Monday, January 28, 2008 | Reason : Wingnut News | print version

'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

by Wold Net Daily

Thanks to Carl H. Silverman for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59905

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily exclusive columnist Vox Day's new book, "The Irrational Atheist," scores a direct hit on atheism's most well-known practitioners. Using reason, science and historical documentation — not theology — Day argues the atheists into an inescapable corner.

WorldNetDaily Editor Joseph Farah recently interviewed Day about the new book, which is available at WND's online store.

Joseph Farah: The title of "The Irrational Atheist" refers to the Unholy Trinity of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, while Dawkins.Net is advertising the Four Horsemen of Atheism, which includes Daniel Dennett. Given that you wrote a chapter about Dennett, why didn't you include him in with the other three?

Vox Day: Originally, I intended to do just that. But after reading four of his books, it became quite clear that for all his atheism, Dennett really doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the other three. Despite his occasional problems with logic, Dennett is a respectable intellectual. He is seriously interested in the scientific questions, and he is very willing to ask hard questions about his own assumptions and core beliefs too. This is totally different than Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, who are entirely occupied with making groundless assertions when they aren't busy drawing errant conclusions from incorrect data.

Farah: Why have we seen this explosion of atheist titles?

Day: It's a bit strange because the so-called New Atheists are really not new at all. There is very little that Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens say that was not already said by Jean Meslier prior to his death in 1729. If Sam Harris didn't talk so much about Islam and make so many egregious errors, you'd think that he was Bertrand Russell's parrot. I suspect the reason is related to the current state of physics and the increasing uncertainty scientists feel about the universe based on the very, very low probability that the universe randomly happened to turn out the way it is now observed to be. Atheists have felt that science was on their side ever since the Enlightenment, and now they see it slipping away from them. So, this recent explosion of atheist books is not a sign of strength; it's a sign of desperation.

Farah: Are atheists becoming more militant? Extreme? Why?

Day: The outspoken ones are certainly becoming more desperate and shrill. Part of this is because they've got such terrible front-men. They've got these spokesmen who are demonstrably incapable of making a sober and rational case for atheism, so they have to make up for it by setting off rhetorical fireworks and making outlandish statements — for example, Dawkins's stupid assertion that a religious upbringing is worse than sexual child abuse. If I were an atheist, I'd be deeply embarrassed to have these clowns as the public face of my religious identification. I think the end result will be more atheists identifying themselves as agnostics, which is a much more reasonable perspective.

Farah: What are the consequences of widespread atheism?

Day: There are none, because atheism will never be a widespread phenomenon. Like socialism, it's a parasitic phenomenon that can't survive on its own. As Chesterton pointed out long ago, atheism rapidly mutates into paganism and diverse forms of spiritual absurdity. And we're already seeing signs that the post-Christian West is returning to paganism; it's not transforming into some sort of shiny, super-rational, post-superstitious science fiction society.

Farah: Why do you refer to Richard Dawkins as Darwin's Judas?

Day: He only finds Darwin useful insofar as his theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to eliminate the basis for a belief in a Creator God. As Dawkins states in his own words, he's "a passionate anti-Darwinian" with regards to the proper conduct of human affairs. Dawkins thinks humanity should follow Darwin just long enough to cast off Jesus Christ, then ditch Darwin in favor of following Richard Dawkins' opinion on life, the universe and everything. Just like philosophers, you can always count on a scientist to come around eventually to the concept of rule by scientist-king.

Farah: You compare Sam Harris to Michael Bellesiles, who was convicted of academic fraud and lost the Bancroft Prize awarded to him. Is that a fair comparison?

Day: It's probably not fair to Bellesiles. He may have made stuff up, but at least he can handle elementary school division. I also suspect he knows the difference between difficult concepts like "counties" and "states." Harris demonstrably does not.

Farah: What are the most common mistakes made by Christian apologists when dealing with atheism? How is "The Irrational Atheist" different?

Day: Too many Christians forget that their basic assumptions are not shared by the atheist with whom they're talking. Christians always want to quote the Bible to try to prove a point, but to the atheist, that's no more meaningful than reading Shakespeare at them. And Christians often want to talk about the way God makes them feel, forgetting that the atheist's feelings are equally relevant. My book doesn't rely on the Bible or theological gymnastics or emotional appeals; it simply makes use of detailed historical and scientific evidence in order to expose the logical and factual flaws in every atheist argument you're likely to encounter. "The Irrational Atheist" isn't a defense of God or Christianity; I assume the Creator Lord of the Universe can defend Himself. He doesn't need my help.

Farah: Are you considering an apologetic sequel making a case for Christianity?

Day: Not at the moment. Right now, I'm more interested in the philosophical implications of biotechnology. Cross some of biotech's more questionable developments with globalism and post-Christian paganism, and it's not hard to see that we're looking at some crazy days ahead.

Farah: I've heard the book has gotten off to a great start. So why are you making the entire book available as a free download from your blog?

Day: Yeah, it's already on its second print-run ahead of the official release date. As for the download, my theory is that the main problem from which most books suffer is that too few potential readers have heard about them, so I figure that word of mouth from someone who's read the ebook is just as important as that from someone who's read the hardcover. Also, if people like a book that they've read, whether it's a download, a library book or just one they borrowed from a friend, they want to have it. I must have four or five copies of Eco's "The Name of the Rose" myself, not counting translations. But "The Irrational Atheist" ebook isn't a free download per se. It's a Radiohead-style pay-what-you want setup, which includes the option to pay nothing. Various formats including PDF, PDB and LIT will be available starting on the official publication date of Feb. 1.

Farah: Or they could buy it right here at WorldNetDaily today.

Day: That would be even better.

Farah: One last question, and it's an important one. When are you going to lose that ridiculous mohawk and grow a righteous mustache like mine?

Day: The hawk is gone, I'm sad to say. But I'm not sure I've got what it takes pull off the Magnum P.I. look.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, January 28, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 451 - 500 of 1993 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

451. Comment #118497 by Diacanu on January 30, 2008 at 5:50 pm

And here comes the next troll.

Like the next sheet of tp.

Other Comments by Diacanu

452. Comment #118500 by phasmagigas on January 30, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Hi Guys, somebody issue a challenge to atheist for debate over here: http://bnonn.blogspot.com/2008/01/god-is-necessary-precondition-for.html

Dare to take the challenge?

Regards,

DawkinsSucks

i dare not as its for you to show what you assert not for me to unassert it. I personally believe that the Queen dijinn of sandy desert is a precondition for reason but it would be silly of me to ask you to show she (who must be obeyed)isnt.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

453. Comment #118501 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 5:53 pm

King Lear? Well, I certainly am a man more sinned against than sinning. Who is it that can tell me who I am?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

454. Comment #118504 by Ben Jennings on January 30, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Hi Guys, somebody issue a challenge to atheist for debate over here: http://bnonn.blogspot.com/2008/01/god-is-necessary-precondition-for.html

Hmm let's see, from the second paragraph of this guy's "Argument":

A physical person named Socrates may be at the center of it, but the actual argument is clearly not a physical thing. Neither is the mind in which the argument is apprehended; but rather it is a real, but immaterial, non-physical entity. We might say that it is made of mental substance, as opposed to the brain which is made of physical substance. If you're unconvinced about this, consider that a mental state can be about something, or that it can be true�and now try to say the same thing of physical brain states. We know that it doesn't make sense to say that one state of the brain is about another, any more than that an electron is about a photon. Truth and intentionality are not physical properties. They are mental ones.

He's using a trick of language to misrepresent different ways of looking at things as different things in order to set up a feeble dualist trampoline on which to bounce up and down.

I would not have gotten away with that in a first year philosophy essay.

Other Comments by Ben Jennings

455. Comment #118509 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 6:03 pm

O how I wished I had had the time and energy to throw in a few comments in the last several pages. But I really must congratulate you, Cartomancer, brilliant posts! Admirably phrased - very elegant.
And yes, Swinburne is a champion of theists... but his arguments do at times reek of despair. (Not to mention that bit Dawkins took up in TGD)... all in all a good thinker arguing at times brilliantly, at times desperately inane for an indefensible position (full blown Christian religion, not mere theism).
At least van Inwagen has some modesty concerning this.

Say, have you heard any arguments pertaining to the existence of God we don't know already from that Professor you mentioned?

-Mike

Other Comments by MPhil

456. Comment #118510 by LorienRyan on January 30, 2008 at 6:08 pm

Diacanu - "And here comes the next troll.

Like the next sheet of tp."

Just wipe to develop the next troll argument.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

457. Comment #118512 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 6:13 pm

Well, to be brutally honest, not yet no. I've been to three of them already and he's spoken at length on the logical possibility of creation ex nihilo, the anthropic principle and the constants of the universe, laws of thermodynamics etc. We are promised something called "the argument from improvability" in later weeks, which I would guess is something like the idea that a perfect god would have made a better world than this one. To be honest it's all very tentative and abstract, very "god might exist" or "god could plausibly be compatible with a universe derived from a quantum singularity". Certainly no straw men or simplistic rehashing of the argument from first causes though - and Leftow is a phenomenal Aquinas scholar too.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

458. Comment #118515 by Steve Zara on January 30, 2008 at 6:13 pm

Dare to take the challenge?

I have had a go. It is astonishing how theists tend to assume that abstractions ("justice", "truth" etc.) are somehow "real" and require God for their existence.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

459. Comment #118518 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 6:14 pm

My counsellor and psychiatrist say much the same thing...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

460. Comment #118519 by Radesq on January 30, 2008 at 6:16 pm

I'm concerned that nordicthunder may have fallen into a stupor and crashed the book delivery truck that he Pretty lady and Blacknad were riding in.

Other Comments by Radesq

461. Comment #118520 by Diacanu on January 30, 2008 at 6:17 pm

Golly gee whiz, I didn't say anything too harsh during this discussion, did I?

I'd hate to think I hurt anyone's feelings.

Other Comments by Diacanu

462. Comment #118521 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 6:18 pm

At least you didn't unleash Left Hand on them D, at least you didn't go that far...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

463. Comment #118522 by Steve Zara on January 30, 2008 at 6:19 pm

"god could plausibly be compatible with a universe derived from a quantum singularity"

Please excuse me while I go away somewhere where I can scream without causing too much of a fuss.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

464. Comment #118524 by ianmkz on January 30, 2008 at 6:21 pm

I think Becomethearrow is trolling - alas, no one has noticed. sniff

Other Comments by ianmkz

465. Comment #118526 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Well, so far he has proved cute and cuddly enough to be amusing. Maybe we'll keep him - too early to say at present...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

466. Comment #118528 by Diacanu on January 30, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Becomethearrow-

Keerist, I flirt with Annabanana and Paula Kirby less shamelessly than you're hitting on Cartomancer.

Other Comments by Diacanu

467. Comment #118529 by LorienRyan on January 30, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Becomethearrow - say that to tsunami victims, or a woman in iran beaten everyday.

Diacanu - I meant the trolls not you.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

468. Comment #118530 by Double Bass Atheist on January 30, 2008 at 6:27 pm

I don't understand why you don't like the world. Me and my dog play in the grass, I pick flowers for mom. Sometimes I get ice cream. Have you tried chocolate ice cream with peanut butter, it is is real good.

I've been gone a couple hours and come back to this?

If he's a troll, then he's a troll with the IQ of 4 year old.
BTW, I looked at his profile� he literally just joined RD!

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

469. Comment #118531 by Goldy on January 30, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Still, got the best arguments so far....

Other Comments by Goldy

470. Comment #118532 by Diacanu on January 30, 2008 at 6:29 pm

LorienRyan-

I know. :)

Other Comments by Diacanu

471. Comment #118534 by LorienRyan on January 30, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Ok... phew.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

472. Comment #118538 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 6:33 pm

And there was me thinking it means I was sat in front of a window...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

473. Comment #118539 by Radesq on January 30, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Becomethearrow

Frankus1122, is that your picture? you got real white teeth. Mom says brush your teeth after every meal and you will always have white teeth like yours.

compare:

My Mama says that alligators are ornery because they got all them teeth and no toothbrush.

Bobby Boucher of The Waterboy

Water you up to Becomethearrow? Do your parents know you are using the internet unsupervised?

Other Comments by Radesq

474. Comment #118540 by LorienRyan on January 30, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Becomethearrow - did they all start with 'run betty run'

Other Comments by LorienRyan

475. Comment #118542 by Double Bass Atheist on January 30, 2008 at 6:34 pm

mom says I have read over 1000 books. I don't count them but I know what they say. Some I don't understand..

Sorry Arrow, but Dr. Seuss books don't count.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

476. Comment #118545 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Steve

I just read that you have expressed interest in the formal debate on God being a necessary precondition for reason. I would - if I may - advise you to take a slightly different route on the issue of truth and intentionality. That guy, Dominic Tennant, is essentially right that we need an account for truth-aptness of propositions and for the intentionality of propositions. The best way I know to deal with this from within materialism is neurosemantics (as I've stated somewhere else): Truth being a largely systematic uniformity between the (structure of) neuronal activation patterns and the structure of the state of affairs the corresponding proposition is supposed to described. Where the systematicity and uniformity is given, the neuronal activation pattern "being" the proposition can be said to be true.

This definition of truth (and the analogue for intentionality) is from all I have encountered very alien to people like Dominic Tennant who hold a metaphysical position on propositions from within a dualist view of the body/mind problem. All you need to show however is that you have a definition of truth and intentionality that accounts for the functions these concepts are supposed to fulfill.

I might be able to provide you with the Paul Churchland article on neurosemantics, in which he discusses this quite brilliantly in my opinion. Of course, if you can get access to it at a university library, that would probably be even better.

Anyway, just wanted to offer my assistance, if I can be of any.

Cheers,
-Mike

Other Comments by MPhil

477. Comment #118546 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 6:43 pm

No no, facetious quips like that are just a terrible weakness of mine. I am intrigued and deeply puzzled however...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

478. Comment #118549 by markg on January 30, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Begonetodaynow

If we go back to VD's shitblog, are we going to find posts from you where you've slept with your mother?

Other Comments by markg

479. Comment #118550 by Double Bass Atheist on January 30, 2008 at 6:48 pm

A physics question?

Arrow, does the hospital know you're using their computer?

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

480. Comment #118551 by Double Bass Atheist on January 30, 2008 at 6:50 pm

markg -
That's effing hilarious!!!

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

481. Comment #118552 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 6:50 pm

err... I'm really not sure what to say to that one.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

482. Comment #118553 by Goldy on January 30, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Odd, eh? When an athiest posts a question on a theist (normally Christian) site, it is generally a question regarding logic and reason. Generally, not all the time, i will admit.
We get a truck driver from Ohio, a blow job queen, someone who is a bit prickly but might mellow and a retarded individual - none of whom gave much in the way of a decent argument and no answers.
What am I to make of that?

Other Comments by Goldy

483. Comment #118554 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 6:54 pm

I'm willing to give Becomethearrow the benefit of the doubt for now. I really can't fathom what he's up to in the slightest, but it might shape up into some sport given time...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

484. Comment #118555 by Steve Zara on January 30, 2008 at 6:56 pm

That guy, Dominic Tennant, is essentially right that we need an account for truth-aptness of propositions and for the intentionality of propositions.

I read it more as that those qualities need some form of substance i.e. "mind". The key phrases, for me, are:

"Truth and intentionality are not physical properties. They are mental ones."

But any other perspective would be helpful.

I might be able to provide you with the Paul Churchland article on neurosemantics, in which he discusses this quite brilliantly in my opinion.

I would be grateful.

Anyway, just wanted to offer my assistance, if I can be of any.

Sure! I kind of misinterpreted the invitation, and put up some ideas rather than responding with "yes". I have suggested that my response is removed, so we can start again more formally, as seems to be the plan.

I just hope I have not got in beyond my depth.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

485. Comment #118558 by Diacanu on January 30, 2008 at 6:57 pm

...wow,..now it's getting creepy...

Other Comments by Diacanu

486. Comment #118560 by Goldy on January 30, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Surreal. And, I'll wager, not long to be seen on this thread...

Other Comments by Goldy

487. Comment #118563 by Double Bass Atheist on January 30, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Alas Gloldy -
I've never seen anything like this!

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

488. Comment #118564 by Goldy on January 30, 2008 at 7:02 pm

Nah, just do it in your trousers. No one will notice...

Other Comments by Goldy

489. Comment #118565 by Steve Zara on January 30, 2008 at 7:03 pm

I think we need a new post flagging category...
[bizarre]

Other Comments by Steve Zara

490. Comment #118567 by Goldy on January 30, 2008 at 7:04 pm

Alas Gloldy -
I've never seen anything like this!

Got me stumped. I'm waiting for a sort of almost inevitable volcano of comments from young becametheidiot, fire and brimstone all round, cursing us and wishing us death a thousand times over.

Other Comments by Goldy

491. Comment #118568 by Radesq on January 30, 2008 at 7:04 pm

al rawandi -- you must post right now, you just made up this new member name to pull a joke on us didn't you?

Other Comments by Radesq

492. Comment #118569 by MPhil on January 30, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Steve
When I read the following passage in his opening statement, I concluded that you would need to address the problem I was alluding to:

None of this denies that our mental states may correlate to physical states in our brains. But we cannot reduce the mental states to these physical states, because we would then remove truth and intentionality completely, since they are non-physical things. Similarly, we cannot say that the mental states are caused by physical states, because then the only real causation would be physical causation while the mental states are just along for the ride, having no actual influence on what happens.

Although dualism doesn't necessarily imply theism, it opens the door to postulating metaphysical entities, and I'd keep that door shut if possible, so I guess you will have to show how intentionality and truth-aptness do not disappear with materialism.
Of course, what we can get is only something functionally equivalent, because these notions have been conceptualized as properties of mental entities irreducible to physical entities.

I would say take some good arguments from the Churchlands (Paul and Patricia) and Dennett. Of course there are no entirely conclusive arguments either way...(the debate continues), but they do have fairly good ones which I doubt Tennant will be able to take down completely.

BTW, just dropped you a PM.

Other Comments by MPhil

493. Comment #118570 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 7:06 pm

That last one just gave me the horrible feeling I might know this person... Becomethearrow - if you are who I suspect you are then please conduct your agenda with me privately rather than on here.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

494. Comment #118571 by Diacanu on January 30, 2008 at 7:08 pm

Cartomancer-

Careful. This one sounds like it would boil your bunny rabbit, if you know what I mean....

Other Comments by Diacanu

495. Comment #118572 by Goldy on January 30, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Similarly, we cannot say that the mental states are caused by physical states, because then the only real causation would be physical causation while the mental states are just along for the ride, having no actual influence on what happens.

Can this be linked to this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-discover-way-to-reverse-loss-of-memory-775586.html (t'other discussion)?

Other Comments by Goldy

496. Comment #118573 by Double Bass Atheist on January 30, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Cartomancer - you know this guy? And it took a dozen posts just mess with you on this board?
WTF?!

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

497. Comment #118574 by NormanDoering on January 30, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Becomethearrow wrote:

... I see things you can never see ...

That's a common phenomena with schizophrenics and psychotics.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

498. Comment #118575 by phasmagigas on January 30, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Although dualism doesn't necessarily imply theism, it opens the door to postulating metaphysical entities,

generally if there is a god then thats fine but i bet jesus, mohammed, gay sex, sundays, blasphemy, pork and circumcision are not important to it.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

499. Comment #118576 by Goldy on January 30, 2008 at 7:11 pm

That's a common phenomena with schizophrenics and psychotics.

And, dare I say, people who just can't take "no" for an answer...

Other Comments by Goldy

500. Comment #118577 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 7:12 pm

I don't know for sure if he is who I suspect he is. I just recognized that turn of phrase and it would explain why he addresses me most often. I could be wrong, and if I am right then I really don't know why he would be doing this.

Apologies in advance to everyone if this does have something to do with me.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

Reload Comments | Back to Top