Vox Popoli

The only serious question about Mike Huckabee is whether he’s Clinton redux or Bush II redux. Either way, his habitual dishonesty is not open for debate:

Jennifer, you make a good point in that Huckabee is very convincing at expressing regret. That’s why he is doing so well in the polls: Because he is so good at sounding good, no matter whether what he says holds water or not. You miss the most relevant point, though, Jennifer: What he says is an outright lie. Here is the big whopper in what you quote from him: “Nobody, not me, not Jim Guy Tucker, not Bill Clinton, not that parole board, could ever imagine what might have transpired.. ” This is, to put it kindly, a crock of manure. The whole point of the Murray Waas story out today is that Huckabee was warned repeatedly and convincingly EXACTLY what was likely to transpire if DuMond were to be released, and he ignored all those warnings. Meanwhile, the evidence presented is absolutely overwhelming that he strongly intervened with the parole board to secure DuMond’s release — and he seems to have lied about that too. Just like he lied about whether or not he was “ordered” by his state’s courts to impose a particular tax hike, and just like several other now-documented misrepresentations he has made about the circumstances of his tax hikes.

The ready willingness of American evangelicals to fall for demonstrably dishonest politicians is one of the very few areas in which I feel some measure of agreement with atheist critics of American evangelical Christianity. But a blithe statement of “he touched my heart” is no more inherently truthful than “it’s for the children”.

Of an atheist in his own childish intellect. Kwazy Atheist writes:

Where did you get the idea anyone needs an objective (you mean universal?) standard with which to criticize another person.

Because you do if that criticism is to be any more meaningful to the other person than simply stating “me no likee”. This isn’t a Christian issue, every serious atheist intellectual from the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett on down recognizes this. That is why they are constantly attempting to invent an objective, universal moral standard out of thin air – usually some variant on humanism or utilitarianism – to serve as a substitute. Unlike you, they not only admit the existence and relevance of the objective, universal Christian standard, they recognize its necessity. As I told you previously, your thinking on this issue is literally two or three orders of magnitude below the level of that which is being discussed here; the amusing thing is that you still haven’t realized that you’re in over your head.

You certainly don’t have one that you can verify as the true objective standard.

>
The key word there is “verify”. The objective Christian standard cannot be verified to be true, certainly not by the method of objective data combined with subjective interpretation known as “science”, but it unquestionably exists. You, on the other hand, cannot even attempt to hold another individual to an alternative moral standard because it does not exist. This is the “warrant” issue upon which Doug Wilson hung, drew and quartered Christopher Hitchens in their debate. In Hitchens’s defense, he did know enough to attempt to evade the issue until he was cornered, you, on the other hand, have blithely stepped onto the gallows, wrapped the rope around your neck and hung yourself, all the while proclaiming the nonexistence of the rope. That is why everyone is so amused by you.

If I want to be just like the Kwazy Kwistians all I have to do is say, “And behold, here then is thy objective standard!!” And why you say, “where did that come from?” I’ll tell my it came from the same place yours came from.

There is an element of truth in that statement. Being an atheist and therefore lacking any claim to an objective and universal moral standard, you have irrationally latched onto the Christian standard still dominant in your culture as a moral parasite, sans only those aspects of it that most directly conflict with your momentary desires. None of this changes the fact that without that parasitism, you possess no basis to criticize the morality or immorality of another individual regardless of their faith or lack of faith.

The rational atheist never uses the words “evil” or “should”. They do not exist for him, all that exists for him is “do what thou wilt”. The irrational atheist like Richard Dawkins or little Kwazy here is are much less dangerous creatures, for as Michel Onfray rightly describes them, they are simply crippled Christians who have rejected their God while clinging to most of His values.

Bane is vastly underwhelmed by what looks to be the penultimate generation of science fiction writers:

Sci-fi sucks. I used to party with the last of the Old Guard, the Haldemanns and the R. R. Martinesque types. Even then, they were going bad. Now, they are all appearing to be a pack of out and out communists and Trotskyite pinkoes. Self confessed, and proud to be so.

And this takes their written product and makes it as dreary as can be, and not worth reading. I just gave up on Charlie Stross’s ‘Accelerando’ after about five pages. Dreary drivel, with no soul, just like its creator. And he and his kind give each other awards and book contracts. The fish is rotten from the nose to the tip of its tail.

While I very much disagree with the Reaper’s Hairball when it comes to Stross, who is one of the very few interesting writers in science fiction today, he’s right on target with regards to science fiction in general. I used to absolutely devour science fiction, now I’m on the SFWA’s novel jury and I have to force myself to wade through one miserably unreadable book after another to the point that I’m completely losing interest in the genre.

There are the occasional exceptions, of course. For all that he personally resembles the very sort of liberal pinko that Bane abhors, John Scalzi writes science fiction that is quite popular precisely because he’s one of the few SF authors writing in the enthusiastic old style.

Science fiction has changed a lot, unfortunately, not for the better. It used to be adventure literature for young men, now it’s romance literature for middle-aged women. That’s why young men now play science fiction-based computer games instead of reading science fiction novels and so-called science fiction publishers churn out book after book about sexy vampires, seductive were-seals and strong independent forty-something single women looking for love in space.

It’s not a crime, but it should be.

Forget all of the various tax-and-spending issues. Forget all the Arkansas evidence that he’s Bush II redux. He’s openly pro-smoking ban. And now he’s being endorsed by the National Education Association. Any more questions?

The 16,000-member New Hampshire affiliate of the National Education Association has chosen to recommend to its members Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary, according to a source within the state NEA.

Richard Dawkins attempts to demonstrate the superiority of atheist morality by defending adultery. Considering the historical evidence, it appears to be a subject about which he is not only passionate, but personally well-informed:

No, of course sex outside marriage is not a public matter, and yes, of course it is forgivable. Only a person infected by the sort of sanctimonious self-righteousness that religion uniquely inspires would apply the meaningless word ‘sin’ to private sexual behavior. It is the mark of the religious mind that it cares more about private than public morality.

Just what, precisely, is the difference between “private” and “public” morality? It seems to me that they’re exactly the same thing, an individual’s standard of right and wrong, but applied in different social spheres. Is Dawkins seriously attempting to suggest that a single individual can possess different MORALITIES that apply depending on the environment in which that person happens to find himself at the moment?

The underlying presumption — that a human being has some kind of property rights over another human being’s body — is unspoken because it is assumed to be obvious. But with what justification? In one of the most disgusting stories to hit the British newspapers last year, the wife of a well-known television personality, Chris Tarrant, hired a private detective to spy on him. The detective reported evidence of adultery and Tarrant’s wife divorced him, in unusually vicious style. But what shocked me was the way public opinion sided with Tarrant’s horrible wife.

Presumably the same justification that exists in any other contractual relationship into which one voluntarily enters. As John O’Sullivan surmises, it sounds very much as if Richard Dawkins is heading fast toward his third divorce. At this point, he appears to have a real shot at surpassing fellow atheist icon Bertrand Russell, who only managed three divorces and four wives before clocking out.

I think there are perfectly reasonable societal and Biblical cases to be made for polygyny. Richard Dawkins’s defense of his apparent desire to cheat on his wife is not coming close to any of them. Perhaps he should consider converting to Islam, which would allow him to indulge in his favorite hobbies of attacking Christianity and collecting wives without being so easily dismissed as a typically amoral atheist.

UPDATE – It’s so hard when one’s idols are tarnished:

“My first thought was that RD doth protest too much. Perhaps he got busted for cheating on his significant other at some point and is still miffed. RD IS still human after all. I certainly agree with RD’s views on religion and, there’s no question, on the truth of evolution…but RD’s position on the Tarrant situation was quite shocking to me.”

“Sadly, it is a common cry of theists that atheism leads to a lack of morality and, as a “spokesman for atheists”, I think RD has done us a disservice here.”

Actually, the atheists who were capable of understanding The God Delusion know that he did them a disservice there too.

For that which we have been given.

Rick Brookhiser of National Review:

While the Huckabees swarm, keep an eye on Ron Paul, whom I predict will do better than any poll shows. I don’t know how many wicked idiots there are in Iowa, but every single one of them will come out.

The neocons are already openly bitter about not being able to cram any of their various Hillary-lites down Republican throats and potentially being forced to make do with a Bush-lite. While I hope Ron Paul significantly outperforms the polls for many reasons, among them is the prospective pleasure of seeing treasonous, liberty-hating fake conservatives gnashing their teeth and being forced to publicly eat their dishonest words about his unelectability.

I find it intriguing that National Review openly considers supporters of the most pro-liberty, pro-Constitution Republican candidate to be “wicked idiots”. Apparently they’re following the CNN/New York Times business model these days.

In which we all learn something, even your humble host. An act in one part:

Atheist Science Supporter: God simply doesn’t exist! There is no evidence for God’s existence!

Vox Day, intrepid forensic ideologist: Erroneous! There’s loads of evidence for it.

ASS: What? There is not! Prove it.

VOX: Okay. Which type of evidence would you like? Testimonial evidence, real evidence, documentary evidence, demonstrative evidence or scientific evidence?

ASS: Say what?

VOX: Technically, scientific evidence falls under demonstrative evidence. From a legal perspective, it’s actually less inherently admissible than a guy who testifies that God appeared to him and spoke to him in the form of a burning bush.

ASS: Well, okay, so there may be evidence, but it’s not very good evidence. It’s not the kind that would stand up in court, because the fact that it’s spectral evidence or hearsay is relevant.

VOX: Spectral evidence refers only to dreams and visions, not eyewitness testimony, and you apparently don’t know what “hearsay” means. If I testify that you told me God appeared to you, that is hearsay evidence which is perfectly admissible in court, although it is admittedly less likely to stand up, especially if you deny it. However, that’s not what we’re talking about with regards to testimonial evidence; every competent individual who believes they have had a personal encounter of one sort or another with God is a legitimate provider of testimonial evidence.

ASS: Well, what about the other kinds of evidence?

VOX: The Bible is documentary evidence, just as Arrian’s manuscript written on the basis of non-existent texts is documentary evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great and Commentarii de Bello Civili is documentary evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar. Rainbows and the Jewish people are real evidence of God’s existence, as, theoretically, is the Cohen gene. “The Passion of the Christ” is demonstrative evidence, as would be a three-dimensional chart explicating the improbabilities posed by the Anthropic Principle.

ASS: I don’t find any of that convincing. Not even taken in the entirety.

VOX: You don’t have to. But your subjective opinion of the value of the evidence doesn’t change the fact that it is evidence and it undeniably exists. You cannot honestly say that evidence for the existence of God does not exist, you can only say that you do not find the evidence for the existence of God to be convincing. You see, the scientific method is not the only generator of evidence.

ASS: Ah, but here you are confused. Science isn’t a “generator” of evidence, it’s an evaluator of evidence from a pragmatic standpoint. The scientific method generates DATA, which is then used to reject hypotheses ABOUT a particular observation. If unable to reject based on the data gathered, the hypothesis is tentatively supported until more or different data are gathered that end up rejecting the hypothesis or not.

VOX: I stand corrected. Is there then no such thing as scientific evidence?

ASS: No, there is, but it’s not what was generated by the application of the scientific method. Data was what was generated. The labelling of that data as “evidence” afterwards is subjective.

VOX: You’re saying that scientific evidence is subjective, then?

ASS: Er… yeah. But a lot of smart people are in agreement on it. For example the “evidence” in support of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is gathered from literally tens of thousands of lab and field studies that generated similar data in response to similar hypotheses, all based on variations of Darwin’s original hypothesis of natural selection. Those studies didn’t generate evidence, they generated data, which is then interpreted AS evidence.

VOX: A lot of people interpret that data?

ASS: Yep.

VOX: More than the 2.1 billion Christians on the planet?

ASS: Ah, no.

VOX: More than the 1.5 billion Muslims?

ASS: Well, no. But see, the method, it’s really effective. It produces reliable data. It works!

VOX: I have no doubt it produces data very effectively. The relevant question regards the validity of the subjective interpretations required to transform the data into evidence. But regardless, when you talk about “scientific ‘evidence'”, you actually mean “the subjective interpretation of data”, right?

ASS: “The subjective interpretation of data produced by the scientific method”, actually.

VOX: All right. So when one says “there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God”, one is actually saying “there is no subjective interpretation of data produced by the scientific method for the existence of God.” And this is quite clearly false, as there are tens of thousands of examples to the contrary floating around the Internet. Therefore, by your own definition, there is not only evidence for the existence of God, there is also scientific evidence for the existence of God.

ASS: But.. but those subjective interpretations are by total morons, religious nuts, not professional scientists!

VOX: And at last we reach the inevitable Atheist Science Supporter’s Appeal to Authority! I do so enjoy the circular irrationality of the self-professed rational materialist. But I have one more question. When you say “total morons”, is that a set including the subset of individuals who declare that evidence doesn’t exist, when it quite clearly does, and that subjective interpretations of data don’t exist, when they quite clearly do?

ASS: [Insert ad hominem here.] [Insert logically inexplicable and out-of-context reference to past blog post or column here.]

VOX: Excellent! If that doesn’t make your case, what could? Now would you like to try explaining how religion is responsible for all the war and bloodshed in human history? Or would you rather have a go at making the case for the likelihood of a Japanese invasion of the West Coast in 1942?

There are few things more amusing than atheist intellectual arrogance. Excuse me, I mean Athiest, of course.

The other thing I noticed here is that the quote sounds remarkably more like a modern atheist argument and not at all like one that would have been made by a pre-Christian philosopher living in a polytheistic society. I’m no expert on Epicurus, but I suspect that the quote is a fake as I’m always suspicious of any quote that is frequently quoted without any reference to the work in which it first appeared. But if the quote is genuine, than it demonstrates quite clearly how atheist-thinking has not progressed at all despite having more than two thousand years of human history upon which to draw. Anyhow, I’m quite curious, as no source was provided on the first five sites I checked and the statement doesn’t appear in any of the following texts: Principal Doctrines, Vatican Sayings, Letter to Menoeceus, Letter to Herodotus, Letter to Pythocles, Letter to Idomeneus, or Last Will.

A genuine quote from Epicurus that few atheists will appreciate is #51 from the Vatican Sayings: “I understand from you that your natural disposition is too much inclined toward sexual passion. Follow your inclination as you will, provided only that you neither violate the laws, disturb well-established customs, harm any one of your neighbors, injure your own body, nor waste your possessions. That you be not checked by one or more of these provisos is impossible; for a man never gets any good from sexual passion, and he is fortunate if he does not receive harm.”

I like #58 even better: “We must free ourselves from the prison of public education….”

To give another amusing example, one will still hear atheists natter on and on about the terrible Dark Ages, that awful period of Church oppression during the Medieval era that, according to the historical consensus of the last 70 years, never actually existed.

This is an interesting point to demonstrate that the Bible indeed has a legitimate claim to inventing the scientific method. I should be interested to know if there is an older one; there may well be. But the evidence of Daniel 1:1-16 demonstrates that use of the scientific method long pre-dates the scientific era and professional scientists:

1:10 And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king.
1:11 Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,
1:12 Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink.
1:13 Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king’s meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.
1:14 So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days.
1:15 And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king’s meat.
1:16 Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse.

The most interesting thing about the greater part of the atheist case against religion is how reliably unscientific it is, in absolutely every single way. There is a massive cornucopia of evidence to demonstrate that atheists rely primarily on philosophical logic for both their attacks on religion as well as their defenses of atheism’s historical evils.

That being said, I’d prefer to stick with the meat and wine myself. It’s interesting to note that several thousand years before nutritional science and the FDA managed to get it straight, the prophet Daniel had already proven that it’s carbohydrates, not protein and fat, that fattens one flesh. Yet another point for religion over science.