Category: Uncategorized

Or is Kylie Minogue’s “Wow” the most eighties song recorded since the 1980s actually ended? I quite like it, actually, and I imagine we’re going to hear rather a lot of that vocal effect in the near future.

If the material is all there is?

A survey by GfK NOP for the Children’s Society showed that out of the 1,225 adults questioned, 89 percent felt that children are more materialistic now than in previous generations. Evidence submitted to the inquiry from children themselves suggests that they do feel under pressure to keep up with the latest trends, the society added.

The poll is part of a larger inquiry into childhood and includes evidence by professionals and members of the public on issues such as lifestyle, learning, friends and family.

Professor of child psychology Philip Graham — who is leading the inquirys lifestyle theme — believes that commercial pressures may have “worrying psychological effects” on children.

“One factor that may be leading to rising mental health problems is the increasing degree to which children and young people are preoccupied with possessions; the latest in fashionable clothes and electronic equipment. “Evidence both from the United States and from the UK suggests that those most influenced by commercial pressures also show higher rates of mental health problems,” he said.

To me, it’s empirically obvious that those who believe they exist solely in the material are far more prone to mental health issues. There is a historical basis for the “mad scientist” stereotype after all. This is why I wholeheartedly concur with Daniel Dennett and endorse a scientific examination of both religion and secular materialism. I don’t think it’s religion that has much to fear from such an investigation.

On a completely anecdotal level, how many of you here are religious and have ever been diagnosed with a mental health issue? How many are not religious and have been so diagnosed? If you wish to remain anonymous, just don’t type your name in, as I’m not interested in knowing who’s crazy and who’s not. Let’s face it, I already have a fair amount of data on that.

If you don’t mind my taking the gaming motif one speculative step further, bear with me for a moment. I haven’t been in the battlegrounds much over the last few days, partly because I was occupied with the aforementioned Imaginary Property work, but also because I found myself completely drained by a particularly heated battle the other day.

It took them much longer than I expected, but the Horde finally found themselves a leader capable of counteracting the basic strategy that the Finnish leader and I had refined between us. The mindless warriors of the Alliance had gotten accustomed to following that strategy, which was admittedly quite effective, but once a strategy becomes predictable it is much easier to work out tactics to blunt that effectiveness even if you don’t have a counter-strategy. When I popped in late the other day, I was surprised to see that we were losing by about 100 casualties, one of our towers had been burned and we had given up both graveyards in the middle in return for one graveyard in the south.

It was clear that the Alliance was not only handicapped by a silent Battleground Leader, but further disadvantaged because the Horde appeared to have a pretty good one for once. Things were getting increasingly desperate when the loss of the graveyards put Icewing under obvious threat and the idiots got too enthusiastic about pushing south from Iceblood and lost that as well. Just then, the leader chose that moment to succumb to demands from a few experienced Alterac vets and make me leader. I really didn’t know what to do, since strategy is much more my thing than tactics, (the Finnish guy is an amazing tactician, if all the Finns are like him it’s no wonder the Soviets had so much trouble with them in the last century), and I hadn’t even looked at the map before Icewing was being taken by the Horde with little prospect of us getting it back thanks to our loss of the two nearby graveyards. Three, if you count Iceblood.

I figured the best thing to do was to try to stabilize the situation and staunch the bleeding, so I ordered everyone in the north to stop trying to take back Stonehearth or Icewing, where they could do nothing but rack up casualties at a rapid rate, and instead defend the chokepoint at Stormpike. I told everyone that we could draw it out and make them pay for the victory, but I really didn’t see any way that we could win at this point since we were so far behind and the Horde obviously had a pretty good leader. I was completely resigned to losing, when one of the vets replied “yeah, well, so do we.”

I don’t know how, precisely, but that small expression of confidence in my leadership was like a shot of pure inspiration. They were pressing us so hard and were so far ahead that I realized they weren’t likely to worry much about defending. So, I put together a stealth team of two rogues and a druid and sent them south to Frostwolf, while ordering everyone still battling around Iceblood and the nearby towers to fall back and take Snowfall from behind so that we could at least try to keep Balinda alive. Meanwhile, Icewing burned and the outnumbered northern forces were driven back from Stormpike, which quickly put the Dun Baldur towers under threat since we could not hold the bridge.

Fortunately, the Horde leader only sent two defenders south, both of whom were dispatched by the stealth team, and the two Frostwolf towers burned. Snowfall helped us keep Balinda alive, and the Horde finally quit trying to kill her in favor of overwhelming us at Dun Baldur, the two towers of which were constantly changing hands. The stealth crew in the south managed to take the Frostwolf Relief Hut, so suddenly it became apparent that if we could burn the Hut and kill Galv before one of the Dun Baldur towers burned, we would win. I ordered everyone from Snowfall to Galv even as the Horde took the southern DB tower, but it was clear from the timer that there was no way we could do either before the Horde burned the crucial tower. I led three charges, but we were outnumbered and simply couldn’t beat our way through… but the attacks provided enough of a distraction that one of our southern roguestars – who’d taken the initiative to recall once it became clear that the Horde was letting the Frostwolf hut go – slipped in behind their defense and took the tower back with less than five seconds to spare.

Not ten seconds later, the relief hut burned. Not a heartbeat after that, the very welcome words GALV IS DOWN! appeared, followed by the crashing piano sound and the announcement that the Alliance had won the victory in Alterac Valley. One fighter summmed it up for everyone: “How the #@$! did we do that?”

The answer, I think, is that faith flows both ways. The follower’s faith in the leader may be just as important to the leader as it is to the follower. Now, God does not literally need our faith to sustain Him any more than I literally needed to know that my warriors had confidence in my abilities in order to give them direction, and yet it’s not hard to understand how He might desire that faith, and perhaps even find motivation in it, all the same. Our faith in God sustains and inspires us, but who is to say that it does not also sustain or inspire Him in some manner? According to Scripture, it seems that He at least finds our faith to be something to be desired.

Perhaps the more rational conclusion is that I simply spend way too much time inhabiting imaginary worlds. Of course, I don’t see any reason why I shouldn’t when a fair amount of what passes for my work in the nominally real one is every bit as imaginary.

I cannot overemphasize how much I loathed Christian Rock music while growing up. I couldn’t stand Amy Grant, pre- or post- pop career; the same year I bought my first album – AC/DC’s Back in Black – my Dad gave me a Sandi Patti record. A few years later, he noticed that it was still in the plastic… gee, I wonder why?

However, there were three more or less Christian artists that I thought were all right. They didn’t really play my style of music, but I thought U2, Daniel Amos and Randy Stonehill were all listenable. Larry Norman was too hippy for my tastes, but listening to some of his old songs now, I’m struck by how well-composed some of them were, especially I Wish We’d All Been Ready. Of course, the man’s got an awful lot to answer for, given that he almost surely inspired that horrificly bad series of best-selling novels with that song.

Now, I tend to prefer good music that happens to be written by Christians to self-conscious Christian Rock. I like Evanescence and Creed much better than Jars of Clay or whatever. But nevertheless, I respect those who elect to dedicate the entirety of their artistic efforts to the purpose of serving Jesus Christ, and Larry Norman was not only the Godfather of Christian Rock, he exemplified the spirit of a man who would serve God only.

Mike boils down his critique to a single if-then regarding reason:

The fundamental problem of chapter three is that it contains a basic ambiguity, an ambiguity that founds much of the argumentation. The religion of reason leads to authoritarianism and violence. In order to support this position, VD must accept one of two positions. The first possibility is that reason as such leads to authoritarianism and violence. The second possibility is that there is a peculiarly atheist form of reason that produces these sins.

The first possibility, which I don’t think is VD’s likely position, necessarily says that if reason inevitably causes great harm, there must be something fundamentally wrong with reason.

Actually, I would agree, if it were true that reason inevitably caused great harm. However, it obviously doesn’t, so Mike is correct, this is not my position.

Exactly what “reason” is to VD is unclear, because he never gets around to actually explaining it. A catalogue of the acts of the reason-obsessed does not serve as a substitute.

Oh, I had no idea that this required definition. In general, I’m entirely content with the standard dictionary definition about the capacity to think in a logical manner, the logically correct formulation of conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or basic premises. With regards to the Enlightenment, I mean Diderot’s Reason.

If reason is fundamentally flawed, that VD cannot stack up his own reasoning techniques against the New Atheists. It doesn’t matter how careful VD’s reasoning is; he is eating the fruit of the poisoned tree. And VD has already declared he will not introduce any a-rational elements. Additionally, If there is something fundamentally wrong with reason, then the book’s very title becomes moot. The very real possibility that it is the New Atheist’s “irrationality” that will prevent the twin sins of authoritarianism and violence. Perhaps because the New Atheists are so (hypothetically) irrational, they have something valuable to say to us? I certainly don’t accept this position, but if one takes option 1 from above, you’re stuck here.

But we’re not, so no problem.

So the second possibility, which I’ve already implied is more likely to be VD’s position. There is something peculiar about the reasoning the New Atheists use. VD never gets around to suggesting exactly what this peculiarity might be. Atheism itself cannot be the peculiarity, because atheism is a conclusion or at best a framework – it is certainly not a method or an element of pure reason.

And here Mike makes his fatal blunder, not of logic but of perception. I am not saying all atheism is irrational, nor that all atheists are irrational. In fact, I list no less than three perfectly rational atheisms in the book and even name them. What Mike fails to comprehend is that the book is not an attack on all atheists or even atheism itself, it is merely what it purports to be, an attack on the specific arguments made by specific atheists that are often mindlessly echoed by the godless acolytes of the nominally New Atheism. There is no particular rhyme or reason to the various New Atheists’ errors. Hitchens seldom even bothers to attempt presenting a logically coherent point, he simply rambles on about some random guy he once met in Lower Boohooboostan in the hopes that it might prove something. Dawkins often doesn’t even present a case per se, but attempts to pass off tangential asides and trivia as conclusive arguments. Harris at least tries to make a logical case, but he often gets the basic facts wrong, and even when he doesn’t, he tends to reach an demonstrably incorrect conclusion. Only Dennett ever shows a halfway decent logical facility, but even he goes off the logical rails on more than one occasion.

The only thing they have in common besides their lack of belief in the existence of God – and even that varies somewhat if measured on the Dawkins scale – is a shared inability to make logically sound arguments. I don’t believe this is the result of their atheism, the sample size is too small for correlation to imply causation, but there’s no shortage of empirical evidence that this is indeed the case.

Continuing in his misapprehension, Mike writes:

There is a huge logical fallacy in this. It is an especially surprising fallacy, since I’ve seen VD call this on others on his blog. VD’s argument in this chapter is simply a reversal of the “No true Scotsmen” fallacy. “All true atheists are adherents of the religion of reason.” It doesn’t matter how many historical examples of atheists believing in a utopia of reason; it is a blatant logical fallacy to attribute this position to all atheists. The argument of the entire chapter rests on this fallacy, and the fallacy is trumpeted by the chapter’s title.

This is downright amusing. I totally agree, it would be a negative No True Scotsman argument to claim that because atheists who subscribe to the religion of reason are irrational, an atheist who does not must be irrational too. Insisting that Brent Rasmussen is irrational just because Richard Dawkins is would be a massive logical fallacy right up there with Daniel Dennett arguing that because physicists are empirically credible, evolutionary biologists are too… or Sam Harris arguing that because Islamic jihadists are dangerous, moderate Anglicans are too.

Mike’s problem is that I never make that case, nor do I believe it. Had he read further, he’d see that I do suggest an explanation for the empirical observation that atheist political leaders are inordinately likely to commit large-scale atrocities; it is an explanation that lets the overwhelming majority of atheists completely off the hook.

So to recap. If VD is attacking reason itself, then the whole project falls apart. If VD is trying to attack some particular form of reason used by atheists, then he is not attacking something that is constitutive of atheism.

Yes. No, because Mike is confusing the set with the sub-set and attempting to expand the scope of the book beyond its limits. What does not apply to the former in its entirety may well sapply to the latter. I do appreciate this sort of critique, though, as even when incorrect or misplaced, they offer substantive engagement. I still intend to get to his science points one of these days.

You know an atheist “review” is going to be little more than a shallow and baseless whining when they refuse to refer to the name on the cover of the book:

[Vox Day’s] arrogance, rudeness, and unending logical fallacies have brought nothing to the intellectual discussion between theists and atheists. Instead, he has brought only dishonor to himself. Unfortunately, there really is not much more to say.

No, “John” merely doesn’t have anything else to say, since he can’t actually manage to identify a single logical fallacy. And what is honor to an atheist? It’s not material, after all, and therefore it must be nonexistent. I always find it interesting that this sort of individual somehow never seems to refer to a certain Clinton Dawkins…. and speaking of rudeness, here’s Clinton himself discussing the matter with the Circle of Jerkdom:

we are offending people, but we are also telling them that they’re wrong to be offended.

Do his atheist fans seriously wonder why so many people, atheists included, consider him a premium grade asshole? But Hell, presumably being nonexistent, hath no fury like the atheist who has no rational argument to offer in defense of his exposed heroes.

It’s long been known that psychiatry is almost entirely unscientific. Now, it’s becoming evident that even the supposedly medical aspects of it are pseudo-medical as well:

Millions of people taking commonly prescribed antidepressants such as Prozac and Seroxat might as well be taking a placebo, according to the first study to include unpublished evidence. The new generation of antidepressant drugs work no better than a placebo for the majority of patients with mild or even severe depression, comprehensive research of clinical trials has found.

As I quoted the historian Daniel Boorstin, the chief obstacle to science has never been ignorance – the dramatic hysterics of the New Anti-Theists notwithstanding – but rather the illusion of knowledge. And there is no group so manifestly caught up in this illusion as the scientific community. Atheists such as Dawkins like to accuse the religious faithful of arrogance because they believe God cares about them. (It’s arrogant to believe someone loves you? That certainly explains Dawkins’s multiple marriages.) But even the self-centered religious individual accepts the concept of faith’s limited reach, the increasingly delusional scientific community accepts no such limits on the application of its favored methodology, all empirical evidence to the contrary.

It is because science is far more dangerous than all the religions of the world combined that it would behoove scientists to be careful in their investigations and humble in their claims. Instead, far too many of them view themselves as Man’s secular priesthood and blithely issue one nonsensical bull after another. But if they are a priesthood, it must be noted that history shows they bear far more resemblance to the bloody-handed priests of Technochtitlan than any other.

I have no objection to scientific knowledge or the scientific method. I mean, I’ve been busy for the last two days wrapping up a patent application that could conceivably be of some small use to a few scientists in the future. But it borders on inarguable that Mankind is in dire need of a scientific profession less prone to ideological, intellectual and pecuniary prostitution.

TL asks about games:

What are some good Turn Based Strategy games that don’t require endless micromanagement

My all-time favorite is Fantasy General, which you can find pretty easily around the Net. The graphics are quite crude by today’s standards, but it’s a great game with one of the best simple campaign aspects that I’ve ever played. There’s no resource management at all, but you can’t afford to be careless with your forces or you’ll find yourself hopelessly outmatched after a few battles. If I were ever to write a book on game design, Fantasy General would be one of my examples of game design greatness. Total War: Shogun and Total War: Medieval are both great turn-based games with real-time battles and mild resource management, but I was hugely disappointed by Total War: Rome.

As far as new games go, I’m embarrassed to say that I haven’t played it yet, but I’d recommend at least checking out Supreme Commander. The designer is an old acquaintance of mine, and while I seem to recall that it’s real-time, he put a particular emphasis on including turn-based style strategics rather than the pure tactics of the conventional RTS.

I mentioned two possibilities behind the Sinclair accusations in my column today. Looks like it was the more probable of the two:

The Minnesota man who accused leading presidential candidate Barack Obama of cocaine use and having sex with him in the back of a limousine nine years ago has reportedly failed two polygraph tests administered by the website WhiteHouse.com.

Apparently it’s not enough that the federal government is permitting the civilian invasion of America by its neighbors, now it intends to permit open military invasion as well:

In a ceremony that received virtually no attention in the American media, the United States and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis. The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.

Somehow, I doubt the “domestic civil disturbances” they have in mind have anything to do with the ones mentioned, but rather refer to those Americans who tend to take their Constitutional inheritence from their revolutionary Founding Fathers a little too literally for an ironically named Washington’s taste.