Quick Hit

I ought resist the urge, but what can I say? I’m weak

Via email, I get the link to this post from Vox Day, "the scientist and Christian Libertarian." I guess his real name is Theodore Beale, a writer of Christian fantasy (ahem…) novels in the tradition of C.S. Lewis, and apparently brimming with substantial doses of good old fashioned hellfire, brimstone and judgmental wrath for those who don’t toe the (Beale’s?) line. It’s reminiscent of the finest traditions of of the chortlingly vindictive Left Behind series, where people who profess shockingly stupid "revelations" here on Earth get to entertain their "You’ll be sorry" fantasies with regard to all the people demonstrably less delusional than they.

At least he’s smart enough to be making money on a following (literally) of stupids and morons (read some of the 90-odd comments to that post to see what I mean).

Anyway… we learn that ‘ol Vox too thinks pretty highly of his intellectual prowess.

But I know that I will obliterate Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris without
ever breaking a sweat should I ever get the chance, simply because all
three of them base their primary arguments against religion on
ludicrous assertions that are demonstrably and unequivocally false. I’d
even be happy to have PZ moderate any such debate, such is my
confidence in the empirical superiority of my case.

"ludicrous assertions" (like the onus of proof, perhaps?) he does not
say explicitly, but then appears to show his hand obliquely (reducing
the likelihood of direct challenge to his self-esteemed debating skills?).

This bit was particularly funny: I have been asking you to provide
a warrant for morality, given atheism, and you have mostly responded
with assertions that atheists can make what some people call moral
choices. Well, sure. But what I have been after is what rational
warrant they can give for calling one choice "moral" and another choice
"not moral." You finally appealed to "innate human solidarity"….

it’s the old steal the stolen concept trick, whereby a "philosopher"
familiar with only its most primitive roots (religion; missing the memo
altogether that the Greeks invented Philosophy philosophy)
steals the concept of morality for religion and then pretends those
using it outside the context of religion are engaging in a stolen concept fallacy. And he probably thought he thought of it. Probably wanted to keep it in his back pocket, waiting for Hitchens to clamor for that debate.

Sorry ‘ol Vox, but the "warrant" for morality is human nature: the reality that man must choose to act in order to secure the values he requires for survival and that such values can be objectively good for him qua human organism or objectively bad for him qua human organism (choose: volition; good & bad; get it?).

And besides all that, even if volition (free will) were an illusion (thus no possibility of morality), man believes himself to be a moral agent and wouldn’t necessarily require any delusions beyond that single one to simulate morality.

But I’m sure you were thinking of other "ludicrous assertions," weren’t you?

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. John Sabotta on May 31, 2007 at 15:19

    Someone who thinks that they are making some kind of point by calling the "National Review" the "National Socialist Review" is a malicious idiot.

    In addition, he has a ridiculous pseudonym (the tedious and banal symbolism of which no doubt he'd be glad to explain), he indulges in a vile and slanderous mischaracterization of a rival writer, he writes "Christian fantasy novels" and worst of all he is a member of the SFWA.

    He also is probably some kind of Protestant, which is as bad as being a Catholic or an atheist. And he also seems to be some kind of weightlifting advocate.

    So, basically, he sucks.

    Fundamentally, I hate everything.

  2. Richard Nikoley on June 4, 2007 at 17:57

    "Fundamentally, I hate everything"

    Fortunately, I suppose, you appear to hate death just a bit more than everything else.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k