Atheist Exegesis by Kelly of the Rational Response Squad

[Vox]

I think I’ve been postponing this project long enough, and since other people on our forums are starting to talk about this book, I should probably stop playing Rock Band and get my butt in gear. So, welcome to the first in a series of posts discussing Vox Day’s The Irrational Atheist.

I am going to be going through this book one chapter at a time in order to keep the posts relatively short and still allow for a detailed analysis. I mentioned that plan to Vox Day, who kindly provided me with a complimentary copy of this book, and his suggestion was to read the entire book first before beginning. After getting about half-way through it, I didn’t see anything that necessitated that, but just as an FYI, if any of my points of contention are dealt with in later chapters, I’ll note that in later posts.

The first thing I noticed about this book is that Day’s writing style is quite humorous, and if I may, even endearing. This is troublesome as many readers will fall into the trap of getting caught up in the seemingly personable style and disregarding critical inquiry of the content. Day comes off as the friendly but mischievous antagonist in what he terms “an intellectual deathmatch” (p. 3) between himself and the “Unholy Trinity” of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. I must also note a point of agreement before I continue into the actual substance of the book: I appreciate Day’s regard for the autodidactic learner and his insistence that one not be swayed by degrees and credentials as they don’t necessarily make one’s arguments more or less valid. (p. 3) This is a point far too often missed by the pseudo-intellectual crowd who seem to desire a type of hegemonious rule over knowledge itself with authority to speak on a subject deemed only by universities. (I won’t go into the bass-ackwards logic at play there…at least not here.)

So, on to the good stuff. Day starts out by letting the reader know that he doesn’t care if we go to hell, which would seem to be against the mandate of his deity who commands his followers not only to care, but to grieve for the lost souls in the world and try their damnedest to convert us. At any rate, all you atheists can put your guard down because this guy doesn’t want to convert you and doesn’t even care if you go to hell. Nice try. He even goes as far as claiming that he is tolerant of, and even likes, the variety of beliefs and one-way entries to heaven, but that it is the atheists (embodied by Dawkins, et al.) who don’t. I can only speak for myself here when I emphatically state that I do not care what anybody believes—just keep it out of my government and out of my face. If it wasn’t for the intrusion of religion into public policy and the stubborn insistence to continually remind us of our future in hell, I wouldn’t even waste my time correcting them.

Day asks a series of questions regarding the tolerance of religious beliefs and I would like to briefly address them. Does your “insanity” affect me? Yes, for the aforementioned reasons among others. Last time I checked, people didn’t condemn others to hell or kill people over the Minnesota Vikings making it to the Super Bowl, so I don’t find that analogy compelling. To put a little spin on your plea for tolerance, all I ask, and all the vast majority of atheists ask, is to be left alone to disbelieve what we choose to disbelieve and to live how we decide to live. It’s very gratuitous of you to want to allow all of the “insane” people freedom to believe whatever they like, although labeling all of humanity as insane is a bit of a stretch, but once one realizes that the patients are running the asylum, what should be done?

Day starts his list of the evils of atheism by blaming the philosophers of the Enlightenment era for paving the way for “the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and dozens of other massacres in the name of human progress,” which I find to be amusing given that were it not for such revolutions, we would still be living in feudal societies and caste systems quite antithetical to his own libertarian ideals. I wonder where he got those ideas regarding man’s free will and right to exercise it. Could it be…the Enlightenment? The irony is almost overwhelming. This is a point he brings up often. The philosophers of the time certainly did effect the populace, but not by advocating war or revolution. Senseless killing is certainly not rational, nor is being swept away in nationalistic fervor. If waking people up to the reality of their circumstance by giving them a vision of hope for a better tomorrow is a crime, it is one that should be committed more often. The people of the Enlightenment era were simply alerted to the fact that, to paraphrase Rousseau, despite being born free, they were “everywhere in chains.” The people reacted to this knowledge with revolution, and violence is an unfortunate byproduct of the overthrow of established regimes. If these things had not taken place, there would be no United States of America, no democracy, and certainly no libertarianism. Vox Day himself could be similarly vilified by the benefactors of his philosophy for espousing such views, assuming we lived in a world where the Enlightenment had never occurred.

Day goes on to criticize atheism, which he oddly traces back to The Apology of Socrates, which only reveals the etymological roots and certainly not the birth of the lack of belief in god, for not having changed over the years. This is an obscure point. How would the lack of belief in something change exactly? Along with that, he tosses in a few jabs with comments as to the “ultimate destination” for atheists being “hot” and a little argumentum ad populum for good measure. Apparently our “godless jihad,” armed by “raging, red-letter infidels,” consists mainly of writing books and speaking out publicly about our lack of faith. We better be careful to keep the death toll from rising exponentially due to an increase in paper cuts.

He makes the argument that atheism leaves a void in people which must be filled with some belief, no matter how silly or contradictory. He supports this by using a Barna poll about beliefs on life after death and a CNN exit poll to show that people improperly self-identify with certain groups. If his conclusion is accurate, how is it more damaging to atheism than it is to religion? Would it not also be the case that the “billions of individuals” who believe in Jesus are also incorrectly identifying themselves, rendering all such labels meaningless and simultaneously destroying his earlier appeal to popularity? Day claims that “the normal individual tends to put significantly more time into living his life instead of thinking about it and cataloging its abstract aspects.” I agree, and I think that is problematic. It’s akin to being criticized for engaging in introspection, which is not only healthy, but necessary. Somehow related to this is the definition of atheism from the three “representatives” of atheism and their nuances, but I haven’t figured out how it is related, seen as how most arguments centered around definitions tend to be promptly settled by a dictionary.

The pinnacle of this segment is the fact that Sam Harris, leader of all atheists everywhere at all times, practices Buddhism. If anybody else is thinking, “Yeah, so?”--you’re not alone. Is this a criticism of atheism or Sam Harris’ personal beliefs? For all of his ranting about these Buddhist beliefs, he fails to take into account that there are many types of Buddhism, some of which involve no deities and focus instead on personal development. The entire point is irrelevant, though, as Sam Harris’ assertion that Buddhism is not a religion per se says nothing at all about atheism. At least he acknowledges that atheism is neither a religion nor a philosophy—right before he divides us into “churches.”

What Day terms “High Church Atheists” (HCA) consist of the upper echelon of intellectual elitists who also have mental disorders and Asperger’s syndrome, along with being socially inept and never getting laid because they’re too busy destroying the beliefs of their prospective partners. Wow—we’re doomed. Except for the fact that all of those things are pure speculation on an arbitrarily assigned group of people. We also have the “Low Church Atheist,” (LCA) the backwater, inbred cousin that the former wants to hide from the public. The HCA is deemed autistic by one online poll which was answered by 59 people indicating that atheists have an average Asperger’s quotient of 27.9, slightly above normal, but not quite a pathology, along with Day’s own informal survey of 159 of his blog readers. This is not even close to a controlled study from which conclusions can be drawn. The LCA is characterized by their refusal to use the word “atheist”, but that shouldn’t matter since Day already proved that self-labeling is irrelevant. There is a method to his madness, though, because he is about to use this group to skew and obfuscate the prison population studies which show that atheists are less likely to be imprisoned. Earlier in the chapter, he admits that people who answer “no religion” on polls are not necessarily atheist, the validity of self-identification not withstanding, but then wants to lump them in with atheists to get his extra 31.6 percent of the British prison system and then declare that our “Low Church counterparts are nearly four times more likely to be convicted and jailed for committing a crime than a Christian.” (p. 20) Watch out—he’s a slippery one!

These LCAs also live seven years less than the average religious person, are more likely to smoke, drink, be depressed, fat, unmarried, and not reproduce. Day then assumes that since so many of them are in jail, they must be less intelligent than average. Well, by using the same flawed data, many conclusions can be drawn about a population of unknown people who happened to check “no religion” when filling out the Inmate Information Survey.

Day finishes off the chapter with the typical agnostic/atheist dichotomy, as if they are mutually exclusive, but Vox, what difference does it make? You already proved that labels are meaningless and that all people with no religion are atheists, so what’s your point? Congratulations, that was the most convoluted, contradictory mess of confabulated casuistry I have ever seen. Honestly, I am impressed. I like ya, though; it’s kind of cute to see you so clearly grasping for straws. Thanks for the book, too—it’s providing me with plenty of material.

I’ll see those of you with shatter-resistant monitors next time for chapter two!

http://www.rationalresponders.com/vox_day_1

[Vox]

I am going to be going through this book one chapter at a time in order to keep the posts relatively short and still allow for a detailed analysis. I mentioned that plan to Vox Day, who kindly provided me with a complimentary copy of this book, and his suggestion was to read the entire book first before beginning. After getting about half-way through it, I didn’t see anything that necessitated that, but just as an FYI, if any of my points of contention are dealt with in later chapters, I’ll note that in later posts.

It seemed only fair. A few people have attempted to write chapter-by-chapter reviews and it became readily apparent that they didn't understand the difference between the rhetorical stage-setting of the introduction and the subsequent criticism of the various New Atheist arguments. Each chapter review kept getting progressively shorter as the arguments become more specific and the reviewers' ability to avoid damning ones that made their heroes look bad became impossible until they fell silent before reaching the first specific chapter on Sam Harris, chapter eight. Here's hoping Kelly isn't foolish enough to cry strawman when I'm quoting a specific argument made by one of the Unholy Trinity in its entirety.

The first thing I noticed about this book is that Day’s writing style is quite humorous, and if I may, even endearing. This is troublesome as many readers will fall into the trap of getting caught up in the seemingly personable style and disregarding critical inquiry of the content. Day comes off as the friendly but mischievous antagonist in what he terms “an intellectual deathmatch” (p. 3) between himself and the “Unholy Trinity” of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. I must also note a point of agreement before I continue into the actual substance of the book: I appreciate Day’s regard for the autodidactic learner and his insistence that one not be swayed by degrees and credentials as they don’t necessarily make one’s arguments more or less valid. (p. 3) This is a point far too often missed by the pseudo-intellectual crowd who seem to desire a type of hegemonious rule over knowledge itself with authority to speak on a subject deemed only by universities. (I won’t go into the bass-ackwards logic at play there…at least not here.)

Yes, given that the Appeal to Authority is a known logical fallacy, it's ironic that a crowd given to crying <i>ad hom</i>, "strawman", and "correlation is not causation", often when they don't apply, should so quickly resort to it. It's also interesting, although I suppose it might have been expected, that it takes a female atheist to recognize the fundamental humor in the book that escapes most of her quasi-aspie male comrades. One can present an intellectually serious argument and still have a good time, thought-provoking books don't actually have to be boring.

So, on to the good stuff. Day starts out by letting the reader know that he doesn’t care if we go to hell, which would seem to be against the mandate of his deity who commands his followers not only to care, but to grieve for the lost souls in the world and try their damnedest to convert us. At any rate, all you atheists can put your guard down because this guy doesn’t want to convert you and doesn’t even care if you go to hell. Nice try. He even goes as far as claiming that he is tolerant of, and even likes, the variety of beliefs and one-way entries to heaven, but that it is the atheists (embodied by Dawkins, et al.) who don’t. I can only speak for myself here when I emphatically state that I do not care what anybody believes—just keep it out of my government and out of my face. If it wasn’t for the intrusion of religion into public policy and the stubborn insistence to continually remind us of our future in hell, I wouldn’t even waste my time correcting them.

Actually, we're only supposed to make sure you have heard the Gospel, if you're not inclined to listen, we're permitted to shake the dust from our sandals and move on in good conscience. Moreoever, I never claimed to be a particularly good Christian, the reason I'm less annoying than the door-knocking fundamentalist who wants to talk to you about Jesus is because I care less about your fate. My libertarianism pretty much goes to the bone. As for the idea of an "intrusion" of religion into public policy, this is hardly any such thing given the concept of democratic rule. Either Kelly must reject the idea of rule by will of the people or she must accept that religion has a place in public life. I suspect she is subject to a parochial American view, but even in America, the unalienable rights are endowed by a Creator God and contorted Supreme Court reasoning notwithstanding, it is only Congress that is not permitted to make a law about establishing religion, the sovereign States and various other governmental agencies know no such limitation.

Now, given the relative health of Christianity in America compared to the many Western nations with state churches, I believe in keeping government involvement with religion to a minimum, because government actually does poison everything. Otherwise, you can be sure that Washington will do for the churches what it has already done for the inner cities and public schools. Finally, I note that the tagline on Kelly's site: "Believe in God? We can fix that." tends to undermine her assertion of indifference towards the beliefs of others. And certainly, the five atheists whom I am specifically addressing don't agree with her, as can be seen in the stated purpose of their books.

Day asks a series of questions regarding the tolerance of religious beliefs and I would like to briefly address them. Does your “insanity” affect me? Yes, for the aforementioned reasons among others. Last time I checked, people didn’t condemn others to hell or kill people over the Minnesota Vikings making it to the Super Bowl, so I don’t find that analogy compelling. To put a little spin on your plea for tolerance, all I ask, and all the vast majority of atheists ask, is to be left alone to disbelieve what we choose to disbelieve and to live how we decide to live. It’s very gratuitous of you to want to allow all of the “insane” people freedom to believe whatever they like, although labeling all of humanity as insane is a bit of a stretch, but once one realizes that the patients are running the asylum, what should be done?

Kelly hasn't shown how MY beliefs affect her in any way. I don't even live in the same country as she does and I haven't voted in more than two decades. No one can condemn Kelly to Hell except Kelly; if she's walking down the road towards a house on fire and I point out that she's going to end up getting burned if she continues along her present path, it's not my accurate observation that dooms her, but her own actions. If you believe in the primacy of human freedom, there is simply nothing to be done, Kelly's seemingly innocent question is the seed from which so many authoritarian horrors, some theist, some atheist, have blossomed. Either people have the right to believe in ridiculous things and behave in ridiculous manners, or the Pope has the right to burn you at the stake because you refuse to submit to his infallible dictates. Everything in between is merely a different answer to the question of who is to play Pope and who is to play torch.

Day starts his list of the evils of atheism by blaming the philosophers of the Enlightenment era for paving the way for “the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and dozens of other massacres in the name of human progress,” which I find to be amusing given that were it not for such revolutions, we would still be living in feudal societies and caste systems quite antithetical to his own libertarian ideals. I wonder where he got those ideas regarding man’s free will and right to exercise it. Could it be…the Enlightenment? The irony is almost overwhelming. This is a point he brings up often. The philosophers of the time certainly did effect the populace, but not by advocating war or revolution. Senseless killing is certainly not rational, nor is being swept away in nationalistic fervor. If waking people up to the reality of their circumstance by giving them a vision of hope for a better tomorrow is a crime, it is one that should be committed more often. The people of the Enlightenment era were simply alerted to the fact that, to paraphrase Rousseau, despite being born free, they were “everywhere in chains.” The people reacted to this knowledge with revolution, and violence is an unfortunate byproduct of the overthrow of established regimes. If these things had not taken place, there would be no United States of America, no democracy, and certainly no libertarianism. Vox Day himself could be similarly vilified by the benefactors of his philosophy for espousing such views, assuming we lived in a world where the Enlightenment had never occurred.

As with the five atheists analyzed in TIA, history is not Kelly's strong point. Feudalism and caste systems were not ended by the Enlightenment, indeed, the former is largely a fictional concept of medieval governmental structure popularized by Montesquieu in the 18th century and is as historically dubious as the long-discredited concept of "the Dark Ages". The caste system never existed in Christendom and it still exists today in a number of Asian countries. Kelly's statement about free will reveals a shocking ignorance of the concept, as it is not an Enlightenment idea in any way, shape, or form, it is a Christian one. In fact, its very existence is denied today by New Enlightenment thinkers such as Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. Were she even slightly familiar with Christian philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, (http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFreeWo.htm) or Augustine, (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm), or Enlightenment philosophers such as Voltaire (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volfrewi.html), she'd realize that she is, in a very Harrisian manner, demonstrating the precise opposite of what she wishes to prover. The Enlightenment free will of Hume and Rousseau is holdover from the Christian traditions of their Christian societies, it was far from a new concept. Democracy predated the Enlightenment by literal millenia, and the statement that "senseless killing is certainly not rational" is a meaningless tautology that says nothing about the fact that most of the mass killing committed by atheist revolutionaries is perfectly rational given their stated goals of remaking human society according to the precepts of their new and shinier morality.

Day goes on to criticize atheism, which he oddly traces back to The Apology of Socrates, which only reveals the etymological roots and certainly not the birth of the lack of belief in god, for not having changed over the years. This is an obscure point. How would the lack of belief in something change exactly? Along with that, he tosses in a few jabs with comments as to the “ultimate destination” for atheists being “hot” and a little argumentum ad populum for good measure. Apparently our “godless jihad,” armed by “raging, red-letter infidels,” consists mainly of writing books and speaking out publicly about our lack of faith. We better be careful to keep the death toll from rising exponentially due to an increase in paper cuts.

Kelly misses the interesting point. If atheism is nothing more than simple lack of belief in god, a concept that I acknowledge, but dispute for various reasons, then there should be no significant similarity between the views of one atheist and the next. And yet, when one examines the views of one of the first, self-conscious atheists, Jean Meslier, we see that his views across a wide spectrum of philosophical, political and epistemological concepts are virtually identical to those put forth by the leading atheists nearly 300 years later. This is why it is so easy to identify the High Church Atheist, because his atheist dogma is covers far more intellectual ground than Kelly's limited atheist doctrine could possibly permit. The fact that atheists still don't believe in God isn't remarkable, the fact that 279 years later so many of them are still - despite ample evidence of failure - calling for new moralities, new societies, global dictatorship and rule by a scientific quasi-priesthood is astounding. As for the godless jihad, it's called metaphor, and it's worth noting that neither St. Bernard nor Osama bin Laden are known to have done any more than write and speak out in public.

He makes the argument that atheism leaves a void in people which must be filled with some belief, no matter how silly or contradictory. He supports this by using a Barna poll about beliefs on life after death and a CNN exit poll to show that people improperly self-identify with certain groups. If his conclusion is accurate, how is it more damaging to atheism than it is to religion? Would it not also be the case that the “billions of individuals” who believe in Jesus are also incorrectly identifying themselves, rendering all such labels meaningless and simultaneously destroying his earlier appeal to popularity? Day claims that “the normal individual tends to put significantly more time into living his life instead of thinking about it and cataloging its abstract aspects.” I agree, and I think that is problematic. It’s akin to being criticized for engaging in introspection, which is not only healthy, but necessary. Somehow related to this is the definition of atheism from the three “representatives” of atheism and their nuances, but I haven’t figured out how it is related, seen as how most arguments centered around definitions tend to be promptly settled by a dictionary.

I don't think the problem of self-identification is an inherent problem atheists or Christians, or for anyone except those who would attempt to make arguments based in any way upon those self-identifications, such as, for example, the specific individuals I am criticizing in TIA. This question of self-identification doesn't necessarily reduce the number of Christians, as larger studies of the sort required for global numbers are not based on self-identification, but rather church affiliations and so forth. I'm not criticizing those who engage in introspection here, but rather those who think that because they are interested in studying the matter, those who are not given to such introspection should be somehow obliged to identify their beliefs according to the abstract classifications of intellectuals.

The problem with the dictionary definitions is the one I have already pointed out: there are common characteristics of atheists which can be readily observed by even the most casual observer which indicate that either a lack of god belief is causing the development of these characteristics, it is the result of those characteristics, there is some underlying factor that causes both the characteristics and the identification, or that the mere lack of god belief is an insufficient description of the totality of atheism as it is actually practiced.

The pinnacle of this segment is the fact that Sam Harris, leader of all atheists everywhere at all times, practices Buddhism. If anybody else is thinking, “Yeah, so?”--you’re not alone. Is this a criticism of atheism or Sam Harris’ personal beliefs? For all of his ranting about these Buddhist beliefs, he fails to take into account that there are many types of Buddhism, some of which involve no deities and focus instead on personal development. The entire point is irrelevant, though, as Sam Harris’ assertion that Buddhism is not a religion per se says nothing at all about atheism. At least he acknowledges that atheism is neither a religion nor a philosophy—right before he divides us into “churches.”

First, I should clarify that neither Kelly nor I are saying that Harris is a Buddhist per se, he merely practices certain esoteric rituals from the Buddhist tradition. The primary significance of the contradictory definitions of atheism provided by Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett is to show a) the broad variance of how atheism is defined even by its leading advocates, and b) to lay the groundwork for later demonstrating that some of Sam Harris's arguments about atheist societies directly contradict his earlier definition(s) of atheism quoted in this first chapter. (See TIA p. 121). And Harris's careful distinction between Buddhism the atheistic non-religion and Buddhism practiced as a religion is not irrelevant because it suggests that there may be a need to make same distinction between atheism the atheistic non-religion and atheism practiced as a religion as well.

What Day terms “High Church Atheists” (HCA) consist of the upper echelon of intellectual elitists who also have mental disorders and Asperger’s syndrome, along with being socially inept and never getting laid because they’re too busy destroying the beliefs of their prospective partners. Wow—we’re doomed. Except for the fact that all of those things are pure speculation on an arbitrarily assigned group of people. We also have the “Low Church Atheist,” (LCA) the backwater, inbred cousin that the former wants to hide from the public. The HCA is deemed autistic by one online poll which was answered by 59 people indicating that atheists have an average Asperger’s quotient of 27.9, slightly above normal, but not quite a pathology, along with Day’s own informal survey of 159 of his blog readers. This is not even close to a controlled study from which conclusions can be drawn. The LCA is characterized by their refusal to use the word “atheist”, but that shouldn’t matter since Day already proved that self-labeling is irrelevant. There is a method to his madness, though, because he is about to use this group to skew and obfuscate the prison population studies which show that atheists are less likely to be imprisoned. Earlier in the chapter, he admits that people who answer “no religion” on polls are not necessarily atheist, the validity of self-identification not withstanding, but then wants to lump them in with atheists to get his extra 31.6 percent of the British prison system and then declare that our “Low Church counterparts are nearly four times more likely to be convicted and jailed for committing a crime than a Christian.” (p. 20) Watch out—he’s a slippery one!

These LCAs also live seven years less than the average religious person, are more likely to smoke, drink, be depressed, fat, unmarried, and not reproduce. Day then assumes that since so many of them are in jail, they must be less intelligent than average. Well, by using the same flawed data, many conclusions can be drawn about a population of unknown people who happened to check “no religion” when filling out the Inmate Information Survey.

Hey, I didn't claim the Aspie thing was a done deal, I merely happened to OBSERVE a few behavioral patterns and then form a HYPOTHESIS. That's what we scientists do, the next step is to test the hypothesis. Perhaps I can apply for a grant somewhere.... Kelly is going through one of the usual atheist dance routines here, including "no religion" or secularism in general as a variant of atheism is routinely done by Sam Harris, by PZ Myers, and it's the very foundation of Richard Dawkins's OUT Campaign and is proclaimed to be the basis for the evangelical aspect of <i>The God Delusion</i>. She may not conflate the two, but the authors addressed in TIA certainly do.

But there's nothing slippery about pointing out the criminal tendencies of the low church atheist. You can argue that they shouldn't be considered a form of atheist at all, but I haven't seen too many atheists who want to wholly disassociate atheism from secularism or irreligion. If Kelly would prefer to divide the two groups into High Church Godless and Low Church Irreligionists, I have no objection. Finally, I note that the negative correlation between imprisonment and intelligence is very well-established with the support of scads of scientific and testimonial evidence, so that it isn't a valid objection. I'm all for better data here; I was simply making use of what was available to me and I certainly don't consider the matter closed on the basis of a single prison survey in one country.

Day finishes off the chapter with the typical agnostic/atheist dichotomy, as if they are mutually exclusive, but Vox, what difference does it make? You already proved that labels are meaningless and that all people with no religion are atheists, so what’s your point? Congratulations, that was the most convoluted, contradictory mess of confabulated casuistry I have ever seen. Honestly, I am impressed. I like ya, though; it’s kind of cute to see you so clearly grasping for straws. Thanks for the book, too—it’s providing me with plenty of material.

The fact that labels are not always applied accurately hardly makes them meaningless. As for the point, I'm surprised that it is necessary to explain that if one is attempting to demonstrate the irrationality of certain atheist arguments, it just might be helpful to show that the very atheists who make them can't even agree upon a consistent, rational definition of what the atheism they are championing is, and to show the broadest possible spectrum of atheism in all its irrational glory.

But Kelly is very welcome, and I shall look forward to her next salvo.

[kellym78]

The first half of my response is here.

[Vox]

This is a reply to the second round of Kelly's critique of Chapter One. She's moving on to Chapter Two, so I shall attempt to confine myself to answering her questions and highlighting our existing points of disagreement in order to prevent any temptation to enter a vicious circle here.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/vox_response1

I prefer your more subdued form of proselytization, but I think that the bible clearly indicates that as one of the “elect,” you should in fact feel sorrow for the fate of our heathen souls. People like Paul even wept for the lost. At any rate, this is a trivial point that is not written out plainly as a command, so I won’t press it further.

No doubt I should. And yet I don't. I never claimed to be a good Christian, much less a perfect one.

First of all, the US is not a pure democracy, and the majority does not necessarily get their way. The government was founded upon secular principles and the absolute separation of church and state was the foundation upon which they were constructed. I also find your addition of the word “God” following “Creator” to border on dishonesty, as I’m sure you are aware that the god of the founding fathers was not the god of christianity and the creator to which they refer could very well be the universe or the deistic god in whom most of them believed. The states also cannot have laws that violate any constitutional principles and are given the power to rule only within those boundaries.

That "secular" principle is actually a Reform tradition established by John Calvin in democratic Switzerland prior to the Enlightenment. The Creator of nearly all of the Founding Fathers was absolutely considered to be the Christian God, only a very few were Deists in any sense. Kelly simply doesn't know what she's talking about here, a read through their bios on Wikipedia would suffice to set her straight. I find the "deist Founding Fathers" argument to be particularly amusing, since in light of my own idiosyncratic views of the Trinity dogma, I would be retroactively defined as a deistic ur-atheist myself. Kelly is also confusing the Constitution with the Bill of Rights here, the latter was never considered to have applied to the states until a new interpretation of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment was applied in the middle of the 20th century.

I see that some people have a hard time appreciating facetious sarcasm.

To quote Fred Durst, "if you don't care, then we don't care".

I disagree here for multiple reasons, some of which may boil down to theological differences. First of all, your belief affects me because it compels you to a) write books on the subject, b) consider yourself vastly superior to those who don’t find your god’s existence axiomatic, and c) engage in the same psychological terrorism which I previously mentioned. Secondly, the bible is quite clear that my salvation is not dependent upon my actions, but rather is a gift from god to those whom he has chosen. If you believe that the bible is at least remotely accurate, then you must accept that I am walking down the path that was made for me by your god who created me specifically for the purpose of going to hell. After all, it was all planned from before the foundations of the universe. Is that not what is written?

Anyone still wondering about why I oppose omniderigence and the concept of God's unalterable and perfect plan? Once Kelly gets to chapter 15, she'll see why these has nothing to do with me or what I believe proper Christian theology to be. Kelly can't save herself, but her salvation does depend upon her action in much the same way that a drowning man has to grab the rope thrown his way.

As far as personal beliefs and behaviors are concerned, I have already stated that I do not care what an individual person believes as long as it stays personal. Attempts to proselytize, subversion of scientific research, the desire to control uteri worldwide, do I really need to go on? Legislating morality based on your god belief immediately removes it from the personal level and places it firmly within the public sphere.

Kelly reveals a hint of the unexpected authoritarianism that lurks within so many atheists. The religious individual has the same right to voice his public will as any other. Subversion of scientific research? That's nothing more than her imagination, science has no inherent claim on the public purse. The only people attacking science labs are animal rights freaks.

I believe that is an issue of some dispute within academia. The structure in the French government was very much feudalistic and also had similarities to caste systems as advancement through the three “levels” was difficult, if not impossible. If anything was the impetus for the revolution, it would have been the fact that the established hierarchy was oppressive and not the fault of the philosophers who pointed it out.

I suggest her take on feudalism and caste was simply incorrect, it's the result of taking a metaphor too literally. Let the reader decide.

I don’t recall ever making a statement about any particular ethnic group. Regardless of that point, the pre-revolutionary France was very much like a caste system. I feel that the analogy is appropriate.

It's not a question of ethnicity but geography. She was talking about caste on a continent where it has never existed, and I'm pointing out that it still exists where it always existed, 200 years after the Age of Enlightenment. Regardless of how she feels, I assert that both her point that Enlightenment ended caste and her analogy that "feudalism" was caste are incorrect. Again, let the reader decide.

I never stated that the concept itself was new, only that the right to express it, even in opposition to the government, was. And just for the record, I don’t believe in absolute free will, either. I believe that people will make certain decisions, seemingly of their own volition, based on genetic and environmental variances. The nature versus nurture debate will likely never end, but a critical examination of the studies will show that things as trivial as your vehicle preference are correlated to genetic similarity. If free will exists as you claim it does, then how is it that I have control over my own destiny which according to the bible was determined before I was even conceived?

No, she wrote: <i>"I wonder where he got those ideas regarding man’s free will and right to exercise it. Could it be…the Enlightenment? The irony is almost overwhelming."</i>

As she now knows, no, it could not be the Enlightenment and there is no irony at all. And despite her backpedaling, the concept of a right to exercise one's free will contra the government was not new either. The pre-Enlightenment English Bill of Rights is only one of many possible examples and contains an explicit right to free speech against the crown. Again, Chapter 15 will answer her question, I don't believe her destiny is pre-determined; I am not a omniderigiste.

There was a form of democracy in Greece, true. I think that there are some benefits to an Athenian style democracy, personally, but the system itself was still not as sophisticated as what we have currently.

That's beside the point. Democracy and limited government both pre-date the Enlightenment. Even worse for Kelly, that more sophisticated American-style system was specifically designed to limit the will of the people... which is quite in keeping with the Enlightenment and its totalitarian impulses.

Your assumption that I am unfamiliar with Aquinas, Augustine, or enlightenment philosophers in general is patently absurd. Not to drag “formal” education into the debate, but I did study theology and philosophy at a Jesuit university for 2 years, and have read many of the works of all of the aforementioned. “Free will” as a concept was present in christianity, but my remark was related to governments and the legal right to exercise our autonomy. I could, perhaps, chalk this up to a semantic or contextual misunderstanding, but it is also likely that you just purposely interpreted what I said in such a way that you could accuse me of ignorance of those subjects.

I have no idea what Kelly's education happens to be nor do I care. Her point is what it is, and I suggest that no one who has understood Aquinas or Voltaire would make such a bizarre statement about free will and the Enlightenment. Especially since the Enlightenment 2.0 advocates deny the very existence of free will. Again, let the reader decide.

The idea that we are arguing over atrocities committed by “atheists” during that time period is ludicrous. I asserted that the philosophers did not advocate violence, which is true, and furthermore, there is no evidence that all or even most participants in the actual fighting were atheists. This is an assumption made by you, presumably to further your own agenda of vilifying atheists.

"Écrasez l'infâme!" Apparently Voltaire had a non-violent destruction in mind... pity the Jacobins misunderstood. But it's true, the French Revolution was only partly atheist. No doubt that's why relatively few people were slaughtered compared with later, more vehemently atheist regimes. I have no need to vilify atheists when simply citing the historical record suffices.

Finally, killing for a specific purpose (ie in a revolution—were there no deaths in the American Revolution? That’s news to me.) would not be inherently irrational, but killing for the sake of killing would be.

Okay. I have a feeling we'll get back to this later....

Check the Oxford English Dictionary—an atheist is one who disbelieves in or denies the existence of god. Period. I disbelieve in god based on my lack of, and in my opinion, inability to acquire, knowledge of such a being. End of story. Therefore, the only necessary commonality between myself and other atheists is that we lack belief in god.

Reading the personal opinions of atheists past or present doesn’t change the fact that atheism only entails lack of belief in god. Those who conflate atheism with some larger philosophy are simply incorrect. Christopher Hitchens is politically conservative; I’m not, but we’re both atheists. I disagree with atheists who believe that one can prove that ANY supernatural being doesn’t exist (which sounds extraordinarily silly to a logical positivist), but we’re both still atheists. Get it?

And yet we find a whole host of other commonalities, including beliefs, that can't stem directly from that single, simple disbelief. We observe. Then we hypothesize. Ironically, Kelly is, like a medieval philosopher, hiding behind logic in an attempt to avoid the empirical evidence. Considering that I specifically consider the definition-based point and reject it as both observably insufficient as well as contradicted by the definitions provided by Dawkins and Harris, I find it strange that she'd wish to return to it.

You have to be joking about Osama bin Laden, but we won’t delve into conspiracy theorist accusations.

Actually, I'm referring to an email exchange with Sam Harris here. Sam admits that Osama isn't known to have personally killed anyone, but he suggests the possibility of ethically justifying his murder anyhow.

I desire no “new” morality, society, dictatorship, or global domination. I have no desire to make god-belief illegal or in any way restrict your right to practice your religion, but I do feel that it is hazardous to humanity and would hope to have others abandon religion of their own volition. As previously stated, as long as religion stays out of schools and governments, I’m fine with whatever you choose to believe. (There’s more to this line of thinking, but I will address it in more detail when I get to the appropriate part of the book.)

I don't disagree, except obviously for the hazardous to humanity bit.

What is the definition of christian in your mind? If it is solely church affiliation, then I guess I’m an Episcopalian since I never officially renounced my baptism and am included in the numbers somewhere. If a christian is someone who personally accepts the main tenets of the Nicene Creed, then I think you’ll find that the numbers based on church affiliation are artificially inflated. (I want to note here that I’m not making the No-True Scotsman fallacy as I’m not arguing that those who would self-identify as christian are not christian based upon behavior or some other characteristic. I do, however, feel that many christians are the nominal sort who haven’t examined their beliefs and may not even believe Jesus rose from the dead after his propitiatory sacrifice, thereby providing an example of the type of improper group affiliation that Vox references.) If you don’t find that nugget of info compelling, why include it? Was the point not to imply that there are less atheists than even the polls report due to incorrect self-identification?

A Christian is someone who believes and openly confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord. The point was to admit that while we can make use of the information we have about beliefs and so forth, we must recognize that it is imperfect and incomplete and avoid placing too much trust in our conclusions based upon it.

I don’t expect people, particularly the complacent and apathetic who seem so prevalent in society, to do or believe anything. If they attempt to argue a position or make a claim, then I will expect them to logically and rationally support that. If you cannot refer to a dictionary to settle a definitional dispute, to what should we refer? I understand the nuance and connotations that can be left out of dictionaries, but there must be some final arbiter within language.

Agreed, but when the definition is contradicted by the observable evidence, we need a new definition. I ultimately went with American Atheists, but I'm open to a better one.

I don’t “practice” atheism and wouldn’t even know how to go about doing so. You may be able to correlate certain characteristics with atheism, but let’s not forget that correlation does not equal causation. Furthermore, many of such observations are biased and stereotypical. Many people will read more into a particular action than is actually there based upon the kinds of memes that have spread about atheists, so their analysis would be tainted by such a predisposition. For example, some people claim that atheists live a life of total debauchery and just want to have sex with everything in sight. Well, so do some christians, muslims, or hindus. Some atheists are celibate by choice. The sexual behavior of atheists and even the mores regarding sex are likely not that different from those of the religious. We just don’t need to feel guilty because Jesus just watched us masturbate.

We're not even talking about causation here. Sweet Darwin, but I've come to hate that correlation-causation statement, it's so seldom relevant to the point when it's cited. As for the rest, it will come up later so I'll leave it for then.

I also feel that your group of “Low Church Atheists” was over-generalized to include a group of people whose religious affiliation is merely in question or not known. The conclusions that you made based upon their inclusion are invalid, and in my opinion, a dishonest attempt to bolster your argument.

I am far from the only person to consider the "no religion" group to have some connection to the "atheist" and "agnostic" groups. In fact, all three are usually lumped together in polls. Dawkins's entire OUT campaign is based on this concept.

I do yoga; does that make me Hindu? Harris is an example of an atheist with whom I have some variance of opinion. We’ve spoken on some of these differences with no assertion on either side of correctness. We’re still both atheists.

I was just clarifying that neither of us were calling Sam Harris a Buddhist, that's all.

Atheism is sometimes defined differently, and oftentimes incorrectly. I would have to re-read the referenced sections of their work to analyze their intent with using those particular definitions, but just for the record, I also disagree with the American Atheists’ description of what an atheist “is.” Many of those tenets I agree with in principle, but not as a corollary to atheism that is fundamentally necessary.

Buddhism does in fact have many sects and branches that practice their religion differently. For example, the Japanese form of Buddhism is a Shinto fusion as far as popular belief is concerned. Mahayana, Theraveda, and Zen Buddhists also have differing beliefs and mythologies. That doesn’t change the fundamental aspect of Buddhism as a path by which one can attain peace or enlightenment without a necessary god of worship. It is a religion by definition, though, with a prescribed set of ritualistic behaviors, but practicing meditation does not make one Buddhist.

Okay. But whether Kelly accepts Dawkins's, Harris's or American Atheists' definition of atheism or not, they're perfectly legitimate.

You implied some type of statistical correlation between Asperger’s and atheism; I merely pointed out that you had insufficient data to make such a correlation from a statistical standpoint. I have never personally seen Harris, Myers, or Dawkins defend the notion that all people with no specific religious affiliation or all who consider themselves secularists (which really only applies to religious intrusion into government, not personal beliefs) are de facto atheists. As far as your admitting that I “may not conflate” these differences, how exactly am I doing a “typical atheist dance routine?”

Actually, I outright stated there was a statistical correlation between AS and a certain group of atheists strong enough to suggest causation as well as some observable similarities between AS and the behavior of some notable atheists. If Kelly isn't arguing that atheism is growing or a statistically significant part of the population, I retract the dance routine comment.

Regarding your first point, I would not label that group of people as atheists since it is merely unknown. One can have “no religion” and still believe in god or wood nymphs or anything else. As far as the HCAs go, I would dispute your characterization of them, and don’t feel that your dichotomy has an appropriate “church” for people like me. The ivory tower elitist atheists are out there, and they don’t even like me, mostly for the penury of letters behind my name.

Actually, a recent Baylor study indicates 10 percent of the "no religion" are believers. Of course, by Kelly's earlier definition, one can be an atheist and believe in wood nymphs or anything else. As for her "church", why should the religious monopolize all the denominations, I'm sure we can find one that would suit her.

This is a perfect example of the bait-and-switch you like to pull—you claim to only be referring to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens every time your arguments are critiqued, but then make the same claims for all of atheism and all atheists. Which is it? It would be much easier to respond if I knew your target. Unless, of course, obscuring it was intentional and the RD, SH, CH attacks are merely a rhetorical ploy meant to distract so you can surreptitiously generalize arguments against specific people and apply them to all atheists.

In this introductory chapter, I am making some broad rhetorical points most of which are based loosely on statements made in the various New Atheist books about atheists and atheism. There is a fair amount of room for interpretation and disagreement on a number of them. The reason that I'm occasionally forced to make use of my own observations in this first chapter is because the definitions provided by the targeted individuals are manifestly insufficient. As Kelly gets further into the book, she'll see that I'm making very particular cases against specific arguments made by a single individual, and there is less and less room for wiggling. This is why most of the chapter-by-chapter reviewers quit around chapter four, as they simply cannot defend their icons. Perhaps Kelly will do better, I shall certainly await her attempts with interest.

[Vox]

Kelly's critique of chapter 2.

Starting off chapter two, which is entitled “Defining Science,” is a brief description of the Jim Rose Circus Sideshow, unknown to most, but a troupe of traveling masochists (or so it seems) who represent his caricature of science. These little side stories can have more of an effect than the reader understands, though. Right off the bat, science is seen as either freakish or trivial due to the association with that particular experience of his. Because of this, I find it necessary to give you the actual definition of “science”:

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation…

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6. a particular branch of knowledge.

7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency. (from dictionary.com)

There are other, more precise definitions, but this is a decent general overview. Notice the emphasis and repetition of words like “systematic,” “knowledge,” and “facts.” Keep that in mind, ladies and gentlemen.

Vox Day launches his tirade by attempting to confuse the reader and blur the line between scientific and non-scientific inquiry. He goes on to present the words “studies show” as some kind of atheist mantra or magic spell that automatically convinces our opposition of our veracity. The major flaw here is that when one is dealing with issues that can be studied with some measure of reliability, studies are of immeasurable worth in demonstrating the truth or falsity of a proposition. Experimentation is the foundation of science and without it, science is merely a naturalistic philosophy with no real answers or solutions. It is true that many in the media or general populus don’t understand the proper way to interpret these studies and may latch on to some obscure results prematurely, but that does nothing to discredit the practice or findings of scientific study.

His next major criticism, after some attacks on Dawkins’ affection for science and implications of hallucinogenic drug use, is that many scientists today subscribe to the Popperian philosophy and rely on falsification as the determinant for a scientific versus non-scientific endeavor. He claims that this is outside the definition of science and is a flawed addition. What he fails to see when he makes his case by claiming that a hypothesis about the language of god is theoretically falsifiable is that by his own definition, provided from the Oxford English Dictionary, the language of god is excluded before we even get to Popper because it is not a physical, natural phenomenon that can be observed and tested. Thus, it fails to qualify as science per any definition, with or without Popperian philosophical baggage.

Perhaps the most amusing aspect thus far is his total lack of comprehension regarding Euthyphro’s Dilemma, which dealt with the source of morality—not the existence of god(s). Beyond that, he practically asserts that some kind of resolution was reached in the dialogue and that, if applied to science, it could be extrapolated that science doesn’t exist. (This is the point at which I’m looking at my monitor with a look of amazement and confusion—what kind of thought process led him there?) No wonder he thinks that the execution of Socrates was a good thing, although he places it erroneously within the reign of the Council of Thirty, while Apologia clearly explains that it was a jury of 500 citizens who convicted him of impiety. That same document states an incident that Socrates had with the Council, and also that they had been ousted. It’s a common mistake given the proximity, so I guess we can cut him some slack there, likely never having read Socrates’ defense for himself. (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/)

Alright, I was wrong earlier. The funniest part of this chapter is when Day makes this statement: “…[T]he very existence of the Intelligent Design movement is a testimony to a respect for scientific methodology…” (p. 33) Excuse me? Their attempt to redefine science to include supernatural explanations is “respect,” but Karl Popper’s falsifiability criterion was a useless distortion of science? Interesting.

His rhetorical question about the hazard posed to science by religion and the resulting “hostility” betrays his lack of awareness of just how detrimental religion has been to science. He busts out this gem: “Some of history’s greatest scientists are known to have been men of great Christian faith.”(p. 34) Well, if I lived in a time period during which I could be tortured, killed, or otherwise persecuted for my lack of belief, I’d likely be a “christian” as well.

As for Vox’s assertion that the Dark Ages were not caused by christianity, all I can say is that is highly debatable. I am not prone to vilifying the Catholic church for rejection of science, at least not since Vatican II. They are likely the most progressive church from a scientific perspective (or possibly Episcopalians, but we all know that they have the same origins thanks to Henry VIII). Nevertheless, Vox again attempts to mislead the reader with his quote from Philip Jenkins (p. 35). The Dark Ages were brought on largely by the destruction of a large part of the knowledge base that had been acquired, like the library at Alexandria. Most documentation contrary to christian ideology was destroyed or interpolated. The average person has no idea that prior to that time period, the earth wasn’t thought of as flat, and even the concepts of evolution and atomic particles had already been postulated. The “monolithic church” was one that varied from country to country or region to region—nobody I know of ever asserted that one church had power over the entire known world. The fact remains that religious motivations and prohibitions caused most of what was essentially a millennium-long scientific void. Pointing out the various sects of christianity does nothing to disprove that.

In his defense of the Dark Ages, Day mentions that an Italian Christian actually “coined” the term, so to speak, and that its meaning has been perverted by those who assign an anti-religious bias to it. I don’t know that there is a fallacy specific enough here, but it would seem to be similar to an etymological fallacy in that he is using a definition that has no support or relevance in modern society. The term “Dark Ages” may or may not have been anti-Germanic in origin—it is not now.

He briefly touches on the French Enlightenment philosophers, just enough to hold them accountable for the French Revolution (again) for “weakening the social and judicial pressure” (p. 37) that had previously kept the proletariat silent. What a horrible thing to do! As I stated in my previous blog post, this will be dealt with in more depth later.

One of Vox Day’s hobbies appears to be analyzing the order in which people place things conversationally so as to draw conclusions as to his/her motivations to do so. He spends some time on Dawkins, claiming that it is not science that he wishes to defend, but mostly his Enlightenment ideals. Mostly based upon the fact that Dawkins says that the “Enlightenment is in danger” and then lists science fourth in a list of other endangered ideologies. If that doesn’t leap off the page and scream “Non sequitor,” I don’t know what will.

He finishes off the chapter with more seemingly unrelated arguments concerning the (apparently) evil Enlightenment, never realizing that the reason why modern atheists seem to share so much with them is because that was essentially the birth of rationalism and empiricism, not some kind of ancient idol worship. As far as science in Iran goes, why exactly does he think science is booming there? Nuclear weapons, anybody? ICBMs? I am far from an alarmist, but let’s be realistic here. This was a pathetic attempt to, once again, vilify atheists and declare us guilty by association (through philosophical similarities) with people who may or may not have done terrible things, such as the killers of Lavoisier—somebody who one would think would have been well-received.

I must say, his tactic is ingenious. Plant little seeds in your minds—make connections and correlations to atrocities which had nothing at all to do with me or the fact that there’s no proof for the existence of god and science just doesn’t apply to the supernatural—in order to have you nodding your head in agreement when he casts us as immoral baby killers (as he will shortly—we’ll get to it.) Very subversive; under the radar, but ultimately superficial. All you need to do is take a quarter and scrape off the silver lining to see the words “Better Luck Next Time.”

I’m sure I’ll see you on the rebuttal and/or chapter 3 for more fun with Vox Day!

[Vox]

It is perfectly understandable, but unfortunate, that Kelly is so wedded to an oppositional context that she tends to blindly fall into applying hostile and incorrect interpretations to various parts of the text in which no opposition is required. This does not appear to be a problem of basic reading comprehension, but rather, the result of reading with a critical filter that causes her to react rather than think through her response to what she is reading. This filter, combined with her failure to read the entire book before beginning the chapter-by-chapter review, leads her into a number of completely unnecessary errors in her critique of this chapter.

Starting off chapter two, which is entitled “Defining Science,” is a brief description of the Jim Rose Circus Sideshow, unknown to most, but a troupe of traveling masochists (or so it seems) who represent his caricature of science. These little side stories can have more of an effect than the reader understands, though. Right off the bat, science is seen as either freakish or trivial due to the association with that particular experience of his. Because of this, I find it necessary to give you the actual definition of “science”:

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation…

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6. a particular branch of knowledge.

7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency. (from dictionary.com)

There are other, more precise definitions, but this is a decent general overview. Notice the emphasis and repetition of words like “systematic,” “knowledge,” and “facts.” Keep that in mind, ladies and gentlemen.

Vox Day launches his tirade by attempting to confuse the reader and blur the line between scientific and non-scientific inquiry....

This is not only wrong, it is completely backward. Kelly fails to understand that the point of referencing the blatantly false claim to science by Jim Rose is to provide a simple and vivid picture of the way the New Atheist books are doing precisely the same thing. The Unholy Trinity's attempts to argue "it is science" in support of their atheism are every bit as absurd, and as unscientific, as Jim Rose's similar claims about nipple-piercing and lightbulb-chewing. My purpose is not to belittle science, nor confuse the reader, it is simply to clarify the line between that which is claimed to be science and is, and that which is claimed to be science and is not.

He goes on to present the words “studies show” as some kind of atheist mantra or magic spell that automatically convinces our opposition of our veracity. The major flaw here is that when one is dealing with issues that can be studied with some measure of reliability, studies are of immeasurable worth in demonstrating the truth or falsity of a proposition. Experimentation is the foundation of science and without it, science is merely a naturalistic philosophy with no real answers or solutions. It is true that many in the media or general populus don’t understand the proper way to interpret these studies and may latch on to some obscure results prematurely, but that does nothing to discredit the practice or findings of scientific study.

Kelly's view of scientific studies is rather innocently naive, as she fails to acknowledge the significant distinction between valid ones that make legitimate use of the scientific method, those which are actually quasi-scientific surveys that involve no actual experimentation, and metastudies that are often nothing more than surveys of surveys. Many, if not most studies involve absolutely no experimentation, and as one can readily observe, "studies show" is a mantra - not an atheist one, but rather a science fetishist one - that is quite often invoked by non-scientists in an attempt to lend a scientific sheen to a non-scientific argument, in much the same way that the New Atheists regularly attempt to invoke science on behalf of their non-science. Her citation of the dictionary definition of science notwithstanding, Kelly does not seem to understand that science does not deal in truth and falsehood, as Karl Popper wrote in The Problem of Induction: "in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory." Or, if one prefers a famous atheist in good standing, there is always Bertrand Russell: "A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration." Ironically, Kelly's statement is more reflective of the naturalistic philosophy she rightly scorns than science proper.

His next major criticism, after some attacks on Dawkins’ affection for science and implications of hallucinogenic drug use, is that many scientists today subscribe to the Popperian philosophy and rely on falsification as the determinant for a scientific versus non-scientific endeavor. He claims that this is outside the definition of science and is a flawed addition. What he fails to see when he makes his case by claiming that a hypothesis about the language of god is theoretically falsifiable is that by his own definition, provided from the Oxford English Dictionary, the language of god is excluded before we even get to Popper because it is not a physical, natural phenomenon that can be observed and tested. Thus, it fails to qualify as science per any definition, with or without Popperian philosophical baggage.

Recall that I am criticizing Popper's definition of science, then read this again. Kelly misses my point, which isn't that Divine Linguistics are a legitimate object of scientific inquiry, but that Popper's definition of science is an incomplete and imprecise one, inadequate for my purpose of distinguishing between science and non-science. The fact that she has to rely on a non-Popperian definition of science and make a baseless assumption about the nature of Divine Linguistics in an off-target attack that doesn't defend Popper's definition in any way not only proves my point about the weakness of the "falsification" determinant, but shows that Kelly is too caught up in an oppositional mindset to properly grasp what she is reading. Now, I originally suggested Divine Linguistics as something that everyone would agree is non-scientific by non-Popperian terms, but contra Kelly's assertion, ifwe accept the documentary evidence that God spoke to Moses in the shape of a burning bush, (and we have no basis to reject it except non-scientific logic), then the language of God is clearly a physical phenomenon which can be subjected to scientific experimentation, at least in its intersection with humanity. The fact that an experiment is difficult does not mean that it is conceptually impossible.

Perhaps the most amusing aspect thus far is his total lack of comprehension regarding Euthyphro’s Dilemma, which dealt with the source of morality—not the existence of god(s). Beyond that, he practically asserts that some kind of resolution was reached in the dialogue and that, if applied to science, it could be extrapolated that science doesn’t exist. (This is the point at which I’m looking at my monitor with a look of amazement and confusion—what kind of thought process led him there?) No wonder he thinks that the execution of Socrates was a good thing, although he places it erroneously within the reign of the Council of Thirty, while Apologia clearly explains that it was a jury of 500 citizens who convicted him of impiety. That same document states an incident that Socrates had with the Council, and also that they had been ousted. It’s a common mistake given the proximity, so I guess we can cut him some slack there, likely never having read Socrates’ defense for himself. (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/)

The Council of Thirty was simply a mistake on my part, it's been noted in the errata and corrected in the third printing. While I have read both accounts of Socrates's trial, the last time was more than ten years ago; my blunder is an object lesson in sourcing even those things that you think you know. Kelly's blunder, on the other hand, is demonstrably the result of not reading the entire book, as even a cursory glance at Appendix B: Two Dialogues will demonstrate. As far as her amazement and confusion goes, I am currently writing a parody of Euthyphro which purports to do for science what Socrates's dialogue is thought to do for the source of morality; as anyone who has read the appendix knows, I am contemptuous of the dialogue and consider Socrates's reasoning to be disingenuous and his conclusions specious. Although we have only reached the second chapter in this extended debate, I think it will be difficult for Kelly to top her ludicrous assertion that I totally lack comprehension of the so-called Dilemma of Euthyphro.

Alright, I was wrong earlier. The funniest part of this chapter is when Day makes this statement: “…[T]he very existence of the Intelligent Design movement is a testimony to a respect for scientific methodology…” (p. 33) Excuse me? Their attempt to redefine science to include supernatural explanations is “respect,” but Karl Popper’s falsifiability criterion was a useless distortion of science? Interesting.

Interesting? I should have thought it was obvious. Kelly seems given to finding humor in that which is over her head. Intelligent Design is little more than an attempt to lend scientific credibility to a set of what are currently presumed to be non-scientific beliefs. ID is an imitation of science, not a redefinition of science, and like most imitations, stems from a fundamental respect for that which it imitates; that very respect for science is why ID proponents seek to establish its scientific legitimacy. If they can manage to develop a series of replicable experiments that support their theory, they will have earned that same respect from others.

His rhetorical question about the hazard posed to science by religion and the resulting “hostility” betrays his lack of awareness of just how detrimental religion has been to science. He busts out this gem: “Some of history’s greatest scientists are known to have been men of great Christian faith.”(p. 34) Well, if I lived in a time period during which I could be tortured, killed, or otherwise persecuted for my lack of belief, I’d likely be a “christian” as well. As for Vox’s assertion that the Dark Ages were not caused by christianity, all I can say is that is highly debatable. I am not prone to vilifying the Catholic church for rejection of science, at least not since Vatican II. They are likely the most progressive church from a scientific perspective (or possibly Episcopalians, but we all know that they have the same origins thanks to Henry VIII). Nevertheless, Vox again attempts to mislead the reader with his quote from Philip Jenkins (p. 35). The Dark Ages were brought on largely by the destruction of a large part of the knowledge base that had been acquired, like the library at Alexandria. Most documentation contrary to christian ideology was destroyed or interpolated. The average person has no idea that prior to that time period, the earth wasn’t thought of as flat, and even the concepts of evolution and atomic particles had already been postulated. The “monolithic church” was one that varied from country to country or region to region—nobody I know of ever asserted that one church had power over the entire known world. The fact remains that religious motivations and prohibitions caused most of what was essentially a millennium-long scientific void. Pointing out the various sects of christianity does nothing to disprove that. In his defense of the Dark Ages, Day mentions that an Italian Christian actually “coined” the term, so to speak, and that its meaning has been perverted by those who assign an anti-religious bias to it. I don’t know that there is a fallacy specific enough here, but it would seem to be similar to an etymological fallacy in that he is using a definition that has no support or relevance in modern society. The term “Dark Ages” may or may not have been anti-Germanic in origin—it is not now.

Several errors here. There is no hazard posed to science by religion. None. Kelly offers no evidence of this whatsoever, mostly because none exists, as I show in TIA. Kelly attempts to conflate "great Christian faith" with scare-quoted "christian", which is a silly evasion of the point and fails to address the rather obvious fact that three-quarters of the world was not Christian and yet has remained more scientifically backward than Christendom even to the present day. Kelly's arguments about the Dark Ages are remarkably stupid and expand our awareness of her historical ignorance, as I most certainly did not assert "that the Dark Ages were not caused by christianity" nor did I defend them, I pointed out that the Dark Ages never existed in the first place, and showed in TIA that this is a long-standing historical consensus that has been acknowledged by the Encyclopedia Britannica for more than seventy years. I should be very interested to hear Kelly instruct us on the state of science prior to the millennium-long scientific void that she posits was caused by "religious motivations and prohibitions"; it appears that she doesn't understand the difference between technological development and science. But she's correct, pointing out various sects of Christianity does nothing to disprove the existence of something that never existed. I should be quite interested to see her evidence of science, as she defined it above, in the pre-Christian era. UPDATE - Since I was just reading Plutarch six months ago, I am somewhat chagrined that Jason needed to remind me the library at Alexandria mentioned by Kelly was burned by Caesar more than four decades before the birth of Jesus Christ. Plutarch: " In this war, to begin with, Caesar encountered the peril of being shut off from water, since the canals were dammed up by the enemy; in the second place, when the enemy tried to cut off his fleet, he was forced to repel the danger by using fire, and this spread from the dockyards and destroyed the great library;"

He briefly touches on the French Enlightenment philosophers, just enough to hold them accountable for the French Revolution (again) for “weakening the social and judicial pressure” (p. 37) that had previously kept the proletariat silent. What a horrible thing to do! As I stated in my previous blog post, this will be dealt with in more depth later. One of Vox Day’s hobbies appears to be analyzing the order in which people place things conversationally so as to draw conclusions as to his/her motivations to do so. He spends some time on Dawkins, claiming that it is not science that he wishes to defend, but mostly his Enlightenment ideals. Mostly based upon the fact that Dawkins says that the “Enlightenment is in danger” and then lists science fourth in a list of other endangered ideologies. If that doesn’t leap off the page and scream “Non sequitor,” I don’t know what will.

Perhaps Kelly should ask Richard Dawkins which he believes is more in danger. I'm quite confident he has far more fear for his Enlightenment values than he does for science. In fact, if she thinks about it, she might even realize why evolutionary biologists are so much more concerned about threats to their "science" than are astrophysicists, economists, or any scientists in any other field.

He finishes off the chapter with more seemingly unrelated arguments concerning the (apparently) evil Enlightenment, never realizing that the reason why modern atheists seem to share so much with them is because that was essentially the birth of rationalism and empiricism, not some kind of ancient idol worship. As far as science in Iran goes, why exactly does he think science is booming there? Nuclear weapons, anybody? ICBMs? I am far from an alarmist, but let’s be realistic here. This was a pathetic attempt to, once again, vilify atheists and declare us guilty by association (through philosophical similarities) with people who may or may not have done terrible things, such as the killers of Lavoisier—somebody who one would think would have been well-received. I must say, his tactic is ingenious. Plant little seeds in your minds—make connections and correlations to atrocities which had nothing at all to do with me or the fact that there’s no proof for the existence of god and science just doesn’t apply to the supernatural—in order to have you nodding your head in agreement when he casts us as immoral baby killers (as he will shortly—we’ll get to it.) Very subversive; under the radar, but ultimately superficial. All you need to do is take a quarter and scrape off the silver lining to see the words “Better Luck Next Time.”

This is amusing, Kelly just stabbed her own definition of atheism in the back, since she previously argued that atheism has nothing to do with rationalism or empiricism. I know that Iranian science is booming - as if it is any different than the reason it was booming in 1950s America - the point is that it proves conclusively that religion, even fundamentalist religion, does not have any intrinsic tendency to inhibit the growth of science. As for science not applying to the supernatural, Kelly would do well to recall that even by her definition, science can certainly apply to the intersection of the supernatural with the natural, in fact, interactions between the detectable and the indetectable is the basis of a fair amount of so-called science today. But more significantly, Kelly seems to have missed the point that aside from a few of those little anti-atheist seeds she mentioned, there is simply nothing in this chapter with which an atheist need disagree in any way, shape or form. I conclude by noting that she did not bother to even mention, let alone criticize, the tripartite definition of science by an atheist scientist which I concluded was the most substantive and useful definition for clarifying the difference between science and not-science.

[Vox]

The Case Against Science?

Vox Day seems to have a proclivity towards using odd anecdotal evidence gleaned from the writings of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens in order to formulate his arguments against atheism, and he continues in the same vein in chapter three. In short order, we discover that “New Atheists” harbor outright hatred for religion and that we “science fetishists” believe that science “dictates” human behavior, rather than merely describing or explaining it.

It is humorous to see Vox attempt to argue that science, not religion, has outlived its usefulness to humanity—a reference to Daniel Dennett's theory in Breaking the Spell. There are thousands of phenomena that have yet to be explained thoroughly, countless cures for illnesses, and an innumerable amount of problems that can only be solved through the use of science. Ironically, Vox practically contradicts his personal beliefs by claiming that humanity has survived “millenia of religious belief,” but due to things like over-population and global warming, as well as the aforementioned development of WMDs, we may not survive a mere four centuries of science. (Four? He later claims it's really 60 years.) Considering that the overwhelming majority of scientific advancements have been positive and improved our quality of life, and there is still much work to be done, this argument is not tenable in any way, not to mention that Vox doesn't even believe that global warming is occurring. (nb: He does attempt to semi-dodge by adding the disclaimer, “If the prophets of...are correct,” but I find that to be borderline dishonesty considering his personal opinion on the matter. Vox is spinning this with centrifugal force.)

To illustrate his point, he opens up the chapter with a quote from Sam Harris that seems to acknowledge the danger posed by some of these scientific advancements insofar as it gives those with no fear of death (ie—the religious folks who believe that this is merely the prequel to their “real” life in heaven) the ability to destroy all of humanity to fulfill their destiny, whatever they feel that may be. Mutually assured destruction is merely hastening the grand finale of god's plan for our existence and leaves our supernatural dictator to sort the wheat from the chaff. From that perspective, it almost seems like a good idea.

I have no idea what this has to do with Harris' “Enlightenment utopianism” or the argument that religions have never created an atomic bomb or a carbon-producing, petroleum-guzzling automobile. Religion has also never created a defibrillator or an antibiotic. Why would it? It has absolutely nothing to say about technology of any sort, other than when it is referred to as being evil in some way. It seems that Vox is really grasping at straws here. It's as if he has created a false dichotomy of the vilification of science and the justification of religion. They are, and should be, completely separate issues. One of the biggest issues that atheists have with religion is the refusal to butt out of science. Science is not the opposite of religion, nor is it a religion. It is a method of explaining facts and observations and the world in which we live—at least to the best of our ability given our limited knowledge at any one point. (Think Descartes in Meditations regarding action without perfect knowledge.) Of course, it's not as if the five major religions listed by Vox, which oddly excludes Judaism, have not had weapons—the stone and the machete are still popular in some Middle Eastern countries, and that is certainly more painful and torturous than being shot or nuked.

His ultimate conclusion here is that the real danger is science, not faith. He misses the point that religious belief provides the impetus to use that technology. Not to sound like an NRA spokesman, but weapons don't kill people: People kill people. Overpopulation, pollution, and advanced weaponry are caused in part by science, but not in the nefarious way that Vox seems to imply. The detrimental effects seen in the post-Industrial Revolution era were both created by science and discovered by science. Hopefully, they will also be solved or at least diminished by science. Abandoning science is certainly not the solution, not to mention the fact that I don't think anybody, Vox included, wants to go back to the era of plagues, premature mortality, and endless manual labor just to survive. If you do, have fun eating tree bark.

Vox attributes the “responsibility” for the development of advanced weapons to science. How can science be responsible for anything at all? It is a method, a discipline with no agenda and no ability to do anything for which it could be held responsible. Would it not be the specific people who utilized science in order to formulate the things that Vox considers detrimental? What he does here would be akin to blaming highways for the criminals who use them to escape from police, despite the fact that the vast majority of drivers are on their way to some mundane job. I assert that Vox either misunderstands the meaning of the word “cause” or is just padding his argument with spurious claims.

He does attempt to rebut the impending criticisms, some of which are used here, but I find that his analogies are inaccurate. Cigarettes don't cause cancer if you don't smoke them, so once again, the onus of responsibility lies with the person making the choice to smoke. Inanimate objects, material or immaterial, cannot cogitate and are only tools used by people. Some people may use pencils to stab people—is the pencil responsible? We can even flip this argument around and say that since religion causes or has caused some negative events, then religion itself is responsible and no amount of good makes up for those atrocities. Vox will argue here that the real danger lies in mutually assured destruction, which no amount of faith is going to cause. That's true enough on the surface, but what if that faith is the motivation to use such a weapon? Belief in an afterlife of perfection and bliss doesn't tend to make one prize their, or anybody else's, time here on earth. If science is responsible for the negative repercussions of technology, then religion should be held to the same scrutiny, and thus his argument that religion doesn't cause violence is moot.

Vox argues that adherents of a religion should not be blamed for the actions of other, more radical, believers if we insist that all scientists should not be held accountable for the actions of a fringe minority. Again, this seems to make sense, but the fundamental difference between science and religion is that a scientific worldview does not endorse any particular activities—it is not a set of proscriptions and laws upon which your eternal soul depends. His assertion that individual believers are held accountable for the actions of other believers is inaccurate—it's not the other believers, it's the belief system. There are no threats of hell or promises of heaven for certain behaviors inherent in science—only the temporal consequences of the justice system. The only way that religion can be viewed as not directly inciting violence is by claiming that the texts upon which a religion is based are allegorical or outdated. All throughout the bible and the koran, violence is encouraged and even demanded. The whole basis for christianity is that god has some kind of bloodlust because of the evil system which he designed that required first animal sacrifice, and finally human sacrifice. We are all deserving of death from the moment of our births (maybe even conception since their argument is that blastocysts are human beings) and without Jesus' propitiatory sacrifice, we would all go to hell to be tormented for eternity. Sounds like good wholesome family values.

If the scriptures of any religion are inaccurate or outdated, then one must admit that their god is not omnipotent or omniscient. One of them has to go. Either he couldn't ensure their transmission without error, or he was just wrong about what was going to happen. If they are outdated, then god cannot be eternally existent as there would be no moment at which his commands or desires would expire. The bible recounts many examples of god changing his mind, (think Abraham and Lot, for example) but such behavior would be impossible for a being that exists outside of time and is unchanging, which leads us right back to omnipotence and omniscience. The whole anthropomorphized omnimax creator being is a concept so absurd that even those who believe in it cannot explain it or agree upon its foundational attributes. That should be a clue as to its veracity.

That makes it extremely ironic that soon after the aforementioned defense, Vox claims that it is better in some instances for humans to remain ignorant of certain things to prevent the damage they may cause. He says, “I am merely pointing out that the evidence suggests that in some circumstances, ignorance may be preferable to knowledge, especially partial knowledge imperfectly understood and enthusiastically embraced too soon.” (p. 50) A better description of religious belief is rarely uttered, although his intent was to disparage science. We would be much better off without the so-called “knowledge” of religion and imaginary sky-daddys.

Certainly, the words of Feynman and Dawkins on pages fifty-two to fifty-three are indeed true—science gives one the power to do good and evil. What one chooses to do with it is not the fault of the method by which it was developed. The designers of the first automobile didn't know about carbon dioxide and pollution resulting in potentially catastrophic global warming. Should they be blamed? Even Henry Ford, who made the mass production of automobiles possible, had no idea what the impact would be. Unfortunately, we just can't see into the future. It's like pharmaceutical development—a small percentage of people may have adverse effects, but if it is beneficial to most, then the risk is worth taking. If it is no more effective than a placebo but still has adverse effects, then there is nothing redeeming about it and it should be eliminated.

Vox returns to the Harris argument that science and faith produce a toxic concoction which may eradicate humanity and claims that Harris' logic is flawed because the real danger is science itself. I think that Vox is missing the point that both components are necessary and the removal of one eliminates, or at least reduces, the danger of the other. Again, if religion is the impetus behind the use of a weapon, even if only insofar as the person who is utilizing it feels assured that a better life awaits in eternity, like a suicide bomber, then religion is to blame for the unjustified use of that which was scientifically developed. Given that science has, in a very short time period, done more good for humanity than religion has in thousands of years, and that the negative effects do not outweigh the positive, we can conclude that it is a worthy endeavor. Religion, on the other hand, has done what? There are a few soup kitchens and homeless shelters, and that's great, but atheists do that as well. A recent study showed that non-religious physicians were more likely to treat the under-served and impoverished than their christian counterparts. There are missions in other countries, but what good is building a church in Guatemala when people are starving? Is proselytizing to an African woman going to save her child from Kwashiorkor's disease (a malnutrition related and fatal ailment)? Meanwhile, we have killing in the name of religion, child molestation due to the repressed sexuality forced upon Catholic priests, suicide bombers killing people everyday, and catastrophic events such as 9/11 which kill thousands. Oh, wait, that must have been the fault of the Wright brothers and others who laid the foundation for modern airplanes. One must conclude that an individual's personal comfort derived from religion is not enough benefit to make up for all of the detrimental effects. Religion should be recalled.

Vox has a few examples of how religion supposedly doesn't subvert science, which we all know is untrue. Just the idea that believing things based on faith without knowledge is virtuous is an abhorrent concept that is taught to children all over the world. He does the stem-cell bit, which I'm not even touching because this would be another three pages if I did. Interestingly, he claims that science forms the basis for a system of ethics, which is absolutely ridiculous. A scientist could be a utilitarian, a hedonist, a determinist, a humanist, an anything-ist—science has no fundamental ethical or philosophical worldview. Science is a methodology. Yes, it can influence people and the decisions they make, but that doesn't make it a religion. Vox Day also doesn't seem to realize that statistics are meaningless out of their context, and the reason why the US (which is NOT a christian nation) produces more scientific output than France, which he claims as the most atheistic country, but I don't know where he's getting that data from, is because we have more money. Shocking, I know. I wonder how much of that scientific output is from his brothers in christ as they develop more sophisticated weaponry.

Science has at times been slow to adopt new theories. Vox uses the example of antibiotics, and there are more, such as hand-washing preventing childbed fever, which killed thousands of women after giving birth soon after that process was institutionalized. Generally, this is because the new idea or product must be proven to work. We have antibiotics now and we know all about germs and hand-washing, so it is apparent that the scientific community relented. Meanwhile, some religions still cling to creationism, whether literally or loosely interpreted, and they have historically balked at every scientific discovery since heliocentrism until it is so well established that they look silly. Then they just re-interpret their obscure ancient myths to fit the new data and make ludicrous claims like Mohammed knew about atoms. The push to clothe creation in science and insert it in schools is a travesty. It's bad enough that people choose to teach their children fairy tales and to claim certainty where there is none. Religion has, and will continue to, dumb us down, as it makes us complacent participants in some grand play in which we are all just marionettes anyway.

[Vox]

Vox Day seems to have a proclivity towards using odd anecdotal evidence gleaned from the writings of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens in order to formulate his arguments against atheism, and he continues in the same vein in chapter three. In short order, we discover that “New Atheists” harbor outright hatred for religion and that we “science fetishists” believe that science “dictates” human behavior, rather than merely describing or explaining it.

Kelly says "odd anecdotal evidence", I say "the foundation of the central thesis of Sam Harris's book". Considering that without the Extinction Equation, his entire rationale for the desirability of the end of faith disappears, I'm quite confident that the weight of the evidence is in favor of my position. This chapter isn't an argument against atheism, it is an argument against the nonsensical and hypocritical way that many people, including atheists, tend to fetishize science. It is also one giant <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>, examining the other factor in Sam Harris's Extinction Equation and judging it by the standards he applies to Faith.

It is humorous to see Vox attempt to argue that science, not religion, has outlived its usefulness to humanity—a reference to Daniel Dennett's theory in Breaking the Spell. There are thousands of phenomena that have yet to be explained thoroughly, countless cures for illnesses, and an innumerable amount of problems that can only be solved through the use of science. Ironically, Vox practically contradicts his personal beliefs by claiming that humanity has survived “millenia of religious belief,” but due to things like over-population and global warming, as well as the aforementioned development of WMDs, we may not survive a mere four centuries of science. (Four? He later claims it's really 60 years.) Considering that the overwhelming majority of scientific advancements have been positive and improved our quality of life, and there is still much work to be done, this argument is not tenable in any way, not to mention that Vox doesn't even believe that global warming is occurring. (nb: He does attempt to semi-dodge by adding the disclaimer, “If the prophets of...are correct,” but I find that to be borderline dishonesty considering his personal opinion on the matter. Vox is spinning this with centrifugal force.)

No, what's humorous is that Kelly apparently still doesn't realize that my global warming skepticism is not dishonest but entirely justified; science has demonstrated quite clearly that global warming is not occurring and has not been occurring for the last ten years. It's always interesting to see how atheists cling to scientific evidence as some sort of holy grail until it turns against them. Kelly also evades the entire point of my argument. Is humanity in danger or is it not? If it is not in danger, than religion is at worst harmless. If it is in danger, are those threats the result of Man's possession of the scientific method or not? Kelly also seems to miss the obvious fact that no amount of fabulous and positive scientific advances can possibly outweigh a single negative advancement that wipes out the human race; she never even mentions the multiply-by-zero factor that I mentioned in this chapter. But keep in mind her implied assertion that science is responsible for these improvements in the quality of life, I shall be bringing it up later.

To illustrate his point, he opens up the chapter with a quote from Sam Harris that seems to acknowledge the danger posed by some of these scientific advancements insofar as it gives those with no fear of death (ie—the religious folks who believe that this is merely the prequel to their “real” life in heaven) the ability to destroy all of humanity to fulfill their destiny, whatever they feel that may be. Mutually assured destruction is merely hastening the grand finale of god's plan for our existence and leaves our supernatural dictator to sort the wheat from the chaff. From that perspective, it almost seems like a good idea. I have no idea what this has to do with Harris' “Enlightenment utopianism” or the argument that religions have never created an atomic bomb or a carbon-producing, petroleum-guzzling automobile. Religion has also never created a defibrillator or an antibiotic. Why would it? It has absolutely nothing to say about technology of any sort, other than when it is referred to as being evil in some way. It seems that Vox is really grasping at straws here. It's as if he has created a false dichotomy of the vilification of science and the justification of religion. They are, and should be, completely separate issues. One of the biggest issues that atheists have with religion is the refusal to butt out of science. Science is not the opposite of religion, nor is it a religion. It is a method of explaining facts and observations and the world in which we live—at least to the best of our ability given our limited knowledge at any one point. (Think Descartes in Meditations regarding action without perfect knowledge.) Of course, it's not as if the five major religions listed by Vox, which oddly excludes Judaism, have not had weapons—the stone and the machete are still popular in some Middle Eastern countries, and that is certainly more painful and torturous than being shot or nuked.

Kelly downright admits that she has missed the point, then goes on to fail to grasp the essential truth of science. As atheist scientists from Richard Fenynman to Richard Dawkins have pointed out, science is value neutral. Either all scientific knowledge should be pursued without limitation or religion is one of the many limiting factors which can reasonably be used to guide the direction in which the scientific method is applied by Mankind. I'd be interested to know Kelly's position, certainly Daniel Dennett and I appear to generally agree that the unlimited pursuit of scientific knowledge is a fool's game likely to end in disaster. I don't know why Kelly would think it is odd that a religion practiced by an insignificant fraction of the global population should be excluded from the five religions deemed to be major according to their number of adherents. Ah yes, as the famous plastic philosopher once noted, math is hard!

His ultimate conclusion here is that the real danger is science, not faith. He misses the point that religious belief provides the impetus to use that technology. Not to sound like an NRA spokesman, but weapons don't kill people: People kill people. Overpopulation, pollution, and advanced weaponry are caused in part by science, but not in the nefarious way that Vox seems to imply. The detrimental effects seen in the post-Industrial Revolution era were both created by science and discovered by science. Hopefully, they will also be solved or at least diminished by science. Abandoning science is certainly not the solution, not to mention the fact that I don't think anybody, Vox included, wants to go back to the era of plagues, premature mortality, and endless manual labor just to survive. If you do, have fun eating tree bark.

It depends. I think most people would rather eat tree bark and work endless manual labor than perish in nuclear fire or in an outbreak of bioengineered smallpox. Kelly is dancing around the existence of the dangers; she's rather like a man standing over a dead body with a smoking gun in his hand, arguing his innocence due to a lack of motive. Motive is not the sole factor in determining guilt for a crime, as the conventional formula is Motive, Means and Opportunity. One cannot use that which does not exist, therefore the existence of the threat stems primarily from the existence of the means. And of course, as I subsequently show in later chapters, religion is far from the only motive to make use of the more lethal fruits of science.

Vox attributes the “responsibility” for the development of advanced weapons to science. How can science be responsible for anything at all? It is a method, a discipline with no agenda and no ability to do anything for which it could be held responsible. Would it not be the specific people who utilized science in order to formulate the things that Vox considers detrimental? What he does here would be akin to blaming highways for the criminals who use them to escape from police, despite the fact that the vast majority of drivers are on their way to some mundane job. I assert that Vox either misunderstands the meaning of the word “cause” or is just padding his argument with spurious claims.

Kelly just wrote that science caused - at least in part - overpopulation, pollution, and advanced weaponry. But it can't be held responsible for anything at all? Shake it, baby! This is the inevitable dance performed by atheists whenever science is criticized in exactly the same terms as religion. How, one might as easily ask, can RELIGION be held responsible for anything at all? As is usually the case, Kelly is conflating the concept of moral responsibility with the concept of a causal factor. Her analogy is a poor one, a better one would be to point out that the existence of automobiles causes car accidents. She also very foolishly questions my grasp of the word "cause" when a quick glance at the dictionary would have shown her that she is ignoring the first definition provided in favor of the second.

<i>1. a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result;
2. the reason or motive for some human action</i>

Science is the thing that exists in such a way that some specific negative effects happen as a result. It is therefore a cause of the very ills that both Kelly and I recognize. This is basic English.

He does attempt to rebut the impending criticisms, some of which are used here, but I find that his analogies are inaccurate. Cigarettes don't cause cancer if you don't smoke them, so once again, the onus of responsibility lies with the person making the choice to smoke. Inanimate objects, material or immaterial, cannot cogitate and are only tools used by people. Some people may use pencils to stab people—is the pencil responsible? We can even flip this argument around and say that since religion causes or has caused some negative events, then religion itself is responsible and no amount of good makes up for those atrocities. Vox will argue here that the real danger lies in mutually assured destruction, which no amount of faith is going to cause. That's true enough on the surface, but what if that faith is the motivation to use such a weapon? Belief in an afterlife of perfection and bliss doesn't tend to make one prize their, or anybody else's, time here on earth. If science is responsible for the negative repercussions of technology, then religion should be held to the same scrutiny, and thus his argument that religion doesn't cause violence is moot.

Her argument would seem to shred the concept of secondhand smoke, now, wouldn't it? More importantly, cigarettes don't cause cancer if they don't exist. Again, she fails to graps the difference between moral responsibility and existential threat. The fact that a cliff cannot be morally responsible for anything that falls off it doesn't make it any less of a danger.

Vox argues that adherents of a religion should not be blamed for the actions of other, more radical, believers if we insist that all scientists should not be held accountable for the actions of a fringe minority. Again, this seems to make sense, but the fundamental difference between science and religion is that a scientific worldview does not endorse any particular activities—it is not a set of proscriptions and laws upon which your eternal soul depends. His assertion that individual believers are held accountable for the actions of other believers is inaccurate—it's not the other believers, it's the belief system. There are no threats of hell or promises of heaven for certain behaviors inherent in science—only the temporal consequences of the justice system. The only way that religion can be viewed as not directly inciting violence is by claiming that the texts upon which a religion is based are allegorical or outdated. All throughout the bible and the koran, violence is encouraged and even demanded. The whole basis for christianity is that god has some kind of bloodlust because of the evil system which he designed that required first animal sacrifice, and finally human sacrifice. We are all deserving of death from the moment of our births (maybe even conception since their argument is that blastocysts are human beings) and without Jesus' propitiatory sacrifice, we would all go to hell to be tormented for eternity. Sounds like good wholesome family values.

Kelly is unclear whether she is arguing that one believer should be held responsible for the actions of another believer or not. Harris, of course, argues that they are. I'd like some clarification from her on this. Of course, based on her earlier arguments, <i>a belief system</i> cannot be responsible for anything. She's arguing herself into knots.

If the scriptures of any religion are inaccurate or outdated, then one must admit that their god is not omnipotent or omniscient. One of them has to go. Either he couldn't ensure their transmission without error, or he was just wrong about what was going to happen. If they are outdated, then god cannot be eternally existent as there would be no moment at which his commands or desires would expire. The bible recounts many examples of god changing his mind, (think Abraham and Lot, for example) but such behavior would be impossible for a being that exists outside of time and is unchanging, which leads us right back to omnipotence and omniscience. The whole anthropomorphized omnimax creator being is a concept so absurd that even those who believe in it cannot explain it or agree upon its foundational attributes. That should be a clue as to its veracity.

This has nothing to do with the case against science. Moreover, I deal with precisely this point in a later chapter. Short answer: the Biblical God is probably not omniscient as He does not claim to be in His Word, various dogmas making claims on His behalf notwithstanding.

That makes it extremely ironic that soon after the aforementioned defense, Vox claims that it is better in some instances for humans to remain ignorant of certain things to prevent the damage they may cause. He says, “I am merely pointing out that the evidence suggests that in some circumstances, ignorance may be preferable to knowledge, especially partial knowledge imperfectly understood and enthusiastically embraced too soon.” (p. 50) A better description of religious belief is rarely uttered, although his intent was to disparage science. We would be much better off without the so-called “knowledge” of religion and imaginary sky-daddys. Certainly, the words of Feynman and Dawkins on pages fifty-two to fifty-three are indeed true—science gives one the power to do good and evil. What one chooses to do with it is not the fault of the method by which it was developed. The designers of the first automobile didn't know about carbon dioxide and pollution resulting in potentially catastrophic global warming. Should they be blamed? Even Henry Ford, who made the mass production of automobiles possible, had no idea what the impact would be. Unfortunately, we just can't see into the future. It's like pharmaceutical development—a small percentage of people may have adverse effects, but if it is beneficial to most, then the risk is worth taking. If it is no more effective than a placebo but still has adverse effects, then there is nothing redeeming about it and it should be eliminated.

Kelly is still hung up on blame and not on practical threats. There's nothing ironic about either statement, Kelly doesn't understand the issues well enough to recognize that. She is also blissfully unaware of the obvious fact that because science is value neutral, religion not only has a right but a duty to "butt in" to how science is utilized. How, one wonders, does she think Mankind is to decide to make use of a value-free method without applying values from various sources? As for effectiveness, there is no shortage of scientific evidence demonstrating that religion is empirically better for an individual than atheism; by Kelly's own logic atheism should be eliminated. Now, THAT is ironic.

Vox returns to the Harris argument that science and faith produce a toxic concoction which may eradicate humanity and claims that Harris' logic is flawed because the real danger is science itself. I think that Vox is missing the point that both components are necessary and the removal of one eliminates, or at least reduces, the danger of the other. Again, if religion is the impetus behind the use of a weapon, even if only insofar as the person who is utilizing it feels assured that a better life awaits in eternity, like a suicide bomber, then religion is to blame for the unjustified use of that which was scientifically developed. Given that science has, in a very short time period, done more good for humanity than religion has in thousands of years, and that the negative effects do not outweigh the positive, we can conclude that it is a worthy endeavor. Religion, on the other hand, has done what? There are a few soup kitchens and homeless shelters, and that's great, but atheists do that as well. A recent study showed that non-religious physicians were more likely to treat the under-served and impoverished than their christian counterparts. There are missions in other countries, but what good is building a church in Guatemala when people are starving? Is proselytizing to an African woman going to save her child from Kwashiorkor's disease (a malnutrition related and fatal ailment)? Meanwhile, we have killing in the name of religion, child molestation due to the repressed sexuality forced upon Catholic priests, suicide bombers killing people everyday, and catastrophic events such as 9/11 which kill thousands. Oh, wait, that must have been the fault of the Wright brothers and others who laid the foundation for modern airplanes. One must conclude that an individual's personal comfort derived from religion is not enough benefit to make up for all of the detrimental effects. Religion should be recalled.

Kelly goes completely off the deep end here, since religion is manifestly not necessary to many of the dangers currently posed by science. Whether CERN melts the earth or bioweapons escape the lab or Chinese factories cause the atmosphere to turn the planet into an overheated desert, religion has nothing to do with it. Kelly provides no evidence of religion's detrimental effects - for which she previously argued it can't be held responsible for anyhow, remember - and completely ignores the many positive ones that have been exhaustively chonicled everywhere from New Scientist magazine to Reader's Digest. Her argument smacks of an increasing desperation as she attempts to change the subject; what do child-molesting Catholic priests have to do with the potential threat that science poses mankind? And are they really any more sexually repressed than the public school employees who molest children at a higher rate than the priests ever did?

Vox has a few examples of how religion supposedly doesn't subvert science, which we all know is untrue. Just the idea that believing things based on faith without knowledge is virtuous is an abhorrent concept that is taught to children all over the world. He does the stem-cell bit, which I'm not even touching because this would be another three pages if I did. Interestingly, he claims that science forms the basis for a system of ethics, which is absolutely ridiculous. A scientist could be a utilitarian, a hedonist, a determinist, a humanist, an anything-ist—science has no fundamental ethical or philosophical worldview. Science is a methodology. Yes, it can influence people and the decisions they make, but that doesn't make it a religion. Vox Day also doesn't seem to realize that statistics are meaningless out of their context, and the reason why the US (which is NOT a christian nation) produces more scientific output than France, which he claims as the most atheistic country, but I don't know where he's getting that data from, is because we have more money. Shocking, I know. I wonder how much of that scientific output is from his brothers in christ as they develop more sophisticated weaponry.

Now she's banging on the table about the statistics without knowing the first thing about it. Hopeless. And, of course, since she knows nothing of economics, she doesn't realize that the USA is not the wealthiest country in the world. Wealth... that's why Lichtenstein and Norway produce the most science per capita, right?

Science has at times been slow to adopt new theories. Vox uses the example of antibiotics, and there are more, such as hand-washing preventing childbed fever, which killed thousands of women after giving birth soon after that process was institutionalized. Generally, this is because the new idea or product must be proven to work. We have antibiotics now and we know all about germs and hand-washing, so it is apparent that the scientific community relented. Meanwhile, some religions still cling to creationism, whether literally or loosely interpreted, and they have historically balked at every scientific discovery since heliocentrism until it is so well established that they look silly. Then they just re-interpret their obscure ancient myths to fit the new data and make ludicrous claims like Mohammed knew about atoms. The push to clothe creation in science and insert it in schools is a travesty. It's bad enough that people choose to teach their children fairy tales and to claim certainty where there is none. Religion has, and will continue to, dumb us down, as it makes us complacent participants in some grand play in which we are all just marionettes anyway.

Kelly should speak for herself. Religion clearly hasn't dumbed me down; since she's an atheist, I don't know what her excuse might be. The point, which again she managed to miss, is that the history of science demonstrates that it is scientists who have stood in the way of science to a greater degree than religion ever has. Numerous books have been written by generally pro-science individuals about this problem, irrelevant complaints about intelligent design don't refute or even weaken the very powerful case against science when it is examined in the same light that is much more often turned on religion.

[Vox]

Reason is a religion…with none of the defining characteristics of a religion. It is because Vox Day says so in Chapter 4, entitled “The Religion of Reason.” Aside from the humorous comparison between an atheist politician and a “toothless, illiterate, homosexual Afro-Hispanic crack whore with a peg-leg,” his opening salvo misses the point when he adds in the footnote that “it appears that telling people how evil and stupid they are may not be the best way of convincing them….” (p. 61) The reason that atheists are distrusted and, in some cases, despised is not because of intellectual elitism and snobbery—it’s because atheism has been caricatured and stigmatized as a pseudo-Satanic cult in most popular media. It is still not socially acceptable to be as open with one’s non-belief as those who believe are. Walking or driving around with merchandise that announces one’s lack of superstitious belief still draws glares or snide remarks mixed in with the head shaking and sympathetic looks. Meanwhile, almost nobody looks askance at people wearing jewelry depicting crosses and dead crucified men, and Jesus fish are practically ubiquitous. Nonetheless, atheists are unpopular—just not for that reason.

Vox relies on many non-scientific studies done by news organizations to prove his points in this chapter, which is fine as they can be a legitimate gauge of popular culture, but one must be careful to remember that these surveys are subject to many confounding factors that limit their usefulness—the most obvious being selection bias and lack of randomization. When a person chooses to call in to a place and voluntarily take a survey about an issue, they tend to have very strong feelings about the issue. People who don’t find religion to be an issue are not likely to waste their time. With that out of the way, he claims that people use the religion of a politician to have confirmation of their personal morality. Given the fact that within Christendom, people’s morality can vary widely even on issues such as abortion, capital punishment, and war, it wouldn’t seem to be a very accurate or reliable tool. With our current president displaying extreme bellicosity and having the honor of putting more people to death than any other during his gubernatorial term in Texas, his conversations with Jesus don’t appear to have had any effect. Life is precious and sacred—until it comes out of a vagina. After that, fuck turning the other cheek. Is anybody else confused? What happened to praying for those who persecute you and giving the thief your shirt after he steals your jacket? It seems that people are talking to lots of different Jesuses. Or the Jesus they are talking to suffers from dissociative identity disorder.

Day admits that these moral boundaries are theoretical, and thus nullifies his own argument. We have already figured out that religiosity is no guide to an individual’s behavior, whether they are engaged in politics or not. The Jimmy Bakkers and Ted Haggards of the world only confirm the hypocrisy that is evident in the actions of most every believer. Given these facts, perhaps we need a better moral determinant. Maybe we could try some less nebulous ways of getting this information—such as asking them? I know, it’s a radical change from assuming that they hold to a set of beliefs handed down to fictional characters millennia ago, but it just might offer more insight into the personal morality of our leaders.

Day then uses the absence of defining characteristics of atheism, aside from lack of god-belief, to bolster his argument that there is no way for a person to know what particular pursuits will be undertaken by the politician with no religion. While I agree that this is the case, it seems ironic that he (admittedly) reverses his opinion in this circumstance. Isn’t this chapter called “The Religion of Reason?” If it is in fact a religion, then there would surely be some tenets and guidelines. Moreover, he proceeds to go on and claim that, by and large, atheists “parasitically” adopt the morality of their “hosts”, AKA the religious people around us. Could it not be the case that the similarities in ethical belief systems lie in the evolutionary origins of morality? Humans have been selected for traits such as reciprocal altruism and empathy, and while the details may vary over time and cultures, the tendencies that lead one to believe that some standards must be adhered to have been hard-wired into the brains of those most successful at reproduction. The specific indulgences, such as premarital sex, prohibited by religion are just as easily discarded by the religious as the non-religious. It is not random, as he asserts, but rather based in our nature as social creatures dependant on one another and the maintenance of stable societies. Religion may have played a role in the establishment and development of these groups, but we have moved past the point where punishment from sky-daddys is necessary. That’s what the justice system is for, and if that isn’t enough of a deterrent, neither is god. As he again conflates atheism with communist fascism as proof of the willingness of atheists to kill, need I remind anybody of the violence inspired by religion throughout history? Oh wait, that only applies to atheists. When it’s religious people doing the killing, they’re merely power-hungry humans lying about their religious belief to attain the trust of the populace. It has nothing to do with religion. And leaders who claim a religious affiliation are still more trustworthy, despite all of that. Special pleading, anybody?

To be continued…seemingly ad infinitum. Seriously, there’s so much material here that just begs for a response, I’m practically swimming in notes. Well, as they say in Japan, with the closest English equivalent lacking all of the sentiment

http://www.rationalresponders.com/reason

[Vox]

Kelly Climbs Chapter IV

Actually, it would be more accurate to say that she glances at a topographical map of it and claims to have reached the summit on that basis. Rather like Richard Dawkins's absurd claims to have somehow refuted the massive Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas in less than three paltry pages, Kelly doesn't even make a half-hearted attempt at addressing the issues raised in the fourth chapter of The Irrational Atheist:

Reason is a Religion… with none of the defining characteristics of a religion. It is because Vox Day says so in Chapter 4, entitled “The Religion of Reason.” Aside from the humorous comparison between an atheist politician and a “toothless, illiterate, homosexual Afro-Hispanic crack whore with a peg-leg,” his opening salvo misses the point when he adds in the footnote that “it appears that telling people how evil and stupid they are may not be the best way of convincing them….” (p. 61) The reason that atheists are distrusted and, in some cases, despised is not because of intellectual elitism and snobbery—it’s because atheism has been caricatured and stigmatized as a pseudo-Satanic cult in most popular media. It is still not socially acceptable to be as open with one’s non-belief as those who believe are. Walking or driving around with merchandise that announces one’s lack of superstitious belief still draws glares or snide remarks mixed in with the head shaking and sympathetic looks. Meanwhile, almost nobody looks askance at people wearing jewelry depicting crosses and dead crucified men, and Jesus fish are practically ubiquitous. Nonetheless, atheists are unpopular—just not for that reason.

I always enjoy unpopular people attempting to explain to me the real reason they are unpopular, don't you? Because, after all, they should know, right? In this one paragraph, Kelly sheds a great deal of light on how she managed to become that rare bird, the female militant atheist. If she had even a smidgeon of the social awareness that God gives the average computer programmer, she'd understand that the reason no one looks askance at Christian accoutrements is that the Christian who makes a public statement is making statement about himself and his own beliefs. Atheists, on the other hand, are making a statement about everyone else and everyone else's beliefs. Unsurprisingly, everyone else tends to look on this askance.

Let me see if I can explain this in sufficiently simple terms. If I wear a shirt that says "I like chocolate", this does not offend anyone who prefers strawberry or vanilla. It is merely providing you with information about me. If, on the other hand, I wear a shirt that says "Vanilla is evil and everyone who likes it is stupid and bad", then I should not be surprised when those who happen to like vanilla are not favorably disposed towards me. It is not only providing you with information about me, it is providing you with information about my negative attitude towards you. And to those atheists who are so narcissistic as to believe that another individual's religion is a statement that somehow concerns them, I merely say: Get over yourself! Life, the universe and everything are not about you! UPDATE - since some people seem to be having problems understanding the distinction between an individual and his beliefs, let me point out that the information content of the "chocolate" cannot and should not be confused with the chocolate-loving individual. The fact that Christian theological implications can conceptually be applied to other individuals is no indication that the publicly identified Christian is doing so and to assume that these implications are always being applied is indicative of either narcissism or paranoia. "I love my God" says nothing about you. "Your God doesn't exist", on the other hand, clearly does. This really shouldn't be difficult to understand.

Most non-socially autistic individuals are aware that their actions don't take place in a vaccuum. By announcing "I am an atheist", one is also announcing to the world "There is a high probability that I possess a lot of the same fundamental personality defects that the annoying snot-nosed loser you hated at college did." Christians understand that they are lumped in with annoying doorknockers and sanctimonious Biblethumpers, which is why they often behave in a manner intended to put at ease those who find such behaviors annoying. If atheists don't like being regarded as annoying atheists, then they should stop behaving in an annoying manner and make it very clear from the start that they have no problem whatsoever with whatever religious absurdity the other person happens to believe. It's really not that hard... if you're not myopically self-obsessed.

Vox relies on many non-scientific studies done by news organizations to prove his points in this chapter, which is fine as they can be a legitimate gauge of popular culture, but one must be careful to remember that these surveys are subject to many confounding factors that limit their usefulness—the most obvious being selection bias and lack of randomization. When a person chooses to call in to a place and voluntarily take a survey about an issue, they tend to have very strong feelings about the issue. People who don’t find religion to be an issue are not likely to waste their time.

Surprise, surprise, Kelly not only doesn't believe in God, she doesn't believe the efficacy of polling when she doesn't like the results. At least, unlike the New Atheists for the most part, I actually made use of relevant and legitimate data produced by reputable organizations as well as noting the fundamental flaws related to religion-related polls in an earlier chapter. Now, how, precisely, would one produce "scientific studies" of the popularity or unpopularity of atheists anyhow?

With that out of the way, he claims that people use the religion of a politician to have confirmation of their personal morality. Given the fact that within Christendom, people’s morality can vary widely even on issues such as abortion, capital punishment, and war, it wouldn’t seem to be a very accurate or reliable tool. With our current president displaying extreme bellicosity and having the honor of putting more people to death than any other during his gubernatorial term in Texas, his conversations with Jesus don’t appear to have had any effect. Life is precious and sacred—until it comes out of a vagina. After that, fuck turning the other cheek. Is anybody else confused? What happened to praying for those who persecute you and giving the thief your shirt after he steals your jacket? It seems that people are talking to lots of different Jesuses. Or the Jesus they are talking to suffers from dissociative identity disorder.

As Richard Dawkins pointed out in The Blind Watchmaker, some information is better than none. Like a number of Internet atheists, Kelly has averred that a person's atheism says nothing about that individual except their position on the existence of God, so she shouldn't find it difficult to understand that people seldom like the idea of electing a complete tabula rasa, Barack Obama's current popularity notwithstanding.

Day admits that these moral boundaries are theoretical, and thus nullifies his own argument. We have already figured out that religiosity is no guide to an individual’s behavior, whether they are engaged in politics or not. The Jimmy Bakkers and Ted Haggards of the world only confirm the hypocrisy that is evident in the actions of most every believer. Given these facts, perhaps we need a better moral determinant. Maybe we could try some less nebulous ways of getting this information—such as asking them? I know, it’s a radical change from assuming that they hold to a set of beliefs handed down to fictional characters millennia ago, but it just might offer more insight into the personal morality of our leaders.

The fact that the moral boundaries are abstract doesn't make them irrelevant or nullify the argument given the important role that perception plays in democratic elections, especially at the national level where most of the voters will never meet or lay eyes upon the candidate. The fact that a man may not abide perfectly by the moral standard indicated by his professed religion is not synonymous with a complete absence of information about his morals and beliefs. Kelly is simply babbling here, she's in over her head again and she doesn't realize it. I wonder if she realizes that she is seriously suggesting that the electorate should ask politicians to publicly define their personal moralities. Can anyone spot the small logical flaw in that brilliant plan?

Day then uses the absence of defining characteristics of atheism, aside from lack of god-belief, to bolster his argument that there is no way for a person to know what particular pursuits will be undertaken by the politician with no religion. While I agree that this is the case, it seems ironic that he (admittedly) reverses his opinion in this circumstance. Isn’t this chapter called “The Religion of Reason?” If it is in fact a religion, then there would surely be some tenets and guidelines.

Like most social autists, Kelly has trouble recognizing metaphor and other non-literal forms of communication. Reason is more precisely described as a fetish (any object eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion) for most atheists, although they honor it primarily in absentia.

Moreover, he proceeds to go on and claim that, by and large, atheists “parasitically” adopt the morality of their “hosts”, AKA the religious people around us. Could it not be the case that the similarities in ethical belief systems lie in the evolutionary origins of morality? Humans have been selected for traits such as reciprocal altruism and empathy, and while the details may vary over time and cultures, the tendencies that lead one to believe that some standards must be adhered to have been hard-wired into the brains of those most successful at reproduction. The specific indulgences, such as premarital sex, prohibited by religion are just as easily discarded by the religious as the non-religious. It is not random, as he asserts, but rather based in our nature as social creatures dependant on one another and the maintenance of stable societies. Religion may have played a role in the establishment and development of these groups, but we have moved past the point where punishment from sky-daddys is necessary. That’s what the justice system is for, and if that isn’t enough of a deterrent, neither is god.

Could it be the case? Perhaps. Is it the case? Almost surely not, given the historical evidence of the difference between Christian morality and the pagan moralities that preceded and followed it. Ethical belief systems are far less similar than atheists would usually have one think, of course, an atheist attempting to compare ethical systems is rather like a deaf man attempting to distinguish between Mozart and Vivaldi.

As he again conflates atheism with communist fascism as proof of the willingness of atheists to kill, need I remind anybody of the violence inspired by religion throughout history? Oh wait, that only applies to atheists. When it’s religious people doing the killing, they’re merely power-hungry humans lying about their religious belief to attain the trust of the populace. It has nothing to do with religion. And leaders who claim a religious affiliation are still more trustworthy, despite all of that. Special pleading, anybody?

And incredibly, Kelly makes yet another lame attempt to claim that militant atheists were No True Atheists because they also happened to belong to a certain political party. It appears she hasn't made it to Chapter XIII yet, which specifically addresses this point in detail. The relevant point isn't that religious people don't ever kill - all are fallen - but that religious people are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less likely than atheists to kill when they are in positions that enable them to do so. I suppose it should be expected that Kelly would find this statistical reality to be an incredible coincidence, though, since her entire worldview is founded on a series of incredible improbabilities occurring for no reason at all. Life must be interesting for the atheist, coming as it does in a series of totally unexpected, completely unconnected surprises.

While this may be what passes for "well-reasoned" by an atheist, it isn't a rebuttal and it doesn't even rise to the level of a genuine critique. Kelly must be able to do better than this; she should be embarrassed to be presenting this shallow, stream-of-consciousness drivel with a straight face.

[bond09]

Day addresses the anti-religious arguments advanced by authors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, whom he labels the "New atheists." Rather than argue for the existence of a particular god, the book concentrates on highlighting flaws in anti-religious arguments. bye the way get medications Online Pharmacy dont go out just log on in Day, like Dinesh D'Souza, asserts that even the worst atrocities caused by religion "are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century."[1] Day claims that over half of those leaders he identifies as atheists have committed acts of mass atrocity and argues that mass murder is typical behavior for atheist leaders and exceedingly rare for Christian leaders.

[xzc3aks6]

The stats, let us hold a visage at the gladiator set; they are rattling wow power leveling the opposition of apiece another. You are essentially trading crit/AP for resilience/stamina. It rattling seems Storm is making PVE wow power leveling accommodate the first for PVE, and PVP appurtenances the optimal for PVP.

[xzc3aks6]

demonstrate's 17-year-old wow power leveling Xiao Si cleansing up, carrying the litter discuss, the succeeding travel to simulate wow gold the exoteric Old Blackamoor. To a steep Flowers in slicker wow power leveling of locomote, all awe out of the less Sri Lanka, the people came transport

[two0426]

before the last boss to capture this beautiful screenshot. Gondwana may be getting an achievement for finishing A-N, but I strongly suspect that it'll be stripped from her after the required urinalysis wow power leveling wow gold wedding dresses aion gold wow power leveling Remember to include your player name, server and/or guild if you want it mentioned. Please include the word "Azeroth" in your post so it does not get swept into the spam bin. We strongly prefer full screen
shots without the UI showing -- use alt-Z to remove it. Please, no more battleground scoreboards, double-mounts, or pictures of the Ninja Turtles in Dalaran. New downloads available.The fansite kit has been updated. A lot of new goodies that are good for your guild's website.
The WoW music is now for sale on itunes! Hooray.Head on over to the iTunes store to get your copy of one or all of the 15 unique arrangements from wow power leveling Echoes of War: The Music of Blizzard Entertainment. This new album was recently released on CD, and has now been added to iTunes as well. It features 90 minutes of music in all, based on tracks from our
games, including wjksmsmmsw the upcoming StarCraft II and Diablo III. Individual tracks are available on iTunes for 99 cents each. For more details, check out the Echoes of War
Itunes now has some new WoW music up! aion gold click wow gold, buy cheapest wow gold now 0511 LJ!

[xzc3aks6]

Specified as vegetables wow gold regular sent to Baoxia, the concentrated thought Xifeng. Feng's not power leveling bullied of solid work, day by day according to minute over, Dianmao director Motion unparalleled in the Bao Xia, Chow Li does not clubable with the semipublic, there is not shuttle between girls of power leveling the descent.