Category: Uncategorized

GC wants to know what I think of WND’s lack of support for Ron Paul:

I read recently your words of endorsement for Ron Paul. They were as eloquent as Dr. Paul is the man for the times. But I wonder, how do you square the lack of coverage of Dr. Paul by WND/Joseph Farrah with your own personal views. Isn’t what WND is doing as it relates to Dr. Paul no different than what the MSM media are doing? The cynical, and increasingly more likely, scenario is that Mr. Farrah is doing nothing more than providing a faux side for people to join to do battle against “them” (the Democrates, especially Hillary) when in reality, the republicans are just as corrupt.

Every right-wing pundit I listen to, every conservative columnist that I read all said/say they would immediately jump on the band wagon of a candidate if he would merely support the constitution. Along comes Ron Paul and all those same guys simply pretend he doesn’t exist. What gives?

I would love to see you write an article examining this phenomenon. Corner some of these guys and force them to come clean on why they are ignoring the only guy in the race among either of the two major parties who everyone KNOWS will follow the constitution to the letter.

First, WND has collectively demonstrated more support for Ron Paul than nearly any other site featuring political commentary. Both Ilana Mercer and I have endorsed him, and if it’s not as big a news item as our colleague’s endorsement of Mike Huckabee, well, neither one of us is as famous as Chuck Norris nor did Ron Paul score an upset win in Iowa. Second, I’m hardly in a position to complain about what WND’s editors elect to put on their front page now, am I?

As for those supposedly right-wing self-proclaimed conservative pundits, well, as I have said before, it pains me to have to point out to adults that sometimes people say things that are not true. The truth is that most of the conservative commentariat is not conservative. Most of them do not support the U.S. Constitution. This is easily verified by simply comparing their written positions on various issues with the Constititution. And the same is true of the “conservative” politicians they support, from George W. Bush to John McCain and Mitt Romney.

That’s not the case with Mr. Farah. He’s honest, but he’s a journalist by trade and training and so tends to think about politics in horse race terms. This means that he’s not inclined to support the best guy regardless, but rather the best guy he considers to have a decent chance. Since Ron Paul has never really fit that description, he’s just not inclined to give him the time of day. This makes sense from his primarily tactical perspective.

Being rather more inclined to view things from a strategic perspective myself, I see absolutely no benefit to a Republican win in 2008 anyhow. The economic, political and military winds are seriously ill-omened and whoever wins will be held responsible for the consequences over the next decade. This is the best possible time for pundits to hold to pure principle; the fact that none of them are doing so despite having such a great excuse is less a condemnation of principles which very few of them happen to hold anyway, (most columnists care less about who wins than they do about being able to say they backed the winner), but rather a demonstration of their inability to think beyond tomorrow. I’ve found it very interesting to see that many of the commentators I most respect have tended to either support Ron Paul or refrain from endorsing anyone.

NM fails to see what the fuss is all about:

I do not see anything wrong with the argument that Richard Dawkins has used as described in your article:

“If there are a billion billion planets and a one-in-a-billion chance of life spontaneously arising on a planet, then life must exist on a billion planets throughout the universe.”

I will only recommend adding the phrase “with high probability” at the end. It is not enough to say that the argument is wrong. You have to point out the fallacy in the argument.

This email just SCREAMS social autism. First, that’s not the argument, it’s part of the setup for the actual argument. Second, I wasn’t criticizing Dawkins for being incorrect, I was mocking him for getting so excited about pointing out the TOTALLY FREAKING OBVIOUS. This would probably have been more clear if I’d quoted the entire paragraph from TIA:

Schützenberger’s contempt for Dawkins’s mathematical abilities is well-founded, as it’s generally not considered to be a good idea to adopt a casual approach to mathematical probability, as Dawkins does with the “one in a billion” chance of something like DNA spontaneously arising which he invents ex nihilo, before reaching the shocking statistical conclusion that if there are a billion billion planets and a one in a billion chance of life spontaneously arising on a planet, then life must exist on a billion planets throughout the universe!

Dawkins is genuinely surprised by his astonishing discovery of mathematical division, so much so that he repeats it twice. Did you know that if there are four fours* of books and a one in four chance of a book being written by a New Atheist, then there must be four New Atheist books? Sweet St. Darwin of the Galapagos, is this really what passes for a public intellectual today?

* Or sixteen, as we non-dysnumeric individuals usually describe it.

People sometimes wonder why I demonstrate such open contempt for atheism. I don’t fear atheists, I certainly don’t respect most of them – although I do respect atheist individuals such as Jonathan Haidt, Daniel Dennett and Brent Rasmussen, who have earned it – and I find that the lay atheist, like his heroes, tends to be incredibly obnoxious. Mono Ape provides an excellent example of why this contempt is not merely justified, but demanded. It would be easy to think that he is simply stupid based on the way he relies on assumptions, intuition and faulty logic rather than simply looking at the available evidence, except that one runs into this behavior time and time and time again with outspoken atheists. Combined with their usual assertion of rational superiority and their demonstrated knowledge of common atheist talking points, this behavior increasingly tends to indicate intentional dishonesty rather than mere ignorance or unintellligence. Mono Apes quotes my interview with Joseph Farah and writes:

“… Dawkins’s stupid assertion that a religious upbringing is worse than sexual child abuse”

Professor Dawkins has never said any such thing. He had said that labelling a child ‘Christian’, ‘Muslim’, etc. is “a form of abuse”.

He did say it, by his own admission. He also wrote it: ““Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, as horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing up the child Catholic in the first place.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 317. Dawkins then spends nine pages half-heartedly defending this assertion without ever examining the long-term psychological damage of sexual abuse. Strike one.

“Dawkins thinks humanity should follow Darwin just long enough to cast off Jesus Christ, then ditch Darwin in favor of following Richard Dawkins’ opinion on life, the universe and everything”

A ludicrous assertion without a shred of evidence to back it up.

First, it’s bizarre to insist that one must present documented evidence in every op/ed column and interview. And there’s loads of evidence to back this up in, unsurprisingly enough, Richard Dawkins’s writing: “‘Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.” That is G.C. Williams’s recommendation today and it is mine.” – Richard Dawkins, A Devil’s Chaplain, p. 10. And in The God Delusion, he pushes his form of secular humanism, including his personal recommendations for replacing at least four of the Ten Commandments in favor of commandments that he, the Archbishop of Oxford, has penned.

• Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business.
• Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race or (as far as possible) species.
• Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.
• Value the future on a timescale longer than your own.

So, rather than using “reason, science and historical documentation” to argue “the atheists into an inescapable corner”, you’ve employed blatant and crude straw men, ad hominem and hysterical, baseless assertions? Doesn’t bode well for the quality of the rest of the book, does it?

“blatant and crude straw men, ad hominem and hysterical, baseless assertions” is a very strange way to describe accurate summaries supported by direct quotes from the original sources. I will leave it to the reader to determine how this bodes for my book. Sadly, Mono Ape is far from the first to attempt criticizing it without bothering to read it.

“… atheism will never be a widespread phenomenon”

Someone better ‘phone Sweden and let them know – up to ~80% of Swedes profess no belief in gods, fairies, etc.

Actually, the Eurostat report to which Mono Ape is obviously referring reports that “23% of Swedish citizens responded that “they believe there is a God”, whereas 53% answered that “they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force” and 23% that “they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force”.” 100-(53+23)!=~80. First Harris, then Dawkins, now this guy… what is it with atheists and their math delusions? As I noted in TIA, the highest percentage of reported atheists anywhere in the West is the 32 percent reported in France by a very questionable Financial Times poll which is more than 2x the largest number reported in every other study, including much more extensive ones.

The ‘irrational’ atheists will look forward to dismantling the rest of the book when it becomes available for download.

I have no doubt whatsoever that they will do a similarly thorough and conclusive job of it, in keeping with this spectacular example.

Is Mono Ape ignorant or intellectually dishonest? I really don’t know which is the more appropriate description of this feeble attempt at a critique of an interview, you’ll have to decide for yourselves. But I have no need to create strawmen to attack, to be honest, the straw men I’d construct would almost surely be sturdier and more viable than the cases presented by the living, breathing atheists who seek to criticize me.

JS asks about comparing religions:

Vox, after reading your article I thought I’d ask how to choose which God(s), Religion, Denomination and Sect to choose from since they each make the claim that they are the unadulterated word of god as spoken to his chosen prophet. Deviance from the doctrines of each of the above results in a fiery end for all eternity; as does belief in any of the other belief systems. Mormonism is getting a lot of attention recently and I can honestly say that I admire Mormons for their family values and the moral backbone they seem to foster in their adherents. However, many of the claims of their prophet are demonstrably false despite the religions overall success.

So how does one choose? Especially since the stakes are so high?

Carl Sagan said it best in his baloney detection kit: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – period. So far we only have the scientific method – with all its flaws – to help use explain natural phenomena and improve our lives. It offers no moral teachings or social fabric to knit our societies together with…only explanations. The best course for the religious is to adopt the “non-overlapping magisteria” model of religion and science. They really do operate in two separate domains. Religion functions on unquestionable faith and absolutes. Science works on constant questioning and probabilities.

I agree with you that Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris are at least misled in their belief that rhetoric and reason can neuter religion. Nor do I believe that it would be a good thing for society as a whole to do so. But the whole polarity between “Irrational Athiests” and “Irrational Theists” leaves out the majority in the middle who don’t believe in either. Theists and Athiests can be moral, rational, upstanding citizens and – statistically speaking – overwhelmingly are.

Actually, as anyone who has examined various religions from Christianity to Nzambi Mpunguism, they really don’t. I recommend JS look into precisely who spoke to Mohammed, which of the Judeo-Christian God’s many prophets one has to consider “his chosen one”, and the Jewish concept of the afterlife. To be blunt, he’s simply repeating a Sam Harris talking point here, it’s evident he doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about.

Shall we offer dueling Carl Sagan quotes? Sagan also said “An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. Now, it would be first necessary to define what is and what is not an “extraordinary claim”, then detail precisely what “extraordinary evidence” would suffice to meet any such claim. And once this is defined, then surely some extraordinary evidence would be necessary to explain why the normal standards of historical, testimonial and scientific evidence which have proven satisfactory for everything else in human history have suddenly become a post-1987 imperative on the sole basis of a dead pop astronomer’s say-so.

JS doesn’t seem to realize that this is simply more of the rhetoric that he is, quite rightly, dismissing from the New Atheists.

The best test of a religion is that suggested by the Apostle Paul. Judge a man by his fruits, judge a faith by its fruits as well. Science alone is a very poor yardstick upon which to rely for guidance, it is like attempting to determine WHERE you are driving with nothing but a speedometer for guidance. (Note that I said nothing but a speedometer, this includes the position of the sun outside, etc.) It may be very precise while simultaneously leaving you stranded in the middle of nowhere.

I don’t believe in non-overlapping magisterium, but rather that Science and Religion – particularly Christianity – are complimentary tools. It makes no sense to try to cut down a tree with a hammer, nor is it very effective to use a screwdriver to pound nails. Religion helps Man know what to do, Science gives him the best possible means to go about doing it.

Now, atheists certainly can possess virtues, unfortunately, consistency and rationality are seldom among them. This has little to do with their lack of belief in God, it is mostly because they are human. The great problem with atheism is that its practical form – secular humanism and the various societal utopianisms – depend entirely upon a false foundation of an imaginary human rationality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian McCleod of the Clan McLeod declares a winner:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blonde Moment appreciates the service:

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

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

Farah: What are the consequences of widespread atheism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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