Archive for May, 2010

Newer Entries »

An Example of Statistics in Action

Posted May 14, 2010 By John C Wright

An anecdote, related to an earlier discussion of divorce statistics.

Once upon a time, I was sitting at a table with eight friends.

There were three sets. Set one had one member: an unmarried male. Set two had six members: three couples married to each other, with no divorces. Set three had one member: a young lady who had been married six times, and divorced four times. (She was currently married, and had been widowed once.)

Eight people and four divorces meant that the divorce rate at that table was FIFTY PERCENT. When one one young lady got up and went to the kitchen for a coke, the divorce rate at the table was ZERO. When she returned, drink in hand, the divorce rate rose to FIFTY PERCENT.

My conclusion: Coke has been a disaster for the divorce rate!

Be the first to comment
Filed in Reasonings

True Atheism and Ideologopathology

Posted May 14, 2010 By John C Wright

A reader named after a burning lexicon of telephone numbers writes this:

It’s this sort of thing that leaves me without a home in the religious debate. I find kindred spirits in neither the religious nor in the Hitchens-Dawkins atheists. Mr. Savage is indeed being arrogant and condescending, particularly in his attempt to pigeon-hole religion as a psychological concept. But, his critics repeat his error when they doubt the sincerity or the efficacy of an atheist’s reasoning. That is to say, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything,” and “As people give up mysticism, they do not give religion,” show concurrent condescension to the atheist mentality. You don’t know Mr. Savage’s thought processes, nor do you know mine. Perhaps Mr. Savage is merely a believer in technocracy. Certainly there are some in the religion of technology or the religion of communism or the religion of environmentalism who wear the skin of an atheist for tactical reasons, but that does not preclude a True Atheist. I claim that mantle, and defy anyone to prove me wrong.

However, if we stipulate that all belief is religion, and the question is only one of mystical or non-mystical, then I don’t see how you can claim the religious instinct as a point in favor of mystical religion while simultaneously decrying it in favor of non-mystical religion. If Mr. Savage’s instinct yields this avian auto-phagic (for lack of a better term) ideal, it is surely no less useful for him to pursue that ideal than it is for a devotee to pursue Christianity or Islam.

The irony is that I used the same, “personal worldview is by definition of value to the person viewing the world,” argument against my nihilistic friend in defending free will. He at least had the weapon of, “But that worldview is an illusion in an uncaring reality.” But those of you who acknowledge personal value still find it difficult to concede that values other than yours can be more appropriate to those other than you. I have never heard a Christian say, “There are those who should be atheists and reject Christ,” nor have I heard an atheist say, “Religion is a benefit to certain believers and they should not reject their faith.” (Nor a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a Hindu) That lack of provincial humility raises a red flag that steers me away from both systems.

I hope I’m being clear here; sometimes things get lost in the transition from brain to paper. But all I’m saying, to everyone, is have faith, or have doubt, but have something, and don’t say I should have it too.

Mr. Flaming Phonebook, even if there is no one else, I  believe that there are True Atheists, because I myself was just such a one. I was a an atheist who allowed not the tiniest particle of supernaturalism to enter his philosophical system. I was not a radical materialist (anyone with a mind can see that we have minds) but believing that we have minds (a self-evident truth, Cogito Ergo Sum) is not the same was believing we have souls, an immaterial matter that endures forever like a song without a harp to play it.

I was a stoic. I did not believe in life after death because I placed no credence in ghost stories, and did not see how, if any supernatural happy hunting grounds existed in the sky, we natural people with our natural powers of reasoning could deduce the existence of such a thing. The Socratic argument that all knowledge is recollection from previous reincarnations was unconvincing to me. Arguments of Christian theologians that the soul existed, and was of an uncomposite nature that could not suffer alteration nor decay was likewise unconvincing. Nothing in my common experience even gave raise to the reasonable supposition that life after death was possible: a man who loses an eye does not gain clairvoyance, and a man who loses a hand does not get powers of telekinesis, so why should a man whose every part of his brain and flesh and bone be destroyed gain any corresponding powers of perception, motion, or existence? Hence my conclusion was that the rational thing to do was to train my desires and passions to conform with this grim and mortal reality: to spend my life as a philosopher should spent it, preparing for death.
Read the remainder of this entry »

13 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Apologetics, Reasonings

Me Too Smart for Religion!

Posted May 13, 2010 By John C Wright

The good Doctor Rampage, Metahero, with considerably more patience than yours truly could bring to bear on the question, dissects the polemic of Adam Savage, Mythbuster Extraordinaire, where Doc Savage savages the religions of the world with more enthusiasm than wit or logic.

Some of the many nice points made by Doc Rampage:

As people give up mysticism, they do not give religion. Instead they replace mystical religious beliefs with pseudo-scientific religious beliefs. I call these “mechanical mythologies” because they are mythologies designed to be compatible with a mechanical world view. Examples are alien visitors who will be the salvation of mankind, a Marxist future history which will be the salvation of mankind, a benevolent world government which will be the salvation of mankind, evolution which will be the salvation of mankind or science which will be the salvation of mankind. In addition to the salvation mechanical mythologies, there are the adversarial mechanical mythologies such as the evil Jews who want to dominate mankind, the evil Christians who want to dominate mankind, the evil government employees who like fallen angels work within the all Good and Holy Creation of Civil Service to pervert it to evil and murderous ends –perhaps to dominate mankind.

Finally, Adam assures us that he understands the desire for someone to be in charge. This condescending gesture is a common trope of the too-smart-for-religion believers. I think that many of them actually view their ability to offer psychological theories of a religious instinct as some sort of refutation of religion. To the extent that they think this, it is unworthy of their extreme smartness. First of all, it is a capricious form of argument that can be turned in any direction with equal ease. For example: “atheists want to believe that there is no God because they fear being held responsible for their behavior”. Or how about “atheists are just like high-school kids playing goth who want to be different and shocking to everyone else”. Or we could reverse the argument with respect to religious people, “Religious people don’t want to believe in God because they are afraid of judgment, but they believe anyway so there must be some explanation besides psychology.”

Furthermore, there is no logical connection between the desire to believe something and the likelihood that that the thing is false. I want to believe that I have a hundred dollars in my wallet. Does this imply that I don’t have a hundred dollars in my wallet? Does it imply that I my belief that I have a hundred dollars in my wallet is just wishful thinking? Does the fact that I would like to believe this make you think that I don’t actually have sound reasons for believing it? Yes, there is such a thing as wishful thinking, but there is such a thing as pessimistic thinking too.

Yet another reason that this argument is not worthy of smart people is that hundreds of years before any atheist came up with this argument, Christians already knew that there is a religious instinct (and they used the existence of that instinct as an argument for the existence of God). Since Christian theology has a coherent and functional place for the religious instinct, the existence of this instinct cannot be used as an argument against Christianity without begging the question and assuming that Christian theology is wrong.

This paragraph by paragraph autopsy of a brain dying of its own self-infatuation is here

Read the remainder of this entry »

10 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Drollery, Other

For Those of You Not Impressed with Raquel Welch

Posted May 12, 2010 By John C Wright

In a recent article in this space, your humble perpetrator of sciffy space opera opined that the Sexual Revolution was no friend of Feminism, since the object of the first was to reduce women to objects, and the object of the second was to elevate women to equality.

To bolster my argument, I linked to an Op-Ed by Sex Goddess Raquel Welch, who agreed with me. I admit this indulged in the informal logical error of ‘argumentum ad buxom’, which is to say, an appeal to the sex appeal of the authority.

However, argument from authority is the strongest form of argument, as many eminent people will attest.

Therefore, to further bolster the argument by further informal logical error, I now draw the attention of my patient and charitable readers to a well-written article by Some Anonymous Guy on the Internet. (Just kidding: his name is Lawrence Gage). The article is called Technology Versus Motherhood and the blog is called Real Physics. He describes himself a ‘humanist skeptic’ which I think means he is someone skeptical of the humanists.

The money quote:

The Pill is a great boon to playboys and womanizers: having excluded the natural ends of sex, a man may enjoy as many women to enjoy as he desires, with no ties, no limits. The AP article says sardonically, “After all these years, a male equivalent to the birth control pill is still five to seven years away.” Contraception is above all about men manipulating women.

The Pill is a great boon to social engineers. What good is motherhood anyway? We need a society of homogenized individuals who can be moved and manipulated for economic exigency, so let’s do away with intermediate institutions like the family: in the future children will come from central factories and every man will stand naked before the power of the State. Motherhood doesn’t count toward Gross Domestic Product, so what good can that institution be? We need more (immediate) productivity, so turn women out into the work force.

For many purposes the Pill effectively turns a woman into a man: a man who may be more verbal, more social, and adorned with pleasing curves, but still a compact economic unit unencumbered by larger allegiances outside the centrally planned State.

Droll nonsense after the cut. With Pictures.
Read the remainder of this entry »

14 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Drollery, Musings

World War and the Sexual Revolution

Posted May 11, 2010 By John C Wright

There is an article over at First Things touching just the issue of the origins of the revolting sexual revolt. The origin of the sexual revolution, so the argument is made, is the social breakdown ushered in by World War Two.

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/05/beyond-the-pill-looking-for-the-origins-of-the-sexual-revolution

Because of its scope and intensity, World War II shattered an existing moral consensus, creating a socially unstable situation in which “ordinary” morality was jettisoned. People lived very intensely and with the knowledge that everything, including life itself, was transient. The typical American serviceman in World War II had four sex partners, not counting prostitutes. Venereal disease rates for U.S. servicemen in Europe and Australia reached epidemic proportions that eventually required the military to license and regulate brothels. As Kipling wrote, “Single men in barracks don’t grow into plaster saints”.

While soldiers were fornicating their way across Europe and women on the home front were in contact with men on the war assembly lines, the number of “Dear John” letters received at the front and in the POW cages constituted a real threat to morale. One received in 1944 by a POW in Stalag Luft VII read: “Dear John, I hope you are open-minded, because I just had a baby. His father is a wonderful guy, and he has enclosed some cigars for you”. Of course, most men and women were not promiscuous during the war—just as most men and women today are not—but enough were to have a lasting impact.

After the war, everything was supposed to return to normal, but of course, it did not, and many trends conspired to ensure that they would not, including unprecedented prosperity, social and physical mobility—which broke down traditional ties of family and community, a burning resentment of authority among servicemen and a more relaxed attitude toward sex, growing out of the wartime experience.

Read the remainder of this entry »

15 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Drollery, Musings

Raquel Welch Agrees with Me

Posted May 10, 2010 By John C Wright

Readers may recall in this space I wrote an editorial denouncing the sexual revolution. I argued that it was no friend of women, of womankind, or of feminism. There were those who took exception to what I said, some of it honest disagreement, and some of it not.

In the interests of completeness, I note with no little amusement that of all people it is Rachel Welch, the Love Goddess of her generation, who pens a commentary for CNN expressing at least some of the same reservations as yours truly.

The money quote: Seriously, folks, if an aging sex symbol like me starts waving the red flag of caution over how low moral standards have plummeted, you know it’s gotta be pretty bad.

The ‘it’ in that sentence refers to the state of the culture after the sexual revolution.

You may read it here.

Completely gratuitous photo of young Mrs. Welch below the cut!

Read the remainder of this entry »

5 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Drollery

A Random World of Delta Capricorni Aa, also called Scheddi

Posted May 7, 2010 By John C Wright

My latest story is available over at Flash Fiction Online. It is an ultra-short (only one kiloword long) decorated with an admirable illustration by R.W. Ware. You may read the tale free of charge, but tipping is encouraged.

http://www.flashfictiononline.com/f20100501-random-world-delta-capricorni-scheddi-john-c-wright.html

It was not abduction. I volunteered to go.

I trampled out the crop circle in the north field of the Suttlebys’ ranch, at night, just with a board of plywood and a long rope. I did not know what the signs mean, but I copied them. Took me all night, and the sky was pink above the barn, and my breath was fog. It was October, the best month for contacting, so I was wearing my windbreaker and work gloves. (I would have worn my green skirt to look nice for them, but it was too cold, so I was in jeans.)

Be the first to comment
Filed in Free Fic

Who is a Space Princess?

Posted May 6, 2010 By John C Wright

I am happy to announce that the New Space Princess literary movement now consists of two members: me and Edward Willet, a Canadian writer who would be profoundly embarrassed to be associated with me if he knew what a disreputable person I am. But no matter! Recently the SWFA Mansion in New Jersey was rocked and shattered with tumult as Mr. Willet and I disagreed over the definition of who is a “Space Princess” — for example, is Princess Padme of Naboo a Space Princess, or only a Space Senator? Do elected Princesses count? What about a girl whose father is the Tyrant of Pluto — if Pluto is no longer a planet, does that mean she is no longer a Space Princess?

I wonder if the guys over at the New Weird Movement or the Mundane SF Movement or the People’s Front of Judea have to make such nuanced and elaborate definitional arguments just to see what is inside or outside their literary cannon?

We lack as yet a ready definition to cover all forms of Space Princessship. Several possible criteria suggest themselves: (1) Does she wear a crown?  (2) Does she have a bare midriff? (3) Does she have a raygun? (4) Is she from Outer Space? (5) Is she a non-reigning member of the Royal Family? (Non-reigning, because, of course, we are not the Space QUEEN movement — they are our rivals!)

In the interests, therefore, of obfuscating the matter, and making it look as if our literary movement is larger than it really is (three people instead of one and a half) I suggest a survey of all the great classics and popular blockbusters of science fiction, to see which of them can be shoehorned into membership in our mighty literary juggernaut of a movement, perhaps by some sleight of hand or by switching the definitions while you are not looking. Ready? Let’s begin!

WHICH OF THE GREATEST SCI FI STORIES ARE PART OF THE SPACE PRINCESS CANNON?
Read the remainder of this entry »

1 Comment. Join the Conversation
Filed in Drollery, Fancies

Mad Scientist of the Week!

Posted May 5, 2010 By John C Wright

Here at the Official Website of the literary movement known as the New Space Princess Movement, we have run into a ferocious conflict, and the movement is on the verge of shattering into two opposing and irreconcilable factions. Faction One, consisting of me, insists that the official definition of “Space Princess” should also include the Mad Scientist’s Beautiful Daughter, since, obviously, any Mad Scientist worth his salt could conquer one or more planets in space, and make his daughter a princess. The opposing faction, which consists of the other member of the huge and world-enveloping literary juggernaut known as the space princess movement, some guy whose name I don’t remember, no doubt maintains the contrary position, that Space Princess means “Space Princess” and does not mean “Mad Scientist’s Beautiful Daughter with no Title of Royalty.”

Like most literary movements, we will occupy our time writing manifestos and countermanifestos and sneering at each other with elaborate yet cutting witticisms at the finer literary salons rather than, you know, getting any writing done.

I wish I could remember the name of the other guy in our huge, huge literary movement, because otherwise the members of our enemy movement, the New Mundane Science Fiction Movement, or maybe our enemy is the New Weird Movement, or the Old Weird Movement, or the Weird Stone of Brisingamen, or the People’s Front of Judea, with dismiss us as lightweights in the speculative fictional world. He wrote to me once and said he was a member, but that might have been before he found out my many unpleasant personal habits. It is to sigh.

In any case, to spur debate, and as a public service, the Space Princess Movement here posts the first official weekly picture of a Mad Scientist. This is for those of you who forget what science fiction is really all about.

HERR DOKTOR ROTWANG inventor of the Femmbot.

Herr Rotwang

Herr Rotwang und Hela

Read the remainder of this entry »

Be the first to comment
Filed in Drollery

Wright’s Writing Corner — On the McGuffin

Posted May 5, 2010 By John C Wright


 Today’s Wright’s Writig Corner is a guest blog on MacGuffins.

The lovely and talented Mrs. Wright says “I thought it was quite interesting. I’d never thought of an object you can’t get rid of–as opposed to one you want to find–as the MacGuffin, but I think she is right!”

The Guest Blogger is Jordan McCollum:

http://arhyalon.livejournal.com/118468.html

Be the first to comment
Filed in Wisdom

Meanwhile, Over at First Things

Posted May 5, 2010 By John C Wright

Allow me, dear readers, to offer you a link here: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/04/believe-it-or-not

David B. Hart argues, and convincingly, that while atheists will be with us always, even to the end of the age, the ‘New Atheists’ those strident but empty-headed screamers of narcissism and sneerers at their intellectual superiors, are a temporary fad, like see-through plastic pants or disco.

In order to prove his point, a number of people posing as New Atheists crowd his comments board and make the weakest possible arguments, displaying fumbling inability to grasp a simple syllogism, or the most obvious technical distinction, while vaunting and preening like some misbegotten crow who thinks himself a peacock, spreading his shabby, dun feathers in a splendor visible only to him.

Or it could be that these are real atheists, merely ones who are too dull witted to realize when they are casting dishonor on what (I, at least) regard as a perfectly honorable philosophical position.

A thinker can make, not one, but many strong arguments favoring the atheist position. “ME AM BIZZARO NUMBER ONE SMART GUY!! YOU AM DUMBBEST!!!” is not, in my opinion, one of the stronger arguments.

Read the remainder of this entry »

6 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Apologetics

Socializing the Males Revisited: Is Hefner a Lady’s Friend or Ladykiller?

Posted May 4, 2010 By John C Wright

A reader with the unromantic name of  “theobrominelove” takes me to task for my recent essay here on the failure to socialize the males. I welcome the criticism. Hat in hand, I will answer as honestly and earnestly as I may, and leave you, dear readers, to judge between us. ‘s bold comments are in bold.

“You seem to say that as chastity and gallantry are scorned, men do not know any better than to behave badly towards women.”

I don’t think I said anything about “not knowing any better” one way or the other. I said boys not taught self-command will grow up to be self-indulgent; boys not taught decency will grow up indecent.

In all these remarks, let us be clear, I am talking about general tendencies, not inevitabilities. It goes without saying that there will always be exceptions.

“And women, without the weapon of chastity and the allure of the mysterious, must be victims.”

More or less. Girls not taught to value chastity (in themselves or in potential mates) will tend to become women who undervalue it, or even despise it.

“They are thus doomed to loveless, unromantic marriages – or worse, the dreaded divorce. Doomed to sexual abuse. Doomed to never be respected and treasured.”

I don’t think I said anything about loveless, unromantic marriages.

“Because men, given freely available sex by promiscuous women, will not see the need to bless any woman with the virtues of respect or love.”

“In sum, in the sane society, your young men do not get to engage in sexual reproduction until and unless they vow eternal fidelity to their mates, and provide support for the offspring resulting from sexual reproduction. This encourages a romantic attitude toward marriage rather than a merely pragmatic one. If you are going to be chained for life to your mate, it were better far for you if you love her, and if your love is not merely fair-weather infatuation.”

“In other words, you say that men should not be held accountable for the abuse and violence they perpetuate.”

I believe I said the exact opposite.

Read the remainder of this entry »

1 Comment. Join the Conversation
Filed in Reasonings

Nature, Language, and Supernature

Posted May 4, 2010 By John C Wright

I asked  Robert J Wizard,  our Dark Overlord, his opinion on this question, which I would like to throw open to any other reader who cares to comment: “what is it about Socratic philosophy (or about all philosophy) that makes it start with pragmatic questions and end with mythical visions?”

His comment:

As far as Socratic/Platonic philosophy goes I would say, tentatively, that it is because of his epistemology, his Forms and the Form of the Good. It lent a general direction to how he tackled all problems. And, practically, Plato was reacting against the materialists of his time.

That is an answer off the top of my head.

Now as far as philosophy in general. I would say with a good degree of certainty that they follow a historical pattern. And it is somewhat contained in my initial comment. First they try to ground everything naturalistically. Then they shoot each others theories full of the holes they do contain, and then the next wave of philosophers comes in and states it is all arbitrary, there is no grounding for knowledge for reality and therefore none for ethics. Then the field dissolves itself into babbling.

After some time of this after the destruction and dust settles people go back to the myths or whatever you choose to call them. Christianity certainly worked better (speaking pragmatically) than what was running the Greco-Roman world that caused it to die. They work better (speaking pragmatically) than what passes for “philosophy” these days. One exception IMHO – like I needed to point that out.”

Your answer off the top of your head is as good as answers I have heard in school.

As for me, I wonder if it is because of the nature of the subject matter, or, if you will, the nature of reality.

Things that we can define closely and deal with daily are based on and rooted in (and take life from) things we cannot define well, and have a more abstract, perhaps even eternal character.

Philosophy is like a ladder leading from earth to higher realms. Most people can agree what distinguishes a good hamburger from a bad one: the bad one is rotten, smelly, unsightly, no good to eat, not appealing to the taste, no contributing to the health and nutrition of the body. Pretty clear, no? It only gets less clear when we start looking at the difference between taste and health, and contemplate things that taste good but are not good for us, and then we start contemplating health in the abstract, and to answer questions about that, we have to talk about the good of man, body and soul, and suddenly or slowly we find ourselves in realms where metaphors and myths are actually clearer and better than definitions and propositions.

Read the remainder of this entry »

7 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Reasonings

Magneto Denounces Theism – or – Why it is Good to Feed the Crow

Posted May 3, 2010 By John C Wright

For those who did not see it, here is the speech by Adam Savage mentioned by Lotdw in an earlier discussion in this place. I quote the final paragraphs:

Though a primary mover is the most complex and thus (given Occam’s razor) the least likely of all possible solutions to the particular problem of how we got here, I can’t prove it true or false, and there’s nothing to really discuss about it.

If Daniel Dennett is right — that there’s a human genetic need for religion — then I’d like to imagine that my atheism is proof of evolutionary biology in action.

There may be no purpose, but its always good to have a mission. And I know of one fine allegory for an excellent mission should you choose to charge yourself with one: Carlos Castaneda’s series of books about his training with a Yaqui indian mystic named Don Juan. There’s a lot of controversy about these books being represented as nonfiction. But if you dispense with that representation, and instead take their stories as allegories, they’re quite lovely.

At the end of The Eagle’s Gift, Don Juan reveals to his student that there’s no point to existence. That we’re given our brief 70-100 years of consciousness by something the mystics call “The Eagle,” named for it’s cold, killer demeanor. And when we die, the eagle gobbles our consciousness right back up again.

He explains that the mystics, to give thanks to the eagle for the brief bout of consciousness they’re granted, attempt to widen their consciousness as much as possible. This provides a particularly delicious meal for the eagle when it gobbles one up at the end of one’s life.

And that, to me, is a fine mission.

Read the remainder of this entry »

34 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Apologetics, Reasonings
Newer Entries »