Category: Uncategorized

Wracked with doubt

The Sports Guy sums it up nicely:

VIKINGS (+3) over Eagles
The scariest game on the board and, quite possibly, in the history of mankind. Remember when I picked Philly over Dallas last week because “I hated this pick both ways, changed it 35 times and settled on being more frightened having the Cowboys than the Eagles”? This is that game, squared. The Vikings violate four of my signature rules for a decent playoff team: They’re poorly coached, they have abominable special teams, their QB could self-destruct at any time, and their fans are so racked with doubt about this particular team that you can hear their sphincters collectively tightening during games.

I have zero faith in this Vikings team. Childress is the most frighteningly incompetent game coach since, well, Andy Reid, now that Art Shell is no longer coaching. It’s like a Jedi showdown, only the exact opposite. The Tarvaris Jackson Experiment is proceeding and at times appears to have succeeded in developing into a robotic emulation of real NFL quarterback that goes haywire when the defensive pressure heats up. The Wall of Williams is damaged, the receivers are mediocre, the special teams are reliably horrible and our one superweapon, Adrian Peterson, is having more problems hanging on than a high school senior whose longtime girlfriend just moved to California to star in a major motion picture.

Fortunately, Vikings fans have no need of faith. We have no expectations, we have no heart, we simply watch in numbed catalepsy and hope for the best. An NFC North championship and a 10-6 record is more than we’d dreamed possible this year. Sure, there are those poor souls who shriek “Super Bowl” every time we win two games in a row, but that’s just the Post-Traumatic Staubach Disorder talking. Or, in the case of younger fans, 38 Wide Syndrome. Just nod, speak softly to them, and leave them to their haunted dreams of victories that never were.

Can we beat the Eagles? Absolutely. Can we lose to them? Definitely. Either way, we porphyrogeniti will watch, all purple-clad, and hope Sons of Bud Grant will give us cause to sound the horn and wave the sword.

Mailvox: the gay atheists strike back!

The Gayfather enters the Faith Wars. I’ve exchanged email with Dr. Kameny several times in the past, and his response here nicely underlines how difficult it is for even intelligent, well-educated atheists to construct a coherent and logically consistent argument on these matters:

The alleged — or actual and proven — consequences of a theory are not relevant to an assessment of the validity of that theory. That Gravity has caused countless injuries and deaths and other catastrophies through falls and other incidents resulting from the action of Gravity tells us nothing about the validity of the Theory of Gravity and the physical constants associated with it.

This is true. I wrote as much in TIA.

And the evils visited upon us by various historical figures allegedly atheists are utterly irrelevant to an assessment of atheism itself, just as the claims of the evils which some allege to arise from organized religion tell us nothing whatever about the validity or invalidity of the supernatural upon belief in which those religions are based.

Now this, on the other hand, is not quite true and dances perilously close to a No True Atheist fallacy. If Christianity can be criticized for the failure of Christians to not wage the occasional war over the last 1,000 years, then surely atheism can be assessed and even criticized for the failure of open and avowed atheists – there’s no “allegedly” with regards to any of the individuals involved – to not slaughter tens of millions of defenseless people during the last century. However, it is true that the question of the existence of the supernatural does not enter into the equation.

I write as one who has termed himself a “good pious atheist” for some 68 years. I write as a scientist by training and background, with a BS in Physics; and an MA and Ph.D in Astronomy from Harvard University. The fact is that there is not a shred — not the tiniest shred — of valid, credible, persuasive evidence — actual EVIDENCE — for the existence of anything supernatural. There is just no actual evidence for the existence of any kind of supernatural beings: Gods, devils, angels, demons; nor of supernatural events: miracles, resurrections, and the like; or of supernatural places such as heaven and hell. And there is certainly no evidence for an afterlife: When you die you”re dead; it’s pemanently over for you. All the claims in support of the supernatural boil down to what I term “philosophical dithering”. They do not even begin to rise to the level of actual evidence and certainly not of proof.

Oh dear. All those years, that expensive Harvard education, and yet apparently no one ever taught him to open a dictionary. And perhaps if he’d attended Harvard Law instead of wasting his time on star-gazing, he might even grasp the law’s definition of evidence. Since Dr. Kameny is not a complete idiot, I shall charitably presume he is referring to a lack of SCIENTIFIC evidence and content myself with pointing out that scientific evidence is not only not the only form of evidence, it is not even considered the most credible form of evidence. For all that scientists sometimes whine about this, it is actually all to the good considering the fact that science is an inherently dynamic process and therefore a very poor foundation for what must be a generally static principle. Dr. Kameny should be downright embarrassed to make this argument, as even Richard Dawkins has tacitly conceded the point. To blithely label documentary and eyewitness evidence nothing more than “philosophical dithering” and so disprove the existence of everyone from Julius Caesar to George Washington is to do nothing more than demonstrate one’s philosophical incompetence.

One wonders, naturally, upon what scientific basis does Kameny assure us that once you’re dead, it’s over for you?

These whole complex structures of supernaturalism, whether the truly bizarre Christian one, or those equally weird ones postulated by other religions, are nothing more than imaginary fantasy-fiction and wishful thinking, utterly devoid of fact. The Bible ia nothing more than the attributed maunderings of a gaggle of intellectually-primitive, culture-bound near-barbarians who lived two to four millennia ago and have little of use, value or worth to offer to us today, structured around a flimsy, distorted skeleton of historical events of no relevance to anyone nowadays aside from scholars and historians of that era.

It’s more than a little ironic that Dr. Kameny should declare that the Bible is of no relevance to anyone nowadays. After all, the Bible states that homosexuality is abomination and the wages of sin are death. Dr. Kameny, on the other hand, was integral to convincing the American Psychiatric Association that homosexuality is normal. On the basis of his experience and his scientific training, he has also declared that it is objectively healthy and good. Of course based on the statistics, one has no choice but to score it Attributed Maunderings 1, Dr. Kameny and Science 0.

I allow no one to do my thinking for me on any subject including morality. I am no more going to allow my thinking to be done for me by those ancient primitive, barbaric biblical figures than I am going to allow my thinking to be done for me by Grimm’s Fairy Tales or Aesop’s Fables.

This sounds very intellectually brave, but it’s actually one of the most common atheist fables, because the reality is that he hasn’t reasoned his way to what passes for his morality. Instead, he has done what all other moral parasites do in accepting the traditional moral system and subtracting the few bits and pieces he doesn’t like. As for disregarding Grimm’s, well, if he’s foolish enough to enter a gingerbread house and partake of a feast there, he can’t say he wasn’t warned.

In those of your articles which I have seen (granted, I have not read your book) I have seen nothing which even begins to make a case for the existence of anything supernatural or to rebut a firm atheism. There is just no supernatural. There is just no god. There is just no afterlife. There is just nothing other than the natural and the material. It’s just not there. While I might easily have missed some of your writings, I have seen nothing by you which shows otherwise.

This keen observation is most likely due to the fact that I have never even begun to make any such case in my articles or in any of my books. Nor, given the near-complete inability of so many atheists to comprehend well-documented critiques of their flawed champions, do I see any reason to bother casting pearls of reason before intellectual swine. It seems to somehow escape the attention of many atheists that I am not an apologist or a theologian, I am simply a critic of the New Atheism and a chronicler of the many logical flaws of atheism. As for that brilliant summation, complete with an appeal to the powerful authority of Dr. Franklin E. Kameny his own gay self, I should say that only Richard Dawkins could possibly demonstrate a more overwhelmingly conclusive proof!

Dispatches from the Clueless Deist

Ed Brayton is unable to follow a simple analogy regarding Richard Dawkins’s illogical defense of historical crimes committed by atheists:

That may be the single most idiotic analogy I’ve ever seen…. And all while criticizing the claim that religion can lead to similar massacres.

Brayton is a journalist, so it’s not hard to understand why he’s not only historically ignorant and phillosophically incompetent, but can’t even read properly. Like most journalists, he’s simply constructing a narrative, the observable facts be damned. And the fact that he can’t comprehend the analogy doesn’t make the analogy idiotic, it simply demonstrates Ed Brayton’s obvious intellectual inadequacies. The claim of Richard Dawkins that was being addressed in the column to which Brayton refers is this statement from p. 273 of The God Delusion:

“What matters is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things.

As I pointed out in The Irrational Atheist, Dawkins is incorrect because determining who was or was not an atheist matters tremendously in figuring out whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things or not. (I should note that Hitler was not an atheist nor was he a Christian either.) For how can one possibly figure out whether atheism is systematically influencing people or not if one doesn’t first take the trouble to determine precisely which people it has influenced? On p. 238 of TIA, I wrote:

Dawkins, like Harris, focuses on the wrong question. Like medieval philosophers they focus on the explanatory logic of the perceived problem, and they do so ineptly, instead of examining the matter in a scientific manner by observing the relevant evidence.

Brayton is taking very much the same approach, which is why he can’t understand the analogy. Let me spell out both illogical processes inherent in the analogy nice and slowly so that the dim-witted “brights” can follow it. This is what passes for Dawkins’s logic; Sam Harris, on the other hand, tends to prefer the No True Atheist argument.

1. People were slaughtered.
2. Those people were ruled by atheists.
3. But those people were not slaughtered in the explicit name of atheism.
4. Therefore, atheism does not cause slaughter.

And now for the Marlboro analogy utilizing the same Dawkinsian logic:

1. People died of cancer.
2. Those people smoked Marlboros.
3. But those people did not smoke cigarettes in the explicit name of Marlboro.
4. Therefore, Marlboros do not cause cancer.

Dawkins is trying to argue that because he cannot figure out HOW atheism causes atheists to kill large quantities of people, it does not systematically influence them to do so. This is not only illogical, it is fundamentally unscientific. No one really cares why atheists kill innocent people en masse, they are primarily concerned with the undeniable problem that atheists do it with such an astonishing degree of regularity on the occasions they find themselves in a position to do so. In fact, the statistical analysis will show that the 58 percent chance an atheist leader will order the deaths of more than 20,000 people is much greater than the 16 percent probability that a lifetime habit of smoking cigarettes will cause lung cancer. Correlation is not causation, but such a strong degree of correlation is, at the very least, evidence of a systematic influence that Dawkins claimed to be unable to find.

Brayton has obviously not read TIA, or he would understand that there is a perfectly rational explanation for how it is not atheism alone, but rather the lethal combination of atheism with an ambitious vision of secular progress that has such a high probability of leading to the guillotine, the gulag, and the gas chamber.

As for his assertion that I criticize the idea that religion can lead to similar massacres, he’s merely demonstrating his ignorance. I specifically cited 123 wars caused by religion in TIA and covered all of the usual subjects, from the Crusades to the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, in more detail than any of the New Atheists; the relevant points are that the very worst crime commited by any of Christendom’s many medieval monarchs killed less than half as many people as the 50 most bloody-handed atheist leaders, and that while 58 percent of historical atheist rulers have committed mass slaughter, less than one percent of historical Christian rulers have done so. I have never argued that religious massacres don’t take place, I have only pointed out that they take place much less frequently and are orders of magnitude smaller than non-religious massacres. And the liquidation of the Midianites cited by Brayton is rather different than the example of the Vendée massacres because the Old Testament example describes a bloody intertribal war, whereas the destruction of the Vendée was the massacre of a people by their own rulers.

Now, it is true, as one commenter noted, that none of this can prove that God does or does not exist. What it does call into question, however, is the common atheist assumption that a godless society is likely to be an improvement of any kind, let alone the shiny, sexy, secular paradise that Hitchens and others have faith that it will be.

Princess Pooyan strikes back

Spacebunny doesn’t play a lot of games, but when she does find a game she likes, she plays hard. She’s currently the Queen of the Wii, having been the first to unlock her own Mii. As a game designer, it’s been fascinating to see how she has enjoyed various Nintendo games over the years, but has never had any interest in anything on the XBox 360 or Playstations.

On a related note, if you have a Nintendo Wii, you may wish to be apprised of a sporadic known problem with the machines not booting or not turning off. If the red light doesn’t appear and you’re unable to turn the machine on or even get it to respond, don’t panic. Unplug the machine from the power adapter and also unplug the adapter from the outlet. Wait an hour, then plug everything in again. This should reset whatever is preventing the Wii from turning off or turning on.

Voxiversity II – America’s Great Depression

This is a complete list of all of the readings and related quizzes for the study of Murray Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression.

Section 1: The Introductions – TEXT

Section 2: The Positive Theory of the Cycle – TEXT

Section 3: Keynesian Criticisms of the Theory – TEXT

Section 4: Some Alternative Explanations of Depression: A Critique – TEXT

Section 5: The Inflationary Factors – TEXT

Section 6: The Development of the Inflation – TEXT

Section 7: Theory and Inflation: Economists and the Lure of a Stable Price Level and Prelude to Depression: Mr. Hoover and Laissez Faire – TEXT

Section 8: The Depression Begins: President Hoover Takes Command – TEXT

Section 9: 1930 – TEXT

Section 10: 1931 – ‘The Tragic Year’ – TEXT

Section 11: The Hoover New Deal of 1932 – TEXT

Section 12: The Close of the Hoover Term – TEXT

America’s Great Depression: 25-question Final Exam

Rules and Facts of the blog

1. You will be addressed in the style you choose. If you come in here slinging insults and acting disrespectfully, you will be treated with a contemptuous and derisive disdain that will, based on past experience, probably upset you. This is particularly true for visitors who are under the impression, mistaken or not, that they are far more intelligent than the average individual here. If instead, you elect to offer substantive and civil criticism, then you will meet with a similarly civil response. Because we are equally capable of polite intellectual discourse and appallingly creative verbal cruelty, the form the interaction will take is up to you. Vox Popoli is not an echo chamber, but it is also not the typical Internet cesspool where you can expect to get away with spouting factual nonsense or blatant illogic with impunity.

2. You are expected to back up your assertions, so don’t be surprised if you happen to get called on them. If you fail to back up an assertion when called on it, but refuse to retract the statement, understand that we reserve the right to delete the relevant comment and all subsequent comments you attempt to make. If you are asked a direct question relevant to the topic, then you will be expected to answer it in a straightforward and non-evasive manner; providing links in lieu of answers is not acceptable. (Links providing additional information in support of your answer are great, of course.) The dishonest and evasive tactics that are so common in Internet argumentation are not permitted here. If you refuse to either answer a question or admit that you cannot answer it, then you will not be permitted to comment here and all of your subsequent comments will be deleted.

3. Cross-comments and off-topic comments will usually be deleted. If your comment gets deleted, deal with it. Don’t try to argue with use about it. We don’t care. If you have a serious problem with the deletion of a comment, then email us. More than one individual has managed to get himself banned by refusing to accept the reality that his precious comment was seen to be of no value here and deleted.

4. This is not a democracy. Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. If you are instructed not to comment here, for whatever reason, then please go share your unique gems of wisdom somewhere else. There are thousands of blogs out there and perhaps some will value them; we clearly don’t. So, just go away, this isn’t an appropriate venue for you to work out your personal issues for our entertainment. On a related note, please don’t respond to the trolls. There are at least fifteen people who have been banned that insist on trying to comment here from time to time under different names; just ignore them as someone will get around to deleting their comments as well as the comments of those who respond to them soon enough.

5. You are expected to be polite to your fellow commenters, especially if you don’t know them. The regulars, who have been commenting here for years and know each other reasonably well, often engage each other in a vicious and vituperative manner that you should not try to imitate because you are not an accepted part of the group yet. Take your best shot, by all means, but attack the idea, not the individual.

6. The long-time regulars will always be favored over drive-by commenters.

7. Don’t make assumptions about the regulars here. They’re not all Christians, much less Creationists. Most are not libertarians. A fair number are not Americans. And some don’t even play computer games or read SF/F fiction. They do, however, tend to skew much more intelligent and broadly educated than you’re probably accustomed to encountering.

8. If you haven’t read The Irrational Atheist, don’t bother trying to critique it sight unseen. You’re wrong. Your arguments are not new and they have been brought up many times before, usually by atheists who are smarter than you are. While you won’t be banned, you will be humiliated, and even your fellow atheists will point at you and laugh.

9. Do not attempt to hijack posts and direct the discourse towards a subject of more interest to you; if you are interested in a discussion of a particular subject, email a request. Any insertion of evolution or Creationism into a post that is not
directly and specifically related to either subject will be deleted.
Repeated efforts to do so will result in banning. Monomanias of any kind are not permitted.

10. If you have made several comments that lead a moderator to observe you have nothing interesting to contribute to an ongoing discussion, we reserve the right to tell you to stop commenting on that post. A refusal to abide by that decision will lead to a bann.

11. In general, you will be well-served if you stop to think for thirty seconds and read everything twice before responding to it. It’s also wise to ask if your assumptions are correct before launching critical attacks. This blog has been around for 12 years, so the chances are fairly good that your argument was presented and successfully dismissed long before you first formulated your thoughts on the subject. Remember, there are few original thoughts under the sun.

12. If you have repeatedly shown yourself to be the sort of petty, ankle-biting critic who has no genuine interest in discussion or debate, but merely wishes to criticize by any means necessary, it is very unlikely that you will receive a response. This failure to respond should not be interpreted as the difficulty of the former or the strength of the latter. If you are not willing to argue in good faith, then there is absolutely no need to pay any attention to you. Furthermore, if you are one of the small group of persistent anklebiters who insist on making the same tedious and incompetent attacks over and over again, your comments will be deleted.

13. Attempts to claim that a refusal to further engage with a commenter whose arguments have repeatedly been demonstrated to be flawed are the result of cowardice or an inability to respond are false and will be deleted.

14. If you give a moderator reason to believe that you are not interested in honest, straightforward interaction, he will simply spam your comments. Continued attempts to post comments here will be considered harassment and dealt with accordingly. The police have already intervened twice to deal with cyberstalkers harassing this blog and it will not be a problem to identify you and contact your local authorities if necessary.

15. Vox Popoli is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate
advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and
linking to Amazon.com.

16.  No data from visitors is collected, used, stored, or disclosed except for information provided via the Blogger comments and whatever data is collected by Google and used, stored, or disclosed by Google.

29. These Rules may in no case be interpreted contrary to the purposes and principles of Vox Day, as solely determined by Vox Day.

2008: it was a pretty good year

While 2008 was pretty rough on a lot of people and appears to have laid the foundation for even worse years to come, it turned out to be a surprisingly good year from my perspective. Business was only okay, but it wasn’t bad and the building blocks were put in place to deliver a much better year in 2009. After a lengthy dry spell, I published two books that were reasonably well-received, and made significant progress towards completing a new technology project that will be announced this spring. And some reasonable headway was even made towards getting my two pet game projects moving along the development curve.

In 2008, this blog grew 30 percent in terms of monthly visitors and 92 percent in monthly page views, to 130k and 240k, respectively. However, I have the sense that the quality of both the posts and comments have declined somewhat of late. I take full responsibility for the former and hope to write at least one longer, more insightful post per week in the coming year, but there’s not much I can do about the latter since it’s the inevitable result of increasing traffic lowering the common denominator. On the other hand, the Voxiversity experiment was successful and I think we are in the process of creating something that may become quite useful to a number of people over time.

Sadly, 2008 saw the loss of the inimitable Bane, and also saw a legendary Marine, General Victor Krulak, exit the stage. If have any interest in military matters but haven’t read First to Fight, you really owe it to yourself to do so. May God welcome both warriors to Him with open arms.

All in all, it was a pretty good year. But, even so, here’s to a better 2009. Happy New Year, everyone.

Crucifixion in the UK

In light of the massive protests of the recent Israeli attacks in Gaza taking place in London, of all places, to say nothing of the UK’s recent adoption of some aspects of Sharia law, it’s interesting to note how more advanced Sharia legal systems have progressed:

On Tuesday, Hamas legislators marked the Christmas season by passing a Shari’a criminal code for the Palestinian Authority. Among other things, it legalizes crucifixion.

Somehow, I don’t quite think this is the progress that the multiculturalist progressives were expecting. But, as the evolutionary biologists are often forced to explain, progress is only visible in hindsight. Barring any grand supernatural designs or genuine prophetic gifts, there’s absolutely no way to reliably predict future human events.

The college scam

It’s actually worse than you probably think:

Hickey got caught in an increasingly common trap in the nation’s $85-billion student loan market. She borrowed heavily, presuming that all her debt was part of the federal student loan program. But most of the money she borrowed was actually in private loans, the fastest-growing segment of the student loan market. Private loans have no relation to the federal loan program, with one exception: In many cases, they are offered by the same for-profit companies that provide federally funded student loans…. Whereas federally guaranteed loans have fixed interest rates, currently either 6% or 6.8%, private loans are more like credit card debt. Interest rates aren’t fixed and often run 15% or more, not counting fees.

It might make sense to go $140,000 into debt if you’re getting a law degree from an Ivy League school or a medical degree. It probably isn’t worth it for a postgraduate science degree or an MBA, at least not in the present economic environment. But how could any advisor possibly recommend that kind of debt for an undergraduate photography degree. If one assumes that the degree is worth an additional $15k per year to the young woman, then it’s going to take about 14 years for her just to break even, assuming that she doesn’t get married, have kids, or spend any time unemployed.

The bizarre idea that the value of a college degree is incalculable is downright cretinous. It’s important to recognize that such values are not only calculable, they are calculated in detail by the many institutions that sell college degrees and the various parasitical organizations that live off the proceeds of encouraging those transactions. Unless your degree is going to lead directly to a six-digit salary, it’s almost definitely not worth going into debt to buy it.

The end of tolerance

At last, the beginning of the end arrives:

Two weeks ago, the country’s biggest left-wing political grouping, the Labor Party, which has responsibility for integration as a member of the coalition government led by the Christian Democrats, issued a position paper calling for the end of the failed model of Dutch “tolerance.” It came at the same time Nicolas Sarkozy was making a case in France for greater opportunities for minorities that also contained an admission that the French notion of equality “doesn’t work anymore.”

Equality has always been a fraud and the cultural tolerance model based on it is little more than assisted societal suicide. I have several Dutch friends and none of them have much sympathy for the once-famed Dutch tolerance anymore. It’s well past time for Europeans to reject the multicultural charade that began with the short-sighted importation of the “temporary” Turkish Gastarbeitern, because the sooner it is ended and the percentage of the non-national populations is reduced, the less bloodshed there will be in the long run.As I’ve mentioned before, the high tide of secular eutopian ideals has been reached and the pendulum is now swinging back, fortunately before those ideals managed to completely enervate the West. I’m optimistic that the European Union will begin to see secessions in the next ten years, most likely starting with Italy and Britain. However, it’s been Germany that’s been most resistant on the economic front of late, so if they were to pull out, the entire house of cards would tumble almost immediately.