Saturday, June 14, 2008

Intelligent Dasein

Here are a couple of posts from two years ago which I have combined. I would categorize this material as deeply redundant for long-time readers, so feel free to take the day off! File under Pearls Before Swine.

Dasein: the kind of existence that self-conscious human beings uniquely possess.

Horizontal folks -- flatland materialists, secular pneumapaths, left-brainers, MENSA members, et al -- love to sneer at religion and exalt the superiority of science or mere reason in understanding the world. But when they do this, they always deal with a caricature of religion based upon their own limited horizontal understanding. In this regard, they are very much like children or primitive people who cannot transcend their narrow cognitive horizons, and mock what they do not understand. As Dr. John Lennox said in his debate with Richard Dawkins, "I don't believe in the God you disbelieve in." While man, so long as he is a man, cannot help being religious, it is nevertheless striking how passionately Dawkins believes in his silly little anti-god.

It was said by someone that secular philosophy involves “a journey of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.” It is interesting that 2500 years of thought has produced no consensus at all regarding even the most basic understanding of existence. Don’t get me wrong -- there is much to be gained from studying the great philosophers, if only because you can enter the mind of a formidable intellect attempting to grapple with the meaning of existence. But there is no purely human philosophy that cannot be disproven by another clever philosopher. [I would now say that philosophy inhabits a "middle area" between science and theology; if placed in this context, it can obviously be quite useful.]

In the final analysis, all of the philosophies devised by man are more or less failures. They all fall short in some critical way. Either they begin with unwarranted assumptions that cannot be justified by their philosophy -- i.e., they start at second base without having earned the right to be on first -- or they cut off their philosophy at an arbitrary point. If philosophy consists of “asking why,” they simply stop asking why at a certain juncture and then call it complete.

But no form of horizontal thought can be complete, for self-evident reasons. The divine plenitude spills over into reality like rays from the central sun. Various philosophers describe one of the rays but ignore the sun. The individual rays have their own relative validity, but none is ultimately superior or inferior to the others. This is why there is no agreement among the greatest philosophical minds that have ever lived -- indeed, they are often polar oppostes, such as realism vs. materialism or empiricism vs. rationalism.

Philosophy and science try to understand the sun by studying the rays, which is precisely why they generate metaphysical paradox and confusion. On the other hand, to study religion is to study the properties of the sun. Religion deals with perennial truths about the sun that cannot not be true, which is why it is so easy to prove the existence of God. It is much more difficult to prove how it is that humans can exist. However, once you understand the nature of the sun, this becomes possible as well. As a matter of fact, our mysterious inwardness -- our divine-human consciousness -- is one of the inevitable results of the eternal sun’s very nature, which is to spill over into time and share its absolute being with its various middling relativities.

Religion gives the name “God” to the knowable aspect of this divine sun. But just like everything else, humans can only know what they can know. Since we exist in the relative, any view of the absolute is necessarily going to be partial and incomplete. Even to “see the face of God” is nevertheless to see a “relative absolute,” because there is something behind the face we cannot see; behind the Son is the Father, so to speak. Since it is transcendent it is no-thing, but since it is immanent it is everything. It just depends on how you look or unlook at it.

Science can never account for the scientist, that is, for the human subject capable of knowing real truth. Again, it simply assumes the existence of truth-bearing scientists, as if this is not deeply philosophically problematic. How can the watered-down evolution of reductionistic Darwinism ever account for that? It can only pretend to do so, again, by confusing the rays with the sun. But to understand Darwinism is to have transcended it.

In order for relative existence to exist, the One must be split down the middle. Ultimately there is only God and God’s reflection, Creator and creation. The more distant from God, the more dim the reflection. Rumor has it that human beings are in the image of the Creator. Of course, the image is not the reality, it is only a four-dimensional facsimian. Religion as a verb involves transforming this image into a hyper-dimensional likeness. To intuit the image is to be called. To actualize it is to be born again. To become it is to die. Good riddance!

To know Truth is to die a little. Day by day, little by little, we must die. In order to live.

*****

Now, is it possible for religion to pose anything more than a rearguard action against the inevitable transformation of man from homo religiosus to homo scientificus? In the West, science so dominates our way of looking at the world that perhaps we don't realize the magnitude of the spiritual revolution (or devolution) this has entailed. While I endorse science (almost) without reservation, I do worry about its deleterious effect on the human soul when it is absurdly elevated to a metaphysic. To me, it is simply self-evident that the infrahuman metaphysic of reductionistic Darwinism, if embraced by all people, would eventually spell the end of Man as Such.

There are, of course, people who wish to keep science and religion entirely separate, which has the practical effect of elevating the scientistic worldview to a default state religion. On the other side are people who wish to conflate science and religion, which can end up debasing both. As I have said before, I am a believer in “intelligent design” for the same reason I am a believer in intelligence period. It is simply a necessary consequence of the existence of the Divine Intellect. In other words, I would never try to prove the existence of God through intelligent design; rather, vice versa. Obviously the world is uniquely intelligible to man's transcendent intellect.

But this is metaphysics, not science, and should not be taught as such, because it is higher than science, obviously not on the same low material plane. The problem is, Darwinism should be taught as science, not metaphysics, but virtually all of the middlebrow atheistic activists absurdly elevate it to a quasi-religious metaphysic that is logically self-refuting at every turn. In turn -- and I have noticed this, for example, in many threads at LGF -- militant atheists do indeed confuse Darwinism with metaphysics, and blindly defend it with the same belligerence as any "fundamentalist." Light simply cannot break through their hardened defenses.

It is true that there would be no atheists if all men were capable of understanding metaphysics. As pure truth, metaphysics is aimed at the nous, not the distorted and hypertrophied reasoning mind of the contemporary intellectual. Truth is true despite what may be proved or disproved with mere reason, which is a mechanical form of thought limited to drawing conclusions from premises. It has its place, but one of them is not the realm of primordial Truth per se. It is a banality to point out that the most important truths cannot be proved with reason. That doesn't make them any less true.

Tradition willfully attempts to maintain a purified faith in the teeth of the predations of a misguided scientism. There are certain particularly elevated and/or simple souls for whom this will suffice. But that probably represents less than two percent of the population on the high end, and perhaps a quarter of the population on the low end. That leaves at least seventy percent of the population generally spiritually adrift and untouched by metaphysical truth. How to reach them? For whatever reason, they have lost contact with the natural simplicity and nobility of their souls, so religion properly so-called no longer speaks to them as it was intended to. Thus they drift into materialism, or hedonism, or its twin sister, new-age spiritualism, with no grounding in the intrinsic meaning provided by authentic revelation and grace.

There is absolutely no contradiction between science and this latter form of religion, for they simply address different levels of reality. Religion easily accommodates science, while the reverse can never be true. Religion accommodates science for the same reason that our minds do. For our minds are designed to know truth, pure and simple, whether it is empirical truth, rational truth, artistic truth, moral truth, or metaphysical truth. Intelligence itself is prior to what it knows, and what it knows is truth (otherwise, “knowledge” is a meaningless, even absurd term). Therefore, intelligence is truth itself implanted within our soul.

As much as I respect tradition, I am very concerned about it reducing itself to a simple fideism, or faith, rather than appealing directly to the higher intellect. Again, there are gifted and simple people for whom this will suffice, but the great middling masses -- leftist dominated academia, the creators and purveyors of popular culture, media elites in the MSMistry of Truth -- entirely miss the boat in this regard. They are just intelligent enough to reject religion but not intelligent enough to understand it, and they obviously exercise a huge, dominant influence over the culture at large. How to win that battle?

The fact of the matter is that modernity has brought with it certain positive and undeniably precious developments, such as the sanctity of the individual and all this implies -- liberty, democracy, free markets, etc. But at the same time, a new kind of religion -- or rather, different inflection of the perennial religion -- is required for this new kind of person. This religion must be more inward because we have become more inward. In other words, cosmic evolution doesn’t just take place outwardly but inwardly, on the "subjective horizon." As a matter of fact, it is this evolution of the interior horizon that has always been the concern of religion, even if and when religion did not explicitly recognize it.

I’m somewhat embarrassed to admit it now, but when I began the task of writing my book, I thought that I was going to have to invent a new religion. In my hubris, I thought, well, times have changed, and we know so much more now than we did when the original revelations were handed down. What if we could design a new religion now, based upon everything we know about the universe?

It is actually a measure of God’s grace that my attempt to do this ultimately led me in exactly the opposite direction and saved me from trying to be L. Bob Gagdad. In all humility, I do believe this is because I approached the endeavor in all humility. In other words, I was motivated solely by the humble pursuit of truth, wherever it led me. There were no commercial motivations whatsoever (although it is probably another measure of God's grace that my publisher only later discovered this bitter economic reality). As a matter of fact -- I shouldn’t say this, but here goes -- I practiced meditation every day during the course of writing the book, and in so doing prayed for two things only: light, or understanding, and the ability to express it.

Now, I’m not nearly grandiose enough to say I succeeded (I won't presume to speak for Petey). Since the process is ongoing, there are a lot of little things I would now say differently in the book, and perhaps someday I'll re-read it and spell those out. But that’s not the point I’m trying to make. What I am saying is that if you really want to deeply understand religion -- and therefore, yourself -- you can. That’s what it’s here for. It’s not meant to be opaque, or absurd, or primitive, or outdated. Rather, no matter how intelligent or sophisticated you think you are, that kind of superficial intelligence really doesn't reach down (or up) to the deepest (or highest) part of your being. Religion expresses truths that cannot be proved in the ordinary way, for the simple reason that Truth is its own proof. Ultimately you do not comprehend it. It comprehends you. And that is a daily mirrorcle.

Further reading by a philosopher of science who gets it:



41 Comments:

Anonymous dilys said...

Religion, properly engaged, is a great gift.

At the very least, it is the custodian and librarian of certain mantras and images and concepts that incline the body-mind a little more toward greatness&humility than the completely untutored condition. At best, its observances till the inner soil in readiness for that ineffable encounter that springs beyond "religion" per se. Its associated morality helps us skirt sorrow-breeding mischief, specifically the horrific fatal downward spiral of ignorant, foolish hearts' desperate projection of the sacred into a near-infinite catalogue of polymorphous perversity and addictive dionysian experience-seeking.

Religion susceptible to use in the service of power, lust, and authoritarian negativity? What isn't?

A magic first-class passage guaranteed to the Promised Land? Not so much.

6/14/2008 08:23:00 AM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

"...it comprehends you."

Is there any greater hope than, "That we may know Him, as we are known."?

Good stuff, as ever.

Dilys, you add so much to what is already excellent. Thanks!

6/14/2008 08:43:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

There you go again -- "Rumor has it that human beings are in the image of the Creator. Of course, the image is not the reality, it is only a four-dimensional facsimian. Religion as a verb involves transforming this image into a hyper-dimensional likeness. To intuit the image is to be called. To actualize it is to be born again. To become it is to die. Good riddance!" -- summing up the Way in a few sentences!

Tight, pithy, memorable -- good for a Saturday morning!

A pity, really: "...my publisher only later discovered this bitter economic reality..."

Thing is, thanks to your book, you are accruing dividends "up the road," so to speak; can't judge these things by counting dollars in the herebelow.

"Ultimately you do not comprehend it. It comprehends you."

We start out trying to remember ourselves, and pay attention; later, if we work at it, we can remember to remember God. Still later -- one fine day -- perhaps God remembers us. That shift of perspective from subjective to O-bjective also tracks the Way.

6/14/2008 09:03:00 AM  
Anonymous jwm said...

Found in the inbox this AM:

Tell Bob I said he was throwing pearls before swine last night

BabbaZee


I read most of it. On the whole it made me kind of sad. You were shooting at ghosts, Bob. Or maybe, to flip the metaphor, you were shooting corporeal beings with a spirit gun. In either case, the bullets passed through without leaving a mark. (transcendence, anyone?)
Actually, it was an eye-opener for me. It reminded me of the time I visited my childhood neighborhood after thirty years. What surprised me was the almost total lack of a sense of connectedness. You think, "Here's where my roots ought to be." But they're not there. You took them with you when you moved on and grew up. And that's not a bad thing either. Like tends to like. I know where to find the people I care to here from, and where to find the ones I don't care to hear from as well.

JWM

6/14/2008 09:22:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, the level of impenetrable ignorance and darkness there is truly shocking, especially on a blog that has such moral clarity in other areas. For some reason, Charles goes all Captain Queeg at the mere mention of ID. Or maybe Ahab -- the Discovery Institute seems to be his Moby Dick.

6/14/2008 09:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, I've been a fan of yours since you began casting lustrous pearls on LGF. I ceased following LGF a while ago, but happened to read through the Ben Stein thread. You tried, and I found your comments, as always, worthy. But did you notice there was (hardly) anyone left to take your part? Those people are all gone. They've been Darwin-ized by the new regime. What's left is a crowd of vacuous yes-men, coarse fools, and thugs. It hurt to read that thread. Pearls before swine. Perhaps you waste your gift there.
Best regards,
Dean Ericson

6/14/2008 10:01:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, I agree that the population has changed markedly. Very little wit anymore, not to mention subtlety of intellect. "Coarse" is the right word. Which in a way, proves the point of what materialism does to the mind, being that it is by definition a coarsening -- as Schuon describes it, the mind becomes either hardened and frozen under a thick layer of ice, or desiccated and dispersed.

6/14/2008 10:07:00 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Speaking of properly engaged, I am to my handsome catcher! Our biggest difference of opinion is God and I think this post will be the perfect introduction for him. Thank you for such a great gift, Bob.

I saw Charles' entry on ID at LGF and just shook my head. How are some people able to just stop asking why? It is truly mind-boggling because I agree with so many of his other ideas and am impressed when he uncovers human frauds such as Rathergate and Obigot's hate smite. To each their own, I suppose. I usually never read the comments there anyhow but I may just have to check this one out. Like a car accident, ya know.

6/14/2008 10:19:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Congratulations, Lisa! I'm doing a happy dance for you :)

6/14/2008 11:03:00 AM  
Anonymous cousin Dupree said...

You're marrying circus folk?

6/14/2008 11:12:00 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Yes, but I'm making him sell the trailer! :)

6/14/2008 11:21:00 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Thanks, Julie, me too!

6/14/2008 11:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

I see a movie here: The Lady and the Trampoline.

6/14/2008 11:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Aquila said...

Gagster, I was on the LGF ID thread last night, posting under a different handle than the one I use here.

I think the problem with getting a fair hearing on LGF is that it is first and foremost a *political* site, where "wit" and "subtlety of intellect" by necessity take a back seat to grandstanding and troop-rallying. Couple that with taking a contrary position to Charles' hot-button issues -- I've felt the wrath of King Lizard myself here -- and you can't really expect a fair hearing for what is essentially a metaphysical point of view.

I also believe that, no less than anywhere else in the Anglophone West, a particularly nasty form of vulgar materialism and militant secularism has taken up residence in neo-con/classical-liberal circles, and is not at all shy about forcibly inserting itself into any forum that even tangentially touches on religion or spirituality. There are several resident professional-atheists on LGF, some of whom limit themselves mere irreverence, while others are openly derisive and insulting.

I think a lot of this is due to the Randroid/Objectivist influence, particularly among younger or more libertarian types. Many of these people seem to have unresolved issues around how they were raised and/or their sex lives, and find it easy to blame caricatured versions of God or religion for their personal mind parasites. (The Good Lord knows I was guilty of a lot of this as a young person who'd rejected Leftism, but hadn't matured enough to see the critical value of God and transcendent truth in any sort of stable or functional life, be it of an individual or a whole civilization.)

Anyway, thanks for hearing me out on this. Yours is the only blog I visit every day, and I always enjoy your postings, and find much light in them.

6/14/2008 12:54:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Good analysis. We've discussed before how the Randian Objectivism is an excellent mental disinfectant, but you can't just leave it at that. I agree that a certain type of adolescent hubris can be either the cause or consequence of that fixation. At Dr. Sanity, there was a regular poster named A. Rational Human who suffered from the same malady.

6/14/2008 01:05:00 PM  
Blogger Sibylline Zipper said...

I agree on the negative effects of Objectivism on the right. I learned some good thinking skills from them but I got stuck there for a decade. For me the cure came from 1) meeting some long term Objectivists and seeing what rigid robots they had become, and, 2) reading the autobiography by Branden and seeing the sad wreck that the master herself had become.

6/14/2008 01:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Aquila said...

Yes, A Rational Human -- the person who insisted that an unborn child was a "parasite" that the mother could dispose of at will. A class act, that one...

6/14/2008 05:11:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Lisa! May you both fly through the aerie with the greatest of ease!

Coongrats!

6/14/2008 05:17:00 PM  
Anonymous jwm said...

Some reptiles evolve
They become feral remnant
Singing with Raccoons.


Congratulations Lisa! (btw My brother is now an instructor at TSNY)

JWM

6/14/2008 06:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, it's funny the transition from Objectivism/hard Libertarianism to Conservatism. There's definitely a pattern to it, a typical path that certain people tend to take. You do the Rand thing for a few years, which kind of wipes the slate clean, then you move on. It's a kind of boot camp where you go around all hard core and shaved headed for a while.

6/14/2008 06:55:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Coongratulations Lisa!!!
May your upcoming marriage be more fun than a three ring circus! :^)

Seriously, G-d bless you both, and your marriage! I'll be there, in spirit!

6/14/2008 09:08:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Speaking of LGF, this is part of a comment, by Dan G., that was updinged by Charles and many of the long time lizards I used to respect:

"After 9/11, I (and others, I'm sure) was willing to hold my criticism of the "religious right" because OUR country was under attack and at least they spoke about strong defense etc... I'd hold my tongue and join them in the fight against the barbarians at the gate. The theocrats took advantage of this and have begun trying to force their agenda on everyone else by hook or by crook; stabbing me, and other formerly tolerant people in the back. NO MORE."

Theocrat paranoia. That sounds familiar.

And I noticed that no one debated Bob directly, preferring instead to mock, deflect, and misrepresent what he was saying.

It is strange how some folks can be so sensible on most any issue, but when you mention Religion, Absolute Truth, G-d, ID, or anything of that nature, they become hysterically unglued!

I reckon it's a deep-seated, seething hatred of God, and this is one way to provide an outlet for that hatred.

6/14/2008 09:17:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Gagdad Bob said...
Good analysis. We've discussed before how the Randian Objectivism is an excellent mental disinfectant, but you can't just leave it at that. I agree that a certain type of adolescent hubris can be either the cause or consequence of that fixation. At Dr. Sanity, there was a regular poster named A. Rational Human who suffered from the same malady.

That is the best explanation I've read, Bob!
I reckon that's what Jesus meant when He said he would be a stumbling block for some.
Or perhaps the perception some have, because they tend to lump everything into "sides" and either/or, and Religion, or Intelligence = Creationist or Fundie Loon.

6/14/2008 09:28:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Thanks to Nomo,Jim, and Ben for the well wishes and no I didn't make him give me 3 rings!! I am pushing for the Elvis wedding in Vegas next summer.

Hey Jim, Is your brother at the new TSNY in Santa Monica or back east? I have flown at the SM one and it is such a beautiful view. I wonder how the new ferris wheel looks. We could have an East Valley meeting on the pier! Who is the leader of the east valley, like, anyway? ;)

6/14/2008 09:29:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Here's the first half of the quote I posted earlier.
Raccoons will not be deceived by the few nuggets of truth in this piece of garbage.

#616 Dan G.

"To those stating that Darwinism leads to a devaluation of life... How? How does knowing the molecular basis of life and the fact that it has changed over time lead to me devaluing the only life I have? How does it lead to me ignoring the benefits of civil society for my life? How does it lead to me to ignoring that freedom and respect for individual rights is the only way to create a civil and productive society? How does it lead to ignoring all of this and then wholesale slaughter? It doesn't. On the contrary, evolution, and the sciences that spawned therefrom, make it more possible to protect one's precious life; by knowing the actual causes of disease. Whereas when your alleged life-loving faith ruled the Western world it blamed bad smelling air. What's worse, modern archaeologists are finding more and more that the Romans had many advanced medical technologies that were summarily destroyed by your barbaric creed."

He asks all the wrong questions and then goes on a little rant about the "barbaric creed."

This might have made some sense to me when I was an agnostic idiot.
But now I see it like Bob so aptly describes:
"Horizontal folks -- flatland materialists, secular pneumapaths, left-brainers, MENSA members, et al -- love to sneer at religion and exalt the superiority of science or mere reason in understanding the world. But when they do this, they always deal with a caricature of religion based upon their own limited horizontal understanding. In this regard, they are very much like children or primitive people who cannot transcend their narrow cognitive horizons, and mock what they do not understand."

Sing it Brotha Bob! :^)

BTW, that recommendation of Van Morrison, Still On The Top-The Greatest Hits, was outstanding, Bob!
Thanks a million! Patti loves it as well! Truly, refreshing and inspirational and Godly music! :^)

6/14/2008 09:46:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Viva Las Vegas!
May I attend, Lisa? I promise, you won't even know I'm there.
Probably.

6/14/2008 09:48:00 PM  
Anonymous jwm said...

Ben said:It is strange how some folks can be so sensible on most any issue, but when you mention Religion, Absolute Truth, G-d, ID, or anything of that nature, they become hysterically unglued!

I reckon it's a deep-seated, seething hatred of God, and this is one way to provide an outlet for that hatred.


Ben, I've been looking for a succinct summation of all that I half jokingly call the Jesus Willies. You did it.
Bingo,
Bullseye,
10/10.
The term, "Jesus Willies" (yeah, I pwn3d it ;p) is half joking. The condition is no joke.
Lisa: My brother is in NYC.

J(ohn)WM

6/14/2008 11:20:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Happy Father's Day, to all you paternal raccoons out there!

6/15/2008 01:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Mississippi Willy said...

I have one quibble with yesterday's article. Maybe I just haven't come across all these alleged MENSA haters of God yet, (is it just the Christian concept of God they're supposed to hate?) but I have found that most by and large believe in some kind of god, or at least what one might term has a higher intelligence.

6/15/2008 06:48:00 AM  
Anonymous walmart shopper said...

Conservatives are less self-centered, less envious, hug their children more, are more willing to care for an ailing family member, and are less concerned about money than leftwingers. In other words, they're nicer:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026442/Dont-listen-liberals--Right-wingers-really-nicer-people-latest-research-shows.html

6/15/2008 06:51:00 AM  
Anonymous dilys said...

Joy and many years, Lisa!

6/15/2008 07:40:00 AM  
Anonymous dilys said...

Eh, young-uns, how well the very-complimentary Joan and I remember the day back in Ought-Something when our JWM coined the "Jesus willies." Ben's definition could also include not just a seething hatred of God, but also an unresolved power struggle with those who used hallowed names to buttress their own pitiful authority and left a slimy trail on, often, the souls of little ones of all ages. The syndrome is a living definition of GB's and Bion's observation of "saturated language."

One of the challenges which One Cosmos both meets and offers is to find the new, often unspoken, language about Reality in the moment. It also probably requires a parallel inner work on the expression function to Blake's "cleansing of the doors of perception." Parroting "what I've heard" is still rumor, however exalted the purpose or content.

PS. Bob, you might want to click the name link for a post on a new book by Girard, still going strong in a bamboo orchard near Stanford.

6/15/2008 07:57:00 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Oops, Sorry JOHN, for some strange reason I thought it was Jim/James and it's been so long since we've corresponded personally. I did struggle with the coonfusion while posting but decided to go with my first instinct, boy do those suck! lol...How's Whittier? Still hiking?

Ben or was that really Skully? Of course you are invited! Yes, Dilys, I'm hoping this one will stick too,thanks!

Off to trapeze class! Great day for it too. Happy Father's Day to all you Dads out there!

6/15/2008 08:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That crap about the left actually doesn't present any actual data, it just says it exists. I hate politicizing issues that aren't really related to politics, but somehow the left and right manage to do it, just to make it seem as if the other is bad. Who looks more pathetic? Seriously, cut the crap... If I had to relate it to programming I'd call it an empty pointer. But anyway, on to something I noticed Ben say,

This blog's participants have often not directly argued the points provided by many people, doing the same exact thing you claim to find as weakness in from others doing the same. You would think you would recognize that you're pointing out a fault you share and would attempt to avoid being a hypocrite, however your attention span is as short as the daily blog. But at the same time there are arguments provided that can't be directly argued at all times. If I said Dragons are definitely green, who could possibly argue the color of an imaginary creature if it's part of my imagination. At that point, it would be justifiable to ignore me and just call me an idiot., because there are some subjects people are just too stupid and ignorant of to actually be able to argue with. Not saying that Bob is, but you're point has little validity of proving them wrong, they just didn't care to argue their points.

6/15/2008 09:33:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"But to understand Darwinism is to have transcended it."

Says it all.

6/15/2008 09:50:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

BTW, there's no reason for us to speculate any longer, the History Channel, tomorrow at 9:00 est is airing "How Life Began", so... time to roll up our blogs and go home.

6/15/2008 09:53:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Congrat's Lisa!

6/15/2008 09:54:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Gagdad said "We've discussed before how the Randian Objectivism is an excellent mental disinfectant, but you can't just leave it at that."

Yep. A great place to clean up and start the dei from, but at some point you need to get dressed and 'go to work'... just standing there scrubbin' clean, isn't enough to take you through.

6/15/2008 10:00:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

aninnymouse said "At that point, it would be justifiable to ignore me and just call me an idiot., because there are some subjects people are just too stupid and ignorant of to actually be able to argue with. "

I think you summed yourself up well. BTW, your dragon is showing. And it most definitely is green.

6/15/2008 10:16:00 AM  
Anonymous walmart shopper said...

Anon 9:33 wrote:

That crap about the left actually doesn't present any actual data, it just says it exists.

From the article:

""""

The statistics I base this on come from the General Social Survey, America's premier social research database, but they are just as relevant to the UK, as I believe political belief systems drive one's attitudes, regardless of where you happen to live.

Those surveyed were asked: 'Is it your obligation to care for a seriously injured/ill spouse or parent, or should you give care only if you really want to?' Of those describing themselves as 'conservative', 71 per cent said it was. Only 46 per cent of those on the Left agreed.

To the question: 'Do you get happiness by putting someone else's happiness ahead of your own?', 55 per cent of those who said they were 'very conservative' said Yes, compared with 20 per cent of those who were 'very liberal'.

"""""

And it continues on with more. I would assume the data is legit. It certainly agrees with my impression of leftwingers.

6/15/2008 12:34:00 PM  
Anonymous walmart shopper said...

If I said Dragons are definitely green, who could possibly argue the color of an imaginary creature if it's part of my imagination. At that point, it would be justifiable to ignore me and just call me an idiot.

Well, the dragon thing is kind of fanciful. Instead, how about if you said you possess conscious self-awareness? I think this would be a more interesting claim to consider, because it's completely unproveable and yet true (isn't it?...or is it?).

6/15/2008 01:02:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home