Moved to http://zeteo.vox.com

Christian Thinker Brian Trapp has a lesson on hyperbole in response to the opening paragraphs of an article at Daylight Atheism and, ideologies notwithstanding, it's something everyone should read and ponder.  Read and watch Brian systematically dismantle an emotional rant with facts and sound reasoning as he exposes the writer for being guilty of the same sort of "wild-eyed rhetorical bombthrow[ing]" as those he targets. 

I don't post this to needle atheists nor, God forbid, in support of the religious right but rather as an example of how anyone can be so consumed with zeal for any ideology that s/he loses sight of reason and adopts a fundie mentality.  In this case, it just happens to be a Christian exposing the flawed fundie rhetoric of an atheist.  Far too often, imo, it's usually the other way around.  So, please, don't read Brian's article as a defense of Christianity (altho' I'm sure he intends it as such) but rather and a broad appeal to truth and reason no matter what ideology you embrace.

The history of liberty is a history of resistance.  The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it..

These are a couple of articles I found thanks to Victor Reppert at Dangerous Idea.  I haven't read them yet as what little focus I have is directed elsewhere this week, however, I am eager to have the time to sit down and read them thoughtfully.

Beauty, Providence and the Biophilia Hypothesis (aka Argument from Beauty) by Mark Wynn (75k pdf)
On the Truth of Beauty by Sonia Sikka (120k pdf)

These along with several other promising links are posted at the Calvin College Resource Library.

Posting here as a reminder to myself to read.

Dissent is Patriotic

The Andrew Meyer case has disturbed me greatly.  What disturbs me is the lack of perspective through which most people seem to be viewing what took place.  People who only saw an obnoxious person being disruptive and getting what he deserved have missed the point entirely.  Whatever Meyer's motives were, his actions were classic dissent. 

Dissent--the stuff that built the United States of America. 
Dissent--the quintessential act of patriotism. 
Dissent--freedom spreading its wings and demanding to fly. 

There was a time when people understood that dissent is the American way.  Unfortunately, now it's considered obnoxious, unpatriotic, and even treasonous in some quarters.  History has shown us that when government/authority turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to the will of the people that dissent is how Americans demand change.  One only has to look as far back as the events leading up to the War for Independence to find the facts that bear this out.  Our culture is now conditioned to hold dissent in disdain and that will the undoing of our freedom. 

Oscar Wilde said "Discontent is the first step in the progress of a man or a nation."  When the voice of dissent is silenced because the speaker is deemed to be a disruption, we are sacrificing progress in exchange for the status quo.  We have become a nation of sheep.

In 2006, Timothy Sexton of Associated Content wrote Dissent Built America; Why is it Considered Un-American Now?  It was relevant then and is even more so today.  I strongly recommend it as a good read.

ACLU: we are fast approaching a genuine surveillance society in the United States

Related to the my previous post Papers Please: This Is A Free Country?, check out what the ACLU is now up to!

The American Civil Liberties Union today announced the launch of a new "Surveillance Society Clock" to symbolize the reality that we are fast approaching a genuine surveillance society in the United States. The clock is set at six minutes before the "midnight" of a dark end to privacy. Also being released is a new report summarizing the state of privacy today and the video of a new piece about surveillance by spoken-word artists Steve Connell & Sekou (tha misfit).

"We are rapidly moving toward a future where our every move, our every transaction, our every communication is tracked and may be used against us," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Project. "Too often that big picture is lost amid the stream of daily privacy stories. The Surveillance Clock is part of our efforts to keep people focused on that big picture and dramatize what’s happening to America."

Read more at ACLU.org

Your papers, please.

Papers Please: Arrested At Circuit City

I haven't seen any coverage of this story in the media, but then, I've not been watching the news much lately, so who knows? I wouldn't be surprised if the media turned a blind eye to this.

...there are those who have the truth within them, but they tell it not in words.  Kahlil Gibran in The Prophet

I was surprised to see these points made by an atheist in a blog post elsewhere. 

1. Having an explanation does not make your position superior to that of those who may lack one.
2. Not being able to explain a phenomenon doesn't preclude you from legitimately assuming the reliability of that phenomenon
3. Assuming the reliability of a phenomenon without being able to 'account for' it does not mean that you implicitly accept the world view of people claiming that theirs is the only explanation of that phenomenon.
4. The failure of a person to explain a phenomenon doesn't invalidate their world view or render it inconsistent.
5. Acknowledging that you don't have an answer is better than making things up.

These points were made in attempt to refute presuppositionalism, a position for which I have no opinion. My question is does the author offer the same concessions to theistic belief that it has allowed for himself in these five points?  I don't think so.  For sake of discussion, I think it is fair to equate the concept of a lack of explanation to acceptance by faith.

1. Having an explanation does not make your position superior to that of those who hold their position by faith.
2. Accepting a phenomenon by faith doesn't preclude you from legitimately assuming the reliability of that phenomenon.
3. Having faith a phenomenon by faith without being able to 'account for' it does not mean that you implicitly accept the world view of people claiming that theirs is the only explanation of that phenomenon.
4. That a person accepts a phenomenon by faith doesn't invalidate their world view or render it inconsistent.
5. Acknowledging that you accept some things on faith is acceptable.

I believe having an explanation is the superior position, that not being able to offer an explanation forces one to take things for granted and/or to rely on something/one external to decide for us what is true, that the worldview of other people with an explanation may be less dependent on faith, that the inability to explain, while not necessarily invalidating one's worldview, certainly calls into question the reasons for holding said worldview, and that the more options held open the more likely one is to find truth.  I believe that both theists and atheists accept certain premises on faith and that acknowledging that they do so is better than dissembling, equivocating, and wrapping oneself in blankets of deliberate ambiguity.

I have no idea where I'm going with this.  Apparently I just needed to get something off my chest.  Anyway, overall you'll find a thought-worthy article although I think the author probably needs to revisit his five points in light of a broader application.  Presuppositionalism is something I need to understand eventually--probably sooner than later.

Awesome tragic truths:

Letter from the Founders -- Click for full size

1 comment