Friendly Atheism

[mcc1789]

Can you explain why? I'm not very familiar with Objectivism. Others here likely aren't either.

Hi,

If an idea contradicts a fact of reality, then that idea is false because contradictions cannot exist.  If it's false then to believe it is irrational.  The primacy of existence principle identifies a fundamental truth, that of the relationship between consciousness and its objects.  This relationship is the most basic issue in philosophy and it is both knowable by direct perception and it is rationally undeniable.  This relationship is also contextually fixed, in that the subject and object cannot change places.  One would have to accept it's truth in order to try and deny it.  In denying its truth, one would be tacitly relying on its truth. That's because anyone who makes any statement of fact is implicitly saying that the state of affairs, in reality, is this, independent of anyone's ideas to the contrary.   To deny it would be to contradict one's self; the primacy of existence is false independent of anyone's ideas to the contrary. You see?

This principle lies at the root of all knowledge, whether one identifies it explicitly, as Objectivism does, or if it remains only implicit.  It is a primary and inescapable fact of reality.  It's also known as the principle of objectivity.  It's the root of the concept objectivity.  

Now, what does it say?  The objects of consciousness exist and are what they are and do what they do independent of anyone's conscious activity.  Objects are the things we are aware of and the subject is any conscientiousness that is aware of them.  That's a fancy way of saying that wishing doesn't make things so, i.e.,  Consciousness is metaphysically passive.

Now reason, being a kind of conscious activity, identifies the facts, it doesn't create them or alter them.  The five dollar bill in your wallet with remain a five dollar bill no matter how much you scrunch your eyes tight and believe that it will turn into a hundred dollar bill.  Facts are absolutes that don't care about your feelings. Therefore reason presupposes the primacy of existence and is incompatible with the primacy of consciousness. Those who hold that the subject of consciousness holds primacy over its objects, such as every version of theism I've ever heard about, reverse this relationship. They hold that consciousness has primacy over existence, the subject holds primacy over its objects. Therefore they hold that in essence, wishing does make it so, e.g., "If ye have the faith (a type of conscious activity) of a mustard seed, ye can say to the mountain (an object) move from there to over there and the mountain will move and nothing will be impossible to you."  Matthew 17:20.

Well, that's the bare bones, I hope it helps.  For a further explanation do a google search for David Kelley primacy of existence.

Very interesting. I believe the theist would agree (in most cases) they're independent of our consciousness, though not God's. Of course I've also heard of philosophical idealism which apparently can take a non-theistic form and also holds the contrary view (like some New Age and Eastern ideas). How would you answer them saying that, while it may be true any person who states "this is a fact" relies on there being an objective reality, it does not apply to God (in their view, the only fully existent thing)? That is, there's nothing wholly independent of God and what he wills (everything apart owes its existence to him, they say)? Or what of a skeptic, who might simply deny we know any facts?

---

The primacy of existence is false independent of anyone's ideas to the contrary.  

 
(This is a typo that's supposed to say "true" instead of "false".....? Or maybe I'm confused....?)

That's a fancy way of saying that wishing doesn't make things so, i.e.,  Consciousness is metaphysically passive.

I'm on board with most of this. I see no reason to doubt that there is stuff "out there." Things exist independent of me, don't need my consciousness, will continue to exist when I'm gone, etc.

I think I'd dissent, though, on the idea that consciousness is passive. I don't think we evolved to perceive the world passively. Our sense organs receive input (e.g. light or sound) passively, but our minds edit and interpret all of that before we are even aware of it. This had evolutionary advantage in that we automatically picked out from the environment the things that were more important for us. 

As a simple example, when you meet a friend you are far more aware of his face than of his thigh. His thigh is bigger, so if consciousness were passive it would loom larger in our awareness. But the face contains the information we are interested in, so we focus on that and pretty much ignore the thigh. 

This doesn't mean that thighs don't exist, or that our minds "create" stuff in the world. Just that our relationship to that stuff isn't passive. 

Those who hold that the subject of consciousness holds primacy over its objects, such as every version of theism I've ever heard about, reverse this relationship. 

This I'm not seeing yet.....

In what way does every version of theism hold that consciousness is primary? Is it because God is said to be conscious? I don't understand. 

They hold that consciousness has primacy over existence, the subject holds primacy over its objects. Therefore they hold that in essence, wishing does make it so, e.g., "If ye have the faith (a type of conscious activity) of a mustard seed, ye can say to the mountain (an object) move from there to over there and the mountain will move and nothing will be impossible to you."  Matthew 17:20.

The idea that faith, or prayer, can perform acts on objects is doubtful, I agree. But I don't see why mental stuff influencing matter would mean that consciousness is primary over existence. 

It doesn't seem right to me that in every case if X can influence or change Y, then X is in some way has "primacy" over Y. 

If your kids scream loudly enough, they can make you do something. But in what way do they have "primacy" over you? Not temporal primacy, because of course you came before your kids. There may be a power struggle, in which there are different winners at different times, but how does this establish some kind of metaphysical "primacy"? 

Objects are objects, and ESP, telekinesis, etc., are myths. That's fair. But I don't get the rest of the metaphysical claims here......

In regards to theism and consciousness, I believe this is because it teaches that God's mind is behind all things, not a non-conscious whatever.