If you haven’t read Fjordman’s masterful post from last night about the parallels between Geert Wilders and Galileo, I highly recommend it.
Ioshkafutz paid a visit to the comments, and this is an excerpt from what he had to say:
…though in my view it is one comparing oranges and apples, because Geert is accused of political heresy whereas the Galileo spat was about what was then considered settled science (which obviously had a religious component).
The Galileo affair happened when science was still at its infancy and needed to be defined, whereas Geert is being accused in a country famous (some would say even “notorious”) for its freedoms. Therefore, if anything Geert is the one saying “Eppur NON si muove”, in other words, he is wishing to maintain the once “settled” definition of freedom as opposed to expanding it to mean all sorts of groovier things such as “not offending” or “maintaining social harmony.”
What we see is one of the traditionally freest countries of Europe that has freely chosen to redefine freedom… and unlike the scientific method which is relatively easy to define, freedom is an endless sky or a bottomless pit.
There was nothing to disagree with in Ioshkafutz’s observations, but I felt compelled to point out the prominent role that “science” has indeed played in the campaign to destroy Geert Wilders:
Ah, but you overlook the nature and tactics of the opposition to Geert.- - - - - - - - -
Take a look at our recent post “Condemning Geert Wilders”, or the one from a couple of days ago called “Advised by the Toilet Duck”. The Dutch government officially commissioned a scientific study which determined scientifically that Geert Wilders and the PVV represent the “new radical right”.
By this means the court has obtained scientific justification for finding Geert guilty and sentencing him.
This is yet more evidence that the political and cultural leaders of our age have become as non-scientific as was the Church in 1600.
Science and religion have merged once again, but this time the religion in question is demonic. The reigning faith is the Church of the Left, which has its scriptures (Das Kapital and An Inconvenient Truth, for example), its orthodoxy (PC and Multiculturalism) which it enforces in exquisite detail against all reason and common sense, and now its Inquisition to root out heresy.
The parallels are uncanny, but the major positions have been reversed, for it is the new Universal Church of Satan which claims the keys to “science”, and which resists and punishes all heretics who disagree with its “scientific” findings.
The demonic nature of modern socialist/atheist orthodoxy makes it an obvious natural ally for the Hosts of Mohammed.
I realize that some of our more secular or atheist readers will be uncomfortable with discussions that employ the words “demonic” and “Satan”.
Yet there can be no doubt that Evil is abroad in the world in our time. When confronting the horrors visited upon millions of innocent people by the Salafists, one is left with a single conclusion: if this is not evil, then the word “evil” has no meaning.
Evil manifests itself not just in Islam, but also in the completely secular depredations of the politically correct Left, which are inflicted upon unwitting and unwilling victims every day throughout the supposedly enlightened West.
This PC brand of evil is of lesser scope than its Islamic cousin, but both evils draw deeply from the same well. By their fruits ye shall know them.
Seventy years ago, when J.R.R. Tolkien wrote his epic allegory of Good vs. Evil in The Lord of the Rings, he felt compelled to refer to Sauron instead of Satan, and to use hobbits instead of Christian knights to represent the forces of good, because he knew he addressed a secular audience that had turned against its Christian roots and would not hear a lesson taught in traditional terms.
But nearly a century later the lesson is still here, waiting to be learned. Evil does not disappear from the face of the earth simply because men have decided that nothing exists beyond the tangible and measurable of the here and now. In fact, their disbelief facilitates and accelerates the arrival of the greatest of evils.
Call it Sauron. Call it Beelzebub. Call it Allah. Call it Satan. Call it Legion.
Call it what you will. It walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck.
God help us all.
19 comments:
What is being arrayed against Wilder is not science. Let's be clear about this.
A discipline is not science if it does not adhere to the scientific method, which entails among other things that its results must be measureable by an objective scale.
mriggs--
That is the point. The scientism that tarts itself up as science isn't the real thing either, whether it be the global warming mongers, or the "scientific" study that the Dutch govt had done to prove whatever point they wanted to make about Mr. Wilders.
Galileo went up against a religious institution that had become evil and lacked the moral foundation to make its claims. Howver it had the power to enforce them. So they were de facto 'religious'.
The same holds true for much of 'scientific' 'research' today. It is neither science nor research but a politically correct exercise whose theses are already settled. It also has called into question, by the many charades in which it indulges, its own foundations.
Whenever one sees a scientific study purporting to reach a particular conclusion, the first thing a rational being does is attempt to find out who funded the study.
Go past the conclusion and follow the path to the money.
That holds particularly true in the case of the sanctimoniously scientific 'study' proving its case against Mr. Wilders.
Wilders is a touchstone revealing the fool's gold nature of Euro-P.C. lunacy.
The only think his persecutors reveal is their own worthlessness.
As the Jihad, in all its hydra-forms, marches onward across the Continent.
All religions are egual, but some religions are more equal than others its insidious mantra.
That the gullible EU-nuchs are swallowing like poisoned marzipan treats.
Climate science is science.
Sociopolitical classification is not.
Hooray! thank you for your words, your fortitude, and your prudence. Tolkein put these words in Gandalf's mouth: 'It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule." Naming evil is the first step in uprooting it. May God help us to do what is in us for the help of the years ahead.
Grandma --
Thank you. I often like to quote another exchange from Lord of the Rings:
Frodo says, "I wish it need not have happened in my time."
Gandalf responds, "So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
I often recall these words as a way of summoning the strength to get up and do what needs to be done.
(Bet you never thought I'd quote Garrison Keillor here!)
Thanks! for more JRRT and just enough GK ~ I do love those words as well - and you're right ~ they help summon that strength. Well said. Well done.
Dymphna: I sometimes think of it as the Second Death of Socrates. Science requires objectivity and a search for objective truth. The reason why we currently see so much pseudo-science about climate and many other things is that this search for objective truth has been severely weakened in our culture over successive generations. This is one of the most damaging results of Marxism in its many forms, from international Socialism to National Socialism. Marxists do not believe in the concept of Socratic Dialogue, just like Muslims, incidentally. Political Correctness is about banning any search for real truth. It constitutes a dagger at the throat of our traditionally truth-seeking culture.
There have been several big trials against freethinkers in Western history, unfortunately. Christians often focus on the fate of Jesus of Nazareth, which is understandable, but I am personally fascinated by that of Socrates. I would go as far as to say that the West is the Socratic civilization. The concept of “truth” was obviously different for Greek pagans such as Socrates or Aristotle than it is for modern Christians, but they did believe in the existence of objective truth. We have not only abandoned the search for truth but the very belief that truth exists at all.
Fjordman;
Climate science is NOT pseudo-science. It is as securely founded in the scientific method and observed fact as any other, and more so than many. It is unfortunate that someone as you are, obviously highly intelligent and well informed, should see fit to express himself on this subject in such an intellectually lazy manner, and with broad strokes - especially as to counter one finds oneself compelled to retort in equally broad strokes.
The instances reported of scientifically unacceptable practices in climate science are few and far between, in such a vast discipline. The only ones that spring to mind are the UN committee on climate change's claims on the Himalayan glaciers (and that concerns an editorial body, not a scientific one, as in actually performing research) and the emails scandal showing non-disclosure of data to outside parties. These examples are minor in severity, in one case because a non-scientific body is concerned, the other because it pertains to a relatively common practice which is not generally considered to detract from the validity of scientific research.
Pseudo-science is indeed a real problem, and I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post. However, not distinguishing between pseudo-science and real science can be just as damaging as practicing pseudo-science.
There's rather more to it than that, mriggs. I suggest you take a look through the recent archives of Watts Up With That for a run-down of just how much rubbish was included as "peer reviewed science" in IPCC AR4. here's a good place to start.
AGW, as the Bard said, is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It is a calumny of lies. Fabrication upon falsehood. It is not science.
Mriggs,
However, not distinguishing between pseudo-science and real science can be just as damaging as practicing pseudo-science.
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement of yours, and with nothing else that you wrote.
Fjordman,
The concept of “truth” was obviously different for Greek pagans such as Socrates or Aristotle than it is for modern Christians, but they did believe in the existence of objective truth.
This is of course impossible since objective truth requires the Christian God, and he hadn't been invented at that time. Just go check with the guys over at VFR, and they'll tell you.
You are trowing yourself head forward into occult paganism here :-) And as we know from VFR this can only lead to Nazism. According to VFR historical Europe was evil to the core, until it was saved by a Middle Eastern religion. It's like Fredrik Reinfeldt said "Ursvenskt var bara barbaritet". Lawrence Auster can shake hands with Fredrik Reinfeldt.
And once that has been cleared, the VFR crowd can focus on the "objective truth" of demonic possession. I would really love to hear Auster explain how he imagines that demonic possession is represented in the real world. I would also love to hear his explanation of how astrology works.
Is a man who seriously believes in demonic possession sane? Can his judgment at all be trusted? I mean, that's even worse than AGW.
Re Auster and astrology, I quote him: "I was deeply interested in astrology when I was in my twenties, living in Aspen, Colorado. I did it professionaly, drawing up people's birth charts and interpreting them. ... despite containing important truths worth knowing, astrology also contains much potential for untruth, which was why I gave it up." Astrology contains important truths worth knowing, indeed... What???
I guess the step from belief in demons to astrology is very small (and vice versa). But isn't it strange that this sort of Christian fundies, believing in all sorts of miracles and magic without restraints, often show such a dislike for Harry Potter? And at least Harry Potter isn't solemnly presented as "objective truth". It's of course extremely ironic how Christian fundies, such as Auster, present their completely whacked-out ideas, with such deadly seriousness. And those who disagree are evil, heretics, possessed, etc.
Well of course! If you disagree, you're obviously evil! And no doubt clinically insane too.
I know I'm double posting but this just occured to me. Go back 300 years and you find that astrology was as much a part of Christian practice as the sacrament. The mediaeval world was most definitely christian, but by the standards of christians today it would be considered irretrievably pagan and probably quite evil. I suppose that's what comes from living under Saturn and looking back at a world that lived under Jupiter.
Archonix said:
Well of course! If you disagree, you're obviously evil! And no doubt clinically insane too.
The diagnosis of clinical insanity is used by all sides to reify the Other, to make of him a Thing among other things.
The Sanity Squad diagnosed me, reducing my outrage at their temertiy to prove my fear. And one of them diagnosed El Ingles as projecting whatever in some regressive move to provide security for himeself.
The Soviets used psychiatric diagnoses to good effect in quelling their problem citizens. Maybe Wilders will get a diagnosis instead of sentence??
I think physics theories turn our everyday reality on its head so that laying out claims to what is 'real' becomes problematic.
I have a sense that what we lack is the language to describe what the physicist can elaborate in equations. Which is why physics so often sounds like poetry.
============
MRiggs: when climate "science" has evolved to the point that it can predict the weather with accuracy then perhaps its longer-term prognostications can be taken seriously. Right now, our understanding of the dynamics of chaos theory, which lies behind that particular part of physical reality, is simply too limited for more than wild guesses.
Global warming? Follow the money.
Thanks Graham,
The background that you give enlightens us. It means that the only people who object to Harry Potter are those who seriously believe in Harry Potterish things themselves. Everybody knows Harry Potter is fiction. But for these fundies it's scarily close to their core beliefs. They fight it as heretical, as if it were a competing branch within Christianity. So very close to their own "objective truth", which they hold on to so deadly seriously and, in notable cases, with such an arrogant attitude.
That's sort of catching the essence of VFR:
Harry Potter with an arrogant attitude.
If L. Auster had written half as well as J.K. Rowling I would have loved to read his fantasies about demons and his creative theories of how the world was created, etc. But as it is now, it's only tragic.
Greetings,
Evil Swede
Sounds to me like C.S. it itching for the LOST WISDOM.
I realize that some of our more secular or atheist readers will be uncomfortable with discussions that employ the words “demonic” and “Satan”.
Speaking as an agnostic, it doesn't bother me at all. Islam and Political Correctness both beggar polemic treatment. Taking the concepts “demonic” and “Satan” in proper perspective, either term has its appropriate use.
Rabbi Hillel once said that:
THE OPPOSITE OF THE HUMAN IS NOT THE ANIMAL
THE OPPOSITE OF THE HUMAN IS THE DEMONIC.
Likewise, there has been sufficient evil of such historical magnitude (e.g., Hitler, Stalin and Mao), that the personification of it in Satan is entirely understandable.
mriggs: What is being arrayed against Wilder is not science. Let's be clear about this.
A discipline is not science if it does not adhere to the scientific method, which entails among other things that its results must be measureable by an objective scale.
Disregarding the subsequent and predictable dust-up over climate science, it is important to echo that the condemnation of Geert Wilders has nothing in common with scientific method and is merely ulterior motive and hidden agenda gussied up in sufficiently empirical sounding nomenclature to be fobbed off as science the great unwashed.
In fact, were true Science employed in the analysis of Wilders’ claims, the statistical nature of Islam’s dismal historical track record would stand as relatively acceptable proof regarding his assertions.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing of all is how Wilders’ trial is being allowed to proceed uncontested by the International community for the intellectual farce and Politically Correct freak show that it clearly is. Most certainly there is a deafening Conspiracy of Silence™ shared between Multiculturalism and Islam. Rest assured that neither wants anyone poking about beneath their skirts as they conceal the filthiest of underpinnings.
Wilders is doing exactly that when he’s not engaged in pointing out the EU’s buck naked Emperor. This unpardonable exercise in honesty is being rewarded in the modern tradition of “no good deed goes unpunished”. The rest is all just window dressing and the crown jewel shining forth from this travesty of justice is their whoring of “science” to defend what can only be wholly biased rubbish of the very worst sort.
One point that people routinely missed is that Galileo (according to Rodney Stark in his wonderful book The Victory of Reason) and the Church were coming along just fine, as long as Galileo stuck to science and didn't meddle in the affairs of the Church.
Only when Galileo overstepped his authority and called upon reinterpretation of specific passages in the Bible to fit with his (yet not sufficiently proven) theories did the Church charge him with heresy.
I think the Church is being unfairly misrepresented in this case. Not the Dutch government, though.
@ “I realize that some of our more secular or atheist readers will be uncomfortable with discussions that employ the words “demonic” and “Satan”. —BB
Actually, I use those terms a lot in my Spanish writing, in the Jungian sense. Even famous writers use them. See for example Stefan Zweig’s The Struggle With the Daimon: three psychobiographical studies about Kleist, Hölderling and Nietzsche. Fascinating reading.
@ “A discipline is not science if it does not adhere to the scientific method” —mriggs
The litmus paper test to differentiate between science and pseudo-science is twofold: Is the central hypothesis of a science falsifiable? If yes, is it parsimonious compared with the rival hypothesis? This may not sound too complex at first sight. But I spent about ten years of reading the CSICOP journal and books, publishing in peer-reviewed psychic journals and even attending international conferences of skeptics to fully grasp it.
@ “Fjordman: Climate science is NOT pseudo-science. It is as securely founded in the scientific method and observed fact as any other, and more so than many. It is unfortunate that someone as you are...” —mriggs
I don’t claim having read much about climate science, save a textbook in the Open University. As to the hypothesis of humans causing global warming, the obvious questions are: (1) have climatologists who believe in the anthropogenic etiology of warming presented their central hypothesis in a way that, if wrong, can be refuted (falsifiability). And (2) is the anthropogenic hypothesis the most “simple”—parsimonious/Occam razor (cf. sun changes & climatic studies)?
Post a Comment