpart. In both views, man's rights are said to find their source in a form of consciousness beyond man's capacity to comprehend and without reference to man's nature as a living being capable of rational thought. Just as God is claimed by the mystics to be a conscious being which no man can understand or conceive, 'society' is claimed by the collectivists to be an entity of 'collective consciousness', whose 'cultural force' (i.e., its whims) are inaccessible to reason and valid by virtue of the mere fact that it is cultural in nature. Thus, a nation which is governed by a foundation of individual rights is just as 'valid' as a nation which is governed by a collective of tribal elites sending its citizens into forced labor camps or gulags. The label 'culture' in this case, is the secular counterpart to the mystic's 'God' - a salve invoked to end discussion and stop the mind from reasoning any further.

Rand was wise to point out that,

Thus, since man is man, just as A is A, reasons Rand, rights are dependent on man's nature, and therefore the "source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity" [Ibid.] Hence, appeals to theology for an explanation and development of man's individual rights are not only unnecessary, but contradictory to the very issue in question, since theology rests on faith, and faith rests on the denial of reason, and therefore on the denial of the law of identity. Thus, the common cry that America is founded on Christian theism is not only completely false, it misses the point completely.

"According to what laws of nature are these rights guaranteed?"

Objective laws, upheld by a rationally erected government, including a police force and the civil courts. Outside of these, there are no 'guarantees' assuring the protection of man's rights. See Ayn Rand's essay "The Nature of Government," in her book The Virtue of Selfishness, pp. 107-115. See also her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, for further development of her philosophical view of the role of government. See also the points mentioned above.

"Are these rights manifested physically in reality, or are they subjective concepts Miss Rand invented?"

This is a complex question fallacy intimating a false dichotomy: Either rights are "manifested physically in reality" or they are "subjective concepts [Ayn] Rand invented." Neither need be the case; the two alternatives given are not jointly exhaustive. Hence, the implication is a false dichotomy. And since it is an error veiled in the form of a question, the question is fallaciously complex.

"You want me to give you some scriptural reference for Man's 'individual rights'?"

"I'd sure like to see the primordial rock your 'individual rights' are carved in!"

See above.

"Come on, Thorn, do you expect me to believe that there are 'individual rights' somehow guaranteed by the mere fact of existence?"

No, I do not, nor did I ever make any argument claiming so much. If the fact of existence were sufficient to guarantee man's rights, then violation of those rights would be impossible, for existence exists indisputably. However, their source is in the law of identity, as explained above, and the law of identity is a corollary of the fact of existence. The guarantee of man's individual rights must be provided by an objective form of government charged with the recognition and protection of man's rights. Again, please see above.

"What's your starting point for that? Or is your ever-present droning of 'Existence Exists' going to be your answer? I'm sorry, but that isn't an answer to anything; I'm not even sure it's a complete sentence."

The statement "existence exists" is a complete sentence, as it includes both a subject (the noun 'existence') and a predicate (the verb 'exists'). Since the verb 'exists' is intransitive, the predicate does not require an object. Hence, the statement "existence exists" is a complete sentence.

As for Mr. X's other worries, the reader is advised to review the section above.

"My position has always been that existence is dependent of the conscious will of God. Logically, since the Universe as we know it (your boundary for existence) did not exist prior to about 15 billion years ago, it must follow that some 'cause' is responsible for its creation. Since the Laws of Conservation prevent matter from spontaneously generating, there must be some 'supernatural' event to bring matter into existence--hence, God. Existence exists because God exists. This is my argument; prove it wrong. You want to call it a 'stolen concept'? Go ahead, but you've got NOTHING in your corner to prove me wrong; I at least have a ton of circumstantial evidence to back up my claim. Like it or not, the Universe is not static, nor is it eternal. Science left that model of reality behind in the 50's along with Ayn Rand. I suggest you join the rest of us in the 21st century."

Mr. X offers his version of the classic 'cosmological argument' which traces its philosophic roots back to the ancient Greeks. In Mr. X's version, the argument can be expressed in the following syllogism:

Premise 1: The universe exists now. (This is unexpressed in Mr. X's argument, but it is understood and presumed.)

Premise 2: The universe did not exist prior to about 15 billion years ago.

Premise 3: Some cause is responsible for bringing the universe into existence.

Premise 4: The Laws of Conservation prevent matter from spontaneously generating.

Premise 5: "There must be some 'supernatural' event to bring matter into existence.

Conclusion: This 'supernatural' event is God or, more accurately, an act of God.

Premise 1 ("The universe exists now") is the only premise which does not require an argument to accept as true. 'Universe' is defined as "the sum total of existence." Since the universe includes by definition all things that exist or can be said to exist, and existence is known ostensibly through the senses, all one needs to do in order to accept this premise is to be conscious of something in existence, which implies two things: First, the recognition that existence exists because something is perceived, and second, the recognition (albeit implicit) that existence is known through a means of perception, which is a function of consciousness. Hence, existence and consciousness are already recognized on the implicit level of cognition just by making such assertions. So far, the Objectivist axioms are hereby assumed by Mr. X's argument. Does the rest of his argument consistently keep itself in check with these foundational recognitions? Let's watch and see.

Premise 2 ("The universe did not exist prior to about 15 billion years ago") is a bit shaky and indeed an unprovable assertion. The idea that "the universe did not exist prior to about 15 billion years ago" finds its inspiration in modern scientific cosmological research, dubbed the "Big Bang" theory. The "Big Bang" theory holds that the universe as we know it today (as an inflationary occupation of vacuous space of stellar and planetary bodies, as well as dust, debris and sundry elements) did not always exist in the form in which it now exists.

As one article found online puts it:

Articles such as this are typical in their summary expression of the 'big bang' theory. In all cases, the idea of the 'big bang' begins by positing an "initial, hot state" of all material existence collected into a compressed "atomic nucleus" or "singularity." In no serious attempt to summarize the gist of the 'big bang' theory will one find words to the effect that existence is a creation of some will or act of consciousness, as if matter could pop into existence ex nihilo as claimed by religious creationists.

In all serious versions of the 'big bang' theory, it is argued that some form of existence - be it called a 'singularity' or an 'atomic nucleus' - is posited as the beginning state of the current inflationary occupation of matter throughout the vacuum of space. Even according to the 'big bang' theory, so far as this student has been able to discover, the axiom of existence is not violated or in any way negated. Cosmological paradigms attempting to conclude with a theistic position of a form of consciousness as the 'creator' of the universe cannot avail themselves to 'big bang' cosmology simply because there is no compatibility between 'big bang' cosmology and creation theism to begin with!

Often, the point at which zealous apologists for theism rush in, is the hopeful idea that science has demonstrated that the universe had a definite starting point in time, thus opening a gap for theistic arguments to wedge their antiquated feet into the realm of science in order to subvert it in the service of a theology of hidden agendas.

In either regard, Mr. X's argument, just as is the case with any cosmological paradigm, does not succeed in any manner in the attempt to undermine the Objectivist metaphysics. No matter what, both the scientific cosmologist as well as the religious cosmologist must begin by positing some form of existence as the initial starting point from which all assumptions stem.

Premise 3: "Some cause is responsible for bringing the universe into existence."

Here is where the fallacy of the stolen concept gets the better of the cosmological paradigm and renders it conceptually impotent. The argument attempts to posit the 'universe' - which is defined as the sum total of existence, as needing a cause. Yet, the argument wants to posit this cause as existing as well. But that's the whole pinch: if something exists, it is already part of the sum total of existence. Thus, to posit the beginning of the universe is to posit that at one time the universe did not exist, and that therefore nothing existed prior to this alleged emergence of the universe.

You cannot lift a stool over your head while sitting on it. However, that is precisely what is being attempted, conceptually speaking, in the cosmological paradigm at this point. One cannot posit the concept 'cause' outside of existence, for there would be no existing agent responsible for enacting the asserted cause. But when one argues that the universe requires a cause, is to attempt to posit the concept 'cause' outside existence, for 'universe' is the sum total of existence. Thus, there can be no cause outside the universe, for there is no outside the universe to speak of.

Premise 4: "The Laws of Conservation prevent matter from spontaneously generating."

This is the most ironic premise in this version of Mr. X's cosmological paradigm. Why is that? Observe: Mr. X posits that existence requires a creator (which is asserted to exist). His argument asserts that existence (i.e., the universe, which is the sum total of existence) requires a creator because it has a beginning point (i.e., it is not eternal, it was created; never mind the question-begging nature of such a premise). Then Mr. X brings in Premise 4, which cites the "Laws of Conservation," claiming that this law will "prevent matter from spontaneously generating." How does Mr. X take the phrase "spontaneously generating" to mean? Indeed, he does not say, rather, he hopes that it goes unquestioned! But we see in the premise following Premise 4 that a "supernatural event" is required to solve the non-problem set up by his argument's prior premises.

The question here is: How does positing the "supernatural" - whether an event or an entity causing that event - alleviate the violation of the "Laws of Conservation" cited in Premise 4? Christian theologians and creationists love to argue that God created the world ex nihilo. But what does this mean, creation ex nihilo? It literally means: "out of nothing." So, the Christian posits that existence (i.e., the universe) came into existence through an act of the supernatural. So, now the question becomes: How did this take place, and how is it verifiable? What is the 'supernatural,' and how can one know what it is? If the theist asserts the supernatural, then he claims knowledge of the supernatural. How was this knowledge gained? How is the allegation that "the supernatural" is known tested and verified? Often, Christians will claim that they "know" this through "revelation," yet this hardly answers the question. Indeed, after poking this premise, the evasive premise of 'revelation,' one realizes that "revelation" means nothing more than something accepted as knowledge when read in the Bible. Thus, appealing to revelation constitutes yet another episode of begging the question, as what is claimed to be 'revealed' knowledge is accepted on the tenuous grounds that the source of that 'revealed' knowledge - e.g., the Bible, is true, which premise is defended on the ground that it is known to be true by revelation! Therefore, appealing to 'revelation' does nothing for the Christian's position.

Premise 5: "There must be some 'supernatural' event to bring matter into existence."

This premise is not supported by any of the prior premises, nor is there any justification for linking this premise with any of the reasoning offered in support of those premises preceding it. Hence, this premise is a non sequitur. None of the foregoing premises justifies positing something that is said to be "supernatural" - whatever that is intended to mean. Since the argument in general is seen to be an instance of philosophical groping for causality, which is identity applied to action, and which therefore is natural, not 'supernatural', the introduction at this point of the 'supernatural' is both hasty and unjustified by previous premises.

Essentially speaking, what Premise 5 of this argument wants to posit is a form of consciousness as the instigator of existence. However, not only would this position commit the non sequitur that Mr. X's appeal to supernaturalism commits, it would flagrantly commit the argument as a whole to the fallacy of the stolen concept (which it committed already in Premise 5 above). Thus, no matter how Mr. X would like to phrase his version of the cosmological paradigm, he runs straight into brick walls by committing fallacy after fallacy. Premise 5 here does not rescue him from this habit, which has established itself since the beginning of his correspondence with me.

Hence, the conclusion, "This 'supernatural' event is God or, more accurately, an act of God," is both completely unwarranted as well as unjustified by the preceding premises. The argument Mr. X offers utterly fails.

Advise to Mr. X: Keep trying!!

Mr. X offered his argument and challenged me to "prove it wrong," which I have done, even though he quipped that I have "got NOTHING in [my] corner to prove [his argument] wrong." To correct Mr. X, I have my mind! Therefore, I submit that this quip was secreted in great haste, for indeed I have proven his argument wrong by pointing out its glaring flaws.

Most likely, individuals like Mr. X will not accept my examination and verdicts because they are so neurotically committed to the teachings they were taught when they were young, and never discovered the courage necessary to challenge those teachings. Look at religionists today: Virtually all adults who attempt to 'apologize' for their religious beliefs grew up under the influence of some form of mysticism, be it the brand of god-belief to which they are now committed, or some other variant which was rejected when another variant was embraced in its place. While I do not know this to be the case specifically with Mr. X (a self-confessed Catholic), I surmise that it is most probably the case. He was most likely taught to experience guilt or fear - most likely both! - should he ever question the authority of the dogma he was brought to swallow by his parents and/or peers as a young person. To this day, he continues to sacrifice his mind in service to it. The result: Another willing victim for the tribal collectivism of religion!

Now on to other matters…

"I don't really care what you think of Christianity or religion in general--to each his own."

Then what's the fuss, Mr. X? Why do you go to such trouble to tangle with me if you don't care what I think about your god-beliefs? Throughout all your correspondence you have attempted to defend your god-beliefs by attacking my lack of god-belief. Now you claim that your position is one of indifference to my criticism. This hardly seems plausible, given all the energy you've expended in the attempt to damage my reputation or find some, as you put it yourself, Achilles' heel in either my own thought processes or in the processes of Objectivism in general. Your efforts to do so to this point have not only failed, they have backfired in your face. And now you say you "don't really care" what I think about Christianity? Your words and your actions do not appear to be compatible here at all.

"But no amount of verbal gymnastics on your part will make the facts of reality go away, namely that the universe--existence--is finite, therefore had a beginning, therefore has a cause for existence."

Indeed, I have no intention of engaging "verbal gymnastics" to "make the facts of reality go away"; this more accurately describes the religionist's position. All along in our correspondence, I have embraced the facts of reality wholeheartedly, namely that existence exists, that to exist is to be something (which means: to exist is to have identity), and that the task of consciousness is to identify reality, not create it. It is Mr. X who has each of these positions reversed, but is unwilling to examine his root premises and hidden assumptions.

Furthermore, to say that the universe or existence is finite and then from this declaration conclude that it "therefore had a beginning, therefore has a cause for existence" is to commit a non sequitur (which in this case assumes an equivocation). Something can indeed be finite, but also eternal. There is no contradiction in the pairing of these concepts. The Objectivist position is that existence is necessarily finite in identity. In other words, if something should exist, it must be something rather than anything but something, which means: to exist is to be something particular, i.e., finite. A is A. If A should exist, it must be A, and cannot be non-A.

However, the finiteness of existence in terms of its identity and its temporal nature are indeed two different matters altogether. I have discussed this in the past. Please review the following:

Clearly, the arguments which effectively checkmate Mr. X's position have already been made and nailed up on my website for all to see. Mr. X is certainly not prone to doing his homework, so it seems.

"Even the idea of this seems to profoundly confuse you; so you try to rationalize it with made-up 'fallacies' like 'stolen concept' or 'package deal'. You even stated in the previous post that such questions as 'why does existence exist' couldn't be asked! But alas, I did ask them! You can't ask them because your silly little philosophy can't even comprehend the question." [sic]

"Objectivism is a stale, dated philosophy, postulated by a bitter hack of a writer. It can't evolve with new knowledge of our existence; instead, you arrogantly assume Miss Rand knew everything there was to know about existence. All Objectivism is, is her opinion of 'how things are' and here opinion of 'how things ought to be'."

In other words, Mr. X does not like the philosophy of Reason, and his dislike is motivated by his unexamined commitment to mystical philosophy. The very fact that Mr. X would write something like "you arrogantly assume Miss Rand knew everything there was to know about existence," only underscores his anxiety in facing the challenges put forth by the pathology of religion made possible by applying the principles of Objectivism.

"I'm trying to read 'The Fountainhead' right now, but frankly, its awful. I've read better prose from grade school book reports." [sic]

I suspect Mr. X is not a deep thinker (and past correspondence confirms this suspicion), or that he has set out to read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead with the presumption that he simply will not like it, regardless of its many virtues. I suspect Mr. X's remark here is a combination of these two reasons. Beyond this, I cannot help the man. As the old adage holds, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. Similarly, you can model rational thought to a man, but you cannot make him think for himself.

"P.S.--I don't care if you post these responses on your site, if it makes you happy, go for it. I do request that you NOT use my name." [sic]

Mr. X's request is noted. I have no problem honoring it.

May he get what he deserves!

Anton Thorn

___________________________________________________________________