Archive for December, 2010

I should mention that, as a science fiction writer, I can comment authoritatively and finally on the true meaning of life.

Fifteen billion years ago an unexplained and inexplicable event created all the matter and energy, time and space in the universe apparently out of nothing and for no reason. However, the precise nature of this event allowed primordial plasma to expand, cool, and form the nebulae which one day would give rise to the galaxy, especially one rather small G-type star in the outer arm of an otherwise insignificant galaxy: by yet another coincidence — if coincidence it was — the third planet from that star had the exact chemical conditions to give rise, first to life, then to intelligent life, then to civilization, then to technical civilization.

Unbeknown to the dwellers on that small insignificant sphere, all galaxies, including this one, are teaming not merely with life, but with ultra-intelligent life, but this world is strictly quarantined for reasons that will soon become apparent.

You see, the first experiments in time travel have already taken place.

H.G. Wells is the first man to have crossed the time barrier, and beheld the grim and final destiny to which the race of homo sapiens is doomed, to devolve into subhuman Eloi and grisly cannibal Moorlocks.

Read the remainder of this entry »

49 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Love Letter from a Catholic to an Objectivist

Posted December 30, 2010 By John C Wright

“One of the reasons I stay away from your materialist arguments here is I do not know the referents of the arguments. I recognize Christian man, I recognize Buddhist man, generic atheist man, etc, I do not recognize materialist man. Meaning I understand man as the Christians see him, I can grasp that; I do not know what a materialist is saying when he is talking about man. And I do have a enough pride to know that this is not due to a lack on my part – but that what they are talking about is not only not man, it does not even exist. It is more fantastical and arbitrary than they accuse your God of being.”

I agree without reservation. First, I admit my God is fantastical and, technically speaking, He is arbitrary, namely in that He created cosmos from nothingness by fiat. Christians do not believe the universe is inevitable — it was arbitrated into existence. A God who was not fantastical would pretty clearly be a human invention, and not worth admiring, much less worshiping.

Second, much as it might embarrass us both to admit it, a fanatic anti-selfishness Christian and a fanatic anti-selflessness Objectivist still agree on the fundamentals. St. Thomas Aquinas was a student of Aristotle and so was Ayn Rand. We agree that existence exists, that A is A, that life is worth living (a Christian is not a Buddhist, after all) and that there is an objective moral code which reason can discover without which a good and happy life cannot take place. You might scoff at the Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity, and you and I both promote the cardinal virtues of Justice, Moderation, Temperance, and Fortitude.

Read the remainder of this entry »

104 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Why I am not a Materialist.

Posted December 29, 2010 By John C Wright

Let me try again.

In order for an observation, any observation, to exist, there must be a observer and a thing observed.

Observed things can only be observed to have external properties, such as mass, length, duration, current, temperature, amount, candlepower. Observers, in the act of observing things, use symbols or thoughts. Symbols have internal properties, such as true and false, valid and invalid. Using symbols or thinking is also a purposeful action. Purposeful actions have internal properties such as efficient and inefficient, good and bad.

While the thing observed can be a thing made of matter (i.e. something with external properties and no internal properties, no intention and no mind and no meaning) the observer cannot lack internal properties because the observation, in order to be an observation, the act of observation must be intentional (the thought or symbol is meant to represent something) and the observation itself mean or represent something (in this case, the thing observed).

The observer cannot be a thing with external and no internal properties.

The physical sciences by design deal only with observed things and their external properties, and the physical sciences deliberately limit themselves from not inquiring about the internal properties, if any, of observed things.

From this, it is illegitimate to conclude that observers are observed things with no internal properties, since, by definition, if the observation were true that observers had no internal properties, then the observation would be neither true nor false, because it would then be something with external properties and no internal properties, no intention and no mind and no meaning.

Understood?

48 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

The True Meaning of Christmas

Posted December 29, 2010 By John C Wright

As we all know, there are four holidays celebrated this time of year: Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Xmas and Christmas.
Read the remainder of this entry »

61 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Have a Very Space Princess Christmas!

Posted December 24, 2010 By John C Wright

As we all know, Space Princesses come in two types: Good Girl Space Princesses like Princess Deja Thoris of Barsoom or Princess Leia, and Bad Girl Space Princesses like Princess Aura of Mongo.

For your holiday viewing pleasure, here is a video I discovered in the wilderness of the Internet celebrating the first Princess Aura, Priscilla Lawson.

Read the remainder of this entry »

14 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Placeboes Work even on Informed Patients

Posted December 23, 2010 By John C Wright

An article from the LA Times. I reprint the whole thing without comment. Draw your own conclusions as to what this means about the mind-body relationship, or the ability of humans to get well merely by mental means, or, dare I say it, spiritual? (Or, if you are cynical, draw your own conclusions about the utility of scientific studies). Either way, the study hints that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in Horatio’s philosophy.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/22/health/la-he-placebo-effect-20101223

Read the remainder of this entry »

56 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Return of the Robot Zombie Slaves

Posted December 23, 2010 By John C Wright

Part of an ongoing discussion with a collection of molecules:

I said, “Under the materialistic model, there is no necessary reason to assume the universe is something human beings can understand. It may be the case that it is, but it may not be.”

You said, “Do humans in fact understand the universe? We have a bunch of useful tricks, certainly. …It may be that humans, in fact, can’t understand the universe, but can find some nice tricks that enable us to kill our enemies and get lots of bananas.”

Stripped of the condescending metaphor likening all human accomplishments to banana-getting, your statement in support of the materialistic model seems to confirm that what I said about the materialist model. The fact that the planets move according to a few, simple, elegant and beautiful laws is, for example, to the materialist, a lucky coincidence, or a mystery.
Read the remainder of this entry »

117 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

The Magic Darwin Fairies

Posted December 16, 2010 By John C Wright

Regarding the theory that religion is an inherited characteristic, shaped by Darwinian natural selection, a reader writes in with this just-so story:

“Let us consider a paleolithic woman, who is part of a band of people who are hunter/gatherers. Over the years, you recognize that sometimes, it seems as though plants themselves grow so they are easy to harvest, and other times, they do not. The men talk about how sometimes, the game seems to fall right into their laps, almost as though it were led by an external force; other times, nothing is to be found. They begin to discuss ‘the spirit of the hunt’. You are thankful when it rains; it is not a large step to move from being thankful to thanking whatever spirits seems to give to you or to take away from you. You may think those spirits to be angry with you; no rain has fallen, so you burn some of your food, in the hope that you may appease that which you have angered. The rains then fall. You imagine these spirits to be like people, much as people today discuss machines and weather like people. (Cynics would say it was invented for the purpose of power: “the rain god is angry, and says you must give me food, or there will be no rain”)

If you are asking what biological development is necessary in the brain, evolutionarily speaking, to move to the point where one can invent an external personality–wherein one can anthropomorphize the natural world…I am not enough of a biologist to say. I know that recently, they discovered a part of the brain that when stimulated with electromagnetic fields induced feelings of being connected with the “divine”.

My comment:

If I understand your point, I am not sure we disagree.

You are giving an account of how a reasoning creature, such as a woman of the paleolithic, would come to make a false-to-facts account of the plentiful food some seasons and the scarcity in others, and she would come to believe an intelligent agency was behind the appearances of things — and the nature of such a belief is that is it not easy to disprove, and so it would tend to be taught and passed along the generations. Do I understand your idea?
Read the remainder of this entry »

136 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Prospero in Hell wins Kirkus Best of Year

Posted December 15, 2010 By John C Wright

For those who have not seen it, PROSPERO IN HELL (written by the lovely and talented Mrs. Wright under her maiden name L.Jagi Lamplighter) made the Kirkus Best SF and Fantasy of 2010.

http://www.kirkusreviews.com/lists/best-science-fiction-and-fantasy-2010/

Right up there with Side Jobs by Jim Butcher and a Terry Brooks book!

This was also the only reviewer who did not “get” the idea of mingling modern and ancient characters and speech patterns, and who said it suffered from “Second Book Syndrome” — other reviewers said the book had so many revelations, surprises, and plot twists that nothing was the same at the end as at the beginning.

5 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Posted December 13, 2010 By John C Wright

The box office results do not bode well for a continuation of this fine series: we may never get to see THE SILVER CHAIR. To avert that unwelcome fate, let me do my small part by urging my friends to go see the film.

VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER is based on the beloved childrens’ book of CS Lewis of the same name, and follows the main outline of the story somewhat faithfully. We are not talking about some abomination where the two have nothing in common but the name, such as the flick STARSHIP TROOPERS, which was made for the sole purpose of insulting the fans of the novel. Nonetheless, purists like me will register at least a slight disappointment at the addition of an overarching quest plot not present in the book, and something of a flatness or “saltlessness” which comes from leaving out certain beloved scenes, lines, or themes.

The plot is that Edmund and Lucy return to the world of Narnia along with their frightfully selfish and priggish cousin Eustace Scrubb, a boy who almost deserves the name. They fall through a magic picture into the uncharted seas East of Narnia, to be rescued by Prince Caspian in his fair ship the Dawn Treader, seeking the edge of the world at the uttermost east, beyond which Aslan’s country is said to rest.
Read the remainder of this entry »

28 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Parable of the Filth Pit

Posted December 10, 2010 By John C Wright

Should the fact that those of us who believe in God and love Him want very badly to believe in Him raise a skeptical question in our minds? Should we not, as men of reason, be unwilling to trust our own observations and conclusions as we would be in a case where we have no bias toward one particular conclusion or another?

Should we not be utterly impartial when looking at the evidence for an against God, and listen to all arguments with equal candor and patience?

This question may be making what philosopher’s call a categorization error. The question categorizes the belief in God as if it were a scientific theory, rather than a love story.

Suppose, Dear Reader, that there were a beautiful blushing virgin whom you had just asked to marry you. Surely it would be somewhat heedless of her to reply, “I am strongly moved by passionate and erotic love for you, my handsome and strong suitor, to accept your proposal, except that I fear I am biased toward you. I want very badly to wed you, to be swept off my feet and carried away to the bridal bed: but, surely I should only decide to accept a proposal from a man I do not love, because then I will be able to trust my own observations, and I will have no bias one way or the other.”

Would not this be an odd and wrongheaded reply to hear from any girl’s lips? Who told her that decisions about love in her heart should be made on the basis of loveless observations about things not in her heart?

Read the remainder of this entry »

54 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

On the Hidden Face of God

Posted December 10, 2010 By John C Wright

Why God is hidden from Man? Why not, since all things are possible with God, paint the Ten Commandments on the Moon in letters from the language before the Tower of Babel, which, all men seeing each night and being unable to misread or misunderstand, would give sufficient evidence even to the skeptic that God was real, and that there was only one?

I was just listening to a lecture by the philosopher and theologian Peter Kreeft on this topic (Because good scholars always go to the primary sources, let me point you to where I found this lecture: http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio.htm) Dr. Kreeft proposes that there is only two ways possible for a God to make himself known to man.

Possible Way Number One is by direct evidence that will convince the brain. Intellectuals like myself (and any academics teaching our young in modern and secular institutions) claim and claim loudly that when evidence is presented, we shall, upon our honor, change our opinions and beliefs and ways of life to confirm to what the cold hard facts of reality command.

This claim is not to be believed. I read of case of a prominent atheist in England, A.J. Ayer, who in 1988 had a near-death experience, an experience as obvious and unusual as the vision encountered by St. Paul on the Road to Damascus. Dr. Jeremy George, his physician, reports that Ayer had confided to him: “I saw a Divine Being. I’m afraid I’m going to have to revise all my books and opinions.”

But then he publicly reaffirmed his atheism, steadfastly ignored the evidence, and talked himself into believing that his memory and his senses were faulty. He concluded that he had seen nothing, that his sense and his senses were faulty, on the premise that his speculations could not be faulty. He was also a leader of the Humanist movement, and a public reverse of his beliefs would have inconvenienced or embarrassed him.

If this tale is true, A.J. Ayer is a worm.  Philosophers are supposed to face changes of fortune and the opinions of the world philosophically, hence the name.

On the other hand, how can we fail to pity weakness? This type of repellent intellectual cowardice is not unusual; it is the human condition.

Read the remainder of this entry »

41 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Best SF Film of the Decade

Posted December 8, 2010 By John C Wright

The fine fellows over at SfSignal asked me to participate in one of their Mind Melds, where science fiction writers and fans are asked to hold forth on issues great and small. This time round, the question was to name the top Science Fiction films of the Decade.

Here is the link

http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2010/12/mind-meld-the-top-sff-films-of-the-decade/

Unfortunately, I read the question wrong, and thought I was being asked to name the best science fiction film (singular) of the decade, and so I had to eliminate, or pass over unmentioned, a very long list of very good flicks.

11 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

The Honorable Atheist

Posted December 7, 2010 By John C Wright

I don’t think it is necessary to defend the idea that there are honest and virtuous atheists. Unlike Leftists, there is nothing innately wicked or innately dishonest in their core values or basic assumptions which require them necessarily to support and defend wickedness, lies, indecency and cruelty.

Indeed, many of them are atheists because they conclude it is the rational position, and, if they are serious, they will hold that same standard of reason in other arenas when facing other questions, and may well live honorable and honest lives, because virtue is life lived according to right reason.

However, I think an atheist society (that is, a society whose basic values and virtues reflected in its institutions and laws are atheist and anti-Christian) cannot be honorable or honest for long. We cannot conclude merely from the fact that an atheist living in a primarily Christian society can be a decent man that the creation of atheist laws will create just laws, or atheist institutions will be decent institutions.

Atheists, even very honest atheists such as I once was, cannot be quite honest about history: either they ignore it altogether (a type of dishonesty) or they believe a self-congratulatory Victorian myth about how the modern world rose from the cesspool of the Dark Ages lead by that archenemy of the Church, winged Science with her Shining Sword of Truth, and in triumphant march overturned all the obscurantist superstitions of ignorant churchmen like  Copernicus and advanced, singing with glory, to the clear-thinking Scientific Achievement of men like Karl Marx and Ayn Rand, cured polio, fired rockets to the moon, split the atom, and we even now hover on the brink of one last final step upward to Utopia.

One would have thought the Great War would have put paid to this myth, but it is as current among atheists now as it was in the days of H.G. Wells. We Christians do not expect Utopia to appear on this Earth at any point before Doomsday, but there are good societies and bad, and pre-Christian and post-Christian societies are much more vulnerable to the temptation to be bad.

The testament of history makes it all too clear that such abominations as ritual sodomy, temple prostitution, child sacrifice rule the ancient pre-Christian world, and sacred sodomy, pornography, “one-child policies” and abortion rule the modern post-Christian world, with gulags and holocausts the accompanying the more vehemently anti-Christian societies, and political correctness and thought police accompanying the more benign strains of the disease.

Let us not mistake a belief in virtuous pagans, exceptional men like Trajan, Aristotle or Confucius, with the belief that a pagan society would be honorable or just or tolerable.

Let us also make a distinction between the morality that a rational and honorable atheist can reach and that which a Christian saint can reach. A rational atheist can find perfectly sound reasons to be just, temperate, moderate, and courageous, because these are examples of the reason ruling the unruly and selfish passions and tempers. However, no rational atheist can understand or justify the mystical love of chivalry, of charity to the poor, of self-sacrifice, or any of the Christian virtues of Faith, Hope, or Love. Loving your enemies simply is not rational and no non-Christian can see any reason to do it. At least, not rational by what the material world counts as reason.

Even a rational atheist, such as I was, is and must be a snob, because he must regard ninety-nine percent of all humans who have ever lived, and all the wisest and best men who ever wrote, as either chumps of a massive con game, or fools addicted to folly in the one area that most concerned them.

All atheists are snobs, and snobbery is no basis for an egalitarian society, or one that treats the poor and downtrodden with charity and generosity, or one that treat women with chivalry.

Read the remainder of this entry »

137 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Sound and Fury of the Sexual Revolt

Posted December 3, 2010 By John C Wright

I wonder at the concept of sex being the new god, the new absolute for the modern age, the one thing that justifies and sanctifies any sin and crime, natural or unnatural. The one exception to our sex and pornography drenched culture is found when it comes to children. Child pornography and pederasty is still disdained, even abhorred. It is almost as if our society retains some dim hunch that innocence is a good thing, and so we seek to remove children from the sweat-stained meat locker of anything-goes orgiastic sex-selling that constitutes our modern culture.

Of course, unborn children are murdered by the millions, far outnumbering the Jews killed in the Holocaust, or human sacrifices killed by Aztecs or Carthaginians, and killed, not by Nazis and enemies, but by their own mothers.  It considered butchery, not murder, because of a legal absurdity that holds children of humans are not human: this, from a culture that smugly regards itself both as enlightened and scientific.

Read the remainder of this entry »

123 Comments so far. Join the Conversation