Really I’m just using this as an excuse to put something out there. And what I am posting is a response to someone on Mr. John C. Wright’s site that answered me 11 days after my comment. I thought my response good enough that I would hate to see it lost in the sands of a retired blog post. Although I had to hold back because I don’t think my interlocutor is well versed in philosophy, history, theology, science, technology, logic or common sense.
First her first parlay was in response to this post
…and she writes:
Did you ever wonder why so many new, innovative, especially high-tech things that you find helpful in your life are created by teams of people who predominantly hold views opposite to yours, and find your views generally distasteful? Go to Google campus, or Amazon, or Intel, pretty much any high-tech producer – do you think you’ll find there mostly conservative crowd? Does it make you give up computers, cell phones, internet? Perhaps the whole “conservative” thing has its downsides?
To which I responded:
Hold it. Are you saying that if you hold, for instance that marriage is between one man and one woman, or that Christ died on the cross for man’s sins, that that man will be too what? Stupid, slow, uncreative, non-innovative to work in high tech, to acheive or excel in such a field? Are you attempting to establish some sort of causal link here or are you blowing gas? And what about that exceptions? Are they the ones that manage to hide their drooling in front of the high-tech lefty hero boss-boy? Or are they, somehow, perhaps miraculously, still able to perform despite their retarded ideas?
I had honestly thought after posting this that I had actually made of error in interpreting what her meaning was. Surely, Bob, you can’t think she would mean something like that? Perhaps she is merely asking why he doesn’t quit these other marvels of modern technology since such sectors are comprised of, she says, leftist and liberals.
I leave aside the fact that just because Jeff Bezos comes out for dumb idea #42 doesn’t mean the entirety of Google is behind dumb idea #42, nor necessarily the majority.
And everyone knows, should know, that businesses and corporations are hardly the test for any sort of stand on any social issue. They follow the breeze. If a majority decided to start putting minority X into ovens for extermination, you would suddenly see a bunch of brand new manufacturers of ovens. Introducing the Google 50,000 BTU Bone-Roaster!
They are no better than politicians – and no different in this regard.
Anyway, turns out I was wrong. My interpretation of her comment was right all along. You religious, you
stupid. Or, at least, hindered, by cwaziness.
I actually think that the two examples you’ve given say different things about a person.
Your opinion about marriage (I am going to say “your” even though you have plausible deniability, for the ease of conversation) is as good as any. Marriage can be whatever people agree it to be. Marriage is a social construct – it has no physical manifestation. You can say that “it is not real” in the sense that you cannot take a man or a woman and test them for being married. With that in mind, I interpret your view as conservative and fearful. I think that it is a form of xenophobia. It is sort of opposite to being open-minded and curious, which I consider two of the four most important traits of a human being.
Your belief in Christ or any other deity strikes me as crazy. As in seriously believing in Santa.
I think that a crazy worldview affects many aspects of person’s life. I think that it must be especially detrimental to a vocation where your success depends on being able to follow observations, make correct logical conclusions and self-correct according to measurable outcomes rather than fantasies.
Instead of commenting on this again, I will post my response and then comment a little more.
|Your opinion about marriage…[ ]… is as good as any.|
Apparently not since you proceed to chastise it in the same exact paragraph. The only sin I commit here is affirming any definitive identity to it at all.
And since the epistemological standard is collective subjectivism (although you have to decide what form of collective subjectivism – do 51% have to agree on the new meaning of the non-existent existent of marriage for it to mean that thing and not another? And what about the other 49% are they simply wrong because they are a minority? Mind – we have banished reality as any measure or standard of truth so you have to lay out your subjective ground rules for your subjectivist world) what is to stop the meaning of marriage to mean any damned thing people want it to be? Can ten guys and a monkey form a “marriage” if enough “open-minded” people get together and say that is also marriage.
I really love my pug. If wife got hit by a Mack truck, could I marry him? I’m not going to screw him mind you… is that an essential for the new collective subjective definition of marriage?
How about my mother? Could I marry my mother if everyone got together and said “why not?”
As for it being an opinion, you mean the opinion of all of civilized mankind up until half a minute ago. To say that marriage is a “social construct” is as to say farming for food is a social construct. It doesn’t even need a religious support for its objectivity as marriage was of necessity for social structure and stability of the primary social unit which is the family.
Only in our modern largesse and slothful privilege do we start saying first, this is a social construct, that is a social construct… then to even defy actual science and say gender is a social construct.
|You can say that “it is not real” in the sense that you cannot take a man or a woman and test them for being married.|
Sweet, I’m going to go tell my wife that and go bang some whores. But seriously, this is just stupid. So it is not really real if you can’t get a blood test result or something? How about this for a test (warning: this involves radical suggestions shunned by the modern mind) observation, questioning (“hey, baby, you married?” “Yes” test complete – if you were really a skeptic you could ask for a… marriage license).
By the same token most everything men do is not real. All business relationships are not real (even basic employee/employer relationships) because how would you test for them? America is not really real, how do you test a nation – where would you put the needle? Where would you send the sample? Not to America, we haven’t verified her existence yet! We can’t deny the land, the physical reality of it, but to call it a country with a specific name… how would you test for that?
Each and every one of these and countless more examples are proven in exactly the same way as you would “test” for marriage.
|With that in mind, I interpret your view as conservative and fearful.|
Thank you. Although fearful is the wrong word. I find it concerning when someone makes a full pledge to the cause of subjectivism as a standard (in this case a collective subjectivism) as in:
|Marriage can be whatever people agree it to be.|
You see I find it it detrimental to a vocation where someone has to deal with an actual objective reality and not a made-up world where they can declare themselves an omelet because it struck their fancy to do so. Or a dog a bird, a man a woman, etc, etc.
|I think that it is a form of xenophobia.|
Baseless SJW scare tactic. Try again.
|It is sort of opposite to being open-minded and curious, which I consider two of the four most important traits of a human being.|
In a post of baseless assertions you do realize how ironic and blind this assertion is, do you not? You have displayed neither open-mindedness nor curiosity. Blabbering the slogans of the Left is not itself open-mindedness no matter what your professors tell you.
|Your belief in Christ or any other deity strikes me as crazy. As in seriously believing in Santa.|
More of that open-mindedness and curiosity on display.
|I think that a crazy worldview affects many aspects of person’s life. I think that it must be especially detrimental to a vocation where your success depends on being able to follow observations, make correct logical conclusions and self-correct according to measurable outcomes rather than fantasies.|
You know, back when I was an atheist I made it my job to be as careful as possible in these sorts of conversations. I would spend hours making sure I wasn’t talking out my arse and sounding as if I had never picked up a single history book.
I believe I may have forgot to shut the door behind me when I fled the school as the last rational atheist on God’s good Earth.
Go read a little bit on the history of science. Read about Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest and father of the Big Bang theory. Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian monk and father of modern genetics.
There are literally countless other examples, well here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
Those are just the Catholic ones. But those are the most evil ones according to modernist scripture are they not?
It was Christendom that gave us the universities that produced the men that made modern science, and these were religious men. This is basic history 101, it is not even debatable.
Also you seem to be conflating science with technology. Not the same thing. It is like confusing science with engineering.
And just what is it that you think believing in a deity hinders in following observations, making correct logical conclusions and self-correct according to measurable outcomes?
Something, btw, that men of religion have been doing and doing spectacularly, centuries longer than the modern atheist. In fact I would counter that it is the man of God and science who is more likely to abide by the methods necessary in these vocations than the mere modern man that is inculcated with the doctrines of relativism and subjectivism. The man of God believes in an unalterable, real, objective reality made by God. The modern believes in an alterable, malleable reality, malleable by the whims of men who can change things at will.
In the words of Justice Roberts who succinctly defined the epistemology and metaphysics of the modern era (while faithfully following it):
[Note: I failed in my original comment to include the statement that I find Justice Robert’s comment to be the diametrical (and diabolical) opposite of the truth.]
“at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life.”
Speaking of fantasies (since you mentioned tech companies, and Apple has been one of the biggest innovators in the tech field) how many do you think Steve Jobs had when he was frying on acid all those times?
He describes it as one of the most important things he’d ever done in his life. Is that following observations? I have taken acid on numerous occasions and you’re not really observing what is there sometimes. Is it making conclusions and self-correcting to blah blah blah.
Or how about his spiritual trip to India? According to your fantastical “Spock” projection of technological innovation and science this guy should have been mopping up the shitters at Microsoft, not leading a technological revolution.
I’ll leave you with a quote to ponder from another religious idiot (although not a scientist, only one of greatest writers of the English language)
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
– Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
I will give her credit for picking up that I didn’t necessarily come out in favor of the position of the positions I offered. That was a good bit of reading comprehension right there.
I could have made my response a thousand pages long in the details of where her ideas are wrong. But just the factual glossing is bad enough. The apparent conflict between religion and science is a myth. Of course people can make a conflict between anything, to be sure. And they do. But there is nothing that stands inherently in the way of a man believing in God and performing science or technological discoveries. Nothing.
It is a proven point only obfuscated by a vocal, and verbally militarized (i.e., aggressive) myth of modern atheism.