The Convenience of Liberal Opinion
Posted on June 19, 2008
Reason, Liberalism, Politics
In America, liberals complain that civil liberties are being taken away in the name of security, using the oft cited Benjamin Franklin quote, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Those same liberals, consistent as they always are on the issues, complain that the American involvement in Iraq causes greater security problems than they had under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. The say the same generally of American presence in the Middle East.
So I guess for liberals, civil liberties are more important than security here in America, but elsewhere in the world, security is more important than civil liberties. How convenient that their very strong and very loud opinions would change so readily from one continental context to the next as long as it appears (on the surface) to suit their liberal, anti-American agendas.
Reason, Passion, and the Law
Posted on May 12, 2008
Reason, Religion, Science, Intelligent Design
This blog is based on the notion that reason, free from passion, is dead. In other words, reason has no longevity in the search for truth without the motivating force of passion. It’s passion that drives, reason that guides. Contrary to Aristotle’s assertion that the law is “reason free from passion,” reason and passion are the two halves of one great whole, equally yoked in the labor of discovering and obeying the law.
I do understand the intent of Aristotle’s assertion, however: simply that law is not prejudiced, or at least is not intended to be, and should not be subject to the erratic mood swings of unbridled passion. In that sense, he is correct, though he did not go far enough in his commitment to his own idea. Law is beyond passion, and by that same notion is also beyond reason. Law is truth, and truth is constant and universal and exists regardless of any human reasoning however passionate or dispassionate. Instead, our reasoning, driven by our passion for truth, should lead us to understand, accept and ultimately obey truth as it is–law–and not to try to shape law to fit our present passions. Given sufficient time and honest pursuit, with passion that burns ever hotter on a course constantly corrected by reason, we eventually learn to live in harmony with all truth, thereby becoming one with truth. In essence, we become truth. We become the law. The law does not bend to us, but rather we take on its characteristics and nature.
So where Aristotle claimed that law is “reason free from passion,” the truth is that law is reason eternally joined with passion in perfect balance and harmony.
Obviously such a state of existence does not occur in the span of mortality. Thankfully, there is a perfectly designed, perfectly reasonable path that arrives at just such a state.
Speaking of Ockham’s Razor…
Posted on May 5, 2008
Reason, Liberalism, Science, Darwinism, Intelligent Design
Which is the simpler explanation?
On one hand we have Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection. I need not get into specifics about this theory; it has been posited in schools world wide for decades, so I’ll assume that most are generally familiar with it. A summary of the theory will suffice for our purposes here.
Darwinism is built on the assumption that, due to apparent similarities among the species of Earth, the origins of species can be traced back to a single ancestor, specifically a single-celled organism that spontaneously sprung to life through some unknown process in some sort of indefinable “primordial soup.” Over the course of millions of years, and for no apparent reason given thus far by “science,” this single-celled organism evolved into increasingly more developed and complex organisms, eventually finding its way out of the soup and onto land, through amphibious and reptilian stages and finally into its primate stage. In simplistic terms, according to evolutionary theory, man is the highest form of primate, having evolved from apes.
The evidence to support this theory is weak at best. There is certainly scientific evidence of evolution over time within a given species; but, after all the years of evolutionary study, there is yet to be uncovered even a single shred of scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution across species, that is, evolution from one species into another.
The genesis of life is still unknown to evolutionary biologists, theorists and other scientists. Also unknown is any reason why our supposed single-celled ancestor would have needed to evolve at all. What was the impetus for evolution? As far as the pro-Darwinist scientific community can explain, our single-celled parent sparked to life with a serious java jones and began evolving in hopeful anticipation of getting to the nearest Starbuck’s a few short millions of years down the road.
Equally unknown is how one species evolves into another. With no evidence to examine, science doesn’t have any idea how one species knows what to evolve into or how to evolve into it. Development of tissues, organs, etc. is all based on instructions provided by DNA. So how a species knows to overcome its own DNA and instruct its own development is as yet unexplained.
All of this says nothing about the collection of conditions required to create, support and sustain life, whether or not it evolves as Darwin purports. The best explanation that science can come up with, so far, is randomness. (Don’t get me started on the impossibility of randomness, that’s for another post).
On the other hand we have God. Not God as defined by most religions–i.e. the unknowable, nebulous super-being whose relationship to man is the subject of endless speculation and debate–but God as He really is. A perfectly evolved being who was once as man is now.
Is this definition of God so hard to swallow? Look at it this way: Man has existed for generations spanning at least thousands of years. During that time–a relatively short span relative to the age of the universe–man has progressed in discovery and innovation in tremendous, even miraculous ways, and this with limited resources and brain function (which science still can’t explain, by the way). Now project man a hundred million years into the future. Is it not reasonable to assume that such progress would continue? Is it not reasonable to assume that man’s understanding of the laws of nature and universe would continue to purify, allowing him to overcome many of the limitations that we now face? Now suppose that progress continued eternally. Suppose that man’s intelligence and identity continued eternally, not only man’s, but a man’s, each human’s intelligence and identity. Suppose life continues in some form or another after the life that we understand and observe as mortal life. If each individual’s life continued for eternity, would it not be reasonable to assume that, given an endless amount of time to continue learning and progressing, man would achieve a state of existence so elevated that to humans such as us, such a being would appear in every way divine?
How is this difficult to accept? On the first hand we are expected to accept the notion of cross-species evolution. Why, then, would not the end (or at least the future) of that evolution for mankind be something akin to godhood?
Ockham’s Razor and Darwinism
Posted on May 4, 2008
Reason, Liberalism, Religion, Science, Darwinism, Intelligent Design
Ockham’s Razor is a generally accepted scientific principle that states, in essence, that all things being equal, the simplest answer tends to be right one. That scientists rely on this principle heavily during scientific research to make assumptions and assertions suggests that, by scientific estimation, simple is better than complex.
If, then, it is true that the simple answer is better or more reliable than the alternatives, why would science be more than happy to jump to the conclusion that man has evolved from an ultra simple single-celled organism into a highly complex species? If nature tends towards simplicity, why would natural selection and evolution move a species from super simple high efficiency to super complicated high maintenance?
Further, why would life have evolved into separate sexes, male and female, if certainly the simplest and most efficient method of reproduction is asexual? It could be fairly argued that the dynamics of human male-female interrelations are among the most complicated in nature, and yet that is how “nature” has designed the species, and according to Darwinists, per natural selection and evolution, this complicated way is superior to the alternatives; otherwise it would not have survived the generations of evolution, much less been the result of the generations of evolution.
So either science is completely wrong about the principle of Ockham’s Razor and they cling to it out of complete lack of anything else of substance from which to base observational conclusions; or science is completely wrong about evolution.
Don’t get me wrong: Science is not bad or inherently evil. But the science being pimped in the press and institutions of the world is obviously grossly lacking in power and substance.
Maybe it’s finally time to admit that science as the solitary pursuer and provider of truth is not, as they say, a perfect science.
I need to blog more…
Posted on April 29, 2008
Blogging
I guess.
Vote Romney…
Posted on January 24, 2008
Reason, Media, Politics
Even if for no other reason than this:
“I frankly can’t wait because the idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do is something I can’t imagine.”
(Quoted from the Jan. 25 GOP debate in Florida in response to Tim Russert’s question about how he would approach a campaign against the Clintons, should he win the nomination.)
Hilarious!
This just in…
Posted on August 27, 2007
Reason, Liberalism, Blogging, Politics
Apparently, anyone that disagrees with a liberal is a “troll.”
They’re such cowards.
Just some fun…
Posted on August 27, 2007
Reason, Liberalism, Media, Blogging, Politics
This one wasn’t particularly interesting and certainly doesn’t rise to the level of ridiculous like some of the other “discussions” I’ve had with bloggers–I can’t even say for sure if this guy is liberal, but he’s no fan of Mitt Romney for sure, which shows me that his brain doesn’t function very well. Compared to the rest of the field, who honestly holds a candle? Obama? Please…
Anyway, the only reason this is worth note is that it exposes a couple of patterns that are so common to academia, which for the large part means liberals. I’m counting this guy as “academia” since he went out of his way to mention his dissertation and grad school in his goofy video. He’ll consider such designation on his behalf a compliment, I’m sure.
First, notice how testy he gets when I expose the irony of his criticism. Granted, maybe he’s more testy that I exposed the “I hope this video makes me famous” intent of his video. Either way, he can’t just take it on the chin and laugh it off, even with the playful tone that I used in my opening comment. (Granted, again, tone is a hard thing to interpret in such informal writing, especially when it’s written as criticism as it certainly was.)
Next, notice how he completely abandons the real substantial part of my criticism of his criticism–the part that calls him out for trying to blame Mitt Romney or his campaign for a grammatical gaffe made by some independent support group of Romney’s. On that point he conveniently and suddenly falls mute, instead choosing to focus the full measure of his analytical prowess on whether or not its appropriate to terminate an interrogative phrase with a period, as validated by this or that style guide. Who cares? (Note the appropriate use of question mark.) The only reason I even brought up the punctuation at all was because I found it amusing how his self-congratulations was so vigorous as to make him overlook an obvious grammatical flaw of his own (style guides bah…only academics follow them anyway).
Finally, notice the dead giveaway of a liberal who has lost an argument (again, I can’t say for sure if this guy is a liberal, but he’s sure playing from their playbook). Rather than, “thanks for visiting,” or “thanks for the comment, we disagree,” or “you’re wrong, and I’ll prove it,” he chooses “go away! I don’t care about being corrected, or listening to anyone who doesn’t agree with me…I prefer the Kos-style liberal echo chamber to actual debate!”
So predictable.
Final Note: I submit that I may be WAY over-selling this entire thing. There’s probably not much here at all, really. Maybe I’m just tired of people taking pot shots or making criticisms without any foundation in reality or fact and I took it out on this poor wanna-be YouTube celebrity. So on his behalf, let me say, I hope the DailyKos was watching and that they are about to offer him a regular feature on their totally valid and rational site.
Ah, the intelligence of liberalism…
Posted on August 24, 2007
Reason, Liberalism, Politics
You’d be hard pressed to find a better such example than this.
UPDATE (6:56 PM): In a stunning development, the ping-back from this post to the idiots’ post linked above was (*shocked gasp*) removed by the “editors!” Unbelievable! Liberals manipulating reality and shutting down the opinions of others? Unheard of!
Keeping with tradition…
Posted on August 16, 2007
Reason, Liberalism, Media, Politics
I’ve decided to start this tradition, so I’d better keep to it.
I’ve had much fun debating with irrational liberals and blogging about those experience for all millions of you to see. But I’ve recently come across a few who, at least in one blog post or another (even if not on the whole) are able to throw off their ideological blinders and recognize falsehood where it exists.
Here is one such example. I haven’t really read much of the rest of this blog, so I’m really not sure of the overall tone (although from the comment thread I do get a sense that Ron harbors his share of anti-conservatism), but as far as this post goes, I have to give credit where it’s due.
Well done, Ron.
keep looking »