Author: VD

Neither Katarina nor her atheist friends with whom she’s been debating are very clear on what Dawkins and I are discussing:

This is a type of point that I in years past would make to the atheists with whom I spoke. It seemed to become apparent, however, based on the responses of some of them, that the basis of the point itself is incorrect.

So what if the earth had had a different atmosphere and temperature and everything else? A different type of life may have evolved on it. It means nothing of a creator’s deliberate design. We would have evolved to breathe something else, to have different needs for temperature and light and dark, we may have become highly intelligent fish people if the planet had no land and only water. The point is that the attempted basis for the improbability of all this being so “ideal for life” is itself flawed because it is making a false assumption and projecting it backwards in time, trying to apply a present reality of the outcome of evolution onto a past creation event as if only under these circumstances we have could there have been life.

It is a point that has been since held meaningless by the intelligent atheists with whom I interact, and I abandoned it long ago. I am wondering if this is correct or incorrect you may tell us, I mean if you have a rebuttal to what I am saying here or if it is in fact a valid point. I have thought that it is.

I have an excellent rebuttal… none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the anthropic principle. In the excerpt from TIA published in today’s column, I entirely conceded the biological argument to Dawkins for the purposes of argument because I didn’t need to contest it in order to demonstrate the flaws in the central “unrebuttable” argument of The God Delusion.

There’s no need to argue about hypothetical aquamen, the point of the anthropic principle is that there is no life, no Earth and no universe if just one of the physical constants are modified ever so slightly. Evolution doesn’t get around this for the very simple reason that it has nothing to do with physics; this is precisely why Dawkins says, however nonsensically in the context: “We don’t yet have an equivalent crane for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology.“

And perhaps it could, if any evidence for it existed, which it doesn’t. I don’t waste much time discussing evolution, as in my opinion it’s a constantly fluctuating unscience largely dependent on backdated, ever-mutating models which holds little more interest for me than scientology. But regardless of your level of interest or confidence in the theory of evolution by natural selection, you’d have to be pretty crazy to try using it as the basis of a discussion concerning mathematical probability and physics.

I think it may amuse you nearly as much as it amused me to learn that you can’t pay a self-proclaimed freethinker. A little more than a week ago, I happened to read Dr. PZ Myers heartwrenching plea to help the poor starving atheists at Air America. PZ, who features in not one, but two TIA cameos, is apparently a regular guest on the show and he made this request:

Remember—every Sunday at 9am, you Minnesotans (and clever others) can listen to the Minnesota Atheists radio program on Air America. Tune in tomorrow — it’s especially important since I’ve heard that Air America has actually already lost one advertiser because they had the gall to actually allow atheists to broadcast on their show. We’ll have to demonstrate that the program can get a strong audience, so listen in, call in, and if you have a business that you advertise on the radio, think about buying some time on the show.

Being a soft-hearted, compassionate and ecumenical chap, I was quite naturally touched by their plight and outraged at the callous decision of that nameless advertiser to deny the important and timely message of God’s continued non-existence to the listeners of America. (Complete with updates on the status of Generalissimo Francisco Franco on the hour, no doubt.) Choking back my tears, I determined that I would stand in the gap in this dire time of need, for did I not have a book forthcoming that would be of no little interest to the very audience which made bestsellers out of the presumably uninspired scribblings of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and yea, even Christopher Hitchens?

So, a week ago, I sent MN Atheists the following email: “I am interested in becoming an advertiser of your new radio show on Air America. Please let me know about your various sponsorship and advertising options.”

They responded with an email that neglected to provide the requested information, but instead mentioned that my website appeared to be a very conservative and religious one, and that it hadn’t occurred to them to “advertise our opposition”. I replied: “It’s a libertarian site, not conservative one, but I am a Christian, yes…. I’m simply interested in knowing your standard rates for the various advertising packages because I expect many atheists will be interested in reading my forthcoming book, The Irrational Atheist, just as many Christians, including myself, have read the various books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and company.”

I still didn’t receive any information on their advertising rates, in fact, I didn’t receive anything for three more days, until after a third email to them, MN Atheists finally informed me that while atheists and Christians might read each other’s books, they had no intention of permitting me to advertise The Irrational Atheist on their show.

Now, don’t get me wrong, denying an advertisement for TIA on their show is ABSOLUTELY their right. MN Atheists have the right to turn down advertising sponsorships for “Minnesota Atheists Talk”, just as Air America’s former advertisers have the right to pull their sponsorships. Still, the decision to reject Christian advertising for their radio show would appear to render PZ’s plea about the importance of their need for advertisers to be more than a little empty, and I suggest that the rational observer should treat any claim by MN Atheists to be open-minded, freethinking or financially needy with the same high level of skepticism that MN Atheists themselves show the Holy Bible.

As for any complaints about advertisers leaving Air America over their atheism, well, that obviously merits nothing more than merciless ridicule. What’s good for the godless is good for the gander.

Ian McCleod of the Clan McLeod declares a winner:

Vox Day’s new book raises the bar in the debate between Theists and Atheists. Rather than resort to traditional modes of debate favored by Christians, Vox Day plays by the rules of the opposition, and wins.

Vox’s arguments are exquisitely documented and impressively reasoned. His annihilation of the “Religion Causes War” myth ought to ruin any anti-religionist’s day (I find it the most convincing and potentially useful argument in the book, though your mileage may vary.) The Irrational Atheist attacks the three pillars of New Atheism, not by proving that there is a god, but by proving that their arguments are not the paragon of rationality they bill them to be.

Pretty Lady is surprised, so much so that she gives out a “Literary Award“:

Pretty Lady is shocked. She did not, truly, believe it to be possible.

But she must give credit where credit is due. Ladies and gentlemen, she gives you Vox Day, who in his recently released little tome, The Irrational Atheist, has proven himself a greater Master of the Footnote than David Foster Wallace himself!!!

Indeed. Vox plays his footnotes like a veritable fugue, striking an insouciant balance between formidable scholarship and a fey, swashbuckling sarcasm that never overbalances into the sort of ramble that makes a person seriously wonder if Mr. Wallace forgot to take his ADD meds today…. Incidentally, Vox has also left a smoking hole in the turf where Sammy Harris used to stand, whining, and for this, Pretty Lady is profoundly grateful.

Blonde Moment appreciates the service:

Day provides a valuable service to Christians, particularly those who are not capable of pulling apart arguments against God. I strongly recommend the book.

And WND’s own Joseph Farah is inspired to ask a few questions:

Farah: What are the consequences of widespread atheism?

Day: There are none, because atheism will never be a widespread phenomenon. Like socialism, it’s a parasitic phenomenon that can’t survive on its own. As Chesterton pointed out long ago, atheism rapidly mutates into paganism and diverse forms of spiritual absurdity. And we’re already seeing signs that the post-Christian West is returning to paganism; it’s not transforming into some sort of shiny, super-rational, post-superstitious science fiction society.

Farah: Why do you refer to Richard Dawkins as Darwin’s Judas?

Day: He only finds Darwin useful insofar as his theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to eliminate the basis for a belief in a Creator God. As Dawkins states in his own words, he’s “a passionate anti-Darwinian” with regards to the proper conduct of human affairs. Dawkins thinks humanity should follow Darwin just long enough to cast off Jesus Christ, then ditch Darwin in favor of following Richard Dawkins’ opinion on life, the universe and everything. Just like philosophers, you can always count on a scientist to come around eventually to the concept of rule by scientist-king.

The profession is demonstrating its corruption through its refusal to make use of the method:

In today’s political climate, it has become fairly dangerous for a young scientist or professor to step up and say: ‘This is all nonsense.’ It is increasingly difficult to challenge the global warming consensus, on either a scientific or a political level. Academies can be incredibly cowardly institutions, and if one of their employees was to question the discussion of climate change he or she would be pulled to one side and told: ‘You’re threatening our funding and reputation – do you really want to do that?’ I don’t think we should underestimate the impact that kind of informal pressure can have on people’s willingness to think thoroughly and speak openly.

One way in which critics are silenced is through the accusation that they are ignoring ‘peer-reviewed science’. Yet oftentimes, peer review is a nonsense. As anyone who has ever put his nose inside a university will know, peer review is usually a mode of excluding the unexpected, the unpredictable and the unrespectable, and forming a mutually back-scratching circle. The history of peer review and how it developed is not a pretty sight. Through the process of peer review, of certain papers being nodded through by experts and other papers being given a red cross, the controllers of the major scientific journals can include what they like and exclude what they don’t like. Peer review is frequently a way of controlling debate, even curtailing it. Many people who fall back on peer-reviewed science seem afraid to have out the intellectual argument.

While I have tremendous regard for the effectiveness of the scientific method, I have very, very little respect for scientists. They are very, very far from the impartial devotees of scientody that they so love to portray themselves being. With a few notable exceptions, they are cowardly, contemptible herd animals more interested in jousting for a better position among the herd hierarchy than advancing the state of human knowledge.

There have never been more scientists accomplishing less of scientific value than at any point in the scientific era. As for global warming, scientists of the future will look back on it in much the same way scientists today view phrenology, even as they attempt to push their latest non-scientific nonsense on the rest of us.

If you’re clueless and you get paid by a media organization to demonstrate that cluelessness in public, you’re a journalist. If you think that having heard of something once or having been there once means that you know all about that concept or location, you’re a journalist. If you write about yourself every single freaking time you touch the keyboard, then you’re either a blogger or a female journalist working for ESPN. (Okay, that’s not quite fair, the ESPN ladies occasionally write about lesbian rights and the WNBA, assuming those are actually two different topics.) If you ever a) publish pictures of bikini-clad and/or naked women, b) sprinkle your text with four-letter words considered vulgar, or c) mention the forbidden words “Ron Paul”, you are clearly a blogger.

While debating this topic with a journalist friend, it suddenly heated up and she said that journalism requires passion and that I do not have this passion and more importantly I would not understand this passion.

And my journalist acquaintances wonder when I show open amusement at their passionate insistence that they are practicing a genuine “profession”. I think it actually upsets a few of them that I so vehemently deny being a journalist in any way shape or form, or maybe it’s just my oft-stated belief that prostitution is a more venerable and more honorable calling.

Chuck Norris is the very last man on Earth that needs me or anyone else to defend him. But this is simply ridiculous:

Saying he’s ‘kicking Chuck Norris where it hurts – his wallet,’ Ng explains he’s starting the boycott because Norris endorsed a presidential candidate and supports ideas “far out of the mainstream.” Ng singles out Norris’ endorsement of Huckabee – “a candidate who says that he does not believe in evolution,” and “who called for the isolation of AIDS patients – long after the Centers for Disease Control determined that the virus was not spread by casual contact.”

Ng is obviously using the media’s definition of the mainstream, which is “a small minority of people who believe things that we think everyone should believe.” Most Americans don’t believe in evolution, and more than two-thirds of those who believe in evolution believe that God made use of its mechanism of natural selection.

Now, you may not like that fact. You may think Americans are really stupid and therefore should be ruled by benevolent scientist-kings. But you may not reasonably argue that a disbelief in evolution is a view that is out of the mainstream. As for the historical proposal to isolate AIDS victims, no doubt thousands of AIDS victims today are deeply grateful that their predecessors were not isolated, thus allowing them to experience all of that glorious suffering of which Mother Theresa and others have spoken so highly.

I don’t support Mike Huckabee nor do I share Chuck Norris’s beliefs about his suitability for the presidency. But I’m not about to stop watching Walker: Texas Ranger over it….

If I failed to note that we just ripped past 100k visitors in a month for the first time. So, thanks for coming by and feel free to hang around as long as you like. As long as you don’t piss off the blonde, bring up Round One or inadvertantly summon the Bane, you should be fine.

And I’d also like to compliment Brent for his fine, fine work in adeptly distracting nearly the entire Ilk with a single deft mention of things that go bang. Holy cats, does he have your number! I’ve never seen so many people fail a saving throw against “Look, Gun!” Y’all should probably check your pockets to make sure you still have your wallets.

It must break Peggy Noonan’s heart to turn on that “Reaganesque” man she once adored:

On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, “I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party. It’s going to change it forever, be the end of it!”

This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.

The Republican party is broken… so naturally they’re pushing a bunch of men who are pledged to continue to increase spending and the size of government, continue the war and continue to maintain open immigration policies, just like the previous Bush administration.

You know, if professional wrestling looked this fake, no one would even watch it.

Brent Rasmussen of Unscrewing the Inscrutable reviews The Irrational Atheist:

This is my review of Vox Day’s new book called “The Irrational Atheist”. I’d like to make some things perfectly clear before I proceed with this review. I am still, and barring some pretty convincing evidence that I find personally credible, will most likely always be an atheist…

It was actually painful for me [to] read. This is due to the fact that that I really do respect Richard Dawkins and his scientific accomplishments, as well as Daniel Dennett’s heady forays into philosophical thought. I also absolutely love listening to Christopher Hitchens speak and debate. As for Michel Onfray and Sam Harris? Eh, not so much, but I do appreciate their ability to raise awareness and articulate some of the same things that I have thought about myself over the years and to put them into commercially successful books.

I am not going to go into a point by point review of the various arguments that Day addressed in TIA. Suffice it to say that by the end of the chapters dealing with the individual authors, I was happy that it was over. It was a thorough, detailed, dispassionate (with a little snarky levity thrown into the footnotes for flavor), and completely disheartening take-down of some of the best arguments that the godless have put into print – on their own terms, without using the Bible (in the first part of the book, that is), or any other sacred text to do it with. Amazing. And depressing. It is not my place to defend their books. I truly hope that they do find time to defend and clarify their books, specifically to the counter-arguments and claims made by Vox Day in TIA, though, because they really need to. Trust me, it wasn’t pretty….

My advice is to read this book – and then do your damnedest to find something in it that you can argue against. Something beyond “that’s stupid!” – which is what always seems to be the first-blush response from an atheist to a theist. (Fucking hell I’m tired of that shit.) I couldn’t do it. Maybe you’ll have better luck than I did. I hope you do.

I strongly encourage Dr. Dawkins, Dr. Dennett, Hitch, Harris, and M’sieur Onfray to respond to TIA. It is not your run-of-the-mill “flea” book looking to make a quick buck riding on the coattails of The Amber Heard Fan Club*. It’s the real deal, it’s substantive, meticulously researched, it brings up real problems, and it addresses these problems without falling into the trap that other fleas have fallen into in the past.

Brent and I have certainly exchanged a fair amount of fire in the past, but I have never doubted that in addition to being a formidable opponent, he is a serious and intellectually honest man. I have no trouble believing him when he says that he scrutinized TIA twice over looking for any errors that might allow him to rip it apart, in fact, knowing that intelligent and competent critics like him would surely be doing just that forced me to write a stronger and better-documented book than I otherwise might have written.