February 10, 2014

Webclips Demonstrating How Rand’s Objectivist Definitions Presuppose Naturalism

When you see the word “objective” associated with the word “philosophy” you expect to find an approach to truth and meaning that is unbiased and, well, objective. Such is not the case with Rand’s Objectivism, however. It is difficult at first to discern whether Rand promotes Materialism or Naturalism, because Rand avoided identifying her beliefs with either. However, commonly accepted definitions of Naturalism seem to apply best to her propositions.

Naturalism is embraced in definitions from the very onset, as other metaphysical possibilities are simply ignored. Simply ignoring and censoring other valid metaphysical options, however, is not quite the same as logically refuting them. As one blogger put it, Rand attempted “to define God out of existence.” That’s just not cricket.

These biased definitions are just one example of many inwhich Rand used rather underhanded techniques in order to forward her atheist-naturialist view with an end-around approach to valid logical reasoning. It has been entertaining to see the manner in which passionate objectivists deny the many logical flaws of Objectivism and the holy writ of their patron-saint of materialism, Ayn Rand.

The objectivist blogger, Dawson Bethrick was either unwilling or unable to offer a definition of "metaphysical primacy" suitable for Objectivism. This was highlighted in a previous post in the comment section. He made a hasty retread from this blog shortly thereafter.


Three Refutations of Objectivism

A Refutation of Dawson Bethrick's Central Argument Against Theism

Tags: Webclips of Rand’s definitions that presuppose materialism or naturalism? Ayn Rand Lexicon, atheist presuppositionalism, fallacies of secular primacy arguments


  1. On February 10th, I answered the three questions Dawson had persistently posted with affirmative answers. And I offered him a challenge, which he did not take up:

    "I offer a challenge to you, Dawson, to refute any of the premises in the following argument..."

    The Organizing Principle of the Universe: Hierarchy and the Central Truth


    This is the link to my comment and posted challenge, that Dawson ignored:


    Dawson was not sure if one of my answers was an affirmative answer:

    Dawson wrote: I asked: “1) If your god wills that an apple exists in a certain location at a certain time, will the apple come into existence as willed or not?”

    I answered, “It is logically cohesive than [sic] an omnipotent God could produce an apple, especially considering that God could produce a universe as well.”

    And Dawson was not sure if that was a yes or a no?

    "Is that a yes, or a no?"

    That's a "yes," Dawson.

    Because I addressed the three questions Dawson believed were important enough to repeat several times, it seems only fair that Dawson would answer some of the questions I believe are important, right?

    1. Are you willing to admit, Dawson, that Rand's noted definitions of "existence" and the "universe" (see above posted webclips) presuppose that existence is finite and materialistic? ...Yes, No - any additional comments.

    2. Do you agree that an assertion without factual or logical support is a bald assertion, a logical fallacy? ...Yes, No - any additional comments.

    3. Is the following definition of "metaphysical primacy" acceptable in your view? ...Yes, No - any additional comments.

    metaphysical primacy: the state of being most important or strongest with regard to the transcendent or reality beyond the perceptible senses.

    Thanks for any input, Dawson

  2. since you have not taken my advise to once again re read what you have posted so as to avoid embarrassing yourself I have posted what you failed to grasp. I have done so on my blog as you have yet to post my comment indicating a censorious attitude with regard to your blog which is of course your privilege.


    1. Justin, your comment is a little incoherent. Can you please refer to specific posts and specific quotes or comments when rattling off accusations? If have no interest in following a link that is supposed to be related to philosophical discourse with "face palm" in the title. You seem like you could use a bit more focus and a dose of maturity.

  3. Rick you really do slay me. You are simply to much at times. Yes my sentence was a bit of a run on. A bad habit of mine. If you object to the title of my post, too bad. It is an accurate metaphor for my reaction to your latest post. You speak of philosophical discourse and yet all I have witnessed from you is the obstinate stubborn irrationality of a 5 year old when dealing with the import of what Mr Dawson has said here and on his blog. You speak of maturity? Maturity left the building months ago when you repeatedly over and over again misconstrued nearly everything explained to you in excruciating detail and ran off chasing red haring after red haring. You sir are no one to be lecturing anyone on matters of maturity. Now my post stands if you have the intellectual courage to investigate.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. urgh, red herring. Whatever faults you may have Rick you at least spell check. Sorry for any confusion caused by my spelling errors.


You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!