Archive for October, 2009

Dialog with Trypho and the Myth of Er

Posted October 30, 2009 By John C Wright

Recently in this place began a discussion where was examined by what faculty, if any, man might perceive God, assuming God to be both benevolent in wishing Man to see Him, and omnipotent to accomplish that at which He aimed. One side argued that such a God would provide abundant evidence to the senses of Man so as to quell all honest doubt, and that since no such evidence existed, such a God’s existence, or His providence, was in doubt. The other argument was that God, a spirit, both of necessity (since spirits are invisible) and of His providence (since it is less open to doubt, and more readily available to all men, including the blind and unlettered, than either empirical proofs or formal logic) reveals Himself to those who seek Him directly and not through the medium of the sense impressions.

Without revisiting that argument, I note with amusement that it is an old one. Here, for example, from circa 135 A.D. is Justin Martyr, my namesake, the patron saint of philosophers, discussing the purpose of philosophy, and the conclusion of Plato that the divine nature hidden in man allows men to perceive God directly, though the mind, much at other mental forms are perceived. He is debating an old man, not otherwise named, who (later in the dialog) leads him to doubt the wisdom of the philosophers.

‘Are you, then, a lover of words’ said he, ‘but no lover of deeds or of truth? and do you not aim at being a practical man so much as being a sophist? ‘

‘What greater work, ‘said I, ‘could one accomplish than this, to show the reason which governs all, and having laid hold of it, and being mounted upon it, to look down on the errors of others, and their pursuits? But without philosophy and right reason, prudence would not be present to any man. Wherefore it is necessary for every man to philosophize, and to esteem this the greatest and most honourable work; but other things only of second-rate or third-rate importance, though, indeed, if they be made to depend on philosophy, they are of moderate value, and worthy of acceptance; but deprived of it, and not accompanying it, they are vulgar and coarse to those who pursue them.’

‘Does philosophy, then, make happiness? ‘ said he, interrupting.

‘Assuredly, ‘ I said, ‘and it alone.’

‘What, then, is philosophy? ‘ he says; ‘and what is happiness? Pray tell me, unless something hinders you from saying.’
‘Philosophy, then, ‘said I, ‘is the knowledge of that which really exists, and a clear perception of the truth; and happiness is the reward of such knowledge and wisdom.’

‘But what do you call God? ‘ said he.

‘That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other things-that, indeed, is God.’ So I answered him; and he listened to me with pleasure, and thus again interrogated me:-

‘Is not knowledge a term common to different matters? For in arts of all kinds, he who knows any one of them is called a skilful man in the art of generalship, or of ruling, or of healing equally. But in divine and human affairs it is not so. Is there a knowledge which affords understanding of human and divine things, and then a thorough acquaintance with the divinity and the righteousness of them?’

‘Assuredly, ‘I replied.

‘What, then? Is it in the same way we know man and God, as we know music, and arithmetic, and astronomy, or any other similar branch?’

‘By no means, ‘I replied.

‘You have not answered me correctly, then, ‘he said; ‘for some [branches of knowledge] come to us by learning, or by some employment, while of others we have knowledge by sight. Now, if one were to tell you that there exists in India an animal with a nature unlike all others, but of such and such a kind, multiform and various, you would not know it before you saw it; but neither would you be competent to give any account of it, unless you should hear from one who had seen it.’

‘Certainly not, ‘I said.

‘How then, ‘he said, ‘should the philosophers judge correctly about God, or speak any truth, when they have no knowledge of Him, having neither seen Him at any time, nor heard Him? ‘

‘But, father, ‘said I, ‘the Deity cannot be seen merely by the eyes, as other living beings can, but is discernible to the mind alone, as Plato says; and I believe him.’

Read the remainder of this entry »

7 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Wright’s Writing Corner: Tramps Abroad

Posted October 29, 2009 By John C Wright

The latest installment from my lovely and talented wife:
http://arhyalon.livejournal.com/89151.html

As a special bonus, she has not one but two Writers Write on Writing articles, one from redhead Pirate Queen Misty Massey, one from workaholic fantasy writer extraordinaire David B. Coe, but also posts some views and news from our recent China adventure.

Here is a snippet from Misty Massey:

“Where DO you wacky writers get those crazy ideas?”

I don’t know if fantasy writers get this question more often than mystery or romance authors, but we get it quite a bit. And I have decided, in the interest of fair play and brotherhood, to share the Secret. Yes, you guessed it – there IS a place we all go to get these nutty ideas: the Gregorovich-Feister Idea Farm and Fresh Market. It’s a coop tucked into the high grass along Interstate 26 between Columbia and Charleston. Take exit 132 and 2/3 (it’s a dirt road, so be sure and slow down on the curve, else you’re liable to go flying!) and drive at exactly 42 miles per hour for exactly 17 minutes. Stop at the 17 minute mark, close your eyes, and whisper, “I just can’t think of what to write,”, and the gate will appear on the left. Drive in quick, since it only stays open about 30 seconds.

Here is a snippet from David B. Coe:

… when I’m asked, “What’s your best book?” I usually name my most recent publication. When I’m asked, “Which book of yours should I read first?” I’ll usually recommend the first book of my current series. But occasionally I’m asked, “What’s your favorite of all your books?” That’s another matter entirely.

Certain books of mine are dearer to me than others. This has nothing to do with how good or how flawed I might think they are. It has everything to do with the emotions I drew upon when I wrote them, with the characters I encountered as I developed them, and with what milestones they might represent in my career.

Be the first to comment

The faculty of belief

Posted October 28, 2009 By John C Wright

This is something I wanted to answer, which is too long for a comment box, and significant enough to allow a violation of my rule against weekday postings.

Someone who rejoices in the moniker Surly One comments: "If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God exists, and wants me to believe in him, it should be easy for him to make this happen."

Oddly enough, back when I was an atheist, this was my exact conclusion as well. My reasoning forced me to the next logical step, which I hope you can deduce.

Before we answer the question, let me point out that God (if he is as described) does not want your mere belief. The fallen angels (if they are as described) obviously "believe" that God Almighty exists, but they rebel against his authority and do not love him. So something more than mere belief seems to be indicated here. What it is?

Another question would be–what is the nature of the belief God (if He has the sense God gave a duck) is said to want?

I suppose the maker of a robot could program the robot with an Asimovian Three Laws of Theology or somesuch rot, but in that case the robot’s "belief" would then of course be nothing of the kind. It would be a mechanical repetition, like listening to your own voice on a phonograph, not the belief of another moral agent. Nothing in our experience suggest that human can be "programmed" like machines into believing anything, not even by God Almighty. As an author I can assure you that even fictional characters I invent in my own head cannot be made to believe what I want them to believe, or do what I want them to do, if their nature goes against it (and here we are only talking about a fictional and make-believe nature, not a real nature). So, when we speak of ‘making’ us believe in him, God (if he is as described) would not have recourse to mind-control. He wants belief freely given, because otherwise it is not really ‘belief’ at all, but parrot-noises.

Next question: what would be necessary for making this easy in just the way you (and I) deduced it must be?

In other words, if logic suggests that an omniscient and benevolent God who wants us to believe in him would arrange provisions as necessary to make us believe in him, what would those provisions be? If we can deduce what they would be, and if we then see such provision in evidence around us, while this does not prove God exists necessarily, it would defeat the argument that the lack of such provision indicates no such God exists.

What is the provision of making us believe?

If the act of making one believe were dependent, let us say, on empirical evidence, sense-impression evidence, then those people not in a position to see Christ with their eyeballs, and those people not in a position to assess the credibility of surviving documents could not be made to believe. Paradoxically, this means that if Omnipotence wants you to believe in him, He would have to use a means more obvious than empirical sense impressions, not less.

If the act of making one believe were dependent, let us say, on a philosophical argument, on logic and reason, then those people not inclined by nature nor trained by education in logical reasoning would be in a position to be made to believe. Paradoxically, this means that if Omnipotence wants you to believe in him, he would have to use a means more obvious than philosophical argument (which is the type of argument you are asking me to produce), not less.

This would seem to imply, if the Omnipotent God is a logical and elegant creator of Man, that there must be something in man, some provision, or faculty or innate knowledge or readily-available means, a means available even to the blind and to the unlettered, to come to know God. Read the remainder of this entry »

76 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Alone

Posted October 28, 2009 By John C Wright

Only posting a link! Here is an article from Belmont Club:

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/10/26/alone/

A snippet:

What the Left and Fascism share is a belief in the transformative power of the state. Both regard government as the “high ground” of society and not, as some Americans still believe, simply a necessary evil. It is a prize to be seized by main force; the castle to be stormed. In the long run there is little reason to think that Nick Griffin will allow any more freedom than Gordon Brown. What is likely to happen is the substitution of one set of sacred cows for another. When the Left and fascists contend for power, the surveillance cameras are in every case fully employed.
One of the commenters at Chicago Boyz writes, “A friend of mine is a professor of Surgery and Anatomy in London. He has told me he is very concerned about the number of young women converts to Islam who are medical students. These women, like the louts in the Dalrymple books, are not from immigrant families. Why an educated young woman would convert to Islam is a real puzzle. Maybe they are seeking structure but I expect it will come at a high price. The other side of that coin may be the BNP voters.” Maybe this infatuation with Islam should not be surprising: if the central role of the state is accepted, then the only question is what the character of that authority will be: Islamic, Communist or Fascist. When you come to it, who cares? It is the same dog with a different collar. And perhaps the young ladies are simply choosing Islam on the basis of fashion. It’s as good a reason as any.
How does one get away from the dog?
 
Perhaps the greatest service that religion once rendered to Western civilization was providing the individual with a real or imagined hotline to God. Whether this was simply a conceit or not let us set aside for the moment. For as long as man imagined himself to be sacred and accountable to the Creator he stood at the center of polity. The state was there to serve him and not the reverse. Today he has lost that central place and is no more or less than a collection of curiously animated chemical substances with a market value of less then fifty dollars which the state has deigned to keep alive until some bureaucratic panel decides it is too expensive to do so. Just as Global Warming can be understood at one level as an attempt to bring nature into the purview of politics, it is impossible to understand the Left’s fixation with abortion except as a sacramental affirmation of the state’s power over man. The strident insistence on abortion on demand goes way beyond any conceivable need to prevent backroom abortions, or even an affirmation of a woman’s right to choose. It is really an absolute display of the power of politics over life. Abortion’s principal utility is as a stake driven through the heart of the notion of human sacredness, which once performed, ought to prevent its revival entirely.

My comment: the choice in the modern world grows ever narrower and ever more stark. Perhaps in the past one could maintain a position that affirmed human reason and human dignity without any pledge of allegiance Christendom from which those notions uniquely spring. These intermediate positions seem to grow ever more precarious, as they occupy a no man’s land between contending armies of darkness and light, whose ranks are being ordered for final battle. One side upholds the labarum which blazes like a comet’s tail, foretelling the doom of worldly kings; the other side, the black and anarchic banner which bares no charge, no sign, no symbol, for nihilism despises all names. The stark choice, to borrow a phrase from David B. Hart, is between Christ and Nothing.

146 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Excerpt!

Posted October 27, 2009 By John C Wright

If you want to hear a snippet from the audio version of my short story GUEST LAW (or, better yet, buy the whole thing) go here:
http://audiotexttapes.net/guestlaw.htm
 I don’t know anything about the voice actor except that his name is Tom Dheere and he loves accents. His web page is here.

Be the first to comment

Interview!

Posted October 27, 2009 By John C Wright

DAPPLED THINGS interviewed me here , http://www.dappledthings.org/mqa09/interview01.php and this was mentioned on the FIRST THINGS blog here http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/26/what-postmodern-ninja-messiah-figures-fight-for/

Well, my loyal minions, that I have been mentioned at FIRST THINGS, of all corners of the Internet, the one I most respect, is quite a feather in my cap.

This means my fame, and hence my power, are expanding like a dark mass of fog, with tendrils everywhere. Soon now my army of radio-brainwave-controlled ape-human hybrids, which I call the APELOIDS, will be ready to emerge from my secret laboratory-fortress hidden in a dead volcano cone on Ape Island, and be carried by transatlantic jet packs or via subterranean bullet-trains to all the cities of mankind. Then those fools at the Council of Science, and all who laughed at my theories will pay for their mockery!

As the clutching fingers of my ape horrors close around their astonished necks, they will cry: "Hey. You look familiar. Weren’t you mentioned on the blog at FIRST THINGS?" and I will say modestly, "Why, yes! Yes I was" and then Sky Saxon, singing cowboy, with the help of Champion the Wonder Dog and the swell gang at Radio Ranch will free princess Allura of Subterrainia and destroy the Brainatron, thus halting the electronic ape-mind-control-waves, and I will be lost beneath the rampaging claws of my own simian monstrosities, and die screaming "Back! BACK! I made you! I am your creator!" The subterrainoids will understand finally that the surface dwellers are not their enemies as I had told them, and they will follow their princess to return to their buried kingdom of superscience, using their cosmic ray cannon to blast the cavern beneath the Mr. McGreedy’s haunted mine, and sealing the entrance forever — or perhaps only until the day when mankind can use the great powers of the radioactive inner world wisely. It is a sad and lonely life, I suppose, being an evil genius, and it leads to a miserable but certain demise, but I regard myself as a misunderstood Prometheus, and blame society for my flaws.

9 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

The Future Belongs to the Puppeteers

Posted October 26, 2009 By John C Wright

Only posting a link!

Bill Willingham has seen the future, and it is safe. No hunting dinosaurs with jetpacks and bazookas, though.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bwillingham/2009/10/25/ive-seen-the-future-and-it-is-safe/

I admit I was more amused by the introduction than by the essay, which repeats a theme I know all too well. That theme is that we do not have the future we were promised because (not to put too simple an explanation on it) the Left drains human civilization of its dreams, its manhood, its romance, its faith, its wealth, its reason, its humor, and its courage. I acknowledge that this is an outrageously provocative statement, but I have not time now to defend it, since I am only posting a link, and carefully not violating my promise only to post on Fridays. On the other hand the intro confirmed to me what I have long suspected: the science fiction geeks are now the mainstream. We rule, AND we rock. Here is the paragraph I mean:

Next I must apologize to the non-geek contingent of our readership. The essay which follows might not be your cup of tea Klingon blood wine. It hinges too much on a presumed knowledge of obscure science fictiony things that only those with a truly Jonah Goldbergian depth of geek arcana can fully appreciate. Then again, I might be underestimating the level to which the fantastical subdivision of pop culture has permeated the mainstream. You might grok this if you know at least two Vulcans other than Spock, who Tim Drake is (as opposed to Dick Grayson), what the Kzinti are, and where the word ‘grok’ came from. If not, you’re excused without penalty.

Not only do I know who the Kzinti are (they are race of warlike  cat-creatures discovered in shadow by Corwin of Amber when he and his brother Bleys attempted their first assault on Mount Kolvir. Samurai Cat aka Miaowara Tomokato, for example, is a Kzint, as clearly Lion-O of Third Earth is a Kzint as well. So also is Tigger of the Hundred Acre Woods), but I know the name of their home star without googlingit. (61 Ursae Majoris). 

25 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Which Starship to Own? Which Space Princess to Abduct?

Posted October 25, 2009 By John C Wright

This is a post from three years back, reposted here for those of you who came in late. I will tell of my recent adventures in Red China sometime later this week, time permitting, faithful readers.

The fine fellows at Meme Therapy have posted a discussion about which Science Fiction starship one should own? The general consensus there is the TARDIS, as this vehicle travels both in time and space, is user friendly, and grants the Gift of the Time Lords, allowing one to speak all languages. However, this assumes that vehicle is ment to be used for sight-seeing or other Lawful Good purposes.

But we all know the real purpose behind man’s yearning for star-drive, do we not? The Lensman corps was specifically designed in response to this real purpose: the real purpose of starships is to commit outrages on distant worlds and be away faster than the speed of light before the crime is detected. PIRACY! Being a pirate is passing brave, to be sure, but being a Space Pirate is the ne plus ultra of human ambition. It is like being a pirate, but with rayguns.

Let us agree, without further discussion, that the Death Star is the best SF star-vehicle for piracy. It has mass and presence, and when it is seen rising like a dark moon above the horizon of the capitol city of some hapless victim world, all will quail when the radios of the world clamor: THIS IS CAPTAIN BLOODSTAR of BOSKONE. PLACE ALL YOUR GOLD AND VALUABLES INTO ORBIT AT ONCE! Hapless redcoats will run every which way while TIE-fighters manned by scurvy Tortuga mongrels fly low over burning buildings, taking pot-shots at the panicked crowds.

But what act of piracy to commit? Looting treasure? Nawr, maties. Ar. That is not big enough. You want to kidnap a Space Princess and hale her back to your hidden lair on Skull Asteroid for a quick Pirate Wedding. Law won’t touch you if your married to Royalty! And not just any old Space Princess! We want a thionite-sniffers dream, a seven sector callout!

The question then merely becomes, which one? Which Space Princess do you want to carry off?

Many pictures of Space Princesses below the cut

43 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Facing the ogre atop a glass mountain

Posted October 17, 2009 By John C Wright

Armed only with a pen, this day I faced a mound of paperwork 15 forms high: passport copy, certificate of abandonment, application for visa, medical forms, certified copies of translations of copied certificates of Chinese permissions, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I wrote my wife’s name at least 20 times, Lady Jane Jenny Lenny Lane Jagi Nemenstratus Cthulhu Lamprighter Lampwright Lamplighter Nyarlathotep-Smythe Wright, Countess of Polinac — fortunately, I had my own name legally changed to X, so it was relatively easier to write my name 20 times. According to Chinese law and tradition, I had to write all the forms using a brush made from the hair of a wild camel I caught myself. The adoption agency made this part easier by having the camel tipsy with rice wine before I clubbed it to death with the ceremonial jade-carved ox-headed truncheon known as ‘Nine Thunders’.

Okay so it was not that bad. But it was a lot of papers to fill out. Naturally, I would have faced an ogre atop a mountain of glass to win my daughter back home but in the modern age, the only trial of manhood required is facing the many pages of bureaucracy without complaint — a feat which, until I sat to type out this complaint, I had accomplished. d’oh!

On an unrelated note, my Chinese guide was sincerely puzzled when he overheard the Americans adopting children (we are here as a group) complaining about socializing the medicine in the US. Most of the adoptive parents are Christian Conservatives (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to guess why), and most understand the basic idea that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch — redistributing a scarce good or service does not make it somehow less scarce; all it does is give an arbitrary authority control of the decisions on how to prioritize, ration, and economize. As if the newspapers had been overhearing our talk, I was pointed to an article from the Sunday Times of London. The headline: “Daughter saves mother, 80, left by doctors to starve.” You may see the story here.

May my daughter prove as loving and loyal.

137 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Ping Ping Evelyn Wright

Posted October 12, 2009 By John C Wright

We made it successfully to China. My first glimpse of my new daughter was at the orphanage. She was sitting in a little room to one side of the main room, leaning to peer around the door and smiling. So far, she has shown none of the anxiety or sorrow one might expect. I suppose having two parents who only speak half a dozen words in common with you is better than having no parents at all.

We spent the next afternoon shopping. Mother and daughter skipped through the shops, hand in hand, while daddy (that’s me) trudged after, carrying packages. Daughter bought two huge bags full of candy and soup and goodies for her 19 closest friends at the orphanage.

We met the ‘auntie’ who has been raising Pingping these last five years, and talked with her through a translator, our guide. She warned us that the girl was bossy and argumentative. The wife and I exchanged a silent glance, and nodded. She’ll fit right in our family.

One note of interest to my libertarian friends: when I saw a man on a bicycle park his bike in the middle of the road, heedless of traffic, our guide Simon merely smiled and said, “It’s a free country” and he went on to explain that there were no helmet laws here, or mandatory seatbelt laws. On the street where we stood, there was a 7-11, a McDonald’s, a Subway and a Starbuck’s. So capitalism seems to be alive and well in Red China, at least on that street, and there are fewer regulations about parking and biking than in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

One note of interest to my Catholic friends. I found a church where I could take Mass, and felt a sense of coming home when I stepped in the door and saw sacred images of the Virgin, Christ, and St. Joseph (to whom I have been addressing myself particularly in prayer these days, since he is sort of an adoptive father) — even on the far side of the world, I was among friends. Of course I understood not a word of the service. Of course I understood it perfectly.

Here in China, or at least in this parish, when we approach to take the host, the elderly people go first: it was a particularly oriental courtesy we in the West could learn.

44 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Off to China! and a prayer request.

Posted October 5, 2009 By John C Wright

I have off to China to pick up my daughter. I will be away from the Internets (thanks, Al Gore!) for the next three weeks, so if any new memes start up, such as "All yours bases are belong to us!" I will have to be left behind. But that is OK by me — I have never been attentive to the latest changes in fashion, and I for one am still thinking over whether to approve and participate in an innovations in Western civilization circa Fifth Century. I have only quite recently bought into this bizarre new Syriac cult Constantine and his soldiers put such stock in, for example. Don’t be hasty–that is my motto. Hoom. Hm.

Speaking of which: My stoic reserve, I admit, is slightly perturbed by the coming event. Like all deeply-rooted ents, I cordially dislike travel, particularly air travel, and adding a new member to the family is a difficult process, even when the angels are helping. If any of the faithful will offer prayers in support of my family and the unknown future we face, I would very much appreciated it.

36 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

A Question about Aesthetics

Posted October 2, 2009 By John C Wright

A reader whom I admire (because he reminds me of me–so I suppose my admiration is a trifle narcissistic) makes this comment. ""Aesthetics is a trickier matter. I will admit that aesthetics is probably the weak link in my understanding of philosophy. All I’m willing to say is that if aesthetics is objective then it is still going to be a titanic undertaking to draw lines and establish boundaries there."

My comment: Ayn Rand is the only modern philosopher who tried, but her metaphysics was nominalism, and so she attempted to attach the beautiful and lovely to expressions of what she called highest values — capitalists love skyscrapers and do not (for example) feel sublime and awed at the sight of stars, etc. This theory does not explain all the facts, but my respect for Rand is great, because she made a bold attempt. Other modern philosophers are girlmen and craven cowards compared to her.

Myself, I hold with Plato and St. Thomas Aquinas that the Beautiful is an objective object of thought. We know a line is straight or crooked because we compare it with an ideal line in thought, and everyone who thinks of the ideal line thinks the same thing. We know an argument is logical or illogical because we compare the argument against ideal laws of logic in thought, and everyone uses the same ideals laws (even people who never studied logic, or who lived on earth before Aristotle use the same rules. This is how we know those laws were discovered, not manmade.)

Likewise, we know the beautiful when we compare it to an ideal of beauty. If there is no objective ideal of beauty, than not only is all taste merely a matter of taste, and all beauty in the eye of the beholder, BUT, it would be impossible for me to both think something is beautiful and to think that maybe my taste is bad and that I should learn to see what is good for what it is. In other words, if there is no such thing as true (objective) beauty ,then there is false beauty, and no such thing as correcting an wrong opinion about beauty, and there is no way to correct mistakes, to learn, to grow, or to develop good taste.

This jars against our experience. We all know there are things we think beautiful as adults that children do not find so, and we recall the change in our aesthetics as our judgment deepened. If there is no objective standard of aesthetics, than that change is merely change, and not growth. But since it feels like growth, and we remember it as growth, the facts on the ground testify to an objective standard. 

42 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Fifty Questions part Two

Posted October 2, 2009 By John C Wright

Continuing: 

Letter of 22 Sept

Q: Would it be correct to say that it would take *more* faith for you to believe you *didn’t* really experience something supernatural?

A: No. It would merely take less reason, but not more faith.

Faith is a word that is often abused, but it fundamentally means to trust someone whom you have good reason to trust, despite the temptation or fear which, during a moment of weakness, makes mistrust seem the better idea.

I say it would take less reason because, in order to explain all the events that happened to me using nothing but naturalistic causes, the explanation would have to be ad hoc, would have to assume facts not in evidence, would have indulge in speculations without warrant.

One dogmatic atheist it was my misfortune to meet told me that my subconscious mind created to triggered the heart attack in response to my ‘Pascal’s Wager’ type prayer I described earlier, and then my subconscious mind halted the heart attack on cue when my wife’s Church prayed over me, and then my subconscious mind offered me a series of dreams and hallucinations over the next few days, and the subconscious mind selected the content of those dreams and hallucinations in order to have them match or meet with Christian literature and doctrine.

One of the things that happened to me was that Christ told me that God does not judge any man, but that He, Christ will be my judge. This was surprising to me, since what little I remembered of my Bible stories showed that the Old Testament God was clearly full of wrath and judgment, or else what was that whole Deluge of Noah all about? I have debated with Christians not one or twice, but many and many times in my life, and none of them mentioned this odd division of labor.

As one might expect, after I recovered from the hospital, I sat down to read the Bible from cover to cover, including the several books in it I had never read. To my absolute astonishment I came across a passage in the Book of John which not only confirmed what Christ had said to me, but was almost word for word the same. The vision had told me something I had not known which appeared in a book I had not read. This indicates eitherthat my vision was giving me true information, or that I have weird mind-powers that allows me to know the words I am going to read before I read it.

I asked the dogmatic atheist how it was that my vision told me words in a book I had not yet read. He said the vision had not said anything, but that, when I read that passage in the book a month or so later, I only (without knowing it) retroactively re-wrote my memories to make it look to myself as if I had known something before I could have known it.

Boy, howdy, I thought it was cool beans that I now had magical mind-rewriting powers, like Gilderoy Lockheart from Harry Potter! I am sure I have some unpleasant memories I could re-edit to have better outcomes, assuming I somehow lost my reverence for truth and accuracy—I just wanted to know how to turn them on. But, alas, even though my dogmatic atheist friend somehow had enough mind-reading powers himself to sense that I had a subconscious mind, or like Sherlock Holmes crossed with Sigmund Freud, could tell, even without ever speaking to me, exactly what the buried and hidden sections of my mind were up to, he could not tell me how to do what he said I had done. Got that? My subconscious mind and its mind-powers tended to pop into existence when and only when the dogmatic atheist needed a convenient excuse to explain things away, but the mind-powers would always somehow vanish again when it would have been convenient for me. Hmmm …. And this guy was presenting himself as a paragon of rationality, when his excuses were as flimsy as those of a professional rainmaker standing beneath clear, dry skies.

I told him my wife remembered the sequence of events in the same order I did. Had I somehow rewritten her memories too?

Read the remainder of this entry »

52 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Fifty Questions part One

Posted October 2, 2009 By John C Wright

Fifty questions on my conversion story.

Someone named Jesse, who could be anyone from Jesse Jackson the Racial Shakedown Artist to Jesse the Yodeling Cowgirl from Toy Story, asked me a few questions about my conversion story. Rather than repeat the whole conversion story in this space, I here repeat only his questions, given the original conversion story as a quote in his question where relevant.

(You may wonder why I am calling Jesse a ‘he’ when he might be a she. For those of you who studied English rather than Newspeak, let me remind you that the proper pronoun to use for a person who sex is unknown to you is ‘he.’ For those of you—and it is all of you—who were not taught this rule in grammar school, I am required to offer the explanation. I didn’t make the rules, I only respect them.)

Letter of 08 Sept

Q: (quote) “over a period of two years my hatred toward Christianity eroded due to my philosophical inquiries.”

Hatred strikes me as a strong word. Were you exaggerating, or is that how you really felt? How did you come to feel that way?

A: I was not exaggerating. What atheists feel toward Christian is a loathsome, crawling sensation of mingled contempt and fear and hate and bitter amusement. I came to feel that way out of frustration. I thought the matter was perfectlyplain: an omnipotent and omniscient God could not act, since to act presupposes an inability to get or to foresee one’s desires. A benevolent God could not allow for the Fall of Man. A just God could not punish the remote descendants of Adam for Adam’s crime. And so on and on. But arguing with Christians was like arguing with someone who believed in Santa Claus: no matter what you said, the belief persisted. And it was not just Christians: belief in some sort of god or gods reaches back to prehistory. It was absurd and irrational and nothing could seem to dent it. It was an obvious con game, a trick played by priests so that they would not have to do honest work for a living—telling old ladies lies about a mythic fairyland beyond the grave or over the rainbow. It made no sense and it would not go away, and even reasonable people seemed to buy into it.

The atheists who say they do not hate religion are lying.

Read the remainder of this entry »

89 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Wright’s Writing Corner: Evoking the Desired Response

Posted October 1, 2009 By John C Wright

New article up on the site of my beautiful and talented wife, who writes under the name L. Jagi Lamplighter:

http://arhyalon.livejournal.com/85601.html


One of the difficult things for writers is knowing whether or not one is accomplishing what one set out to accomplish. Is my scary scene scary? Is my romantic hero intriguing? Will my funny scene make people laugh?

This is a tremendously difficult question because things just don’t seem the same when you write them as when you read them. A scene can seem frightening to the author or make the author laugh out loud, but if the words do not capture the essence of the idea, it will fall flat to the reader.

It goes the other way as well. A scene can seem quite flat to the author and come alive in a spray of sparkly magic for the reader.

 

This happens a lot. An author might think a certain scene is frightening or humorous the first time through…or the second, or the fourth. But by the tenth revision, it can be really hard to tell what kind of response the scene is intended to invoke, as now it just seems like a jumble of words and ideas.

There are two things that can go wrong when trying to evoke a response.

Read the whole thing.

Be the first to comment