Category: Uncategorized

Chad the Elder is ready to sign up after viewing The Real Housewives of New York City:

After fifteen minutes of watching these insufferable, pretentious, superficial, pampered gaggle of Gotham gals blather on about the meanings of “taste” and “class” (hint: people with real class don’t appear on reality TV shows), this mild-mannered Midwestern Catholic was ready to strap on an explosive vest and make the ultimate sacrifice to help bring down the Great Satan.

As I’ve written before, I really don’t think the average denizen of New York City understands how thoroughly sick a tremendous number of non-New Yorkers are of everything that has anything even remotely to do with New York City. And that was before the rapacious New York investment banks were extorting bailouts from American taxpayers. Give us money or the global economy gets it!

Jasper has a go:

In seeking to resolve the dilemma, you state that “At first glance, this looks easy enough, as simply substituting “obedience” for “the pious” will destroy the dilemma because it eliminates the tautology posed. One can’t do this since it’s not right to simply substitute whatever terms one likes and declare the problem solved.” Later in the argument, you then say: “At this point we can reach three conclusions: 1. The Euthyphro “dilemma” is defeated by shifting the focus from “the pious” to “obedience,” therefore it is an inappropriate criticism of Christian morality that is founded on obedience to God’s Will.” So this point is based on you doing something that you have previously declared is not allowed.

You’re skipping over the extremely relevant section wherein I distinguish between refuting the Euthyphro dilemma on its own terms and refuting its mistaken application to Christian morality because the definition of that morality precludes the second horn of the dilemma. Ergo, no tautology and no dilemma. One cannot simply change Socrates’s definitions and claim to be attacking the dilemma on its own terms, while one cannot apply the dilemma to a specific morality without changing those definitions accordingly.

You also state that “it can only be considered a genuine problem for those who insist that a fixed principle cannot be arbitrary. In other words, for those paying absolutely no attention to reality. There are a panoply of fixed variables which, if they were different than they are, would radically alter the reality of our universe.” Here you conflate moral principles with physical variables; but they are not the same, and consequently this point is irrelevant.

Conflate? Combine into one? Not at all. You’re forgetting the rather obvious fact that whereas the necessary physical variables of this universe are fixed, moral principles vary even within it. Therefore, it is a massive logical error on multiple levels to assume that in the universe next door, moral principles must be the same as they are in this universe, while physical variables are assumed to be different. In fact, given the competing moral principles currently on offer in this universe, one couldn’t possibly even say which of them must be the fixed ones next door.

You finally state that “The section about disagreement between gods regarding the pious and impious does not apply to a monotheistic god or a Supreme God who rules over other, lesser gods and deines their morality for them.” Socrates and Euthyphro agree in the course of the dialogue to discuss that “what all the gods love is pious and holy, and the opposite which they all hate, impious” – in all respects, a situation identical to being under a monotheistic god. So this point is irrelevant.

You’re incorrect. If you read the dialogue more closely, you will see that the situations are not identical because in the one case, the net result of “what all the gods love” is a drastically reduced set of polytheistic divine preferences to the lowest common denominator, whereas in the monotheistic case, that preference is exercised in full. For example, Athena’s love for Athens must be excised in the former case, but is retained were she the god in the latter.

The rest of your refutation rests on a misunderstanding of what actually constitutes the Euthyphro dilemma. You focus obsessively on a literal translation of the language, rather than attempting to understand the underlying argument. In modern terms, this is phrased as: Is something moral because god commands it, or does god command it because it is moral? You simply don’t address this at all in your supposed refutation, as far as I can see; I may be missing the point entirely, but in that case you have not managed to convey your argument well.

This is a false statement based on intellectual laziness. There is no “underlying argument”, Socrates makes a specific and detailed argument with various assertions and assumptions along the way, and as I have shown, some of them are not logically justifiable. If you want an answer to what you describe as the modern terms, it is that something is moral because god commands it. God’s game, god’s rules. Now, you can still argue that God doesn’t exist or that his rules are imperfectly understood by Man, but that’s a tangential subject that cannot be reasonably used to defend the dilemma.

UPDATE – I should point out that I’m not breaking much new ground here, except possibly in the specific refutation of the dilemma on Socrates’s own terms. As much as I respect Aristotle and Aquinas, I’m rather pleased to know that I’m following a path trod by the original wielder of the logical razor:

[William of] Ockham boldly broke with much that had been taken for granted by his immediate predecessors. Fundamental to his approach was his rejection of the central Aristotelian idea that all things have an ultimate end toward which they naturally tend. He therefore also spurned Aquinas’s attempt to base morality on human nature and with it the idea that goodness is closely connected with happiness, which is the ultimate end of human beings. Ockham was thus led to a position that contrasted starkly with almost all previous ethical doctrines in the West. Ockham denied all standards of good and evil that are independent of God’s will. What God wills is good; what God condemns is evil. That is all there is to say about the matter. This position is sometimes called a divine approbation theory, because it defines good as whatever is approved by God.

wEz notices events following a predictable course:

I’ve noticed an interesting trend; whether its on dawkins.net or Orzel’s science blog, etc. Regardless of the site (and i’ve read most of them all the way through), the same story tends to play itself out with a bunch of hard-core atheists who proceed to rip Vox with:

1) ad hominem attacks on his credibility
2) strawmen arguments and twisting his words or positions
3) simple “passing by” personal insults, void of wanting any serious deliberation of the facts.

Here’s how it all usually goes down:

Most of the pawn atheists will mock and ridicule Vox, after which, a few swoop in and question his character by means of ad hominem, while a couple of others bust out strawmen based on fellow reader assessments since they themselves haven’t read the book. Now after this, the new atheists feel all high-and-mighty for a while until Vox decides to show up and go toe-to-toe with them on their own turf (just like in TIA). At this point, most of the sheep who were ridiculing him fall back in line with the herd once they notice Vox is a heavyweight.

Still, some think they can take on the challenge, then proceed in getting bitch-slapped thoroughly before ultimately conceding via KO, or passively wilting away after a round or two. The ones who are still standing at this point are either weak quiet bystanders, or fellow atheists unwilling to engage in their inevitable pummeling (mainly due to pride), by saying Vox and his book are both ultimately frivolous to atheism in general.

As always, I welcome any challenge. I don’t mind anyone claiming that I’ve gotten something wrong in TIA, but if you’re going to make that claim then you’d better be prepared to back it up. Of course, if I am the idiot and lunatic that so many atheists repeatedly insist I am, it should be a piece of cake for you to demolish my arguments.

“So, this physicist comes up to me and he’s all like ‘dude, that’s so harsh you made me look at that Vox Day’ and I’m like, yeah whatever!”

He is so uncertain about his principles that he excoriates John Scalzi for daring to expose sensitive little atheist minds to ideas that might frighten them and reveal that they’re not quite as smart as Mommy always told them:

Anyway, having spent a bunch of time recently complaining about a lack of moderation among the local militant atheists, I should probably take this opportunity to calmly and moderately say: “Vox Day” is a fucking lunatic…. So, really, the chances of him making a useful and important contribution to the discourse on the question of religion are about as good as the chances of a bunny made of cheese materializing on my desk and singing “I’m a Little Teapot.”

Never mind the fact that I have refuted 36 specific atheist arguments made by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, as well as another eight commonly heard atheist arguments. Never mind that I have shown the Euthyphro Dilemma to be nothing of the sort, either in Christian terms or by Socrates’s own measure. Never mind the fact that Sam Harris has already conceded several of the points I made in the book. Never mind that an American philosopher has said that TIA raises the intellectual level of the religion/atheism discourse, (while admittedly lowering its tone at the same time). And especially never mind the fact that TIA has forced even Whatever atheists to admit that the atheist bestsellers are not works of science or reason, but mere rhetorical propaganda… and not very effective propaganda at that.

Of course, it is most likely that latter fact which so troubles the likes of Orzel. It’s getting a little tiresome listening to all of this atheist chest-thumping, forever talking about how smart they are and how terrible my arguments must be while simultaneously burying their heads in the sand and hiding from them. It’s hardly my fault that their atheist champions can’t construct a logical case against God, Christianity, religion or religious faith capable of standing up to logic and empirical evidence. I’d love to see Mr. Orzel attempt to defend Sam Harris’s Extinction Equation or Red State argument, or Daniel Dennett’s justification of a scientific division of doxastic labor. I wonder what atheists would have concluded if Christians had responded to Dawkins and company the way Mr. Orzel seems to think atheists should respond to criticism of their arguments?

I knew that many atheists are irrational, but it wasn’t until TIA was published that I learned how many of them are complete intellectual cowards. If you think you can actually refute any of the arguments made in TIA, then bring it, Orzel. If you don’t, we’ll all know that you’re just another cowardly little atheist, deluded about his own level of intelligence and capable of nothing more than barking at the big dogs from a distance.

As you read Derb’s description of his adventures in Consciousness Studies, please try to keep in mind that we dualists the ones who are to be laughed at because of our belief that consciousness is a non-material phenomenon:

One thing you wonder in advance about conferences like this is what the proportions will be of (a) real research results and original insights, as opposed to (b) academic log-rolling, tenured self-indulgence, flogging of dead horses, and content-free arm-waving. In the afternoon plenary session we got some of the (b).

The topic was “Sex and consciousness.” Barry Komisaruk of Rutgers started with an interesting account of some neurophysiological experiments, then wandered off into the arm-waving zone. Sample: “If time is a fourth dimension, why can’t consciousness be a fifth dimension?” Uh, because you can quantify time, but you can’t quantify consciousness. How are you gonna set up a co-ordinate axis if you can’t quantify?

Then Jenny Wade (not sure of her affiliation) got up and told us about some research she’d done. She’d got a sample heavily loaded with middle-aged university women and asked them about their mind states during sex. For heaven’s sake: I can get this stuff from reading Erica Jong. I left when she started talking about Tantric sex. I know Tibet’s in the news, but really.

I’m not averse to studying consciousness, whether it be via the use of empirical evidence or Bongzilla, but I do think it’s quite funny when one considers that these are the people upon whom the average atheist is relying in his Dennett-approved doxastic division of labor, whether he realizes it or not. Because, you know, there’s some physicists who have this really awesome scientific model…. Anyhow, Derb and I may be on opposite sides of the religion divide, but I always find his acerbic skepticism to be entertaining, no matter the target.

We were watching the Big Bang Theory last night when I noticed something. “Hey, that’s my laptop!” Yeah, that’s right, technobitches, the Dell XPS with the glowing red lights. Big fast!

Strangely, Spacebunny did not show any signs of the extreme arousal that was obviously indicated.

I’m sorry about the quality of this week’s podcast as we were experiencing some interference with the phone lines. But I think the content will more than make up for this, since I’m speaking with an international figure from the global financial industry with whom I have been acquainted for a long time. Passport, as we shall call him, is a highly intelligent and astoundingly successful individual, and I was delighted that he was willing to be interviewed for the fourth Voxonomics podcast.

Recommended Reading:

The Consumer Price Index

This article is not written by Passport, but is a pretty good summary of what he was talking about. Shadowstats recalculates the economic statistics according to previous government methodologies to provide apples-to-apples historical data. This 2005 newsletter, (scroll down to the CPI section), shows the process in progress.

France lets the Irish know what they’re in for if they’re dumb enough to ratify the European ConstitutionLisbon Treaty:

Irish Euro-enthusiasts are furious because the French have announced, in advance of their EU presidency, that they want to harmonise business taxes across the EU. Ireland’s Europe Minister, Dick Roche, called the French economy minister’s remarks “untimely, unhelpful and inappropriate”. Note his language: “untimely” rather than “untrue”. What he really means is: Why couldn’t that Frenchwoman keep her big gob shut until after our referendum?

There are few things that I find more deliciously just than seeing secularists forced to confront the reality of Western post-Christianity for which they have labored so long and hard:

Recently, I wrote about Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA), a K-8 charter school in Inver Grove Heights. Charter schools are public schools and by law must not endorse or promote religion. Evidence suggests, however, that TIZA is an Islamic school, funded by Minnesota taxpayers…. Why does the Minnesota Department of Education allow this sort of religious activity at a public school? According to Zaman, the department inspects TIZA regularly — and has done so “numerous times” — to ensure that it is not a religious school.

There’s your stage call, o brave secular warriors of godlessness! I quite look forward to seeing your bold verbal attacks and insulting rhetoric directed towards this particular group of theists violating the hallowed separation of church and state… I mean, school. In the meantime, Minnesota Christians and other theists shouldn’t hesitate to push whatever religious beliefs they see fit at their local public schools, as the precedent has clearly been set.

There will NEVER be a post-religious society. It will not happen. Secular science fiction societies are no more viable than the magical systems featured in fantasy novels. Secularism and atheism are merely gateways toward a societal return to paganism. And most likely, it will fall to Christians to rebuild the Western civilization we have decided to abandon.