Another teaser, just in case you need one (not saying you do) :-)

I mentioned in the prior post the excellent VFR entry, The Transparent Intellectual Fraud that is Darwinism. By the way, I don't think I could have titled the entry any better myself. The title certainly represents my view, simplistic as it may be, of Darwinian Evolutionary religiosity. Also, note that the better VFR posts and discussions, I have no involvement in. Ever noticed that? I wonder why that is? ;-)

Nonetheless, let me tease you with an excerpt from this outstanding VFR post:

Auster writes:

"Pick up almost any Darwinian writing and you will see the same thing over and over. Nicholas Wade in his very worthwhile book Before the Dawn engages in this trope constantly (and, I believe, in complete unconsciousness that he is doing so), using language that attributes intelligence and purpose to the process of biological evolution which according to Darwinism is devoid of intelligence and purpose.

Why do Darwinists keep indulging in this gross contradiction? Because, as human beings, they not only cannot live in a world without meaning and purpose, they cannot even articulate a world without meaning and purpose, they cannot make such a world intelligible to themselves. So they keep appealing to teleology, even in the act of promoting a theory that radically denies all teleology. They are intellectual parasites who would strip all meaning from the universe, while continuing to preserve for themselves the comforts and pleasures of meaning.

The game is up. Henceforth we shall tell the Darwinists that they have no right to eat their meaning and have it. What can they say in reply? That a process utterly lacking in purpose has produced beings, such as themselves, who require a belief in purpose? Their position is as absurd as that of the postmodernists, who declare that there is no such thing as truth in the sense of words that correspond with reality, even as they expect us to agree with their theories! But how can we agree with any theory, if there can be no true correspondence between words and reality?

No matter how the Darwinists, liberals, and postmodernists twist it, they have no right to indulge in such nonsense. We must require of them that they be intellectually consistent and accept the nihilistic void produced by their own belief systems. Then we will see how long those belief systems last."

Allow me to say that I think it quite literally impossible for a meaningful purposeful human being, including Darwinists, to explain the existence of the rational meaningful purposeful universe in non-meaningful non-purposeful terms. It's kinda like trying to escape the use of logic in a rational universe. It can't be done without using it, so finely woven into the fabric of the rational universe is logic. And of course, when one engages in using logic to deny logic, then the argument is self-contradictory and self-defeating. So too might it be said, I think, that so finely woven into the meaningful purposeful universe is meaning and purpose that it's simply impossible to explain its existence in terms consistent with Darwinian meaningless purposelessness.

Read More

Podhoretz invokes Taheri; Taheri cites "Universal Democratic Principles"

Lawrence Auster has an enlightening entry up this morning wherein he exposes the self-defeating nature of Amir Taheri's argument which lends an air of legitimacy to political entities in the mideast, Hezbollah, Hamas, et al. Norman Podhoretz invokes the authority of Taheri, citing him in his (Podhoretz's) new book where Taheri says that the popular election of these groups in the mideast is, in spite of all indications on the surface, a positive occurance since it establishes the higher principle that political legitimacy is dependent on democratic elections.

Though the names Podhoretz and Taheri are of fairly recent recognition to me, their reasoning is most certainly not...

In my comments to this article, I attempt to show the true nature of the respective arguments, and what actually lies beneath the surface of this irresponsible position, building upon what Auster exposes in the intial entry. Mr. Auster has kindly replied to my comments, identifying my second paragraph as being most consistent with the message these gentlemen are attmpting to convey:

Wait a minute! Let me get this straight.

Podhoretz is invoking Taheri in defense of his own position, where Taheri is basically lending credence to the fallacy that popular elections legitimize islamist terrorist political power and activities; that popular elections, in and of themselves, legitimizes...whatever it touches? This is based itself on an illegitimate, or a false premise, that popular elections conducted whenever, wherever, and by whomever they are engaged, equals legitimacy automatically. If the premise is false, how can the conclusion be otherwise?

I'll give them both the benefit of the doubt and assume that what they intend is that by establishing the universal principle of popular electoral legitimacy, that eventually the seed, planted as it is in "good ground," will grow into a tree producing the kind of fruit that [we] desire, popular defeat of terrorists in the mideast. But upon what basis do they come to this wildly irresponsible conclusion? Upon what historical evidence do they rely to show that democratic elections, once initiated, eventually produce the desired results necessarily? Assuming this is what they mean.

Furthermore, it being a main staple of liberalism to encourage and reward folks for bad behavior and bad choices, this position betrays their liberal undergirdings, which, of course, further undermines their position."

The point being, of course, that Podhoretz is engaging in a logical fallacy, quite common to liberalism. He begins with a false premise, thus ending with a false conclusion. And as the abjectly liberal philosophy goes, everyone gets a trophy for simply playing the game. It doesn't matter how well they play the game, or whether they play it according to a given set of rules or standards. Everyone is still rewarded, and entitled to be rewarded, with a trophy for simply participating.

Bad behavior and wrong choices are equally rewarded, under the liberal philosophy, with good behavior and good choices, thus undermining what would appear to be the goal. It is antithetical to liberalism to withhold the trophy simply because the participant neglects his responsibilities, behaving irresponsibly in his participation, if a liberal is even discerning enough to make the distinction. The most important thing to a liberal is not how you play the game, but rather that you play the game. Eventually, according to a liberal, and as long as we reward the players for playing, they'll learn to play by the rules and everyone will live happily ever after, in peace and perfect harmony, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

That, in a nutshell, is the insanity of liberalism.

Read More