The Arbitrary

To all of you responding to the resident deist:

Propositions fall into one of three categories:

1. The True - These correspond to reality and thus can be supported by facts.
2. The False - These do not correspond to reality and thus can be refuted by facts.
3. The Arbitrary - These bear no relation to reality whatsoever.

The arbitrary is not merely an assertion offered without supporting facts. It is an assertion, which by its nature, can never be supported or contradicted by any facts. It is to this category that the deist’s position belongs. He asserts without evidence, i.e. he takes on faith, that volition is unknowable by science -- then asserts that same belief as justification for faith. This amounts to saying that he has faith in faith. It doesn’t get any more arbitrary than this.

There will never be any fact of reality that contradicts or supports the notion that one can have faith in faith -- because such a notion has nothing to do with reality. It is important to understand that beneath all of the deist’s evasions, equivocations, circumlocutions, switches, context dropping and rationalizations, there is only a zero -- a void. An arbitrary proposition is a nothing -- it is literally as if “nothing has been said”. It merits no response, for there is nothing to respond to.

You cannot prove a negative -- however, you can refute arguments offered in support of an alleged positive. But the arbitrary offers nothing to refute. It does not belong in the category of “possible, therefore debatable.”

The persistent purveyor of the arbitrary seeks neither to learn nor to teach, but rather to frustrate and obfuscate. He participates in a forum such as this because you respond to him; you help maintain the illusion that his position is reasonable and deserves to be considered in a rational exchange of views. But it isn’t -- and it doesn’t.

Post 1

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 7:42pm

The persistent purveyor of the arbitrary seeks neither to learn nor to teach, but rather to frustrate and obfuscate. He participates in a forum such as this because you respond to him;

I agree with everything you said, up until this point. You have no idea what the motives are of this individual. I tend to think he's honest, but confused -- like the other 99% of everyone on Earth, on these issues.

Sincerely,

Craig Haynie

Post 2

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 5:08am

Craig,

I believe your benevolence in this case is misplaced. I agree with you that many people are confused on the faith versus reason issue -- though it would be more correct to say that many people seek to evade it altogether. But to come down squarely on the side of faith is to come down squarely against persuasion -- if faith is valid, everyone's beliefs are equally valid (or invalid) and there is no basis for persuasion. If the motive is not persuasion, i.e. “neither to learn nor to teach", then what is the motive?

There is no such thing as an innocent, spirited defense of the catholic religion. "There is no honest revolt against reason."

Post 3

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 8:59am

I believe your benevolence in this case is misplaced. I agree with you that many people are confused on the faith versus reason issue -- though it would be more correct to say that many people seek to evade it altogether. But to come down squarely on the side of faith is to come down squarely against persuasion -- if faith is valid, everyone's beliefs are equally valid (or invalid) and there is no basis for persuasion. If the motive is not persuasion, i.e. “neither to learn nor to teach", then what is the motive?

I understand your argument, but respectfully disagree. Most people who believe in faith cannot see the connection to persuasion.

"There is no honest revolt against reason."

Do you really think that the vast majority of the world, including 350 million catholics, and hundreds of millions of other followers of Faith, are dishonest? I think they just evade. They are busy living their lives -- not thinking about philosophy.

More to the arguments of Citizen Rat. He's basically saying that he doesn't understand why he's conscious, and because science cannot explain it, this leaves the door open to other ideas, which are unexplainable, being discovered true. I agree with you that reason is our only means of knowledge, and that the idea of God is not just lacking in evidence, but is defined 'out of existence'. Nevertheless, there are those that do not believe in Reason, and all that implies. Someone drawing from different premises will draw different conclusions. To them, our axioms are not clear, but I don't know how to convince them. It is an epistemological problem because they need to be shown why Reason is valid; how it never lies and never evades; how you can't just 'make stuff up' because you dont understand something. But I don't think they're dishonest.

Sincerely,

Craig Haynie (Houston)

Post 4

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 11:48am

Evasion is being dishonest with yourself. Yes, a large number of the billions of religious people in this world are dishonest -- the ones in first world countries who can and should know better and do willfully evade the truth.

Post 5

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 12:34pm

Evasion is being dishonest with yourself.

If you are evading an issue, then when do you become conscious of the dishonesty? Am I making sense? Evasion is a terrible practice with potentially terrible consequences, but the word 'dishonest' implies intent. A person whom is evading an issue, is not intending to do anything. That would require thought and action, which he is evading.

Craig

Post 6

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 1:08pm

Craig, please see Evasion from the Objectivism 101 section of this site. Of course Evasion is willful and intentional, otherwise it wouldn't be immoral. If it weren't intentional, then whatever it is would be an error, and not the basis of evil for our entire ethical system. An evasion is basically someone saying to themselves, "Oh, I don't want to deal with that, it's too hard to think about."

Post 7

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 1:51pm

Look at volition, not as a fork in the road, a choice between two paths labeled Thinking and Evading, but as the exercise of the will to consciousness--a pushing forward into unknown space with the required intensity. One subconsciously knows what is required by a given situation, and one subconsciously knows when one is not giving enough. (Subconscious does not mean unconscious.)

Post 8

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 1:30pm

Well, let me dust-off the old Ayn Rand Lexicon:

"Thinking is man's only vasic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness, the refusal to think -- not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. ..." -- Galt's Speech

Hmm... You leave me with an interesting problem. I'll concede the Objectivist definition of evasion. And I can see that it's willful. People will blow-off an issue, rather than think-through all the ramifications of its consequences, and you're probably right -- they probably do this intentionally. But I still don't see how this leads to dishonesty. Most of the great number of people who evade these issues in the world, believe that they are moral, honest people. How can I speak for them? I can't, but isn't it speculation to assume that if they don't think-though the consequences of their conscious and subconscious ideas, that they do this with the intentional act to deceive? If this is what you think, then I have to disgree. These people do not know that they are lying to themselves. They probably think that -- somehow -- the logic would all be there, if they bothered to think it through. Evasion, OK. But dishonesty? I still don't see it guys.

Sincerely,

Craig Haynie (Houston)

Post 9

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 3:11pm

They are deceiving themselves, as Jeff said. And that is wrong, because they are not acting in their own self-interest.

I tend to agree with Nathaniel Branden that, often, the word "immoral" is too strong. Rand was speaking in terms of universal principles and her strong condemnation certainly applies to idea of evasion as such, and to the extreme exponents of it. But not to all the ordinary evasions people succumb to. That is, evasion is immoral in that it is willful and self-destructive. But that does not mean most people are monsters. Rather, they give in to fear and confusion, often due to preexisting psychological problems, many of them engendered by lack of brain power to combat irrational doctrines such as Christianity and religion in general.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 4/23, 3:39pm)

Post 10

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 3:27pm

They are deceiving themselves, as Jeff said. And that is wrong, because they are not acting in their own self-interest.

One more question: Do you think they KNOW that they are deceiving themselves?

Craig

Post 11

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 3:58pm

On the level of that subconscious awareness, yes. This impulse to engage the world mentally is the basic life force as expressed in human nature.

Post 12

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 5:40pm

Nevertheless, there are those that do not believe in Reason, and all that implies. Someone drawing from different premises will draw different conclusions. To them, our axioms are not clear, but I don't know how to convince them. It is an epistemological problem because they need to be shown why Reason is valid; how it never lies and never evades; how you can't just 'make stuff up' because you dont understand something. But I don't think they're dishonest.

Craig, Citizen Rat is not neutral on the issue of faith versus reason. He is not saying, "I don't know which is valid-- please persuade me one way or the other." Such a position would be bad enough, for it would amount to the demand that one prove the validity of reason by some means other than reason.

Rather, he is asserting the positive position that faith is valid. Forget for a moment the purported justification -- namely, that since volition is unknowable by science, anything goes. That is merely camouflage. The important thing is that faith is the conscious, willful decision to suspend reason -- and it has only one possible motivation: the desire to indulge something reason would not permit.

The indulgence may simply be a desire to avoid confrontation with a loved one who is religious. Or, to avoid a confrontation with a co-worker or superior. Or to seek a kind of “social metaphysical” cover that the church’s approval provides. In the case of Citizen Rat, it is more advanced. He is an intelligent, skillful, articulate and dedicated evader, equivocator and apologists for the whole corrupt institution of the catholic church.

An honest desire will always withstand the scrutiny of reason. A dishonest desire will always seek to escape it.

Now, let me go on record as saying that I can think of no viler an evil than the effort to make the catholic religion “palatable” to children.

For the kids out there: The Eucharist (or communion, as it is sometimes known) is a re-creation of the Last Supper, which Catholics celebrate at every mass. Some people who .....

It is one thing to wreck your own mind by swallowing the poison pill of faith -- it is another whole category of crime to do it to children.

Post 13

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 5:58pm

Now, let me go on record as saying that I can think of no viler an evil than the effort to make the catholic religion “palatable” to children.

I know some very good people who are Catholics. Evade, yes. Immoral (by definition), yes. Dishonest, no.

I want to tell you all this: I discovered Ayn Rand, seriously, when I was 27. It was then that I read everything that she had written, (with the exception of the Fountainhead). It took me a full 10 years to work through all the BASIC arguments. To some of you, this may be an easy process. To me, it definitely was not. I am now 44.

Give Citizen Rat the benefit of the doubt. He's making an effort here. I doubt he's doing it for some destructive reason. He's searching. Give him 10 years, and let's see where he's at. That's how I take it. It's due to my own experience that I don't fault someone's intent. Philosophy is very complex.

Now, if you guys want a forum where only Objectivists are allowed, then I understand doing that. However, if you want outside opinions, then Citizen Rat is going about it the right way.

Sincerely,

Craig Haynie

Post 14

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 6:42pm

[Edited away as too speculative.] I do give Citizen the benefit of the doubt. Hope I get around to dealing with the metaphysical split he posits.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 4/25, 4:40pm)

Post 15

Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 6:31am

Craig:

Give Citizen Rat the benefit of the doubt. He's making an effort here. I doubt he's doing it for some destructive reason.

Can you give me a constructive reason for suspending reason?

Post 16

Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 10:01am

Can you give me a constructive reason for suspending reason?

No, but I believe, (at least for me), that reason takes much more time than you think to work-through all the loose ends, when an idea is presented. What you see as 'reason in suspense', is more likely, 'reason in process'.

I was a devout Christian when I read Ayn Rand back in 1987. There were a lot of things that had to be reconciled. I've seen things that I thought were miracles, work. When I was fifteen, I broke my arm. But I was a devout Christian, and knowing, (at the time), that Christ could heal me if I had faith, I KNEW that he had done this when I went back to see the doctor. I had determined that I was going to DEMAND that he take another x-ray of my arm, and when he did, it could be clearly seen that my arm was healed and it blew the doctor away. Within one week, I went from having a broken arm to being completely healed. He took the cast off and there was no problem, and the x-ray he had taken a week earlier clearly showed the break, along with the new x-ray which did not. At the time, it didn't surprise me at all, because I had faith, but it clearly surprised him, and my parents.

So how do I reconcile this? I can't. It took a while for me to realize that whatever happened, does not, and cannot, disqualify the only tool we have to acquire knowledge here on Earth -- Reason. That, if we want to live, we cannot use faith. We can't simply 'believe' that the speeding car won't hit us, while we stand in front of it. That whatever happened in my past, was an anomaly that probably has another scientific explanation. There are billions of people in the world. Extraordinary coincidences will happen with some of them. Perhaps the doctor mixed up the original x-ray with that of someone else, and my prayer and faith were simply coincidences of the moment. I will never know. But it takes a lot of time to reevaluate associations you've made in the past with new information -- especially new information which will completely change your life, and your view of the Universe.

I'm not saying that non-Objectivists should be tolerated in this forum. But I don't believe they're necessarily dishonest when they don't adopt reasonable conclusions as quickly as you'd like. If, back in 1987, when I first read Ayn Rand, if I had then thrown away all my prior beliefs in faith and God, then I would have been left with contradictions in my experience that I could not explain. For me it took years to work them out.

Sincerely,

Craig Haynie

Post 17

Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 4:38pm

Craig, you are to be congratulated on the effort that you undertook to understand Objectivism, especially given your starting point

I believe the essence of our disagreement involves the moral status of evasion. Is there such a thing as evasion that is honest, i.e. that is merely an error of knowledge -- or is it inherently dishonest?

To concretize the issue, consider the following two Rat posts. You see them as "reason in process" or "an attempt to reconcile contradictions" and "work things out", a process that only needs additional time to reach the proper conclusion -- whereas I say they are a conscious, deliberate attempt to misrepresent and twist Objectivism for the purpose of getting away with the idea that faith is valid.

I studied Objectivism in depth several years ago. Initially I accepted at face value that Objectivism was not a materialist philosophy. I even let myself be satisfied with Peikoff’s limp denial of materialism in OPAR. But I could not square volition with causation, and I began to sense that Objectivism’s metaphysical schizophrenia was rooted in denying any aspect of reality that did not preclude the possibility of the divine. In other words Objectivism twisted itself whichever way necessary to safeguard its atheistic conclusions, and it was this twisting that made Objectivism materialistic – despite the intentions of its authors, Rand and Peikoff.

While Rand and Peikoff have had the sense to denounce materialism, they have pointed Objectivism toward the materialist abyss by a gratuitous metaphysical denial of God. To maintain the logic of this gratuitous denial, they have confined Objectivist reality to the tidy confines of matter and mechanics, in which science can ultimately explain all. Unfortunately, this is the black hole of materialism from which Objectivism cannot turn itself away from no matter how vociferously Objectivists deny that is the direction it is headed in. Therefore, Objectivism is a nihilist project.

I fully agree that he is "making an effort". I see no way to view it as innocent.

Post 18

Monday, April 26, 2004 - 9:17pm

1. The True - These correspond to reality and thus can be supported by facts.
2. The False - These do not correspond to reality and thus can be refuted by facts.
3. The Arbitrary - These bear no relation to reality whatsoever.

Michael Smith.

I'm a new student of Objectivism, and I'm having trouble with the notion that atheism/agnosticism are the only reasonable alternatives acceptable to people.
You mention that believing in a "God" is arbitary, and this has no relation to reality whatsoever....but how is it more reasonable to assume either no God or doubt over a God, ie, we are entitled to ask what created the universe, and science doesn't have the answers, so it hardly seems that crazy to me at least to assume something must have created it.

As for no relation to reality, the creator would be responsible for reality, reality is the evidence.
It would seem to me that the two most logical positions would be either agnosticism or belief, with atheism being the odd man out.
FTR, I'm someone who rejects organized religions and wasn't indoctrinated by them...I'm simply curious about the origin of the universe and I'm looking for both logical and epistemological certainty with this issue.

Post 19

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 6:41am