tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post6122207162660221169..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Count the Skulls for JesusGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-23817886927592623142007-11-08T16:40:00.000-06:002007-11-08T16:40:00.000-06:00ah. I have made an error. The name was apparentl...ah. I have made an error. The name was apparently John Lennox and not James. Apologies to anyone who was confused or maligned.<BR/><BR/>I found a link on youtube for the debate as well..<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYYJaYT2YHgClayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01355381643953755204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-80824663559989108302007-11-08T15:36:00.000-06:002007-11-08T15:36:00.000-06:00heya Burgess..I'm not sure. I thought of that, bu...heya Burgess..<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure. I thought of that, but haven't had time to look into it.<BR/><BR/>This Lennox is a "philosopher of science" representing the christian/theist position. <BR/><BR/>I believe that both he and Dawkins were said to be profs at Oxford.Clayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01355381643953755204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-8083857944462174162007-11-08T08:55:00.000-06:002007-11-08T08:55:00.000-06:00Burgess,Thank you for bringing up secularism. That...Burgess,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for bringing up secularism. That is a point worthy of further consideration on my part (although not now -- I have to leave for work soon).<BR/><BR/>Also, I had no idea until now that you had a blog! I'll point to it some time soon in a roundup post.<BR/><BR/>GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-63318400072787291812007-11-08T08:49:00.000-06:002007-11-08T08:49:00.000-06:00Gus Van Horn correctly observes:But recall also th...Gus Van Horn correctly observes:<BR/><BR/><I>But recall also that D'Souza speaks of a "sleight of hand that holds Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its name, while exonerating <B>secularism and atheism</B> for the greater crimes committed in their name". Recall again that all atheism is, is a position about one question: "Does God exist?"</I> (Bold added)<BR/><BR/>Mr. Van Horn and others have observed astutely that atheism (literally "not theism") is not a worldview. However, secularism, the other half of D'Souza's couplet, should not be ignored.<BR/><BR/>I would suggest that secularism too is not a worldview. (I discuss my understanding of "worldview" here, in the first weblog post: www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com )<BR/><BR/>Rather, secularism is merely an answer to one characterizing question: <I>Where</I> do you locate your highest concerns? In the activities of this world, or in the activities of another, and sacred, world? Secularism is merely one characteristic of a worldview, not a worldview.<BR/><BR/>It is the fundamentals of a worldview, as a whole, that account for human behavior -- a life of productivity, for example, versus a life of destruction. Those fundamentals are: an ontology which causes an epistemology which causes an ethics which causes a politics. The interconnection of those levels of the hierarchy of a worldview explain the behavior of the worldview's followers -- an Industrial Revolution or a Holocaust.<BR/><BR/>Burgess LaughlinBurgess Laughlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865479709475171678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-61680696295252287792007-11-08T08:23:00.000-06:002007-11-08T08:23:00.000-06:00Clay, is the James Lennox you heard speak the same...Clay, is the James Lennox you heard speak the same James G. Lennox who is co-editor and co-author of <I>Philosophical Issues in Aristotle's Biology</I> ? The other editor and author is Objectivist and Aristotle scholar Allan Gotthelf.<BR/><BR/>Burgess Laughlin<BR/>www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.comBurgess Laughlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865479709475171678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-36069760920508282632007-11-08T06:34:00.000-06:002007-11-08T06:34:00.000-06:00Would love to see someone like Dr. Binswanger deba...Would love to see someone like Dr. Binswanger debate someone like D'Souza. <BR/><BR/>It wouldn't go well for D'Souza.<BR/><BR/>Heard a good debate with Richard Dawkins and a guy named James Lennox the other night. <BR/><BR/>I would say that the debate was a draw, though I was arguing with Lennox in my head and winning(heh), and so I might be giving Dawkins too much credit.<BR/><BR/>I must say that the Lennox fellow was a slippery bastard.Clayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01355381643953755204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-23273633090309667892007-11-08T00:47:00.000-06:002007-11-08T00:47:00.000-06:00Heh!(Link)Heh!<BR/><BR/>(<A HREF="http://russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/quetzalc0wn3d.html" REL="nofollow">Link</A>)Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-65663791756232028302007-11-07T23:04:00.000-06:002007-11-07T23:04:00.000-06:00Take that Dinesh D'Souza...http://russellsteapot.c...Take that Dinesh D'Souza...<BR/><BR/>http://russellsteapot.com/comics<BR/>/2007/quetzalc0wn3d.html<BR/><BR/>As Bugs Bunny once said: "I can resist anything but temptation."johnnycwesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746767404567772212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-49439398528320210712007-11-07T22:03:00.000-06:002007-11-07T22:03:00.000-06:00Jim and Joseph - you are absolutely correct - here...Jim and Joseph - you are absolutely correct - here is Ayn Rand, a writer who has been dismissed by many - a book fifty years old, and she and Objectivism have not gone away. And nostalgia has nothing to do with it - vital ideas cannot be defeated if some people are willing and able to keep them alive. The internet and sites such as this, will keep these ideas alive. Ideas require constant nurturing and Gus, your website is invaluable with your content and the thinking behind it. Thank you.johnnycwesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746767404567772212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-91484182660651644342007-11-07T18:04:00.000-06:002007-11-07T18:04:00.000-06:00Jim May writes: “Most of them [conservatives] igno...Jim May writes: <BR/><BR/>“Most of them [conservatives] ignore us [Objectivists], in hopes that we'll go away. Oh, how things will change in a flash should they ever conclude that our ideas are influential enough to be dangerous. And that might be pretty soon.”<BR/><BR/>I think this is already happening. It is the reason why National Review continues to reprint Whittaker Chambers’ review of Atlas Shrugged, and why the neo-conservative Commentary magazine has published a few awful essays about Ayn Rand in recent years. <BR/><BR/>Rand used to be mostly or entirely ignored. But now, with the sale of her books greater than ever, and the reach and depth of her influence getting increasing publicity, the conservatives can evade her no more. Gear up for their continued attacks, because they’ve only just begun.Joseph Kellardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05792444138935346026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-68803727510538885962007-11-07T17:45:00.000-06:002007-11-07T17:45:00.000-06:00Well, a stopped clock is right twice a day....I do...Well, a stopped clock is right twice a day....<BR/><BR/>I do appreciate you pointing me to the reference. I may find it useful some time down the road.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-61202639065524111372007-11-07T16:52:00.000-06:002007-11-07T16:52:00.000-06:00How do we get Yaron Brook or Leonard Peikoff or so...How do we get Yaron Brook or Leonard Peikoff or some other Objectivist to debate D'Souza? Or better yet - have a 3 way debate with Hitchens and D'Souza. The comments to this and to other posts here Gus remind us that atheism is as empty a creed as libertarianism. The absence of an error, with no rational philosophical base, is not really progress. My joy at seeing atheism discussed more openly is coming to an end - perhaps a step in the right direction, but a small one.johnnycwesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746767404567772212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-34801662689418208272007-11-07T16:37:00.000-06:002007-11-07T16:37:00.000-06:00Kyle, you are spot on. Thank you for your reply, ...Kyle, you are spot on. Thank you for your reply, it will be beneficial to me down the road in structuring my own expressions.Rick "Doc" MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03925428040124678898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-55350793875099266392007-11-07T16:14:00.000-06:002007-11-07T16:14:00.000-06:00I don't think it's a huge problem to make the case...I don't think it's a huge problem to make the case that Communism is irrational, but I think it does take more effort than it does to show that Naziism is irrational. It's easy to find stacks of quotes from leading Nazis attacking reason and elevating blood or emotion as the proper guide to action. Communism (at least in its Marxist variety) made a serious and systematic effort to portray itself as scientific. It wanted to be viewed as the heir to the Enlightenment. Of course, it wasn't, but that facade needs to be ripped aside in a way that doesn't apply to Naziism.<BR/><BR/>A useful data point for convincing people that the evils of communism aren't linked to secularism is the Anabaptist takeover of the city of Munster back in the early 1600's. While I hate to recommend his work, I did find Murry Rothbard's article "Karl Marx: Communist as Religious Eschatologist" to contain useful information on the historical links between communism and religious gnosticism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-31042932251422515752007-11-07T12:41:00.000-06:002007-11-07T12:41:00.000-06:00Kyle, Your suggestion for how the debate ought to ...Kyle, <BR/><BR/>Your suggestion for how the debate ought to be framed is right on target, although I don't see it as quite the problem you do to make a case convincing to an honest person that communism is irrational.<BR/><BR/>GB,<BR/><BR/>You put very well ("opportunity") what I was groping around at when I brought up the thinking behind the title I used by accident.<BR/><BR/>GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-46353036428824600592007-11-07T12:35:00.000-06:002007-11-07T12:35:00.000-06:00Last but certainly not least, I forgot to mention ...Last but certainly not least, I forgot to mention the ancient (and modern-day) Muslims. Imagine what the ancient Muslims would have done with Hitler's tools. Imagine what today's Muslims will do with the nuclear bomb...Galileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-81199154544941941082007-11-07T12:31:00.000-06:002007-11-07T12:31:00.000-06:00Jim May says:"The *only* significant difference be...Jim May says:<BR/><BR/>"The *only* significant difference between those ancient theocratic tyrants and their 20th-century versions was opportunity: the former did not have the benefit of a preceding era of capitalist freedom to supply them with the technology and victim pool that Hitler and Stalin had."<BR/><BR/>I agree. Hitler and Stalin had trains, barbed wire fences, machine guns, and the other unspeakable tools that could let them slaughter people on a mass scale. They also had records of their inhabitants that rulers did not have in the Middle Ages. Those records let them efficiently round up people.<BR/><BR/>Imagine what Catholic Spain of the 1400s or the various countries in the Hundred Years' war might have done to Jews and others, if they had the same modern tools at their disposal.Galileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-63315425332559242532007-11-07T11:05:00.000-06:002007-11-07T11:05:00.000-06:00I think one of the key errors made in debating rel...I think one of the key errors made in debating religionists like D'Souza is casting the issue in terms of theism vs. secularism. It would be better to speak in terms of reason vs. irrationalism. That focuses attention on the thing that religion and the mass secular totalitarian movements have in common, so that when men like D'Souza try to play the Nazi card one can just point out that the Nazis were thorough irrationalists, and irrationalism is evil, and oh by the way reason is incompatible with religion.<BR/><BR/>The tricky part about this approach would be having the data needed to demonstrate the root irrationalism behind Marxism's scientific facade.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-74620928007036104892007-11-07T10:46:00.000-06:002007-11-07T10:46:00.000-06:00No time even to Google this at the moment, but I d...No time even to Google this at the moment, but I do wonder whether D'Souza has any familiarity with Objectivism....Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-81209908148909039172007-11-07T10:12:00.000-06:002007-11-07T10:12:00.000-06:00D'Souza is wrong to suggest that Christianity neve...D'Souza is wrong to suggest that Christianity never produced a Stalin or Hitler. It did, in fact, produce many of them. The *only* significant difference between those ancient theocratic tyrants and their 20th-century versions was opportunity: the former did not have the benefit of a preceding era of capitalist freedom to supply them with the technology and victim pool that Hitler and Stalin had.<BR/><BR/>D'Souza is fully aware of the full historical scope -- errors of that size are not made innocently. He is simply trying to bury the inconvenient facts of history.<BR/><BR/><I>D'Souza hopes that his readers will recognize that atheism offers man no guidance -- and rush to religion by default, and he is counting on the blatant intellectual bankruptcy of the new atheists. But Ayn Rand is one atheist who does offer a viable philosophical alternative to religion: her this-worldly, rational, egoistic, and capitalistic philosophy: Objectivism.</I><BR/><BR/>That cannot be said enough! This is what makes Objectivism so dangerous to religion and conservatism: it IS a worldview. That is what the smartest of them know; those who exhibit the peculiar, hyperbolic vitriol of such as Whittaker Chambers see the potential for our ideas to eclipse religion and conservatism once and for all. It isn't hyperbole to <I>them</I>.<BR/><BR/>Most of them ignore us, in hopes that we'll go away. Oh, how things will change in a flash should they ever conclude that our ideas are influential enough to be dangerous. <BR/><BR/>And that might be pretty soon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-62697438586915305322007-11-07T07:04:00.001-06:002007-11-07T07:04:00.001-06:00Ergo,Thank you, sir!GusErgo,<BR/><BR/>Thank you, sir!<BR/><BR/>GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-91146901015909192602007-11-07T07:04:00.000-06:002007-11-07T07:04:00.000-06:00Doc,I've seen people mention the link you speak of...Doc,<BR/><BR/>I've seen people mention the <A HREF="http://www.tkc.edu/debate/" REL="nofollow">link</A> you speak of, but haven't gotten to it yet. Your comments make me want to see it now for my own edification.<BR/><BR/>GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-71183072505230677592007-11-07T01:25:00.000-06:002007-11-07T01:25:00.000-06:00Brilliance.Brilliance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-83547459558315862782007-11-07T01:11:00.000-06:002007-11-07T01:11:00.000-06:00Well said. I don't know if you've seen the D'Souz...Well said. I don't know if you've seen the D'Souza/Hitchens "debate" or not, but it proves your point in that Hitchens, at times appears lost and longing for an answer that eludes him. I think the difference is that D'Souza truly believes what he is saying, while Hitchens may not be 100% committed. <BR/><BR/>At any rate the Kings College debate can be viewed at this location: http://www.tkc.edu/debate/<BR/><BR/>D'Souza schtick is predictable. He used the same arguements in his debate with Hitchens and with some ex-priest on the Laura Ingraham radio show a few weeks back. You are correct in that he either doesn't see the whole picture when it comes to the effects of religion over the centuries, or deliberately evades letting on that he does.<BR/><BR/>He tries to use science and the "perfect" structure of the universe to prove that it's presence is no accident and speaks about how simply changing an orbiting electron could eliminate or alter existence, but doesn't seem to grasp that what would be changed is reality which would become a different reality no less discoverable to people with the same minds and abilities we possess now. <BR/><BR/>He'd have made a great politician. It all depends on what you think "is" means. :-)<BR/><BR/>"Doc"Rick "Doc" MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03925428040124678898noreply@blogger.com