Category: Uncategorized

The Fifth Horseman 6

ANTI-APOLOGETIC #4

“My faith is true for me” is rarely heard among more sophisticated believers and almost never heard among fundamentalists.

It is very difficult to explain why this claim is fallacious because often the type of person who makes this statement does not have the intellectual or educational wherewithal to understand more thoughtful, substantive responses. (The exceptions are the youthful solipsists, the postmodernists, and the epistemological and cognitive relativists.)

The statement, “My faith is true for me,” means the faith-based beliefs one holds are true for the speaker and not necessarily for other people. The utterer of this statement is not making claims about faith beliefs being universally true—that is, true for all people.

Here’s my response: does your faith tradition include statements of fact about the world? For example, humans are thetans trapped on Earth in physical bodies, Jesus walked on water, the ability to fly can result from fasting (Jacobsen, 2011), or the Garden of Eden is in Jackson County, Missouri.

If your faith tradition includes no empirical statements, then it’s unclear what your faith tradition entails. However, if your faith tradition makes empirical claims (and all faith claims that fall within the domain of religion make empirical claims), then what you’re saying is that your belief is true for you, regardless of how the world actually is. Since the world is the way it is regardless of our beliefs or of the epistemology we use to know the world, “my faith is true for me” is a nonsensical statement. One can have faith that if one jumps out of a twenty-story window one will polymorph into an eagle and fly to safety. This doesn’t make it the case.

What one is really saying when one states, “My faith is true for me,” is, “I prefer my delusions, and I wish to remain with them in spite of the evidence.”

Once more, we see Boghossian making an appeal to his personal incredulity. And the fact that some people may not understand “more thoughtful substantive responses” explaining why the statement is fallacious does not mean that it is difficult to explain why it is fallacious. After all, Boggie correctly notes that the youthful solipsists, the postmodernists, and the epistemological and cognitive relativists all have the intellectual wherewithal to understand any such explanation, and yet Boghossian does not provide one.

As will become clear from my recommended response, it’s not hard to understand why Boghossian doesn’t want to explain why the statement is fallacious. Nevertheless, because I am not a relativist, I would not recommend relying upon this particular defense of faith except as a rhetorical feint that is a prelude to an attack on unwarranted atheist morality claims.

VD RESPONSE: My claim that my faith is true for me is no different than your claim that your morality is true for you. Do you believe that some actions are good and others are evil? Do you believe that some actions are objectively desirable and others are objectively undesirable? If one believes in an objective moral Law that is universally applicable to everyone, then one must necessarily believe in a Lawgiver.

However, since you reject the existence of the Lawgiver, we know you also reject the existence of an objective universal moral law. Therefore the limits of your moral claims extend no farther than you. What you’re saying is that your moral beliefs are true for you, regardless of what the moral law actually is. You’re saying that you prefer to act however you momentarily desire, regardless of the morality of your actions.

This is why even atheists believe other atheists are less trustworthy than believers. And the bloody history of atheist rule has shown that people whose moral reality is subjective are far more dangerous to the world than people whose perception of reality is subjective. The subjective believer may be delusional and dangerous to himself, but the subjective moralist is not only delusional, he is dangerous to everyone else.

ANTI-APOLOGETIC #16

Defense: “Atheism and secular humanism are as much a religion—and require as much faith—as any religion. Atheists and secular humanists love to equivocate on religious issues—claiming they are not religious and are free of religious bias—but they are no less religious or faithful than anyone else. They are not aware of their own faith and are blind to their biases. There is a saying: ‘There are no nonreligious people, only false Gods.’”

Response: “Confusing atheism with secular humanism demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding as to what the terms mean. Secular humanism is a philosophy and a set of ideals; atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God or Gods. There is no dogma attached to nonbelief in a divine Shiva the Destroyer. And, as to the saying—it’s silly. To assert that people are incapable of letting go of belief in mythological fairytales without attaching themselves to some other form of worship is narrow-minded, condescending, pessimistic, and without evidential merit.”

VD RESPONSE: How can you possibly think that is an adequate response? You are providing an example of the very evidence you claim does not exist! You are responding to a charge of atheist equivocation by blatantly equivocating! The claim was that atheism and secular humanism were religions that required faith… and your response is to say that atheism is not secular humanism? That is a complete non sequitur.

As a Street Epistemologist, you are an atheist who is actively selling secular humanism, a specific “humanistic vision” as Peter Boghossian describes it, and yet the moment you’re called on what you are doing, which is religious proselytizing, you retreat to pretending that your atheism is totally unrelated to your secular humanism.  And describing secular humanism as “a philosophy and a set of ideals” doesn’t mean that secular humanism isn’t a religion. Quite to the contrary, by describing it that way you have admitted that it is “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons”. That is the literal dictionary definition of a religion!

You are not merely religious, you are a religious fanatic. You’re the secular humanist version of the crazy guy raving about the End of Days in the park.

As for atheism, it is merely a specific belief that is a subset of the secular humanist religion. Your position is no more reasonable than a Southern Baptist who doesn’t believe in infant baptism claiming that his lack of belief in infant baptism means he isn’t a theist. That sounds absurd, but it is no less absurd than your attempt to delink atheism from secular humanism.

“We are now a police state” – top NSA official

So much for that whole “land of the free” business. To say nothing of the Fourth Amendment and security in one’s person and papers:

“The main use of the collection from these [NSA spying] programs [is] for law enforcement. These slides give the policy of the DOJ/FBI/DEA etc. on how to use the NSA data. In fact, they instruct that none of the NSA data is referred to in courts – cause it has been acquired without a warrant. So, they have to do a ‘Parallel Construction’ and not tell the courts or prosecution or defense the original data used to arrest people. This I call: a ‘planned programed perjury policy’ directed by US law enforcement.”

“And, as the last line on one slide says, this also applies to ‘Foreign Counterparts. This is a total corruption of the justice system not only in our country but around the world. The source of the info is at the bottom of each slide. This is a totalitarian process – means we are now in a police state.”
– Bill Binney, NSA Senior Technical Director

The USA’s spying program is ALREADY much worse than Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or even East Germany. The gloves are coming off. One can no longer reasonably pretend that the USA is anything but an imperial police state wearing an increasingly thin quasi-democratic, faux constitutional veil.

Remember this the next time you dismiss something as conspiracy theory or claim that a government agency couldn’t possibly keep a secret from the American people. The real NSA conspiracy against the American people is much more extensive, and has been around longer, than even the hard-core conspiracy hunters suspected.

Hands off the kiddies, please

Vladimir Putin extends a warm Russian welcome to the Lavender Brigade:

Russian President Vladimir Putin says gays should feel welcome at the upcoming Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, but they must ‘leave the children in peace’. Mr Putin told volunteers today that gays visiting Sochi ‘can feel calm and at ease,’ and vowed that there would be no discrimination at the games. But he emphasised that, according to a law banning homosexual ‘propaganda’ among minors, gays cannot express their views on gay rights issues to anyone under age.

First, I don’t see how this can possibly be a problem for anyone who isn’t a pedophile. I mean, let’s face it, if you’re a middle-aged homosexual actively lobbying to lower the age of consent, you’re a pedo.

Second, is anyone really surprised that the former head of the KGB doesn’t recognize First Amendment rights?

The Fifth Horseman 5

Anti-Apologetic #3

“I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.”

I have personally heard this objection innumerous times—mostly from those who are more fundamentalist in their orientation. My suspicion is that people who have genuine doubts about their faith but want to demonstrate or voice strong verbal support for their faith (not necessarily to others but for themselves) make this statement.

This defense is problematic for several reasons. First, what amount of “faith” is required for someone’s nonbelief in the Norse god Thor? Or, are most people Thor atheists? Does nonbelief in Thor require effort? Do people need to congregate and sing songs together to reinforce their nonbelief in Thor? Anyone who says, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist,” doesn’t understand what the word “atheist” means, or is simply insincere.

Second, one possible reason this defense has gained such traction is the starting point. The faithful start with defaulting to God; in other words, the faithful look at the world around them and say, “God.” I happen to be on a plane now, and when I look around I see clouds, seats, people, my laptop, but I don’t see an invisible, unifying metaphysical and supernatural element. I see objects. It is unclear to me why one’s default would be God.

Borrowing from a term first used by pastor and French theologian John Calvin, contemporary American Christian apologist Alvin Plantinga tries to answer questions of defaulting to God with the Sensus Divinitatis or “God sensor” (Plantinga, 2000). Basically, Plantinga’s answer is that some people have a built-in sense of the divine—something within them senses God in the same way that we have eyes that sense things in the visual realm.

One of the main problems with the God sensor argument is that just as some people allegedly claim to sense God, other people can allegedly claim to sense other imagined entities. This common rebuttal is referred to as “the Great Pumpkin” objection. In American cartoonist Charles M. Schulz’s comic strip Peanuts, Linus believes there’s a Great Pumpkin who arises from the pumpkin patch to reward well-behaved children. If the theist can claim that her sensation of God is immediate, why can’t anyone who genuinely feels an imagined entity claim that entity is real? (This argument can become very complicated, and as a general rule I’d suggest avoiding it whenever possible. Focus instead on the fact that one’s confidence in a sensation does not map onto its accuracy—just because people feel in their hearts the Emperor of Japan is divine, does not make the Emperor of Japan divine.)

When responding to, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist,” I begin by clearly defining the words “faith” and “atheist.” I can’t imagine how these two definitions could align so as to make this statement sensible.

VD RESPONSE: An appeal to your own lack of imagination is not only a fundamental logical fallacy, but is so hapless and inept a response that I would be embarrassed for you if I didn’t think you were an intellectually dishonest jerk who is willing to say anything in order to tear others down.

Also, you’re wrong. Let’s look at your own definitions of “faith” and “atheist”. You defined faith, improperly, as “pretending to know something you don’t”. As for atheist, you say: “Atheist,” as I use the term, means, “There’s insufficient evidence to warrant belief in a divine, supernatural creator of the universe.”

The two definitions don’t align because your definition of atheist doesn’t even conform to the grammatical rules of the English language. “Atheist” doesn’t mean “there’s insufficient evidence to believe” anything. It’s not a statement, it’s a freaking noun! An “atheist’ is a type of person, specifically, a person who does not believe in the existence of God, gods, or the supernatural, who “offers a humanistic vision”, to quote Peter Boghossian, and in most cases, also subscribes to rational materialism and scientific determinism.

And given that the possibility that God always existed cannot be ruled out, as per Mr. Boghossian’s Anti-Apologetic #1, it should be obvious that every atheist who claims God does not exist is someone who is pretending to know something he does not know. Which, according to your own definition, is someone who has faith.

Very few theists have the sort of faith required to engage in that pretense, to say nothing of the vast quantities required to pretend to know that the universe always existed, life came from non-life, science is the only means of obtaining reliable evidence, and global warming requires a global government.

ANTI-APOLOGETIC #15

Defense: “You’re just talking about blind faith. My faith is not blind.”

Response: “There is no need to modify the word ‘faith’ with the word ‘blind.’ All faith is blind. All faith is belief on the basis of insufficient evidence. That’s what makes it faith. If one had evidence, one wouldn’t need faith, one would merely present the evidence.”

VD RESPONSE: Your thinking is too simplistic. Faith is no more a binary matter than science is. I also notice that you’re changing the definition of faith again: before you said faith was “pretending to know what you don’t know”. You are also contradicting yourself here. What distinguishes “sufficient” evidence from “insufficient” evidence? What is the magical binary line that separates one form of evidence from the other?

Even “insufficient evidence” is still evidence, by definition, so your assertion that if one had evidence, one wouldn’t need faith is obviously false since you declare that faith necessarily requires a form of evidence upon which the belief is based.

Bomb-makers in Minneapolis

What used to be known as the Ghettos in the Sky are now the center of Mogadishu on the Mississippi. And the Somali population in Minneapolis has already contributed suicide bombers to Al-Shabab in Somalia as well as mall attackers to the same group in Kenya. So, the mysterious recent explosion in the heart of Somali Minneapolis should be a matter of more than a little concern to Minnesotans, as it indicates that the Somalis are likely to bring their jihad to the Mall of America or some other local target sooner or later.

A big explosion occurs next door to a mosque that has an unabashed
affection for the Muslim Brotherhood, in a Somali neighborhood where
terrorists are known to hang out — what could possibly be amiss with
that? Nothing, except possibly an Islamophobic hate crime, according to CAIR.

Zuhur Ahmed, a board member of the Minnesota chapter of
the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the group was monitoring
the situation closely. “So far we don’t have any details,” she said. “But whenever there’s
an explosion, fire or anything of that sort by a mosque, there’s a
little bit of concern if the motive is a hate crime. We’re just
concerned and watching out for that.”

But then, CAIR always believes that the best defense is a good offense. If it were a gas explosion, the normal process would be for gas to
accumulate inside the building until a chance ignition detonated it.
Under those circumstances, the walls of the building would be blown
outwards, causing a sudden, catastrophic collapse of the structure and
filling the street and surrounding lots with bricks and rubble.

Nothing of the sort occurred. The earliest photos show an intense and
rapidly-spreading fire that looks like it originated on the second
floor, immediately above the grocery. This would be consistent with the
unexpected detonation of an explosive substance — say, ammonium nitrate,
just to pick a random example — which then distributed very flammable
material within an enclosed space, creating a flash-fire.

The explosion was subsequently blamed on a gas leak, which is interesting because the Star Tribune has been caught lying about its conversation with the gas company responsible.

I contacted CenterPoint and spoke with Rebecca Virden. I’m glad I did
because as you’ll see in a moment, there’s some very bad reporting
going on with this story.

“Our distribution system after we checked it — which runs
up to the meter, which is the distribution system’s responsibility, to
the meter — has no leak on it at all. We tested that system and it holds
its test. We even took it apart and tested it to make sure because it
had no leakage. It’s fully sound. As for our system, we had no leakage, no leak history, no leak calls
into our call centers prior to the incident before, during or after.”

Throw in the fact that Homeland Security was spotted on the scene and it points to the probability that the police and media are covering up the explosion of a Somali bomb-making factory in Minneapolis.

A lesson in rhetoric

In reading the responses to the Anti-Apologetics, SimplyTimothy observed: “Not stated, but now obvious, is that when you decide to bring the
rhetoric it is like bringing a swift kick to the balls to the
arm-wrestling contest. I like how you light the fuse of their ideas,
amplify them, then hand it back to them like a ticking time-bomb – then
you offer them a lit cigarette. It is very civilized of you.”

When writing on such disputative matters, I always attempt to do so with a tea service and one pinky extended. Anyhow, as a few people, mostly Tango, appear to be confused on the difference between a rhetorical response and a dialectical response, (which is legitimately confusing since technically, a rhetorical response IS a dialectical response), I think a brief refresher is worthwhile.

Remember that rhetoric is not limited to the laws of logic. Aristotle wrote: “Rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion. Persuasion
is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been
demonstrated. The orator’s demonstration is an enthymeme, and this is, in general, the most effective of the modes of
persuasion. The enthymeme is a sort of syllogism, and the consideration of syllogisms of all kinds, without
distinction, is the business of dialectic, either of dialectic as a whole or of one of its branches. It follows
plainly, therefore, that he who is best able to see how and from what elements a syllogism is produced will also be
best skilled in the enthymeme, when he has further learnt what its subject-matter is and in what respects it differs
from the syllogism of strict logic.”

In other words, when using rhetoric, one has to know when to utilize strict logical syllogisms and when to depart from them. And this totally depends on the audience. For, as I have frequently quoted him before, Aristotle observes: “Before some audiences not even the possession
of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge
implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.”

In rhetoric, it is perfectly legitimate to engage in all manner of logical fallacies. This is exactly what Peter Boghossian’s Street Epistemologists are taught to do, which is why they advance various arguments that are not only mutually contradictory, but blatantly flawed from a strict logical perspective. They engage in bait-and-switches, false definitions, and appeals to everything from authority to their own incredulity.

Now, because they claim to be faithful devotees of Science and Reason, this is why using scientific consensus and strict logic against them can be useful. But it is not our only weapon; they are woefully unprepared to see any sophisticated rhetoric arrayed against them. As one can see from the specific defenses they are being taught to attack, they are only being prepared for the lowest and crudest levels of rhetoric.

The rhetoric I am teaching you, on the other hand, is a much more sophisticated and deeper approach. Suppose, for example, the Street Epistemologist were to take Tango’s approach, retreat to the dialectic, and point out the difference between Boggie’s construction (1) and my own (2):

1) No faith is needed to POSTULATE that the universe may have always
existed.
2) No faith is needed to POSTULATE that the
universe always existed.

“Postulate (Subject One) versus Postulate (Subject One or Subject
Two). What you postulate is enclosed within the brackets, the subject of
the postulation. There is a world of difference when the subject allows
for alternatives compared to a straight out declaration with no choice.”

While it is true that the subjects postulated are modestly different, the differences are irrelevant and it is a huge mistake for the Street Epistemologist to try this line of retreat because it exposes an even bigger flaw in Boghossian’s attack. The fact is that no faith is needed to POSTULATE ANYTHING because a postulate is, by definition, “a defining”. A postulate, or a positing, is not a conclusion; it is the IF in the IF-THEN statement. The spearpoint of Anti-Apologetic #1 is nothing more than a statement of the obvious given rhetorical effect through specification.

So, it should be obvious that if one goes with a purely dialectical approach here, one gets no additional benefit from the perfectly analogous enthymeme. The postulates may be different, but the important thing to note is that there is no difference between the legitimacy of one postulate and another. Recall that the opponent is not going to be impressed with your dialectical precision; he has already shown that he is willing to say anything so long as it might be persuasive. But by responding in the rhetorical manner, with a slightly modified postulate, one gets the same benefit as well as the additional rhetorical benefit of the stronger statement and opening up the possibility of not one, but two effective new lines of attack if the Street Epistemologist is so foolish as to stubbornly attempt to salvage this particular attack by distinguishing between Postulate 1 and Postulate 2.

I’ve already pointed out the one line of attack that a retreat to a dialectical defense would expose the Street Epistemologist. See if you can correctly identify the second, and even more effective one, it also exposes.

The Huggening

Now that McRapey has finally claimed his Participation Hugo, the literary gods have declared that it is time for RAINBOW PUPPY LIGHTHOUSE THE HUGGENING. Which is to say, it’s Larry Correia’s turn to win Best Novel in 2014.

“The ugly truth is that the most prestigious award in sci-fi/fantasy is basically just a popularity contest, where the people who are popular with a tiny little group of WorldCon voters get nominated and thousands of other works are ignored. Books that tickle them are declared good and anybody who publically deviates from groupthink is bad. Over time this lame ass award process has become increasingly snooty and pretentious, and you can usually guess who all of the finalists are going to be that year before any of the books have actually come out or been read by anyone, entirely by how popular the author is with this tiny group. This is a leading cause of puppy related sadness.”

For just $40 you can register as a supporting member for WorldCon and nominate up to five works in every category. This year Warbound, the last book of the Grimnoir trilogy is eligible.Won’t you please help? Won’t you please put a smile on a sad puppy’s face?

The Fifth Horseman 4

This next anti-apologetic is particularly fascinating in light of the recent conversation I had on Twitter with one of Peter Boghossian’s Street Epistemologists named Blake. Blake staunchly defended the idea that there might have been an eternal universe consisting of Skittles, luminiferous aether, and highly compressed phlogiston prior to the Big Bang because, and I quote: “as far as what was before the Big Bang, (if that even makes sense), I just don’t know, and you don’t either.”

ANTI-APOLOGETIC #2 

“You can’t prove there’s not a God.”

I try to have patience when I hear this. What’s perpetually surprising about this defense is that I hear it from people all over the intellectual and educational spectrum. The basic idea is that because you can’t prove that there’s not a God, then God must exist. Of all of the defenses of faith, it is most difficult to comprehend how someone could actually offer this as a legitimate defense for faith or for belief in God.

To rebut this, I talk about little blue creatures living inside Venus. Clearly one cannot prove there are no little blue men living inside Venus. I then ask the question directly, “Do you believe there are little blue men living inside the planet Venus?”

There are basically three answers for this: yes, no, or I don’t know. If they say “yes,” then I change the color to yellow. I continue to change the color until they admit that not all the men I’ve described can physically live inside the planet. I then repeat the question and ask if they believe there are little blue men living inside Venus.

If they say “no,” I reply, “Why not? You can’t prove it not to be true.” Most people will get the point and then say there’s something different about God. That is, this line of argument works against everything except God. (Here I’m reminded of defenders of Anselm’s argument for the existence of God. Every time someone would bring up an objection, they’d state that the argument only works with God.) When the respondent says there is something special about God that makes this argument not work, then I always press them to know what’s different about God. I’ve yet to hear a coherent answer to this question.

If they respond, “I don’t know,” to the question of little blue men living inside Venus, I ask them why they don’t take the same stance with God and say, “I don’t know.”

Finally, I ask, “What evidence could I give you that would prove God doesn’t exist? Can you please give me a specific example of exactly what that evidence would look like?” Because it’s not possible to have a justified belief in God due to the fact that there’s insufficient evidence to warrant this belief, very few people have been able to cogently answer the question. I then use the discussion as a springboard to suggest that they don’t believe in God on the basis of the evidence. From here it’s a rocky but clear path to, “One ought not believe in something for which there’s insufficient evidence.”

Here Boghossian completely fails to understand the point of the defense he is trying to attack. He’s surprised because he is erroneously assuming that it is the basis for an assertion rather than the response to an attack which it obviously is. (This is more evidence of Boghossian’s social autism; it’s typical of many of the more socially awkward atheists that they cannot distinguish between an attack and a defense.) The basic idea is not that because you can’t prove that there’s not a God then God must exist, but rather because you can’t prove that there is not a God, then you cannot say there is not a God. And no faith is needed to posit that God exists and has always existed.

Which Boghossian should understand, given that in Anti-Apologetic #1, he stated: “The possibility that the universe always existed cannot be ruled out…. No faith is needed to posit that the universe may have always existed.”

VD RESPONSE: I don’t believe that little blue men live inside Venus. The human body, regardless of size or color, is incapable of surviving temperatures on the surface of Venus, let alone inside Venus’s iron core. Therefore, it should be readily apparent that little blue men cannot live there. Furthermore, there is no testimonial or documentary evidence of little blue men on Venus, whereas there is a vast quantity of testimonial and documentary evidence in favor of the existence of God.

I will be happy to tell you what evidence you could give me that would prove God doesn’t exist if you agree to tell me what evidence I could give you to prove that God does exist. Are we agreed? Very well. If the human race could collectively go one single 7-day period without committing any of the acts that God describes as sins in the Bible, I would agree that God doesn’t exist. If God does not exist and evil is nothing more than how we happen to describe certain human choices, then obviously it is possible for Man to not commit evil as it is described in the Bible as the violation of God’s Will. In fact, even if only 10 people could manage to go about their normal daily lives for a single week without sin, I think this would be a remarkable piece of evidence against the existence of God.

If, however, Man cannot refrain from committing evil despite consciously choosing to do so, then obviously the Biblical model of fallen Man is more in line with observable reality than the godless model, thereby indicating that Man’s morality is defined by the Will of an existent God.

So, what evidence are you willing to accept that you would consider conclusive regarding the existence of God?

ANTI-APOLOGETIC #14

Defense: “You should never say such things. You’ll offend people and they’ll think you’re a jerk.”

Response: “What people believe, and how they act, matter. They particularly matter in a democracy where people have a certain amount of influence over the lives of their fellow citizens. My intent is not to be a jerk. I don’t buy into the notion that criticizing an idea makes me a bad person. A criticism of an idea is not the same as a criticism of a person. We are not our ideas. Ideas don’t deserve dignity; people deserve dignity. I’m criticizing an idea because that idea is not true, and the fact that people think it is true has dangerous consequences.” 

VD RESPONSE: First of all, you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a corrupt imperial republic imposed by force and ruled by a bi-factional oligarchy, in which the people have absolutely no amount of influence over the lives of their fellow citizens regardless of how they vote. Your argument is based on a false premise. And more importantly, it doesn’t matter what your intent is, the observable fact is that you are acting like a jerk. You are violating basic social etiquette and the fact that you genuinely can’t see that your behavior is offensive indicates you may have a neurological abnormality that prevents you from grasping normal human socio-sexual relations. You know how you complain about women not liking you? Well, Sherlock, here’s your first clue.

Furthermore, Peter Boghossian wrote that “tolerance has been perverted into another value that undermines reason”. So, you’re not merely a jerk, you’re an intolerant jerk. You’re every bit as intolerant as the Saudi clerics who run around whipping girls who dress improperly, only you’re running around verbally abusing everyone you think believes improperly. And what’s more, you’re revealing yourself to be either dishonest or incredibly forgetful. You said it is wrong to pretend to know what you don’t know, you also said that we can’t know if God exists or not, and now you’re saying that you know that idea is not true. Are you even listening to yourself? Because you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

You said how people act matters. I suggest you look at your own actions! Is it really your intention to go through life with everyone correctly seeing you as a dishonest, intolerant jerk and avoiding you if they can? Is that really what reason dictates?

The fading First Amendment

Even the New York Times appears to be a little concerned about the incarceration of a blogger:

For over six years, Roger Shuler has hounded figures of the state legal and political establishment on his blog, Legal Schnauzer, a hothouse of furious but often fuzzily sourced allegations of deep corruption and wide-ranging conspiracy. Some of these allegations he has tested in court, having sued his neighbor, his neighbor’s lawyer, his former employer, the Police Department, the Sheriff’s Department, the Alabama State Bar and two county circuit judges, among others. Mostly, he has lost.

But even those who longed for his muzzling, and there are many, did not see it coming like this: with Mr. Shuler sitting in jail indefinitely, and now on the list of imprisoned journalists worldwide kept by the Committee to Protect Journalists. There, in the company of jailed reporters in China, Iran and Egypt, is Mr. Shuler, the only person on the list in the Western Hemisphere.

A former sports reporter and a former employee in a university’s
publications department, Mr. Shuler, 57, was arrested in late October on
a contempt charge in connection with a defamation lawsuit filed by the
son of a former governor. The circumstances surrounding that arrest,
including a judge’s order that many legal experts described as
unconstitutional and behavior by Mr. Shuler that some of the same
experts described as self-defeating posturing, have made for an
exceptionally messy test of constitutional law….

On Nov. 14, the judge held a hearing, and Mr. Shuler, who was
representing himself, took the stand, insisting that the court had no
jurisdiction over him and calling the court a joke. The judge decided
that the hearing had “served as a trial on the merits” and made his
final ruling: Mr. Shuler was forbidden to publish anything about Mr.
Riley or Ms. Duke involving an affair, an abortion or payoffs; was to
pay them nearly $34,000 for legal fees; and was to remove the offending
posts or remain in jail.

That didn’t take long. How long ago did the Left first start banging the drums about the need to ban “hate speech”. Ten years ago? And now we’re already seeing overtly political speech being banned in America. It’s only a judge’s action rather than a legislative act, but then, as we’ve learned from the examples of California and other states, it is the courts that now make the law, not the legislatures.

As per Barack Obama, the executive branch merely decides whether the government feels like implementing it or not.

The incarceration of Roger Shuler is merely one more example showing that there is not even the pretense of the rule of law in the USA anymore. The USA has devolved into a Maughamite state. Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law, with due regard for the federal agent around the corner.

Anti-apologetic to evangelism

On Twitter, Blake Seidler is attempting to defend one of Peter Boghossian’s many errors. It’s highly amusing and it demonstrates how most atheists simply are not prepared for rhetorical battle. Seeing them dip their toes into rhetoric and trying to figure it out in their quasi-aspie way is like watching monkeys try to figure out how to drive a car.

BS: Your accusation of science denial is false.

VD: He is indisputably denying science. He is appealing to the long-discredited idea of a Steady State universe.

BS: No he’s not, and that’s precisely the straw-man I’m referring to. He absolutely accepts the Big Bang model of the universe.

BS: You invoked the Steady State model, not Boghossian.

VD: He’s the one who denies the scientific consensus for the age of the universe, Blake.

VD:  “The possibility that the universe always existed cannot be ruled out.” – Peter Boghossian. There’s your science denial.

VD: “The possibility that the Earth is only six thousand years old cannot be ruled out.” – Peter Boghossian (paraphrased)

VD: “The possibility that God created the Heavens and the Earth cannot be ruled out.” – Peter Boghossian (paraphrased).

There is more of the same sort of thing, but the fact is that we all know Boghossian actually believes in the Big Bang and the scientific consensus concerning the age of the universe. He simply pretended that he didn’t in order to attack the possibility that God might have created the universe. But notice how the simple fact of answering rhetoric with rhetoric has immediately forced Blake, the Street Epistemologist, to beat a hasty retreat to scientific dialectic. Oh, of course Peter Boghossian isn’t a SCIENCE DENIER. Of course he ABSOLUTELY accepts the Big Bang model.

Forcing this retreat was, of course, precisely my intention, since now we can cheerfully cram the very words he was attempting to use to cast doubt on our faith right down his throat. Now Boghossian can’t even argue with someone claiming that there was nothing but Skittles and bubblegum before the Big Bang, or with someone who argues that Bishop Ussher’s 6,000 year old Earth can’t be ruled out without facing his own words. He is forced to choose between being hung by our rhetoric or accept that his arguments have been neutralized.

Hit them with rhetoric when they use rhetoric. Then, when they retreat and try to switch back to dialectic, recall their rhetoric and turn it against them. As I’ve noted, they are NEVER prepared to defend their beliefs or stand by the statements they make in attacking Christian beliefs. Ironically, the less intellectually honest they are, the easier it is to take them apart because they will always say something that contradicts an earlier statement. The more you do this, the easier it gets to spot the statement that will eventually be contradicted.

UPDATE: Boghossian’s tactics may be more self-destructive than I’d imagined.

VD: You say we can’t believe there was nothing before the Big Bang, but we can believe there were never any gods. You have faith!

BS: no, I withhold belief in God the same way I withhold belief in everything else that I don’t have evidence for.

VD: You appear to be pretending to know something you don’t. Do you admit there may be a Creator God?

BS: yes. I think a deistic god is impossible to disprove, and a truly omnipotent being could obviously conceal his existence.

VD: Good. You claim there may be something pre-Big Bang and there may be a Creator God. Do you also claim that Jesus Christ may be Lord?

BS: sure. I think the evidence is strongly against it, but if I am open to being shown that I am wrong about that.

And now we’re onto the Christian’s favored ground. Blake is presently trying to cite various forms of evidence against the Lordship of Jesus Christ, which should be an interesting enterprise. Notice that although he’s still repeating Boggie’s talking points, we’re no longer questioning the essential legitimacy of faith, but are instead discussing the evidence for and against Jesus Christ. I’ve asked him to focus, in particular, in the historical and textual evidence against Jesus Christ he cited.

So, you see, an unprovoked attack by a Street Epistemologist can be transformed into an opportunity to not only defend one’s faith, but share it. The anti-apologetic should be viewed as a potential opportunity for Christian evangelism. Just keep in mind that these are seldom individuals who are wired normally, so avoid any and all emotion-based appeals or personal testimonials and stick firmly to nothing but facts, reason, and logic.

UPDATE 2: A new tactical line occurs to me. When asked about the evidence AGAINST Jesus Christ, Blake surprised me by answering: “Historical, archeological, textual, philosophical, psychological, anthropological, cosmological, and experiential.”

Given that most atheists actively attempt to limit evidence to “scientific evidence”, it may be useful to encourage them to expand the limits of what they consider acceptable evidence by first asking them for their evidence against Jesus Christ. For example, most atheists would run screaming away from the idea that experiential evidence is legitimate in any circumstances. And archeological evidence has played into Christian hands since Nineveh was discovered. But Blake has manfully agreed that all these evidential grounds are fair game, “given sound logic and consistent definitions”, restrictions to which I can’t possibly object.

In any event, we’ve agreed that Twitter is too limited a medium for a detailed discussion, so he is going to write up his case for the evidence against the Lordship of Jesus Christ, which I will post here on the blog, unedited, in its entirety.