ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Why he was wrong about Christianity

Although I am familiar with the concept expressed by Sam Huntington's civilizational paradigm and have actually read the famous essay in Foreign Affairs called "The Clash of Civilizations", I am a little embarrassed to say that I made the typical college mistake of assuming that knowledge about the concept was an adequate substitute for detailed knowledge of the concept. Which is to say that I'd never read the book that is the expansion of the esssay, which mistake I am presently correcting now.

It's a brilliant, brilliant book that goes well beyond the refutation of Fukuyama's silly "History is Over and We're All Liberal Democrats Now" paradigm and already it has me thinking about how the civilizational paradigm affects the reality of the Alt-Right. And it occurs to me that one of the keys to the success of the Alt-West is going to be a) Christians realizing that Churchianity is not Christianity and driving it out of their institutions and places of worship combined with b) non-Christians realizing that Christianity is, far from being a societal negative, a societal necessity for any Western civilization.

Tom Howard's journey away from Christianity into antiquity, then back again, is one that I expect will be repeated by many an apostate, agnostic, and even atheist.
When I was a boy, my upbringing as a Christian was forever being weathered by the gale force of my enthusiasms. First, there were dinosaurs. I vividly remember my shock when, at Sunday school one day, I opened a children’s Bible and found an illustration on its first page of Adam and Eve with a brachiosaur. Six years old I may have been, but of one thing – to my regret – I was rock-solid certain: no human being had ever seen a sauropod. That the teacher seemed not to care about this error only compounded my sense of outrage and bewilderment. A faint shadow of doubt, for the first time, had been brought to darken my Christian faith.

With time, it darkened further still. My obsession with dinosaurs – glamorous, ­ferocious, extinct – evolved seamlessly into an obsession with ancient empires. When I read the Bible, the focus of my fascination was less the children of Israel or Jesus and his disciples than their adversaries: the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Romans. In a similar manner, although I vaguely continued to believe in God, I found Him infinitely less charismatic than my favourite Olympians: Apollo, Athena, Dionysus. Rather than lay down laws and condemn other deities as demons, they preferred to enjoy themselves. And if they were vain, selfish and cruel, that only served to endow them with the allure of rock stars.

By the time I came to read Edward Gibbon and the other great writers of the Enlightenment, I was more than ready to accept their interpretation of history: that the triumph of Christianity had ushered in an “age of superstition and credulity”, and that modernity was founded on the dusting down of long-forgotten classical values. My childhood instinct to think of the biblical God as the po-faced enemy of liberty and fun was rationalised. The defeat of paganism had ushered in the reign of Nobodaddy, and of all the crusaders, inquisitors and black-hatted puritans who had served as his acolytes. Colour and excitement had been drained from the world. “Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilean,” Swinburne wrote, echoing the apocryphal lament of Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor of Rome. “The world has grown grey from thy breath.” Instinctively, I agreed.

So, perhaps it was no surprise that I should have continued to cherish classical antiquity as the period that most stirred and inspired me. When I came to write my first work of history, Rubicon, I chose a subject that had been particularly close to the hearts of the philosophes: the age of Cicero. The theme of my second, Persian Fire, was one that even in the 21st century was serving Hollywood, as it had served Montaigne and Byron, as an archetype of the triumph of liberty over despotism: the Persian invasions of Greece.

The years I spent writing these studies of the classical world – living intimately in the company of Leonidas and of Julius Caesar, of the hoplites who had died at Thermopylae and of the legionaries who had triumphed at Alesia – only confirmed me in my fascination: for Sparta and Rome, even when subjected to the minutest historical inquiry, did not cease to seem possessed of the qualities of an apex predator. They continued to stalk my imaginings as they had always done – like a tyrannosaur.

Yet giant carnivores, however wondrous, are by their nature terrifying. The longer I spent immersed in the study of classical antiquity, the more alien and unsettling I came to find it. The values of Leonidas, whose people had practised a peculiarly murderous form of eugenics, and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night, were nothing that I recognised as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls and enslaved a million more. It was not just the extremes of callousness that I came to find shocking, but the lack of a sense that the poor or the weak might have any intrinsic value. As such, the founding conviction of the Enlightenment – that it owed nothing to the faith into which most of its greatest figures had been born – increasingly came to seem to me unsustainable.
What Howard learned is something I pointed out in a controverial WND column called "The Morality of Rape", in which I noted that the very idea that rape is wrong, let alone a crime against the state, is an intrinsically Christian concept. The inescapable conclusion is that one simply cannot separate religion from culture, much less from civilization; indeed, Huntington observes that the strongest identifying element of the eight competing major civilizations is, in fact, religion.
Blood, language, religion, way of life, were what the Greeks had in common and what distinguished them from the Persians and other non-Greeks. Of all the objective elements which define civilizations, however, the most important usually is religion, as the Athenians emphasized. To a very large degree, the major civilizations in human history have been closely identified with the world’s great religions; and people who share ethnicity and language but differ in religion may slaughter each other, as happened in Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, and the Subcontinent.

Labels: ,

174 Comments:

Anonymous dagwood September 27, 2016 8:44 PM  

"I vividly remember my shock when, at Sunday school one day, I opened a children’s Bible and found an illustration on its first page of Adam and Eve with a brachiosaur. Six years old I may have been, but of one thing – to my regret – I was rock-solid certain: no human being had ever seen a sauropod. That the teacher seemed not to care about this error only compounded my sense of outrage and bewilderment. A faint shadow of doubt, for the first time, had been brought to darken my Christian faith.

With time, it darkened further still. My obsession with dinosaurs – glamorous, ­ferocious, extinct – evolved seamlessly into an obsession with ancient empires. When I read the Bible, the focus of my fascination was less the children of Israel or Jesus and his disciples than their adversaries: the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Romans. In a similar manner, although I vaguely continued to believe in God, I found Him infinitely less charismatic than my favourite Olympians: Apollo, Athena, Dionysus."

See, this is why you all need to become Catholics, toute de suite. We don't go in for this idiocy. You could also become Eastern Orthodox, I don't really know much about them, but from the little I know they seem to be chaps with their heads screwed on straight. It seems like the Chaldeans and the Copts aren't crazy imbeciles, too, but my information about them is even more faint.

Catholics have Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, Theresa of the Little Flower, Vincent de Paul, and the Knights of Saint John. The rest of you have retards like John Calvin and Martin Luther.

Get with the real team, boyos.

Blogger Bard September 27, 2016 8:59 PM  

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father except through me. What profit a man to gain the entire world and forfiet his soul?If the Alt-west does not militantly defend and spread the gospel TRUTH to the lost, how is it better than any other ideology?

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr September 27, 2016 8:59 PM  

Will and Aeriel Durant, in "The Lessons of History", made a very strong case that a strong faith was essential for a successful civilization. When faith fades, so does civil society.

Anonymous The OASF September 27, 2016 9:00 PM  

There is a reason why the globalist governmenance goes to almost mind-boggling lengths & crimes to discredit Young Earth creationism or as I like to refer to it biblical creationism.

One has to do their part in terms of understanding how the creation actually works and how Faith actually works in order to see all the blessings of God in this lifetime and perfect tranquility through struggle. With no understanding of the creation there is no hope of developing true faith. Faith allows you to do your part so God can do his part. As Christ said, there is no other way.

Faith is more than just the churchian concept of saying hallelujah, Whimsically believing and some idea, and listening to crappy pop Christian music. Real Biblical faith is actually based on quantum physics and this goes back to how God designed the creation. This is the big secret that secret societies don't want the masses to know or understand. Those of you who may be in one would get it.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein September 27, 2016 9:00 PM  

@1.)
Y'all also have Pope Francis, Chief.

Blogger macengr September 27, 2016 9:04 PM  

I follow a lot of international relations blogs and to this day they still hate Huntingdon's essay/book and use it as an example of "being wrong". Even after the last 15 years...

Anonymous VFM #6306 September 27, 2016 9:05 PM  

Considering that Beowulf slew the last of the sauropods, the Sunday school teacher was ignorant, but of something rather than what Tom Howard's six-year old self may have suspected.

How do we know this? Why, because of Christians, of course. Regardless, a good reminder: a scourging is in order.

The neo-Odinites never seem to recognize that the only reason why they have their object of worship is because the Christian Snorri Sturluson saw the mythic figure doomed to be lost in history. Their false foundation is built upon our Firm Foundation.

Blogger VD September 27, 2016 9:07 PM  

If the Alt-west does not militantly defend and spread the gospel TRUTH to the lost, how is it better than any other ideology?

Don't be a moron, Bard. There is more to the world than religion and the spiritual aspects, as outlined in the Bible itself.

Some ideologies demand the murder of hundreds of millions. Others are suicidal. The fact that you can't tell how one might be better than another does not speak well for your intelligence.

TL;DR Spare us the Churchian virtue-signaling.

Real Biblical faith is actually based on quantum physics and this goes back to how God designed the creation.

Not one individual in a thousand understands quantum physics. I very much doubt you do. No faith is not based on it, let alone "real Biblical faith".

Listen, all you posturing Christian idiots. Your testimony, such as it is, is negative. You are actively driving intelligent people away from Christianity. It took me nearly 20 years to get over my allergy to people like you and learn to stop judging Christianity by its most idiotic and obnoxious followers. So knock it off.

Blogger macengr September 27, 2016 9:13 PM  

Also, Holland's (not Howard, VD!) books are really good. I very much enjoyed Rubicon and Persian Fire, and In the Shadow of the Sword is in my to-read pile.

Anonymous High tech Redneck September 27, 2016 9:13 PM  

Tom Holland, not Howard.

I am currently reading The Forge of Christendom, which is quite good, and I very much enjoyed Persian Fire. I loved In the Shadow of the Sword but I have to assume that he got more than a few death threats from devotees of the Religion of Peace for his theses that (a) Mohammed probably considered himself a Jew; (b) Mohammed's Islam was nothing more than an aggregation of various heresies and pagan myths that were floating around in the hinterlands of the civilized world; (c) Abd al-Malik was the creator of what we know as Islam decades after Mohammed's death; (d) Jewish converts were likely the source of the legalisms of Islam as well as some of the more onerous punishments, such as death for apostasy.

Anonymous Minack September 27, 2016 9:26 PM  

"America cannot become the world and still remain America. Other peoples cannot become American and still remain themselves. America is different, and that difference is defined by in large part by its Anglo-Protestant culture and its religiosity. The alternative to cosmopolitanism and imperialism is nationalism devoted to the preservation and enhancement of those qualities that have defined America since its founding." -Samuel P. Huntington


Unfortunately, many of those "other peoples" are determined to remain themselves-- even if it means destroying everything that made this country desirable to begin with.

Anonymous BGKB September 27, 2016 9:29 PM  

were nothing that I recognised as my own; nor were those of Caesar

When I visited Pompeii not only did I feel I could live in an ancient city like it, but I if I saw a tornado coming I would rather run inside one of the still standing ancient villas than a modern stick built home. Of course I wouldn't want to be a slave back then. Both sides of my family are from Northern Europe, I visited several castles while there. When it was my turn to plan military training for my platoon in germany I went with a terrain association course in an area with 3 ruined small castles/keeps.

Theresa of the Little Flower, Vincent de Paul, and the Knights of Saint John. The rest of you have retards like John Calvin and Martin Luther.

Martin Luther was one of the smartest men in history. On top of that allowing smart clergy to breed kept the average IQ from dropping.

very strong case that a strong faith was essential for a successful civilization. When faith fades, so does civil society.

To bad they didn't provide any official info on the 1/3 of New Orleans cops that abandoned their posts during Katrina. The nurses that stayed working in the hospitals with no power/water/hvac should have been recognized as heroes not sued because a 600lb black that needed an electric powered machine to breath died.

OT: to those who say about alt-white purity tests and "coexisting", while searching for my handle I found I had a 1488er admirer that lurks here.
"Big Gay Steve is one clever right-wind homosexual. Arguably funnier than Milo, and he’s not Jewish and he doesn’t f**k black men!"
https://luciussomesuch.wordpress.com/2016/06/08/the-quotable-big-gay-steve/
https://luciussomesuch.wordpress.com/2016/03/19/biggaysteve-is-one-clever-homosexual/

Anonymous Red September 27, 2016 9:32 PM  

Just as soon as you burn you're anti-christ pope at the stake.

Blogger Orville September 27, 2016 9:32 PM  

Why do Creationists have to be as annoying as the pagan alt-whites? I came from a fundamentalist background of hair splitting gnat straining pharisees who can't see the glorious forest of faith for all the little trees that "must" be defended in the public arena.

Blogger Basil Makedon September 27, 2016 9:33 PM  

I also recommend Tom Holland's works, I'm reading Rubicon now -- I started with his book on the Arabs and Islam. I agree it does a great job laying out real problems with the Historic origins of Islam. Spoiler Alert: Essentially, Mohammed is an Arab King Arthur rather than an Arab Constantine.

The juxtaposition of Genesis and Shadow of the Sword is unintended but apt. While I know many Christians who take the Bible cover to cover as literal truth, in my view this is unneeded. I know that the New Testament is true in part because of the details that the Bart Ehrmans of the world call "contradictions." Gary Habermas lays it out very convincingly.

Muslims hold the Koran to be their rock deity's dictation. Ultimately, this puts them in a logic trap that they can't escape. Don't follow them into a dead end.



Blogger Orville September 27, 2016 9:39 PM  

Catholics have Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, Theresa of the Little Flower, Vincent de Paul, and the Knights of Saint John. The rest of you have retards like John Calvin and Martin Luther.

And some of us trace our theological roots back to believers such as the anti-popish Lombards c. 850 AD.

Catholicism has done little to transform the brown people, and has little to do with early to mid-America...in my opinion.

Anonymous dagwood September 27, 2016 9:40 PM  

"Y'all also have Pope Francis, Chief."

Totally true. What an embarrassment! And what an indictment. But that's why I'm so ecumenical, I think the Proddy energy (minus the ludicrous grandiosity, and purged of its silliness) would bring new energy to the faith. I believe Christianity at its heart is one, and we all have things to learn from one another. God is infinitely vast, why shouldn't His devotion be vast as well?

I don't look down on you chaps, although I think you're mistaken on critical things (and downright comical on some things, which is fine, comedy is part of the universe). The Eastern Orthodox, from what I understand (which is limited), seem to be a good compromise. You hate the Catholics largely for ethnic and cultural reasons; if you really sat down and learned, you'd convert in a heartbeat.

Well that's all one,
Our play is done,
And we'll strive to please you
Every day.
-- Shakespeare, the conclusion of Twelfth Night.

It's not the end of the world if we disagree. I think ecumenical thought is the way forward, with a bit of sophistication and a bit of zeal.

Given the state of the world, certainly we have to do SOMEthing.

Blogger PoseidonAwoke September 27, 2016 9:41 PM  

Identity (including culture, religion and mythology) is a portfolio of associations which allow for daily decideability by individuals which comprise a society. If we dissect what it means to be a Christian and a Westerner, we will find this portfolio of associations. We would say "It's the Christian thing to do" for X or Y situation: it provides daily decidability, without every action being explicitly prescribed. So, I am agreeing that religion is important, because this portfolio of associations allows a group to maintain a cohesive cooperation absent direct authority to command them. This is the power of the Cult (the culture, the religion, the traditions), it replaces human direction with a set of ideas that for individuals to make decisions which benefit the group. Where you have culture and religion (and norms/traditions), you do not need authority to command.

This is why identity is so important and why attacks on identity are so detrimental to the West (or any group) (such as the idea that whites have no culture). If you can break an individual away from the cult/culture/religion with individualism or nihilism or if you can cause individual to defect by poisoning the identity (such as how 'whiteness' is now demonized), then you can disrupt the social signals which regulate the group behavior of individual within the group.

If we don't see ourselves as Christians, or Westerners, or Pan-European or German, etc, and if we don't have a portfolio of associations of what a person of that identity should do, then we cannot cohere and act in a distributed but coordinated fashion. Our identity is central to our ability to decide and act. The problem that the West faces is a spiritual one. We have to remember who we are, to find ourselves. We have to fight for our soul, the soul of our people.

I know a lot of people are frustrated that we can't fight back. But first we have to fight this spiritual battle to reclaim our identity, our souls.

I have this intuition that only the artists can save us.

Anonymous dagwood September 27, 2016 9:43 PM  

"Martin Luther was one of the smartest men in history."

Ptolemy, too. Notice a similarity?

Blogger Zimri September 27, 2016 9:46 PM  

In classical antiquity, rape was used as an act of war. If Rome raped the women of the Sabines, the Sabine men tended to object. The semantic field of rape coincides with that of war and especially raiding: "rape" itself involves capture, one "takes" or "ravishes" the victim, and so on.

So it was still a crime in pre-Christian societies. It was a crime against the woman's father...

Anonymous Bobby Farr September 27, 2016 9:50 PM  

@8 "Listen, all you posturing Christian idiots. Your testimony, such as it is, is negative. You are actively driving intelligent people away from Christianity. It took me nearly 20 years to get over my allergy to people like you and learn to stop judging Christianity by its most idiotic and obnoxious followers. So knock it off."

I am firmly in this camp. As soon as I hear Bible thumping, especially in relation to politics, I assume I am dealing with an Erick Erickson - an effeminate slob, likely a hypocrite and/or sleazy opportunist, who celebrates weakness and ugliness and pursues a leftist agenda. These sorts have generated so much skepticism and disgust that arguments based on blood and culture more generally are likely to be more effective.

Blogger Bard September 27, 2016 9:51 PM  

Duly noted Vox. I can tell the difference. I want to live under a righteous rule and the Alt-west is the most ideal option for sharing the gospel. I hate virtue signaling and that was not my intention. As wide as the umbrella currently is, it will change over time and I hope that others see the truth is the person of christ and not the movement itself. Thoughtless posts are not going to convince anyone.

Blogger Lazarus September 27, 2016 9:51 PM  

dagwood wrote:Given the state of the world, certainly we have to do SOMEthing.

Really Cowboy? Ecumenicalism + globalism = Francis.

I think the Bible is clear about what individuals must do, and none of them include creating hierarchical material associations with dogmatic requirements.

What is prayer if not direct communication? Who needs a priest, a bishop, a pastor as a middle man?

Blogger Rusty Fife September 27, 2016 9:52 PM  

@18 PoseidonAwoke

I have this intuition that only the artists can save us.

Hence the Pepe memes.

Blogger Lazarus September 27, 2016 9:53 PM  

correction: Who need a temporal priest, a bishop, a pastor as a middle man?

Anonymous dagwood September 27, 2016 9:54 PM  

"Really Cowboy? Ecumenicalism + globalism = Francis."

Wins the internet for shallowness.


Blogger S1AL September 27, 2016 9:57 PM  

'"Really Cowboy? Ecumenicalism + globalism = Francis."

Wins the internet for shallowness.'

Says the guy who's proselytizing within the church.

Anonymous Mr. Deplorabional September 27, 2016 9:58 PM  

VD wrote:Listen, all you posturing Christian idiots. Your testimony, such as it is, is negative. You are actively driving intelligent people away from Christianity. It took me nearly 20 years to get over my allergy to people like you and learn to stop judging Christianity by its most idiotic and obnoxious followers. So knock it off.
If I heard this from mainstream Christian leaders, I might be able to start taking Christianity seriously again.  (Emphasis on "might"; they have a lot more to answer for.)

Instead they've been pandering to the loons (if not aiding, abetting and cheering them on) since I was old enough to be aware of it, which was well before the Millennials were born.  I don't expect this to change.  Progress here is only happening one funeral at a time.  That's way too slow to make a difference.

Blogger S1AL September 27, 2016 10:01 PM  

"Instead they've been pandering to the loons (if not aiding, abetting and cheering them on) since I was old enough to be aware of it, which was well before the Millennials were born. I don't expect this to change. Progress here is only happening one funeral at a time. That's way too slow to make a difference."

Give it time. It took Christians 100 years to realize that the conflation of evolution and atheism was a con game.

Blogger Mr. Naron September 27, 2016 10:03 PM  

What does an alt-right Christian worship service look like?

Anonymous crushlimbraw September 27, 2016 10:04 PM  

VD - you wrote "Not one individual in a thousand understands quantum physics. I very much doubt you do. No faith is not based on it, let alone "real Biblical faith".

Listen, all you posturing Christian idiots. Your testimony, such as it is, is negative. You are actively driving intelligent people away from Christianity. It took me nearly 20 years to get over my allergy to people like you and learn to stop judging Christianity by its most idiotic and obnoxious followers. So knock it off."
Oh how true! It's the frickin' spiritualism and churchianism that blocks our view of Christianity - it's REAL LIFE! Here and now!

Anonymous Psychedelic Cat Hair September 27, 2016 10:05 PM  

The article has one salient point that the author only implicitly knowledges. In order to return to the faith, one has to want that. Without wanting it, they will never be able to change. I remember my own return when I was a junior in college: my two closest friends had been trying to convince me to come back for years but I ultimately had to take the step.

We read several articles, including Clash and The End of History, in one of my graduate classes taught by a former US ambassador. It is amazing how prescient Huntington was. Fukuyama realized he goofed so badly that he wrote a follow-up called the return of history. I can't say I necessarily blame him up at the time he wrote it, as nobody could foresee , except Huntington, the Islamic threat threat that would manifest itself soon enough.

Anonymous BGKB September 27, 2016 10:08 PM  

Are hate hoaxes like guns always on topic?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/27/british-youtuve-star-calum-mcswiggan-denies-lying-to-police-over/
"He admitted to having injured himself but insisted that he that he did not fabricate the assault. “Just because there were no visible marks on my face does not mean I was not attacked,” he said.

OT: HilLIARy was fighting for NC men in women's bathrooms today
SHOULDN'T WE BE FIGHTING TO KEEP MOSLEMS OUT OF BATHROOMS LIKE PULSE'S INSTEAD?

Blogger Desiderius September 27, 2016 10:11 PM  

VD,

"Listen, all you posturing Christian idiots. Your testimony, such as it is, is negative. You are actively driving intelligent people away from Christianity. It took me nearly 20 years to get over my allergy to people like you and learn to stop judging Christianity by its most idiotic and obnoxious followers. So knock it off."

Their testimony is their widow's mite.

It was our own pride that led us to seek out the most idiotic and obnoxious followers, the better to avoid the refiner's fire, just as many of the lost around us still do.

Anonymous Instasetting September 27, 2016 10:11 PM  

Why are Creationists as annoying as Alt-Pagans?

Because your conscience tells you that being a cowardly compromiser is not the role of a man.

And this ignorant man who is not aware that there are cave paintings of men and dinosaurs criticizes better men than himself.

As to Vox's 'negative testimony'....Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.

Look, we got half-baked theories full of enough holes to drive a aircraft carrier fleet thru; we have total impossibilities; we have mountains of evidence.....but we also have Compromisers and Gov't Cheese. And yet Creationism is winning, because its factual.

If Christ is the Last Adam, just who was the First Adam?

Blogger themightypuck September 27, 2016 10:11 PM  

I think Huntington's book (I didn't read the essay) is brilliant and extremely prophetic. Still, Fukuyama is worth reading as he does an excellent job describing the end game neo-liberal consensus that Huntington is pointing out isn't really end game.

Blogger D. September 27, 2016 10:11 PM  

>Listen, all you posturing Christian idiots. Your testimony, such as it is, is negative. You are actively driving intelligent people away from Christianity. It took me nearly 20 years to get over my allergy to people like you and learn to stop judging Christianity by its most idiotic and obnoxious followers. So knock it off.<

yep

Blogger Desiderius September 27, 2016 10:13 PM  

There faithful remnant has ever been and is still there to be found by those who truly seek.

OpenID paworldandtimes September 27, 2016 10:14 PM  

Fukuyama's thesis relied on an assumption of pure Homo Economicus. That model of man would be willing to submit to a central distributionist authority for his gibs. But Fukuyama overlooked two things: men don't live by bread alone (they chafe when told too much what to do), and power is fissile (and corruptible). So as the globalist socio-democracy strives toward centralization, men of non-African races work to rip it apart under various incentives.

PA

Blogger ZhukovG September 27, 2016 10:14 PM  

Could my fellow Roman Catholics please STFU and act with a little humility, just this once maybe? Faithful Roman Catholics have contributed a great deal to building up Western Civilization, that is true. But, I would also say that the RCC, due to its excessive hierarchy and legalism is also a hotbed of Churchian heresy.

I would go so far as to say that Churchian Roman Catholics are second only to Globalist Jews in the damage they do to the West. They must be stopped.

Blogger tz September 27, 2016 10:16 PM  

If the Alt-west does not militantly defend and spread the gospel TRUTH to the lost, how is it better than any other ideology?

It is militantly defending the RIGHT to spread the Gospel Truth which has been weakened and lost on College Campi.

The Alt-West will destroy the barriers, and you will then be able to freely cross and preach to your heart's content.

Blogger Sherwood family September 27, 2016 10:16 PM  

Excellently summed up. Christianity is the sine qua non of Western Civilization. Without it the Romans and Greeks and their Germanic usurpers would never have established the cognitive framework required to make advanced civilization work.

Note that the Chinese, as venerable and capable as any civilization there is, were not able to do more than perpetuate their achievements rather than extend them and build upon them until they encountered the scientific method brought to them by Matteo Ricci and other Jesuit missionaries to the Chinese court.

The same holds true with the Islamic world which, though it ploughed some new ground in the sciences and mathematics, could not bring its achievements to bear on the problems of the day because of the lack of a fundamental framework that posited that the universe was orderly and functioned by rules because God is consistent and His decrees immutable.

The Islamic conception of God leaves Him, because of current views concerning His ultimate sovereignty, able to change His mind, able to do other than what He has decreed.

That means that He, and the creation He made are capricious and principles are not fixed and hence, investigation into the creation, while interesting, would not, ultimately, yield any firm conclusions because all is subject to the whims of a mutable God.

No fixed principles can be extrapolated. This is a result of the Muslims purging the Mutazilites from their midst who held a conception of God that was closer to the Medieval Christian conception.

In contrast, the Asharites, who eventually dominated Islamic thought believed that created substances cannot be efficient causes of events. Instead, all events are caused directly by God which means that they arrived at the opposite conclusion of the materialists in our own day but with similarly problematic outcomes attendant to their philosophy.

A thorough going atheistic materialism which seeks to expunge God as ultimate cause and Asharite occasionalism which makes Him the cause of ALL processes, not just ultimately but at every stage, lead to conclusions that are detrimental to civilization over the long run.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky September 27, 2016 10:18 PM  

An ancient Roman would size up new peoples he encountered by trying to understand what god(s) they worshipped. The assumption was that you had one, or several. Also, that understanding these things was essential to understanding the encountered society, its mores and traditions, its strengths and weaknesses, virtues and vices. In fact the Roman was likely to appropriate god(s) that seemed useful and provided benefits ('do ut des').

Who were these gods? What were they like? How powerful were they? What did they do for you?

I have always thought it a useful perspective, that everybody ultimately does have a religion, even the anti-religious who will deny it. Those denials are denials of affiliation with the usual suspects, they cannot really deny that they do live under a moral system complete with its own cosmology and even de facto theology - and often riddled with stern dogma and doctrine.


Anonymous CatholicOne September 27, 2016 10:19 PM  

As such, the founding conviction of the Enlightenment – that it owed nothing to the faith into which most of its greatest figures had been born – increasingly came to seem to me unsustainable.

Edward Feser argues that liberalism is a basically a Christian heresy:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/01/liberalism-and-islam.html

Blogger Travis September 27, 2016 10:19 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger The Kurgan September 27, 2016 10:19 PM  

We mean to do that but only Jesus can kill the Herald of the Anti-Christ. Real Catholics are Sede Privationists.

Anonymous Minack September 27, 2016 10:22 PM  

Psychedelic Cat Hair wrote:We read several articles, including Clash and The End of History, in one of my graduate classes taught by a former US ambassador. It is amazing how prescient Huntington was. Fukuyama realized he goofed so badly that he wrote a follow-up called the return of history. I can't say I necessarily blame him up at the time he wrote it, as nobody could foresee , except Huntington, the Islamic threat threat that would manifest itself soon enough.

Fukuyama's book is to history what (((Diamond's))) Guns, Germs and Steel is to anthropology. As of a few semesters ago, The End of History was still being praised by many of the faculty at my university. It's amazing just how out of touch with reality some people really are.

Blogger The Kurgan September 27, 2016 10:23 PM  

Amen

Blogger Basil Makedon September 27, 2016 10:25 PM  

@42 "In contrast, the Asharites, who eventually dominated Islamic thought believed that created substances cannot be efficient causes of events. Instead, all events are caused directly by God which means that they arrived at the opposite conclusion of the materialists in our own day but with similarly problematic outcomes attendant to their philosophy."

Indeed, atheist scientists don't appreciate the fact that they are engaging in an act of faith when following their vocation. To be a scientist is to have faith that there is some underlying rationality to the universe that we can discover.

On the flip side, I can't even imagine how hard it would be to be a Muslim scientist where Allah's arbitrary will is required in all things.

Blogger Orville September 27, 2016 10:28 PM  

Interesting article linked on Heartiste on race real talk from past generations. Even JFK couldn't abide miscegenation.

http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.ae/2016/09/the-past-is-real-talking-country.html

Blogger Orville September 27, 2016 10:31 PM  

A quote from Lincoln from the above article...

'You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. … If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.'

Blogger Sherwood family September 27, 2016 10:31 PM  

Basil Makedon: do I have it correct that your name refers to Basil I, the Eastern Roman Emperor?

Blogger DrAndroSF September 27, 2016 10:32 PM  

@#30MrNaron: I guess an AltRight Christian service would look like pretty well any Christian service held in Europe or North America until maybe 1950, and in some places, even later.

My own very sad assessment is that Christianity --certainly Western (Catholic & Prot) and probably Eastern-- is no longer able to form the backbone of European culture, either in the Motherlands of the Old Continent or the Outlands of the Americas, S Africa and Australia.

The very assumptions which now shape the churches are infected with the same post-Enlightenment liberalism which was their most violent enemy. Even Rome, which I thought was eternal, has a deluded narcissistic clown at the helm. The Renaissance popes were immoral, but at least they were orthodox. The Faith which kept Attila out of Italy, the Moors out of France and finally Spain, and pushed the Mohammedan Turk back from Europe more than once, now welcomes these predatory savages into a soul-emptied continent under the banner of "compassion." It is unspeakably sad.

Time to hope for a new religion. (I'd be happy to be wrong, but I don't see any resurrection for the old Faith; it's moved on to the South.)

Blogger Wanderer September 27, 2016 10:35 PM  

@dagwood
"See, this is why you all need to become Catholics, toute de suite."

Why would I want to become a hellbound apostate? Catholics and Orthodox (and most protestants) all believe in a false gospel and worship a different Jesus and a different God. The true version of Christianity is the church that existed immediately after Jesus, not the church that Constantine established 300 years later. True Christians believe in the gospel of free grace for all sinners.

Your self-righteousness and vain, man-made traditions will not save your soul. Christ's righteousness through his finished work on the cross is the only thing that has the power to save. Please consider reading Romans and Ephesians (King James only).



For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Romans 3:23-28

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:5

Blogger Lazarus September 27, 2016 10:36 PM  

S1AL wrote:Give it time. It took Christians 100 years to realize that the conflation of evolution and atheism was a con game.

Not all of them . Many saw it immediately, and said so and wrote about it. None of them were Churchians, which also was a concept back then. Even longer than 100 years.

Blogger Teri September 27, 2016 10:38 PM  

We have the King James Bible, Pilgrims's Progress and a damn fine set of religious music that suits us just fine.

Blogger Teri September 27, 2016 10:42 PM  

My late husband attended the Maryknoll seminary. At the end of his life, he was very happy in a small Protestant church.

Blogger Rambam September 27, 2016 10:43 PM  

The one true church? Historically inaccurate.
The syncretistic practices and theology should be proof enough for an objective person (or three persons). Read "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop. Free PDF download.

Blogger Basil Makedon September 27, 2016 10:45 PM  

@52 "Basil Makedon: do I have it correct that your name refers to Basil I, the Eastern Roman Emperor?"

Very close. My pseudonym refers to Basil II of the ERE. Had he lived as long as I intend to, he would have brought it all back. Every last scrap of it.

Blogger Lazarus September 27, 2016 10:46 PM  

S1AL wrote:'"Really Cowboy? Ecumenicalism + globalism = Francis."

Wins the internet for shallowness.'

Says the guy who's proselytizing within the church.


Wins the internet for truthfullness, you mean. So where is the Biblical requirement for a temporal intercessor, in a stone edifice, except within Judaism?

I don't expect people to believe what I do, as I do recognize that not all people have had my advantages, but I don't think I should pander to an ignorance that just perpetuates debilitating illusions.

That would be disconcerting.

Blogger Lazarus September 27, 2016 10:48 PM  

Sorry S1AL, I did not frame that quotation correctly.

Blogger Sherwood family September 27, 2016 10:54 PM  

Ahh...Basil the Bulgar-slayer. A favorite of mine. A very able general and an excellent administrator.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett September 27, 2016 10:55 PM  

See, dagwood, you open your &++*##+ mouth, and look who wanders in?

Remember, as St Francis admonished, "Preach the gospel always, use words when necessary, and otherwise shut your hole!"

Blogger S1AL September 27, 2016 10:55 PM  

No worries, I was a bit confused for a moment, too... I should probably do better with my quotes.

Anonymous Deplorable S E Delenda September 27, 2016 10:58 PM  

"The very assumptions which now shape the churches are infected with the same post-Enlightenment liberalism which was their most violent enemy. Even Rome, which I thought was eternal, has a deluded narcissistic clown at the helm. The Renaissance popes were immoral, but at least they were orthodox. The Faith which kept Attila out of Italy, the Moors out of France and finally Spain, and pushed the Mohammedan Turk back from Europe more than once, now welcomes these predatory savages into a soul-emptied continent under the banner of "compassion." It is unspeakably sad."

Time to hope for a new religion. (I'd be happy to be wrong, but I don't see any resurrection for the old Faith; it's moved on to the South.)

Even if for the sake of argument, we stipulate everything you say is true,it doesn't matter. You don't become or remain Christian because of the prelates, clerics or the even the pewsitters. You become or stay Christian because of Christ.

See John 6:68.

Blogger D. September 27, 2016 11:00 PM  

1st something:

> Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
Factórem cæli et terræ,
Visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.
Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sǽcula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri:
Per quem ómnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem
Descéndit de cælis.
Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
Ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto;
Passus, et sepúltus est,
Et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras,
Et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris.
Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória,
Iudicáre vivos et mórtuos,
Cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem:
Qui ex Patre Filióque procédit.
Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur:
Qui locútus est per prophétas.
Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatórum.
Et expécto resurrectiónem mortuórum,
Et vitam ventúri sǽculi. Amen<

Anonymous Mr. Deplorabional September 27, 2016 11:01 PM  

S1AL wrote:It took Christians 100 years to realize that the conflation of evolution and atheism was a con game.
Yeah, right.  It's now 157 years since the publication of "Origins", and the noisiest factions STILL haven't gotten that yet.  If there are sects that have dispensed with idol-worship (which the church of Rome still practices), science-denial (if your deity created the universe, either scientific discoveries are as true as we can determine OR your deity is a pathological liar), and other deal-breakers, they're either condemned as non-Christians by the mainstream (e.g. Unitarians) or are just plain too small to show up on my radar.  I don't need any such "faith community" badly enough to spend the energy required to find one, and I'm sure not about to relocate from my Whitopia.

FWIW, I even got disgusted with the local humanists.  They pander to Black activists and mohammedan apologists, which is about as anti-West AND anti-White as you can get.

Mr. Naron wrote:What does an alt-right Christian worship service look like?
I don't know, but I suspect that it might be easier to start with worship of blood, soil and nature and work up from there.  The popularity of paganism should be no mystery.

Sherwood family wrote:A thorough going atheistic materialism which seeks to expunge God as ultimate cause ... lead[s] to conclusions that are detrimental to civilization over the long run.
Explain how attempting to terminate lines of inquiry with "goddidit" or "godsaidit" is conducive to solving problems of civilization which go deeper.  Especially, I'd like to know how you'd avoid terminating such inquiry into problems like infectious diseases and thus preventing public-health measures like water and sewer systems from being understood as necessities.

a deplorable rubberducky wrote:Who were these gods? What were they like? How powerful were they? What did they do for you?
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed... but nature allows and rewards inquiry and testing.  YHWH punishes it.  That's why YHWH is a false god.

OT:  I actually got an e-mail reply from John Derbyshire.  All of 5 words, but I'm smiling anyway.

Blogger slarrow September 27, 2016 11:08 PM  

Pieces like this remind of the cut flowers thesis. Here's how Tolstoy expressed it:

The attempts to found a morality apart from religion are like the attempts of children who, wishing to transplant a flower that pleases them, pluck it from the roots that seem to them unpleasing and superfluous, and stick it rootless into the ground. Without religion there can be no real, sincere morality, just as without roots there can be no real flower.”

Western morality has been running on fumes for several decades now. We've been somewhat fortunate that civilization has a certain inertia that keeps us more or less going in the right direction. But sooner or later, it grinds to a halt. Why, indeed, if Christian morality is to be ignored, should I help the poor, especially those in distant places whom I will never meet and wouldn't wish to affirm their actions? Why should I ever regard any person as my "brother" and thus feel any obligation to him? People disregard these questions at their peril.

Anonymous Northern Observer September 27, 2016 11:12 PM  

"To a very large degree, the major civilizations in human history have been closely identified with the world’s great religions; and people who share ethnicity and language but differ in religion may slaughter each other, as happened in Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, and the Subcontinent."

Doesn't this contradict the idea that genes come before gods, that race matters more than religion?

It would seem to suggest that a group of people with a shared religion, but diverse races, might be better off than a group with a homogenous racial composition, but a plethora of religions and interpretations.

Blogger Sherwood family September 27, 2016 11:13 PM  

Mr. Deplorabional, maybe you didn't read what I wrote. I said God as ULTIMATE cause, rather than a proximate cause. Understanding God as the original or uncaused cause does nothing to interrupt scientific inquiry and everything to prevent the atheistic materialist outcome of nihilism that enervates a civilization as it tends to a belief that life is ultimately without purpose and our accidental existence is a mere blip in the cosmic scheme of things. The sickness of the West in general came about because of losing the understanding that beyond the realm of the material and our senses there exists something else which makes the material and the sensual have meaning beyond mere discrete events. It also tends to give confidence to human ability to find answers since Christian belief understands that they were intended to be found, discovered, used, and built upon.

Anonymous dagwood September 27, 2016 11:24 PM  

"So where is the Biblical requirement for a temporal intercessor,"

Boy, I thought the other fool won the internet for shallowness and arrogance (the funniest character combination), but you're even better.

Blue ribbon. Amazing.

Still, time to stop jousting. (or jesting, maybe? I can never remember.) We're all fellows in Christ, we all have things to learn from one another, anger and vitriol aren't really appropriate, wouldn't you say? Relax. Where's Beau when you need him? The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

Somebody once asked me, if I could only preserve one passage from the Bible which expressed the whole thing, what would it be? I answered and said, "To what shall I compare the Kingdom of Heaven? The Kingdom of Heaven is like a woman who owned a coin of great value, and then she lost it; and so she swept out her entire house until she found that coin. The Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who discovered that there was a great treasure buried under a certain field; and so he sold everything he owned, and he bought that field."

"We have the King James Bible, Pilgrim's Progress and a damn fine set of religious music that suits us just fine."

How dandy. Cool, an idolater, this just gets more and more hilarious. As Christians, though, arrogance does not become us, neither mine nor yours, wouldn't you agree? So I'm gonna step back. Won't you?

I have to hand it to you though, Bach's devotional music is pretty great. We have our own kick-ass stuff, but personally I think Bach is better. I can play it, and I know what it means. You?


Blogger S1AL September 27, 2016 11:26 PM  

--'Yeah, right. It's now 157 years since the publication of "Origins", and the noisiest factions STILL haven't gotten that yet.'--

To be fair, I meant from Scopes to now. But that aside, the noisiest factions are primarily composed of post-modern Sadducees who can't articulate a coherent restaurant order, much less grasp theology.

AFAIK, the RCC and most of the Orthodox churches don't have an official absolutist position on evolution at this point. Baptists, the largest general protestant grouping in America, don't tend to have one (even the SBC restrained itself to supporting teaching creation science alongside evolution).

Besides, it's not like the average atheist understands why repeating evolution patterns are a problem for traditional theories, either.

Blogger Sherwood family September 27, 2016 11:32 PM  

Off Topic but the Learned Elders of Wye should be paying attention to the following if they are still contemplating the Middle Kingdom as a possible long-term destination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/world/asia/china-kaifeng-jews.html?_r=3&referer=https:/t.co/2xrgTfGyue

Blogger hank.jim September 27, 2016 11:32 PM  

"t took Christians 100 years to realize that the conflation of evolution and atheism was a con game"

Who was actually fooled? The most devout Christian never believed in evolution. The conflation of evolution and atheism is complete. The problem was some Christian religions including Catholic believed evolution didn't conflict with their religion. They are so wrong. I'm not a creationist (as a science) and I don't believe in evolution (both as science and philosophy). You don't have to accept a position on the origin of man on a scientific basis when you're a Christian.

Blogger Sheila4g September 27, 2016 11:37 PM  

@18 PoseidonAwoke: "Identity (including culture, religion and mythology) is a portfolio of associations which allow for daily decideability by individuals which comprise a society. If we dissect what it means to be a Christian and a Westerner, we will find this portfolio of associations. We would say "It's the Christian thing to do" for X or Y situation: it provides daily decidability, without every action being explicitly prescribed."

This. Those who insist a nation cannot "legislate morality" ignore (or likely never acknowledged) that the common American (generic) Christian identity obviated the need for such legislation for decades. What you term "daily decideability" was that shared set of values that some presumed to be "White," others "Christian," and others merely "American." Regardless of label, they were shared values from shared culture indicating the morality and propriety or lack thereof of someone's action or behavior. That Christian "decideability" was, by and large, shared by the majority of European immigrants and thus, despite significant linguistic and cultural differences, American society was able to function tolerably well without explicit prescriptions or proscriptions. When that decideability was challenged by Jews and (((atheists))), despite superficial linguistic and cultural assimilation, they began the destruction of Americans' "portfolio of associations of what a person of [our] identity should do," so that we could not cohere and act in a distributed but coordinated fashion. Because "Our identity is central to our ability to decide and act," if that identity is no longer a shared identity based on the shared essentials of faith, we no longer retain anything meaningful by which to judge whether or not one is an American in other than the most superficial sense. The phrase common in my youth, "free, White, and 21," had explicit racial, legal, and implicit Christian assumptions informing me how I could behave. That's been undermined and challenged now so that each atomized individual may presumably decide his own personal value system, no one's any better than any other's (unless the other is White or Christian). I want a White society, but I also want a Christian, Western society.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett September 27, 2016 11:38 PM  

@71
"Boy, I thought the other fool won the internet for shallowness and arrogance (the funniest character combination), but you're even better...

We're all fellows in Christ, we all have things to learn from one another, anger and vitriol aren't really appropriate, wouldn't you say? "

I'd say someone should put down the giant sandwich and read some St Francis de Sales.

Or, in better words, "God's name is mocked among the gentiles..."

Anonymous URL IRL September 27, 2016 11:44 PM  

A treat to read that old article of yours, Vox.You really were/are a great columnist.

Blogger Sheila4g September 27, 2016 11:46 PM  

Related: Somehow, since we left our Episcopal and then Anglican church a number of years ago, I failed to realize that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who now says thousands of years of Christian and church teaching are to blame and must atone for anti-semitism, is himself half Jewish. How utterly . . . unsurprising . . . to read, and compare to what certain (((Catholics))) have done to that church for decades.

Anonymous Down and Out in... September 27, 2016 11:48 PM  

"I'm not a creationist (as a science) and I don't believe in evolution (both as science and philosophy). You don't have to accept a position on the origin of man on a scientific basis when you're a Christian."

I've never understood this whole deal, maybe somebody can explain. Natural selection within a species is obvious and easily understandable. Origin of distinct species, one from another, is not obvious; it's plausible, but not readily demonstrable. One can see in a petri dish over a long weekend how a species of bacteria becomes resistant to an outside force. But it is not clear that a lobster can turn into an owl.

Ultimately, though, outside of scientific research for its own purposes, how Man came about does not really concern me, and I don't consider one scientific or anti-scientific or non-scientific school of thought to be relevant as a matter of faith. The Sermon on the Mount is marching orders. How God chose to create the universe and life on this planet is His own business, as far as I'm concerned.

Blogger Nobody In Particular September 27, 2016 11:51 PM  

Re: 42
I think that it's because some Muslim rulers were so irrational, arbitrary, and despotic that they fashioned a deity in their own image, just as arbitrary as themselves (and considered heretical the belief in a universe governed by law and reason).
Conversely, on average Christian rulers, especially in the West, were never truly tyrannical. They always recognized the rights of the aristocracy and sometimes even those of the commoners. In the 12th-13th centuries many Western societies began to be really governed by laws, with the power of the ruler constrained by all sorts of written charters (the most famous being the Magna Charta, but there were a lot of them, especially city charters). Of course, the rulers often broke the rules in creative ways, but in principle still mostly followed them.
Maybe this made it easier for Christians to imagine that the universe is governed in the same manner: God generally follows some rules, except for the few occasions when He doesn't.
Actually, it probably went both ways: a more enlightened religion led to a more enlightened society, which in turn led to a more enlightened religion.

Anonymous CatholicOne September 27, 2016 11:52 PM  

@67 worship of blood, soil and nature and work up from there

That's paganism. It cannot be part of a Christian worship service.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett September 27, 2016 11:54 PM  

@74 "You don't have to accept a position on the origin of man on a scientific basis when you're a Christian."


The truly precious thing is that you don't even understand that the above quote is pretty much the Catholic position on Creation.

See, we have to believe that God made man in his likeness and image (intellect and will), one man and one woman, and that all humanity is descended from this pair. We have to believe this because it is dogma. It is dogma because it is Scriptural and well attested in Tradition.

We are free to believe He did this in a gross of hours by literally crafting a golem and breathing on it to animate it.

We are also free to believe that He accomplished this by a very long and elegant process man has discovered a few hints about, built a framework on these hints, and called it evolution.

In both understandings, God's agency, power, knowledge and ubiquity are obvious, in accordance with the meaning of the opening of Genesis.

In fact, having said all that, sounds like your beef is more "poetry vs biology" than "faith vs reason."

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti September 27, 2016 11:54 PM  

The inescapable conclusion is that one simply cannot separate religion from culture, much less from civilization; indeed, Huntington observes that the strongest identifying element of the eight competing major civilizations is, in fact, religion.

I haven't read Huntington (though he was up on the list and is now a priority). However, it's very interesting to hear this, because I've been thinking along these terms for a while. I see my project as formalizing a Buddhist approach to NRx/the Alt-Right, for precisely these reasons. What might an approach in an Asian context, that sees Buddhism in a role analogous to that played by Christianity in the West, look like?

Anonymous Jack Amok September 27, 2016 11:57 PM  

non-Christians realizing that Christianity is, far from being a societal negative, a societal necessity for any Western civilization.

Well, you've got at least one unchurched agnostic on that train.

What does an alt-right Christian worship service look like?

Hmmm. Maybe something like and old Scout's Own service. Baden-Powell probably has a few good ideas for reinvigorating the West. That was at the heart of what he was trying to do when he created Scouting - reintroduce honor and masculine virtues to boys who were being raised with fathers mostly absent in the mills and factories.

Anonymous John September 28, 2016 12:02 AM  

Christianity is not essential to western civilisation, in that its not inconceivable for the west to become Muslim, Hindu, or even New Age pagan or Nazi-Darwinist pagan (which are probably just branches of Hinduism anyway).

Christianity is essential to Christian civilisation, though. This is what a lot of people deny - that we can't live like Christians without believing in Christ.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett September 28, 2016 12:02 AM  

@84 Now I'm picturing a Dan Beard sketch and text of how to build a home altar. ;-)

Blogger hank.jim September 28, 2016 12:03 AM  

"We are also free to believe that He accomplished this by a very long and elegant process man has discovered a few hints about, built a framework on these hints, and called it evolution"

Subtract this middle paragraph and your conclusion.

Blogger Basil Makedon September 28, 2016 12:03 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Jack Amok September 28, 2016 12:06 AM  

Now I'm picturing a Dan Beard sketch and text of how to build a home altar. ;-)

Y'know, a church where the congregation built the altar (and maybe the pews too), has something going for it that a church with the finest mahogany furnishing Chinese six year olds can make doesn't.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett September 28, 2016 12:08 AM  

@87. Kiss my ass. I mean, if we're going around making demands.

For the record, I need not excise any part of my comment to keep it perfectly within the parameters you set. If you don't know how to write what you mean, or you don't even know what you mean, I fail to see how it is my problem in the least.

Anonymous John September 28, 2016 12:08 AM  

In other words, often what people mean when they say "western civilisation" is really Christendom. The confusion comes precisely from the importance and glamourisation of Greco-Roman pagan antiquity. But what these people don't seem to understand is that Greco-Roman paganism is impossible to realise unless you think that sacrifices to anthropomorphic deities is acceptable, because, contrary to another view, that is very essential to Greco-Roman civilisation. When people think of Greco-Roman civilisation not in terms of its confused, idolatrous religion - or really, its mess of cults - but in terms of art and philosophy, well it was precisely Christendom that distilled antiquity and drew from it art and philosophy while filtering out all the pagan filth.

Blogger hank.jim September 28, 2016 12:13 AM  

@HG: Your attempt at paraphrasing my point is inaccurate. You're welcome to have it as your own beef.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett September 28, 2016 12:14 AM  

@89 Well of course. It goes without saying.

I grew up in a church my GGG grandfather built. Even as I child I thought it was sinful they covered his log church with brick and gypsum.

Later I appreciated they preserved his labor in fire resistant materials. But I'd love to see more than a square foot or 2 of it.

Anonymous John September 28, 2016 12:15 AM  

Really, priesthood is as important to society as government. Altar & Throne. Every other society seems to understand this. Masonic or Marxist materialism don't exactly fill the hole left by religion. The Enlightenment/Kantian/Comtean idea that you can have a religion based on pure reason, pure abstract ethical code, is ludicrous not just because most people don't think so purely or abstractly, but because even the most "enlightened" human being needs more than an abstract code to order his spirit properly to God and to humanity.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett September 28, 2016 12:16 AM  

@92. Where have I paraphrased a word you have said? A simple block quote of my paraphrase is sufficient.

And I must remind you, rules.

Anonymous John September 28, 2016 12:23 AM  

@82

Hezekiah, you're right here but evolution is incompatible with the faith for another reason, viz. it implies God used a brutal process of death and survival-of-the-fittest to create man. There is no testimony to this notion in Scripture or Tradition, and in fact Scripture and Tradition are squarely against it - God hates death and death entered the world through sin. If God really did make us by such a deadly process, then really to hope for personal and bodily immortality from God seems ludicrous. If evolution were true I would be Hindu, because that's where the idea of evolution is originally from and because evolution fits Hindu theology far better than Christian (Hindus do believe that death/destruction is a part of God). Don't scoff at the idea that God made man like making a golem and breathing life into it. The Church teaches the resurrection of the body at the end of time - do you think God will spend a billion years waiting for the dust to turn itself in to men again or what? No, he will raise up all dead bodies and breath life back into them. (See, Ezekiel, chapter 37).

Blogger Desiderius September 28, 2016 12:25 AM  

"in terms of art and philosophy, well it was precisely Christendom that distilled antiquity and drew from it art and philosophy"

Well said.

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/arnold/writings/4.html

Anonymous Icicle September 28, 2016 12:26 AM  

I was wondering when you were finally going to get around to this Vox.

What might an approach in an Asian context, that sees Buddhism in a role analogous to that played by Christianity in the West, look like?

I'm not sure that is going to work. Huntington divided it into Japonic (Shinto), Sinic, Hindu (India), and Buddhist.

Blogger Austin Ballast September 28, 2016 12:27 AM  

Most of the anti-Creationist rhetoric her is as self-righteous as any Creationist. I believe what I do because it best fits with what is written and what I find in creation.

You are free to believe as you wish, but I chose the truth.

If that repels you, then be repelled. The Scriptures do talk about the Gospel being foolishness to carnal man, so it should be no surprise that people are offended by it. Claiming you would have come to Christ sooner if others would just have not held firm to what is Written is idiocy.

You came when you decided to let God's Spirit draw you, not some mythical point of believing the right things.

All human wisdom falls far short of God's. I will be glad to be shown I am wrong, but I will let Him do that and not some foolish idiocy masquerading as smug intelligence.

For those in the RCC - The RCC had to adjust its beliefs when it came in charge of things. That skewed a great many things. Individuals in the RCC payed key roles in the West, but more Protestants played a significant role since they bucked the corrupt trend at the time.

Blogger Desiderius September 28, 2016 12:28 AM  

"Christianity is not essential to western civilisation, in that its not inconceivable for the west to become Muslim, Hindu, or even New Age pagan or Nazi-Darwinist pagan (which are probably just branches of Hinduism anyway)."

If it does so, it will cease to be either Western or civilized.

Blogger Student in Blue September 28, 2016 12:29 AM  

Quick nitpicks:
Tom Holland, not Howard
"Which is to say that I'd never read the book that is the expansion of the esssay" s/b "essay"

That said, this sentence from Tom Holland struck me quite a bit. " It was not just the extremes of callousness that I came to find shocking, but the lack of a sense that the poor or the weak might have any intrinsic value."

I've been doing a bit of reading of translated amateur-to-semi-pro works that were originally in Korean, Chinese and Japanese. It always struck me whenever I thumbed through the Chinese ones just how much the main character would constantly just step on anyone below him without a care, after he had earned enough power to do so. They weren't even thought of, just taken advantage of.

The Korean and Japanese novels weren't like that, and there's a very good chance that's due to the cultural spread from the US after WW2 and the Korean War.

Anonymous John September 28, 2016 12:30 AM  

A question to Hezekiah: did God intend to teach us by his prophets, or by the testimony of fossils, decaying atoms, and cosmic radiation? Look at the evil consequences of evolution - that alone is enough to cause a Christian to gravely suspect it, bearing in mind what Christ said about false shepherds and deceivers. Hardly any other theory has done more to expunge God out of people's minds. It is intimately involved in the political and cultural revolutions of the 20th century, in the crimes of its greatest dictators, in wars and genocides. The scriptures teach that man is a little lower than the angels, the evolutionists that man is a little higher than the apes. Consequently, countless young men and women think that the purpose of life is to have sex and die in accordance with Darwinism. Do you see how satanically perverted it is for a human being to think that they are essentially no more than a beast?

Blogger Bosefus September 28, 2016 12:30 AM  

In my hour of darkness...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VYxdqt4k3A
I hear GP.

Blogger hank.jim September 28, 2016 12:30 AM  

@HG: I used the wrong word. It's not paraphrase. Nonetheless, you described not what I believe and you have no clue with what my beef is besides having to answer your nonsense. Rules you know.

Blogger Basil Makedon September 28, 2016 12:30 AM  

@91 I think that is exactly right.

IMHO Western Civ is really: Greek philosophy and science, Roman law and engineering and Germanic egalitarianism (wish there was a better word, unspoiled by leftism) all filtered and combined through Christianity into something greater than its constituent parts.

Blogger residentMoron September 28, 2016 12:31 AM  

Regarding religion as the civilisation shibboleth, the ancient Roman practice of demanding you acknowledge their gods (which sometimes included their emperors) would tend to support the idea that the ancients too considered religion to be the distinction with a difference.

Blogger Desiderius September 28, 2016 12:31 AM  

"Actually, it probably went both ways: a more enlightened religion led to a more enlightened society, which in turn led to a more enlightened religion. "

It is the same Light Who illumines both.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRdO77oGkEo

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett September 28, 2016 12:48 AM  

@96 if you will go back and reread, you will find I haven't taken a position on Evolution at all. Don't intend to here because I have no interest in discussing the topic. It bores me to tears.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett September 28, 2016 12:52 AM  

@103. I've not made any attempt to describe any of your beliefs. But you are right, I have no idea what your beef is. I guessed wrong, but am man enough to take another stab.

Literacy?

Blogger John Wright September 28, 2016 1:10 AM  

I would go further, and say not only that Christianity is needed for Western Civilization, I say Christianity IS Western Civilization.

You can see from that why the appeal of the Alt-Right, claiming that my racial identity trumps my Church, is an idea not even worth discussing.

A man whatever his color who is the enemy of my faith is the enemy of my civilization, whether he was born inside it, and is a traitor; or born outside it, and is a barbarian.

Likewise, a man who is Black, or Spanish, or Chinese, or Greek or whathaveyou who accepts the tenants of the faith -- even a Western born and raised atheist who adopts the basic moral precepts of the dignity of man he learned from us -- is automatically an ally because, willy nilly, he and I share a common foe, a common goal, and a common cause. I am forced to help him even if I dislike him personally, because we march in the same uniform under the same banner.

A whiteskinned Muslim like Cat Stevens or any Persian who is more Caucasian than I am, is and must be an enemy, because his deepest religious convictions (whether he himself practices what he preaches or not) forbid all Western forms of government from monarchy to democracy, and forbid the Christian faith. All Western forms of government since the Fifth Century onward recognized a separation of secular and spiritual institutions. No Caesar and no King ever declared himself Pope.

And religion strikes to the deepest part of a man.

Saying I have some sort of common interest with white skinned non-English-speaking non-Christians is the same as saying there should be no border guard between Texas and the Caucasian white skinned people we call Mexicans.

The Bishop Peter Shao Zhu Min, who is currently suffering in a filthy Red Chinese jail, and whose sufferings are united with Christ, is one of my people. I have a common cause with him against mutual enemies.

Hillary Clinton, who is also a Commie, be she ever so white-skinned, is not. She is an enemy.

Blood may be thicker than water, but being born again is thicker than either.

Asking me to put race above religion is like asking me to destroy Western Civ to save Western Civ. The idea is illogical.

No rhetoric, no fancy slogan, no sneering insult, no personal attack, no snide dismissal, no Leftwing tactic of debate, can make an illogical concept logical, try as you might.

OpenID phenixrising16 September 28, 2016 1:20 AM  

@66 Each time I see the Nicene Creed (in whatever form, Latin or English) it hits me in the gut like a Tyson punch.

I left the RC Church at age 17, recognizing the shallowness of the changes in the Mass. The change to the vernacular was fine, but I could sense (despite being never having attended a Latin Rite mass because I was too young) that something was wrong, that they'd started fiddling with the actual basics.

I still feel the urge to return, but knowing the rot in the Church, I can't in good conscience go back. The perversions brought to the priesthood became obvious by the time I reached my teens. The accession of Benedict to the papacy made me start re-thinking things, but with Francis in there now, there's no way I can go back. None. He's either clueless or an abomination. I keep going back and forth on which one he is.

I still believe in the Creed. I just can't stand the caretakers who have elbowed their way in and have been corrupting things.

Anonymous Roman Lance September 28, 2016 1:27 AM  

HA! Reading the heretical arguments about religion is like witnessing a swarm of dung beetles argue over which is the best smelling excrement in the field. Ultimately it's still shit.

If you think holiness can be achieved while adhering to heretical (read: Non-Catholic) doctrines you're simply fooling yourself.

Go here if you want the truth. https://www.catholicism.org

Anonymous kfg September 28, 2016 1:29 AM  

@1: ". . . this is why you all need to become Catholics . . ."

I am an American. Now, if you'll excuse me, I think it would be wise for me to go duck and cover.

@104: " . . . Germanic egalitarianism (wish there was a better word, unspoiled by leftism). . ."

I believe the contemporary colloquial would be "meritocratic." The word "egalitarian" in this context is used to distinguish a culture in which social status is a function of clan, or family, a birthright, and a culture in which status is earned as an individual.

Blogger Sherwood family September 28, 2016 1:41 AM  

Despite the ties that bind us, a Chinese Christian, an ally though he may be, is not part of Western Civilization. We may well agree on religious matters and moral foundations but his customs and mores are still not Western, though he profess Christ. His views are decidedly more comprehensible to us because of our shared beliefs, but he does not suddenly lose thousands of years of Chinese custom and cultural outlook even though he has now gained salvation through our Risen Lord.

As an example, a Frenchman does not become German even if he is a Lutheran. A German does not become French if is a Calvinist. A Norwegian does not become Italian if he converts to Catholicism.

How much more it holds true then to say that though a Chinese be Christian, he is not part of Western Civilization. We agree on the ultimate things but not on the daily customs of life. There is no need for us to force those on him and no reason for him to attempt to do the same to us.

Anonymous Mr. Deplorabional September 28, 2016 1:47 AM  

(wow! people kept writing, I kept writing replies... got almost a book now!)

Sherwood family wrote:Mr. Deplorabional, maybe you didn't read what I wrote. I said God as ULTIMATE cause, rather than a proximate cause.
So either ${deity} is the place where you stop digging, or it isn't.  How do you know which?  And when your diety suddenly looks like an extremely simple set of field equations, do you keep quiet to avoid being burned like Giordano Bruno?

Understanding God as the original or uncaused cause does nothing to interrupt scientific inquiry and everything to prevent the atheistic materialist outcome of nihilism that enervates a civilization as it tends to a belief that life is ultimately without purpose and our accidental existence is a mere blip in the cosmic scheme of things.
For some reason I'm not filled with angst at the idea of defining my own ultimate goals, and I find it odd that anyone would.

The sickness of the West in general came about because of losing the understanding that beyond the realm of the material and our senses there exists something else which makes the material and the sensual have meaning beyond mere discrete events. It also tends to give confidence to human ability to find answers since Christian belief understands that they were intended to be found, discovered, used, and built upon.
Those who want you to believe in intention can also tell you that there are things you were not meant to know or pry into.  This has been used for evil ends since time immemorial, and it's one reason I reject the notion.

S1AL wrote:the noisiest factions are primarily composed of post-modern Sadducees who can't articulate a coherent restaurant order, much less grasp theology.
They're entirely consistent in "I didn't come from no monkey," which has been unchanged since before Scopes.  I thank goodness that my cousin's teaching habits won't ruin any students for STEM studies (the successful ones go to sheltered workshops).

even the SBC restrained itself to supporting teaching creation science alongside evolution
"Creation science" is as much of an oxymoron as "Islamic trinity"; it is untestable, un-science.  Even tolerance of it is a deal-breaker; it must be rejected without any further consideration.  Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) proved that Christianity still has not come to terms with it, 80 years after Scopes.

it's not like the average atheist understands why repeating evolution patterns are a problem for traditional theories, either.
<rolls eyes>  For pity's sake, what's a "problem" with recognizing that selection may hit on certain types of successful responses to opportunities more often than others, or that the same genes which favored one or the other might just be part of the "toolkit" passed down the family lines?

This is part of what disgusts me about fundamentalism.  It sets itself up to contest verifiable scientific observations because they offend its dogma, and creates bogus "problems" for science as part of poisoning the well and indoctrinating its victims in disinformation.  (Progressivism uses the same tactics, different specifics.)

Anonymous Wyrd September 28, 2016 1:48 AM  

I say Christianity IS Western Civilization.

Agreed.

No Caesar and no King ever declared himself Pope.

A liberation-theology Marxist did and is. Far worse than Alexander VI is his claim to fame.

Anonymous Mr. Deplorabional September 28, 2016 1:50 AM  

And speaking of disinformation:
Down and Out in... wrote:One can see in a petri dish over a long weekend how a species of bacteria becomes resistant to an outside force. But it is not clear that a lobster can turn into an owl.
Because it can't.  A lobster isn't even a vertebrate; the separation between the line which led to lobsters and the one which led to owls was way back when some unbelieveably ancient creature developed bones, in the early Cambrian at the very latest.  The process took more than half a billion years.

Now who touted "turn a lobster into an owl" as a test of evolution?  A disinformation artist.

@81  If Christianity is incompatible with the 14 words, I'll take paganism.

John wrote:it was precisely Christendom that distilled antiquity and drew from it art and philosophy while filtering out all the pagan filth.
And maybe it's the Enlightenment which is distilling and filtering what came before.  There's no going back.

Austin Ballast wrote:Claiming you would have come to Christ sooner if others would just have not held firm to what is Written is idiocy.
You have this backwards.  I saw the idiocy in my church's rejection of the obvious properties of what they called "creation", and had to leave them because they were obviously wrong in both conclusions and methods.  What is written between the g factor of the electron and the Big Bang cannot be denied without eschewing every principle of fact and reason, and even what they claim to be the work of the one they worship.  Yet they do.

Another example of disinformation and well-poisoning:
John wrote:did God intend to teach us by his prophets, or by the testimony of fossils, decaying atoms, and cosmic radiation? Look at the evil consequences of evolution - that alone is enough to cause a Christian to gravely suspect it, bearing in mind what Christ said about false shepherds and deceivers. Hardly any other theory has done more to expunge God out of people's minds. It is intimately involved in the political and cultural revolutions of the 20th century, in the crimes of its greatest dictators, in wars and genocides.
Revolutions, wars and genocides go back into human pre-history and are hardly unknown even between Christian nations, but John here wants to blame every last one since 1859 on Darwin's "Origin of Species".  He's as bad as Muslims who want to wipe out kaffirs and then fight between the sects to be the last one standing.  He's got the same disease.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett September 28, 2016 1:51 AM  

@102. God made man in His likeness. He gave us both our intellect and will. He gave them to us to exercise. We have immense curiosity. We were made this way. For a reason. Yes, cosmicradiation, entire eras of animals before we would ever arrive on the scene, the spectrum of light, seen and unseen, even the clover, testify to the Creator's magnificence.

As to Evolution, just to put an end to this discussion ( remember, tears) Evolution is IN NO WAY SCIENCE. It can't be said in math.

Anonymous kfg September 28, 2016 1:55 AM  

"Evolution is IN NO WAY SCIENCE. It can't be said in math."

With the speed made possible by computers to reiterate equations, it is an engineering tool.

Anonymous Wyrd September 28, 2016 2:00 AM  

Evolution is IN NO WAY SCIENCE.

Evolution is a legitimate scientific concern. The Theory of Evolution is a just-so story.

Anonymous Down and Out in... September 28, 2016 2:09 AM  

Well re evolution, I think we're still in a preliminary phase. Think of it this way: Ptolemy was a mathematical genius and he worked out a very sophisticated version of cosmology, and it was really neato, it just happened to be completely wrong.

Kepler devised an ingenious theory of the laws of planetary motion, but he didn't quite understand what he was really looking at, and it took Newton to realize that Kepler's laws were universal, and how that was so. And then Einstein saw that it was even weirder, and then Heisenberg saw that it was even double-plus SUPER weirder.

In terms of biology, I think we are still really in the Kepler phase. We have a grasp of certain things, but I'm not convinced we really yet know what we are actually looking at. I think we're in for some really weird surprises.

Blogger M Cephas September 28, 2016 2:21 AM  

@114.
Giordano Bruno was not killed due to his cosmological beliefs. He was not some martyr for science.

He denied the divinity of Jesus, and the virginity of Mary. He believed in reincarnation. He rejected the doctrines of the Trinity and Transubstantiation.

He was killed for those heresies. Not saying that he should have been killed or not, but you need to stop pretending like science has been held back when it hasn't.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett September 28, 2016 2:25 AM  

@119 Yes, your precision is appreciated.

@120. THAT is pretty much my take in a nutshell, kinda, with reservations.

Anonymous kfg September 28, 2016 2:27 AM  

Having doubts about the validity of The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection because you find the evidence unconvincing is one thing.

But the other thing of creationists attempting to refute the theory is often quite another. The claims they make and the questions they raise as often as not make it clear that they don't understand what they are talking about, at all. Which kinda tends to reduce their credibility on the matter. Which tends to rub off on the creationists who do understand what they are talking about, which tends to annoy them.

Things you should be able to do if you wish to refute the theory:

Be able to state what it is in simple language.

Be able to state, in simple terms, what it predicts will happen.

Be able to state, in simple terms, what it predicts cannot happen.

For instance, the theory predicts that a lobster cannot become an owl. Demonstrating a lobster becoming an owl would be one way to refute the theory, at the very least sending it back the chalkboard for a complete revamp.

The theory is quite easily expressed in math. In fact, the simplest way I can think of to refute the theory would be to refute the math.

Do it, and not only will tons of people cheer your success (me among them), you'll probably actually win a prize.

And the prize is, as they say, dynamite.

Blogger Mark Butterworth September 28, 2016 2:31 AM  

It isn't only Churchianity that's the problem, but Biblolotry. As useful and edifying as the Bible can be, it easily becomes a Christian's way to avoid God.

For one thing, consider the arrogance of human beings insisting that the Bible is The Word of God. It is people giving orders to God on how he must behave, rather than humble souls going to God to find out from Him how He does and doesn't behave.

The Bible is an anthology of interesting observations of life, and narratives, but it's also a compendium of lies, distortions, propaganda, and nonsense.

Until Christians realize that God doesn't write books, this faith will shed intelligent leaders and members even while acquiring credulous morons.

Anyone who has participated in a sacramental Church, understands the value of the "bells and smells", of the outward signs of inward grace, of the benefit of confession, communion, and so forth; but Faith is an experience that leads one on to prayer, contemplation of He Who Is as He is, and not what other people or books say He is.

That's what I have to say, anyway. The Bible is, ultimately, a trap.

Blogger Montrose September 28, 2016 2:37 AM  

b) will probably happen before a) happens

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett September 28, 2016 2:39 AM  

@123. If the theory of evolution can be expressed mathematically, do so. I am always eager to learn.

Blogger M Cephas September 28, 2016 2:46 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Mark Butterworth September 28, 2016 2:54 AM  

It's like what the Buddhists say about meeting the Buddha on the road: kill him!

The Jesus you meet in the Gospels is not exactly the Jesus you encounter today if he cares to reveal himself to you; or you are sufficiently sincere in wanting to meet Him.

God transcends most of the words in the Bible and what we say about him.

Meister Eckhard and St. John of the Cross are good starting points for thinking about God differently than Sunday School versions or commonplace pious homilies.

Bernadette Roberts', "The Experience of No Self" is also interesting.

Christian mysticism is not really about levitating saints, lovely smells, bilocality, performing miracles.

It is about getting beyond consolations, graces, and experiences to a state of prayer where you no longer experience God at all. Not as separate, outside yourself, and "felt" in some lovely way.

The result of prayer is alienation from other people since they do not experience reality quite the same as yourself.

After all, who was more alienated than Jesus of Nazareth, and if he comes and makes his home in you, how can you expect an otherwise existence?

Blogger Matt September 28, 2016 2:56 AM  

Child raping Muslim apologists.

Blogger M Cephas September 28, 2016 3:06 AM  

128.

What religion do you follow, if any, and what is the purpose of your beliefs?

Anonymous kfg September 28, 2016 3:20 AM  

Simple to do does not imply short to write out. DNA is mathematically represented quite simply, but there is a lot of it to represent.

But in essence all you have to do is define a genetic object mathematically. The Human Genome has already been done, but there are thousands of simpler, synthetic genomes that have been written for mathematical exploration.

Then you define a mathematical replication function of the genome with a randomization function.

Then you define a destruction function of the genome model, the mathematical state which negates an instance.

That's the basic general case. The world you see is not the theory. It is simply one possible state of the theory.

Blogger Mark Butterworth September 28, 2016 3:51 AM  

130.

I'm a Christian. I've had three theophanies in my life. At 21, I experienced the Holy Spirit, but had little idea of what the experience meant.

At 40, in a time of great extremity, I met Abba, the Father. Confused, but reading a great deal I decided to go into the Catholic Church guided by a wonderfully wise, and kind priest.

In that process, during the Rite of Welcome, I met Jesus. This led me to believe that not only was I in the right place to follow God, but that God whole-heartedly endorsed the RCC.

I mean, if you meet Jesus face to face in the Catholic Church, one's instinct is to bet that it's His church, too, and makes it better than any other.

It took many years of study and thought, and then prayer to disabuse me of my cherished notions about my adopted religion.

It is because I love Truth more than anything else that, 1) I had such theophanies, and 2) that I continued to question all my beliefs no matter where they led.

It led me out of a Church I loved, and fellowship I cherished because I could no longer assent to its basic creed in every aspect.

As I said, prayer, constant prayer leads to alienation. The result is unwanted, unsought for, but that is where prayer leads.

Blogger Mark Butterworth September 28, 2016 4:15 AM  

130.

To answer your explicit questions, religion in the earliest sense seems to refer to scruples (religio) - knowledge.

I have a good deal of knowledge but I don't have a church anymore.

The purpose of my beliefs is to know God and do his will.

You will also find this in on of the Gospels when Jesus is asked what is best to do and says, know God and do His will.

Pretty simple stuff, in its way.

Blogger SciVo September 28, 2016 4:25 AM  

scroll
scroll
scroll

and I don't mean the dead sea kind

Blogger M Cephas September 28, 2016 5:14 AM  

133.

Why do you trust the Gospels if you consider the Bible as well as the Church suspect? You just pick and choose what you want to believe out of a book you think is full of lies, compiled by a Church you think is in error?

Anonymous Nemo September 28, 2016 7:45 AM  

"when your diety suddenly looks like an extremely simple set of field equations, do you keep quiet to avoid being burned like Giordano Bruno?" Have you read Bruno? You may want to. It would help to avoid mistakes like that.

Blogger Ben Cohen September 28, 2016 7:50 AM  

Many Christian rulers have been accountable to the church. Theodosius the great did penance, as well as other Byzantine rulers for committing crimes.

Blogger stevo September 28, 2016 7:52 AM  

Vox you have the best comment section. Its amazing how people who basically agree can have so many differences. I continue to embrace the Catholic Church, mainly because it has outlived every enemy for 2000 years. As usual it needs reformation, but so far has allowed no heresies to become dogma.

Anonymous Eric the Red September 28, 2016 8:06 AM  

For the purposes of discussion, Darwinism is defined as evolution by random mutation and natural selection. Darwinism says that all the changes that make up evolution initially appear by random chance; but if the changes appear by random chance, not directed by any purpose, then God has nothing to do with evolution. Theistic Darwinists try to have it both ways, by arguing that since God can do everything, He can somehow direct a Darwinian evolution in which the changes only appear to be random. However, by definition if something occurs randomly, then it is not being directed by any mind or intelligence. In relation to any given phenomenon, random causation and teleological causation are mutually exclusive.

On another note, humans of the present day and age seem unable to come up with a way to save Christianity from itself, and along with it Western Civilization. In such a situation, God should perform an unequivocal miracle to cut through the morass our society has gotten itself into.

Blogger S1AL September 28, 2016 8:53 AM  

--' For pity's sake, what's a "problem" with recognizing that selection may hit on certain types of successful responses to opportunities more often than others, or that the same genes which favored one or the other might just be part of the "toolkit" passed down the family lines?'--

The problem is that it's contradictory to traditional theories (which is what I said the first time). It's not like this is the first new observation that challenges previous principles of evolutionary theory, Darwinian or otherwise.

--'"Creation science" is as much of an oxymoron as "Islamic trinity"; it is untestable, un-science. Even tolerance of it is a deal-breaker; it must be rejected without any further consideration. Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) proved that Christianity still has not come to terms with it, 80 years after Scopes.'--

Stop treating outliers as the core. You're engaging in the worst sort of confirmation bias imaginable.

Blogger Mighty Lou September 28, 2016 9:05 AM  

All of those Christians or non Christians posting here that view creationists/evolution deniers as an embarrassment or ignorant should challenge Kent Hovind to a debate.

He has dedicated his life to creationism, and he has given an open challenge to any one who would like to debate him.

Despite all of the controversy surrounding him, Kent Hovind remains the man to beat in a creation vs evolution debate. He is the current reigning super heavy weight champion. To beat him will mean instant celebrity status.

I've seen a video of the man taking on three professors all of different disciplines and he mopped the floor with them.

So maybe some of you should challenge him and then you can post the link to the debate and we can all see how smart you are.

With as many people on here who claim creationists are an embarrassment to Christianity, it should not be too long before Kent announces he has a new challenger.

I will start holding my breath... Now!

Anonymous Eric the Red September 28, 2016 9:12 AM  

Argh..

The fatal flaw in evolution is that, by insisting it involves nothing but materialism, it cannot also suppose an entropic difference between living versus non-living systems. Such a difference must logically be applied prior to the start of the evolutionary process itself. However, a different entropic outcome for living systems is unwarranted because it assumes that which it sets out to prove. Without such special-case handling of entropy by evolution, there is no amount of time that can overcome degradation of information in a system. Darwinism is thus exposed as just another set of beliefs, i.e., the same as any religion.

Anonymous Instasetting September 28, 2016 9:35 AM  

kfg,

Lobster into owl is rhetoric, and evidently quite effective too.

Here's the BS, everyone is an evolutionist including Ken Ham definition of the Holy Theory, Evolution.

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations.

Its an attempt at semantic trickery because Evo doesn't stand up to any sort of careful scrutiny. Its not a matter of one magic bullet slaying this monster, but of dozens of killing blows.

Killed evolution dead
I did
With books I read
And went to bed

In the morn I rise
And see with surprise
Evolution's non-demise

I select a baguette
And say 'Comet'
After 11,000 they've haddit
Why still now the stellar grayhound's 'rabbit'?

Oort Cloud!
They say, Loud and Proud
Show me, I said to the Endowed
With Federal funds stolen from the crowd
A painting they brought, I laughed out loud
Books, stories, columns by Maureen Dowd
Tears of laughter down my cheeks plowed
They had nothing I saw with sight profound
Nothing

And yet that which did not live
Did not die
Nor did it sleep decently
Under the waves

And on, and on, I battered
Facts and logic, none of it mattered
The beast would not die even if splattered
So then I realized their trite patter
Was not of reasonable men, but of the Mad Hatter

What to do, what to do
I knew
I built a catapult
Dared ferocious insult
And with theory written on used toilet paper
Proved to them this caper
And so launched them into the Atlantic
And Peace and Reason returned to the Land.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett September 28, 2016 9:53 AM  

@131. I figured it would have to be long. At least longish. And I commend your concern for the SDL's bandwidth. So, I'll settle for a link to the math expressing the theory of evolution. Pony up.

And bringing up genetics is sleight of hand. I haven't disputed the scientific legitimacy of any aspect of genetics. Only the theory of evolution.

Blogger Phunctor September 28, 2016 10:10 AM  

Spontaneous order is in no way prohibited by thermodynamics. The second law applies to closed systems, and is readily violated locally and temporarily. You just have to pay for it somehow.

A bathtub drain vortex is a familiar example of a dissipative procss. It is sustained by the unlikeliness of water already being high enough to run out the drain.

6000K photons are, improbably, available on Earth at 300K ambient. The enthalpy thus delivered sustains many dissipative systems, from typhoons to paramecia to the RCC.

The Universe as a whole seems to be running on the unlikeliness of having initially been pretty evenly spread out by inflation.

To quote Samuel Morse: "What hath God wrought?


Anonymous Anonymous September 28, 2016 10:22 AM  

"And it occurs to me that one of the keys to the success of the Alt-West is going to be a) Christians realizing that Churchianity is not Christianity and driving it out of their institutions and places of worship combined with b) non-Christians realizing that Christianity is, far from being a societal negative, a societal necessity for any Western civilization."

Can anyone provide any resources that elaborate upon point B specifically? I'm trying to find more comprehensive information on the concept that most of all the "atheist morality" is little more than cultural residue from previous Christianity and that atheists as they currently exist largely only exist because they were fortunate to have been born in a christian background to begin with.

Anonymous JohnnyPooper September 28, 2016 10:27 AM  

"And it occurs to me that one of the keys to the success of the Alt-West is going to be a) Christians realizing that Churchianity is not Christianity and driving it out of their institutions and places of worship combined with b) non-Christians realizing that Christianity is, far from being a societal negative, a societal necessity for any Western civilization."

Can anyone point me to any good resources concerning point B? I am trying to find sources that more or less make the case that atheism as it currently exists is little more than moral residue from the christian background in which it originated from. I have a feeling that this is true, but I am not familiar enough with what has already been written on this.

Anonymous zerovectorspace September 28, 2016 12:38 PM  

Late to the party, but placing this here for posterity.

https://www.athenaeum.edu/pdf/Wars%20of%20Religion%20and%20The%20Rise%20of%20The%20State.pdf

I apologize for the lack of formatting.

Blogger Jed Mask September 28, 2016 1:10 PM  

Good stuff. Thanks for "contending for the Faith" Mr. Vox. Amen.

Anonymous kfg September 28, 2016 1:37 PM  

@144:

The inclusion of a necessary element of the model is not "slight of hand."

Stipulating to that element of the model is not a necessary step in refuting the existence of the model.

It would help if you could keep track of what your own premise is.

It wouldn't hurt if you could keep track of mine either.

The Theory of Evolution expressed as a simple mathematical equation:

Or-D=Ct

One of the published expansions of the terms as a computer algorithm with graphical output of Ct:

http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/code/org/bitstorm/gameoflife/GameOfLife.html

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett September 28, 2016 1:55 PM  

@149 I see a lot of bluster, and a link to some code, and an equation that doesn't even begin to express the Theory of Evolution.

My only premise is that math is the natural language of science, and scientific theories must be expressable mathematically. You claim such math exists for the ToE, I claim it doesn't.

I can't prove a negative, but it seems more and more that you can't prove a positive either. I'm happy to call it a wash.

Anonymous kfg September 28, 2016 2:26 PM  

Waving your hand at the math and saying, "this is not the math," does not make it go away.

It just makes you an embarrassment to those who are honestly and legitimately working on the problem. See my premise.

If you can refute the math, which would require acknowledging it, no one would be more pleased than I.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper September 28, 2016 2:38 PM  

John Wright wrote:I would go further, and say not only that Christianity is needed for Western Civilization, I say Christianity IS Western Civilization.



No it isn't. Western Civilization is a bunch of different things but Christianity is only a part of being Western. Some versions of it existed long before Christianity.

What you are longing for is a Christendom, that doesn't exist any more. Most Westerns, Anglo-Sphere, Europeans , many Americans are not Christian and a lot of American Christians (Blacks, Asians and Hispanics) aren't Western anyway.

Moral and Social Capital derived from Christianity is still there, ideas and traditions and so on but the West isn't Christian anywhere as much as it was. You cannot count on a religious revival or people suddenly embracing the faith with the fervor of the convert as you and Vox have

As I see it any construct of "A West" going forward that doesn't include a possible post Christian era has a good chance of failing on its face.

However the opposite a construct that is the West without Christianity is necessarily not doomed to failure.

And while yes the .alt right as a whole finds Christianity to be or to have been a benefit, its not universal that we find it essential going forward.


Blogger M Cephas September 28, 2016 2:52 PM  

@141.

Hugh Ross debated Kent Hovind, and I think is a much better apologist for creation. Favoring long Earth creation as opposed to a six, 24 hour days interpretation.

Anonymous Mr. Deplorabional September 28, 2016 3:17 PM  

Hezekiah Garrett wrote:If the theory of evolution can be expressed mathematically, do so. I am always eager to learn.
There are many ways math is used as a predictive tool in evolution.  For instance, based on the reproductive advantage or disadvantage of a gene, it can be predicted just how fast it will spread or go extinct.  (The reproductive advantage of a gene depends in large part on the environment, both other genes and the external world.  Genes for calculus ability may be a disadvantage when spending time in deep thought lets short-time preference rivals stab you in the back.)

S1AL wrote:The problem is that it's contradictory to traditional theories (which is what I said the first time).
It is trivially obvious on its face that the opposite is true:  the contingency of the evolution of bones, 570 million years ago in the Cambrian, favors the later evolution of pterodactyls, bats and owls.  The evolution of chitinous exoskeletons does not; you get dragonflies.

If you dig, you will find that your whole line of argument is disinformation just like I've been telling you about.

It's not like this is the first new observation that challenges previous principles of evolutionary theory, Darwinian or otherwise.
You're so desperate for "challenges" that you're buying snake oil.

Stop treating outliers as the core.
Outliers do not gain control of school boards.

Despite all of the controversy surrounding him, Kent Hovind remains the man to beat in a creation vs evolution debate.
Truth is not determined in a format of time limits, lack of fact-checking and Gish gallops.

Eric the Red wrote:The fatal flaw in evolution is that, by insisting it involves nothing but materialism, it cannot also suppose an entropic difference between living versus non-living systems.
That's +2 points on John Baez's crackpot index right there (point 3).

Blogger GFR September 28, 2016 3:21 PM  

@152
.
There's still a religion in the modern west, it's just that the church of liberalism doesn't do a very good job of responding to the real world.
.
Many of the doctrines of the church of liberalism derive from Christianity, and it is likely that when liberalism fails catastrophically the adherents of that faith will return to Christianity.

Anonymous kfg September 28, 2016 3:24 PM  

The problem with the Kent Hovind challenge is that he has framed the terms of the debate such that the theory he places on the table is not The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. The ToEby NS is banned from discussion.

The individual arguments he makes are often easy to refute, being absurd on their face both scientifically and theologically (he makes the fundamental error of offering scientific explanations of miracles), but as they have nothing to do with the ToEbyNS, refuting them does not in any way address his challenge.

He puts on circle jerk, dog and pony shows that any Christian Theologian could destroy.

You cannot oppose the theory by knocking down a strawman of your own construction. You must approach the matter as does Vox Day with people such as Sam Harris:

Actually understand the argument and actually refute it with actual facts and logic.

Blogger Mighty Lou September 28, 2016 3:26 PM  

@M Cephas

Yes, that was a good debate, good points made by both Ross and Hovind, but I think Ross was trying to hard to make scriptute agree with his position, so in the end I think Hovind defended his position well, but more to the point, that debate could not be used to justify calling Christians who believe in a literal six day creation an embarrassment to Christianity.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper September 28, 2016 3:43 PM  

GFR wrote:@152

.

There's still a religion in the modern west, it's just that the church of liberalism doesn't do a very good job of responding to the real world.

.

Many of the doctrines of the church of liberalism derive from Christianity, and it is likely that when liberalism fails catastrophically the adherents of that faith will return to Christianity.


I agree with you re: Liberalism and Christianity but I'm not so sure about a collapse prefacing a return to anything we'd recognize.

Nature may abhor a vacuum but people can go for a long period without any organized religion and such a collapse isn't necessarily going to push people into something that is as you said a similar ideology

The Roman Civic religion served much the same role as Christianity and for some Mystery Cults did, neither of these really had much of a revival

In any case nearly every Church is ill and or contaminated especially the Catholic one, there is little "there, there"

What might happen is something more akin to folk beliefs used for spiritual comfort and teaching , there is a ton of this already out there and its low cost and self organizing

Its also part of the problem creating ecological hysteria but that is another discussion.

Now of course if Christianity recovers in a healthy fashion, this would be a good thing but it would be wise to not have cognitive blinders about the possibility it won't and to plan accordingly

Blogger Mighty Lou September 28, 2016 4:06 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Mighty Lou September 28, 2016 4:10 PM  

@kfg

If Hovind is so easy to refute then debate him.

I think you are afraid to and are making excuses.

You are trying to discredit a man so you don't have to debate him.

That's pretty low, and anyone on here can see through that.

Anonymous kfg September 28, 2016 4:37 PM  

@160:

There is no challenge for debate over an issue I would be interested in debating him on, and, as far as I can tell after watching many hours of his videos, that's because he has no interest in debating me over something he is interested in debating me over.

If he wishes to propose a topic I'm interested in and wishes to take the side opposing my own view, we could talk about it.

But I have no interest in opposing his theory or supporting the ToE by NS.

Here's how a talk between him and I might go:

Q: What is the explanation for this event described in the Bible?

Hovind: Half an hour of rambling about some pseudo-naturalistic events.

Me: Dude, it's a miracle!

Where's the interest factor, for anyone, in that?

Anonymous God Hates Cucks September 28, 2016 4:48 PM  

Let me point out the most important distinction between creationism and darwinism: Its not weather a species can change, but HOW it changes.

In the darwinist worldview, the information needed to build an organism arose by a process of random gene duplications, mutations, and natural selection. As genes mutate, some organisms are better of, and natural selection selects for these traits, while causing the death of organisms with negative mutations.

The problem with this idea is that gene mutations have a such a minuscule effect that they virtually never cause any noticeable differences between generations. Thus natural selection cannot tell which organisms have "good" mutations and "bad mutations". Furthermore, because statistically most mutations are bad (the average number of mutations between human generations is 200), but not bad enough to be immediately notable, they are accumulating and thus having the opposite effect of what the darwinists say should be happening.

Even anti-biotic resistance does not validate the darwinist world view:

"Loss of control over an enzyme's production can engender
antibiotic resistance. Take for instance penicillin
resistance in Staphylococcus bacteria. This requires the
bacterium to have DNA information coding for production
of a complicated enzyme (penicillinase) which specifically
destroys penicillin. It is extremely unlikely that
such complex information could arise in a single mutational
step, and in fact it does not. Mutation can cause
the loss of control of its production, so much greater
amounts are produced, and a bacterium producing large
quantities of penicillinase will survive when placed in a
solution containing penicillin, whereas those producing
lesser amounts will not. The information for producing
this complicated chemical was, however, already present."

Continued below...

Anonymous God Hates Cucks September 28, 2016 4:48 PM  

Creationism, on the other hand, says that new species arise by sorting out existing information that would have been part of the original created kinds. Take for example, race. Both a white race (ww) and a black race (bb) could come about in only 1 generation from a mixed race couple (wb). If two (wb)s mated, a punnet square would give 2 offspring mixed genes (wb), one offspring black genes, (bb), and one offspring white genes(ww). In a northern climate, eventually black genes would disappear because they wouldn't get enough sunlight, and thus white genes would be favored, and vice-versa in a high sunlight african climate.

" All (sexually reproducing) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two genes at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be heterozygous at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms (alleles) of this gene. For example, one allele can code for blue eyes, while the other one can code for brown eyes; or one can code for the A blood type and the other for the B type. Sometimes two alleles have a combined effect, while at other times only one allele (called dominant) has any effect on the organism, while the other does not (recessive). With humans, both the mother’s and father’s halves have 20,687 protein-coding genes, while 97% of the rest of the DNA has an important role in coding for RNA, for control of gene expression. Overall, the information equivalent to a thousand 500-page books (3 billion base pairs, as Teaching about Evolution correctly states on page 42). The ardent neo-Darwinist Francisco Ayala points out that humans today have an ‘average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent.’1 This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles. If we consider only the protein-coding genes, this would mean 1,340 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of different possible sperm or egg cells 21,340 or 2.4 × 10403. The number of atoms in the whole known universe is ‘only’ 1080, extremely tiny by comparison. So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties."

And finally, if evolution is allegedly compatible with Christianity, than why is evolution the #1 reason for people losing their belief in God?

Blogger Mighty Lou September 28, 2016 5:28 PM  

@kfg

Okay,

I stand corrected.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett September 28, 2016 5:30 PM  

@154. So you don't have the mathematical expression of ToE either?

Why even bother chiming in?

Blogger James September 28, 2016 6:27 PM  

""Martin Luther was one of the smartest men in history."
Ptolemy, too. Notice a similarity?""
Frankly, no. And if you say it's that they are both wrong, I'm going to call you stupid due to your similarity to other stupid people that I know.

Anonymous Eric the Red September 28, 2016 7:04 PM  

So are non-living systems evolving in a Darwinian fashion?

Anonymous Eric the Red September 28, 2016 9:12 PM  

I see Mr.Formely-Rational's fallback to Prigogine's hoary old storm cell example. But single types of air molecules (or crystals, or whatever) and their respective heat content, in no way resembles the complexity of living systems. To say that they are alike, in order to have an excuse to apply reverse entropy to both, is dishonest and intellectually bankrupt. You conveniently forgot that in my prior comment, the emphasis is on information, not just enthalpy. Prigogine never did address that problem, he came up with some heuristic formulations amounting to speculative hand-waving in application to darwinism as a whole.

God Hates Cucks nailed it more precisely a la the real open system: "The problem with this idea is that gene mutations have such a minuscule effect that they virtually never cause any noticeable differences between generations. Thus natural selection cannot tell which organisms have "good" mutations and "bad mutations". Furthermore, because statistically most mutations are bad (the average number of mutations between human generations is 200), but not bad enough to be immediately notable, they are accumulating and thus having the opposite effect of what the darwinists say should be happening."

But, since we are actually discussing religion, I doubt that anything will deter you from your belief system.

Blogger SirHamster September 28, 2016 9:37 PM  

kfg wrote:The Theory of Evolution expressed as a simple mathematical equation:

Or-D=Ct

One of the published expansions of the terms as a computer algorithm with graphical output of Ct:

http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/code/org/bitstorm/gameoflife/GameOfLife.html


What do you plug into your simple equation to determine the evolution of bacteria to humans over several billion years?

Blogger S1AL September 28, 2016 10:31 PM  

--"It is trivially obvious on its face that the opposite is true: the contingency of the evolution of bones, 570 million years ago in the Cambrian, favors the later evolution of pterodactyls, bats and owls. The evolution of chitinous exoskeletons does not; you get dragonflies."--

I'm talking about parallel evolution, observed, documented, and analyzed in multiple instances (cichlid fish?). The traditional treatment is that this cannot happen. Check any textbook.

And before you do the snob thing, remember that I said "average atheist".

--"You're so desperate for "challenges" that you're buying snake oil."--

This is pure projection. I'm not the one whose belief system relies on something as fragile as a single scientific theory.

It is, however, amusing to see how the more insightful atheists scramble to assure us that the potential for predictable, repeatable evolution is completely meaningless ;).

--"Outliers do not gain control of school boards."--

Did you manage to type that with a straight face? Both simple statistics (there are thousands of school boards) and the observations made on this very blog (prevalence of activists in any organization) falsify that statement.

Anonymous Mr. Rational September 29, 2016 9:34 AM  

Eric the Red wrote:I see Mr.Formely-Rational's fallback to Prigogine's hoary old storm cell example. But single types of air molecules (or crystals, or whatever) and their respective heat content, in no way resembles the complexity of living systems. To say that they are alike, in order to have an excuse to apply reverse entropy to both, is dishonest and intellectually bankrupt. You conveniently forgot that in my prior comment, the emphasis is on information, not just enthalpy. Prigogine never did address that problem, he came up with some heuristic formulations amounting to speculative hand-waving in application to darwinism as a whole.
I had to quote this just to be able to point to it and say "just WTF is this supposed to mean?!"  Seriously, this is batshit crazy stuff.  Clearly it has some sort of rhetorical impact upon the people at whom it's aimed (creatonuts), but dialectically, logically and scientifically it's not even wrong.

God Hates Cucks nailed it more precisely a la the real open system: "The problem with this idea is that gene mutations have such a minuscule effect that they virtually never cause any noticeable differences between generations.
Duchenne's muscular dystrophy is the result of a single point mutation.  Substantial phenotypic changes can and do come from copy-number variations and crossover additions/deletions.

SirHamster wrote:What do you plug into your simple equation to determine the evolution of bacteria to humans over several billion years?
Evolution is not deterministic.  It does not "try" to produce either owls or lobsters.  Dinosaurs and trilobites were both states on the way to the world as it is now, which is a state on the way to some other world-as-it-will-be.

Among the persistent mental mistakes creatonuts make is that they think that the current world is an endpoint, and that humans are the pinnacle of everything.  Both beliefs are wrong.

S1AL wrote:I'm talking about parallel evolution, observed, documented, and analyzed in multiple instances (cichlid fish?). The traditional treatment is that this cannot happen. Check any textbook.
I suspect you're citing creatonut textbooks.  But be specific:  which text?  I want to be able to read the specific passages, so I can be sure you are not mis-quoting them.

S1AL wrote:It is, however, amusing to see how the more insightful atheists scramble to assure us that the potential for predictable, repeatable evolution is completely meaningless ;).
If you want "predictable, repeatable" you might look at the Russian experiment in the selection of foxes for tameness.  It's producing a fox that is very dog-like, which is not surprising given that it started with a canine species.  In nature, the selection pressures and starting points vary all over the map.  To the extent that the mutually-shifting pressures are chaotic attractors, the consequences can neither be predicted nor repeated in the long term.

Blogger SirHamster September 29, 2016 8:28 PM  

Mr. Rational wrote:Evolution is not deterministic.  It does not "try" to produce either owls or lobsters.  Dinosaurs and trilobites were both states on the way to the world as it is now, which is a state on the way to some other world-as-it-will-be.

Among the persistent mental mistakes creatonuts make is that they think that the current world is an endpoint, and that humans are the pinnacle of everything.  Both beliefs are wrong.


I'm challenging a specific point by a specific person. The train is fine.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts