The cricket, she chirps

Bobert expresses the ontological argument for a universally applicable atheist morality, sparking the obvious response:

Get a grip… even athiests and us agnostics can have a real solid understanding on what is right and what is wrong.

Okay, that’s fine, but do explain how. First give me a single example of what is right, then one of what is wrong.

Second, explain why the first thing is right, then why the second thing is wrong.

I hope you won’t equivocate or go silent, as this should be trivial for any atheist or agnostic with a real solid understanding of right and wrong. Any Christian, even a barely literate one, is easily capable of doing this.

And, as one has come to expect, there is still no response to this point. Unfortunate, but hardly surprising. Garlic Powder, on the other hand, at least tries to answer the question:

Because I would not want to be raped, so it would be wrong for me to rape someone else. Most laws can be traced back to the golden rule. For the religious, please don’t cite any more examples of God’s laws that are really nothing more than the golden rule.

Of course, this fails the universal applicability requirement twice over, because it is dependent upon A) what Garlic Powder happens to want, which is likely different from what individuals X, Y and Z want, and, B) assumes that morality hinges upon the Golden Rule. (GP also confuses legality with morality, but that’s a common mistake and irrelevant here.)

God’s Law is not the Golden Rule. The latter is only a subset of the former, the annotated version. The fundamental flaw in the Golden Rule is obvious, as it provides one free rein so long as his actions are in line with his reciprocal desires. So long as I wouldn’t mind a swimsuit model crawling into my bed unannounced, it is completely moral under the Golden Rule for me to crawl into hers without warning.

However, GP is partially right. God’s Law can certainly be seen as arbitrary, given that it hinges completely upon His Will. It is, however, universally applicable and rather less arbitrary than a moral “system” which varies completely from one individual to the next.


I’d buy that for a 3rd rounder

From Sports Illustrated:

There’s talk the Raiders are willing to trade Randy Moss back to the Vikings, who are desperate for wide receivers and probably could get him for just a third-round pick.
— St. Paul Pioneer Press

That could be very interesting. We badly need a WR, Randy hangs onto the ball even when he’s only half-interested and Tarvaris Jackson has the big arm. I actually thought Jackson played pretty well against Green Bay considering that it was his first start. If Williamson doesn’t drop that open bomb, the Vikes very well may have won.


VPFL Champions: East Mesa

VPFL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME:

62 – East Mesa White Trash
57 – Mile High Club

THIRD PLACE:

94 – Mounds View Meerkats
43 – Greenfield Grizzlies

Congratulations to the White Trash, who won the inaugural VPFL and as winners, will be back to defend their title next year. Thanks to all coaches, who made it a surprisingly competitive league. I’ll be soliciting coaches next year, if there aren’t enough new volunteers then this year’s participants will be given the chance to take part based on the order of their finish in the regular season.

Of course, the White Buffalo and I will also be returning to demonstrate our superior NFL skills. I’m a little bitter, as once more the fantasy football gods have mocked me with a regular season title followed by a high-scoring first round defeat and a third-place game blowout. Each team can keep three of its current players on the roster and must keep at least two, the keeper decision will be made by the new owner.


Dawkins confesses impotence

I have often been criticized for my repeated assertion that atheists lack an objective morality, that they have no basis with which to criticize the behavior of another individual except a basic appeal to utilitarianism. This criticism has largely faded away to nothing over time, however, as atheist after atheist has failed to make a coherent case that does not rest wholly on the parasitic hijacking of a moral tradition from a religious source.

This inability to construct an independent morality does not speak poorly of them, though, as it is a profoundly difficult intellectual exercise. The relatively few moralities we possess after thousands of years of recorded history are testament enough to this. And if it is amusing that so many atheists are satisfied with an ontological faith that such a morality could, theoretically, be somehow constructed, it should also be recalled that this is an argument which Christians have also relied upon in the past.

But what cannot be excused is the intellectually dishonest denial by most atheists of the fact that they currently posses no claim to even participate in any ongoing moral debates. In truth, such individuals have no logical grounds to even express an opinion with regards to questions of “should” or of “right and wrong”. Even Richard Dawkins seems to implicitly admit to the inherent hypocrisy in his dabblings in these fields in an October interview with Salon:

What about the old adage that science deals with the “how” questions and religion deals with the “why” questions?

I think that’s remarkably stupid, if I may say so. What on earth is a “why” question? There are “why” questions that mean something in a Darwinian world. We say, why do birds have wings? To fly with. And that’s a Darwinian translation of the evolutionary process whereby the birds that had wings survived better than the birds without. They don’t mean that, though. They mean “why” in a deliberate, purposeful sense. So when you say religion deals with “why” questions, that begs the entire question that we’re arguing about. Those of us who don’t believe in religion — supernatural religion — would say there is no such thing as a “why” question in that sense. Now, the mere fact that you can frame an English sentence beginning with the word “why” does not mean that English sentence should receive an answer. I could say, why are unicorns hollow? That appears to mean something, but it doesn’t deserve an answer.

But it seems to me the big “why” questions are, why are we here? And what is our purpose in life?

It’s not a question that deserves an answer.

Well, I think most people would say those questions are central to the way we think about our lives. Those are the big existential questions, but they are also questions that go beyond science.

If you mean, what is the purpose of the existence of the universe, then I’m saying that is quite simply begging the question. If you happen to be religious, you think that’s a meaningful question. But the mere fact that you can phrase it as an English sentence doesn’t mean it deserves an answer. Those of us who don’t believe in a god will say that is as illegitimate as the question, why are unicorns hollow? It just shouldn’t be put. It’s not a proper question to put. It doesn’t deserve an answer.

This highlights is the inherently destructive aspect of atheist philosophy. Dawkins understands that he can no more answer the question “why should I not kill Jews?” than “why are unicorns hollow?” even if most of those who consider him a great advocate of atheism do not.

When one responds to a question of “why am I here” with “that’s not a question that deserves an answer”, then one has no right to take exception to the behavior of the individual who concludes “I am here to conquer, kill, steal and rape on the basis of my desire and my ability to carry out my will.”


Mailvox: the joy of Christmas

NL wonders about today’s celebrations:

You seem to be an erudite person. But why is it the most educated can never understand the Bible? First of all, Christ could no have been born on December 25th. Shepherds were out in the field, it’s too cold for that in December. Surely, your logical mind could figure this out!

Second, there is no commandment to remember his birth. You did know that didn’t you? So why do you celebrate his birthday?

And if you did, did you give any presents to Jesus? You give it to the person whose birthday it is. Why does everybody say “happy birthday Jesus” then proceed to give each other presents? Silly!

What does celebrating Jesus Christ’s birth on December 25th have to do with his actual birthday? It’s true, the chances that his birth actually took place in the winter are nil, but to focus on the actual date is to miss the point of the holiday entirely. Christmas is a celebration of the expression of God’s love for Man, a love which took the form of the gift of His Son.

In the same way, we give gifts to each other to express our love for one another. The reason that the militant secularists hate Christmas is because it is such a powerfully effective metaphor, especially for children. We may talk about “good” children receiving gifts and “bad” ones receiving coal, but most children know perfectly well that the stack of presents from Santa under the tree are largely unmerited.

And, as always, it is a mistake to look too hard for the logic behind any metaphor.

It’s true, there is no commandment to do many worthwhile things. This does not make them silly, illegitimate or sinful. As for “Happy Birthday Jesus,” I don’t know anyone who does this, nor would one expect to give Jesus presents when he is, quite obviously, not there. (Otherwise, Christians could not anticipate his eventual return.)

It is easy to forget that God is not only a God of righteousness and judgment, but also of Joy. I find it very difficult to imagine that the pure joy one sees on a child’s face on Christmas morning, the sheer awe and delight, can be something that God, in whose image we are made, does not regard with joy Himself.

I have no problem with those who choose not to celebrate Christmas, whether they are Christians refraining from doing so in the Puritan tradition or atheists who quite reasonably consider the idea of an incarnate God made flesh to be a profoundly ridiculous concept. But I do feel a sense of pity for anyone who would rob himself of even a modicum of the joy that so many of us know at Christmastime.


Merry Christmas

It was harder than usual this year to shop for a certain individual, (not that it’s ever easy), to say nothing of the eclectic agglomerate of genuises, misfits, babes, freaks, soldiers, sociopaths, award-winning authors, government agents, evangelicals and agnostics who haunt this blog.

So, I got everyone a book. It’s in my preferred Palm doc format (.pdb), which requires the free eReader that can be downloaded for Windows, Macintosh, and various mobile operating systems here. If you prefer PDF format for some strange reason, you can find a version to suit you over on the right.

Merry Christmas!


Tupac lives

I was working out at our new club – about which more later, I’m still too traumatized by the enforced change in the daily routine to talk about it – and after an arms-and-back workout, I just had time for a quick sauna and shower before the place closed for the day.



When I went into the sauna, I couldn’t help doing a bit of a double-take, then burst out laughing. The tattooed black guy sitting there didn’t exactly take affront or anything, but let’s face it, no man really appreciates being laughed at while completely sans clothing. I did my best to defuse the situation by explaining that for a moment, I’d thought that it was Tupac Shakur who was sitting there.



“Ma lui e’ morto!” (But he’s dead!)



“Well, yeah, that’s why I was so surprised.”



I pretended to believe Mr. Shakur’s little story about being a Milanese investment banker who just happens to look like a dead rapper, but my theory is that he’s just lying low, waiting for precisely the right moment to strike the East Coast and win the Rap War in one fell swoop. Avoid San Tropez this winter, that’s my advice to Puffin Diddle or whatever the guy is calling himself these days.


Calling the Gay Mustacio

I, for one, am simply outraged that anyone would compare deportations of illegal aliens to the Holocaust! Someone get Michael Medved cranked up to eleven! Obviously, this awful people are Nazis… denounce! Decry! Degroovy!

Sorry, just got a bit sidetracked there. Anyhow, this is absolutely beyond belief! Tito, fetch me the smelling salts, I feel as if I might collapse onto my fainting couch:

U.S. Hispanic groups and activists on Thursday called for a moratorium on workplace raids to round up illegal immigrants, saying they were reminiscent of Nazi crackdowns on Jews in the 1930s….

“This unfortunately reminds me of when Hitler began rounding up the Jews for no reason and locking them up,” Democratic Party activist Carla Vela said. “Now they’re coming for the Latinos, who will they come for next?”

Personally, I’d vote for the feminists, but I’m perfectly willing to settle for the professoriat. Even if the tweedy academics probably wouldn’t get as much enjoyment out of the Patriarchal Rape Camps as much.

Although, given the tweedy academics I’ve known, I could be wrong about that.


Since we’re on a literary kick

Here’s the text of a little speech I gave at a friend’s book launch in Zurich last month. Jyoti and Suresh Guptara are teenage twins who recently published a mammoth fantasy novel, “Conspiracy of Calaspia”, which they began writing when they were only eleven years old:

While the names Jules Verne and H.G. Wells are familiar even to those whose literary interests remain safely outside Science Fiction, the history of her sister genre, Fantasy, is rather unknown in comparison. Although fantastic influences can be seen to stretch back beyond the beginnings of recorded history, and range from the spoken tradition of Homer’s Iliad to the folk tales of medieval Europe, modern fantasy truly began in 1858 with the publication of a novel aptly named “Phantastes”.

“Phantastes” was written by a Scottish minister by the name of George MacDonald, and published six years before Verne’s “Journey to the Center of the Earth”, seven years before Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland” and before H.G. Wells, H.P. Lovecraft or Lord Dunsany were even born. MacDonald is largely forgotten these days, despite the popularity of books such as “The Princess and the Goblin” and “At the Back of the North Wind”, which the daughter of an American writer named Samuel Clemens enjoyed so much that Clemens wrote to MacDonald requesting a copy to replace his little girl’s beloved, but worn out book.

Clemens, of course, is better known by his nom de plume, Mark Twain.

And if MacDonald’s work is forgotten today, the impression it made on three men in a small Oxford literary society will not be. C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkein and Charles Williams were all powerfully influenced by the prolific Scotsman, and indeed, those who have read and loved “The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe” will likely experience a distinct sense of deja vu should they ever encounter the opening paragraphs of “The Princess and the Goblin”.

But fantasy literature has changed greatly since erudite Englishmen gathered to read their work to each other in a small and smoky pub, and it has not changed for the better. While there is no inherent reason why fantasy should be relegated to a literary ghetto, especially when its early practitioners are ranked among the best and most beloved authors of the 20th century, it is nevertheless unlikely that even so popular a fantasy writer as J.K. Rowling will be read widely six decades from now.

I believe the reason for this is that a world without a sense of wonder finds it very difficult to produce works capable of inspiring awe and igniting the imagination. Richard Dawkins attempted to argue the opposite in his book “Unweaving the Rainbow”, but strangely, the great devotee of empirical evidence was unable to produce any, and was reduced to insisting that Keats and Yeats would have written better poems had they been inspired by science instead of faith. But consider where sixty years have gotten us: Lewis takes us to a whole new world, Rowling, on the other hand, merely drags us off to school. Tolkein gives us an epic, Pullman offers little more than a polemic.

This is why it is their faith, more than their youth, that impresses me most about what I see in Jyoti and Suresh Guptara’s work. For without an understanding of the distinction between good and evil, could Dostoevsky have written “Crime and Punishment”? Without Joyce’s rich Irish-Catholic roots, “Ulysses” would have been little more than superficial literary pyrotechnics. And without a sense of transgression, of fatal violation, there would not be much of a plot for either “Madame Bovary” or “Anna Karenina”; those novels could barely be regarded as complete stories, let alone great literature.

Anchored in their faith, Jyoti and Suresh are heirs to the oldest tradition in fantasy literature, the tradition that draws both its power and its meaning from the truth to be found in Aslan, in Gandalf the White, in Gaal of Anthropos and in the Emperor-Over-the-Sea.

I am confident that with this intellectual anchor for their active imaginations, it will never even occur to them to inflict upon the world the tedious sort of novel revolving around a mythical balance between good and evil that infests fantasy today. And with that anchor, in this tradition, with the ambition that led two boys to embark upon a lengthy task of this magnitude and with many years ahead of them to polish their prose and hone their skill, there are no limits to what they may dare and what they can achieve.

You see, I am not here to congratulate Jyoti and Suresh, but to challenge them. It is my fondest wish for Jyoti that he should one day be unable to crack open the cover of “Conspiracy of Calaspia” without cringing. It is my hope that Suresh will eventually come to regard “Conspiracy of Calaspia” with as much embarrassment as pride. For there are few sadder sights in the literary world than the writer whose best work is behind him.

In these latter days, it has become all too customary to offer effusive praise for one’s literary fellows at every opportunity. Therefore, I shall leave that to the rest of you. Instead, let me close with a tale of another literary group, one that met ten years ago to criticize the final draft of a young author’s first completed manuscript. The group met at the home of Lois McMaster Bujold, one of the most eminent figures in modern fantasy today, with four Hugo Awards and three Nebula Awards to her credit. As if her august presence wasn’t intimidating enough, Joel Rosenberg, Patricia Wrede, Bruce Bethke and Peg Kerr were also there.

It was a painful evening for me, because that was my manuscript. Those best-selling and award-winning authors held nothing back. Miss Wrede, in fact, was kind enough to give me six double-sided, single-spaced pages of notes, the title of which was “Major Problems”. I didn’t have the heart to ask her how long her list of minor ones ran. Their criticism was merciless and the worst part about it was that it was indisputably correct in nearly every detail.

But at the end of that long evening, Lois Bujold tapped her copy of the manuscript and said something that I have never forgotten. It was, in fact, the most important compliment that one author can pay another. She said: “You know, for all of that, there is a story in there.”

Jyoti, Suresh, there is a story in here. Congratulations to both of you, and welcome to The Fellowship of the Pen.

It may interest some of you to know that Jyoti was instrumental in getting another young author published. I contacted the UK publisher at his recommendation, however, it was with the idea of getting my books published there. And we all know how that went….


Thar she blows

Quality Control issues a report:

Cover is great, binding nice and tight and as good as anything the major pubs put out, high-gloss back cover shows fingerprints a little too well but otherwise looks good.

Interior: good quality paper, pagination correct, good typography, consistent layout (no vertical or horizontal drift from page to page), odd and even pages are just as they should be.

In short, except for the lack of a barcode and an ISBN on the back cover, this looks at least as good as anything a major publisher might put out, and better than a lot I’ve seen.

I pronounce this experiment a success.