Vox Popoli

I thought Andrew Sullivan did an absolutely pathetic job throughout the bulk of his debate with Sam Harris – I could stop Harris in his tracks and make him look like the ignorant fraud that he is by simply forcing him to answer five questions – but I thought he redeemed himself in the end with this bit, which reveals a greater understanding of the core of the Christian faith than I often see in most of my fellow fundamentalists:

The relevant categories are therefore not, I would submit, faith and reason. The categories are those who rely on reason alone, those who use faith to trump reason in all respects, and those who understand that human life is inherently a balance between the two. Your faith-free world is not a human one; and it is not in that sense a rational one. My response is a balance, a triangulation of sorts. And a triangulation is not a contradiction.

In trying to address the global crisis we agree upon, I have two responses. The first is classical liberalism, as expressed in the American constitution, and constructed by Hobbes, Locke and their Enlightenment successors. That is my first political response, and it is central to my book on political conservatism. (My Oakeshottian politics amounts to a contingent and conservative defense of Anglo-American liberal constitutionalism.)

But the second and deeper response is Christianity itself, at the core of which is a radical refusal to force anyone to do anything.

Andrew Sullivan is a sinner. He knows it. I know it. But then, so am I. The only difference between the two of us in this regard is that he publicly identifies himself by one of his sins whereas I don’t advertise mine with a big shining disco ball rotating to the tune of the Pet Shop Boys. (Although I suppose one might reasonably argue that my arrogance is even more glaringly apparent than his homosexuality.) Anyhow, the highlighted phrase is absolutely integral to understanding Christianity… if you don’t grok that, you can’t even begin to discuss it rationally. Well done.

And Sullivan might have been retroactively embarrassed by his uncharacteristically forthright confession of his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, but despite being a fairly vicious critic who has never particularly liked Sullivan nor hesitated to slam him for his advocation of various absurdities, I unexpectedly found myself feeling rather proud of him as a brother in the Christian faith.

But next time, Andrew, for the love of all that’s genetically replicated and naturally selected, do kick him in the teeth for me.

A Blog From Hell considers the case against science I presented in a column a few weeks ago:

Just what meaning of “science” is Vox Day talking about? There is no one meaning to this word “science,” especially when coming out of the mouth of a Christian libertarian who writes for World Net Daily. Science is knowledge gained by testing ideas against reality. Is Vox Day really against that? Or will the meaning of science shift through a half dozen shades of meaning and metaphors?

I’m perfectly aware of the multiple meanings of the word science, which is why, with Dr. PZ Myer’s assistance, I coined the words scientage, scientistry and scientody to differentiate between science as body of knowledge, science as profession and science as method. I note with some amusement that atheists and scientists never seem to get their panties in a bunch about precisely what science they are talking about when they accuse Christians or Republicans or whoever of making war against it.

Is he talking about the anti-capitalist, anti-libertarian Soviet Union who beat us into space and started a space race that got us investing more government money in science and inspiring President Kennedy to announce the goal of landing a man on the Moon?

Yes, that Soviet Union. If ABFH really wants to get into a debate about whether the religious, capitalist West was more technologically advanced than the atheist, Communist Soviet Union prior to its unlamented expiration, that’s just fine with me. I propose that we settle the matter by a car race… I’ll drive my GT3, ABFH can get behind the wheel of the final word in Soviet automotive technology, the Volga GAZ-24.

I note that the USA finished that space race by getting to the Moon … and the Soviet Union fell apart before they managed to do likewise.

I thought Robert Noyce, who invented the silicon chip, was a physics major at Grinnell College as well as an electrical engineer. Isn’t physics science?

Science, invention and business are far more intertwined than Vox Day wants you to believe. Technological change and the underlying body of growing scientific knowledge upon which it draws are so deeply interconnected that it’s impossible to draw such clear lines between them and Vox Day’s notions of a clear separation don’t even qualify for the 17th century.

They may not even qualify for Archimedes, an ancient Greek who did pure science and invention before Christianity was born.

And once again, we’re back to defining engineers as scientists when it suits the defenders of science and denying that they’re scientists when it doesn’t. Which is it? Pick one, I don’t care which. Just keep in mind that the broader the definition of science, the more damning it is regarding science’s responsibility for causing war, death and destruction.

And I’m perfectly aware of this crossover, which is why I customarily address Dr. PZ Myers and Dr. Richard Dawkins as my fellow scientists. Here’s the choice: you can either grant me my recognition as a scientist in good standing or admit that technological development is not science.

Is this the “science” that Vox Day objects to? He’s certainly proved he doesn’t understand it.

Now watch him shift definitions:

Sciencists (those who believe in science as a basis for dictating human behavior, as opposed to scientists, who merely engage in the method),…

Excuse me? Did the definition of science just shift? And what scientist is dictating human behavior? Where does that even come from? Is this behavior we’re dictating merely our objecting to having restraints on stem cell research or something? Are Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett forcing Vox Day to become an atheist?

ABFH is having some problems with reading comprehension here. The definition of science did not shift, I was distinguishing between genuine professional scientists who practice scientody and contribute to scientage as opposed to those individuals like Sam Harris who neither contributes to the body of knowledge, works as a professional scientist nor makes use of the scientific method but nevertheless advocates the use of scientody as a basis for dictating what humans are allowed to do and believe.

For example, Richard Dawkins has stated his belief that religion is child abuse. There are laws against child abuse. So, either Richard Dawkins supports the legalization of child abuse or he believes that religious parents should be prosecuted for the crime of raising their children with religious beliefs. His advocacy is a clear attempt to dictate – use government force – to modify human behavior.

So, what exactly is the choice here? To move forward and learn what kind of universe we live in or to run away from scientific knowledge and live in stagnation until those societies that aren’t afraid of scientific truth decide we’ll make great cattle? I guess Vox Day would rather be an Eloi than a Morlock.

According to Sam Harris and other atheists, humanity is at dire risk of extinction. The causes of those risks, be they anthropogenic global warming or nuclear weapons, can be directly traced to science. It is obviously not religion that poses these deadly dangers; eliminating all religion from the planet would only reduce the total risk of war by approximately 7 percent, and would not reduce the risk of global warming at all. Therefore, if these dangers are to be taken seriously, then it is clear that it is the very concepts of science as body of knowledge and science as method which must be reconsidered and potentially rejected as a lethal threat to humanity, not religion.

I have to confess, it was a bit more detail than I was expecting:

This has got to be the best Pharyngula post ever. It should be in a book.

Not in its entirety, unless Dr. Myers grants me permission, of course, but I think his list of Christianity’s sins against science is an intriguing one. He put together a nice list in response to an email I sent to Brent of Unscrewing the Inscrutable – Brent put together an interesting response too, even if it required some minor modifications once he realized that I wasn’t bearbaiting for once – and the ironic thing is that I don’t even necessarily disagree with some of the points raised by PZ or his readers.

The reason I asked the question of Brent wasn’t to misquote anyone or play j’accuse with the Hellbound, but simply because I was curious if my impression that the offense Christianity causes the scientific community and its emanations and penumbras in the populace is primarily environmental in cause rather than specific. I think both Brent and PZ’s responses tend to support this notion, after all, who really cares about opposition to federal funding for stem cell research, that’s really a political issue that an atheist scientist might reasonably oppose even more vigorously than an illiterate Bible-thumper, not a scientific one.

As Brent has correctly surmised, I’m not interested in writing a pure polemic. Oh, of course I’ll hose a few folks down with the rhetorical flamethrower, that’s what I do, after all. (Especially Sam Harris, although I’m shocked to discover how much I tend to agree with Daniel Dennett after reading four of his books.) But for the book to be genuinely interesting, it can’t just be a flamefest, it has to be substantive and it has to be reasonable. And one of the best ways to accomplish that is to do people the courtesy of asking them what they think and accepting their answers without putting a spin on them. And in order to make sure I’m doing that, each chapter I’m writing has two people checking it out and poking holes in it, one atheist and one theist, a different pair for each chapter.

So, if you’re an atheist or agnostic who is interested, just email you and I’ll put you on the list, I’ve still got a few spots left. Maybe you don’t like me, you don’t like my opinions and you may not like my conclusions, but that’s fine. All I care is that you tear apart the logic, if you can.

Anyhow, I’m glad to be of some small utility in inspiring such an acclaimed post… and many thanks to Brent for helping me out as well.

I have to admit, I never thought of it this way. Although I imagine that the lessons of the failed Iraqi Occupation are making more than a few federal strategists think twice about the wisdom of trying to push the American people anywhere they don’t want to go:

At its peak the state department estimated 300,000 militia members nation wide.

Once again the State Department was impressed. We know they were impressed, because federal officers began reaching out to the militias. The ATF and FBI in particular were very friendly with the bigger militias in New Mexico and Montana. They were continually interviewing and meeting with the leaders… asking things like, “If another Waco happened… in another state… you’d really pack up and go there?”

The best answer I heard to that question came from a militia leader in New Mexico. He said, “Hell no. Why would we? We’ve got plenty of you sum-bitches around here.”

The message varied state to state… but in the end it was received loud and clear. The militia movement viewed Waco as an act of war upon the American People by their government, and if it happened again… there would be a wide response… not a localized flash point response. It wouldn’t be one incident. It would be a series of incidents.

Now recall that Donald Rumsfeld estimated that there were 20,000 militants in Iraq prior to the Coalition forces, um, advancing back to their fortresses. The lesson of 4th Generation warfare, (if you want to call it that), is that large, well-armed, well-trained militaries can kill lots of less-armed, less-trained militants, but they cannot kill militants faster than they make new ones.

We should have learned it in Vietnam, but the NVA and our bizarre refusal to fight the organized military confused the issue. But the Soviets learned it after 10 years in Afghanistan. The Brits learned it after decades in Northern Ireland. We’re still learning it in Iraq.

What’s happening in Iraq is what the Bloggerblaster is pointing out here. The net effect of the Waco killings was to create more armed radicals than it killed, in this particular case, several orders of magnitude more.

We do appear to live in interesting times, unfortunately. I don’t think things are likely to go that way, though, as the globalists are achieving everything they want through their ever-expanding treaties and trade agreements, but you really never know.

See, I told you Giuliani would be dropping out soon:

“After months of conflicting signals on abortion, Rudolph W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in the coming days, despite the potential for bad consequences among some conservative voters already wary of his views, aides said yesterday.”

Mr. Giuliani hinted at what aides said would be his uncompromising position on abortion rights yesterday in Huntsville, Ala., where he was besieged with questions about abortion and his donations to Planned Parenthood. “Ultimately, there has to be a right to choose,” he said.

Asked if Republicans would accept that, he said, “I guess we are going to find out.”

Yeah, I should say we are. “So does this mean that Giuliani is going to come out foursquare for Roe?” Ramesh Ponnuru asks incredulously. Hey, if you’re going to sink anyhow, you might as well do it with a big splash.

His few remaining supporters will surely hail this move as proof of his courage. Of course, if he was actually courageous, he would have been forthright about his position from the start and everyone would have acknowledged that his candidacy was a stupid idea. Now, it’s too much, too late.

No doubt there are copious high-fives being exchanged among the Romney crew today.

Marines don’t fuck softly:

A marine testified on Wednesday that he urinated on the bloody remains of one of five unarmed Iraqi men in Haditha whom his squad leader fatally shot in late 2005 moments after a roadside bomb had killed one of their comrades.

The marine, Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, said at a hearing here that he had acted in anger over the death of Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, known as T.J., whose convoy was hit by a bomb planted by Sunni Arab insurgents.

“I know it was a bad thing what I done, but I done it because I was angry T.J. was dead,” Sergeant Dela Cruz said in a monotone.

I don’t blame the Marines. Not for a second. They’re in an impossible position, an impossible position which the president has cruelly inserted them in the name of his idiotic nation-building project. There’s just no way you can realistically expect heavily armed soldiers to meekly endure losses over an extended period of time without enacting reprisals.

Soldiers aren’t policemen, social etiquette is not a primary component of military discipline and minor atrocities of this sort not only have always happened in war, they will always happen in war. You can’t use killing machines to win popularity contests, which is one of the reasons that the Iraqi Occupation has failed.

The jihadists are wisely using the American military’s superior force against it, in much the same way that a judo black belt uses his opponent’s aggressive momentum to provide the force required to flip him. Simply applying more force is not going to solve the problem.

The Marines have a saying: Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome. In this case, withdrawing from Iraq and having a good solid strategic think before the next engagement would be an integral part of applying the second part of that program.

UPDATE: Even Powerline appears to be beginning to grow skeptical about the wisdom of continued occupation:

It is true that the surge is not complete. But it sounds like the additional forces will concentrate on the outskirts of Baghdad. Though it’s possible that progress there will bring benefits to Baghdad, it seems at least as likely that what we’re seeing now in Baghdad is roughly what we will get during the remainder of the year.

The question becomes whether this sort of progress — an end to Shia expansion, significant reductions in sectarian violence, but continued high levels of terrorist attacks and the continued loss of 50 to 100 American lives per month — will be sufficient to make the war politically sustainable in the U.S. The answer, I believe, is no. Under the scenario I’ve sketched (which, to be sure, cannot be said at this point to be the only possible outcome), the war will continue to lose support and, except in very red states, so will Republicans who still back it.

2008 is shaping up to be very, very ugly indeed for Republicans. That’s what you get for your vaunted pragmatism, folks. Well done. Now, do try to remember this the next time someone starts up with the whole pragmatic thing again.

In search of evidence that autism is not vaccine-related:

The mainstream scientific consensus says autism is a complex genetic disorder, one that has been around for millennia at roughly the same prevalence. That prevalence is now considered to be 1 in every 166 children born in the United States.

Applying that model to Lancaster County, there ought to be 130 Amish men, women and children here with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Well over 100, in rough terms.

Typically, half would harbor milder variants such as Asperger’s Disorder or the catch-all Pervasive Development Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified — PDD-NOS for short.

So let’s drop those from our calculation, even though “mild” is a relative term when it comes to autism.

That means upwards of 50 Amish people of all ages should be living in Lancaster County with full-syndrome autism, the “classic autism” first described in 1943 by child psychiatrist Leo Kanner at Johns Hopkins University. The full-syndrome disorder is hard to miss, characterized by “markedly abnormal or impaired development in social interaction and communication and a markedly restricted repertoire of activities and interests,” according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders….

So far, there is evidence of only three, all of them children, the oldest age 9 or 10. Julia is one of them. I found out about her through a pediatrician in Richmond, Va., Dr. Mary Megson. I had been asking around for quite some time about autism and the Amish, and she provided the first direct link.

Megson said she would give my name to this child’s mother, who could call if she chose. A few days later the phone rang. It was Stacey-jean Inion, an Amish-Mennonite woman. She, her husband Brent and their four children live simply, but they do drive a vehicle and have a telephone. After a few pleasantries, I told her about my trying to find autistic Amish.

Here is what she said, verbatim:

“Unfortunately our autistic daughter — who’s doing very well, she’s been diagnosed with very, very severe autism — is adopted from China, and so she would have had all her vaccines in China before we got her, and then she had most of her vaccines given to her in the United States before we got her.

I shall be most interested to hear the vaccine apologists explain this mysterious absence of autism among an unvaccinated population. Perhaps the reporter just didn’t look hard enough. Or perhaps some proper double-blind studies should be performed instead of relying on these statistical surveys which are so easily massaged.

Did I ever mention that I love Camille Paglia?

Age segregation by grade, in my opinion, is a mechanistic atrocity that spawns ruthless social cliques, who oppress and enrage the losers in the provincial pecking order.

As I have argued for years, we desperately need a return to vocational training. The virtually universal conversion of American high schools to a pre-college track over the past half-century has watered down the curriculum to its present deadening uselessness.

Now if we can simply convince her of the necessity of getting the government out of the picture….

Yeah, about all those Hispanics who were going to vote Republican because they’re so socially conservative….

A new study has struck a harsh blow to the premise that U.S. immigrants, particularly from Mexico, are committed to traditional family values.

The Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies said that immigrants from Mexico and Spanish-speaking countries were not committed to traditional values and pointed to the dramatic rise in illegitimate birth rates among Hispanic immigrants.

People occasionally ask me if the reason my political predictions are more accurate than most is because I’m so astonishingly brilliant. And sure, I am and all, but the truth is that the two really aren’t related. You see, you don’t have to be particularly intelligent to see where things are probably going, you just need to look at what the morons are doing and then consider the ways their idiotic plans are most likely to blow up in their faces.

The only way that Karl Rove could possibly be a genius is if he’s a secret Clinton operative.

The Magic Negro has no chance. He never did:

Meet Barack Obama, the BradleyDeanBabbittTsongas of the 2008 election cycle….

Let me repeat: I wouldn’t mind living in a country where Barack Obama is president. Brains; candor; charisma; ambition hitched to a work ethic; I admire those qualities. But frankly, the people who’ve ponied up $4,600 for Obama in this election cycle might as well have piled the money on the kitchen table and set fire to it. Or donated it to the Audubon Society, which has a lot better chance of being in business a year from now than Obama’s presidential campaign.

This guy, whoever he is, understands how it works. The vast majority of commentators and journalists, who fall for exactly the same trap every single time, obviously don’t.