Metaphysical
Subjectivism and Christianity's Cartoon Universe, Pt. 1
Steve Hays continues to nitpick at the cartoon universe analogy in an
attempt to exonerate Christianity and even to impute it to an atheistic
conception of the world. In
a recent response on this topic, Steve sought to raise controversy by
setting my words against those of Anton Thorn, who has also shone a light on
Christianity's subjectivist foundations. He writes:
This is how Anton Thorn,
Metaphysical subjectivism, which is the view that
the knowing subject creates its objects by an act of consciousness, essentially
that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE/Metaphysical_Primacy.htm
And this is how Bethrick redefines metaphysical
subjectivism:
Metaphysical
subjectivism - the view that reality conforms to someone's intentions.
Why does Bethrick redefine and radically scale
back the definition of Thorn? Because Bethrick finds himself
in a quandary. For he is attempting to impute to
Christianity two contradictory descriptions. On the one hand, he wants
to say that Christianity espouses a cartoonish
worldview. But the problem with this analogy is that even if Christian theism
were analogous to a cartoonish worldview, a cartoonish worldview is disanalogous
to metaphysical subjectivism. And that is because, as defined by Thorn,
metaphysical subjectivism is an ontological thesis according to which reality
is constituted by mental acts—by acts of consciousness. But, needless to say, a
cartoon is not constituted by mental acts. A cartoonist lacks the power to
create a cartoon by a mental fiat. Instead, a cartoonist must employ a physical
medium of some sort to create a cartoon. So Bethrick is confronted with a
choice: he can either try to salvage his cartoon analogy by sacrificing the
imputation of metaphysical subjectivism, or else he can try to salvage the
imputation of metaphysical realism by sacrificing his cartoon analogy. Clinging
to his cartoon analogy, he chooses to jettison the imputation of metaphysical
subjectivism to Christian theism. This he does through a face-saving
redefinition. He swamps out an ontological theory for an epistemic theory. This
involves the far weaker thesis that the artifact corresponds to the subjective
intent of the agent, rather than the far more ambitious claim that the artifact
is instantiated by the subjective intent of the agent.
Yes, that very well may be the definition of ‘metaphysical subjectivism’
that Thorn gives in the article that Steve cited. But we should note that it is
not at all unusual for a term to have more than one definition, even ones that
are closely related. In fact, elsewhere Thorn presents a conception of
metaphysical subjectivism which is right in line with how I have used the term:
All of these notions tell us that the Christian
view of reality is essentially that reality is a creation of consciousness,
that reality conforms to conscious intentions. This is a view of reality which
is called metaphysical subjectivism, and it springs directly from the
primacy of consciousness view of reality. (TAG
and the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept)
Since it's common for a term to have more than one definition, and Thorn
himself uses this term in a manner that is directly in line with how I have
used it, I see no problem here. But even if that were not sufficient, I gave my
own definition of ‘metaphysical subjectivism’ as follows:
Metaphysical subjectivism is the genus of various
versions of the fundamental orientation to reality which affirms that the
objects of consciousness conform to the dictates of consciousness. This
orientation is properly called “subjectivism” because it grants to the subject
power over its object(s). (In the case of Christian teaching, this power
is said to be absolute in the case of the Christian god.) It essentially
holds that the world of objects (e.g., the universe) finds its source in a form
of consciousness, or that they obey the dictates that originate in
consciousness. (The
Argument from Metaphysical Primacy: A Debate)
On the conception that I offered here, metaphysical subjectivism is a genus
or broader category distinguished from metaphysical objectivism by virtue of
its assumption of the primacy of consciousness in the subject-object
relationship, while specific positions which grant metaphysical primacy, such
as the view that consciousness creates its own objects or can revise their
nature at will, etc., are species thereof. What unites these specific positions
is their allegiance to the primacy of consciousness – i.e., the primacy of the
subject over the object. There's no "radical scaling back," no
"backing away," no "shell game" or other synonym for
"face-saving" retreat going on here at all as Steve has alleged. As I
pointed out before, Steve is simply broadcasting the fact that he has ventured
into an area of is own ignorance. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant per
se, but Steve is trying to speak as if he had familiarity where in fact it is
painfully obvious he does not. This explains why he frequently finds himself
confused.
The two definitions which are confusing Steve are the following:
“the view that the
knowing subject creates its objects by an act of consciousness, essentially
that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness.”
“the view that reality conforms to someone’s
intentions”
It should be obvious to anyone who gives this some careful thought, that
the common denominator to both of these definitions is the primacy of the
subject metaphysics, a fundamental platform which characterizes worldviews such
as Christianity. My statement above, that “metaphysical subjectivism is the
genus of various versions of the fundamental orientation to reality which
affirms that the objects of consciousness conform to the dictates of
consciousness,” adequately applies to both statements. Both grant primacy to
the subject in the subject-object relationship (subjectivism), and both pertain
to the metaphysical relationship between subject and object, where the object
either has its origin in consciousness, or is at any rate obedient to the
dictates of consciousness. Thus, whether the view in question holds that an
object first needs to be created by a super consciousness that one imagines in
order to be controlled by it, or that the object already exists but can in any
event be controlled by such a consciousness, the term metaphysical subjectivism
still applies since both views back out to the primacy of consciousness, which
is the essential fundamental of subjectivism. A subject which creates its
objects is typically thought to have the power to conform those objects to its
intentions. That is the power that Christianity claims on behalf of its god.
Quite a fantasy, I must say.
Steve says that “a cartoonish worldview is disanalogous to metaphysical subjectivism.” However, I
don’t think I ever said that the cartoon universe premise is analogous
to metaphysical subjectivism. Rather, I hold that the cartoon universe premise
is an expression of metaphysical subjectivism. That is, the view that
the universe and its objects owe their existence, nature, form, shape, activity
and relationship to other objects to the dictates of a personal will, clearly
assumes the primacy of the subject in the subject-object relationship. That
Christianity asserts that the universe was created by a conscious agent through
an act of its will, only confirms that Christianity grants metaphysical primacy
to the will of that conscious entity over any object it is said to have
created. The affirmation of such a view is a sufficient condition to suspect
that the cartoon universe premise may be in operation, for a universe so
created may also be thought to be under its control, just as the
fictional realm of a cartoon is under the control of the cartoonist who creates
it. In the case of Christianity, both conditions exist: it teaches that the
Christian god created the universe by an act of will, and it teaches that this
god "controls whatsoever comes to pass" within it by will. Does not
the Christian god determine what exists and happens in the universe it
allegedly created? Does not the cartoonist similarly determine what
appears and happens in the fake realm of his cartoon? Are cartoons not
creations? Does not Christianity affirm that the universe is a creation?
Steve’s contention against the cartoon universe analogy trades on an
equivocation at this point. He says that “a cartoon is not constituted by
mental acts.” But this of course depends on what specifically we mean by
‘cartoon’ here. If, on one hand, by ‘cartoon’ we mean the physical materials
that the cartoonist uses to create the images he imagines, then of course, it’s
already been agreed that the cartoonist did not wish these into existence. And
at no point does the cartoon universe analogy claim or require that they were.
But if, on the other hand, by ‘cartoon’ we mean the fictional realm which the
cartoonist conceives and puts into graphic form which others can perceive, then
obviously the cartoonist’s own will and imagination ("forms of
consciousness") play a determinative role here: what exists and happens in
that created realm is determined by the cartoonist. Indeed, contrary to what
Steve has stated, the things compared in an analogy need not be identical,
and the fact that cartoonists do not wish the materials they use to create
cartoons into existence in no way cancels out the similarities between the fictional
realm of a cartoon and the universe as Christianity characterizes it, the very
similarities which the analogy exposes.
A cartoon in this sense – i.e., the fictitious world which a cartoonist creates
- is analogous to the universe as Christiaaanity characterizes it in two aspects:
One: the fictional realm of a cartoon (corresponding
to Christianity’s created universe) is a creation of the cartoonist’s
imagination (a form of consciousness): he conceives the setting (it
could be in a factory, in a desert, in outer space, etc. – it’s his choice) and
the participants (they could look like humans, they could be walking and
talking animals, aliens, etc. – it’s his choice).
Two: the images which make up the fictional realm of the cartoon
(corresponding to the objects which exist in Christianity’s created universe) behave
just as the cartoonist wants them to behave. Like a master puppeteer able to control
many puppets at once, the cartoonist can have his characters do whatever he
wants them to do as he moves his story according to his plan. They can walk
through walls, leap over tall buildings, bend railroad tracks in their bare
hands, walk on water, defy gravity, produce large objects (such as automobiles
or school busses) from trouser pockets, etc. – it’s his choice.
Notice the following similarities:
Just as the cartoonist chooses to create the
fictional realm of his cartoon, so the Christian god is said to have chosen to
create the universe. The fictional realm of the cartoon is there because of
someone's choosing, and the universe is said to be here because of the
Christian god's choosing. In both cases, personal volition got
everything started.
Just as the cartoonist chooses what images will appear in the fictional realm
he creates in his cartoon, the Christian god is said to have chosen which
objects will exist in the universe it creates. In both cases, the content of
the created realm follows as a result of the choices of the agent doing the
creating.
Just as the cartoonist chooses which events will take place in the fictional
realm of the cartoon he creates, the Christian god chooses which events will
take place in the universe. In both cases, the events and the sequence in which
they unfold follow as a result of the agent doing the choosing.
Just as the cartoonist “controls whatsoever comes to pass” in the fictional
realm of his cartoons, the Christian god “controls whatsoever comes to pass” in
the universe it allegedly created. In both cases, everything that exists and
happens is under the guiding control of the agent doing the choosing.
The similarities between the fictional realm of a cartoon and the
universe as Christianity characterizes it, are striking. And since an analogy
is a “resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike:
SIMILARITY” (Merriam-Webster),
we have unmistakably an analogy which connects at several levels. At each level
the analogy highlights the similarities between the fictional realm of a
cartoon on the one hand, and the universe as Christianity characterizes it on
the other, in terms of their being sourced in a form of consciousness which
authors the nature of their respective content and “controls whatsoever comes
to pass” in their respective realms. Consequently, the dilemma that Steve says
I face in defending the cartoon universe analogy, is
merely a figment of his imagination, and the fact that he affirms what he has
imagined as reality simply confirms his allegiance to a cartoonish
conception of the universe. The only real difference is that the Christian
typically recognizes that the fictional realm of a cartoon is in fact
fictional, while failing to acknowledge that his worldview is also built on a
fiction.
Now the Christian may object, saying that metaphysical subjectivism does not
apply to Christianity because the objects of his consciousness do not
obey his own wishes. I have seen Christians attempt to raise so weak an
objection before. And of course, it is true that the objects they perceive do
not obey his wishes. But on the Christian view, this is only the case because
the Christian god has wished it to be, for on the Christian view “God controls
whatsoever comes to pass.” So in the end, what is, is what the supreme being wants it to be, according to
Christianity. Why? Because on the Christian worldview, the universe is
analogous to a cartoon: its contents do whatever the master determiner wants
them to do.
So on both counts, Christianity clearly and unashamedly endorses metaphysical
subjectivism. It holds that the universe finds its source in a personal will,
and it holds that the objects in the universe conform to what that personal
will desires. The things that exist in the universe exist because someone wanted
them to exist; they have the nature that they have only because that someone wanted
them to have the nature they have; and they act in the way they act only
because that someone wanted them to act the way they act.
Out of all human artifacts, a cartoon comes closest to modeling such a bizarre
view of reality, far closer than the clay that a potter molds in his hands. The
objects that appear in the cartoon appear only because the cartoonist wants
them to appear there. The objects in the cartoon have the form and
characteristics they have only because the cartoonist wanted them to
have the form and characteristics they have. And the objects in the cartoon act
the way they do only because the cartoonist wanted them to act the way
they do. Where the Christian worldview affirms the primacy of wanting as
the primary determinant in the universe as a truth, a cartoon graphically
models the primacy of wanting as the primary determinant as a spectacle
of entertainment.
If 'metaphysical subjectivism' is to be reserved exclusively to "the view
that the knowing subject creates its objects by an act of consciousness,"
then it obviously applies to Christianity, for it affirms that the universe was
created by an act of consciousness. But this is only part of the Christian
picture of things. Christianity does not affirm the general view of deism,
namely that a divine consciousness created the universe and then moved on,
allowing the universe to operate in an autonomous manner on its own built-in
principles. On the contrary, Christianity affirms that its god "controls
whatsoever comes to pass" in the universe, that every event, from
molecular activity to worldwide movements, from every baby's first words to the
landing of a spacecraft on the surface of the moon, from the dislodging of a
grain of sand from a riverbed to the shifting of the tectonic plates, is being
personally directed by this supernatural conscious being. This god sets the
rules, determining when they apply and when they do not apply, according to its
will. Thus if metaphyiscal subjectivism includes the
view that the objects of consciousness conform to the knowing subject, it again
applies to the Christian view in its cartoonish view
of the universe.
____________________________________________
The
Cartoon Universe of Christianity