Theology is foundation of knowledge - by John C. Wright

Originally titled "The Ship of Theseus and the Demon of Descartes."

Found here. A very good article.
------------

This is a reprint of a column from a few years ago, but which bears repeating. Once the Church is restored to primacy, philosophy and related arts and sciences will likewise be revived, and the shameful neglect of generations undone. 

Philosophy traditionally was divided into seven major branches:

• Epistemology: the study of knowledge. What is truth?
• Logic: the study of formal reasoning. What follows truth? Wither leads it? What conclusion must be true if a given statement is true?
• Metaphysics: the study of first principles. What precedes truth? Whence come it? What premise must be true when a given statement is true?
• Ethics: the study of virtue. What ought men do to be true?
• Natural Philosophy: the study of the visible order of creation.
• Aesthetics: the study of beauty, both in creation and created by man.
• Theology: the study of the invisible order of creation.

Theology includes the study of revealed truth, which of necessity touches all these foregoing studies. Theology alone unifies all branches of philosophy, hence is rightly called their summit, culmination, and queen.

From these seven, several further branches spring:

• Epistemology includes Empiricism, Rationalism, Revelation, and perhaps more.
• Semantics, which asks how words are used, is a handmaiden to Logic, as statements must be put in signs or words. Geometry is logic applied to figures and ratios; Arithmetic is geometry expressed as magnitudes.
• Metaphysics, the study of first principles, includes Ontology, the study of first substances.
• Ethics includes Politics, which is the art of how to live in civilization, which necessarily includes Economics, the study of the trades in goods and services.
• Natural Philosophy includes the study of the inanimate world, Astronomy and Ballistics, Geography and Geology and Meteorology, and the various elements and energies of which they are composed, and includes also naturalism, which studies the growth and decay in due season of flora and fauna, their origins and destiny, and includes the study of man, his nature and his works.
• Aesthetics, ironically, also informs Rhetoric, which is the study of the figures of pleasant and persuasive public speaking, since persuasiveness is a type of beauty.

(...)

If-Jesus-returns-kill-Him-again.com - Darwin Bedford

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

This guy is a true believer. We're not going to respond, since the level of intellect at work here is self-evident. So just grab a cold one and sit down for a good laugh or two. Or, pity this poor soul who can barely put together a coherent thought.

--------------------------

The Ten Non-Commandments - Faceborg meme

Found on Faceborg:



Morality really bothers atheists and God-haters. They will do everything they can to avoid moral imperatives. Further, they are entirely convinced of their intellectual superiority but are unable to see past their own colossal irony. They bristle at the idea of absolute truth and having morality imposed upon them yet write their own list of do nots. The very same people who don't want religion telling them what's moral are perfectly fine authoritatively telling us what's moral.

Our question is this: In a world without objective morality, on what basis do these these folks offer us (non) commandments about anything? If truth is relative, then each person chooses for himself what to believe, and there can be no imperative. However, each of these "non-commandments" is a moral principle, offered as self-evident truth to be embraced and promulgated. Each assumes the moral stature to apply universally.

And of course, each statement is a commandment, not a non-commandment. They must have forgotten their premise.

So let's take the above statements one by one.

BE YOURSELF If you voted Republican - Alison Rennie, North Miami Beach

Found on Faceborg:

Transcription: BE YOURSELF If you voted Republican because you fear socialism, then live your truth. Do not accept Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Avoid public beaches, parks and libraries. Do not allow your children to attend tax-supported schools or to take advantage of food programs. Drive only on toll roads. Do not call 911 unless you intend to pay for services rendered. - Alison Rennie, North Miami Beach

Apparently this is what is considered a clever rebuttal of Republican worries about Socialism. Leftists and Democrats will simultaneously mock people by denying that things are socialist, then they claim that we have socialism already, and then they claim it's wonderful and we should embrace it.

Debunking Myth #9: “Inflation is caused by wage increases and too much government spending.” BUNK! - by ROBERT REICH

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

In his latest installment in service of The Narrative, Dr. Reich again tortures logic and reason in pursuit of his hatred of successful businesses. He thinks inflation is companies raising their prices. He thinks government is the fix and not the cause.

In fact, he never discusses the premise posed by the title. He just dismisses it and move son to accuse businesses of causing inflation.

-----------------

Debunking Myth #7: America is socialist - BUNK! - by ROBERT REICH

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------------

Dr. Reich doesn't explain what Socialism is, but yet he is able to make mention of many government programs that are Socialist in nature. But the purpose of the article is to claim that America is not Socialist.

Dr. Reich seems unable to put together a procession of ideas. In fact, he explains absolutely nothing.

This article is a logical nightmare. 

Letter to the editor: Several questions for a 'pro-Trump' conservative - by Robert Loftis

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

This is simply bad writing. Usually there is at least a superficial level of coherence in a typical leftist diatribe, but not today. The letter writer is simply copy and pasting slogans from leftist websites. And these slogans don't even make sense.

-------------------------

Republican senatorial candidate Tim Sheehy’s online ads (but not his on-air ads) describe him as a “pro-Trump conservative.” As such, I have a few questions for Mr. Sheehy. (The letter writer is apparently unacquainted with the idea of calling Sheehy's office and asking his questions.

But in actual fact, the letter writer is not interested in obtaining information. His questions are designed to further The Narrative, which is the daily talking points and slogans promulgated throughout the media landscape.

He uses the obvious and based rhetorical techniques of the Left, with the intent to reframe and obscure the issues he raised. But he's a clumsy propagandist. Most leftists are.)

Has Montana really solved its housing crisis? - Susan Shain High Country News

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

The Chronicle reprinted this agendized "news" article and also posted it on Faceborg. A exchange of comments, found at the bottom, ensued. Our commentary appears after.

-----------------------------

How to talk politics at Thanksgiving - Aaron Murphy, Team Busse email

This is the text from a recent email, designed to equip leftists on how to deal with conservative family members.

We will find that the author doesn't want them to actually talk with conservatives. He wants them to spew scripted talking points, diversions, and reframes so as to completely avoid answering questions or explaining positions. 

We are not surprised, but we are curious. The Left has been using these bumper sticker slogans for years if not decades. Do they really believe them? Do they think people are persuaded by brainless talking points? Or perhaps, leftists are just cynically repeating what they read on leftist websites?

We don't know, but  Mr. Busse comes off as evasive and slickly fake.

------------------------

Misinformation obscures standards guiding gender-affirming care for trans youth - by Helen Santoro KFF Health News

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

This is presented as a news article but it's an opinion piece, replete with biased phraseology, leftist talking points, and deceptive characterizations. What a dismal piece of journalism.

The actual Florida legislation is easily located on the internet. It only 10 pages long, and is succinct and specific. The alarmist reaction to it indicates an obsessive desire to mutilate children and monkey with potentially dangerous medicines and shows a callous disregard for a child's long-term health and well-being. 

All in the name of tolerance, diversity and inclusion.

Also, one of the principle claims of the author is the careful protocol involved in gender transition. Perhaps she might explain this Portland "doctor" chopping up pre-pubescent children.

---------------------

The anti-abortion myth haunting the pro-choice movement - By Andréa Becker and Dr. Daniel Grossman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

The title of the article promises to explain a certain myth that haunts these abortion advocates. We've read the article several times and are unable to identify this myth, repeatedly asserted as existing, yet never articulated. 

The authors are able purveyors of agitprop. They continually trumpet the dangers to women and doctors that the "born alive act" supposedly represents, but are unwilling or unable to identify a single danger. No myths. No medical misinformation. Nothing. Astonishing.

----------------------

Logical Fallacies - Churchwatch Central

 Found here. A helpful list, though a bit ironic. The website where this is found engages in some of the fallacies quite often. We shall make a post about that here. 

An in depth conversation with an atheist about meaning

FB friend B.R. posted this:

Yeah, I'm totally cool with this. In fact, when a declared atheist is elected to office, I hope he/she takes their oath over whatever book brings them the most inner peace and faith in humanity.

America's First Ever Hindu Congresswoman Will Take the Oath of Office Over the Bhagavad Gita jezebel.com

Me: I notice your two provisos for atheists, inner peace and faith in humanity. Why should they value them?

B.R.: Why shouldn't they? Belief in a determined God-figure is not required for inner peace and faith in humanity. I know many atheists who possess both provisos, and a few folks who believe in God but have neither.

Me: You miss my point. On what basis would you suggest that an atheist value the things you value? What other people possess is not relevant.

B.R.: Oh. Well. Then you can consider it wishful thinking. I pray that all human beings find inner peace, but obviously it's not a prerequisite for being an elected official. I would hope that elected officials have faith in humanity, but again it's not for me to say whether they do or not. Basically, I assume that Christians take the oath of office over the Bible because it represents their set of beliefs. Since atheists inherently have different beliefs, I hope they would choose a bound book that represents those beliefs. Inner peace and faith in humanity are just the ones I think are important. They can choose for themselves.

Me: Well said. You should have no expectation that they assent to the same values as you, or any values at all. But even to suggest that there is desirability for an atheist to select a symbol representative of their beliefs is in itself a moral imperative you are imposing. Further, to suggest that an atheist has any beliefs that should be explained or be adhered to is presumptuous. An atheist's values are of no interest or value to anyone other than the atheist.

D.G.: I disagree, Rich. A candidate's values are significant to me. I don't care what belief system those values arise from, and some values--e.g. prizing knowledge & accuracy--are often unrelated to belief systems that are traditionally considered religious or moral. But a candidate can't specify in advance how they'll respond to every possible policy issue, so their values are quite relevant to their performance in office.

B.R.: Thanks, I agree that it's foolish to expect them to have the same values. However, I'm completely satisfied to imposing an imperative that an elected official should take the oath of office by using a book that means something to them morally.

"Further, to suggest that an atheist has any beliefs that should be explained or be adhered to is presumptious." - Life has led me to understand that everyone has beliefs they adhere to, regardless of their religious commitment or lack thereof. I've never met someone without beliefs.

"An atheist's values are of no interest or value to anyone other than the atheist." - Why not? Why are they of any less value than a religious person's, especially in the scenario that they're an elected official?

Me: D.G., I quite agree, a candidate's values are significant to me as well. But we are talking specifically about atheists. An atheist's values, if any, are chosen based on whatever criteria he might deem important, and abandoned or modified in the same way. You or anyone else who might place expectations on an atheist to value something or perform or believe in a certain way is an imposition of your values upon the atheist. The atheist as well has no moral imperative to impose his on you. One might justifiably wonder how an atheist can govern without imposing values.

Me: B.R., it is true that everyone seems to have values. This is not being disputed. It is the nature of those values, how they are arrived at, and the obligations we might put on ourselves to act or not act on them that is the issue. If values are personal and individually determined, embraced, modified, and rejected, then they are only relevant for the individual.

The ad hominem fallacy is a sin - Edward Feser

Found here. A very good article.
----------------------

An argumentum ad hominem (or “argument to the man”) is the fallacy committed when, instead of addressing the merits of an argument someone presents you with, you attack the person himself – his motives, some purported character defect, or the like. This disreputable tactic has, of course, always been common in public controversies, but resort to the fallacy seems these days nearly to have eclipsed rational public discourse. A large segment of the country has made it a matter of policy never to engage its political opponents at the level of reason, but only ever to demonize them and shout them down. Even in the Church, recent years have seen the ad hominem routinely deployed against even the most respectful and scholarly critics of Pope Francis’s doctrinally problematic statements concerning divorce and remarriage, capital punishment, and other matters.

This is not a mere foible in those prone to it, or merely a regrettable aesthetic defect in a polity. It is sinful, sometimes gravely so.

What the ad hominem fallacy is (and is not)

To see why, it is important first to understand what an ad hominemfallacy is – and what it is not. As all logicians know, and as I explained at length in a post several years ago, merely calling someone a name, or calling attention to his character defects, is not an ad hominemfallacy and it is not necessarily morally objectionable. Sometimes a person merits a nasty description, and sometimes what is at issue is precisely his moral character. There is no ad hominem fallacy in judging someone to be dishonest, or feckless, or incompetent, or simply a scumbag, and then going on to say so. Those may just be the facts, and there is nothing necessarily wrong with calling attention to such facts.

An ad hominem fallacy is committed when what is at issue is not a person or his character, but rather the truth or falsity of something he said or the cogency of some argument he gave, and instead of addressing that, you attack him or his character. If I call Charles Manson a murderous, sadistic, and lying scumbag, I have not committed an ad hominem fallacy, but simply stated the facts. If Charles Manson gives me an argument purporting to show (for example) that Amoris Laetitia is hard to reconcile with Christ’s teaching on marriage or that immigration laws need to be enforced, and in response to that argument all I do is call him a murderous, sadistic, and lying scumbag, then I have committed an ad hominem fallacy.

Meta-bigotry - By Edward Feser

Found here. A very good article.

------------------------

Sophistry is the attempt to persuade someone of some proposition or policy by the use of fallacious arguments. What I have called meta-sophistry involves accusing others of fallacies or of sophistry in a manner that is itself fallacious or sophistical. The meta-sophist cynically deploys labels like “sophist” as a rhetorical device by which he might smear and discredit an opponent. Where the opponent’s arguments can easily be read in a way that involves no commission of fallacies, the meta-sophist will instead opt for a less charitable reading so as to facilitate the accusation that the opponent is a sophist. Because the meta-sophist poses precisely as a foe of sophistry and fallacious argument and as a friend of reason, his brand of sophistry is especially insidious. He is like the politician who makes the loud condemnation of sleazy politicians a useful cover for his own sleaziness. (As I have documented many times over the years – e.g.here, here, and here – “New Atheist” writers are paradigmatic meta-sophists.)

30 Common Fallacies Used Against Libertarians - by BlameThe1st

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. THIS IS GOOD STUFF.

------------------------------------------

I have all but given up on arguing against statists and anti-libertarians. It’s clear that they do not want an honest debate, especially since most of their arguments amount to strawman and ignorance.

If I have to hear someone ask “who will build the roads?” or tell me to “move to Somalia!” or call me a “Koch Brother shill!” for the umpteenth time, I would sooner bitch slap them senseless rather than waste my time replying to their ignorance. They’d only end up plugging their ears and screaming “la, la, la! I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!”

But for those with the patience of a saint to argue with this subspecies of human beings we sadly have to share the planet with, Max Borders from The Freeman compiled a list of 30 common fallacies used against libertarians and the rational responses to counter them.

I doubt statists would heed them. They love to plug their ears and scream like little children when people rationally demolish their arguments with logic and evidence. Most die-hard ideologues are that way!

Why History isn't Scientific (or, atheists are historically illiterate) - By Tim O'Neill

(This is a guest post I was invited to write for the atheist blog Deity Schmeity. Regular readers of Armarium Magnum or of my answers on Quora will recognise the general themes).


"History sucks."

In April last year Grundy, the usual writer of this blog, posted "History Isn't My Area", commenting on the release of Bart Ehrman's critique of the Jesus Myth hypothesis, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Unlike the majority of actual historians, many prominent atheists find Jesus Mythicism convincing and many of them are unhappy with the generally sceptical and highly renowned Ehrman for criticising this idea. Grundy, for his part, stated frankly "I honestly have little knowledge as to whether or not Jesus existed", though added "I tend to think he did". That said, he made it clear why the overwhelming consensus of historians and other relevant scholars that the Jesus Myth idea is junk was underwhelming for him:

"History sucks. Okay, that’s unfair, but it was never my subject. My confidence of the accuracy of historical events goes down exponentially with the paper trail. The idea that history is written by the victors highlights the biases of the past. Books are burned. Records fade. Who should I trust for an accurate portrayal of events two thousand years ago?"

Since history actually is my area, I responded by making some critical comments on this attitude and some points about how history , as an academic discipline, is studied. Grundy, unlike many so-called "rationalists" I've encountered over the years, was happy to listen, and he invited me to expand on my points in this guest post.


Atheists and Historical Illiteracy

I should begin, however, by pointing out that I am an atheist. I have been an atheist for my entire adult life, am a paid up member of several atheist and sceptical organisations and have a 21 year online record of posting to discussions as an unbeliever. I note this because I've found that when I begin to criticise my fellow atheists and their grasp of history or historiography, people tend to assume I must be some kind of theist apologist (which doesn't follow at all, but this happens all the time anyway).

After 30+ years of observing and taking part in debates about history with many of my fellow atheists I can safely claim that most atheists are historically illiterate. This is not particular to atheists: they tend to be about as historically illiterate as most people, since historical illiteracy is pretty much the norm. But it does mean that when most (not all) atheists comment about history or, worse, try to use history in debates about religion, they are usually doing so with a grasp of the subject that is stunted at about high school level.

This is hardly surprising, given that most people don't study history past high school. But it means their understanding of any given historical person, subject or event is (like that of most people), based on half-remembered school lessons, perhaps a TV documentary or two and popular culture: mainly novels and movies. Which is why most atheists (like most people) have a grasp of history which is, to be brutally frank, largely crap.

Worse, this also means that most atheists (again, like most people) have a grasp of how history is studied and the techniques of historical analysis and synthesis which is also stunted at high school level - i.e. virtually non-existent. With a few laudable exceptions, high school history teachers still tend to reduce history to facts and dates organised into themes or broad topics. How we can know what happened in the past, with what degree of certitude we can know it and the techniques used to arrive at these conclusions are rarely more than touched on at this level. This means that when the average atheist (yet again, like the average person generally) grasps that our knowledge of the past is not as cut and dried and clear as Mr Wilkins the history teacher gave us to understand, they tend to reject the whole thing as highly uncertain at best or subjective waffle at worst. Or, as Grundy put it, as "crap".

This rejection can be more pronounced in atheists, because many (not all) come to their atheism via a study of science. Science seems very certain compared to history. You can make hypotheses and test them in science. You can actually prove things. Scientific propositions are, by definition, falsifiable. Compared to science, history can seem like so much hand-waving, where anyone can pretty much argue anything they like.


History and Science

In fact, history is very much a rigorous academic discipline, with its own rules and methodology much like the hard sciences. This does not mean it is a science. It is sometimes referred to as one, especially in Europe, but this is only in the broader sense of the word; as in "a systematic way of ordering and analysing knowledge". But before looking at how the historical method works, it might be useful to look at how sciences differ from it.