I ought resist the urge, but what can I say? I’m weak
Via email, I get the link to this post from Vox Day, "the scientist and Christian Libertarian." I guess his real name is Theodore Beale, a writer of Christian fantasy (ahem…) novels in the tradition of C.S. Lewis, and apparently brimming with substantial doses of good old fashioned hellfire, brimstone and judgmental wrath for those who don’t toe the (Beale’s?) line. It’s reminiscent of the finest traditions of of the chortlingly vindictive Left Behind series, where people who profess shockingly stupid "revelations" here on Earth get to entertain their "You’ll be sorry" fantasies with regard to all the people demonstrably less delusional than they.
At least he’s smart enough to be making money on a following (literally) of stupids and morons (read some of the 90-odd comments to that post to see what I mean).
Anyway… we learn that ‘ol Vox too thinks pretty highly of his intellectual prowess.
But I know that I will obliterate Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris without
ever breaking a sweat should I ever get the chance, simply because all
three of them base their primary arguments against religion on
ludicrous assertions that are demonstrably and unequivocally false. I’d
even be happy to have PZ moderate any such debate, such is my
confidence in the empirical superiority of my case.
"ludicrous assertions" (like the onus of proof, perhaps?) he does not
say explicitly, but then appears to show his hand obliquely (reducing
the likelihood of direct challenge to his self-esteemed debating skills?).
This bit was particularly funny: I have been asking you to provide
a warrant for morality, given atheism, and you have mostly responded
with assertions that atheists can make what some people call moral
choices. Well, sure. But what I have been after is what rational
warrant they can give for calling one choice "moral" and another choice
"not moral." You finally appealed to "innate human solidarity"….
it’s the old steal the stolen concept trick, whereby a "philosopher"
familiar with only its most primitive roots (religion; missing the memo
altogether that the Greeks invented Philosophy philosophy)
steals the concept of morality for religion and then pretends those
using it outside the context of religion are engaging in a stolen concept fallacy. And he probably thought he thought of it. Probably wanted to keep it in his back pocket, waiting for Hitchens to clamor for that debate.
Sorry ‘ol Vox, but the "warrant" for morality is human nature: the reality that man must choose to act in order to secure the values he requires for survival and that such values can be objectively good for him qua human organism or objectively bad for him qua human organism (choose: volition; good & bad; get it?).
And besides all that, even if volition (free will) were an illusion (thus no possibility of morality), man believes himself to be a moral agent and wouldn’t necessarily require any delusions beyond that single one to simulate morality.
But I’m sure you were thinking of other "ludicrous assertions," weren’t you?