Monday, August 04, 2025

The Marxist, Anarchist and Libertarian Pipe Dream.



The notion that human society can somehow do without the interference of centralized information and control with it's potential for being a resource of corrupt authoritarianism is a yearning of many political idealists. As the above schema suggests (which I've cribbed from Wiki) "libertarianism" is an ideal which crosses the left-right fault-line and crops up among both left and right political agitators. I'm not quite sure why this common hankering exists; at a guess it's something  do with those instincts left-over from the time of those folksy communal freedoms which were the lot of hunter-gatherer communities. It is very tempting to think of hunter-gatherer fireside life, a life which knew no ramifying cloud capp'd towers of information & control. 

At this juncture I can't help thinking of the relevance and meaningfulness of the Biblical Edenic story where it seems our erring fruit gathering ancestors were cast out from their original idyllic garden environment before they were fully ready to start populating & subduing the chaotic earth. (See Gen 1:28). As it was to turn out, humanity then faced the double problem of not only subduing the earth but also subduing its own nature.

Adam and Eve's post-Edenic sexual union produced the agriculturalists Cain and Abel. Cain was an arable farmer and Abel a pastoralist. After murdering Abel Cain was driven from his farm fearing vengeance for Abel's murder. But in spite of his crime God promised his protection and Cain went onto to build a city (Genesis 4:17 ). Building a city would imply that he was exploiting not only an efficient agricultural base but also had available the techniques of centralized information & control required (such as writing) for the successful organization and cooperation of large of concentrations of population that city life demands.

Although from Genesis 4 we see vengeance and killing as the post-Edenic themes of the human predicament holding back Project Earth, nevertheless at that time progress in populating and the subduing the earth was being made: a city was built, and tools made of bronze and iron. Above all, writing must have been invented to facilitate centralized information and control. 

And yet the inevitable seedy sleaziness of urban life may have given rise to a yearning for a return to an idealized  Edenic idyll before the advent of that signature evidence of post Edenic life; the city, its government and its appetite for information & control.  But these are not the core problem of the East of Eden phenomenon; they are only a correlates. The heart of the problem is Sin, the word with the "I" in the middle (See the Book of Romans).

Mistaking the correlates with the core problems of the human predicament libertarianism's big mistake as we can see in the  signature evidences of right-leaning libertarianism as follows....


* A tendency toward deep state conspiracy theorism. 

* Climate science skepticism - Climate science may be seen as a deep state disinformation campaign to excuse enhancing centralised information and control. 

* Pandemic lockdowns; again these may be seen as part of a deep state hoax to excuse increasing centralized  control. 

* Belief in small government if not no government at all, sometimes to the point of anarchy. 

* Belief in an highly unregulated free market; an oxymoron if the ever was one! A market can't function with out standardization and agreement of standards, not to mention curbing the exploitation of workers and the fueling of Marxist unrest.  

* Skepticism toward the institutions of society; the media,  academia, education, politicians, state health institutions, big business, the police.

* Non-acknowledgement of the paradoxes of free-speech.


Some of the above are also very much part of leftwing libertarianism too, in particular suspicion of the media, academia, large corporations, politicians and government in general - all of which are the trappings of city life, but to the leftist they will be seen as conniving with the owners of the means of production who are exploiting the working class. 

Saturday, June 21, 2025

Review of Sharon James Book , "The LIES...."


The above book was lent to me at church with the intention that I offer an opinion, which I did in this PDF review:

SharonJamesdocx.pdf - Google Drive

This book  comes out of a culturally right-wing evangelical Christian community. Let me be clear: I would not purchase this book anymore than I would purchase volumes from the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons even though I have sympathy with their reactionary response to a confusing and alienating social milieu which offers little in the way of clear values, anchorage and meaning. But let me say this: My Open Gospel view of Christianity allows me to accept that the core truths of the gospel are robust enough to allow them to operate within trammels wide enough to work around many human foibles and quirky subcultures. 


RELEVANT LINKS


1. Wayne Grudem.

I mention Grudem in my review. Here's a guy who has studied his writings more closely:

Looks like a useful link to get up to speed on Grudem. 

Friday, June 06, 2025

The Debauched War of the Egos

 

Trump vs Musk bust up

The Trump-Musk bust up isn't a surprise to anyone; with their huge inflated egos buffeting against one another and in government not to serve but to get drunk on power we all knew that Musk and Trump would fall out eventually.  Only one hand can wield the Ring of Power. It's also no surprise that Steve Bannon has sided with Trump against Musk. See here.... 

Views, News and Pews: MAGA Infighting

The whole affair is a spectacle of power political debauchery. It has further compromised, if not brought to an end, America's global moral leadership. It has become increasingly clear that America is currently led by borderline sociopaths, narcissists and wannabe dictators who seek power in order to serve self. Thank you Ken Ham and Michael Brown for helping to bring about this current state of affairs.


Meanwhile in the UK there has also been a right-wing bust up, but perhaps not quite as vitriolic as the US....

Farage vs Yusuf bust up

The Reformed party that Nigel Farage heads up are well known for their almighty rows and splits. Is it because the right-wing tend to major in personality rather than policy? Is this the 1 Samuel 8 syndrome where leadership style Trumps content?


Relevant Links


The infighting hots up



 Steve Bannon's position


Compare the foregoing with these quotes from Bannon's Wiki page..

According to The Economist, a British news magazine, Bannon and Miller "see Mr [Vladimir] Putin as a fellow nationalist and crusader against cosmopolitanism"

Bannon has defended Trump's ties to and praise for Russian president Vladimir Putin He expressed a belief that traditionalists see Russia as an ally. Bannon said they "believe that at least Putin is standing up for traditional institutions, and he's trying to do it in a form of nationalism—and I think that people, particularly in certain countries, want to see the sovereignty for their country. They want to see nationalism for their country" rather than a "pan-European Union". According to the book War for Eternity, Bannon met notorious Russian ideologue Aleksandr Dugin in Rome in 2018 to advocate closer relations between the United States and Russia, as well as Traditionalist philosophy. Bannon supports closer ties to Russia to ally them against China.

 


Well done Mike Pence

Wednesday, May 28, 2025

The Genesis Account



Some Christians take the early chapters of the Book of Genesis literally; that is, they believe the Earth was created in 6 literal 24 hour days no more than about 10,000 years ago. A small minority of Christians, also of a literalist frame of mind, interpret other verses in the Bible (See for example Ps 104:5, Is 40.22, Job 26:10, Rev 7:1, 1 Chron 16:30 ) to mean that the Earth must be stationary and flat; Flat Earth Christians, by definition do not believe the Earth is a globe orbiting the Sun. For both Young Earthists and Flat Earthists any science which contradicts their beliefs is likely to be written off as a product of fallible human thinking; they do not see their understanding of the Bible, which in the final analysis is a product of their minds, as also subject to fallibility.

However, many Christians (possibly the majority), especially those in Universities, the sciences and Christian colleges, do not accept Young Earth and Flat Earth theories and  believe the Earth (and cosmos) to be many millions of years old. These Christians would likely claim that the disputed passages are a product of one or more of the following…

a)  A cultural perspective,

b)  Metaphorical/figurative/mythical expression,

c)  A poetic literary genre,

d)  A polemical and symbolic (rather than literal) attack on the world view of the religions of the day.

But whatever are one’s views on this subject, the Genesis account, above all, provides a clear polemical affirmation that God created everything apart from Himself.  This account cuts across religions which at the time of the writing of Genesis 1 were inclined to attribute divine status to created objects (such as the sun, moon and stars). It also cuts across some modern Gaia theories of the Earth. In contrast the Genesis account is clear that God is something other than the observable natural world and that the latter is not a totality.

The Genesis creation account describes creation using commonplace human thought-forms based on everyday observations. This makes the account comprehensible to a wide spectrum of human cultures, particularly the peoples of the Bronze Age who penned the account and who had no powerful instrumentation or sophisticated mathematical theories with which to aid in the description of cosmic organization. 


For the rest of this article see here

Thursday, May 22, 2025

A stuck gramophone record


A somewhat embattled Kenneth Ham. 

Ken Ham, hard-right Trump voting Biblical literalist, firebrand fundamentalist, "Young Earth" theme park supremo and bigoted blowhard recently published a blog post criticizing BioLogos, a Christian organization which promotes evolutionary creation. The target of his criticism was an open letter from BioLogos about science and faith.  In his criticism Ken repeats for the umpteenth time his profound misunderstanding of the nature of science and how it works.... 


KEN OPINES: Throughout the letter, they never really define what they mean by science, but based on their other writings, it’s clear they are lumping historical and observational science together.

 Historical science deals with an interpretation of the unobserved past, and BioLogos has the wrong starting point. 

Observational science is science we can directly test and observe (e.g., technology, medicine, etc.), and while this type of science often doesn’t have the same problems regarding interpretation that historical science has, your worldview still matters!


MY COMMENT: That Ken might actually have an inkling that his "historical science" vs. "observational sciences" dichotomy may not be as simple as he makes out is suggested by his admission that this type of science (i.e. "observational science") often doesn’t have the same problems regarding interpretation that historical science has.... So, if so-called "observational science" often doesn’t have the same problems regarding interpretation I read that to mean that Ken is admitting that "observational science" sometimes does have the same problems of interpretation! Too right it does! What about the "observational sciences" of economics, social sciences, psychology and even complex technological systems...etc? Observation is not necessarily  so easy even for present-tense-continuous processes is it Kenneth?

What is beyond our Ken is that all science is observational in so far as all the theories of science submit themselves to observational sampling. The problems of interpretation arise because of differences that these objects have in their epistemic distance; that is,  their amenability to the collection of the relevant observational samples.

 As always Ken's polarizing mind tries to turn a question of degree into a black and white either/or question which allows him to sort people into sheep and goats using a shibboleth (an approach to society common to both the hard-right and hard-left as they seek to demonize the opposition). I have addressed Ken's naive conception of science on several occasions. Viz:

Quantum Non-Linearity: Beware: Anti-Science Mind at Work

Quantum Non-Linearity: Mangling Science Part 5: Two Kinds of Science?.

Quantum Non-Linearity: Mangling Science Part 2: Opening up Ken’s Can

Quantum Non-Linearity: Epistemology, Ontology, Creation and Salvation

Ken might also like to ask himself whether the bizarre coordinate transformation proposed by his cosmologist mate Jason Lisle (and published on the AiG web site and with whom Ken eventually fell out) which tried solve the Young Earth star light problem by making all distant galaxies "now" objects, makes them observational or historical science. I suspect that  once again we've got here another question which is beyond our Ken

***

I have also addressed Ken's fundamentalist tendency to reinterpret reality and distort it in the process. See here....

Quantum Non-Linearity: History? No, more like Hamstory!

Views, News and Pews: The Distorting Lens of Fundamentalism

Views, News and Pews: The "Answers in Genesis" world of half-truths

I would also charge Ken with acting as a crypto-cult leader who comes very close to using spiritual intimidation and spiritual abuse in order to ease through his will. See here....

Views, News and Pews: Jeepers Creepers II: The John Mackay Affair

Views, News and Pews: Fundamentalist Publicity Sects.

Views, News and Pews: Hell and Hamnation Watch

Views, News and Pews: Calling down Hell and Hamnation on Heretics!


I would also question Ken's understanding of the basis of morality; morality isn't based on Ken's concept of the "letter of the law" but rather the "spirit of the law". The true spirit of the law is only meaningful because human beings (and God of course) are centres of conscious cognition. See here....

Views, News and Pews: The dangers of rule driven morality.

If I was as bigoted as Ken I could turn the very words of Ken Ham on himself, simply by replacing "Man" with "Ken" as per the following quote based on an extract from his own writings.

Instead of starting with God’s Word, Ken starts with Ken's ideas and then tries to fit God in somewhere. It’s a compromise of mixing Ken's ideas (really, Ken's religion of rule following) with God’s Word—and God hates compromise.

I think it's sobering to remember that Christianity is and has always been a wide collection of overlapping, highly variegated sub-cultures of which Ken and AiG, the Watchtower Organization, the Children of God, The flat earth movement, Trumpite evangelicalism, Putinite Orthodoxy, The Mormons etc. are just a few if perhaps rather extreme examples; and yes, this is the human shower I identify with  See page 8 of this document.

Friday, March 28, 2025

Oops, we've just made a dictator

Funny, yet not funny..... 


According to this BBC article these so-called "free speech libertarians" are looking to censure  the museums. I wonder when they will be coming for the internet opposition? It's a very easy AI inquiry to come up with a list of prominent anti-Trump bloggers. Notable also are the Trump politicians who are trying to label Trump opposition as a mental illness.


INTERESTING LINKS

1. Poor Old Nigel


I feel a bit sorry for Nigel because I don't think he's anywhere near as bad as some of the people he keeps company with. 

Monday, February 24, 2025

Theology According to PZ Myers


Avenging Angel:
 "I'll never be nice to (recanting) MAGAts"
 says PZ Myers. But what if the repentance is,
full, deep and genuine?


In this post fundamentalist atheist PZ Myers (*1) criticizes a New York Times article written by Ross Douthat. In his article Douthat grapples with the timeless challenge presented to theism by the problem of suffering and evil. Douthat's article on the subject can be found here: The Best Argument against Having Faith in God.  Douthat is a theist and writes this... 

One interesting point about this argument is that while it’s often folded into the briefs for atheism that claim to rely primarily on hard evidence and science, it isn’t properly speaking an argument that some creating power does not exist. Rather it’s an argument about the nature of that power, a claim that the particular kind of God envisioned by many believers and philosophers — all powerful and all good — would not have made the world in which we find ourselves, and therefore that this kind of God does not exist.

PZ Myers response is...

That is correct. No one uses the problem of evil to disprove a god, but only the idea of a benevolent god, or more specifically, the perfectly good being most Christians promote. When I see it deployed in an argument, it’s usually to make the narrower point that I don’t believe in your god.....

.....But OK, sure, (if) the problem of evil says you should be anything but a traditional Christian, I’ll take it.

What I think PZ is saying here is this: "OK if there is a God, it's anything but a Christian God, given the level of evil and suffering we observe"; that's PZ's theology. It follows from this theology that if there really is such a thing as a Christian God there would be no suffering and evil in his creation; or at least not to the extent we observe. However, for me this kind of theology prompts a huge personal dilemma.....

***

An implication of PZ's concept of a Christian God is that, by definition, morally and epistemically flawed persons such as myself would not exist in the world free of suffering & evil which PZ envisages. Let me expand on that theme a little.....

A morally flawed person such as myself (flawed enough to be the person who readily passes by on the other side like the priest and Levite in Luke 10:25ff), is part and parcel of the tainted world I'm in. My character is so intimately bound up with my context that this context is also inevitably going to contain your Hitlers, Putins, Stalins, Maos, Polpots, Assyrians, Trumps, Kim Jong Uns, Musks, Mugabes, Assads and an endless list of other sinners whose aim in life is to get a hormonal high by securing for themselves the glories and status symbols of self-assertion (e.g. power, legacy, reputation, wealth, conquest, top-dog rule, high status, plutocracy, influence etc.) and whose ambitions have priority over the well-being and lives of others; they may jail or even kill those in their way.  J R R Tolkien's great literary metaphor has warned us of the potential evil that lurks behind our social standing and status motivations; namely, the all but irresistible temptations of the One Ring to Rule them all and in the darkness bind them should the opportunity of absolute power fall into our hands. If any of us corruptible sinners should take and wield the One Ring of absolute power there is the potential for corruption on a wide scale. I have trouble enough with those lesser, mean and squalid sins like walking by on the other-side, let alone the irresistible temptations of social ambition. 

So, given that I'm sinner enough to be potential One-Ring-to-Rule-them-All material (just like the characters in that rogues gallery which so often cites Hitler as a prime exemplar) I wonder, as does PZ, that our kind of world would have been reified at all by a Christian God; if it is a Christian God who is responsible for its reification, it must cause untold agony in the Godhead. But given that I now enjoy a highly conscious existence in a cosmos with many beauties, glories, pleasures and consolations should I now wish that my world in spite of all the suffering was never created (along with myself)  in the first place? That's the big dilemma.

***

PZ's theology tells him that given the evidences of evil and suffering he's fairly sure there can be no Christian God (sometimes I feel the same way when reality bites). But let me try turning that on its head... does the evidence which for PZ excludes the existence of a Christian God actually point in the very opposite direction? That is, to the existence of the God of John 3:16....

"Before" the big bang(*3) the history of our highly organized and seemingly arbitrarily contingent cosmos existed in the un-reified platonic realm as a logical possibility; just as does, in fact, any other story that some human author pulls out of the platonic realm, reifies it in book form and who presides over that book as an absolute sovereign. So, in spite of all it's pain and evil, did God so love this world that he decided to reify it and save it? We've heard it said that God has an inordinate fondness for beetles; does he also have an inordinate fondness for human beings in spite of our very human self-orientation which has such a potential as a source of suffering and evil? This is the unmerited unconditional love of God, "Grace" I think it's called.

***

Douthat leaves the question dangling of just what kind of God has reified our cosmos out of the platonic world of logically possibility. Hence PZ sums up Douthat's argument for God thus...

The straw he (Douthat) grasps at is that any god exists, and you can’t explain that, therefore God.

Yes, arguments for God which have form Evidence X  therefore God are subject to all the weaknesses of inductive reasoning. But when it comes to the question of meaning and purpose (if the cosmos has any) I prefer the ultimate abductive explanation: That is, the Christian God is the concept I begin with and then I see if that concept can be used to make the best anthropic sense of the cosmos; In this capacity "God" is the primary epistemic driver which both provides the confidence motivating rational investigation into a knowable ordered cosmos and best of all obviates cosmic absurdity in favour of meaning and purpose. (Gen 1:1, Hebrews 11:1-3, 6). 

However, at this noetic juncture there looks to be no logical obligation, at least one we able to grasp, which obliges either God or no God.  If there is no God then this may mean that we have to simply swallow as is a cosmos absent of meaning and purpose. In this connection consider the reaction of people like physicist Prof Brian Cox who proposes a story of a cosmos that will ultimately end in the black void of thermodynamic death, an absurd story clearly absent of all anthropic meaning & purpose, apart from that which we invent ourselves. That's not to say that I don't respect Cox's position; it's the position Westerners are left with once they discard the abductive explanation of Hebrews 11:1-3,6. 

***

Finally  PZ says this regarding the creation:

Except that we don't need and all powerful supernatural being to explain how the world works.

That sounds like the "Science explains everything, therefore no God", a line of argument with which I'm very familiar. See for example atheist theologian Don Cupitt who also easily caved in to this line of thought. But this thinking only works if one believes that science's descriptive completeness is capable of satiating our appetite for full explanation. The fly in the ointment of descriptive completeness is that it is only possible in a cosmos which has an a priori unexplained brute-fact high organisation. (The antithesis of randomness). Any attempt to upgrade science's descriptive answers (which in the final analysis only provide answers to the question "How?") to answers addressing the question "Why?" inevitably leads to an absurd algorithms-all-the-way down regress. Any deeper sense than providing a descriptive grasp on the cosmos leaves untouched those intuitively compelling questions which revolve around the question of meaning, purpose and the question "Why?"(*2). We have instinct that the cosmos has an a priori organization which means it yields to rational scientific inquiry. Some of us also have an instinct that the cosmos has ultimate meaning and purpose and just as we can search out cosmic organisation we can also seek meaning and purpose (Acts 17:26ff).


Footnotes 

* I would actually rate PZ Myers, by strictly human standards, as a worthy human being. He's a faithful family man and shows no sign of conceit or dishonesty. He gives every appearance of being genuine in his atheism and his case for it is strengthened by the clowning we get from Christian Trumpites and fundamentalists; but he's an insufferable grouch when it comes to criticising Christians of all brands. However, if I get to the Pearly gates before he pops his clogs I'll put a good word in for him. 


*2 One atheist who floats his attempt to address the ultimate "why" is Richard Carrier. He tries to arrive at a generalised logical full-stop beyond which no further endeavor about origins need proceed (apart from filling in details). But this attempt runs aground as a consequence of his misunderstandings surrounding the nature of probability and randomness. For him randomness is the ultimate "god-dynamic". 


*3 There are attempts (unsurprisingly) to imbue the cosmos with an eternal quality using theories such as infinitely recurring inflation. The impersonal, dispassionate, eternal cosmos then stands in the place of God as a kind of Gaia incubator of life, a disinterested creator without love or compassion. It is an attempt to put creation on the testable level of spring-extending and test tube precipitating science, but this line of thought still leaves us with the algorithms-all-the-way-down regress. 

Fred Hoyle is well known for his much earlier attempt the propose an eternal universe with his continuous creation model.   The irony is that in his later years his ideas started to get a mystical religious flavour in what to me looked like a pantheistic philosophy of intelligent design.  That God shaped hole was trying to fill itself!