Evangelical Realism

Perhaps it’s merely a reflection of my personal taste in reading material, but I have to say I have rarely had the privilege of witnessing such a lurid display of paranoid hysteria as Chapter 4 of The Irrational Atheist. It starts out reasonably enough, pointing out that public opinion of atheists may have declined slightly since some of them started rocking the boat. But it quickly goes downhill from there. Vox has apparently convinced himself that the Enlightenment is some kind of secret conspiracy to undermine public morals and, I don’t know, pervert justice and destroy all that is good and right and holy, etc. etc.

On the other hand, hmmm… Enlightenment…enlighten…illuminate…ILLUMINATI!!!!1!1 (Cue the Home Alone kid in 3…2…1…)

Aaaaugh!!!

Read the rest of this entry »

This one’s too good to pass up. Check out the following ad, which showed up on atheism.about.com:

Apparently, not only is intelligence not allowed, but correct spelling and grammar are unwelcome as well.

Vox Day supports science and does not want to see it abolished. He tells us so himself, and we ought to take him at his word. Most of Chapter 3 of The Irrational Atheist, however, is spent building, defending, and reinforcing the claim that science has outlived its usefulness and now poses a palpable threat not just to harm mankind, but to wipe us out completely. It’s an amazingly thorough effort to develop effective anti-science ammunition, especially considering he claims there’s no war against science.

But is there more to the story than what he is telling us? Maybe so. After all, he not only continues to support science himself, but he also tells us that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is on very good terms with science, and ought to share at least some of the responsibility for bestowing (inflicting?) modern science upon the world. If science is truly as evil as his argument would make it seem, that puts Christianity in a paradoxical and morally suspect position of condoning and promoting an evil which may destroy us all. Instead of arguing whether we should get rid of religion OR science, wouldn’t the prudent course of action be to eliminate both?

Read the rest of this entry »