Rising to the Challenge: Worldviews Side-by-Side

Mr. Harrison makes the following clarification of the presuppositional method:

This is a great idea, and a challenge to which I exhort all Christian apologists to rise. Below I offer an at-a-glance chart outlining Christian theism as opposed to Objectivism, the philosophy of Reason:

Above we see precisely what the apologist asks for: a side-by-side comparison of the major tenets of Christianity and Objectivism. Let us examine each briefly, one by one.

Under the headings "Nature of Reality" and "Nature of Existence," we find that Christianity considers reality to be subjective, while Objectivism considers reality to be objective. Subjectivism in metaphysics is the view that existence finds its source in, or is dependent upon a form or act of consciousness. It is the view that reality is amenable to acts of consciousness: that existence can be created, that the identity of entities can be manipulated, and that the nature of reality is guided by intentional imperative, by commands, or by whims. This view is explicitly stated in the Christian doctrine of creation - the view that the world and the cosmos, i.e., the universe, were created by the "supreme being's divine will," i.e., by an act of consciousness. Reality, according to this view, is a derivative, not a primary, and subject to revision by the will of the ruling consciousness, which according to Christianity is God.

If the nature of reality is subjective (i.e., if existence is the product of a form or act of consciousness), and the nature of existence is secondary to that consciousness, then consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over existence, since existence (reality) must ultimately be thought to conform to the will of consciousness (either man's or God's or both). Thus, Christian theism explicitly endorses the primacy of consciousness, even though its theologians and apologists resist this identification.

On the other hand, in all philosophical matters, Objectivism recognizes the primacy of existence, which holds that existence exists independent of consciousness (e.g., the facts of reality are facts of reality regardless of one's conscious functions or desires), that existence is absolute, uncreated, indestructible and primary, and that consciousness is consciousness of something, i.e., of existence. Which means: consciousness is not independent of existence, which means that consciousness presupposes existence, as recognized by the question: Consciousness of what?

Religious metaphysics invariably dichotomizes reality into two opposing categories: the supernatural vs. the natural. This dichotomy is always found lurking in the premises of a view of reality informed by the primacy of consciousness. Since existence as such, including matter, natural law and man's objective needs as a living being, is considered a derivative, a product of some form of consciousness, and since consciousness is considered to be the primary, the natural corollary of assuming the primacy of consciousness is this division of reality into two halves. The "upper" realm vs. the "lower" realm, the heaven vs. the earth and hell which awaits, is the vestige of a primitive view of reality.

Re: metaphysical roots of the mind-body dichotomy: See OPAR 28. Epistemological root: OPAR 148-150; theory vs. practice OPAR 148-150, 195; reason vs. emotion: OPAR 157-158; moral vs. practical: 245-247, 283-284, 296-297, 326-327; philosophical roots: 334-335.

Re: metaphysical roots of mind-body integration: See OPAR: met. Roots: 29-30, 35; epist. Root: 148; reason as practical: 195-198, 293-297; man as sovereign: 204-205; reason and emotions: 158, 228-229; integrity: 259-262;

One's view of the laws of nature is certain to be influenced by one's general view of reality proper. If, for instance, one holds that reality is a pliant putty in the hands of a cosmic consciousness capable of manipulating the identity of entities, which are considered to be its creation to begin with, one's idea that the laws of nature are subject also to the manipulations of this conscious power logically follows. And this is precisely the view of nature according to Christianity: that the identity of objects can be overridden by an act of consciousness. A need not be A if the ruling consciousness desires otherwise. Similarly, A need not perform the behavior of A if the ruling consciousness wills otherwise.

This is the perversion of the law of identity, the rudimentary law of nature.

Objectivism on the other hand recognizes the immutability of existence and consequently the immutability of the law of identity. Since to exist is to be something, and to be something is to be itself (i.e., to be something specific, to have a specific identity), the law of identity is a corollary to the fundamental axiom of Objectivism, existence exists. That the law of identity - which is typically expressed as "A is A" - is a corollary of this fundamental axiom, is chiefly apparent when it is viewed as an abbreviation of the longer clause that which exists is that which exists, i.e., A is A. The law of identity as such does not tell us what a thing is; rather, it tells us that, should something exist, it must have identity. Each expression is tautological in nature, and each has direct reference to reality. I.e., each expression is true.

] The desire to argue for the validity of the notion of miracles normally finds its thrust in some deep-seated resentment for some fact of reality which apologists for miracle claims find uncomfortable or less than expedient for some reason. Those who advocate the belief in miracles as well as those who advocate the immutability of the laws of nature should question what motivates some to claim that the notion of miracles is valid to begin with.

One's view of man in general may be seen as an extension of one's view of oneself, just as one's view of oneself may be an extension of his fundamental view of man's nature. The two tend to build off each other from the same premises, and serve to reinforce each other. It is in one's view of man's nature, and ultimately in one's view of oneself, which has profound implications for the course of his philosophy and the choices he makes in life.

The Christian view of man is that he is, by virtue of his existence alone, a damned creature intended to fear and obey the ruling consciousness in a lifelong effort to discover its will and to satisfy it. This is fundamental to Christianity, and is emphasized to varying degrees among its competing denominations and subcults. I call this view of man the doctrine of unearned guilt, since one needs do no more than merely exist to acquire this guilt. In effect, guilt is thus not a moral issue as it is removed from any matters within man's volitional range, but a metaphysical issue - and thus prior to morality - since it is claimed to be part of man's nature qua man. It is the view that man is by nature a morally bankrupt being - bankrupt even before he achieves awareness of moral values, that it is impossible for man to achieve the good without some form of supernatural intervention on the part of the ruling consciousness. "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." (Isaiah 64:6) The doctrine of unearned guilt finds its mythological basis in the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and is portrayed as a matter of human inheritance, beginning with the first man, Adam. This tale is accepted unquestioningly as a staple of Christian dogma.

The doctrine of unearned guilt is crucial to the Christian god-belief program of indoctrination. As preacher-turned-atheist Dan Barker sings in one of his songs, "You can't sell salvation unless you first sell damnation." This little jingle captures a fundamental truth to all this. For without the doctrine of unearned guilt, without the view that all men are by virtue of their existence morally depraved and doomed to eternal torment, there would be no motivation for believers to follow the sketchy salvation plan as laid out in the New Testament.

Just as we saw above how the Christian view of metaphysics dichotomizes reality into two realms in conflict with one another - the natural against the supernatural [LOOK!], the Christian view of man dichotomizes him into two warring halves, the soul versus the body.

Soul-body dichotomy

Cite Bible quotes:

As Ayn Rand succinctly argued,

Does this mean that all men are by nature good according to Objectivism? Not at all. Since at the metaphysical level our concern is the determination of the general, objective nature of man qua man, we can only identify his potential as a being capable of moral values and of achieving the good. This does not mean that all mean actually achieve the good automatically. Again, morality is the discipline which teaches man the proper use of his volition. Consequently, whether or not an individual chooses to pursue the good and to lead a life consistent to his choice of values is ultimately up to the individual himself. What values does a man choose, and why? What does he do, and why? Are his actions and choices integrated by a rational code of values informed by an objective view of reality? Or, is the course of his life merely a blind groping, a passive stupor guided by whim, ignorance and/or impulse?

Objectivism also repudiates the soul-body dichotomy assumed by the religious view of man. Ayn Rand described the mind-body dichotomy of mystical philosophies like Christianity according to the following:

Instead of a being torn into two parts - the soul warring against the flesh, Objectivism shamelessly declares the fact that man - that is, the man of reason - is an integrated being. Which means: the individual human being is a self-sufficient unit, a being unto himself, a living entity which exists and which possesses the faculty of consciousness, neither of which strives to annihilate or alienate the other as we find in the soul-body dichotomy model provided by Christianity. For a human individual to pursue the good does not necessitate that he deny his own happiness or capacity for pleasure nor to divorce his life from the values he needs in order to exist. Indeed, his happiness and pleasure are values which make his life qua man possible in the first place. There is no inherent conflict between the good and man's pleasure as such, according to Objectivism.

Not only can consciousness (at least in the case of the ruling consciousness, or 'God') create its objects at will (i.e., consciousness creates existence) - which is the doctrine of 'creation', consciousness can also manipulate the nature of those objects which do exist, suggesting that consciousness can overrule the law of identity - which is the doctrine of miracles. In addition to these stunning feats, consciousness can attempt to influence the will of super-beings in order to gain special favors from the divine or malevolent - which is the doctrine of prayer. In fact, one's consciousness is even said to be able to survive the death of one's body! Upon death, man's soul (e.g., his consciousness) is "released" from his flesh and can float up to God or down to the demon world.

In the realm of epistemology, one can claim knowledge of something simply because he believes it to be the case, or wishes it to be - which is the doctrine of faith. Paul, in Romans 8:24-25, indicates rather explicitly that faith is generated by one's hopes; that hoping is the real engine of salvation. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (11:1) writes that "faith is the substance of things hoped for," thus confirming the epistemological status of hoping in which Paul believed.

In the realm of morality, something is good or bad, not because the facts of reality tell us, but simply because the ruling consciousness commands it as such. Moral truths are not something man discovers in his activity in reality; moral truths are "eternal decrees" whose validity cannot be questioned and whose source is unrepeatable in nature.

In all these tenets of Christian theism, the metaphysical primacy of consciousness is taken seriously and applied as consistently as possible throughout the formation of its particular philosophical branches. In all these respects, Christian theism as such essentially represents the primacy of whim over reality, since objects can be created at whim, the nature of those objects can change at whim, other beings and causal relationships can be manipulated at whim, and one can claim knowledge at whim. In each case, it is the content of one's desires, be it God or the believer or both, which can create and shape reality without being hindered by natural law. And when the believer encounters facts in reality which contradict these desires, so what? God is greater than reality, isn't He?

This view of consciousness is, according to Objectivism, completely invalid. According to Objectivism, the error committed by primitive mystical philosophies such as Christianity begins with a mistaken identification of the nature of consciousness and its relationship to existence. Objectivism begins with the recognition that existence exists, and that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists. Objectivism does not grant to consciousness the unnatural and unverifiable powers which mystical philosophies grant to it, and therefore it does not entrap itself in the same unworkable philosophical quandaries. When men began to recognize that the mystical perspectives of reality continually failed (nothing fails like prayer!), they began to discover that consciousness has identity, and that identity is to perceive and identify its objects, not to create them and manipulate their identities, as is suggested in Christian metaphysics.

The view of the nature and activity of consciousness finds its grounding in the basic view of reality: Is reality dependent on consciousness, or is reality independent of consciousness. In other words, what is valid: the primacy of consciousness (the view that reality is dependent on consciousness), or the primacy of existence (the view that reality is independent of consciousness)? Christianity is explicitly squared with the primacy of consciousness view, while Objectivism is based on the primacy of existence view of reality.

In regards to the nature of consciousness, the primacy of consciousness view of reality essentially denies the fact that consciousness has identity. If consciousness has the power to create its objects and manipulate their identities, then what requires that consciousness should have an identity, especially if the ruling consciousness does not stipulate it? This view is certainly evident in the exceptional characteristics which Christian theologians grant to their deity, calling God an "infinite" being, and thus excepting the ruling consciousness from any finite identity, which means: no specific identity, i.e., no identity at all.

If consciousness is exempted from the law of identity, as Christian metaphysics would certainly have it, then the need for a rational epistemology can be dismissed out of hand. Since consciousness has the power to create its objects and manipulate their identities, then knowledge is a matter of invention, not of discovery: Since God is the creator of reality, He is most certainly cast in the role of creating knowledge as well. And for man, this exemption has its ramifications as well: Man does not discover knowledge from reality; instead, he absorbs it via revelatory transmissions from the ruling consciousness, the contents of which man's mind is said to be impotent in regards to attaining by his own efforts, which again is a denial of the identity of man's consciousness.

That knowledge is hierarchical in nature is simple to demonstrate. For how can one claim proficiency in differential calculus unless he grasps the fundamental arithmetic principles which tell us that, all units presumed to be equal, 2+2=4? The principle that knowledge is by nature hierarchical is inescapable in all of man's cognition (i.e., epistemologically) and action (i.e., morally), and must be integrated into any rationally defined philosophy. To form a sentence presupposes that one has already formed some concepts. To drive one's aunt and uncle to the airport presupposes that one knows how to drive. To choose whether to pursue a degree in journalism or to go to work as a journeyman presupposes a set of values which guide one's choices and actions. Indeed, the very structure of logical argument models this hierarchical nature of knowledge in keenly explicit forms called syllogisms, which display the process of validating new knowledge from previously validated knowledge.

What does all this suggest? It suggests, as hierarchies do, that all knowledge presupposes a cognitive starting point; without a starting point, we have an infinite regress and knowledge has no anchor. Consequently, any philosophy which attempts any seriousness in the realm of epistemology (i.e., the branch which studies the nature of knowledge and its validation), should be able to answer the question: What is the starting point of knowledge? In other words, what is cognitively fundamental, irreducible and inescapable?

According to Christianity, the notion of God allegedly fulfills the role of philosophical starting point, both metaphysically and epistemologically. But what is God? Can 'God' be defined? How does one (allegedly) gain awareness of God? Is there only one God, or are there many? How is the notion 'God' distinguishable from one's imaginations? What implications does the notion 'God' have for one's knowledge hierarchy? How are one's basic assumptions, principles, and conclusions reducible to the notion 'God'? How is one's answers to such questions testable, if at all they can be? And how does one know this God?

According to the Bible, which is said to be the "Word of God," and therefore a good place to seek answers to such questions, we find that the assertion that God fulfills the role of cognitive starting point is misguided. For we read in Proverbs 1:7 that "fear of God is the beginning of knowledge." And here we find that it is not God itself which is the fulcrum of knowledge as such, but an emotion stimulated by the very idea of God, which is self-referentially circular and conceptually fraudulent.

The fact that the Bible is explicit in its identification of fear as its cognitive starting point, we recognize by corollary that Christian epistemology is the epistemology of fear, as opposed to the epistemology of reason endorsed by Objectivism. What two criteria could be more incompatible than fear as opposed to reason? What two approaches to any issue in one's life can be more disparate and mutually exclusive?

An objective starting point?….

The apologist, perhaps sensing these problems internal to Christianity, attempts to get around them by claiming that the ultimate source of his knowledge is divine revelation, which precludes objectivity by preempting the role of perception in man's initial cognitive steps in forming his first philosophy (i.e., in determining essentials, the nature of existence, the nature of man, the nature of consciousness, the nature of knowledge, etc.). As a result, alleged historical events (e.g., the fall of Adam, worldwide flood, Abrahamic covenants, Mosaic stutterings, Levitical elitism, monarchical decrees, allegedly fulfilled prophecies, virgin births, resurrections, miraculous healings, etc.) are asserted as superior to the perceptual facts of reality as pertinent to the formation of a comprehensive view of life.

A pertinent example would be the story of the fall of man from grace as depicted in the book of Genesis. A historical event - the disobedience of God's commandment not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge - is thought to have resulted in forever changing the nature of man on earth. A historical event, then, is considered to hold primacy over the facts of reality, for by one event the inherent nature of all men is said to be irrevocably influenced. Never mind the fact that we discover how men can be rational, goal-oriented and value-producing individuals in spite of the corrupt nature Christians ascribe to all men in toto.

Some apologists are quite open about this, though in a philosophically unself-conscious manner. For instance, one source states that

Such statements summarily imply that we should consider events alleged to have historical verity to have profound, doctrine-forming, implications for one's philosophy. From these alleged historical events, once accepted as genuine knowledge, one's ideas about reality should change in a profoundly fundamental sense; as some might say, history should be interpreted according to certain theistic presuppositions.

For instance, a man walked the earth in the first century, was claimed to have performed many miracles, including changing water into wine (John 2:1-11), walking on water (Matt. 14:22-33 et al.), feeding 5,000 people with only five loaves of bread and two fish (Matt. 14:13-21, et al.), healing blind men (Matt. 9:27-31 et al.), and raising himself after his government-ordered execution (Matt. 28:1-10, et al.). The number of assumptions (or "presuppositions") underlying the acceptance of such allegations is staggeringly enormous, and virtually no attention is given to identifying precisely what those assumptions are in explicit terms of principle, or to integrating those assumptions into a noncontradictory whole. Philosophy which bases itself on alleged historic events rather than on the universally and perceptually accessible facts of reality (which must be assumed implicitly in the acceptance of such allegations to begin with) has much to account for, but precious little means to do so, for its conclusions are essentially equivalent to its unargued premises.

This method of conforming one's religious principles and conclusions to a set of presuppositions assuming the verity of alleged historical events, events which are supposedly evidence of God's breaking into history and making himself known to men, has implications throughout philosophy. Since according to Christian doctrine men must learn of moral truths by divine revelation (e.g., God delivers the stone tablets with the 10 Commandments written on them to Moses), it is the alleged history of the deliverance of such revelation to a select group of men which holds primacy in matters of determining what is good for man and what is not good for him.

For instance, it does not matter that the facts of reality tell us that ingesting poison will make men ill or even kill them; Jesus tells us (Mark 16) that if believers "drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them." Thus, if we are to believe as a Christian, then we must ignore and negate the context of reality in our assessment of what is good. The facts of reality also tell us that when men die, they remain dead. It is an understatement of biblical proportions to say that this fact has a dramatic influence on the development of a theory of morality for man. But one gospel account claims that upon Jesus' death "the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves…, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." (Matt. 27:52-53) So according to this source, death may very well be an illusion, or a transition to another form of existence. One can accept this as "knowledge" only by ignoring the facts of reality and preferring instead to base one's views on faith.

In contradistinction to this view of philosophy, Objectivism holds true regardless of what historical events have taken place, alleged or actual. For no matter whatever event has occurred or when - 20, 200 or 2000 years ago, it is still an undeniable, fundamental fact that existence exists, that to exist is to be something (i.e., that existence is identity), that consciousness is not the creator of reality, but a perceiver of the objects which exist, that consciousness has an objective identity and that man's reason requires that he begin with the perceptually self-evident facts of reality in order to acquire knowledge of reality. These facts, which form the basis of the philosophy of reason, are not dependent upon the legitimacy of some claimed historical event. On the contrary, Objectivism recognizes that one cannot even begin to comprehend historical claims without taking these facts at least implicitly for granted, and that they must be assumed in the assertion of any other alleged starting points.

The insistence that alleged historical events should hold priority over the facts of reality which are available to man through his own perception and reasoning, amounts to the view that the only proper philosophy is that which is acquired secondhand (or third- and fourth-hand). That secondhand (or further removed) allegations and stories should hold primacy over those facts which are presently available to man through his perception means that he must be willing to abandon his own reasoning in order to accept what he's been told is true. Thus, reason is jettisoned in favor of faith, and irrationality is embraced in reason's place.

Any philosophical code assumes some understanding, either implicit or explicit, of man's relationship to that code. This relationship is inferred in answer to fundamental questions such as, Does man need philosophy? and If man does need philosophy, why does he need it? How such questions are answered by a particular view of reality has a dramatic impact on one's use for philosophy and consequently on its relationship to his life.

In the case of a philosophic code which from its root-level foundations subordinates man to a presumably higher form of consciousness (e.g., a ruling consciousness), such as Christianity, what is the relationship between the code those who subscribe to it (i.e., believers) already implicit from the beginning? If the ruling consciousness is the author of one's code of philosophy, and one's philosophic code holds that man must serve the ruling consciousness, is it not also implied that the philosophic code in question rules its practitioners (i.e., believers)? This certainly appears to be the case with Christianity, for not only is the ruling consciousness itself not to be questioned, but also its judgments, decrees and injunctions are not to be questioned either. Obedience to the ruling consciousness' judgments, decrees and injunctions (i.e., its philosophic code) is a primary form of honoring and worshipping the ruling consciousness proper. After all, since the ruling consciousness is presumably the author of the code, that code is consequently worthy of unfailing obedience.

Moving along in our side-by-side comparison of Christianity with Objectivism, we come to the question of what is the nature and source of knowledge. Of course, when considering such questions as what is the nature and source of knowledge, an obvious question which is often overlooked and unattended is the question, Knowledge of what? For Objectivism, knowledge is knowledge of reality, or, knowledge of existence. By addressing such a question from the outset, we recognize the object of our epistemological pursuits, in this case the facts of reality themselves, and this in turn helps us identify the nature of that knowledge and how we come to know it.

It is unlikely that seasoned apologists for religious philosophies will claim that the object of their knowledge is the unreal or the non-existent. So when pressed on such matters, it is anticipated that the apologist will also claim that his knowledge is, like the Objectivist's, knowledge of reality as well (though I have not seen this stated by defenders of theistic philosophies myself). This then brings us to the question of what the religious believer considers to be reality, how 'reality' is defined, and by what means it is discovered and identified. But already above we saw that the theist holds reality to be a creation, that reality is created by a form of consciousness, since existence according to Christianity (and its theistic cousins) finds its source in a form of consciousness. Thus, for the Christian, if reality is a creation of God, then knowledge is invention, not identification. And the unraveling (I dare say evolution) of this invented knowledge is the task of theology proper (and my how it has evolved!). For "ultimate knowledge," claim many apologists, is knowledge of God, and, as we discover through Objectivism, God is the creation of men, not the other way around (hence so many fractious internal debates within close religious quarters causing division and evasion among even creed-driven religious institutions).

If, for instance, what an individual seeks to determine is the distance between two planetary bodies (the what of his epistemological quest), he naturally must employ a means which will enable him to discover this, such as a telescope (i.e., a means of amplifying his means of perception - the how of cognition - by means of technology). Thus, the Objectivist view of knowledge is completely consistent with its view of reality, that existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness, that existence does not bend to satisfy our desires and whims.

In the case of religion, however, the means of acquiring knowledge commits a reversal of objectivity, just as its view of reality is a reversal of metaphysical Objectivism.

Role of the senses and the mystics' denial of it: see Branden, "The Stolen Concept."

Thinkers through the ages have often pondered on what constitutes the proper source of man's knowledge. When philosophers entertain the question of what is the proper source of knowledge, the crucial question which should be addressed is: knowledge of what?

Reality as the source of the Objectivist's knowledge

Reason as one's means of acquiring and validating knowledge; whose method is logic.

Conversely, in Christianity the individual's alleged "means of knowledge" is mysticism, whose method is faith.

For proving and validating claims, the theist appeals to threats or to apologetic treatments, such as "evidential" or "transcendental arguments," which are no more arguments whose task it is to establish the truth of some allegation than they are means of assaulting non-believers' mentalities and "persuading" them to consider such assaults as philosophically valid.

The philosophical discipline of ethics or morality (I use these terms interchangeably) is the field of study which determines what the individual should do. The approach to this area of concern assumed by Christianity differs radically from that identified by Objectivism. However, no matter their differences, both Christian and Objectivist morality depend on the principles and conclusions assumed in the prior areas of philosophy, namely metaphysics (a view of reality) and epistemology (the study of knowledge), as indicated above.

In the field of metaphysics, before moral principles have been defined, the identification of the nature of man - what he is and what his capabilities are - is of crucial concern to the field of morality. If, for instance, man is said to be inherently immoral, as Christianity essentially holds (in fact, Calvinist interpretations hold that man is "totally depraved" by nature), then the task of morality is consequently inferred to be corrective in nature, and thus prohibitive in content. And this is precisely what we find in many of the Bible's commandments which men are expected to obey. For every "thou shalt" commandment found in the Bible, there are probably two or more "thou shalt not" commandments. Injunctions against certain acts, practices and forms of behavior litter the pages of the Bible.

See Introductory Treatise on Morality.

The unit of politics: in Objectivism - the individual and his right to exist for his own sake. In Christianity - the church hierarchy and the laity - i.e., a collective of sheep. The Bible itself refers to its believers as sheep, and to non-believers as wolves. [CITE] However, neither sheep nor wolves are men.

Re: Politics - Collectivism vs. Individualism

Individualism is the political expression of the morality of rational self-interest.

Re: Christianity as implicitly collectivistic.

As one believer wrote to me, "There are two kingdoms, only two. To not belong to one is automatically to belong to the other."

This false dichotomy is philosophically incompatible with the politics of individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, and compatible only with a collectivistic view of politics.

Individualism is incompatible with *any kind* of monarchical form of political institution. The Bible never questions the validity of the notion of monarchical rule over men, just as it does not question the validity of the politics of collectivism.

America was founded on the philosophical repudiation of the so-called "divine right of kings." There were a number of contradictions offered in the early American founders' arguments against the monarchical forms of government and in the alternative they designed.

Objectivism avoids the contradictions and fallacies of the early founders by defining an objective foundation for its political philosophy. That foundation consists of the metaphysical, epistemological and moral premises undergirding it.

All of these points and counterpoints, the religious and the Objectivist, follow as a matter of course from their respective premises and fundamental view of existence. Hence the apologist will claim that his presuppositional beliefs exhibit a consistency unknown to non-believers, for indeed he is as consistent as he dare can be to the primacy of consciousness roots of his god-belief. For not only does he proceed philosophically on the assumption that presumed knowledge equals valid knowledge (as if consciousness could dictate at whim what standard knowledge should presume), he proceeds apologetically on the assumption that persuading others of his god-belief claims can substitute for proof of those claims; that so long as others accept his claims, he must be arguing efficiently to the truth.

In conclusion, we can see from the foregoing that the philosophies of Christianity, as informed by their biblical sources, and Objectivism, the Philosophy of Reason, are fundamentally and diametrically opposed throughout their respective stages and doctrines.