Vox Popoli

Richard Dawkins demonstrates the accuracy of my definition of the distinction between agnostic and atheist:

“Many of the questioners announced themselves as either students or faculty from Liberty, rather than from Randolph Macon which was my host institution. One by one they tried to trip me up, and one by one their failure to do so was applauded by the audience. Finally, I said that my advice to all Liberty students was to resign immediately and apply to a proper university instead. That received thunderous applause, so that I almost began to feel slightly sorry for the Liberty people.

If anyone is feeling ambitious, I’d appreciate a transcript of the Q&A. I can’t quite stomach sitting through it myself, after a steady diet of the supercilious jerk’s books over the last two weeks. He’s not entirely unlikable as an author, and can be downright charming when he’s writing about something that he enjoys as in Unweaving the Rainbow but the smugness starts to get a bit irritating after a while, especially when he is adroitly avoiding all of the tough questions and skillfully evading any inaccurate assertions that will prove too embarrassing while writing little passive-aggressive implications to serve as a substitute.

(This is in contrast to Sam Harris, of course, who gleefully jams his foot all the way down into his lower intestine. Dawkins greatest weakness may be his ghastly foolishness in trusting Harris’s research enough to quote him. I’m looking forward to reading some of his excuses… “It’s not my fault, I’m British after all, how would I know?”)

So I am looking forward to the day when his questioners will be rather better armed. And it would be interesting, of course, to learn if he actually dealt with the questions asked or was merely playing to the crowd.

What’s downright unlikeable is his self-congratulatory tone in hailing his stunning accomplishment in effectively dealing with questions from college students. I can’t help but contrast the way he describes his treatment of them with the gentle and helpful way in which I once saw Umberto Eco deal with an incredibly dumb question from a college girl. You could see the man was a born teacher… Dawkins appears to be more of an instinctive propagandist.

I think I’d like both an oral debate and a written debate with Dawkins. But with Harris, I want both plus a cage match. Best two of three wins… and I’ll throw one of the debates just to make sure we get to the cage.

This doesn’t exactly strike me as news:

Gordon Brown, likely to be the next prime minister, will deliver a speech calling for a “new world order” to combat global warming on Monday. According to excerpts released by the finance ministry, Chancellor of the Exchequer Brown will also say the United Nations should make the fight against global warming a core “pillar” of its international mission.

I always thought that the entire point of the “global warming” panic was to give those who seek a new world order an excuse to install it.

A fellow scientist writes:

I just read your current and previous articles on science.

As a scientist (chemistry) who no longer practices, I, too, am appalled at the near-complete scientific ignorance of our culture. Non-scientists have no idea what science is. This should surprise no one. Scientists, apparently, don’t remember the scientific method, either.

Like raising the gilded idol of some ancient religion, the mere mention of the word “science” today is intended to compel the compliant and fearful into averting their gaze and prostrating themselves before it. It has become the very thing it could never be: the demand for blind obedience through intimidation — absent of truth and reason.

I have concluded that science and religion are not only alike, but they are now both living under the roof of the greatest threat to both religion and science: politics. If anyone has an ear, let them hear. If anyone has eyes, let them see. When science, religion, and politics move in together, no creature can be secure.

Years ago, one of the names I suggested to Paul for our new techno band was Priests of the New Technology. I didn’t have an articulated understanding of the transition of the term “scientist” from process follower to priest, nor was I even a Christian at the time, but I find it interesting to look back and see that I must have recognized on some level that this transition had taken place.

And in the event that Science should eventually win out over Religion, I would encourage the victorious scientists to keep in mind that in the end, they’ll be playing Pompey, not Caesar.

Thus spake Vox Crassus.

Kunshalini is a self-proclaimed ‘atheistic evolutionist missionary’ who thinks of herself as a voice of rationality in a dark, gloomy world. She also thinks she can match wits with a real scientist:

Vox phrases his claim in a way that suggests that scientists claim that scientific facts are exactly like how religious goons claim that their god specifically said that the earth is 6,000 years old. This is his misrepresentation of science and has no bearing on reality.

Vox does nothing of the sort. Vox has never asserted nor suggested that science’s claim to truth via the scientific method is identical to religion’s claim to the truth via Divine fiat, nor does anyone religious, not even a Young Earth Creationist, claim that God specifically said that the earth is 6,000 years old. Implication by extrapolation and addition != “specifically said”.

The claim of science to be truthful based on its self-correcting nature has been made by Richard Dawkins, among many, many others. This not only has a bearing on reality, it is an empirical and easily verified fact. Kunshalini would know this if she had ever read Unweaving the Rainbow wherein Richard Dawkins praises science because it “progresses by correcting its mistakes” and relates an anecdote about him and his fellow students “clapping their hands red” in praise of an elderly scientist who gracefully announced that his life’s work had been based on error.

Neither I, nor anyone else, has ever claimed that truth by divine revelation is self-correcting. I would dispute the idea that it even COULD be self-correcting.

He conveniently forgets to mention that all the ‘honest mistakes, not-so-honest mistakes and outright lies’ were exposed by scientists themselves. When was the last time we heard of religious frauds being exposed by someone in the fold? It’s usually the skeptics who point out the ever-spreading rot in religion..

This is not true, regarding either Science or Religion. The Chicago Tribune, not the National Institute of Health, was responsible for exposing Robert Gallo’s discovery of the AIDS virus. Journalists also exposed the fake Stone Age Tasaday tribe in the Phillippines. Meanwhile, Jim Bakker’s downfall was the result of investigators and auditors hired by Jerry Falwell.

As with everything else, it’s those who are closest to the frauds who are in the best position to expose them. To the credit of scientists and the religious faithful alike, someone usually does. Science does, of course, have the advantage of a system that is theoretically conceived to aid in such fraud-detection, religion usually doesn’t… and yet when it has attempted to do precisely that, people like Kunshalini have tended to disapprove of such Inquisitions.

So why exactly has he not moved into a cave and lived a primitive existence? You secretly love science, don’t you, Vox?

Because science =| technology. Ironically, for all her missionary atheist zeal, it’s apparent that Shalini harbors an open fascination with Kali. Furthermore, I note that there are many people who would like to live in one form of “primitive existence” or another. Unfortunately, the advocates of science will not permit them to do so in peace.

What is the definition of ‘superior’? Who makes the distinction? Vox simply expects an answer without an actual question in the first place. He just shows that he doesn’t understand science at all.

Kunshalini apparently does not understand the difference between a general question relating to what is an entire field of scientific research and a specific hypothesis. She just shows that she doesn’t understand the English language. She might as meaningfully quibble with the definition of “is” to demonstrate how I don’t understand science.

Scientists came up with the technology to build weapons, but were nations bombed ‘in the name of science’ as opposed to ‘in the name of god’? Was it the scientists, in an attempt to convert other people to scientific thought, the ones who dropped the bombs? I don’t think so.

We are all familiar with religious terrorism, but who on earth has heard of scientific terrorism? Vox is again not making any sense.

Again, the “in the name of” nonsense. First, every evil of socialism has been performed in “the name of science”, namely, “scientific socialism”. Don’t even think of trying to run a No True Scotsman evasion here. And yes, a scientist did indeed drop the bomb, William Parsons of the Manhattan Project, to be precise. It doesn’t matter if you kill someone in the name of science, God or for the contents of their wallet, you are still responsible for killing them.

This oft-repeated “defense” of science confuses action with motive. The two are not the same. But then, as we’ve already demonstrated, Kunshalini’s grasp of the language is sub-optimal.

Is Vox really claiming that accidental deaths during moral procedures are equivalent to intentional killing in the name of an imaginary god? As he previously stated that it’s perfectly moral and good to kill babies if ‘god said so’, I may accept that he’s genuinely muddled up.

[Sarcasm] Scientists must be so evil! Because of them, there are antibiotics and vaccinations! How immoral! Faith healing is the god-approved way!

One death is an accident, 783,000 deaths per year smack of carelessness. Again, the sciencyst logic is bizarre; because of scientists there are chemical weapons and nuclear missiles, but that’s not their fault because they (usually) don’t personally use them on anyone “in the name of science”. But antibiotics and vaccines are cited as supposed proof of the goodness of scientists, even though they don’t give them to anyone “in the name of science”.

Man has been ready to move beyond religion for ages. It’s the utter stupidity of people like Vox Day that’s hindering humans from moving on. The ‘eternal damnation’ fear-mongers take no less credit for the blame.

Yes, I murdered six scientists just yesterday, and tomorrow I’m planning to steal all of the funding for research into women’s breast cancer. I’m kind of a criminal savant. And “for ages”, really? Was it during the Bronze Age or the Iron Age that Man demonstrated his readiness to move beyond religion?

This is another insight into the lunatic religious mind. To them, knowledge is bad just because awareness kills childish fantasies and progress shatters the very foundations of their faith. He trumpets ignorance over knowledge, superstition over science, and claims that humans would fare better. He actually thinks that it’s a good thing to slide back 2000 years; back to the time where people actually believed that the earth was flat. It’s a good thing that Vox is not the supreme dictator of the earth, or I might have to kill myself just to die in dignity.

Actually, Kunshalini’s post indicates that it’s a bit late for her to die in dignity now. But I’m sure we’re all eagerly awaiting the publication of her patent on long distance mind-reading, even if I am enraged by her untimely revelation of my secret intentions of returning the Purple Faction to its destined place of sporting primacy through the Empire.

Ave! Ostrinum aeternitas! Ave!

One of the reasons I like John Scalzi, our numerous differences notwithstanding:

Incidentally, this is one of those places where my thinking has changed over the years. Back in my college years and early 20s I was pretty anti-gun and wouldn’t have minded a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw them. In time I realized I didn’t trust the government all that much, and certainly the last six years have solidified that idea pretty damn well. I still don’t like guns, and I still don’t buy into the various shibboleths like “an armed society is a polite society.” I don’t think an armed society is a polite society; I think an armed society is just as rude and obnoxious as any other, and the only difference is that your more crazed members of it will shoot at you rather than, say, beat you to death with a lead pipe or kick you in the kidneys until you’re pissing blood. But I recognize now that my personal dislike of firearms does not rise to the level of Constitutional revision.

It’s not that he agrees with me, it’s that he’s open-minded enough to consider the actual issue instead remaining stuck on how he feels about the issue. The understanding that the personal is not, in fact, the political is a major step forward in anyone’s intellectual maturing. Unfortunately, the majority of adults today never seem to quite reach that point.

Of course, the fact that the Founding Fathers, a group of men engaged in violent armed rebellion against their legal government, would have wanted only the government’s soldiers and policemen to be legally armed is so deeply and willfully stupid that it still boggles my mind that anyone brain-dead enough to make that argument can remain conscious long enough to articulate it.

But TIA is already 20 percent longer than Sam Harris’s “marvellous little book”. And I haven’t even begun the serious slashing and burning.

It seems to be going really well so far, although I’m slightly concerned that someone is going to look over my shoulder and ask: “why do you keep typing REDRUM over and over?”

And special thanks to Huck, whose quick finger on the JSTOR trigger kept me from making a stupid mistake and let me keep rolling without pause.

Poof

Gone

I’m pulling a lot of the stuff I’ve written over the last few days. I invited a flood of racist and gay-baiting trash traffic here, and I am anxious to see it go away.

Or not. Whatever. Nothing like a little Parthian shot to try to cover your porcine behind as you run away squealing. Of course, there never was any such flood, nor can his assertion be disproved since he conveniently deleted all seven posts attacking me, including such non-gay-baiting classics as vox_day_is_gay_possibly and faggot_science.

A simple admission of misunderstanding would have sufficed as far as I’m concerned, but it has become mysteriously common to conclude that it’s somehow less humiliating to destroy your own credibility instead. But there’s no shame in being wrong from time to time; there is, however, plenty of it in acting like a whiny little bitch.

UPDATE – on an unrelated note, GT’s back, having answered the question to my satisfaction. I don’t really care what any of you believe, I do expect everyone who asks questions of others to be willing to answer questions directed their own way to the best of their ability. Unless it’s EP or Jamie doing the asking, I would recommend ignoring their questions at all costs. And no, you don’t have to pull Bane’s finger if he asks either.

Does anyone have access to JSTOR from their local or school library? If you do, please let me know, there’s a few old scholarly articles I need to review.

Thanks

Twinkletoes obviously doesn’t read this blog:

I’m just guessing here, but I’m starting to suspect that Vox Day is as gay as riding a girl’s bike while holding your mom’s purse and wearing a pink shirt.

Here is a comment Aaron left: “When your hair is your trademark, you join John ‘Breck Girl’ Edwards and it becomes clear that Vox protesteth too much.”

I don’t know why I didn’t see this before. Think about it.

1. He mentions is Mensa membership on his blog. Mensa is full of single men who make a good living. What better place for a young guy who needs a ride through life to cruise?

2. He says he plays Madden, which is a video game. Remember how Michael Jackson used video games to lure his conquests? It’s brilliant. You spend hours on the couch with another guy…maybe beer is present…one thing can lead to another.

3. He says he belongs to SWFA. I’m not sure, but I think that may be “Soft-Wristed Flamers Association.”

1. No, I don’t. Column bio |= blog.
2. Word ’em up. Since 1992. I am frighteningly good at Maddens. Not just good, frighteningly good.
3. That’s SFWA, Twinkletoes. SFWA. Although actually, that’s not terribly far from the truth. Still, Seriously Fat Women Authors would arguably be closer.

Sadly, Twinkletoes doesn’t rate when it comes to the Insult rating. I imagine it’s due to his strong anti-slur beliefs; he just doesn’t have the practice. While he did nail the homosexual and Mensa references and implied a hairstyle reference – we’ll give credit for the picture – he left out a) the assertion that no women will ever have sex with me, b) that I live in my parent’s basement, c) that he will never have sex with me, d) no LOL, ROTFL or ROTFLMAO e) that I am a mysogynist, f) that I am a fascist / Nazi/ totalitarian / authoritarian / etc and g) that Daddy got me my job.

I’ve seen better. Although he does demonstrate his skills as a humorist when he writes: “I don’t care about hurting Vox Day’s feelings. It’s not my problem if he has a glass chin, or his fans have one on his behalf. And what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It was perfectly appropriate for me to insult him personally, and in case no one noticed, I also ripped his sophomoric writing and half-baked beliefs, which is the farthest thing from a personal attack. The guy has NOTHING, at least compared to the image he tries to project. His thinking is as thin as the margin by which he made it into Mensa.”

Yep, glass chin and sophmoric writing, that’s me. One absent-minded slur and he’s posting away like a madman, he was up to seven posts based on one “Twinkletoes” before I’d even heard about it… now who’s got that glass chin, exactly? I don’t think the gentleman understands that it’s not possible for him to hurt my feelings, as it would be like fretting about being pinned by a gnat. What’s funny about this is that I didn’t even intend to insult Mr. Sensitivity nor know anything about him, I was merely staking my stated position as being pro-slur.

But obviously, I’m pleased that my rhetorical kung fu is so strong, it managed to convince Steve to abandon his public anti-slur stance. Twinkletoes, my dear child, if you’re anti-slur, you shouldn’t use them regardless of the target’s attitude towards them. I realize, of course, that this sort of basic logic might be difficult for a lawyer to grasp, lacking as it is in any emanations or penumbras.

But as long as we’re at it, let’s get this straight. Steve asserts that Electrical Engineers are scientists. Fantastic! I had no idea that I am not only a scientist myself, but I am now the son of a scientist! An elite scientist, no less!

So, I must ask him this: are only electrical engineers scientists, or is this true of all other engineers as well?

UPDATE – Upon further review, it seems I must rethink the way in which I addressed Hog on Ice: I am starting to attract skinheads from the right and moonbats from the left. Comments closed.
Steve H. | Homepage | 03.03.07 – 5:20 pm | #

Did I say “Twinkletoes”? I obviously should have said “chickenshit”.