Rival Philosophies of Fact
Sources on presuppositionalism
make it clear that, because of its “methodology” (see for instance here), the question of the Christian god’s existence cannot be
settled on the basis of facts. For instance, Cornelius Van Til
himself made this crystal clear when he wrote:
It is impossible and useless to seek to
defend Christianity as an historical religion by a discussion of facts only.
(Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p. 7)
With resolute pronouncements such as this, what
card-carrying presuppositionalist would disagree? Of
course, this is the kind of attitude one might expect from a position that
cannot be supported by facts in the first place. If appealing to facts is not
sufficient to validate a position one holds on the basis of faith, he might as
well come out and declare that “a discussion of facts only” is simply the wrong
vehicle for substantiating that position. And lo, that’s precisely what Van Til does.
Consider for a moment some of the major tenets of what Christianity teaches,
tenets which everyone is expected to accept as factual, but without factual
support. For instance, that the Christian deity is real, that it created the
universe (“the earth and the heaven”), that it created man in its own image,
that it chose a people as its favorites (the ancient Israelites), that it sent
its only begotten son to die a horrific death in order to “redeem” anyone who
is bamboozled by all these and other teachings of the sacred storybook. If all
of these claims are supposed to be factual, why cannot “a discussion of facts
only” serve in defending them? Does Van Til think
that a discussion of something other than facts is needed to defend
“Christianity as an historical religion”? If so, what is this other something?
This is where Van Til raised the issue of which philosophy
of facts best equips a thinker to deal with the individual facts he
discovers in the world. But we would be wrong to assume that this means that
Van Til is actually concerned with preserving the
integrity of a fact-based way of looking at the world. On the contrary, his aim
here is to hijack the issue of facts and seat it on mystical
presuppositions. Hence the name of his apologetic artifice, presuppositionalism.
Now the bible does not lay out any explicit theory of facts. Indeed, it seems
not even to speak of facts in any intelligent manner. It certainly does not
spell out a philosophy of facts. Its authors were clearly more concerned
with invoking the wrath of an invisible magic being, endorsing doctrinal
positions on the basis of faith, shaming readers into submission, prostituting
their minds and filling their imaginations with horrific fantasies and bizarre
teachings. But this is not to say that an implicit understanding of the nature
of facts cannot be ascertained from the contents of the bible.
Without a doubt, the biblical worldview characterizes all facts as dependent on
the will of its deity. Today’s theologians and apologists are explicit in their
affirmation of such characterizations. On this view, facts are created,
which means: they do not exist independent of consciousness, in
particular of the supernatural consciousness which is claimed to have created them.
Consequently, however ‘fact’ is defined by today’s defenders of Christianity,
one thing is certain: the biblical portrait represents facts as inherently subjective,
that is: they depend on and conform to the dictates of a ruling subject whose
say-so is the final court of appeal in determining their nature at any given
moment. The Christian “philosophy of fact” is subjective because it
assumes the metaphysical primacy of the subject in the subject-object
relationship. On this view, facts are whatever the ruling subject wants them to
be. This is the essential metaphysical view which underlies the notion that wishing
makes it so. In this context, subjectivism is essentially the view that
reality, facts and truth are obedient to the dictates of some privileged
consciousness.
Contrast the Christian view of facts with the objective theory of facts. Where
the Christian view of facts clearly seats facts on the dictates of an
omnipotent subject – thus affirming the primacy of the subject in the
subject-object relationship, the objective theory of facts is based on the
primacy of the object in the subject-object relationship. This theory
recognizes that facts are what they are independent of consciousness, of any
consciousness, that facts do not bend or reshape themselves in response to
wishes, desires, commands, threats, insults, or protestation. It is on the
basis of the objective theory of facts that one makes statements such as
“wishing doesn’t make it so” or “Mt. McKinley is located in Alaska whether
anyone realizes it or not.” According to the objective theory of facts, if
facts were actually based on the dictates of consciousness (e.g., will,
wishing, preference, etc.), it would not make any sense to affirm anything as
factual; all it would take is another consciousness to come along and say it’s
not a fact, and reality would obey. For this reason, it should be clear that
the Christian is borrowing from a non-Christian conception of facts whenever he
makes statements like “God exists even if no one believes it.” For on the
Christian view, as we have seen, facts conform to consciousness, which can only
mean that facts are not objective according to the Christian view.
Van Til made it clear that, on the Christian view, we
cannot rely on facts, for they have no inherent stability whatsoever:
God may at any time take one fact
and set it into a new relation to created law. That is, there is no inherent
reason in the facts or laws why this should not be done. It is this sort of conception
of the relation of facts and laws, of the temporal one and many, embedded as it
is in the idea of God in which we profess to believe, that we need in order to
make room for miracles. And miracles are at the heart of the Christian
position. (The Defense of the Faith, p. 27)
On this view, it may be a fact this moment
that Mt. McKinley is located in Alaska. But, since the Christian god “may at any time take one fact and set it into a new
relation to created law,” who but the ruling consciousness knows where Mt.
McKinley may be in the next moment? The ruling consciousness may decide to
relocate it in southern Japan, or Tanzania, or Laos. The flexibility that Van Til reserves for facts in relation to principles of thought
certainly affords this.
Now Van Til is explicit in telling us that his
worldview needs this kind of facts-in-flux view of things “in order to make
room for miracles.” And it’s not just that facts can change at random; since
‘random’ is actually an epistemological concept, the changes that facts undergo
in this context would be random so far as the believer is concerned. But this
is a mere incidental outcome that the believer has to deal with in his
worldview. Even more than this, since this view represents facts as subject to
deliberate, intentional change, there would be no identifiable causality to the
changes taking place traceable to the nature of the facts themselves. The
changes that facts would undergo, on Van Til’s view,
would bear no relation to their nature, but depend completely on the whim of an
invisible magic being whose “counsel” or “plan” is an utter mystery to the
believer. He just has to go along with the flow, imagining that anything and
everything that happens around him is being choreographed by a supernatural,
reality-ruling consciousness whose exercise of will historically (per the bible
at any rate) includes such notable and examples as turning water into wine,
enabling men to walk on unfrozen water, etc.
According to the Christian “philosophy of fact,” facts are creations of
a supernatural consciousness. On this view, facts are essentially wished
into existence by an omnipotent conscious being. This is explicitly held to be
the case for all facts. Writes Van Til:
God is the creator of every fact. (Christian Theistic Evidences, p. 88; quoted in Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic,
p. 378.)
Elsewhere Van Til
writes:
The Christian starts his reasoning from
the presupposition that what God, through Christ, says in the Scriptures is
true. Accordingly all “facts” are God and Christ created and directed to the
consummation of history.” (“An Uncertain Sound: An Evaluation Of The Philosophy Of Hendrik
Hart,” 1971)
Christian apologist Mike Warren similarly
exclaims:
All facts are God-created, God-interpreted
facts.” (Christian
Civilization is the Only Civilization)
Of course, note that when statements like these
are made, they appear as bare assertions, announcements which are to be taken
on faith, on authority, on the implied threat of psychological or spiritual sanction. Readers are expected to feel compelled
to accept these claims without objective support because they’re supposed to believe
that something bad will happen to them – either in the here and now of reality,
or in the afterlife which awaits – if they don’t’ accept them.
Now a fundamental problem should be immediately obvious here. The Christian
wants us to accept as fact the claim that his god exists. We are also
told that, for the Christian, “the most basic fact of all facts is the
existence of the triune God” (Common Grace and the Gospel, ch. 1). So it is a fact, we are told, that the Christian
god exists. But we are also told that this “God is the creator of every fact,”
that “all facts are God-created.” So was the fact that this god exists, also
created by this same god? This seems quite illogical. To create anything, a
creator-god would first have to exist. A thing cannot create the fact of its
own existence. The presuppositionalist must allow an
exception to the rule here, but this would split facts into two mutually
exclusive categories, thus requiring duplicitous provisions in the Christian
theory of facts. It would, in the case of its god’s existence for instance,
need to allow for at least some facts to be uncreated. But if any facts can be
uncreated, why couldn’t all other facts be uncreated? A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Elsewhere Van Til writes
all facts in this universe are under God’s
control” (“The Resurrection As A Part Of Christian Truth,” The Banner, 1939,
Vol. 74, p. 339)
While this statement focuses on the facts which
obtain within the universe proper, the same subordination of those facts to the
dictates of the ruling consciousness is maintained. Anything we take as factual
in the universe is subject to revision according to the ruling consciousness’
divine whims. According to a rational worldview, It’s
a fact that apples come from apple trees. But on the Christian worldview, this
is only factual so long as the Christian god desires to keep it that way. It
could decide to change this fact, such that apples instead come from cucumber
plants or from fish anuses. In the end, on the Christian view, it’s the desires
of the Christian god which are absolute, not the facts we discover in reality.
Talk about reducing a worldview to absurdity!
But this systemic embrace of absurdity at such a fundamental level of thought
does not keep believers today from endorsing it. For instance, in his blog
entry What Are the Facts? (Repeat), Gavin Beers quotes
Christian apologist R.J. Rushdoony as follows:
For the Christian, all factuality is
God-created and the product of His eternal purpose; all facts are thus totally
rational, becasue [sic] the mind of God is behind
them, and their reality is thus more than physical and natural.
The view expressed here repeats the same major
problem for the Christian "philosophy of fact" which we saw above,
for it presupposes that for facts to be rational, "the mind of God"
must be "behind them." In other words, all facts must have been
created by the Christian god. Without this element of having been created by
the Christian god, so the reasoning goes, no fact would be intelligible. Again,
this can only mean that, if it is a fact that the Christian god exists, either
the Christian god created this fact (which, as we saw above, is nonsensical),
or qua fact it is unintelligible. This is quite a dilemma for the Christian,
but it is unavoidable given the predominant view of facts affirmed in these
statements. Since to say that a being created the fact of its own existence
would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept (by characterizing such a fact
as the product of a creative act, such a claim would require that the fact in
question did not obtain prior to its creation, and yet the alleged fact in
question is that the creator of all facts exists), the unavoidable implications
of the view expressed here render it completely absurd and nonsensical. And
yet, this is what can be expected from the Christian “philosophy of fact” that
Van Til affirms as essential to his worldview and its
proper defense.
The Christian view would then need to affirm two fundamentally different
conceptions of facts, one pertaining to uncreated facts (which, per the
statements quoted above, are apparently not allowed) and one pertaining to
created facts. And even though it’s clear that Van Til
and other presuppositionalists do not make such
provision, such duplicity would be required in order to stave off the absurd
internal implications that have hitherto been identified, and yet it would also
create further problems. For analytic philosophers, this view of factuality
seems quite a death knell. Facts which have traditionally been taken as
“necessary” suddenly become “contingent,” since all facts on the Christian view
were “created.” The fact that 2+2=4, for instance, was “created” by the
Christian god. Of course, not all Christians would agree with this implication;
but given the exhaustive pervasiveness of the presuppositionalists’
assertions, absurdities like this are an unavoidable by-product of the
Christian theory of facts.
But the absurdities do not stop there. The problem is bigger than just its
implications for the fact that 2+2=4. If facts are dependent upon someone’s will,
as the Christian worldview holds, then obviously those facts have no necessary
content of their own. Facts, on such a view, are not necessary, but utterly
contingent, contingent upon the will of the being said to have the power to
create and alter them. On such a basis, one could never claim to really know
any facts, for any fact he might claim to know could be altered at any time
without his knowing it. Certainly believers do not expect their god to seek
their consent or approval before altering any facts it has chosen to alter. One
might say, for instance, that it’s a fact that dogs are mammals; but since this
fact was “created” by the Christian god and this god can revise it at any time,
it could change: dogs could suddenly become reptiles on this view. Christians
like to reply to this kind of objection by saying that their god has a rational
nature, that it wouldn’t act against its nature, etc.,
none of which is very convincing against the relief of the sovereignty it is
said to possess over the universe and its means of revelation to man via
miracles. After all, we can affirm the fact that John F. Kennedy is dead, but
the Christian god, if it were real, could resurrect the assassinated president
at any time if it wanted to. Again, its wants, desires, wishes and whims hold
metaphysical primacy over the domain of factuality. Ironically enough, such responses
in essence come across as de facto denials of divine omnipotence: while they
claim that their god is omnipotent, it has apparently chosen not to exercise it
outside the confines of a self-inflicted straitjacket. Why? Appeals to “divine
rationality” ring hollow, since no Christian would say that his god’s
miraculous interventions in history, as recorded in the Old and New Testaments, were irrational. Such “rationality” as the
Christian conceives of it includes not only the “natural order” of things as we
actually perceive them in the world, but also any revision of them (e.g.,
miracles), however temporary.
And let’s not forget another important doctrine of Christianity: the doctrine
of malevolent spirits. While Christians might claim that their god would not
transform dogs from mammals into reptiles, who is to say that demons and devils
cannot or would not? Indeed, the problem still persists, especially when we
factor in the claim that supernatural beings other than just the Christian god
are said to lurk “back of” the objects we perceive in the world. Mischievous
and nefarious, demons, devils and other spooks are supposed also to inhabit the
supernatural realm and wield influence over the “created order”; indeed, the
bible itself claims that the leader of these malevolent spirits, Satan, is “the
prince of this world” (cf. Jn. 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). As supernatural beings
which have the power to take possession of human beings (cf. Mt. 4:24, 8:16,
28, 9:32, 12:22; Mk. 1:32, 5:15-18) and manipulate, deceive, and misguide them,
they too have the ability to meddle with man’s efforts to know facts.
So really, what we have in the Christian theory of facts is not fully disclosed
by its spokesmen: not only does the Christian god hold metaphysical primacy
over the facts of the world, but so do other alleged supernatural beings.
Of course, Christians themselves have shown that, even on their own terms, it
is notoriously difficult to distinguish “the supernatural” from the imaginary.
I surmise that this is because there is no fundamental distinction between the
two. In the end, since Christianity actually asserts the primacy of the
supernatural over the realm of facts, believers are really telling us that the
imaginary holds metaphysical primacy over the actual, since they
claim such primacy on behalf of their imaginary spirits.
Notice how all this systematically destroys any potential for knowledge of the
world. If any of these spirits are able to alter the identity of things which
exist (such as turning water into wine), or cause them to act against their
natures (such as enabling human beings to walk on unfrozen water), who is to
say that none of them could alter our memory of the past, or even change
history without us knowing it? Surely the Christian god is not bound to the
temporal order of the universe, is it? Since the Christian god can at any time,
we are told, take any fact and put it into a new relationship with created law,
who is to say our memory of things we have done or witnessed could ever be
accurate? I remember getting my driver’s license when I was 16 years old, for
instance. But if I believed that such a being as the god Christianity describes
and worships were real, that memory could be completely false. Maybe I was 18
when I got my license, or 26, or maybe I never got one, or maybe I was born
with it already in hand and just don’t know this. Or, it could be true today
that I got my license at 16, and false tomorrow, and then true again the next
day. What is to stop an omnipotent being from revising the past in such a
manner? Does the believer himself presume to be able to stop this? If he says
that no one, including the god he claims to worship, can alter the past once it
has happened, then clearly he’s telling us that neither his god nor any other
being is truly omnipotent, or at any rate that his god has the same
relationship to the past that we have. If he says that his god can go back in
time and revise history, but simply wouldn’t, then the believer sets himself as
the author of his god’s plan: his god does whatever he imagines it does. And of
course, what would keep an actually existing sovereign deity from deceiving
me into believing that I ever got my driver’s license in the first place, let
alone at 16 years old? Blank out.
Avoiding a “direct appeal to facts” is essential to the presuppositional
approach to defending Christian theism or settling the debate between believers
and non-believers. As Van Til himself
states:
The method of reasoning by presupposition
may be said to be indirect rather than direct. The issue between believers and
non-believers in Christian theism cannot be settled by a direct appeal to
“facts” or “laws” whose nature and significance is [sic] already agreed upon by
both parties to the debate.(The Defense of the
Faith, p. 100)
Here Van Til adds a new
qualification to the treatment of facts in his apologetic treatment. He says
that the debate between believer and non-believer “cannot be settled by a
direct appeal to ‘facts’ or ‘laws’ whose nature and significance is [sic]
already agreed upon by both parties to the debate.” Of course, if the
believer holds that “God is the creator of every fact” and that “all ‘facts’
are God and Christ created and directed to the consummation of history,” as we
have already seen Van Til affirm, while the
non-believer (particularly if he subscribes to an objective view of reality)
recognizes that facts are not subject to conscious intentions, then there
probably is no such agreement between them. On the Christian view, facts are
creations of consciousness, open to revision according to divine whim, while on
an objective view facts are what they are independent of consciousness,
regardless of who likes it, regardless of who disapproves. The two positions
are diametrically opposed from their very foundations. And yet, since both the
believer and the non-believer live in the same reality, they do in fact have
many points of ‘common ground’ in metaphysics,
epistemology
and ethics,
only the believer has a confessional motivation to deny this fact outright, or
interpret it in favor of protecting his confessional investment by means of assimilation.
Notice how Van Til puts defining importance on
whether or not the nature and significance of facts are “agreed upon by both
parties to the debate.” Why should their agreement or disagreement on these
things matter if in fact the facts in question are indeed factual? Shouldn’t
the fact that they are factual matter more? Apparently not
for Van Til. Van Til
takes the Christian command to “come out and be ye separate” (II Cor. 6:17)
very seriously. It seems that what is of primary
importance for Van Til, since he names no facts to
begin with, is division between believer and non-believer for the sake of
division as such. Agreement with the non-believer is to be avoided at all
costs, even at the cost of an objective understanding of facts. The impulse for
all this is the believer’s determination to imagine a supernatural
consciousness “back of” everything we perceive and discover in the world. Van Til makes this crystal clear when he writes:
I could believe in nothing else if I did
not, as back of everything, believe in this God. (“Toward A Reformed
Apologetic,” 1972)
Since upholding and defending such imaginations as
if they reflected “absolute reality” – a reality that is even more real than
the reality in which we live, move and have our being on a daily basis – is of
prime importance to someone like Van Til, it’s no
surprise that the antithetical divide between himself and those who do not
indulge in such imaginations is emphasized like this.
An obvious outcome given Van Til’s stated view is
that, if the non-believer disagrees with the believer at any
point, this fact itself is a creation of his god. This points right back to the
alleged creator of facts as the cause for such disagreement and division. It
makes no sense to hold the non-believer accountable for his disagreement with
the believer, or for any position he might happen to hold, for if he holds a
certain position, on Van Til’s view the fact that he
holds it is just another of his god’s creations: his god obviously wanted it
this way. The unavoidable implications of determinism serve only to reduce any
accountability on man’s part to “God made me do it.” So the common presuppositionalist strategy of urging the non-believer to
“account for” his non-belief or any position he might affirmatively take on any
issue, is rather farcical: the non-believer only needs to point out that the
apologist, according to his own presuppositions, is looking in the wrong place
for the explanations he has asked for.
Instead of focusing on any specific facts themselves, Van Til
thinks the debate stems from something prior to facts. Van Til
explains:
The question is rather as to what is the final reference-point required to make the “facts”
and “laws” intelligible. The question is as to what the “facts” and “laws”
really are. Are they what the non-Christian methodology assumes that they are?
Are they what the Christian theistic methodology presupposes they are? (The
Defense of the Faith, p. 100)
Van Til makes it clear
that, for his worldview, facts are clearly not primaries. Something takes
priority to facts, and logically, whatever this something is that exists before
them must be something other than factual, for he makes it clear that there is
something which precedes facts. Van Til’s statement
here would serve no purpose if that which comes before facts is just another
bunch of facts; it must be something other than facts, it must be non-factual.
Van Til calls it “the final reference-point,” but
does not explicitly state what he means by this in this section of his book. To
find clues as to what Van Til means here, we look
further in his book:
The final point of reference in all
predication must ultimately rest in some mind, divine or human. It is either
the self-contained God of Christianity or the would-be autonomous man that must
be and is presupposed as the final reference point in every sentence that any
man utters. (Ibid., p. 215.)
What Van Til states here
supplies a portion of the context missing from his previous statement about the
need to identify “the final reference-point required to make
the ‘facts’ and ‘laws’ intelligible.” And it is quite clear: for Van Til, “the final-reference point” which makes laws and facts
intelligible must be subject in the subject-object relationship, either human
or supernatural. So far as I can find, Van Til
provides no argument for his view that “the final point of reference in all
predication must ultimately rest in some mind, divine or human.” Indeed, it is
not entirely clear what exactly this is supposed to mean, so I have little
choice but to interpret it literally. A point of reference would, as I
understand it, be some object to which one’s identifications (which would
include predication) and judgments refer. Van Til may
have meant something else (he seems to treat the objects of cognition as
unnecessary), but if so I would say that he has expressed himself quite poorly.
Even some of Van Til’s own devoted followers have
complained about Van Til’s “’torturous English’, his
redundant and unclear style, his penchant for sloganeering, and his
disorganized presentation of themes” (Michael Butler, “The Transcendental
Argument for God’s Existence,” in Schlissel’s The
Standard Bearer: A Festschrift for Greg L. Bahnsen,
p. 70). Regardless, it seems that Van Til can only
mean that, for his “philosophy of fact,” a subject must hold primacy
over all objects in order for predication of facts to be possible. From the
very outset, this rules out the primacy of objects in the subject-object
relationship, which means it rules out all objectivity. On an objective
orientation, the “final point of reference” would the facts of reality
themselves, beginning with the fact that existence exists, since it is
understood on the objective view that facts obtain independent of consciousness;
they do not conform to conscious intentions. The “the final point of reference”
would not be a mind, as if a mind could dictate what reality consists of or
what it should be. A mind needs content, just as consciousness requires an
object, and that content must come from somewhere. On an objective view, that
content ultimately comes from what is perceived, the
objects of awareness; on the theistic view, the mind creates its own content,
consciousness creates its own objects.
So what about Van Til’s last questions here? Are facts “what the non-Christian
methodology assumes that they are?” Or, “are they what the Christian theistic
methodology presupposes they are?” To sort this out, Van Til
proposes the following two-step apologetic procedure:
The answer to this question cannot be
finally settled by any direct discussion of “facts.” It must, in the last
analysis, be settled indirectly. The Christian apologist must place himself
upon the position of his opponent, assuming the correctness of his method
merely for argument’s sake, in order to show him that on such a position the
“facts are not facts and the “laws” are not laws. He must also ask the
non-Christian to place himself upon the Christian position for argument’s sake
in order that he may be shown that only upon such a basis do “facts” and “laws”
appear intelligible. (Ibid., pp. 100-101)
Regarding the second step, I have already noted
its parallels
to sampling drug use. This step of the presuppositional
apologetic very much resembles the kind of tactic an addict might use to goad
non-users into the world of substance abuse. “Just try it. Once you do, you’ll
see how everything in this crazy world finally makes sense!” I prefer a more
scientific route, analyzing the chemical causality of the substance on the
brain, thus understanding why the drug alters its users’ behavior so
drastically. This is essentially what I have done above, by pointing out how
the Christian theory of facts is fundamentally subjective, thus obliterating
the very concept ‘fact’ in its destructive wake.
The very last statement Van Til makes is especially
curious, given the way he words it. He wants to show the non-believer that
“only upon such a basis do ‘facts’ and ‘laws’ appear intelligible.” Van Til’s own pupil, Greg Bahnsen, points out that “the Bible distinguishes between
appearance and reality” (Always Ready, p. 181). Even Proverbs
14:12 warns that “there is a way which seemeth right
unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” So in Van Til’s case, while “facts” and “laws” as his worldview
conceives of them may appear “intelligible,” his own worldview tells us
that this may be only a mirage. Van Til needs to give
more assurance than his customary unsupported assertions and catchy slogans to
make his case. And given the points we’ve seen so far, such a venture would be
hopeless from the very start.
But what about what “the non-Christian methodology” assumes facts to be? Isn’t
this racked with problems of its own? Well, it depends on which “non-Christian
methodology” we’re talking about. A non-Christian methodology would be any
which is not Christian, and there’s lots of those.
Most thinkers, regardless of religiosity, do not walk around with a fully
developed “philosophy of fact” formulated in their minds. However, in spite of
its difficulties, some general features of fact theory can and should be
explicitly articulated, specifically with regard to the orientation between
subject and object. A philosophy of facts which human beings can apply in their
lives must at minimum comply with the primacy of existence, and do so without
compromise. Compromising the primacy of existence can only lead, if left
uncorrected, to a blurring between reality and fantasy, which is the very
bloodline of a mystical worldview (such as Christianity). To my knowledge,
Objectivism is the only worldview which identifies the primacy of existence as
a fundamental principle guiding human cognition, and which takes it seriously
in its effort to develop a worldview consistent with that principle. Given the
incontestable truth of this principle, the only philosophy of fact worthy of
its name must stand in accordance with the primacy of existence, the essence of
the principle of objectivity, for facts are objective, and a worldview dealing
in facts must provide understanding of this from its very foundations. At the
very least we can conclude that one should not look to Christianity for such
principles.
____________________________________________