Tag: mailvox

Mailvox: Minds do change

It sometimes seems as if human minds are about as capable of changing as rocks; only high explosives and slow erosion over vast quantities of time are capable of effecting it. But, as this email from a longtime regular demonstrates, it does, on occasion, happen:

At risk of sounding all fawning and shit, I want to thank you, and the Ilk, for aiding in my political transformation. When I went to law school, then started frequenting your blog, I began to appreciate the ramifications of political ideology, particularly the dangers of expanded and intrusive federal government. The fact that you and yours have ALWAYS afforded me a deal of respect, even when I was toting the Democratic party line, speaks volumes about the character of not only yourself but the cabal at Vox Popoli. Even Nate and the dearly departed Bane treated me with respect, a rarity indeed. So, just let me extend my thanks for always being honorable in a time when the concept of honor has seemingly been forgotten.

He is welcome, of course. The reason I chose to share this email is that a common and completely false accusation is that this blog is some sort of echo chamber where disagreement and criticism are not permitted. The reality is that the readers, and to a lesser extent, regular commenters, here represent a wide variety of ideologies and very few of them entirely share my idiosyncratic political and religious beliefs. While the dominant intellectual strain is unsurprisingly libertarian and protestant Christian, there are no shortage of those who do not share either perspective and their opinions are no less regarded for being different. And as the emailer testifies, so long as one abides by the rules of the blog, even the most vehement critic will be treated exactly same as the most fawning sycophant. In fact, I probably pay far more attention to the critics than I do to those who have no criticism to offer; after all, the truly arrogant require no praise.

Mailvox: the materialist writes back

JS continues the discussion of his previous email:

Thank you for addressing my e-mail on your site. I appreciated your responses and the responses of those who commented on the post. I have to say that much of the naturalist community seems to hold on to what are obviously suppositions on their part. They believe that since their unproven explanation is the best natural one, it is the correct one. Up until very recently, I too tended to believe this, taking a similar approach. As I waxed about a bit in my last e-mail to you, what has chafed me recently about those in the secular web community is the absolute refusal to even allow a line of thinking that goes against their worldview. This growing intolerance is bothering me, as the secularist community seems to be increasingly more defensive and myopic. So, since this question will gain me only ridicule and exile in this community, I will ask you — what are some good books on the argument against TENS that an inquiring mind such as mine should endeavor to read?

I thought that TIA was one of the best refutations of neo-Atheist arguments I’ve ever read (they hate you on the secular boards btw, if I didn’t know any better, I would say you are made of straw). Here is to hoping that RGD finds continued success.

I’ve always felt that one is defined by one’s enemies as well as by one’s friends, so I am pleased to be hated by such a collection of contemptible intellects. Unfortunately, I really can’t recommend any good books that make a case against TENS because I have never read one on the subject. This is in part because I have very seldom heard any author making what I consider to be the substantive arguments against TENS, and in part because my interest in the subject is tertiary at best, I’ve only read pro-evolution books by the likes of Dawkins, Dennett, and Gould. My skepticism of TENS is largely endogenous, with a few bits and pieces that I’ve picked up on the Internet such as the revised Haldane’s Dilemma and the application of Chomsky to the tautology of natural selection.

But, I’d like to open this discussion up to suggestions from others, for books that people feel most effectively defend TENS as well as those that most effectively dissect it. I tend to prefer to read those books that most effectively defend their subjects, because then I can see how easy or difficult it is to pick apart that optimal defense. I’m presently in the process of reading Dawkins’s latest, and if it is truly the optimal defense of Neo-Darwinism that its more enthusiastic reviewers apparently believe it to be, I am increasingly inclined to believe it will not be very difficult to demonstrate that TENS is in serious trouble.

I have even discussed writing a book on the subject myself with my publisher, but I’m not convinced that it is necessary. My suspicion is that TENS will eventually implode with or without my assistance in the matter. While there are certainly scientific and atheistic interests who will cling to the Neo-Darwinism in the face of any contrary future evidence, they are neither as powerful nor as powerfully incentivized to hold to it as is the case with political and financial authorities and Neo-Keynesianism.

Voxicon

This Voxological lexicon may be of some utility when reading this blog:

Aprevistan: One who subscribes to some form of Open Theory or opposes the concept of an omniderigent God on Biblical grounds.

Atheist, High Church: An individual lacking god belief who is college-educated, self-identifies as an atheist and subscribes entirely to a materialist model of the universe, rejecting all supernatural concepts. Usually subscribes to “Enlightenment values” as well as secular humanism, considers himself rational and is often evangelical or militant about his lack of god belief.

Atheist, Low Church: An individual lacking god belief who does not self-identify as an atheist, usually has not completed college and does not possess a conscious model of the universe, although assumes an essentially materialist one. May or may not reject the supernatural and is not terribly interested in abstract concepts. Doesn’t know what “Enlightenment values” are, doesn’t care, but generally subscribes to a belief in evolution and trusts in science. Not the least bit evangelical or militant about his lack of god belief.

Atheist Dance: Changing the definition of atheism depending upon what the atheist is attempting to prove or disprove at the moment.

Broken Bamboo: A defensive argumentative technique which asserts that the non-atheist is attacking a strawman position instead of an actual atheist argument, even when the argument attacked is a specific argument made by a well-known atheist in one of his best-selling books.

Captain Underoos: Mitt Romney

CCD: Confront, Cow, Destroy. One of Vox’s favored methods of removing intellectual legitimacy from an opponent. First, challenge the claims made by the opponent. Second, intimidate them by demonstrating a superior understanding of their own arguments. Third, demolish whatever respectability they may have in the eyes of others by showing their verifiable errors of fact and logic.

Circle Jerk: The action when one Horseman publicly reviews, critiques or judges another Horseman’s work, especially when one Horseman judges the quality of another Horseman’s judgment of the quality of his own work.

Climacaustal: A member of the pseudoscientific cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change. (AGW/CC)

Defiance on Hill 1917: Any of the various arguments used in a futile attempt to separate atheism as a belief system from the historical fact that regimes ruled by atheists have committed a statistically disproportionate amount of atrocities. This can take the form of a No True Atheist argument, a Rage Against the Facts argument or the “Communism is a religion” argument.

Extinction Equation: Sam Harris’s central argument from The End of Faith, which states that Science plus Religious Faith equals Imminent Human Extinction.

Four Horsemen of the Bukkakelypse: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Less Dennett, also known as the Unholy Trinity.

Fowl Atheist: Pharyngula blogger Paul Myers, an outspoken atheist afraid of public debate.

Hultgreen-Curie Syndrome: The lethal disease that strikes female pioneers. Named after Kara Hultgreen and Madame Curie, the syndrome has struck down numerous brave women on the frontiers of female innovation, including the first woman to use a washing machine, who tragically drowned in it, and the first Roman woman to eat reclining on a couch, who choked to death on a grape.

Magic Negro:Barrack Hussein Soetoro/Soebarkah/Obama

Magic Negro Part II: Republican Edition: Hermain Cain

ND-TENS Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

TENS: Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

TE(p)NSBMGDaGF: Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection, Biased Mutation, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow.

Omniderigence: The concept of an all-acting God who is responsible for all human decisions, actions, and historical events, large and small. Also known as the God of the Perfect Plan or the Swallow-slaying God.

Omniderigiste: One who subscribes to omniderigence.

Voliscience: The ability to know whatever one wishes to know at any given moment. This is distinguished from omniscience, which requires knowing all things at all times.

Irratheist: An atheist who asserts the superiority of atheism on the basis of its supposed foundation in science and reason while simultaneously defining atheism as being a concept strictly limited to the absence of a belief in the existence of God, thereby accepting the validity of atheist belief in astrology, Buddhism, reincarnation, Heaven, Hell, pagan gods and every other supernatural phenomena or concept currently unknown to science. This is usually an extreme example of a Fighting Withdrawal argument, but can, in some cases, represent a genuine intellectual position.

Science Reason: The pagan god of the science fetishists and militant atheists. Its great prophet UberDawks has revealed that it will one day push out IDIOT FUNDIES from the shiny, sexy, secular society that will be established after the Singularity.

Fighting Withdrawal: An argumentative technique often used by atheists which involves defending a position or an individual by sacrificing the larger part of the defended position or the defended individual’s arguments, usually without understanding that the sacrifice has been made.

Silence That Gun: A post-argument technique utilized by many atheists of falling silent and disappearing rather than conceding the point when their arguments have been refuted. This can also apply to book reviews.

Subtraction Fallacy: An argument made in near-complete ignorance of Christian theology in which it is argued that atheists only believe in one less supernatural deity than Christians. Also known as Stephen F. Roberts’s One Less God argument.

Rage Against the Facts: A counter-ontological argument which states that because the atheist cannot understand the logic which would explain the nature of the relationship underlying an observed causation, said causation cannot exist, all supporting empirical evidence notwithstanding. Also known as the “In the Name of” argument.

Hume’s Last Gasp: A logically fallacious and anti-scientific assertion about the varying nature of the quality of evidence required to prove the verity of one claim versus another claim. More commonly known as the Extraordinary Claims concept.

Marinello: A bizarre defensive response which involves accusing the accuser of being/doing precisely what he has just accused the defendant of being/doing . Example: “I’m not 0-10, you’re 0-10!”

MPAI: Most People Are Idiots.

Scientage: The body of scientific knowledge.

Scientody: The scientific method.

Scientistry: The profession of science. (This refers to the labor performed by sufficiently credentialed scientists, not an expression of quasi-religious faith on the part of the scientific faithful.)

Scienthology: The practice of a division of doxastic labor which involves blindly placing one’s uninformed faith in the opinions of scientists, particularly those opinions which are advertised as a “scientific consensus”. Also includes the fetishistic worship of a romanticized Platonic ideal of science, primarily by those lacking professional scientific credentials.

Unholy Trinity: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens

Lizard Queen: Hillary Rodham Clinton

Euzi: A politician, bureaucrat, or supporter of the European Union.

APHORISMS

Get up. Don’t argue, don’t complain, and don’t cry. Just get up and go on.

Never assume error, inquire to confirm it.

Reason can no more deliver operative moral systems than socialism can provide functional pricing models.

A ruthless commitment to logic and truth tends to be persuasive over time because the human mind can only stand so much cognitive dissonance before it either begins to break down or accept that which is both logical and observable.