The Idealistic Fallacy

[Josef Balluch]

Idealism is found at the core of mainstream Western theism, and there it
holds that ideas have primacy and that one proceeds from thought to
thing. Plato proposed that ideals, or Forms, exist in some non-natural
realm and are the "blueprints" for existing natural phenomena. This
concept was incorporated by theists, with ideals said to exist in the
mind of the deity.

Idealism, itself an idea or concept, would have to meet the criterion of
being self evident if it is to be seen as true since it could not draw
support from any fact or any other idea. Any argument intended to show
that idealism is true would have to assume the primacy of at least some
ideas, and would thus be circular.

The Idealist scheme of the theist posits a primary consciousness, but
the claim that consciousness could be primary is self refuting. There is
one claim of existence which cannot be reconciled with the assumption of
a primary consciousness, namely the claim that a primary consciousness
(eg: God) exists. Such a claim contains within itself the assumption
that existence is primary, because no primary consciousness can be
invoked to explain the existence of the primary consciousness. The claim
specifies that there is one thing that exists independent of the whim of
a primary consciousness.The assertion that a primary consciousness
exists would be a claim of an objective fact, ie: a fact independent of
the whim of the consciousness. This independence contradicts the premise
that existence is dependent on the primary consciousness.

It is identity that distinguishes one thing from another, so identity
presupposes that things exist. If complete non-existence were the case
then there would be no need of identity as there would be no need to
distinguish non-existence from anything else. The Law of Identity, which
is fundamental in logic, thus presupposes the existence of something.
There is nothing in that claim which requires that the something be a
consciousness. It does, however, require that things have an objective
existence with an unchangeable identity if logic is to be considered
valid. If reality were subject to the whim of a consciousness then
existence, identity and logic would likewise be dependent on the whim of
the consciousness. In such a situation there would be no real basis for
the validity of logic, and thus no basis for rationality.

The claim for a primary consciousness commits the Fallacy of the Stolen
Concept since it assumes what it denies, namely that something can exist
independent of the choice of the consciousness. The primacy of
consciousness over existence is thus an inconsistent hypothesis, so it
can not be considered to be self evident. Furthermore, the concept calls
the validity of logic into question. And finally, the concept contains
an internal contradiction, as shown, so it must be false.

Regards,

Josef

A true idea has no need of any faith.

-- Ken Harding