Author: VD

Dominic Santerelli is still reeling in bitter disbelief:

Essentially, the point I’m making is that if atheists and theists see each other as “enemies”, the argument is over before it begins. The first step then, that I see, is to stamp out the high profile outspoken loyalists (people who will not change their minds for any reason) under whose banners the intellectually lazy flock to, leaving behind only those of high profile who are actually willing to listen to the other side.

Which is why I set out to crush Vox Day. I was fed the impression that this was just another evangelical loyalist, so I give a call to arms over at RD.net, a place which I assumed was populated by a cadre of intellectual mavericks (being one myself).

Oh, the irony.

As Dominic now understands, I truly don’t see him as an enemy, which is why I put the word in scare quotes. Indeed, the very reason that most Christians refer to “militant atheists” is not to tar all atheists with militancy, but rather to distinguish between those trapped in the narrative and intent on attacking Christianity and other religions, and those who are simply people that happen to be atheists. The adjective MODIFIES the noun, as I find myself having to point out disturbingly often on a wide range of otherwise unrelated subjects.

I quite like the concept of escaping the narrative Dominic puts forth in his extended review on Dawkins.net, as I think it achieving intellectual escape velocity something that atheists like him, and Daniel Dennett, and perhaps even the occasional Christian may be capable. But again, I feel the need to point out that the purpose of the “Red Hand of Atheism” chapter was not to make the simple logical fallacy that he believes me to have made, but rather to demonstrate the absurdity of the Unholy Trinity’s No True Atheist argument by showing how the strength of the correlation indicates some sort of causal relationship. Communism was a godless vision, it is not the only one and I suggest it is not the only one that is likely to lead to tragedy. Only this last point is truly up for discussion, which I welcome. Now, I may well have indulged in argumentative overkill that led to a mistaken impression, but then, as Dominic cannot possibly have known when reading TIA, overkill is my idiom. (At this point, Dominic, don’t be surprised if a few regulars elbow you and whisper an urgent recommendation to avoid the topic of Asian mid-century ocean transport capacities.) It’s also possible that he quite reasonably mistook the staunch anti-statism of a libertarian for the religious zealotry of a Christian. That would be understandable, as I am, after all, both.

I am not in the least bit concerned about communism today. That brand has exhausted its appeal. But the same elements it contained that caused the tragedies it wrought are at work today in other, as yet unnamed Enlightenment-inspired ideologies that are of dangerously broad appeal, ideologies that can be clearly seen in the global imperatives of Sam Harris and Bertrand Russell. Utopianism is always dangerous, be they religious or secular, but scientific secular utopias are the most dangerous of the lot via the process I articulated in the very chapter Dominic considers to be trapped in the narrative. But this has nothing inherently to do with communism per se. I submit that “The Red Hand of Atheism” is not actually trapped in the narrative, (although it is undoubtedly stained by it, being a response to a narrative-trapped notion.) Anyhow, it’s not like I can reasonably deny that I’m perfectly capable of taking off on the rhetorical flights I mentioned in the Hitchens’s chapter. I’m a polemicist, not a philosopher, but that doesn’t mean that it’s wise to dismiss the ideas in the polemic out of hand. At least I’m not advocating rule by polemicist-king….

But even if I cannot convince Dominic that I am not making the argument that he believes I am making, I appreciate his overall perspective. For what Christian can deny the man who, in essence, is saying “come, let us reason together.”

So, how do you impeach an archbishop anyway? Or does Queen Elizabeth merely mutter a few dark words within earshot of her courtiers?

The Archbishop of Canterbury today launched a desperate backtrack over his endorsement of sharia law as his own bishops lined up to attack him. Claiming he never called for the introduction of the Muslim system, Dr Rowan Williams claimed he wanted to “tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state”. In a statement on his website based on his controversial lecture in London last night, he added he had only used sharia as an example.

Dr Williams’ comments, however, are likely to do little to stem the rising tide of anger from senior clergy. As public condemnation of his speech grew, some of his own bishops were calling for his resignation. In an astonishing attack, one senior Church of England clergyman demanded he stepped down immediately and branded him “gullible”.

Remember, this is the sort of daunting intellect that Richard Dawkins is willing to debate… brave fellow.

It looks like Richard Dawkins is well on the way to getting his wish for a criminal justice system based on science rather than eyewitnesses as expressed in A Devil’s Chaplain:

Police officers in Daytona Beach are swabbing the mouths of persons of interests during traffic stops with special DNA kits in the hunt for an elusive serial killer, sources close to the investigation told Local 6.

Hey, if we simply took DNA samples at birth, we could eliminate crime! Better yet, implant tracking devices with AV broadcast capabilities then too, so that everyone can be monitored at all times!

If you can’t understand how a justice system designed around scientific evidence rather than testimonial evidence is significantly inferior due to its intrinsicly authoritarian nature, perhaps this will help you. And, as always, when it turns into an authoritarian nightmare, scientists will throw up their hands and plead innocent. Either it was “bad science” or they only handed the bad, evil nasty people the gun, they didn’t actually pull any trigger… hey, look – vaccines and electronic toys!

After all, who could possibly have foreseen how the fruits of their wonderful discoveries could be misused? This myopic perspective goes to show that intelligence and wisdom are two entirely different things. And suddenly, I find myself wondering about the potential propaganda value of all those CSI variants that seem to make up about two-thirds of the American TV dramas currently airing.

Who could possibly argue against the ideological abuse of science by those who claim to speak for it:

[T]he authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power.

Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens. . . There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties. . . We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions.

Jonah Goldberg wrote a book describing this. As it happens, so did I: “While the scientific method may lead invariably to a more accurate understanding of the material world, the same is not true of the scientists who pursue it. The profession of science is growing increasingly authoritarian and political, as can be seen by the treatment of those who fail to fall in line with the scientific consensus on subjects where the evidence is far from settled, such as global warming…. Religion does not threaten science so much as science threatens itself. By combining increasingly authoritarian arrogance with an encroachment upon intellectual spheres they are manifestly unprepared to invade, scientists and their thoughtless science fetishist followers risk starting a genuine war they cannot possibly hope to win.”
– The Irrational Atheist p. 59.

And as I said in my interview with Joseph Farah, scientists are like philosophers, they always eventually come around to the idea of rule by scientist-king. I may not be a fan of universal representative democracy, but I’ll definitely take universal direct democracy over oligarchical rule by autocratic scientists.

Dominic Saltarelli will no doubt enrage the howling monkeys over at Dawkins.Net, writing: “this is in fact a good book. Entertaining, insightful, and well researched.” However, he also found it to be “Just as overhyped as the books it attacks”. I’ve posted both his Amazon review and my reply to it in the TIA forums, perhaps he will stop by here sometime to discuss them.

Ken Casner, on the other hand, continues his quixotic attempt to completely ignore 99.8 percent of the book in order to blatantly lie about the non-existence of the specific and detailed criticisms of the arguments of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Michel Onfray and Daniel Dennett contained within it. And as I’ve shown in this response to his third attempt to defend his indefensible review, I’m not the one misrepresenting Sam Harris’s views, Casner is wildly misrepresenting them in order to make a foolish attempt at a classic Fighting Withdrawal.

Casner’s argument is an almost flawless example of a poorly chosen Fighting Withdrawal, because the point to which he withdraws renders Harris’s argument completely irrelevant in every context. If Harris is only talking about killing people in legitimate self-defense, then what does his argument have to do with belief, faith or any other non-material concept? If there is material action of one sort or another to indicate a threat justifying a lethal response, then there’s no need for the subject of belief or faith to even enter into the conversation. Moreover, my position is supported by an email I received from Sam Harris last November confirming that it is in fact immaterial belief that is relevant to his argument, not any subsequent material actions inspired by that belief. I have no problem with self-defense, I am criticizing pre-emptive lethal self defense based on one individual’s beliefs about another individual’s future actions. It can only lead to a destructive circular logic, and as I’ve noted in the past, one might very reasonably justify the murder of Sam Harris through the application of his own argument here.

Jemison Thorsby is not an atheist, unsurprisingly, he liked the book rather better. He writes: “Vox chose to fight on atheists’ favorite grounds, and he does so in a way that shows the terrain–reason–actually favors the faithful, not the faithless.”

As for the German blogger Kamenin’s review, it’s clear that he didn’t read the chapter entitled “The Case Against Science” very closely, nor was he capable of grasping the logic of what he did read. It’s actually apparent that he must not have read very much of the book, since he reaches the mistaken conclusion that it’s just another attack on atheism via Hitler and Stalin. I’ll have a more detailed response to his review later.

After laying the smack down, with the assistance of more than a few disenchanted men, Kay Hymowitz begins to realize that perhaps she didn’t look at the whole situation:

“Given the hundreds of messages I’ve gotten from men concerning my recent City Journal article, I wasn’t surprised to see your post. And I have to say, while I stand by my description of the child man culture and still believe that young women’s complaints about the guys out there are based on some truth, I made a mistake in not exploring the male view.

At any rate, my next piece will be about exactly that. (Your comments section will probably help me.) I knew some men were angry, but I didn’t understand the depth and extent of their rage. I don’t think many people do.

Best regards;
A Chastened Kay Hymowitz ”

I’m happy being married to Spacebunny, but you couldn’t pay me to be married to anyone else, especially not under the current legal system. With sharia already on its way in, America probably has less than twenty years to abandon equalitarianism before its demographic fate is cast. (It’s probably already sunk economically, but that’s a different matter.) Needless to say, unless Hillary overplays her hand to a degree I can’t imagine, this simply isn’t going to happen.

It was a stupid idea from the start. I’m only surprised that he lasted this long.

Contrast this defeatist Anglican leadership with the leadership of African bishop Peter Akinola, who I mentioned in TIA:

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK “seems unavoidable”. Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4’s World at One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

What a joke. What a ridiculous and pathetic joke. I find it amazing that anyone still wants to argue that the post-Christian era is going to be anything but a disaster for European civilization. Meanwhile, the Enlightened fools are throwing their energy into battling the only force that can stop the decline.

“There is something about soccer players that is very sexy.
– Marisa Miller

I read the quote. I thought of Nate. And then I laughed.

John McCain or Hillary Rodham-Clinton? Superficially, the answer should be simple. It’s the most frighteningly soulless individual on the planet, the Lizard Queen. Stare into her dead, unblinking eyes and shudder. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that Hillary is likely to be more damaging to the country for two reasons.

1. The superficial comparison does not account for the Nixon-to-China phenomenon. As the mindless support of George Bush on the part of conservatives showed, it’s always easier for someone who is nominally right to move left, and vice-versa. Consider the contrast between Somalia and Serbia and Iraq. The level of national interest was similarly low in all three cases, but it is indisputable that a Wilsonian war for the expansion of democracy was far more popular among Republicans when initiated by a Republican president than it was when initiated by a Democratic one. When Hillary moves left, there will be resistance from the conservative commentariat. When McCain moves left, there will only be excuses made for him by the same conservatives who mindlessly defended George Bush.

2. Hillary is worse on the broad spectrum of political issues. But on the three of the four issues most dangerous to American liberties and the state of the nation, McCain is worse. He’s worse on immigration, he’s worse on the freedom of speech and he’s worse on the various wars and occupations. Only on the right to bear arms is he arguably better, but for all her intrinsic leftism, Hillary hasn’t shown herself to be an enthusiastic gun-grabber.

So, who is the lesser of these two definite evils? I won’t support either, because I think it is, well, evil, to knowingly line up behind evil, but it’s an interesting case to consider. I don’t include Obama, because as I’ve insisted from the start, the Magic Negro is only in the mix to keep Democrats entertained for the first half of the Lizard Queen’s coronation march.