Category: Uncategorized

JS is both conflicted and confused:

I was intrigued by your article as a both a Christian and a devoted Ayn Rand fan (I know obviously I have unresolved issues). But your column, while it makes a decent argument for the concept of non-overlapping magisterium, which I support, never really argues against reason per se. You say that religion is important to human societies and culture (which is no doubt true but not an attack on reason), that Dawkins and Harris (and I guess Hitchens too) make fallacious arguments in support of atheism, that most good charitable work is done by people with religious motives (which is somewhat questionable), and that Enlightenment philosophers were more emotional than rational (Nietchze comes to mind) in their arguments, but the idea that mankind can use logic, evidence, and reason to reach important conclusions about us, the world, etc., is never really challenged. I don’t know if you wrote your headline but perhaps it was mis-applied to your argument.

I did not write my headline; one of the keys to living life as a content and well-adjusted columnist is accepting the fact that the average editor neither reads nor necessarily understands your columns. They’re too busy checking for typos, grammatical errors and potentially offensive metaphors to either worry or care much about what you’re writing. Naturally, this doesn’t prevent them from writing the headline; meaning always takes a backseat to puns and alliteration.

The significant point isn’t that Man can’t use reason as an effective tool, which he can, but rather that reason, in itself, can no more provide the basis for moral and ethical systems than can a computer. It is a tool, nothing more; assertions based on reason are best understood as supporting justifications for underlying arguments rather than as arguments in their own right.

Some devotees of reason consider it to be both ironic and frustrating that I can wield reason and logic more deftly than they can, especially since I do so in the service of what they consider to be irrationality. What they don’t understand is that they are doing precisely the same thing, with the exception of the fact that they quite literally do not understand what they are doing.

When TIA comes out, I suspect many readers will be shocked at how closely some of my conclusions resemble Jonathan Haidt’s assertions; it may prove to be an interesting example of how formal scientody is not the only path to knowledge.

I’m not sure if Hog on Ice hits it precisely on the head, but the general tenor of his lament/rant is largely correct:

I only know one young conservative who got a real chance from the big-time media. These people are all going to quit and do something else; at least the ones who are trying to make careers in the political arena. That’s too bad, because they’re not disposable. They’re hard to replace. But when they quit, they’ll be doing the right thing. I quit, and not only am I glad, I wish I had never started. I curse the day when I first broke my own rule and wrote about politics. It was counterproductive and futile, and the conservative media doesn’t deserve me. It doesn’t deserve any new writer….

Conservative personalities are used to being blackballed and pigeonholed and hired only as tokens, so they think there are a limited number of conservative job openings out there. Just like the limited number of spaces on the comics page. They think that if they help anyone else succeed, it will be at their expense. So instead of fresh new faces, we see the same boring, mediocre, and sometimes even discredited pundits and writers, over and over.

Fortunately, I’m already doing something else, so there’s no need for me to quit. But has been educational for me to learn how the right-wing media, like the Christian media, is generally much more interested in wailing, shirt-tearing and ash-heaping than doing anything constructive. Of course, I do find it frustrating that so many people continue to pay attention to those who publicly and repeatedly prove themselves to be utterly unreliable analysts in every possible way. That’s just ridiculous.

I don’t know how responsive it will be to TIA, but I won’t be surprised if most of those who have publicly gnashed their teeth about Dawkins and company don’t even bother to request a review copy; when it finally comes to their attention it will probably be because some archaic churchman debating one of the New Atheists is using it as his primary ammunition.

One thing the New Atheists do very well – in fact, they do it to the point of it looking disturbingly like a circle jerk to the casual observer – is constantly talking up each other’s material, whether it merits it or not. This has the side effect of opening them up to criticism that they would not otherwise experience, especially when they are repeating Harris’s egregious errors, but I think it has been an important factor in their media success and in making what is a relatively small and insignificant collection of books look like a genuine intellectual movement.

Unlike Hog on Ice, I’ve never been particularly enthusiastic about the idea of a media career and it’s only ever been a tertiary interest at best, so the fact that Fox News, National Review and the Wall Street Journal try to pretend that WorldNetDaily and I don’t exist no longer irritates me. It does seem strange that it’s much more likely that the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Huffington Post will take note of TIA than Townhall, Focus on the Family and the 700 Club, but that’s the way it appears to work these days. The ironic thing is that at this point, only Richard Dawkins has even noticed the fact that the book is coming out.

Because I’m not a conservative, I don’t fit what the conservative media are selling, so they stick to their tried-and-true formulas even though my columns repeatedly prove more popular than the usual grist for the mill. That’s fine, at this point I’d much rather pursue what interests me than media notoriety; the fact that I am currently working on a novel which will be entitled Summa Elvetica, A Casuistry on the Elvish Controversy (and yes, the publisher did change the title, this is the more accessible version, believe it or not), should suffice to demonstrate my complete lack of interest in winning over the lowest common denominator.

To explain to Scott why his response to my last post was inadequate regarding the points it addressed, if you felt that way. I recommend precise articulation, preferably with examples:

In my previous post, I waxed at length about why I felt that Vox’s impression of how the scientific community actually operates missed the boat. A lot of his sympathetic readership felt my post missed the boat, and felt it was largely bloviated excuse-making. To those folk, I would say this: if you think the distinctions I raised in that post are irrelevant, I invite you to explain why you feel that way here.

Have at it, if you are so inclined. I note that Scott has a potential defense which I don’t think he has yet realized, but more on that later. In any event, in light of Scott’s recent confession that he is a Barry Bonds admirer, I encourage you to treat him with all the kindness and gentle understanding due the clinically insane.

Wait, didn’t Christopher Hitchens write about how it’s the Buddhists who are the totalitarians?

Twenty thousand people, including nuns, monks and ordinary Burmese, marched through the streets of Rangoon yesterday demanding freedom for Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel laureate, in a dramatic escalation of the country’s Buddhist-led “Saffron Revolution”.

Ten thousand monks, joined by about the same number of ordinary supporters, marched from the gold-covered Shwedagon Pagoda through the centre of Burma’s largest city in the biggest anti-government demonstration since the bloody suppression of the first democracy movement in 1988….

“We want the people to join us,” the monks chanted. One leader shouted through a megaphone: “We want national reconciliation, we want dialogue with the military, we want freedom for Aung San Sun Kyi and other political prisoners.”

The marchers responded by raising their hands in the air, and shouting: “Our God!”

The Buddhist god is not my God, but I note that as it so often is, religion in Burma is the primary focal point for opposing secular government repression, not supporting or reinforcing it.

It’s always interesting to witness how atheists always complain about past or imaginary oppression, while theists are constantly battling the real thing in real time.

What’s the point of wasting time on it when the referee simply refuses to pay attention to the video evidence:

Bad call, bad replay review doom Vikes

The Minnesota Vikings blew a 10-point lead in Kansas City on Sunday, ultimately losing to the Chiefs, 13-10.

If not for a blown call by an official and a poor replay review of the decision, though, the outcome might have been different. In the second quarter, Vikings running back Mewelde Moore took a handoff on a play that started at the Kansas City 8. Moore deftly moved toward the line of scrimmage, then slid to the right and threw the ball to tight end Visanthe Shiancoe, who was uncovered as he came across the end zone.

The pass was a bit off the mark, but Shiancoe lunged forward to haul it in, and then rolled on the ground with his arm cradling the ball. As he celebrated the apparent touchdown, the official who watched the catch was slamming his palm toward the ground like a guy who was taking a friendly game of “Family Feud” way too seriously. No catch.

Out came the red challenge flag, as it should have. Though the available angles weren’t ideal, it was clear Shiancoe had caught the ball and gotten his radius and ulna under it. Contrary to what the keen eyes (eye roll) of the official spied, the ball did not strike the ground.

But referee Walt Anderson emerged from the booth after viewing the replays and announced to the world that the call on the field would stand.

It wasn’t the worst call I’ve ever seen, but it was up there. I simply do not understand the eagerness of NFL and professional soccer referees to disallow scoring. I loathe how they simply leap at the opportunity as if they get paid for every point they can take off the scoreboard. There was absolutely no question that Shiancoe caught the ball cleanly even prior to the review; the broadcasters were confused when the nearby official didn’t signal touchdown.

This isn’t the first time I’ve wondered if pro sports wouldn’t be better without zebras. I don’t know if the Vikings would have won anyhow, as Kelly Holcomb played the entire second half with a deer-in-the-headlights expression on his face and gave up an incredibly stupid sack at the end of the first half that cost the Vikes a critical field goal opportunity, but it certainly changed the tempo of the game.

Fred Thompson is an inept candidate. The UPDATED Michigan straw poll results:

Romney — 39

McCain — 27

Paul — 10.8

Giuliani — 10.6

Thompson — 7

This is an incredible result for several reasons. Romney’s win is no surprise — he paid for many volunteers to attend, perhaps as many as 200, and he leads in some state polls. But how about McCain finishing second, ahead of Giuliani? McCain had a lot of supporters there, but I’m told that he paid for no one…. Then there’s Thompson, [and Giuliani – VD] finishing behind Ron Paul. This is partly a reflection of his lack of an organization in Michigan, but it could also be about how bad his speech was.

Remember when it was Ron Paul who was “unelectable”? Now he’s actually beating “major” candidates… it will be interesting to see how things start shaking out once the real primary voting starts. But it’s clear that Giuliani hasn’t won over Republicans despite the elders trying to hand him the nomination and Thompson has looked more disastrous every day since he formally entered the race.

That Brits won’t commit:

More than one crime in five in London is now committed by a foreign national, raising fresh fears over the impact of immigration. Around a third of all sex offences and a half of all frauds in the capital are carried out by non-British citizens.

I’d really like to know why supporters of immigration believe that the invaded culture will change the behavior of the invaders rather than the invaders changing the invaded culture. Both historical and current evidence suggest that the latter probability is the higher one.

Perhaps the BNP should adopt a new slogan. Cut crime 20 percent! It’s clear that mass deportations are coming, it’s just a question of sooner rather than later, because the status quo is inherently unstable.

Chad the Elder talks rot on alcohol:

While I have been known to enjoy a Baileys or two in my day (or even better, creme Tequila), I share Felten’s general distrust of any drink that’s overly sweet, especially when there’s any hint of sexual innuendo in the name. Truly good cocktails don’t require a gimmicky title to make the sale.

No, they don’t require a gimmicky title, what they actually require are a) bright, shiny colors, ideally resembling Windex or radioactivity, b) ice, and c) little umbrellas. Although in a pinch, little toothpick swords will do, especially since you can also use them to challenge someone who happens to glance at your date to a duel.

Few things are more amusing than brandishing a little plastic weapon and screaming “crossed swords at dawn” at an alarmed stranger in a bar, after all. Bonus points if it’s winter and you slap them across the face with your glove first.

For dining and intelligent conversation, there is no substitute for wine, and an amaretto-laced espresso is the ideal nightcap, at least for those of us whose blood-caffeine level is permanently elevated. But cocktails are intended for fun and public consumption and should always be as obnoxious as possible.

It takes a real man to drink a chick drink.

The NYT’s description of this Flemish independence party amuses me:

“We are two different nations, an artificial state created as a buffer between big powers, and we have nothing in common except a king, chocolate and beer,” said Filip Dewinter, the leader of Vlaams Belang, or Flemish Bloc, the extreme-right, xenophobic Flemish party, in an interview. “It’s ‘bye-bye, Belgium’ time.”

I mean, why not describe Vlaams Belang as “the extreme-right, xenophobic, no-good, very-bad, sinister black-hat-wearing party” while you’re at it? And if Vlaams Belang is “extreme-right” simply for supporting Flemish independence, doesn’t that make the American revolutionaries “extreme-right” as well?

I quite like the picture of the candle-laden cake celebrating 100 days without a government. Reagan should have gone that route back when Congress shut him down. It’s a powerful testimony that central government and rule by elected politicians is totally unnecessary.