Vol. 4: Common Assumptions
In dialogue with Christians, modernist (as opposed to postmodernist) humanists agree on certain assumptions or presuppositions: reality exists; at least one mind exists; truth is absolute and can be known; logic and reasoning (rational inquiry) are tools to help discover truth; communication is possible; and there are valid ways to test conclusions.
The assumption that reality exists is unavoidable, but it is problematic for those who wish to posit some kind of supernaturalism. What is reality? Objectivism defines 'reality' as the realm of existence. The concept 'reality' and the concept 'universe' are closely related, and have essentially the same referents. If something exists, it exists in reality (not "outside" it), just as it exists as part of the universe (not "outside" it). This is consistent and completely free of presumptive error. Existence exists.
The theist, however, will most likely object to these definitions. He will most likely have a problem particularly with the Objectivist definition of 'universe', since he will want to claim that his God exists, but that God is not a member of the universe (as are all existents). Thus he must be challenged to offer and substantiate his own definition of this otherwise non-problematic term (indeed, notice where the problem comes in - when the theist wants to assert something outside the universe; a coincidence?). What is the theist's definition of 'universe'? By what process is the theist's conception of 'universe' formed? By a process of concept-formation? What theory of concept-formation does he employ in forming the concept assumed by the definition he provides? What is the source of this definition? Was it man? Or was it God? Does the Bible define 'universe' anywhere?
The theist faces the same problems (of his own making) in regard to the concept 'reality' and its definition. If something exists, Objectivism holds, it is real and exists in reality. Reality is the realm of existence, and Objectivism therefore rightly rejects the notion that something can exist "outside" reality. But the theist will likely have a problem with this as well, so he should be challenged to provide his own definition and argue for its cognitive legitimacy.
So far, the "common assumption" that reality exists is squarely on the Objectivist's side of the debate, not the theist's.
The next common assumption is that "at least one mind exists." This is not problematic for the Objectivist either. 'Mind' refers to man's conceptual consciousness. Man exists and is capable of the conceptual level of consciousness. Objectivism does not dispute the fact that the man's unique form of consciousness arose from an evolutionary development. [Footnote: See for example Harry Binswanger's lecture "Selected Topics in the Philosophy of Science," Tape 2, Side B, 1991; available at Second Renaissance Books.]
What becomes a problem for the theist is the fact that consciousness, because it exists, has identity. Objectivism holds that anything which exists has a finite nature: that which exists is that which exists (A is A); if A should exist, it must be A and not non-A. Objectivism recognizes that this applies to consciousness just as it applies to all entities and attributes. Furthermore, on this point, it should be noted that Objectivism does not consider consciousness to be an entity, but an attribute of a specific kind of entity: living beings. Many theists tend to treat consciousness as an entity in and of itself, apart from the organism which is conscious. Objectivism rightly rejects this as an incoherent assumption which results from carelessness in regard to the facts of reality.
If consciousness has identity, then the proper use of consciousness also has identity. That proper use, according to Objectivism, is reason. "Reason integrates man's perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man's knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic - and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification." [Footnote: Ayn Rand, "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 62.]
Theism, however, rejects reason; and theists also reject reason, at least to the extent that they consider their faith claims as knowledge. The epistemology advocated by the Bible is not reason; in fact, the Bible nowhere defines reason, nor does it encourage believers to practice reason in all areas of their lives. Instead, the Bible emphatically champions faith in place of reason. While Hebrews 11:1 states that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," in other words, a package-deal and a stolen concept, Objectivism holds that faith is the "method" of mysticism.
Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct," "intuition," "revelation," or any form of "just knowing."
ysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality - other than the one in which we live - whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means. [Footnote: Ibid.]
So the authors' second point in their list of "common assumptions," that "at least one mind exists," will ultimately prove insurmountably problematic for the theist as well.
What about the third "common assumption" which the authors list? They point out that "truth is absolute and can be known." Certainly, Objectivism does not contest this. In fact, Objectivism is the only philosophy which makes this possible for man. Truth is the recognition of reality, not some floating mystery residing outside of reality, outside of nature, outside the universe or outside existence. Truth is available to any man who chooses to accept the facts of reality as absolute, for truth is the recognition of these facts, and only in this context can one claim that truth is absolute. The fact that existence exists does not change, and is absolute; it is assumed, either implicitly or explicitly in any truth claim, whether that claim to truth is true, false or arbitrary.
The Objectivist conception of truth is tied fundamentally to the primacy of existence metaphysics, which I discussed above. Since the theistic position assumes the validity of the primacy of consciousness, which is a contradiction of the primacy of existence, the theist's attempt to claim truth on the side of theism stands on fallacious ground, and should be rejected.
It should already be evident from the foregoing that the authors' fourth point in their list of "common assumptions," that "logic and reasoning (rational inquiry) are tools to help discover the truth," will prove to be dramatically problematic for the theist as well. I already offered a definition of reason and its relation to logic above. The theist at this point should be challenged to offer his ideas one what constitutes "logic and reasoning," how his ideas are formed (i.e., what do they presume?), and how they can be integrated with the facts of reality.
At this point, some theists (particularly presuppositionalists) may attempt to gain the upper hand in debate by arguing that the laws of logic presume the existence of the Christian God. In other words, the theist may attempt t weld logic to his primacy of consciousness premises. As one apologist puts it, "The Absolute God with and absolute mind, has conceived of the logical absolutes. They are a reflection of His mind." [Footnote: See Matthew J. Slick's Discussion on logical absolutes as a proof of the existence of God.] This can only mean that the theist arguing this position assumes that the laws of logic are a creation of consciousness, not principles which consciousness abstracts from the facts of reality which it perceives. This would mean that the laws of logic are an invention, the product of whim (since they could not have been made logically if logic did not exist until it was "created"), and that they do not have objective reference to reality. What, then, makes them logical? Blank out.
To identify something as an invention (as opposed to something that is not an invention), or to claim that something was "conceived" (as is claimed in the case of the laws of logic), implicitly presupposes the law of identity already. So this course of "reasoning" commits the fallacy of the stolen concept, and is therefore fallacious and should be rejected.
The last two points which the authors cite as "common assumptions" - namely that "communication is possible" and that "there are valid ways to test conclusions," because they are built on the assumptions in the areas already discussed, will consequently prove problematic for the theist as well.
While the humanist assumes these factors as "the inherent properties of matter," or "an evolutionary survival mechanism," and so forth, the Christian knows the assumptions are based on the eternal, infinite, unchanging, rational, and moral nature, character, and power of God. Because the human mind and the material world bear the creative, rational imprint of God, we are capable of meaningful contemplation of reality and can know that reality reflects the rational, orderly, predictable design of God.
Objectivism does not say that the assumptions pointed out above are "inherent properties of matter" per se. Objectivism points out that the law of identity, which is the foundation of logic, is itself a corollary of the axiom existence exists. The fact that existence exists is an irreducible primary: one cannot posit something "prior to" existence in order to "account for" it. Thus, when the Objectivist answers that reality is real because existence exists, and the theist asks the Objectivist to "account for the fact that existence exists" is the invitation to join the theist in his relishing of stolen concepts.
Objectivists are not materialists, as if the rejection of theistic idealism necessarily means one is a materialist. Idealism and materialism are two sides of the same dichotomized coin: both stem from the rejection or denial of the basic axioms, existence, identity and consciousness. [Footnote: See particularly Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pp. 30-36.] If one rejects or ignores the basic axioms of philosophy, then one cannot reason consistently. We need the axioms in order to reason about anything in reality. If the reference of our reasoning is not reality (i.e., not reducible to the perceptual level of our awareness), then we are guilty of rationalism, which is deduction without reference to reality. What good, then, can come of such alleged "reasoning"?
Additionally, with respect to the "common assumptions" which the authors point out above, Objectivism does not hold the view that the fact that reality exists is the result of an "evolutionary survival mechanism." This would be backwards: living beings require a "survival mechanism" - i.e., survival skills of some sort - in order to exist. It is because reality exists that living beings require survival skills, not the other way around. [Footnote: While I do not think the authors would contest my point here, I offer it to guard against an understandable misreading of the authors' text. For they write that the non-believer ("the humanist") "assumes these factors… as an evolutionary survival mechanism." By "these factors" the context certainly appears to be the list of "common assumptions" given in the prior paragraph, the first of which was "reality exists."]
Again, the authors want to place their understanding of these assumptions squarely on the primacy of consciousness view, as evidenced by their statement "the Christian knows the assumptions are based on the eternal, infinite, unchanging, rational, and moral nature, character, and power of God." This claim of course presupposes that the theist has proven that God exists, which of course he has not done. Therefore, he begs the question, for this is precisely what he is called to prove if he is to prove the validity of his worldview to begin with. It should be evident so far, however, that the theist would be arguing for a contradiction if in fact he believes he can put forth an argument proving the existence of God.
Note the attributes that the authors grant to God. Two of them - eternal and unchanging - are already implicit in the primacy of consciousness. Existence is eternal, and the fact that existence exists does not change. Thus, pointing to God as the sole provider of eternal and unchanging foundations is superfluous: it simply is not called for, since we already know that existence exists.
Note the remaining attributes. Infinite