John C. Wright's Blog, page 152

Attack Watch!!!!

I realize I am late to this party, but let the mockery of these deadheads continue.

Read more

Secularism Does Not Imply Moral Subjectivism

We have here today a guest editorial by atheist John C. Wright, writing as I would have written years ago, back when I was blind not a theist, but without the sarcasm and snobbery endemic to the atheist cause, or less of it.
A reader writes:

I have read with interest your discussion of the inability of a secular worldview to underpin an objective view of morality. The discussion prompted me to ask you two questions.
1. I was wondering what arguments you used to advocate an objective view of morality when you were an atheist?
2. Did the argument that you now put forth, (i.e. That an objective morality requires God) play any role in your conversion?

Both excellent questions, and ones which I would be delighted to address, and if I have the power, to answer.
The second question is the easier one, and the answer is negative. The kind of argument that says the secular worldview is insufficient to underpin an objective morality would have had no effect whatever on my mind at the time; even if (as I doubt) I could have been convinced of the proposition, all that would have convinced me was that objective morality was as unobtainable as, say, object rules for aesthetics.
Even had it convinced me that a belief in God had some useful philosophical or political side effect, a philosopher does not judge beliefs by their utility but by their truth. It may be useful to tell the men at the battle that the relief column is on its way, that they might fight the harder, or to tell all the men of the city that they were born like autochthons from the soil, that they might learn an amity which is not naturally in them: but a philosopher disdains such noble lies, preferring to know the truth, and believing himself stern enough in character to fight or to learn despite any opposition of cowardice or selfishness in his own nature, which he, as a philosopher, must tame in any case.
Had it convinced me that the theist world view was more coherent than the secular, again, that would not have been persuasive to me, since I would have preferred to know the truth rather than a theory, no matter how elegant, premised on a falsehood. To me, it would have been the same as arguing that the Santa Clause theory explains objective morality better than the Grinch theory. Even were that so, it would not make Santa real.
The first question asks what I once advocated to say that objective atheist morality were possible.
Before beginning, I needs must make a narrow distinction between those moral imperatives which are uniquely Christian and those which are common to mankind.
Read more

Mal Shot First!

You may have heard this pathetic story already:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/abandlc/2011/10/04/university-professor-censored-over-firefly-poster/

On September 12, 2011, Professor Miller posted on his office door an image of Nathan Fillion in Joss Whedon’s sci-fi series Firefly and a line from an episode: “You don’t know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you’ll be awake. You’ll be facing me. And you’ll be armed.” On September 16, UWS Chief of Police Lisa A. Walter notified Miller that she had removed the poster because it “refer[s] to killing.” After Miller replied, “respect my first amendment rights,” Walter wrote that “the poster can be interpreted as a threat.” Walter also threatened Miller with criminal charges: “If you choose to repost the article or something similar to it, it will be removed and you could face charges of disorderly conduct.”
In response to Walter’s censorship, Miller placed a new poster on his office door on the 16th. The poster read “Warning: Fascism” and mocked, “Fascism can cause blunt head trauma and/or violent death. Keep fascism away from children and pets.”

Walter escalated the absurdity. On September 20, she wrote that this poster, too, had been censored because it “depicts violence and mentions violence and death” and was expected to “be constituted as a threat.” She added that UWS’s “threat assessment team,” in consultation with the university general counsel’s office, had made the decision. College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Interim Dean Raymond Hayes then scheduled a meeting with Miller about “the concerns raised by the campus threat assessment team.”

The irony for me is wondering whether Joss Whedan flinches to see his work relegated to the wrong side of Political Correctness, or if he smiles.
There is considerable overlap between leftwingery and libertarianism, and certain famous folk (Robert Heinlein springs to mind) not only defy the White Privileged Capitalist Establishment (or whatever), but somehow end up ornery enough to defy the Glorious Big Brother of the People’s Party of Revolutionary Correct Thought.
My humble opinion is that sometimes the Muse pulls a fast one, and the writer ends up glorifying an idea which is in truth worthy of praise, not realizing or not caring that the worldview or cult or party that claims his loyalty would prefer to dispraise it.
Read more

Posting a link of a link

http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2011/10/sf-tidbits-for-for-10111/
The fine folks over at SfSignal post a link to Joshua Palmatier’s interview with L. Jagi Lamplighter.
She mentions the soccer-ball herding rabbit, which I thought was a secret!

Why do you write Science Fiction?

I write science fiction because I like science fiction.

You may ask: What do I like about science fiction?

Well… let me think …

I can best answer with an example rather than an explanation. Behold!

Read more

The Promissory Note of Physics

Materialists often make the logically unwarranted (not to mention presumptuous, paradoxical and preposterous) claim to the effect that the physical sciences can and will some day be able to quantify and weigh the qualitative and imponderable aspects of human consciousness, and that the mere happenstance that science has no means, tools, powers, methods or ability to do so is a temporary accident.
The physical sciences are not competent to make any statements at all about non-physical things at all, not even to make the rather modest statement that non-physical things exist or do not exist. When asked why he concludes otherwise, the materialist will say that science (or, rather SCIENCE!) has proven that non-physical things do not exist, or, if they exist, they can be reduced to physical things.
When asked for the name and date of the peer reviewed experiment or observation that affirms this theory, the materialist blinks in astonishment, or when asked for details on how to perform the experiment or observation for oneself which affirms the theory, the materialist becomes surprised and belligerent (well, more belligerent) and tells you that the scientific method does not rest on repeatable experiment or observation, but instead rest on the firm foundation of some opinions he picked up in casual conversation  and/or woolgathering somewhere he cannot quite recall, but perhaps it involved reading a book, or the first part of it anyway, by Isaac Asimov or Carl Sagan or perhaps an article on Wikipedia.
I am frequently awed by the logic, clarity, rigor, and apodictic and indubitable nature of this new method of scientific procedure, one unknown to any scientists. And by “awed” I mean the argument is awful. It is an argumentum ad populum without any people.
Read more

Wright's Writing Corner: On Endings

Today’s post discusses endings, why Casablanca is a classic, and how we' d rather not read a story that ended “An uncomfortable silence ensued.”:

http://arhyalon.livejournal.com/209525.html

Excerpt:

An ending is like a punch line. It is a thing that pulls
the story together in such a way as to make the experience satisfying.
Usually, an ending is the moment just after the victory when all is
concluded. (Unless you’re me, and you write two full chapters of
post-victory-missing-father-answers-questions stuff. But I don’t
recommend that approach! So, in this case, you might want to do as I
say, rather than as I do.) Normally, endings are more like the old
romance guidelines which said: end the story the very moment that the
couple gets together.

Basically, you write your story. You write your climax. You write what
happens next. Then go back and cut everything after whatever the final
sum-up moment of the climax was, ending at the very moment when the
story is complete.

Again.do as I say, not as I do. Got that? Okay.

Also, I was interviewed this week by intrepid agent extraordinaire
Michael Kabongo. It’s a more amusing interview than most, because he
asked amusing questions:

http://www.agentincite.com/?p=586

Euthyphro's Dilemma and the Paradox of Paternity

Part of an ongoing discussion. A reader with the alliterative name of Randall Randall writes:

“Even granting that God exists and created everything but
himself, who is eternal, it doesn’t follow that morality is objective,
merely that he has the power to enforce what he wants.

Mr Wright said: “Moral standards come from a moral authority,
that is, from a sovereign will which has the ability to make moral
choices and the authority to demand acquiescence thereto, whether the
power to enforce that command is present or not.”

But what gives *that* entity moral authority? There’s an implied infinite regress, here.

Unless you assume from the start that God is a moral authority, what could possibly convince you that he is?”

My comment: There are two questions here, and let us not mix them.
The first, which we might call the Objectivity Question, is whether
objective moral standards exist at all. The second, which we might call
‘Euthyphro’s Dilemma’ is whether God is a moral authority.

Euthyphro’s dilemma was posed by Socrates in the Platonic Dialog of
the same name, asking whether the gods will the good because it is good,
or whether whatever the gods will is good because the gods so will. If
the gods willed evil, would evil become good?

The Christian answer is always that ‘good’ and ‘God’ are two words
for one thing, and thus the distinction exists in speech only, not in
reality. It is like asking whether light is bright because brightness is
light or because lightness is bright? If light were darkness, would
brightness become dim? The question is meaningless.

So, yes indeed, unless you assume from the start that light is bright, it is hard to see why one should so conclude.

Read more

Interview with a Writer, wife of a Writer

http://www.agentincite.com/?p=586

Onyxhawke (or someone of the same name) over at Agent Incite website
has interviewed Mrs. Wright, who, in order to save our family from the
shame of cavorting with known science fiction people, writes under her
maiden name of L Jagi Lamplighter, answers questions, queries, and
interrogatories.

Where are you from?

I was born in Manhattan. I grew up in North Salem, NY, which is about an
hour from New York City. Every day, on my way to school, I passed
through Salem Center, which is where Professor X’s mansion is. I even
took lessons in the only school in Salem Center! When my father objected
to me reading comic books, I explained that X-Men was local news.

Nowadays, I am from Virginia, near Washington, DC. No superheroes
live near us, but the place is filled with Revolutionary and Civil War
ghosts. We met some at a local mansion at Christmas time. They looked so
real! My kids kept claiming they were people in costumes, but really!
Who would believe in something like that?

You may read the rest of her wit and wisdom here. http://www.agentincite.com/?p=586

You may also buy her books here:

http://www.amazon.com/L.-Jagi-Lamplighter/e/B0028OGMLM

Please by at least three dozen in hardback. They make great gifts!
Today is, after all, the feast day of saints Cosmas and Damian, patron
saints of pharmacists! Tomorrow is the feast day of Saint Barrog, who is
probably the patron saint of throwing Gandalf into a subterranean pit. 
Remember that Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas will be arriving
soon, as well as Boxing Day, Wrestling Day, Dirty In-fighting Day,
Walpurgisnacht and Gesundheit.

Whether Secularism Implies Moral Subjectivism

An ongoing debate:

Dennis Prager writes

The intellectual class and the Left still believe that
secularism is an unalloyed blessing. They are wrong. Secularism is
good for government. But it is terrible for society (though still
preferable to bad religion) and for the individual.

One key reason is what secularism does to moral standards. If moral
standards are not rooted in God, they do not objectively exist. Good
and evil are no more real than “yummy” and “yucky.” They are simply a
matter of personal preference. One of the foremost liberal
philosophers, Richard Rorty, an atheist, acknowledged that for the
secular liberal, “There is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be
cruel?’”

A reader named David Ellis writes

“One key reason is what secularism does to moral
standards. If moral standards are not rooted in God, they do not
objectively exist.”

I’ve yet to see a good argument for this claim.

I propose the following arguments:

Read more