Mailvox: atheism and the motte-and-bailey analogy

BJ, an atheist, didn’t feel the topic that was debated in On the Existence of Gods was entirely fair.

As an atheist, I agree that Vox won the debate. His arguments were more
persuasive and coherent. Dominic was a good sport, but he was attacking a
castle with no cannons, no towers, no ram, not even a ladder. I don’t think it is a fair debate topic, though that is not Vox’s fault.
It’s what Myers originally claimed and what Dominic agreed to. But it’s
not a fair view on the subject.

This is the standard motte and
bailey for defending theism. You replace ‘proof of god’ with ‘doubt of
science’ and hope no one calls you on it (Dominic didn’t). Then you push
the atheist into admitting they can’t rule out the possibility of the
existence of something which may resemble a god or gods. Most people
consider that a win.

The problem I have with that is no priest
suggests the possibility of a god or gods, they talk about very specific
gods with very specific rules, demand very specific obedience, and ask
for very real money. None of them can prove their god is real but that
is the bailey position; when they are under attack they retreat to the
motte position, which is just “you can’t prove god(s) DON’T exist.”
Kinda weak basis for tithing 10% of my income.

On the one hand, this is an entirely reasonable point with which I agree entirely. In fact, I repeatedly point out, in both On the Existence of Gods and in The Irrational Atheist, that the argument for the existence of the supernatural, the arguement for the existence of Gods, and the argument for the existence of the Creator God as described in the Bible are three entirely different arguments.

One could further observe, with equal justice, that none of these three arguments suffice to establish the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth or the existence of the Holy Trinity as described in the Constantinian revision of the original Nicene Creed.

The problem, however, is that BJ reverses the motte-and-bailey analogy as it is actually observed in the ongoing atheism-Christianity debate. For example, even in the debate he criticizes, Dominic’s sallies were initially directed at all forms of supernaturalism before being knocked back by my response which observed that the supernatural is a set of which gods are merely a subset.

More importantly, there was never any retreat to the Christian bailey. It simply wasn’t the subject at hand; the purpose of the debate was to challenge the atheist claim to the motte claimed by PZ Myers. And as for Dominic supposedly failing to call me on the very rational and substantive grounds to doubt the legitimacy of science, particularly as it relates to science’s ability to address the subject of gods, that was an intelligent tactical move on his part, because I would have easily demolished any attempt to rely upon science in that manner.

As readers of this blog know, I don’t regard science as being even remotely reliable in its own right, I consider its domain to be limited, and there is considerable documentary, logical, and even scientific evidence to support that position. It is certainly an effective tool, when utilized properly, but it is not a plausible arbiter of reality.

In any event, those interested in the subject appear to find On the Existence of Gods to be a worthy addition to the historical discussion, as it is currently #2 in the Atheism category, sandwiched between a pair of books by Richard Dawkins. If you haven’t posted a review yet, I would encourage you to do so.

Rabid Puppies 2016: updates and estimates

Chaos Horizon estimates between 20 percent and 80 percent of the Rabid Puppies will show up to nominate:

If the Rabid Puppies had around 550 votes in 2015, how many will they bring to 2016? Since all those who voted in 2015 can nominate in 2016, I imagine it will be a big number. Even so, I can’t imagine carrying 100% over—the nomination stage is simply less interesting, less publicized, and more difficult to vote in. Let’s imagine three scenarios: an 80% scenario, a 60% scenario, and a 40% scenario. I think 80% is the most likely; this is the group most invested in impacting the Hugos and the most likely to team up again. And since they don’t have to pay an entry fee to participate in the nomination stage . . .

I also think this group will have solid slate discipline, voting the list as Vox Day published it. If you want to factor in some slate decay, I’d do so for lesser known books like Agent of the Imperium.

I, personally, consider this to be an inadvertent affront. I would be surprised if only 80 percent of the Rabid Puppies could be bothered to show up and nominate – and remember, tomorrow is the last day in which you can submit your nominations to MidAmericaCon II. If you haven’t gotten around to it yet, don’t put it off any longer. Do it today.

What Chaos Horizon means by “slate decay” is a simple failure of discipline. Last year, for example, far more Puppies submitted nominations in Best Novel than in other, less important categories or went lone ranger on occasion. And while I can’t see what slate decay could possibly have to do with what is merely a list of recommendations, and by no means a direct order to
anyone, least of all the Rabid Puppies, the Sad Puppies, the Ilk, the
Dread Ilk, the Vile Faceless Minions, or the Evil Legion of Evil, by
their Supreme Dark Lord, I do think one would be remiss were one to fail to fill out the entire nominating ballot.

Speaking of which, I have updated the Rabid Puppies 2016 list with some of the additional information requested by the ballot form, such as the writers, directors, and editors in the Dramatic Presentation and Semiprozine categories. Be sure to check out your ballot before the end of day tomorrow to ensure that your voice is heard properly at the 2016 Hugo Awards. UPDATE: Note that as I have been unable to ascertain Rowena’s eligibility for Best Professional Artist, I am replacing her with LARRY ROSTANT who does some excellent blended work.

There are two big questions that will dictate how the 2016 shortlist turns out. The first is whether the Tor cabal has enacted a whisper slate or not, although the one-year recusal of John Scalzi and others tends to indicate that the Torlings have elected to sit back and anticipate that events will provide the necessary support required to ratify EPH this year. Given the way EPH will ensure them at least one permanent nomination in every category, that would be a reasonable, if surprisingly strategic, approach. The second big question is how many Sad Puppies were converted to Rabid Puppies by the various antics of the Puppykickers; if this has actually happened, the RP turnout could potentially exceed 750.

But that, my dear canines, dolorous and corybantic, is entirely up to you. By the way, be sure to save the copy of your ballot that MidAmericaCon sends you after you enter your nominations. We will need them in order to verify the announced results.

UPDATE: MidAmeriCon II ‏has announced that the shortlist ballot will be announced on 26th April. Voting will open 15th May and close July 31st. Hugo/No Awards ceremony 20th August.

An ominous pattern

Consider the following facts:

  1. Russia has withdrawn elements of its tactical forces in Syria, while leaving most of its anti-aircraft and strategic air strike capabilities in place.
  2. ISIS lost control of Palmyra to Assad and the Syrian army.
  3. For over a month, there have been repeated stories about a joint Saudi-Turkish alliance preparing to invade Syria, ostensibly to fight ISIS, but actually to attack Assad and the legitimate Syrian government.
  4. The US government just withdrew all family members of U.S. troops and diplomats from its installations in Turkey, ostensibly out of fears of terrorist attack.
  5. The NATO treaty requires the USA to defend Turkey if attacked.
  6. Donald Trump has, for the first time in decades, raised serious questions, in public, about US membership in NATO.
  7. ISIS is a creation, at least in part of the USA, and the US military made no serious attempts to defeat ISIS in Syria whereas the Russian-Syrian-Iranian alliance managed to repeatedly defeat ISIS and drive it back in just 22 weeks of operations.

What does this suggest? I think it indicates that all sides are preparing for a Turko-Syrian war, which may be a proxy for a US-Russian war in the same way that the war in the Crimea was. I’m not certain whether the US is actively on the side of Turkey or if it is washing its hands of what looks like an increasingly unstable pair of proxies in Turkey and the Islamic State. For the sake of global stability, I sincerely hope the latter is the case.

There are some indications that the US has wisely decided to stay out of it. Just over a month ago, the American Free Press reported:

Moscow has made it clear to Washington it will retaliate if the Turks send forces into Syria. Moscow has made it clear to Washington it will retaliate if the Turks send forces into Syria. The Russians are convinced the Saudis are pressing Turkey to so something militarily before Russian airpower eliminates all the extreme Islamic groups the Turks and Saudis have been supporting. The source says NATO leaders in Europe have told Washington that Turkey and the Saudis will have to go it alone if they engage Russia.

Also, the fact that the US refused Turkey’s demands that it cut ties with a Kurdish group fighting in Syria bodes well for avoiding a US-Russian war. The fact that Turkey might also be facing a civil war in its south may be an important factor in its apparent decision to get directly involved in Syria before the government forces wipe out ISIS there.

In any event, the recent withdrawal of Russian and US personnel suggests that things are likely to heat up in Syria soon. It is worth noting, too, that these recent events show how insanely wrong John McCain was to advocate expanding NATO to include Ukraine, as that would have either a) shattered NATO or b) triggered a US-Russian war last year. The fact that the USA appears to be leaving its NATO ally Turkey to go to war on its own tends to indicate the former.

Michelle Fields quadruples down

Keep this in mind when you’re dealing with a woman. They NEVER stop doubling down, because they simply can’t believe that they’ll have to deal with the consequences. Michelle Fields is actually pressing charges against Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski.

“Mr. Lewandowski was issued a Notice to Appear and given a court date. He was not arrested. Mr. Lewandowski is absolutely innocent of this charge,” Hicks said. “He will enter a plea of not guilty and looks forward to his day in court. He is completely confident that he will be exonerated. Mr. Lewandowski is represented by Scott Richardson of The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. in West Palm Beach, and Kendall Coffey of Coffey Burlington in Miami.Inquiries are to be directed to Mr. Richardson’s office.”

Setting aside the fact that she claimed to have been grabbed on the UPPER arm and the bruises she showed were on the lower arm, there are still some significant doubts concerning who touched her in the first place.

As some have suggested, Trump’s response should be to require all members of the media to sit in a pen, for their own protection.

Reviewing the debate

Steampunk Koala – now there’s a name – reviews On the Existence of Gods:

First, let’s address the format…. All in all, it worked extremely well, and I would like to see it used elsewhere.

The second thing, and perhaps the most important thing, was the effort that went into defining what a god is, as well as evidence and logic. It’s very rare to see it even come up in a debate in a meaningful way, and that has always struck me as foolish. It seems a  bit like arguing for or against string theory but never actually defining the model you are using.

I have long felt that this is the largest issue with the discussion, as the average  Atheist I have talked to has built a mental narrative in which they cannot lose by defining a god as a being who does magic, magic breaks physics and is fake, and anything that falls within any form of natural law is not magic, therefore not a god. As Vox very neatly points out, there is an issue of scale to be considered, regardless of where you draw the line.

Likewise, I know a lot of fellow Christians that feel that examining the topic closely is either a waste of time or even a bit sinister, as though wondering about how it all works is going to somehow change the facts.

It’s also worth noting that I found the material compelling enough that my first attempt at this review ended up blossoming into a short book length examination of the arguments made rather than a review proper. There is a lot of meat here for the taking…. On the balance, this book is a must-read for any serious seeker, regardless of where you fall on the spectrum.

I have to confess that as a game designer, it is gratifying to see that some readers have recognized the merits in the debate format. And it’s good to know that many of those who are very familiar with the subject nevertheless found it to bring something new to the age-old discussion. On the Existence of Gods is available at Amazon.

Relativity and the ideological spectrum

I’ve designed a nine-point ideological scale for reasons that will be readily apparent soon, and I’m in need of some clarifying examples. Here is what I have so far, but I feel as if there could be better examples. Ideally, the more famous the individual, the better; accuracy is far less important than familiarity.

One is extreme left, nine is extreme right. The goal is to clarify, not obscure or start arguments, so leave Hitler and anyone else likely to spark debate out of it.

  1. Vladimir Lenin
  2. Karl Marx
  3. Angela Merkel
  4. Bill Clinton
  5. John F. Kennedy
  6. George W. Bush
  7. Ronald Reagan
  8. Thomas Jefferson
  9. Ayn Rand

Another idea would be to provide multiple examples from different fields, from economics, from politics, and from philosophy. I’m entirely open to suggestion here, with one caveat: I am not at all open to suggestions of multiple axes or anything more complicated than a single 9-point scale.

And if you know what this is concerning, please resist the urge to demonstrate as much. When I want to make an announcement, I will make an announcement. In the meantime, keep an eye on your emails tomorrow.

Civilization or immigration

A society can only choose one. And Germany opts for the latter.

A central German regional railway is launching a special women and children only area for their trains, a move which has triggered controversy.

The announcement from the central German Regiobahn line came earlier this week, with the network stating the new compartment on their Leipzig and Chemnitz would admit women and young children only.

To ensure maximum peace for those choosing to travel in that compartment not only would it be sandwiched between the service’s two quiet coaches, but it would also be next to the on-board office of the “customer service representative. Traditionally known as a train guard or ticket inspector, the company said “the local proximity to the customer service representative is chosen deliberately”.

Yet despite the recent mass sex-attacks in Germany, and the official advice to young women that the best thing to do is to keep groping migrant men “at arms length” to prevent rape, the railway denies the segregated trains has anything to do with sexual harassment.

This denial has caused lively debate and controversy on German social media, reports Süddeutsche Zeitung.

The launch of women’s only compartments puts Germany in a club of other nations who need to segregate the sexes on journeys including India, Mexico, Brazil, Egypt and Indonesia.

It’s fascinating, is it not, that a society which will not permit the rejection of the modern equality mandate on the grounds of demographics or economic growth or religion or the national interest or even simple reality will so readily throw it out in the interests of foreign invaders. Apparently fear of being accused of racism trumps everything now.

What we are witnessing is literal de-civilization. It is astonishing that so many people across the West are not only fine with this, they are downright proud of it.

Mailvox: idiocratic rule

A reader learns that the idiocracy extends to the highest levels of government:

I thought you would enjoy this, given your recent post on our current state of idiocracy.  The following is an outline of actual remarks to be delivered by an actual high-level USG official, redacted to protect identity. 

Draft Remarks
[High-Level USG Official] Participation in the [EVENT REDACTED]

•    First of all, wow.  Just, wow. 

•    As [High Level USG] for the last five years, I have had the chance to travel far and wide across the Americas.  I have crossed borders between many countries, and have had the chance to see firsthand the professionalism, the challenges, and sometimes the difficulty of national relationships.  And one of the best ways you can determine the relationship between two countries is to look at how it structures, manages, or doesn’t, its shared border.

Wow, just wow, indeed. How far is the West fallen from the days of diplomats such as Talleyrand, Goethe and Don Giovanni de Medici.

Mailvox: in defense of Baby Boomers

Chris has some thoughts on just how responsible the Boomers are for the present state of the USA:

Having long ago contended with the fallacy of conspiracy theories, I formulated more of a humanity based explanation for human societal and cultural phenomenon.  Therefore, I would like to put forth a few ideas to defend boomers from the blame you seem to assign them for current problems and the general direction of decline in western society. I think the generalization of blaming boomers is a mistake.

The point here is not to defend boomers per se, but to consider the causes of generational uniqueness as external to any generation or group.  After all, humanity hasn’t changed fundamentally.  Boomers weren’t different as a species from the generations a few before, nor a few after.  The conditions of the world have been changing dramatically (while humanity has not), and humanity’s circumstances therefore are the more likely key ingredients for the path we are on. 

I’m not saying bad decisions were not made by boomers, but what conditions accommodated those decisions, and allowed a series of degenerate shifts in society at all levels, without consequence to their near term survival?

My answer is prosperity.  Without proper governance (which humanity seems incapable of), prosperity sows the seeds of its own destruction.  This is not without historical precedence.  Study prosperous societies (for example: Roman, or Greek), and how they end.  Why don’t they last?  Human nature under prosperous conditions is destructive, and the prosperity creates an environment where the feedback for stupid decisions is blunted if not eliminated.  The feedback in prosperity is certainly not consequential to survival. 

After all, why do you think “feelings” have been elevated to such a level of reverence in our society?  Survival is no longer a factor, so the focus of the survival instinct has shifted to “feelings.”  Before prosperity, anyone with a propensity to focus on feelings had a survival disadvantage.  Now, they don’t.  The personality characteristics that come with focusing on ones feelings are clearly destructive in many ways. 

The advantages of principled decisions and common sense are reduced in proportion to prosperity, the proportion of the population without proper mooring to reality rises.  Worse yet, they thrive.  SJW are the realization of the fulfillment of this populations’ “self-actualizations.”  It wouldn’t be possible without prosperity.  They wouldn’t be tolerated or even given attention if survival were an issue, and their own survival would be threatened by their own propensities. 

The human (and Christian) trait of empathy works best under conditions where survival is threatened.  For those whose empathy is not tempered by rational principles and larger historically informed context, poor decisions are common: for example supporting illegal immigration. 

In the end, the proportion of the population with destructive characteristics rises.  Their power also rises because there is no survival threat for their psychological self-absorption or other anti-survival characteristics.  It is the diversity of humanity, in the presence of prosperity, which allows devolving of key elements of a prosperous society, because the worst characteristics can thrive. 

There are plenty of boomers who didn’t (and don’t) agree with the path taken.  A huge number didn’t just lie down and let it happen, but it happened anyway.  There was a dramatic rapid shift in society.  The rules changed wickedly fast with only subtle evidence at first.

The shift to the current state was rapid, and hard to believe in real time.  Things that seemed ridiculous, nonsensical, even impossible, occurred, and then became mainstream so rapidly many were blindsided.  The ones who saw it coming were actually considered kooks.  “How could that ever happen?”  “You are nuts.”  There was no reward for having warned of the future.

Boomers grew up when survival was still at the forefront of people’s minds, just one generation removed from the great depression.  They didn’t recognize there would be no negative consequences for all the irrational foolishness and abandoning of common sense.  And when there were no consequences, the bar was moved, and those trying to hold the line were marginalized.  This is still happening today. 

Those of us who saw it coming, and thought we were working against the wave, didn’t realize it was a tsunami.  And could only be stopped, can only be stopped ever, by a larger counter-tsunami.  Otherwise, maybe the flood comes, and we start over with natural selection in survival mode.  Humanity seems to self-select best when survival required good choices.

I think it is reasonable to say that the Boomers didn’t grasp the consequences of their actions and their ideology in their youth. And perhaps that is even moderately excusable. But what I, and other Generation Xers find so unforgivable, is the way that so many Boomers still attempt to justify their actions, defend their ideology, and deny the consequences observed.

The penitent can be forgiven. But how can one forgive the unrepentant?

Book of the Week: Son of the Black Sword

When I first heard that Larry Correia was dipping his toe into “epic fantasy”, I have to admit that I rolled my eyes a little. How, I wondered, was he going to transform his patented gun porn, in which he lovingly chronicles every detail of a firearm, right down to the special blend of custom gunpowder that was formulated by the gunsmith for maximum impact, and which is of particular appeal to his core audience, into faux medieval terms?

I had visions of entire chapters being dedicated to the forging of Very Special Swords, and frankly, I doubted it was going to be as entertaining; a portrayal of a man testing the heft and balance of a sword just isn’t the same as one competitively testing out the accuracy of a firearm at a firing range. Also, no vampires, werewolves, or Agent Franks.

But I should have known better. The most recent Monster Hunter International book showed how Larry has improved as a writer, both in terms of conceptual originality and characterizations. Son of the Black Sword represents another step forward for him; Correia may be a bestselling author, but unlike other bestsellers in the SF/F field, he has not been content to stand pat and keep churning out the same sort of thing over and over again, he has instead continued to refine his craft.

Son of the Black Sword is not, strictly speaking, epic fantasy. Neither is it high fantasy. I would describe it more as high sword & sorcery as there is a distinct flavor of REH about both the hero and the world, neither of which owe anything at all to JRR Tolkien, much less Robert Jordan, or, some political machinations aside, GRR Martin.

While I was less impressed with the worldbuilding than John C. Wright was, it is a competent use of the seldom-seen-in-fantasy Indian caste system and lends itself nicely to several key aspects of the plot. As you’d expect from Correia, there is a lot of action and the story never bogs down from start to finish. What you might not expect from him is some better-than-average characterizations, and the tale of the protagonist, Ashok, is gradually unveiled in a remarkably sensitive, even touching manner considering that he is a nigh-unstoppable killing machine with no more inclination towards mercy than the average Terminator.

And what you definitely won’t expect from Correia is an intelligent subtext running throughout the novel providing a subtle metacommentary on the civilization-scale challenge facing Western society today. It is so subtle, in fact, that I’m not entirely certain Correia actually intended it, but regardless, it gives Son of the Black Sword an amount of the melancholy depth that endows the Conan stories with enduring power.

Although it will come as unwelcome news to some, Son of the Black Sword shows Larry Correia in the process of transformation from a popular author to a very good author who merely happens to be popular. I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys action-fantasy, martial arts revenge thrillers, political intrigue, sword & sorcery, or in particular, RE Howard’s Conan.