Image Credit: Brian Hillegas.
Truth is Beauty and Beauty is Truth. That is all you know and that is all you need to know. – Keats.
So I crack open the Internet and read the news. It just about all vapes off the exhaust nozzle. DOOOOOOOMMM!!! I tell you. Doom, on a pale horse. We see it in the arts, in the realm of science, in the state of the economy, and in how things are going throughout the world. So how did it get more wrong than amateur midget-porn? Unintelligent design? No. It was studied unintelligence. John C. Wright enlightens us below.
This collapse first in one field and then another is not deliberate in the sense that the Illuminati met in their underground Cathedral of Darkness….No, there is no conspiracy. There is, however, a meeting of minds, a viewpoint, a outlook, a philosophy which the people who sacked the art world and the people sacking science fiction have in common. The common philosophy, which is sometimes called Political Correctness, or called Leftism, but which should be called Morlockery, is the embrace of illogic.
This illogic ultimately leads to a state of errant belief. Mr. Wright refers to it as “a shrieking lunatic asylum”, we here at RS.com know it as the Democratic Party Platform. It has six key facets Mr. Wright lays out below.
• Nondisprovable — his beliefs cannot be put to any meaningful test; they are articles of faith; hence
• Conformist — his truths are whatever the consensus calls true; true truth is of no interest to him; hence
• Shallow — by dividing all beliefs into pure good versus pure evil, no belief is profound; all is a bumpersticker; hence
• Irrational — the beliefs are not subject to logical examination; hence
• Unreal — the beliefs are based on emotions, not facts; the more panicky and irrational the emotion, the better; hence
• Junk Science — the beliefs pretend that they are scientific, rational, modern, when they are the opposite.
So how does this explain Modern Art and Literature, a Scientific Establishment that sanctions killing newborn infants as ethical behavior, an economy that claimed to have grown by 4% last …read more
The Senate is in a bad way these days. Not that the Presidency and the House are functioning all that well, but under the leadership of Harry Reid since January 2007, the U.S. Senate has reached levels of dysfunction unparalleled in its history, and presided over eight years of economic stagnation and bitterly polarized and increasingly petty and juvenile politics. Reid has ruined the Senate’s onetime distinguishing feature, the ability of any Senator to submit amendments and have them debated when bills came to the floor, with procedural restrictions unheard of between 1789 and 2006. Meanwhile, scores of bills that have passed the House are never even brought to a vote in the Senate – and without the amendment process, they can’t even be raised indirectly.
At the same time, Reid used the unprecedented “nuclear option” against judicial nominee filibusters – a tactic that scandalized Reid when it was briefly suggested in 2005-06 – for the express purpose of packing the D.C. Circuit ahead of an expected en banc appeal in Halbig v Burwell. Reid’s shenanigans have abolished most of the things that made the Senate different from – and less partisan than – the House, and predictably have increased the partisan temper of Washington in general. That’s before we even get into his increasingly paranoid and possibly senile rantings about the Koch brothers at the drop of a hat (“Senator Reid, would you like milk or cream in your coffee?” “Let me tell you about those Koch brothers…”).
John McCain is not, to put it mildly, a popular man around these parts, and least of all on the issue of immigration. But today’s floor debate, in which Reid and the Democrats yet again closed off the amendment process, seems to have rubbed the last nerve of the already irascible McCain over the decline of the once-proud institution of the Senate, and the fecklessness of Congress in the face of the urgent crisis at the border, about which McCain, Jeff Flake and other border-state Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen are plainly getting an earful from the folks back home. I recommend you watch the first 9:46 of this tirade, which is positively cinematic in McCain’s pleading with Reid and Dick Durbin to recall the way the Senate used to be, and how it doesn’t have to be this way, and what that …read more
After making atheist provocateur Richard Dawkins a deity himself for his vitriolic attacks on Christianity, the left is suddenly experiencing a case of tightly wound panties over the discovery that Dawkins doesn’t reserve his misanthropy for Christianity. He also thinks the feminist focus of “rape culutre” is ridiculous and that Islam is violent and dangerous. Dawkins may or may not be particularly smart. Obtaining a doctorate and academic tenure doesn’t necessarily mean you are smart or talented (his bio suggests he was more the benefactor of the British class system than anything else, but that is another matter). What is certain is that he’s a boorish and unpleasant little man.
All was fun and games so long as he was making cute but profoundly stupid statements ridiculing Christianity like:
“horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was [suffered by some children at the hands of deviant priests], the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.”.
Unfortunately, the “a” in atheisim means “against” and the “theism” means “belief in god.” So his personal theology, if you will, requires him to reject any manifestation of a god. So are we surprised when he tweets:
and makes a trenchant observation like:
Of course not. This is his schtick. His alleged belief system. The way he gulls the anti-science science-loving left into giving him money. This bothered some on the left:
To be sure, it’s always okay to critique religious beliefs. It’s healthy to do so and no religion should be immune from — or its followers resistant to — well-intentioned and reasonable inquiries about faith claims. But there’s a difference between problematizing a religion’s tenets and persecuting its adherents. There’s also a difference between raising legitimate concerns about doctrines, scriptures and the rationale of one’s beliefs, and hurling insults that shift the tenor of the debate into a machismo register better suited for high school locker rooms.
I checked for this guy’s defense of Christians in general or Catholics in particular and found none. I know. You are as shocked as I am. But here I have an advantage. I know what Dawkins is and therefore his opinions have no weight. What is offensive here, of course, is not his attack on a religion or its adherents but rather his attack on the favored pet religion of …read more