Pharyngula

Posted by: inkadu | October 27, 2009 10:49 AM

Hitchens never struck me as a particularly ethical person.

He is more of a verbal pugilist setting up big-tent debates across the country in carnival tradition.

And maybe Hitchens isn't so offended by Wilsons views. His support of the Iraq war was based on completely missing the line between race, culture, politics and individuals. They were just "them," all of a piece, one horde representing the modern white man's burden.

But do not fear, PZ, I'm certain Hitchens will have a lengthy defense of his decisions. He is very good at those.

(ps - I love me some hitchens, but nobody's perfect)

Posted by: DaveX | October 27, 2009 10:58 AM

Well, that's the by-product of atheism growing numbers-- some of those people are going to be folks you may not care for much. In my opinion, Hitchens is one of those people. Just because we happen to agree on one issue doesn't make me want to hang out with him.

Posted by: llewelly | October 27, 2009 10:59 AM

Bombard him with emails until he abandons this plan, and apologizes for giving the racist a platform.
I would like to know ... does Hitchens bring up racism when he debates this Doug Wilson creature? He has certainly brought slavery, and the civil rights movements in past debates.

Posted by: raven | October 27, 2009 11:09 AM

His ideological heroes are Robert Lewis Dabney and Rousas John Rushdoony. Here's a collection of links that point to the vileness of this sleazebag.

He doesn't confine his bigotry to other races, either. He's a wanna-be theocrat who wants to return to biblical barbarities.

bcseweb.org Rushdooney: Our list may not be perfect but it seems to cover those “crimes” against the family that are inferred by Rushdoony’s statement to Moyers. The real frightening side of it is the interpretation of heresy, apostasy and idolatry. Rushdoony’s position seems to suggest that he would have anyone killed who disagreed with his religious opinions. That represents all but a tiny minority of people. Add to that death penalties for what is quite legal, blasphemy, not getting on with parents and working on a Sunday means that it the fantasy ideal world of Rushdoony and his pals, there will be an awful lot of mass murderers and amongst a tiny population.

We have done figures for the UK which suggest that around 99% of the population would end up dead and the remainder would have each, on average, killed 500 fellow citizens.

Chalcedon foundation bsceweb.org. Stoning disobedient children to death.Contempt for Parental Authority: Those who consider death as a horrible punishment here must realise that in such a case as
….cut for length
Rev. William Einwechter, “Modern Issues in Biblical Perspective: Stoning Disobedient Children”, The Chalcedon Report, January 1999

Rushdooney, the father of Xian Dominionism was a flaming psychopath. And an influential theologian in fundie Death Cult circles. His proposal for a xian theocracy would result in 297 million US citizens being murdered by the other 3 million. The only greater mass murderer wannabe is the fundie god, Hi Y'all Yahweh, who is scheduled to show up and kill 6.7 billion people any minute.

These people are evil, they really do want to destroy the USA and set up a hell on earth theocracy and they worship death and destruction. That is why they are called Death Cultists. Even the Aztecs would probably be appalled.

Posted by: JohnB | October 27, 2009 11:22 AM

I remember Pastor Wilson from my days at the University of Idaho (in the aptly named Moscow, ID.) He was a f***kwit then as well, but a small town f***kwit. I'm sorry to see him hit the bigtime.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | October 27, 2009 11:23 AM

I have to say PZ is probably right-Hitchens is trying to show he is not attacking a straw man when he says religion poisons everything. And I think the fact while some Christians actively fought against slavery others very much were in favor of it (and remain so to this day) does need broader recognition.

Posted by: kai | October 27, 2009 11:25 AM

But where are the gays to be exiled to? Surely Wilson wants all nations to be Christian, so there wouldn't be anywhere to exile unwanted people to, so that would still leave the death penalty as the mininum, right?

Posted by: Sherry | October 27, 2009 11:34 AM

I know so many liberal/progressive freethinkers who are retiring to the Sandpoint, ID area that I'm sure the northern part of Idaho is going to change.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 27, 2009 11:39 AM

Does the topics of slavery, the Confederacy and theocracy come up in the documentary?

Posted by: Susan | October 27, 2009 11:49 AM

I don't understand at all why Hitchens would want to be associated with such a creature

Birds of a feather? Hitchens is a misogynist warmongering asshole who loves to pontificate and thinks he's hilarious. I have no doubt the carny atmosphere appeals to him.

Posted by: Islander | October 27, 2009 11:59 AM

And maybe Hitchens isn't so offended by Wilsons views. His support of the Iraq war was based on completely missing the line between race, culture, politics and individuals. They were just "them," all of a piece, one horde representing the modern white man's burden.

Um, no. Hitchens' support of the Iraq war was based on Saddam's history of genocide against the Kurds and the Iranian people, Saddam's unspeakable cruelty against everyone else in his country (such as forcing people at gunpoint to applaud the public torture and execution of their family members), and the fact that Saddam was going senile and losing control of Iraq, leaving fanatics from Iran, Syria and Turkey with a perfect opportunity to invade the region and subject the citizens to more theocratic totalitarianism. He also made the arguement that Iraq is an oil-rich country with a chokehold on the world economy, and it shouldn't be ruled by "apocalyptic regimes."

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | October 27, 2009 12:06 PM

inkadu wrote:
His support of the Iraq war was based on completely missing the line between race, culture, politics and individuals. They were just "them," all of a piece, one horde representing the modern white man's burden.

Are we talking about the same guy? The guy who consistently has made a distinction between the baathist regime in iraq and the kurds in the north? Whose support of the war was mostly, solely, and loudly, based on amplifiying the dividing line between the different cultures and politics in iraq? Perhaps you heard Hitch talking about how "they're all the same" in the context of parodying the bush/cheneyite view of the place but I've never once heard anything that sounds remotely like what you describe coming out of him.

Posted by: Islander | October 27, 2009 12:10 PM

Sastra @22:

That's pretty much how it came across to me. Hitchens has not received any invitations to debate Muslims, Mormons or Orthdox Jews (but surprisingly he has gotten an invitation to Liberty University), and as far as I know he will debate anyone who challenges him. He explains why he likes debating Wilson here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2233586/

Posted by: pdiff | October 27, 2009 12:14 PM

Hitch just likes the argument (and gladly admits this). He's addicted to it like the mysterious brown liquid in the ever present glass in his hand. Wilson presents a clear, well defined target, as Hitch explains here (http://www.slate.com/id/2233586). No mumbo-jumbo, apologetics, just god fearing, your going to hell Xtian BS. I just wish Hitch would bring the debate to Moscow...

And for the record, not all N. Idaho is bad. Some intoleristras stay to fight!!

Pdiff

Posted by: 386sx | October 27, 2009 12:24 PM

Wilson is probably getting a bit of a bum rap. But yeah he takes all that Moses Bible crap seriously.

Well, Mr. Wilson, that's what you get for being in a cult and having to go around "apologizing" trying to make sense out of the evil monster god you so smugly presume to be the only "true" god.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | October 27, 2009 12:32 PM

Hitchens looks like he's operating without any moral compass

What do you expect from an athiest??!?!?

Posted by: inkadu | October 27, 2009 12:53 PM

Edit: "sure doesn't seem to respect the lives of" Iraqis. Not "the Iraqi people." Let he who is without sin...

Posted by: BlueIndependent | October 27, 2009 12:54 PM

"...And maybe Hitchens isn't so offended by Wilsons views. His support of the Iraq war was based on completely missing the line between race, culture, politics and individuals. They were just "them," all of a piece, one horde representing the modern white man's burden..."

While I disagree with Hitchens' selection of the IW as one of the noblest acts the US has ever undertaken, I must take issue with your characterization of his reasoning. What you said is his rationale is absolutely not, in fact, his rationale, nor his sensibility on the matter. Hitchens is very clear that he sides with the Kurds against the Baathists in that they set up a secular system of government in their region in the north. He does not and has never claimed we invaded Iraq for solely moral reasons (noting our taking of the oil fields), and fully admits that while he supports the war, he finds no way of defending Bush's prosecution of it or the torture programs used by elements of our military.

In short, while I disagree with him on the merits of the war and the expediency of removing Saddam, he has been quite honest in his views and makes no bones about the flaws or successes. The way you characterize him however, one would have to conclude he's a neo-nazi dominionist, which he most emphatically is not. Mocking and getting beaten up by the SSNP should be clear enough example of that.

Posted by: Alpinist | October 27, 2009 2:22 PM

I don't see celebrating Robert E. Lee's birthday as a big deal. He was a great man, worth admiration for many aspects of his accomplishments.

Posted by: Morbo | October 27, 2009 2:32 PM

Wilson is a nasty piece of work but he is erudite. From their initial conversation at Christianity today it seems that a few references to English Lit in your writings is all it takes to woo Hitchens. Mention Wodehouse and he goes for his fly.

Posted by: 386sx | October 27, 2009 2:56 PM

Wilson and Hitchens on Fox News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22XjLvWi2bU

Wilson's answer to why Christianity is true: Because if it weren't true, then it would be false. (I'm paraphrasing because he said it in a lot more words than that.)

Posted by: JYP | October 27, 2009 3:41 PM

I saw the fox interview this morning. Knowing it was Fox I was prepared to be peeved. The interviewer was so rude to Christopher Hitchens in my opinion and I was actually shocked when Doug Wilson spoke up and defended him on some topics. I loved how the interviewer took the stance that the country was in desperate trouble because of the growing number of non-believers! What? People are finally started to see past the imaginary friend theory and that's a bad thing?

I meant to google Doug Wilson to see what his story was. He came across as more atheist than christian. Now I will really have to research him after reading this.

Posted by: Pacal | October 27, 2009 5:05 PM

Two points.

One of the links mentioned that Wilson used in his excuse mongering for slavery the work Time on the Cross by Fogel and Engerman. It also mentioned Gutman's critique Slavery and the Numbers Game. I would ads Paul David et al's Reckoning with Slavery. When Time on the Cross was published over 30 years ago a lot of people were put off by it, because they thought it could be used for pro-slavery appologia. Well they were right. That and the fact the work while interesting is very flawed, some would say fatally flawed. I myself was put off by the work's portrait of Abolitionists and by it's continuyal tearing down of strawmen.

As for Hitchens. Well I view him as a entertainer and not as a serious commentator. His columns in The Nation before the Iraq indicate that he swallowed much of the concealed weapons crap, and further it appears that he does indeed swallow the idea of the US saving the belighted natives of Iraq. I remember him talking about how the west had to intervene to save Iraq from becoming a Theocracy! Well it is happenning in large parts of Iraq anyway and to large extent under US protection. I remember him pooh-poohing the idea that intervention was geared towards, to at least some extent, getting control of oil.

Further I remember him demanding at the top of his lungs that Clinton be impeached for aspects of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Even writing an hysterical screed about it (book). Concerning the massive campaign of lies and distortion involved in getting the US to invade Iraq he as remained largely silent. Concerning the massive violation of rights etc., such as the Patriot Act, the wiretaps, Hitchen's is largely silent. I certainly have heard nothing from him concerning impeaching Bush junior.

I just can't take him seriously.

Posted by: Diego | October 27, 2009 6:17 PM

"Antebellum Confederacy"? There's not much there to base a cultural reformation on. South Carolina seceded in December, 1860, and you can count that as the beginning of the Confederacy, I suppose (although not organized as such yet). And war broke out in April or 1861 with the attack on Fort Sumter. And that's it for the antebellum Confederate period.

Posted by: 1984 | October 27, 2009 7:36 PM

"Hitchens looks like he's operating without any moral compass"

"What do you expect from an athiest??!?!?" [sic]

You're both wrong of course. If he didn't have a moral compass then how would he so easily recognize all the wicked morality within religion such as Christianity?

http://www.atheistmedia.com/2009/10/christopher-hitchens-vs-douglas-wilson.html

One of their earlier debates:
http://www.wts.edu/flash/media_popup/media_player.php?id=462¶mType=video

Posted by: 386sx | October 27, 2009 9:42 PM

Hitchens and Wilson on the Joy Behar Show...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMG8KmflP0c

Once again Wilson is asked why god is true. The answer according to him is that god is true because atheists have the burden of proof.

He thinks snakes talked... he thinks Noah's ark was real...

We're animals and we talk, and snakes are animals, ergo... somethin! Yeah he really did that piece of logic there. Does he believe snakes talked? Yes. We're animals and we talk, therefore... somethin!

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | October 27, 2009 9:47 PM

I checked dwils.com. And one of the first things I read was this:

"I have said before that free markets cannot be sustained except by free men, and men cannot be free unless Jesus sets them free."

So he's a flaming theocratic nutjob. Searching for "Moscow Diversity Cleansing" (and feeling rather icky doing so) didn't produce anything that would contradict that.

Posted by: 386sx | October 27, 2009 10:13 PM

386sx wrote: Wilson is probably getting a bit of a bum rap.

Consider that retracted. Dude is completely off his rocker!

Posted by: R. Schauer | October 27, 2009 11:49 PM

Oy Vey! Don't give this creep Wilson any space. Dude is a behavioral fossil.

Posted by: Nemo-13 | October 28, 2009 2:47 AM

First off, did someone say that Hitch had been largely silent on the topic of the Patriot act and it's repugnant bull. Need I point out that he was a named plaintiff in the case against the Gov for illegal wire tapping? And this he did while attempting to get his citizenship.

But seriously, are we really trying to call him based on his choice of challengers (or is that challengee...)? I mean, call a man on his flaws by all means, but excuse me if I don't believe that the willingness to confront the worst elements of religion is a flaw.

As far as his actual choice of a debate partner, I believe (and as I recall he has stated as much) that he likes Wilson because the man does not pussyfoot around. Most creationists don't even have the slightest idea what they stand for, you challenge them on an individual issue and they sort of retract and claim that that's not what they were really talking about, or put up some meager defense along the lines of "Well it's all a bit metaphorical really." Wilson doesn't do this, and I think Hitch is simply glad he has a partner that he can actually debate.

And while I don't know anything about Wilson, but it doesn't matter. Wilson could be a crackpot, racist, misogynistic prick (and some of the commentators here seem to think that likely). But that would only mean that he should be debated even more strongly, and by someone that knows how.

One last point. The most implacable enemies can appear the best of friends, and there can be many reasons, not the least of which is the old wisdom of how close to keep your enemies.

Please excuse me if my formatting is a bit off, it's my first time posting in a forum like this; still getting used to the tools.

I think I'm going to like it here in PZ country.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | October 28, 2009 2:26 PM

"...I remember him talking about how the west had to intervene to save Iraq from becoming a Theocracy! I remember him talking about how the west had to intervene to save Iraq from becoming a Theocracy!..."

His support for the IW is based upon his hatred of religion. He has said as much, so for him it's about anti-authoritarianism and theocratic influence in general. I certainly agree that it's happening anyhow, and I continue to fail to see how disrupting an admittedly oppressive but semi-stable state where terrorists can insert themselves in the midst of war creates a better situation than before, especially since Saddam's weapons never turned up. Hitchens is one of those that says making sure he never got weapons was a good enough reason to go. I don't, and

"...I remember him pooh-poohing the idea that intervention was geared towards, to at least some extent, getting control of oil..."

I don't know if he ever explicitly did this, but he has claimed, honestly, that we did not invade Iraq for solely moral reasons. He has had no problems admitting this from what I've seen, and his past support has outlined what he sees as the need to wrest a major source of energy from a dictator.

"...Concerning the massive campaign of lies and distortion involved in getting the US to invade Iraq he as remained largely silent. Concerning the massive violation of rights etc., such as the Patriot Act, the wiretaps, Hitchen's is largely silent. I certainly have heard nothing from him concerning impeaching Bush junior (...) I just can't take him seriously."

Hitchens has openly admitted that finding himself the supporter of a war started by a man he himself describes as stupid is not something he's necessarily proud of or going to defend, only that it was probably the only thing that said stupid man ever was correct to pursue. He's quite clear he thinks Bush (both father and son actually) are not good people. He also thinks it unfortunate that the war has been prosecuted the way it has been. Regarding the dissolution of rights in the US, he is a signatory to a lawsuit challenging one of the Bush admin's attempts to silence speech and increase police presence in citizens' lives. I forget which effort it was/is, but I think it may in fact be a lawsuit against the Patriot Act (Actually, see Nemo-13 at 59 above). So he has not remained silent on that. And I would think that you were familiar with his stance against torture (after experiencing it), another clean break from the Bush admin.

Regardless of whether I agree with his IW position (which I don't), your characterization of his positions isn't right. There are a lot of minute details it apepars a lot of people do not know about him. Their points I'm taking and paraphrasing from the various debates and events he's done that I've watched on YouTube.

Posted by: Radwaste | October 29, 2009 8:02 PM

"They are celebrating what he fought for."

And what was that?

The stock answer, the popular reason promoted as the ONLY reason the South started the War was that they wanted slavery to continue.

This doesn't survive the first hour of study. I recommend that you start.

And - start with the people who insisted that slaves were "2/3 of a person". Hint: not Southerners.

After Lincoln was killed, it took another hundred years to get so far as the Voting Rights Act. Who, pray tell, was so fond of freedom in the intervening years?

The nasty secret, the elephant in the room everyone must ignore - the thing so foul it must be concealed - is that the War was, and remains a power struggle. For better and worse, depending on what issue you're watching, we got federalism from the result.

And the NRA. Fancy that.

Posted by: wildmonky | October 30, 2009 12:36 AM

I live in Moscow, where Wilson lives. I have a friend who works at Kinkos and they have to do the orders for his books he self publishes. He's also a misogynist, having several books about a woman's place in marriage.

Posted by: Nemo-13 | October 30, 2009 5:43 AM

Oh, and would someone please tell me where this Hitchens = Misogyny thing comes from? I've seen it around before, but I never figured out what started it.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 30, 2009 7:59 AM

Radwaste,

The stock answer, the popular reason promoted as the ONLY reason the South started the War was that they wanted slavery to continue.

This doesn't survive the first hour of study. I recommend that you start.

True. It was, none the less, a key reason. Not just the continuation of slavery, either, but its westward extension as new states entered the Union. A crucial economic dispute concerned tariffs on industrial goods: northern industrialists wanted these, to build up their industries behind tariff walls (as every industrialising country has done); southern slaveowners opposed them, as they would push up their costs.

And - start with the people who insisted that slaves were "2/3 of a person". Hint: not Southerners.

It was 3/5, and you are either ignorant or deliberately misleading in not giving the reason for this: distribution of tax income and congressional representation between states depended on population figures; 3/5 was a compromise arrived at at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, between northern delegates, who wanted only the free population counted, and southerners, who wanted the entire slave population counted - even though, of course, slaves could not vote.

After Lincoln was killed, it took another hundred years to get so far as the Voting Rights Act. Who, pray tell, was so fond of freedom in the intervening years?

In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, black men had voting rights, and were elected to office. While northerners certainly did too little to preserve these gains, it was the KKK and their like who actively rolled them back in the south.

The nasty secret, the elephant in the room everyone must ignore - the thing so foul it must be concealed - is that the War was, and remains a power struggle.

I'm not ignoring it. The fact remains that without the Civil War, or if the Confederacy had won, slavery would have continued indefinitely. Contrary to many false claims, it was highly profitable; and the slave population was increasing. Whatever Lee's personal views, he was fighting for slavery, as those who celebrate his birthday are very well aware.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 19, 2009 2:14 PM

Even assuming everything stated about Wilson is true I am not sure why PZ is so bent out of shape about him. After all Pastor Wilson is just doing, saying and believing what the chemicals in his head and structure of his brain tell him. Unless of course PZ wants to say that his aversion to Pastor Wilson is just the chemicals in his own head telling him to be upset. But if that were the case then why all the work to post it for other bags of chemicals to observe and coment on. Something just doesn't add up here.

Do you think that was clever?

Posted by: Scott | November 19, 2009 7:07 PM

Rev.- I hadn't thougth of it in the category of clever or not. I think it is a valid question- if we are all ultimately just chemicals then why the concern about things like rationality or morality? Why does PZ bother ripping Wilson at all? In that view of things how is Wilson truly said to be nasty?

386sx- Are you agreeing that the only reason PZ posts is because the chemicals in his head make him post? If you agree do you see how rationality is no longer a justifiable possibility? Or are you going to pretend that the chemicals telling you it is all just chemicals really do mean something?

Posted by: 386sx | November 19, 2009 8:46 PM

Scott, here is Wilson's argument for why Christianity is not a myth...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIl25vsalSw

"If Jesus didn't come back from then dead, then Christianity is appalling: it's an appalling fraud and delusion. Christianity is not good for the World because it makes people decent and sober and that sort of thing; at the end of the day if it's not true - if it's not objectively true - I don't have any use for it."

Pretty convincing, huh? It's not a myth because if it were a myth, then it would be a myth. Well, that's exactly what you sound like, too. (I think they call it a naturalistic fallacy, or an "is/ought" fallacy or something like that.)

Posted by: Nemo-13 | November 20, 2009 6:53 PM

I hate to jump on the bandwagon here... but Scott... you really need to open your eyes.

The fact that something like a thought can exist in a purely physical world; made of nothing but chemicals, charges, and forces; does not decrease the beauty of the thing, it increases its beauty.

I am made of chemicals.
I am powered by charges.
I am held together by forces.

I am the product of the births and deaths of innumerable stars.

And so is every human here.

This does not in any way contradict the fact that we are social beings. We think, we feel, we react. We communicate ideas through the use of language, which is then translated to chemical signals in the vastly complex natural computer known as the brain.

I think, therefore I am.

Posted by: Scott | November 20, 2009 11:18 PM

All,
Not sure why all this god talk came up. I never brought that into the conversation so I'm not sure why you think I am making a theistic argument simply by pointing out what I believe is the absurdity of a naturalistic atheist getting all moralistic about the thoughts and opinions of others. It would be one thing if PZ were just saying Doug Wilson was nasty in the same way some might find orange juice nasty but he clearly is making some larger objective moralistic claim about what a bad person Doug Wilson is and that is what I find to be irrational. I know this isn't an argument for theism and it is not intended to be such. I am just pointing out that the emperor has no clothes on but I am not suggesting that anyone else does have them on. This is pretty simple logic and I hope you all can see that.

Menyambal- When did I ever suggest that there are only two options? When did I ever mention religion? Is the fact that I question PZ's grounds for his moralism proof that I am asserting a religious view of my own? I am also curious as to what the difference between a sad bag of chemicals is and a non sad bag of chemicals is? Is it more of chemical A and less of B? Also I know that most atheistic naturalists are not consistent in viewing man as a mere bag of chemicals. This is the whole point of my critique- if one's thoughts are ultimately just chemicals how is it rational to critique one set of chemicals over another? I know that YOU see no need to answer this question or justify your worldview as being in line with the way you live, speak and act. But this inconsistency is exactly why I am calling you guys out on this. So far no one has given me any answer other than "its complicated". Is that a sufficient response for Doug Wilson to make? What if you questioned Hitchens about why he is going around with Wilson and simply ignored your questions, engaged in ad hominem attacks against positions you weren't even bringing up and then only offered "its complicated" as a response? Maybe I shouldn't blame you as the chemicals in your head only allow a certain degree of rationality.

Nemo-13- Please tell me what beauty is in a purely physical world. Please tell me why there is any moral need for me to "open my eyes" (also note you have merely asserted my eyes aren't open and have yet to prove this). Also it's funny that in order to justify your "explanation" of humans as social beings you point to an object that is created and programmed by an outside intelligence (a computer) and not something acting on random chance and chemicals like a volcano.

CJO- What is a fact in your worldview? If we really are mere bags of chemicals then how could that ever be known? Would chemical A be the belief that we are bags of chemicals and chemical B be the opposite? If this is the account you want to offer how can a bag of chemicals verify that A is better or more true than B?

I do understand your belief about the ultimate material nature of humanity. I am just pointing out that you are inconsistent with that view and asking you to give a positive explanation of why it makes any sense to take the ideas of one bag of chemicals more seriously than another? PZ has his chemicals and Doug Wilson has his- why all the fuss? If I poured a bag of water into a bag of salt would any rational person look at the interaction and say that a debate was taking place?

I will take up your challenge about demonstrating that bags of chemicals cannot be rational or moral agents by pointing out that ideas like rationality and morality always apply to persons- never to chemicals or processes. That is why no one calls volcanoes when they erupt and kill people but we do call people evil when they erupt and kill people. This is also why hold trials for the person who shot a gun that killed a victim and do not hold trials for the bullet, gun powder or weapon itself.

Posted by: 386sx | November 21, 2009 12:26 AM

John Morales has a point there, Scott. You seem to be blissfully unaware, conveniently for the purposes of your own arguments, that (religious) people have a long history of thinking that inanimate objects are evil.

Posted by: CJO | November 21, 2009 12:44 AM

If I poured a bag of water into a bag of salt would any rational person look at the interaction and say that a debate was taking place?

I will take up your challenge about demonstrating that bags of chemicals cannot be rational or moral agents by pointing out that ideas like rationality and morality always apply to persons- never to chemicals or processes. That is why no one calls volcanoes when they erupt and kill people but we do call people evil when they erupt and kill people. This is also why hold trials for the person who shot a gun that killed a victim and do not hold trials for the bullet, gun powder or weapon itself.

That's just the fallacy of composition. None of the chemicals or proceses that collectively form a bird can fly, yet birds fly. You haven't demonstrated that persons are not similarly composed of chemicals and processes.

Try again.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 23, 2009 6:04 PM

You are missing my real point- that chemicals and processes are not sufficient to account for human rationality.

Sorry, they are. We can't help it if you are delusional.

I am raising an epistemological objection that given your stated naturalistic precepts you cannot account for things rationality.

Another way of saying I have no evidence, therefore I revert to sophistry. Philosophy without evidence is sophistry.

Can anyone give a positive answer for this

What part of evolution don't you understand? We don't need an imaginary god, or theist type vague god. There is no need for any deity. To say so is sophistry.

Posted by: scott | November 23, 2009 7:11 PM

Nerd of Redhead,
I am not going to respond to name calling and the red herring of religion you threw out. If you want to have a reasoned discussion great but please show some respect.

About me being delusional- what does this mean in your system? Please give me an explanation in terms of chemicals and processes of my supposed irrationality verses your rationality.

Further do you have any evidence of this or is that just your version of sophistry?

CJO,
Since you maintain chemicals and processes can account for rationality please describe/explain to me the chemical or process difference between true rational thoughts (for example "Doug Wilson is a nasty piece of work") and false irrational thoughts (for example "chemicals and processes cannot account for human rationality").

My point is simply that you see chemical reactions all around and never ascribe rationality to those reactions yet when it comes to the chemicals in Doug Wilson you do. I would simply like to know how you all know to distinguish the difference between Doug Wilson's chemicals from the non rational chemicals. Finally please remember that all you have to work with are chemicals and processes. This is a fairly common espistemological question and better philosophers than me have raised it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 23, 2009 7:19 PM

Please give me an explanation in terms of chemicals and processes of my supposed irrationality verses your rationality.

Why don't you cite the peer reviewed scientific literature to back up your inane arguments? Otherwise, you have nothing but sophistry. We have the scientific literature, which you must refute paper by paper. So, start presenting your evidence. Ours is in the literature.

Further do you have any evidence of this or is that just your version of sophistry

No, the sophistry is your stoopid attempt to change the burden of proof from those making the claims, that is you, to those who are defending the claims. You lose automatically until we see your evidence.

My point is simply that you see chemical reactions all around

Your reductionalism is irrelevant and sophistry. Either put up the hard physical evidence for your deity, or, by parsimony, all the chemical reactions create the hominid. Why can't you show any evidence? Perchance, you know you don't have any?

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 23, 2009 8:08 PM

Behold, the "scott" version of the presuppositional algorithm (originally outlined by T_U_T):

1) Make assertion (in this case, it's "chemicals and processes are not sufficient to account for human rationality !!! ", and variations thereof)

2) Use radical skepticism to dismiss anything the enemy says (where "enemy" in this case means anyone who agrees with or suggests that the evidence-based scientific consensus is correct, or at least, is correctly arrived at; all attempts to use the ground rules of logic, reason, evidence, etc)(and "radical skepticism" pretty much means "greedy reductionism").

3) Declare that because the enemy "failed" (that is, the presuppositionalist successfully dismissed responses, refutations, rebuttals, etc), original assertion is in fact true).

4) Refuse any objections by radical skepticism

5) If the enemy objects against the obvious double standard used (radical philosophical skepticism against scientific and logical claims, unquestioning unthinking acceptance of their own made-up greedy reductionist BS), then dismiss objection with radical skepticism.

6) GOTO 1

Remember, presuppositionalism is just a denial-of-service attack by the presuppositionalist against the reality-and-reason-based community.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | November 23, 2009 11:27 PM

scott asked,

This is the whole point of my critique- if one's thoughts are ultimately just chemicals how is it rational to critique one set of chemicals over another? I know that YOU see no need to answer this question or justify your worldview as being in line with the way you live, speak and act. But this inconsistency is exactly why I am calling you guys out on this. So far no one has given me any answer other than "its complicated".

*dons the Hat of Armchair Philosophy*

What is a thought but a grand symphony of memories? The vast bags of chemicals (or whatever you want to reduce life into) that make up our brains ultimately contain for each person a lifetime of memories. So you are misguided in your reduction. We are not criticizing bags of chemicals, we are criticizing the memories contained by those bags of chemicals and the expression thereof. Yes, the components can't be said to be "nasty", but the memories trapped within the arrangement and selectively proffered can be said to be "nasty". Those memories are the essence of Doug Wilson and how he chooses to express them are the criteria by which he may be judged.