Life as the Ultimate Value

Continuing a discussion on a recent article of mine, here is my reply to one of the commenters on that article. Because my reply is so long and explains in detail the Objectivist theory of rational values and life as the ultimate value, and refutes any alternative notions, I thought it would be helpful to display it here in a blog of its own:

Martin’s comments are in italic and bold:

Evanescent you are repeating yourself, saying nothing new and failing to answer the questions and avoiding them instead. I will analyze your last comment one more time and list the question for actual answer rather than avoidance.

Just because you refuse to accept the answers I give doesn’t mean I am avoiding anything.

Incidentally, you, like your anti-objectivist kin, have yet to answer the challenges that I have presented. Namely: name an ultimate value other than life (since I proved that there MUST be one), and: state your own objective moral system and justify it philosophically from reality.

I am still waiting.

“Life is the ultimate value because there is none higher - life makes value possible.”

This is the genetic fallacy. Just because life is the cause of value does not mean it is value. Alonzo made an equivalent argument over the existence of value versus the value of value.

Objectivist definition of value: that which one acts to keep and/or gain.

Does one act to keep and/or gain life? Yes. Therefore life is a VALUE.

Q1: Now please answer and try to refute either what I or Alonzo said.

“There is only one “ultimate” value, by definition, and because life is an end in itself.”

If a value is an end in itself - the other meaning of intrinsic BTW.

You are wrong here. An end in itself does NOT mean intrinsic, it means that it is not a means to any other end.

Intrinsic (in the case of value) means that something is a value in and of itself, without reference to a valuer. Life is NOT a value in itself and Objectivist doesn’t claim that it is. It does claim that life is a value to the VALUER. It does not claim that human life is sacred, or precious in and of itself. What it DOES claim is that a human being’s life is a value to HIMSELF/HERSELF.

…(versus a value that is a means instrumental), then there is no “by definition” that there is only one such value. Q2: Where is your argument that this is singular? Q3: What is the meaning of an ultimate value if it is not intrinsic? Do you just mean an end in itself?

Already answered in my paragraph above.

As Ergo and I have already proven, there must be an ultimate value for philosophical and logical reasons that is an end in itself. You haven’t actually rejected this I don’t think, since you recognise the epistemological nihilism that would await you, therefore I assume you accept it; you just deny that life is the ultimate value. However, it necessarily is, and it necessarily is the ONLY ultimate value for the reasons argued above.

“Nothing else is an end in itself. Further up, I challenged anyone to disagree with this by providing an example of something else that IS an end in itself. This challenge remains unmet.”

This challenge has been repeatedly met. A desire to avoid pain, a desire for happiness, a desire to avoid predators, a desire for food, a desire for drink, a desire for sex. These are all ends in themselves.

How can you not realise the absurdity of your own statements?

Why do you DESIRE these things? Why is happiness a value to you? Why is food, drink, sex, a value to you??

These are self-evidently NOT values in themselves. You eat because you ENJOY food, and pleasure makes life worth living. You eat because otherwise you will die. You eat ultimately because you are pursuing your LIFE. Eating is a means to an end. All forms of recreation are a means to an end. Food and drink are a means to an end.

To ultimately destroy this argument of yours, I will use another analogy using “food” and “drink”. Imagine you are immortal (like a vampire or something) and you don’t need to eat or drink at all – of what value would food and drink be to you then? None.

Imagine you didn’t care if you enjoyed your mortal life or not. Of what benefit would tasty food, good friends, great sex, be to you? None. Zero. They would be valueless.

Everything you can possibly think of is only a value to you in the context of enjoying your LIFE and furthering your LIFE. They are of NO value outside of this context. And it is this more than anything else that refutes everything you’ve said. More than just objective philosophy, this is just common sense. How can you fail to see that?

They are all relational values the value is in the relation between the desire and its fulfillment. Q4: Your “stealing the concept ” argument is invalid. How can you show these are not ends in themselves without breaking Occam’s Razor?

Occam’s razor is totally irrelevant here. For a start, O.R. doesn’t state that the simple-minded explanation is the best. First off, it has to ACTUALLY BE an explanation to begin with! Your suggestions for alternative “ends in themselves” explain nothing, contradict reality, and open more questions – therefore they are not parsimonious and in fact violate O.R.

“There are no rational “multiple ends” - this is logically self-evident.”

Empty rhetoric. Q5: Where is your argument that this is self-evident.

Every goal that you pursue, you do so with your life as the ultimate value. You might deny this but that’s irrelevant, as I’ve already shown it’s the case whether you realise it or not.

Example: to pursue multiple ends is contradictory: it is akin to smoking whilst having therapy for lung cancer (which of course some people do). This is irrational. If one wants to live, therapy is the answer, but smoking is inimical to human life. One might claim to be pursuing pleasure by smoking, but if one’s wishes to stay alive, the irrational pursuit of pleasure (or pain for that matter) is contradictory. Either you want or live or you don’t. If you do, don’t smoke. If you don’t, kill yourself immediately. There is no rational middle ground.

Incidentally, this AGAIN shows you that pursuing pleasure/pain CANNOT be an end in itself. IF it was, then one should pursue pleasure <i>for the sake of it</i>, which means one should take harmful drugs, rape girls for pleasure, steal money, hurt people if necessary etc etc – do WHATEVER brings happiness to you! Is this what you’re suggesting?? I doubt it, but if pleasure is an end in itself as YOU claim, this is the logical corollary.

I won’t labour this point further: it has well and truly been established: to avoid irrationality and contradictions, an ultimate goal/value is necessary.

Far from being “empty rhetoric” this is the objective rational basis of Objectivist morality. And if you think about it, this is probably how you live your life – so why do you deny it here?

“All values (or subvalues I should say in this context) as pursued because they ULTIMATELY either benefit your life or detract from your life.”

This is a beneficial side effect. We have evolved to have the desire-as-ends that we do as they enabled our ancestors to survive and reproduce and we are the result. No animal reasons nor is able to reason this way. As humans we can go further but only need to replace this as needed. Q6: The same argument is made by genetic biologists that the ultimate goal is successful reproduction. As far as I can see these are both abstractions. How can you refute the geneticists and show your is better than theirs?

Because Objectivism identifies man as a rational being, not as a mindless animal. How we evolved to become rational beings is really irrelevant. Evolution is NOT a prescription on morality, and you won’t find a single evolutionist who would claim that it is!

Objectivism recommends that a rational being pursue his own rational happiness in his life. Happiness is not to be found by pursuing arbitrary emotional or instinctive impulses, such as to eat, defecate, or fornicate wherever and whenever one wishes (like an animal would).

Evolutionists describe how life developed to the point it is. Philosophers attempt to answer the question: “how should man live his life? What is right or wrong?” These questions are NOT answered by evolution, and even Richard Dawkins would agree with me on this. Ayn Rand was a monumental philosopher because she answered these questions objectively, rationally, and derived them from existence itself.

“One cannot pursue rational values that conflict with this.”

Q7:Define rational values. I suggested means-end rationality but you appeared to reject this. Means-end rationality is about reasoning over means not ends.

A value is that which one acts to keep and/or gain. If it is non-contradictory with the hierarchy of one’s other values (which themselves are subordinate to life itself), the value is rational.

To use the earlier example, cigarettes are an irrational value.

“Even if you want to talk about “sub-ends”, the way we talk about subvalues, in other words, where one acheives or accomplishes something - even the acheival of this “end” is itself a means to another. The only way to avoid an infinite regress of “means” and “ends”, where all values and goals take place in a vacuum of arbitrary and random action - is to have an end that is an end in itself - something is not a means to anything else: life.”

Q8: Geneticists would disagree with this (see above). What do you say to them

Infinite regress can be also avoided with multiple desire-as-ends so this does not refute such a position.

As I have shown, multiple desires-as-ends do NOT exist, because they result in contradictory irrational behaviour.

To repeat: let’s say my smoking is a desire as an end in itself. Let’s also say that my wishing to avoid dying of lung cancer is a desire as an end in itself. Here we have multiple “ends” – notice the contradiction??

This is just one example, but it is impossible to name ANY “desires as ends” that either: do not conflict with each other, or: reduce ultimately to the pursuit of one’s life. This proves the point.

“Objectivism posits LIFE. What do YOU posit? What is YOUR philosophical alternative?”

You are implicitly equivocating over life. I post life too but this does not lead to Objectivism, that is the whole point. I am not presenting an alternative as such, I am saying that everyone seeks to fulfill the more and stronger of their desires.

You are correct that people seek to fulfil their desires, but that is because they DESIRE what they VALUE. And if you wish to live as a rational being, your values should be rationally chosen. Since I doubt you disagree with this, we can proceed to: desires in themselves are NOT guides to actions. Why? Because our desires and emotions are not always rational. Emotions are REACTIONS to the world, not descriptions of the world, therefore they are not reliable guides to what is good or bad for us. E.g.: I’m sure heroin feels amazing (I’ve never taken it) but it is not a rational value (desire) to pursue, because it is BAD for me; for my life; it is ultimately deleterious and potentially lethal.

If on the other hand, one pursues (or desires) rational values, then one’s means will never conflict with each other, or with one’s ultimate end: happiness (non-contradictory joy) in life.

“The examples that you mention, such as pursuit of happiness or avoidance of pain are YOU begging the question - you steal the concept of value into YOUR argument, but these are concepts that are epistemologically dependant on and derived from LIFE.”

Confusing instrumental again. Your are imposing an ad hoc rationalization

Q10: where is your logical or empirical argument that your approach is correct?

Already answered this.

“By even suggesting that you SHOULD desire to avoid pain, and SHOULD desire pleasure, you ASSUME that one already lives a life that makes such values or non-values possible, and that one is pursuing one’s life and happiness in such a way to avoid that which detracts from such life and seek that which benefits and aids such life! Which is exactly the Objectivism theory of rational values.”

There are no SHOULDS here. Once you have burned your hand in a flame you do not want to do so again. There is no should involved. Desires exist we are not arguing over having desire-as-ends people do not have have, only recognizing the desire-as-ends they do have and the implications of this. You are performing the same instrumental error as before. It does not matter how often you assert it this error will not just disappear without an argument.

I have dealt with the issue of “desires as ends” etc above.

“An ultimate value is actually philosophical necessary, and the fact that you would question this with “multiple desires-as-ends” is propesterous!”

Q11: How about making an argument as to why this is preposterous.

Already done above.

“Otherwise one would not act with any rational goals - one could eat healthy food one day and drink poison the next; why not, unless life was your value?”

Q12: What is a rational goal? This sounds very Kantian, I thought Rand did not like Kant.

Already explained rational goals above. There is nothing Kantian about this.

Q13: What is the logic that leads one to eat poison one day, certainly not the desire-as-ends already listed.

“One could be obnoxious and vicious one day and pleasant and mild the next; why not, unless you had an ultimate goal?”

One always has “ultimate goals”, which ones are activated depends on the situation. When you are thirsty you seek to satiate that thirst. When you are not thirsty you do not.

But if you were incapable of dying of thirst, you wouldn’t seek water! Water sustains life, therefore water is a value (a means) only because life is the ultimate value (an end).

However, life is a not a means to ANYTHING ELSE. One drinks in order to live, but one does not live in order to do anything else. Life simply is; it is metaphysically given.

“It should not even need to be spelled out that desires are NOT ends!”

To be accurate it is their fulfillments that are the ends.

As I’ve shown many times above, it is rational values that should be pursued, because they are consonant with life.

“If they were, I could desire to chop off my big toe, as an end in itself.”

Q14: Why would you want to do this?

Why would I NOT want to do this??? That’s the point!

You cannot answer that without begging the question. You’d have to answer that it would be painful. But when I’d ask: why avoid pain? And you’d answer: “avoiding pain is an end in itself, so avoid it for the hell of it.” And I’d answer: “well, pursuing pain is an end in itself, so I’ll chop off my big toe for the hell of it.”

“I could desire to shoot you in the head, or eat the bark of a tree, or masturbate on the street corner, or eat nothing but chocolate all day, FOR NO OTHER REASON that the desire itself.”

All these desires are possible and people have had and acted on them. Who is going to recommend and encourage them, rather they are to be condemned and discouraged?

You are begging the question: why should they be condemned rather than encouraged?? If they are ends in themselves they cannot be condemned on any grounds! If would take a foundation of higher value from which to judge an action not good or bad, because “good” and “bad” are terms that presuppose the question: “good or bad to whom??? To what??”

Again, Objectivism answers: life. You don’t answer anything, which means you have no grounds to condemn any action. That is yet another reason why “ends in themselves” is a meaningless bankrupt notion.

“But then we wouldn’t be talking about rational values! All desires are desires precisely because we believe we accomplish something by attaining them; by acheieving these values.”

Yea duh!. I am thirsty and I fulfill my desire for water by drinking water.

Because you want to LIVE.

“But this assumes that they are of VALUE TO SOMETHING, and beneficial TO SOMETHING… but to what??”

When I drink this satisfies me.

And when a paedophile rapes a kid he satisfies himself. Desires as ends, eh?

I’ll underline this because it’s important and the crux of the matter:

You cannot condemn the paedophile for pursuing his desires “as ends” because that would require you to posit something higher than “desires” as a guide for right and wrong. Objectivism can condemn the paedophile, because LIFE is the ultimate value and must be pursued rationally, therefore all desires are means to an end, which means they can be judged in relation to THAT END. But since you accept multiple desires as ends in themselves, you can no basis to judge anything.

“Objectivism answers: LIFE.”

Q15: So when you are thirsty you want a drink because it will save your life. If you don’t think it will save your life you will not drink?

Well, yeah! I drink water to live, just as I avoid poison in order to live. What alternative are you suggesting??

“A further example of the validity of the Objectivist philosophy is that it is impossible for you to provide two examples of rational values that one would pursue that ultimately conflict with each other.”

You need to define what a rational value is then we can see it is impossible or not.

Did this above.

Certainly desires can conflict and this leads to dilemmas, a subject of much philosophical analysis, partly because there can be rational support to both sides of certain dilemmas.

Ultimately, there cannot be rational support to both sides of a dilemma. That is like saying there is rational support for the propositions that the moon is made of cheese, and that is isn’t. In the end, the facts of reality always win out because reality does NOT contain or tolerate contradictions.

Morality also pertains to facts of reality, so there is always a right vs wrong; there is always a good vs bad, and there is always an irrational vs rational.

To suggest that two contradictory positions can be equally rational is illogical.

“All your philosophical attacks and positions are premised on a foundation of air (because you reject the notion of ultimate ends in themselves, a contradiction);”

This is false, no-one here rejects ultimate ends, it is just we have defined what we mean and you have not.

I had. And if I wasn’t clear before, I certainly have been with this post!

“…in fact, you have to assume Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology for yourself in order to attack it (the fallacy of concept stealing: because even your warped notion of values and ends presuppose Objectivism).”

This is a completely empty argument we have covered before. One does not need and can indeed reject Objectivist “metaphysics” and epistemology and make these arguments as we have all done here.

You can indeed reject Objectivism but you must still steal its concepts in order to make your arguments work. That is the point I am making.

I don’t think I could have been more detailed and complete in this post. I believe all your objections/questions/suggestions have been answered and refuted.

Objectivist Round-Up 32

OBJECTIVIST ROUNDUP # 32

Welcome to the 32nd Objectivist Round-up. I must apologise for the lateness of this week’s post; the time difference is always a factor. I will endeavour to post much earlier next time!

Rational Jenn presents “Freedom From Feds”

And says: “Many so-called “homeschool-friendly” politicians have been advocating a Homeschool Tax Credit to help families offset their education expenses. There are many homeschooling families who would like to take advantage of such a credit. I argue that since every homeschooling family in the US enjoys complete and utter freedom from federal government oversight of their educational choices, methods, hours, subjects, attendance, etc. that accepting such a tax credit would ultimately invite federal guidelines and regulations, undermining an unfortunately rare thing for US citizens–complete and utter freedom.”

Flibbert presents: “Gay Marriage: I’m still for it”

And says: “This week’s post was actually spawned by the discussion that Ari started with his carnival submission last week and it’s really a reprisal of arguments I’ve stated in the past, but it’s been a while since my blog has gone explicitly gay, so I figured it was time to trot out the gay marriage pony again. Now, if you do read this post, please be sure to read the second post I made in which I discuss a particular aspect of marriage unions that does not apply to other contractual agreements. This is important because I owe y’all a follow-up post to both of these to address some more challenging concerns that Qwertz has mentioned on his blog. (How’d you like that? I pimped not only two posts of my own in here but TWO other blogs as well. This is why I’m a marketing professional. Do not attempt this at home.)”

 

Stella at ReasonPharm presents: “ Want universal healthcare? Get ready to quit drinking”

“How government meddling in health care is leading, as it inevitably must, to government meddling in citizens’ lives in Britain.”

 

AriArmstrong presents: “A Fertilised Egg is not a person”

“Legally defining a fertilized egg as a person is a terrible idea, so of course Mike Huckabee endorsed it.”

 

Evanescent presents: “Free speech versus Respect”

And says: “Since freedom of speech is an undeniable necessary individual right, those who claim that it must be exercised with restraint are contradicting themselves – and are claiming illegitimate rights. “Limited free speech” is a contradiction in terms.”

 

Ergo at Leitmotif presents “The Right to Property”

Here’s a taster: “To live, man must use his mind in dealing with reality. He must therefore be permitted to act freely on the directions given by his mind, his reasoning faculty, in order to tackle the task of survival. This includes being left free to create, fabricate, invent, or procure by means of free trade property that he believes might help him in achieving his goal.”

 

Monica at Spark a Synapse presents “Welcome, my dears, to the noble art of divination”

And say: “This week, I delved into the fascination and entertainment of handwriting analysis. As it was eerily accurate for me and the SO, I’d love to hear what others knowing more than me have to say about it! I think most people would be surprised at its accuracy and the insights gained about personality and character, and I’m guessing it comes largely from the intelligence and police communities. A fun night of entertainment for sure. I also wrote another post this week that I almost included in the carnival instead, and I think it deserves a mention. It’s entitled, The Right to Eat Food. It’s about some of the disturbing intrusions of government into our food industry by the Food Safety Testing Peopleguys cracking down on small farmers that sell products directly to consumers. Our Government doesn’t like that and they want to stop it, with SWAT teams and guns if necessary. Yes, Your Government is preventing access not only to medicines and lightbulbs, but FOOD that is not available in any grocery store and in some cases, might save lives. It’s scary, it’s wacky, it’s wrong. BUT - the good news is that farmers are doing a great job of fighting for their rights. Read all about it!”

Thanks to all for some excellent articles. The next carnival is on March 6th. You can submit your article here.

Free Speech Versus Respect

“The Secretary-General strongly believes that freedom of expression should be exercised responsibly and in a way that respects all religious beliefs” – Marie Okabe, spokeswoman for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2038161020080220?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Two years ago the Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan: “believes that the freedom of the press should always be exercised in a way that fully respects the religious beliefs and tenets of all religions.”

So, what if my religion demands that I disrespect other religions? What if my faith necessitates a lack of respect for other faiths? If you respect my faith, doesn’t that mean I’m allowed to do whatever my faith expects of me, even if that means disrespecting others? This is, of course, a paradox.

Implicit in statements like these are several politically-correct assumptions:

1.     That everybody’s beliefs must be respected

2.     That offending somebody is virtually a crime in and of itself

3.     That freedom and responsibility can conflict

Dealing with the latter two first: freedom and responsibility do not conflict – ever. Rights are moral principles sanctioning your freedom of thought and action in a social context. All Rights are corollaries of your Right to Life. Human beings must be free to think and do anything they believe is in their self-interest – with one constraint: that they do not violate the rights of others. Freedom of speech, of expression, is a means of human flourishing. The Right to free speech never conflicts with anybody else’s Rights – because no one has the right to NOT be offended by the words of others – no such Right exists. Rights merely mean that no one can use force against you, because the use of force negates morality.

On a similar subject, Leitmotif says: “When one claims that rights come with responsibilities, one is implying that one’s practice of a right could potentially conflict with the practice of another man’s rights. This is patently false. The moment someone has stepped outside the boundaries of one’s rights and has violated another man’s rights, his actions have initiated force and have become illegitimate. Insofar as this has not occurred, every man is free–without limits–to exercise his rights.”

Speaking about the pathetic Teddy-bear row that erupted back in November last year, I said: “If I want to say that Islam is an evil plagiarisation of the ramblings of ignorant primitive Jews, and not worth the paper it was written, that’s my right.”

Just as nobody has the right to do whatever they want on your property, so you have no right to tell them what to do on theirs or anybody else’s.

Remember, the legitimate rights of human beings do not conflict. If there is a conflict, then one party must not be claiming legitimate rights. Since freedom of speech is an undeniable necessary individual right, those who claim that it must be exercised with restraint are contradicting themselves – and are claiming illegitimate rights. “Limited free speech” is a contradiction in terms.

Offending somebody is therefore not a crime. It may be immoral, if it’s irrational however. But the immoral is not the illegal.

Finally, not everyone’s beliefs should be respected. To say otherwise is an egregiously nonsensical claim, and blatant contradiction. To quote myself here: “Moral subjectivism is an offshoot of relativism in general, another symptom of which is the insipid multiculturalism. Relativism in general holds that all opinions or cultures are of equal value. This is flat wrong: if one holds the opinion X that “all opinions are of equal value or merit” then my opinion that X is rubbish is to be taken with equal merit as X itself! Therefore the truth of X would require that we reject it. Therefore X is either false or rubbish.”

Not all cultures are of equal merit. Some cultures are backward, ignorant, superstitious, and just plain stupid. Some are blatantly evil. And if you disagree with me and think I am being offensive, then YOU are evil. Why? Because you have no moral standard from which to draw conclusions. Being a moral person means being intellectually honest and never equivocating on matters of truth or ethics.

The exact opposites of this are such ridiculous notions like political-correctness, fear of offending beliefs, and multiculturalism. The above comments from the UN Secretary General embody this attitude perfectly. But this is to be expected: morality is an individual matter, yet multiculturalism is based on soul-destroying collectivism, which organisations like the United Nations (or any democratic arrangement) exemplify.

“The moral distinction is clear: you are either a criminal or you are not. You are either within your rights, in which case you act freely, or you have initiated force, in which case you should be reined in. You either practice your rights legitimately–in which case, no one has a business telling you that you should be responsible in the practice of your legitimate rights–or you have stepped outside the boundaries protected by your rights and you are now a criminal.” – Leitmotif.

The comments from Ban Ki-moon are immoral are irresponsible. Free speech is non-negotiable, because individual rights are non-negotiable, because humans have a Right to Life. To deny total freedom to human beings is to deny the Right to Life. It’s as simple and as clear-cut as that.

Objectivist Round-Up 30

Objectivist Round-Up #30

Welcome everybody to this week’s Objectivist Round-Up. This is my first time hosting this carnival and it’s a privilege to give Rational Jenn a well-deserved rest for a week!

Here are the accepted submissions for this week, in no particular order:

RationalJenn wants to know which states are currently complying?, and says…

“Somehow, this whole thing snuck past me when it went through Congress nearly 3 years ago. It looks as if the Feds are going to come down hard on states that refuse to comply fully with the federal “security” guidelines for the issuance of state ids. Not only that, I fail to see how on earth this will protect me from Bad Guys. But I see quite clearly how much information our federal government will have about me and everyone else who wants to drive a car or ride in an airplane.”

Nicholas Provenzo at The Rule of Reason tells us Why Boycotting Berkeley is Important.

Stella Daily at Reason Pharma reckons it Would be Cheaper if You Were Dead!

Gus Van Horn presents Heartland on VanDamme

Evanescent exposes the Nihilism of Subjectivism.

That’s all for now! The next round-up is over at The Crucible & Column, where the theme will be “Best of 2007!” You can submit your articles here.

 

The Problem with Atheists

Self-professed atheists think they have come to the conclusion that there is no god through a process of critical thinking and logical reasoning. They either make the positive intellectually-certain claim “there is no god” or what many believe to be the more “balanced”, “less radical” position of “I have absolutely no reason to believe in god but cannot rule his existence out altogether”. The problem with many atheists is that once they reach this position of god-denial, they think their reasoning is done, and become just as assured of their other positions as the theists they dislike so much, thinking of themselves as “rationalists”.

There is a difference between being an atheist and having a rational worldview though. Being an atheist just means you have taken a position on one particular matter of belief. Atheism is not a worldview or a belief system. It offers absolutely no other descriptive or prescriptive content apart from ‘this person doesn’t believe in god’. The problem with some atheists is that they do indeed think atheism is a worldview.

Atheism belongs only to the question of “god” – which is only one in the myriad field of questions, under the heading of belief. The problem with modern atheists is the same “problem” that plagues the worlds of philosophy and science. They tacitly or openly accept the notion that omniscience is necessary for absolute certainty. Philosophical scepticism permeates their worldview like a disease: we can never be sure of anything; our senses aren’t reliable; certainty is impossible; objectivity is naive; definite statements can’t be made in science; total knowledge is necessary for accurate claims. There is no greater exponent of this scepticism than the postmodern subjectivist with his diabolical multiculturalism. But the scientific community as well as the philosophical one as a rule accept this nihilism as the given.

As an example, how many times have you heard a theist say “you can’t call yourself an atheist – have you examined every part of the universe to see if god exists??” To which the atheist might respond: “I don’t need to examine the entire universe; there might be a god, but I see no reason to believe in one – and the burden of proof is on you.” The atheist is right that the burden of proof is on the theist – but he still cannot be 100% sure of his position, and he unwittingly accepts the philosophical scepticism that the theist smuggles into the question. In the same way that philosophical scepticism says that just because the sun rose yesterday doesn’t mean we can be sure it will rise tomorrow, the atheist who “is committed to reason and logic” refuses to rule out the supernatural, god, ghosts, vampires, goblins, elves, chi, astrology entirely – because he still accepts the nonsensical proposition that definite knowledge is impossible; that omniscience is necessary for certainty; that our senses can be fooling us one from minute to the next. So no matter how “rational” the atheist is, he still has to allow a modicum of irrationality in his worldview: that all the things he rejects might actually exist. But omniscience is not necessary to know that god is impossible and that the supernatural and paranormal are irrelevant anti-concepts that can be dismissed with 100% confidence.

Atheism is not a replacement for religion. That is why many deconvertees feel despondent and nihilistic when their worldview is shattered, as I once did. Religion is a complete worldview – it is an attempt to provide a complete philosophy, in that it attempts to account for knowledge, metaphysics, morality, politics, and aesthetics. It fails – but I think many atheists don’t realise how powerful religion is – it is powerful because it is important, and it is important because it represents a true human need: a philosophy for living. Religion doesn’t answer that need, because it is intellectually void and rejects reality – and places the primacy on consciousness and not existence itself. Atheism is not a worldview, and it is most certainly not a philosophy. The other “worldviews” that atheists turn to are not valid philosophies either. One example might be Humanism, a position that claims the universal value and worth of all people. However, Humanism does not give a definite objective definition of morality and it has no political agenda. Peter Singer as one example, a self-professioned Humanist, disagrees with many tenets of Humanism, such as the preferential treatment of human beings. Unfortunately, there is no way for Humanists to decide who is right on this issue. Secular Humanism has come to mean the rejection of religion in a political and moral setting, but it prescribes nothing objective in its place. For this, Humanists are free to discover any code of morality they choose, and are left to argue over what is right, morally and politically. Humanism has no objective definite positions on morality or politics, and what positions are generally accepted by humanists are usually based on some subjective collectivist notion of morality, such as utilitarianism – the idea that the whole is more important than any of its parts, and humans are cells in a superorganism that can and should be sacrificed for the good of the whole. In this respect, utilitarians merely substitute “god” for “society”. Atheists want religion gone, but offer nothing in its place that even resembles a proper philosophy and worldview.

The problem with some atheists is that, in their rush to displace religion and espouse all that religion traditionally rejects, they turn their lives into a quest to “make the world a better place” – and just like the religious, only their definition of better is allowed, and, just like the religious, they want their notions enforced politically. To take just one example: the fundamentalist wants a global theocracy. The modern-day atheist wants a global democracy. Most atheists idealise democracy almost religiously – an absolute to be unquestioned, “the best government we have or can have”; a “necessary evil”, they might say. It never even occurs to many to even question the idea of “universal good”, “making the world a better place (even by force)”, “democracy”. And this is because, just like the theist, many atheists steal the concepts of “good”, “better”, “freedom” from their necessary antecedents and apply them out of context, not realising they are contradicting themselves.

Want some examples?

Animal rights. “Rights” are a moral principle that define freedom of thought and action. Animals are not moral beings and have no conscious freedom of thought and action. They cannot therefore have rights.

Free Democracy. Democracy is unlimited majority rule. It is the enforced demand of a majority that is necessarily at the expense of the minority. It holds the collective as the standard and purpose, and individuals as means to that end. As such, it cannot respect freedom, since freedom only applies to thought and action, and only an individual can think and act. “Free democracy” is an oxymoron.

Making the world a better place. This idealist notion holds other peoples’ lives and happiness as the purpose of one’s own. By this thinking, the only goal in your life should be to make other people happy or maximise happiness in general, even if at your own expense. If there is no one around to please or help, your life has no meanin therefore. What about those who don’t want your help? What about those you don’t subscribe to your collectivist mentality, an example of which is the redistribution of wealth? Do you take their property from them? Do you threaten to arrest them if they don’t share their wealth? “Well”, you rationalise to yourself, it’s for the “greater good”. Wrong. Again, more concept-stealing – how can you enforce a moral action?? It’s a contradiction in terms.

A perfect example of this Modern Atheist is the excellent Christopher Hitchens. I like Hitchens, and I love watching him speak and debate – but his idea of morality is evolved social behaviour. His political ideal is democracy (I believe he is still a socialist). His support of the invasion of Iraq is not grounded primarily on acting in American’s rational self-interest, viz, to remove a very real threat – but as an act of altruism to “save” the Iraqi people and make their lives better, even at the expense of thousands of American soldiers. When it came to justifying an objective epistemology and metaphysics based on atheism, Hitchens was put in the shade by the Dinesh D’Souza.

In a recent debate, I encountered several of these “New Atheists” who’d read a little Dawkins and Hitchens and considered themselves rational just because they rejected god. Being an atheist means NOTHING about having a rational worldview – it is only one possible corollary of having such a worldview.