Irrational Atheism
I am still reading Vox Day's "The Irrational Atheist" and enjoying it thoroughly. Some of it is a bit over my head, but he has a Pauline sense of sarcasm that quite amuses me from time to time.For example, in decimating Michael Onfray's (France's version of Richard Dawkins) hedonistic, post-nihilistic, left-wing intellectual philosophy, Day comments that, "like so many recent French philosophers, his primary use of Occam's Razor is, for the purpose of repeatedly slashing his own throat".
Day goes on to take issue with Onfray's unsupported assertion that the monotheistic characteristics of obsession with purity, disdain for the physical world, negation of matter, hatred for science, and hatred for women are an undesirable prison created and imposed by religion setting boundaries for human behaviour. Apparently, you mustn't say "mustn't" to Onfray. (Doesn't that last little comment of mine echo postmoderns being absolutely certain that there's no way anybody can be certain about anything?)
But it is Day's footnote to these ridiculous assertions that that gave me the heartiest chuckle, when he says in the footnote on page 200:
"And like practically every philosopher from Plato to Dennett, Onfray believes that it is philosophy that is best fitted to dictate how humanity should organize itself. I'm starting to believe that philosophy Ph.D.s should be presented with a mandatory cup of hemlock to go with their diploma."Now THAT just about sums up how I have sometimes felt after my own experiences with those in philosophy majors, or with philosophy degrees, who have crossed my own path.
posted by agonizomai at 12:01 am
![](http://lh4.google.com/thedodester/R-m4Nex16QI/AAAAAAAABQg/UqZbFOdDtgI/s144/Add%20Podcast.png" "Subscribe to Podcast")
4 Comments:
Samuel Skinner
You're reading a book by Vox Day? Well, it is my mandatory job to slander him.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.html
Yep, that IS his own site. And he did say what you think he said. Apparently genocide and murder are okay.
Hmm... something changed on the site- the supportive comments have been disconnected.
I was aware of the site you linked, though not the particular article.
If you want to slander somebody (though I didn't see any slander in your post), please do it elsewhere - or, better yet, don't do it at all.
Also, if you have beef with Vox Day, take it over to his blog and don't fight a proxy battle on mine.
Now - for you and anybody else that's interested, the references to Day's writing in my own post, where he speaks of people using Occam's razor for less than intended purposes or of cups of suicidal poison for philosophers are recognized as figures of speech only. I don't see how any reasonable, literate, person reading the book could not take it any other way.
This is not to say that I agree with everything Vox Day has written, or will ever write. My post was saying that I am enjoying his book and that I shared his disdain for pretentious philosophies of men. In other places I found that I disagreed with him. And I also think that sarcasm and it's like forms of humour should be used sparingly, rather than as a constant bludgeon - else the effect is eventually lost.
As to genocide and the murder of infants on the command of God (the subject of the post linked to in "Vox Popoli") - it is impossible to be a Christian and NOT to accept the fact that this is precisely what was ordered by God when Israel entered Canaan.
Vox Day's point (on his blog) was both theological and philosophical. He was dealing with a hypothetical question posed for today. And he took the only possible theistic stance, which states that whatever an omnipotent God requires of us is necesarily "right" because any Omnipotent Being is the final arbiter of right and wrong. This is manifestly self-evident.
Your response probably addresses not God's right (and power) to effect His will, but whether God is moral in the exercise of His authority. Day asserts that whatever God ordains is right by definition. There are two ways to receive such assertions.
1) even when what God ordains seems wrong to us it is still right by dint of His sovereignty. Might makes right. It does, after a fashion - but that's not the whole picture.
2) God is always right because, even though we cannot see the end from the beginning, He is the ground of all goodness, He is love and He is all-wise.
I don't accept the first explanation. It is sub-Christian, in my view. And the utter divestment of all His rights by the eternal Son when He humbled Himself and took on human flesh in order to live a sinless life and die for those he came to save clinches that for me. His coming, living, dying and resurrection in order to save His church proves that there is more to God than simply raw omnipotent power.
These are the abc's for Christians. You didn't state whether you are one of us or not. I suspect not because, if you were, you would have given a lot more thought to the second means of receiving the rightness of God's ordinances. Standing in a corner and stamping one's feet in a tantrum screaming "I can't believe in a God like that" helps no one - least of all the screamer.
I say this because, without an eternal and Christian perspective it is impossible for anyone to come to grips with the killing of Canaanite infants along with all their parents and siblings and countrymen - as ordered by God in the exodus and following books. It is alright to wonder how God's power AND His moral purity can possibly be manifested in such ordinances. But only if one is prepared to bow the knee to the authority of God's word on the subject. The Bible asks the rhetorical question, "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" No answer needed. It also asks the question,"Who are you to question your Maker?" Again, no answer required.
This is inadequate for some - perhaps all - unelievers. They would rather be God's judge than be judged by Him. That's why the Bible doesn't waste a lot of time on mere intellectual persuasion. The natural (unregenerate) man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, NEITHER CAN HE, for they are spiritually discerned. You must be born again FIRST.
Christians understand that even our cognitive faculties are corrupted. That's why we rely on God's word and why unbelieving philosophers are dancing on quicksand. Their final authority is their own mind and their own sense of morality. It's not enough. The real final authority in all things is the mind of God. And that Mind has been expressed in the Word of God. Not all of it. Just what He chooses to reveal for the present age. Enough to convict men of their own inadequacy and to call them to repentance. You want to see things from God's perspective then you need to be on God's side FIRST. It's no use us saying "show me and I'll believe you" - but what matters is God saying "Believe me and I'll show you."
Have a nice day
Samuel Skinner
Technically it isn't slander if it is true. I just say it is because I find such a belief abhorant and insane.
You do realize your answer essentially when over the line into "Blood for the Blood God, Skulls for the Skull throne!" territory. God is all good because he says he is. Therefore anything he does is good.
It is also nice to know you are a relativist... and attack thought.
Are you TRYING to get me to compare you to the forces of Choas? If Khrone does it, it is okay? What is next- sanity is for the weak?
Honestly, look at what you are saying-
God can do anything
Our minds suck
If God says it, it is okay
The really fun part is these are the foundations of facism. You think I kidding? It was based on the idea that reason was bad!
I'd go on, but... well, if you don't get the point, you never will.
(the point, by the way, is that the opinions you are expressing are... well, evil. Don't get me started on the theologian who justified rape...)
I won't get into the explanation for your use of the word "slander". You didn't slander anybody here, and that's an end of it.
There are three other words that you seem to use rather imprudently, when a little thought would lead you to the realization that, as an atheist, you have no true basis on which to found them; these words are "evil", "chaos" and "relativism". They are words that present problems to atheistic philosophy, but not to Christian belief.
Christianity holds to the exitence of absolutes which are grounded in an eternal unchanging God - from whence it flows that relativism is not something that can be laid at Christianity's feet.
Christianity maintains that, the appearance of the present world notwithstanding, the eternal and absolute God is a God of order, and not chaos. Hence, any apparent disorder is permitted for a purpose that will eventually be made clear, when all is once more restored to perfect order.
Christianity, because of the absolute and orderly and loving God of creation, can hold to the belief that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong (evil and good), grounded in the God Who is above all the work of His hands in creation, including ourselves.
Atheism can offer nothing but relativistic ideas of morality, statistical probabilities for order and no meaningful, defensible distinction between good and evil.
I did not actually attack thought - I put all human thought into the Christian framework as "fallen thought". When one starts with God as the ultimate authority, instead of man, it means seeing that there is Someone of far purer and greater thought than what we think with our limited understanding. This God has explained that we are all fallen creatures whose entire beings are corrupted - intellect, emotions and will. Hence the need for spiritual rebirth and for a Saviour.
Thus, I do indeed say God is omnipotent, we have fallen minds and God is the ultimate arbiter of what is not only true and false, but also good and evil.
You insist on confusing what is true about humanity and what is true of the Holy God who originally made us. Some men do indeed readily fall into Fascism - not because reason is bad, but because their nature and their reasoning is corrupted by sin. But God, Who is perfect, does not have corrupt thoughts, and His reasoning is perfect - so He cannot be lumped with His creation in that way, as if He were one of us.
Contrary to your rather haughty sounding dismissal it's not that I don't get what you are saying, it's that I don't agree with it. I have no desire to get you started on anything, or to keep you going on anything. I think you have made you views and reactions plain enough.
In my last response I mentioned Christ to you. I told you that the God you mischaracterize and misunderstand revealed Himself in history, in the Person of His Son, by coming into humanity as a man, by living and dying and being raised from the dead, having paid the penalty for the sins of all that will believe. I asserted that these well-attested facts are God's definitive answer to the accusation that He is a monster by what He either does or allows to be done. I repeat those facts for you here.
Comments are welcome on this blog, but it is not a debate blog - it is a devotional one (read the blurb). If you relish the idea of crossing swords with Christians who don't mind dealing with philosophers, atheist and all manner of thinkers I would recommend either "http://triablogue.blogspot.com/" (Triablogue) or "http://tnma.blogspot.com/" (The Narrow Mind)
I take you at your word that you have exhausted your opinions here, and I am myself, also moving on to fresher posts and topics.
Have another a nice day.
Post a Comment
<< Home