Quote of the Day

On Facebook, in the "Info Section," they ask for your religion. Instead of listing "Christian" or "Atheist" or whatever, my friend posted a link to this video. Very cute.

Will Western Civilization End in Your Lifetime? Yes, Probably

Over at Seasons of Tumult and Change, Talleyrand and his pals are speculating about the "fall of Western civilization." Will it happen? Yep, that's the consensus. When? Perhaps quite soon.

Tal lists "24 reasons given for why the Roman Empire fell," and claims America has achieved 21 of them. Yep, 21 out of 24. He writes: "The betting pool for when the West collapses into chaos begins now. Only gold please, no fiat cigarette rolling paper."

I've been very leery of making predictions.

Back in April, I wrote...

I make no predictions. I can only state a single truth: "Ideas have consequences"...

If the day should come when a critical mass of Americans believe… 1) We are nothing more than hairless apes, and 2) Free will is an illusion...Then it’s hard to see how freedom can survive more than another 1-2 generations...unless, of course, there's some sort of intellectual renaissance.

The next month, when writing about the economic crisis, I declared...

We might be on the verge of an economic/social paradigm shift not seen since the 1930's!

Should we be concerned? Absolutely. From the perspective of a typical American, it's one thing to be out of a job for a while with the understanding that prosperity is "right 'round the corner." It's quite another thing when our economic system is shaken to its very core and our our standard of living is thrown into doubt. Right now, I would wager that we are between those 2 perspectives, but over the next 1-3 years, we may solidly be in the 2nd perspective...

We may be on the cusp of a total revolution in America's political, economic, and moral order. Or...then again...maybe not.

I've been coy in the past, but I'll be more blunt today:

As I commented on Talleyrand's site...

Yes, if I was a betting man, I would bet on the collapse of the West in my lifetime. But it’s far from guaranteed. And it will almost certainly be a gradual process – with some brief recoveries in between.

Why the pessimism?

First let me set the context: The mystery isn't why the West will collapse ("all good things must come an end"). No, the mystery is how the West was able to last as long as it did!

Think about it: For thousands of years of human history, life all across the world life was - to quote Hobbes - "nasty, brutish, and short." Then, in one small region of the world in one brief window of time, a civilization emerged in which people (on average) lived for 75+ years in excellent health, enjoyed an economic quality of life unimaginable to their ancestors, experienced freedom from tyranny and violence, and entertained nearly limitless opportunities for creativity and self-expression.

This civilization (first blossoming in the US, Great Britain, France, and Holland in the 18th century, spreading to most of Western Europe by the late 19th century, and spreading even into remote corners like Latin America by late 20th century) was no accident. And it was not inevitable. It was a coming together of a religion and a philosophy.

As I wrote in January...

I've never felt comfortable when politicians describe America as a "Judeo-Christian country" or reaffirm the need to preserve our "Judeo-Christian values"...It defines our country, our values, and our heritage through religion alone.

About a year ago, I coined the term "Christian-Enlightenment" because it combines the religion of the West (Christianity) with the ground-breaking Enlightenment ideas (freedom, reason, the Scientific Method, etc.) that enabled the West to dominate the world.

Ethiopia is a "Judeo-Christian" country, but it's one of the worst countries on Earth because it doesn't have the Enlightenment heritage of Europe and the United States.

The West is a product of the "Christian-Enlightenment." The "Christian Enlightenment" unlocked the "genius of man" - the genius of the rational man - unencumbered by religious superstition or political oppression. But how many people in the West realize that? Not many. And therein lies our problem. How can we preserve Western civilization when so few of us understand it?

Thankfully, the Founding Fathers understood it. They were the product of "The Age of Reason." They created the institutions and customs to preserve it. And when the European intellectuals started abandoning Reason in the mid-19th Century (and totally gave up on it by the end of World War One), only the U.S. was able to stop the descent into the abyss.

Why? Because of the Founders. They created the framework for the U.S. to become an economic superpower - and that economic power - in time - became military power - unprecedented military power.

When Europe started obeying the Second Law of Political Dynamics ("everything turns to shit") - abandoning reason and embracing a pair of horrific mysticisms - only the U.S. could, and did, save them.

When the Nazis conquered Europe, only the U.S. could, and did, save them. France surrendered with barely a fight. Great Britain had the resources to resist invasion, but not to roll back the Nazi Empire. Only the U.S. could do it. And years later, only the U.S. - for the same reasons - could resist Communism when that other irrational ideology consumed one-third of the world, and threatened to overrun the other two-thirds.

Since 2001, the U.S. has been experiencing a major economic decline - although it was able to mask that decline for 7 years by borrowing from China and other hostile foreign powers to finance a consumer binge at home while also undertaking a modern-day illogical "White Man's Burden" in Iraq and Afghanistan. To achieve those goals, this year, the federal government will run a $1.8 trillion deficit. And over the next 10 years, the U.S. debt is expected to double to almost $20 trillion. We are broke. So, so broke.

As we saw during the Great Depression, the world doesn't react well to sustained economic downturns (the rise of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, World War Two, etc). Thus, we're in for a rough 5-10 years, to say the least. Can we stop the decline? Can we reverse it?

I'd say "no."


To quote Charles Murray...

What's happening? Call it the Europe syndrome. Last April I had occasion to speak in Zurich, where I made some of these same points. After the speech, a few of the twenty-something members of the audience approached and said plainly that the phrase "a life well-lived" did not have meaning for them. They were having a great time with their current sex partner and new BMW and the vacation home in Majorca, and saw no voids in their lives that needed filling.

And how do we reverse this "Europe Syndrome?" According to Mr. Murray, we need a "political Great Awakening among America's elites."

When I say that something akin to a political Great Awakening is required among America's elites, what I mean is that America's elites have to ask themselves how much they really do value what has made America exceptional, and what they are willing to do to preserve it.

Indeed. But later on, Mr. Murray claims that Reductionist science will save the West. Seriously! as I pointed out in my essay...

In his acceptance speech, Mr. Murray correctly diagnoses the "bag of chemicals" philosophy as the source of the "Europe Syndrome," but he doesn't recognize that the syndrome can't be defeated by only treating the symptoms (in this case, rolling back the welfare state). The syndrome itself (reductionism) must be treated, as well. In some of the best unintentional comedy ever found in a political speech, Mr. Murray thinks reductionist science will help advance the conservative movement and facilitate the "happiness of the people!" Ha!

Ah yes, Reductionism. I won't do here another full-scale dissection of Reductionism here. Let's just accept that it exists and it's quite powerful. M'kay? M'kay.

As I wrote to Talleyrand on Sep. 3...

Today, Reductionist premises are ubiquitous through our public schools, universities, mass media, popular culture, legal system, and political system…Indeed, probably the only institution in modern society that hasn’t been infected is organized religion…Thank God for that, I guess.

I am 29. I assume you’re around my age. If that’s the case, we are only the second generation to be heavily exposed to Reductionist thinking (with very little resistance from organized religion, in most cases). The first generation was lucky. They lived off the fumes of an earlier Christian/Enlightenment culture. Today, those of us who are under 30 are living off the FUMES OF FUMES.

Again, at the risk of sounding over-dramatic, our generation will either be the one that begins an Intellectual/Spiritual Renaissance, or we will be the first generation in American history to know the twin evils of anarchy and tyranny.

Yes. The Elites are Reductionists. And the Christian Fundies are morons. Thus, it's almost irrelevant whether the Reductionist Party (the Democrats) or the Fundie Party (the Republicans) holds power. Both of them are actively undermining the vision of the Founding Fathers. They are destroying reason in place of mysticism.

As I wrote to Talleyrand in a separate post....

A "rational civilization" needs only 2 things...

1) A citizenry that believes in the power of reason - i.e., that people have the intellectual and moral capacity to live their own lives with a minimum of outside coercion (coercion from a government agency or a religious body or whatever), and

2) A government that operates in a way that enables its "rational citizens" to flourish (i.e, a government of limited powers that can maintain law and order).

By those standards, which civilizations are "rational?" Not many. The United States, Israel, and the Anglosphere (Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand). Maybe one or two others.

And obviously, all of those countries are in danger today, because the idea that reason is good for humanity - indeed, the very CONCEPT that reason even exists - is under attack.

Actually, reason - at least as a political matter - is already gone. In retrospect, history will probably the record the year 2008 as the year that the American people lost control of their government. If that's true, the collapse of the West is already "baked in."



When both the GOP and the Democrats ganged up on the taxpayers to bail out Wall Street crooks to the tune of $700 billion (actually a lot more than that) and destroyed the ethos of the capitalist system and the spirit of the American Dream ("if you work hard and play by the rules, you'll do OK) - and did it despite unprecedented voter opposition - then we knew "something was rotten in the state of Denmark.

Today, we've reached a state of "demoschlerosis" that can't be resolved through constitutional means. When that bill was signed into law - the vision of the Founding Fathers and the American Republic - was given its lethal injection.

The Reductionists grow in power. And the Christian Fundies - while still powerful in many ways - refuse to learn and grow up. As for the rest of us? We sit and stew. And write. But we haven't reached a critical mass. I've entertained hopes for an "Intellectual Renaissance." And I still do. But now I'm starting to move those hopes to AFTER the collapse, not BEFORE the collapse, and thus avoiding the need for a collapse altogether.




So what does the future hold?

I’ll bounce this idea as pure speculation (not a prediction):

The world in 2050…

The US as a violent, economically-sluggish tyranny (think Cold War-era Latin America), China as the world’s economic superpower, but still a tyranny (in some ways, even more oppressive than today), Europe in a state of civil war (think 90s-era Yugoslavia), the Arab World in Stone Age conditions (with China controlling the oil-producing regions by force), Australia as a rising democracy (with large numbers of refugees from Europe and the US), Japan as a vassal state of China, India still growing peacefully (but behind China), Latin America dysfunctional (just like today) and Africa horrific (just like today).

Thoughts?

A Comment Thread to a Christian Nation

Last year, when I criticized C.S. Lewis (arguably the most famous Christian apologist of the 20th century), I wrote, "If [his book] Mere Christianity is the best defense of Christianity today, then that religion (at least the way it’s practiced today) is in even more trouble than I thought."

One of the aspirants to Lewis' throne is Vox Day, author of The Irrational Atheist, and host of the popular Vox Popoli website. As the title of his book implies, Vox sees himself as a proud, unapologetic defender of Christianity and an ardent foe of atheism. To that, I say: "Good." We need more rational defenses of faith - and while I myself am not a Christian - I welcome a rational defense of that religion. In fact, I've always kept the door open to that religion (or any religion) based on the facts and the evidence that comes with it.

Well...Today, Vox posted a new new essay, Letter to Common Sense Atheism. And based on that essay - and the discussion which unfolded afterward - I can safely say that Mr. Vox is not the man who will successfully convert atheists to God, or theists (like myself) to Christianity.


This was my original comment...

Vox writes, "Why am I a Christian? Because I believe in evil. "

I don't know to what extent Vox wants to persuade his non-Christian readers , but if that is his mission, I, for one, am not persuaded.

As I wrote in my essay, "Why I Am Not A Christian (At Least Not Yet)"...

The 'truth' of Christianity rests on the validity of Revelation - the numerous Revelations of the Old Testament (in which God plays an active role in human affairs) and the Revelation of the New Testament (in which the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is sacrificed to redeem humanity). The fact that Jesus was a nice guy or that the 10 Commandments are 'good principles of living' are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the Revelation...

Where is the evidence for God’s Revelation? Yes, I think it is fair to ask for some evidence – some fact that can be identified by the senses, and integrated by our rational brains – something like say, the existence of the Ark of the Covenant, or an independent, non-Biblical account of Jesus' ministry (even the Gospels were written at least 3 decades after his death). There is none.

But the issue goes beyond sensory, historical evidence. Perhaps we could accept 'on faith' that Christianity is true – even if the physical evidence was lacking – if we had strong reason to believe – through experience - that God’s Word (as expressed through the Bible) was valid. In other words: Is it reasonable to affirm that the practice of Christianity (just the practice) leads to morality, happiness, and success? Again, the answer is 'no.' And in many cases, Christianity leads to just the opposite: immorality, despair, and failure.

Why?

Well, that’s a complicated issue. But in the interest of time, I will simply say, “Because it is not consistent with Reality.” There are too many Christian teachings that are either contradictory or flat-out wrong to lead people to a better future. It is not unreasonable of us to expect that God’s Word would be better than Christianity what has delivered thus far (more understandable, more universal, and certainly more positive in its results).

How did Vox reply? Very rationally and convincingly...

Another non-reader of TIA, I see. This is a remarkably ignorant argument. Like far too many atheists, you clearly don't understand the word "evidence". I suggest you consult a dictionary.

This didn't sit well with me. So I replied..

Number one, I'm not an atheist. I believe in God. And number two...um...Wow...your rebuttal is to suggest that I "consult a dictionary." That's pitiful, man. Seriously.

VD:

No, Todd, what is pitiful is that you need to consult a dictionary because clearly you do not understand the meaning of the word "evidence". Now, you may not be an atheist, but it is a VERY common atheist error to confuse "scientific evidence" with "evidence". And that is all that is required to rebut your very common and very ignorant argument.

You see, it is totally irrelevant how unconvincing you may personally find the evidence to be, the indisputable fact of the matter is that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the claim of God's Revelation. And the Bible is itself historical evidence, by every historical standard very reliable historical evidence, which makes the statement that there is no evidence of God's Revelation downright absurd. And, as has already been pointed out, there are numerous independent, non-Biblical accounts of Jesus Christ's ministry.

Of course, this won't cause you to change your mind because a complete absence of evidence is not the real reason you don't believe, that's merely your ex post facto rationalization for an absence of belief. It's entirely normal, of course, but don't fool yourself. Now that you know your stated grounds for belief have been disproved, you don't feel any need to believe, so you'll simply move your personal goalposts to "scientific evidence" or something. Which is fine, and again, entirely normal.

Never mind, of course, that science can't even seem to decide if butter is healthy or unhealthy based on the evidence.

Me:

VD: “There is a great deal of evidence supporting the claim of God's Revelation.”

TW: Fine. Then say that, dude! Don’t tell me to “consult a dictionary to define evidence” which is not only rude, but also blatantly unwarranted based on what I had written.

VD: “There are numerous independent, non-Biblical accounts of Jesus Christ's ministry.”

TW: Really? Name one.

VD: Of course, this won't cause you to change your mind because a complete absence of evidence is not the real reason you don't believe, that's merely your ex post facto rationalization for an absence of belief.”

TW: Dude why are you so angry at me? I’m trying to have a good-faith discussion with your readers, and you inject by projecting a negative psychoanalytical fantasy on me. Do you really think that helps build your credibility, either with me or your readers?

VD replies (and then I reply again), but you get the point. Obviously, VD is very eager to question my motives without ever addressing the concerns I raised in my original post. And his demand that I "look up the word 'evidence' in the dictionary" is downright bizarre. I'm tempted to say it's a sign of a pretty mediocre mind. But that wouldn't be very Christian of me!

Anyway, what I said about C.S. Lewis last year applies equally to Vox Day: If Vox is the best Christian apologist alive, then Christianity is in more even more trouble than I thought.

The rationale of the "Voxsphere" can be summarized by what I wrote regarding Andrew Sullivan's blog a while back...

The basic atheist argument is: “There’s no proof for the existence in God; it’s irrational.” And the typical Christian response is: “There’s no proof that God does NOT existence. Thus, I have the right to believe whatever I want.” While the words change, the basic argument is repeated over and over again.

I keep waiting for the NEXT email to actually be interesting and informative, but it never happens.

I can only bow my head and ask: We can do better than this, can’t we?? Can’t we??

Vox, if you're reading this: It ain't nothin' personal, dude. I'll still swing by your website periodically (it's still on my Blog Lost), and I'll comment when the mood strikes me. But as an apologist for Christianity, you ain't that good. Sorry.

Anyway...The whole comment thread is worth reading - if only to experience the futility of Christian fundamentalist logic...I try to ground my arguments in reason, but it doesn't faze them. I ask for responses based on reason, but I never get them. Oh well. They're better than the Gamers, but not by much.

To be continued...

Note: The title of my post is a spoof of Sam Harris' best seller, Letter to a Christian Nation.

Note: This recent blog post by Will Wilkinson contains some good info regarding debate skills. When I see those skills exhibited by Mr. Day, I might start taking him more seriously.

-Todd


**UPDATE, SEP. 22, 2009**



Oh dear! It looks like a lot of my comments on Vox's thread were deleted. I'm guessing that's not a accident.

Eh, whatever. I already cut and pasted the old thread (with all of my comments) into a separate Word document (Yep, I ain't kidding). Sometimes it pays to be paranoid!


**UPDATE, SEP. 22, 2009, PART 2**


Yep, Vox confirms it. My rational, thoughtful questions and answers were deleted without provocation. Needless to say, this confirms my earlier statement above...

Vox, if you're reading this: It ain't nothin' personal, dude. I'll still swing by your website periodically (it's still on my Blog Lost), and I'll comment when the mood strikes me. But as an apologist for Christianity, you ain't that good. Sorry.

And that was BEFORE my comments were deleted.

A good Christian apologist would never engage in such a malicious behavior to stifle a debate. I can see no justification for it.

Needless to say, I won't be returning to his website anytime soon.

"What is God's Morality?"

As part of the comment thread to Requiem for a Nightmare, Chuck Ross asked me: "What is God's morality? Where is it found?"

Give Chuck credit; he doesn't focus on trivialities.

This is what I wrote in response...

This is a question to which some context is necessary before providing an answer.

First, I think there is wisdom in John 1:1, which is usually translated as, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Actually, what we moderns call “Word” is better translated as “Logos.”

“Logos” is the Greek word for "wisdom" or "reason" (see the Wikipedia entry).

Thus, “God is the ‘Reason.’ And the ‘Reason’ is ‘God.’”

You asked, “What is God’s morality? Where is it found?”

Dare I answer: To know God is to know ‘The Reason.’

To quote Ayn Rand: “Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.”

On another occasion, she wrote: “Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice.”

In stating that Life requires “rational ethics,” Rand was revitalizing the vision of Aristotle (a vision affirmed by Christianity, but sadly, rarely practiced).

To quote Aristotle: “The human function is activity of the soul in accord with reason…Virtue ('arete') then is a settled disposition of the mind determining the choice of actions and emotions, consisting essentially in the observance of the mean relative to us, this being determined by principle, that is, as the prudent man would determine it.”

So again: “Where is God’s morality?” It’s both inside us (Reason) and outside us (Logos). And “what IS God’s morality?” There are no moral commandments (as Rand said, a “moral commandment is a contradiction in terms"). Rather, there is only the strong recommendation that one use his rational power at all times to secure the Good: The Good being his own Life. And every goal and value that affirms his life.

Quote of the Day

"There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." —J. Robert Oppenheimer, The Open Mind

Weekly Wrap-Up

Game is the Red Pill: A clip from my comment: "If you ground a relationship on the Game/Red Pill philosophy, I don't think it can work in the long-run...A better approach is to recognize the truth that men SHOULD be confident, courageous, etc (which has been around a lot longer than Game), but without all this 'feeble seed' mumbo jumbo which negates the possibility of sincere love between 2 people - regardless of their status in society."


Oh, that reminds me: I've taken down all of the pro-Game sites on my Blog List (with the exception of In Mala Fide). I'm basically done with this issue. A person can only wallow in the darkness for so long; at first, it's mildly intriguing; you're curious and you want to explore. But after a while, it starts to wear you down emotionally. Then you shrug your shoulders and declare: "OK, let's move on."


Dr. Michael Egnor on the Dawkins-Armstrong Debate: "The debate with New Atheism is a debate about the rationality of belief in God, and the basis for that rational belief is built on several millennia of profound philosophical insight. The effective theist answer to New Atheist casuistry is not to point out that we feel awe and a sense of mystery and that the object of that awe must be God; the theist answer to New Atheists is that God’s existence is logically demonstrable, and that His existence is the indispensable basis for reason, science, and morality."


How NOT to Argue for God's existence: Jim Manzi begs the Darwinists to allow him to have a slim, tiny hope that God somewhere, somehow exists.


Darwin Too Controversial for Hollywood? "What good is Hollywood's liberal bias if film distributors won't carry a film about Charles Darwin?" Wait, I'm confused. Liberals see Charles Darwin as an ally? Who's gonna tell the Darwinian Conservatives!


An animal only Darwin could love: Snake With Foot Found in China. I wonder if he's related to this guy?


A mystery to chew on: Life Existed in the Oceans 200 Million Years Before Oxygen Appeared on Earth.


Another mystery: Israeli Scientists Discover "Center of Consciousness" in Brain.


Neurolaw on the Stand: A fine introduction to an emerging controversy.

Is "Atheist Conservative" an Oxymoron?

This week, Lawrence Auster is hosting another illuminating discussion about the compatibility between conservatism and the HBD movement (see here and here).

As part of the debate, Alan Roebuck (a Christian) wrote...

In order to get real conservatism, the minimum requirement is an acknowledgment of human reality, plus something else that has real authority over man. That "something else" will necessarily be non-scientific, in which case HBD is radically insufficient.

For some reason, I was uncomfortable with that statement. The implication that "real conservatism" required a belief in God was unsettling to me. And I wasn't sure why. So I gave the issue some thought, and reached a slightly different (although related) conclusion.


Last night, I sent the following email to Mr. Auster (which he posted on his website)...

If it's not too late to weigh-in on this issue, here's my two cents.

I think--at one time, decades ago--it was possible for an atheist to be a full partner in the fight to preserve Western civilization. Ayn Rand comes to mind. So does Karl Popper. They loved freedom and America, and just as importantly, they loved mankind. They also lived in a more innocent time (1940s/50s)--a time before Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Daniel Dennett, and the rest of the Reductionist movement.

Today, atheism equals reductionism. Reductionism is the idea that we're all mindless meat puppets manipulated by our selfish genes to survive and reproduce. Even human reason (which was championed by Rand) is impotent in the reductionist/atheist worldview. As David Brooks says, "Reason is just the press secretary of the emotions."

As we've discussed before, a free republic has to believe that its citizens have the capacity for reason and morality (two things denied by the atheist/reductionist crowd). Otherwise, it is intellectually defenseless against Washington elites who want to lead their brethren around by the nose.

In conclusion, for me, it's not the principle of atheism ("no God") that is incompatible with Western civilization; it is the modern practice of atheism ("reductionism") which denies not only God's existence, but the existence of a truly rational, moral human being.

To which Mr. Auster replied:

This is a very interesting and useful distinction. But the question is, is atheism (reductionism) a different thing from atheism (no God), or just a more consistent form of it?

I responded:

I would say: Yes, reductionism is a more consistent form of atheism. But I still prefer to keep a slight distinction between the two concepts because the marriage between them is a relatively recent phenomenon. That’s why I referred to Ayn Rand and Karl Popper as belonging to a more "innocent time." Even now, most atheists probably don’t realize that atheism and reductionism is a package deal. If they did realize that, maybe they would start entertaining doubts about atheism, or – at the very least - about the ability of atheists to be full partners in the conservative movement.