The man of straw...

I wanted to test the trackback thingie, mainly. I might make some mistakes in replying too because I can't really remember all that was written to this fellow who doubts, celebrates doubt, and then has some straw men do a lil' doubtful dance.

On with the dance,
"More from mynym, who came back for only an hour today. . .This is from his comment to "Civility Reaffirmed":

I am glad to have activated your "I must save civilization, now!" sort of instinct.

Regular readers of my blog might have noticed that my Save Civilization "instinct" almost never goes away."

Well, yes, I knew that was his instinct. Maybe that's why I said I am glad to have activated it? Though it is too bad that the fellow does not seem to understand the link between civilization and language. Language is the encoding of information and recognizing it is based on Intelligent Design. Is he saving civilization with his attacks on ID/Deism or undermining it? Did American civilization come about based on the ideas of Deists trying to adhere to the laws of Nature's God and Scripturalists Christians doing the same, or not? Civilization is not based on his sort of willful doubt and skepticism. It may use a difficulty to further refine and define its language, yet it is not based on a sort of existential doubt about virtually everything.

Well, he writes a lot. And I have no problem with that, nor am I counting the hours he does so, although he does seem to snivel a bit about me taking the time to answer some of what he writes, which is odd.

"[....]
....thinks he "activated" that "instinct."And this one is from his latest on "WWJD?":

You will, inevitably, accept some belief into your thinking as long as you are a sentient being. That is the way of sentience and sentences.

Which is screaming for a little Jedi hand waving. Apparently mynym knows what is inevitable, or he is trying to play the part of a sage mentor, or something. But, as Bertrand Russell said, 'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.' "

That's the "whole problem"? I doubt it.

But he sure seems certain of himself. There are some fellows whose psychology traces back to certain dynamics which leads to their text consistently being passive agressive, like a sort of consistency of inconsistency. Is Russell assertive and certain in his own statements and sentences? It does not take a Jedi to see that he is, yet he cannot and will not see that himself. He does not see his own judgments. Instead, as is typical to the faith of the fatherless he will seek a lack of judgment and stand with those who judge lest they be judged.

E.g.
"Russell mocked Christians, according to his daughter, “for imagining that man is important in the vast scheme of the universe . . . yet thought man and his preservation the most important thing in the world.” “I believe myself,” she concluded, “that his whole life was a search for God, or, for those who prefer less personal terms, for absolute certainty.”

Russell’s only other parent figures were a string of nannies to whom he often grew very attached: when one of his beloved nannies left, eleven-year-old Bertrand was “inconsolable.” He soon discovered that “one way out of the sadness of these constantly changing companions was reading, retreating into a distant and increasingly abstract world.” The early deaths of his parents and grandfather, plus his frequent “lost” nannies, could easily be the source of his incredible desire for certainty: “I wanted certainty in the kind of way in which people want religious faith.” In addition, while Bertrand was growing up, he was very much a loner who had no really close friend.

Marked by his early years of lost loves and solitary living at home with tutors, Russell described himself as follows: “My most profound feelings have remained always solitary and have found in human things no companion ship. . . . The sea, the stars, the night wind in waste places, mean more to me than even the human beings I love best, and I am conscious that human affection is to me at bottom an attempt to escape from the vain search for God.”Although this passionate, lonely man sought certainty and clarity with monomaniacal fervor, he remained a man of contradictions: “Do we have free will? He said ‘no’ wri ing philosophy; but acted ‘yes’ and wrote ‘yes’ when his moral passions were engaged. Is there progress in the world? He might say ‘no’ and make fun of the sillier versions of it, but he acted ‘yes’ and based his life of hope on it.” "
(Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism
By Paul C. Vitz :27-28)


There is too much to reply to. (After all, I wouldn't want to spend two whole hours on it!)

But I want to give something to all the Leftist minds that immediately hide in some form of prissy Christianity. It seems that the religious Left and the atheistic Left are allies. They are those who avoid the metaphysical word that cuts like a two edged sword and focus instead on some image of the physical Jesus. For one thing, that is all they think he was. This was how humanism began and something that came to be preached by the religious left during the eugenics movement, a purely social gospel. E.g., "Sheldon's preacher asks his congregation to 'pledge themselves earnestly and honestly for an entire year not to do anything without first asking, 'What would Jesus do?' "
(Preaching Eugenics, by Christine Rosen :25)

It is possible to avoid the words of and Spirit of Jesus entirely by shifting to such a focus. To those who want to avoid a mental war (Especially whenever they are losing it.) by trying to use Scriptures to shift the focus to the physical I give you a kind, nice, patient, loving and downright gentle pat on the back.

There, there, little ones...pat, pat.


How nice!