Vox Day on Galileo

After the publication of his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was brought before the Spanish Inquisition by Pope Urban VIII and faced with the choice of either recanting his "formally heretical" beliefs in heliocentrism, or enduring torture and death. Galileo chose the former (Giordano Bruno, a fellow Copernican, had recently been burnt alive for similar crimes of heresy).

300 years later, WorldNetDaily columnist Theodore Beale (a.k.a. Vox Day) wrote a column downplaying the incident, and claiming that the recent James Watson controversy was either comparable or worse.

But there can no longer be any doubt that scientism has become a dogmatic article of faith, and ironically, one that is even more narrow-minded and authoritarian than the medieval Catholic church. For centuries, the primary basis for the secularist belief that science and religion are inherently opposed has been Pope Urban VIII's "persecution" of Galileo for the crime of arguing that the Earth revolved around the sun; as Dinesh D'Souza noted in last week's interview, this myth has persisted primarily because it serves the interests of the anti-religious narrative that remains popular despite its fictional nature.

Ironically, Pope Urban VIII was correct in the end, as there is not an astronomer or physicist in the world today who would disagree with the material basis for the church's condemnation of Galileo's heretical notion: "The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd. "

The infamous pope was far more open-minded than the scientists currently attacking James Watson for his belief in human inequality. Not only did he grant Galileo the right to write a book on heliocentrism, but actually asked the father of modern physics to provide arguments for and against the matter, demonstrating a devotion to reason that was wholly lacking in the rush to lynch the father of the double-helix's sin against modern secular orthodoxy.

First off, why is the word "persecution" in scare quotes? I can hardly think of a situation that warrants the label of persecution more than this.

Second, even though the Sun is not an immovable center of the Universe, that was not the basis of Urban VIII's objection. His position was that the Earth was the absolute immovable center of the Universe. He believed this to be true based on several Bible verses (Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, 1 Chronicles 16:30), rather than on observational science. Furthermore, he categorized the alternate position as heresy, a crime warranting torture and death.

Third, Theodore Beale is way too generous with regard to Pope Urban VIII. According to Beale, "Not only did he grant Galileo the right to write a book on heliocentrism, but actually asked the father of modern physics to provide arguments for and against the matter." However, this is not an act of open-mindedness. Urban required that Galileo include arguments against heliocentrism, and prohibited Galileo from ever speaking in anything other than the hypothetical voice (hence the dialogue format of his book). Furthermore, when he thought Galileo had gone too far in his actual publication, he threatened the man with torture and death unless he recanted. In contrast, the people Beale labels as being less open-minded have not threatened Watson with torture or death, and have freely permitted him to express his views. The fact that many people disagree with him, whether justifiable or not, is in no way comparable to the Galileo affair.

Vox Day and Dinesh D'Souza

Dinesh D'Souza is out promoting his new book What's So Great About Christianity. As a result, we get to enjoy some really bad editorials and interviews. This is what Dinesh D'Souza had to say in a recent interview with Vox Day:

The first is a case that I try to make that Christianity is responsible for the core institutions and values that secular people, and even atheists, cherish. If you look at books by leading atheists and you make a list of the values that they care about, things like the right to individual defense, the notion of personal dignity, equality and respect for women, opposition to social hierarchy and slavery, compassion as a social value, the idea of self-government and representative government, and so forth, you'll see that many of these things came into the world because of Christianity.

Let's just examine really quickly what the Bible has to say about each of those "values that secular people, and even atheists, cherish."

(1) "the right to individual defense"

First off, this seems like a weird thing to include. I don't think that Christianity, or any philosophy, can claim to be the source of "respecting individual defense." It's really just something that's reflexive, and it's common in every society ever.

Nonetheless, the Bible has some counter-intuitive things to say on the subject:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."

[Matthew 5: 38-42]

(2) "the notion of personal dignity"

Again, is Dinesh claiming that Christianity is the source of "the notion of personal dignity"? This seems like another blatant case of over-reaching.

It's worth pointing out, however, that the Old Testament God all-too-frequently ordered his people to rape and kill innocent women and children. Here is one example:

Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.

See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold.

Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children.

[Isaiah 13:15-18]

(3) "equality and respect for women"

Is Dinesh really going to make the argument that Christianity is the source of equality and respect for women? Here are just two samples of what the Bible says about equality for women:

women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

[1 Corinthians 14:34-35]

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

[Ephesians 5:23-25]

(4) "opposition to social hierarchy and slavery"

Whoa, there. Really?

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

[Exodus 20:17]

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

[Exodus 21:20]

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

[1 Peter 2:18]

(5) "compassion as a social value"

Another case of some really amazing over-reaching. As if nobody thought of compassion as a social value before Christianity.

(6) "the idea of self-government and representative government"

You're kidding me, right? The idea undeniably pre-dates Christianity. This argument is simply a bad one.

It's one thing to say that some of these things were incorporated into Christianity somehow. It's quite another to claim (as Dinesh the exaggerator does), that Christianity is the source of all these wonderful things (and, as a consequence, that Atheists should be thanking Christians).

I'm glad that modern Christians and atheists (and lots of other people who don't fall into either of those categories) value these things today (sometimes in spite of what the Bible said 2000 years ago). But it really frustrates me when people like Dinesh D'Souza try to claim that their philosophy is the originator of all these values. It's a claim that's easily disproven, yet all-too-frequently made.

Vox Day on Evolution and Communism

Musician Theodore Beale (a.k.a. Vox Day) has a ridiculous column up at Worldnetdaily in which he attempts to argue that evolutionary theory inevitably leads to Communism, or is responsible for all the mass-murder under the Soviet Union, or something like that.

"I am content to demonstrate that Darwinism was, and is, a core element of Marxist ideology. "

First off, let's get something straight. Marx's Communist Manifesto was first published in 1848. Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859. The core of Communist economic theory was already there before Darwin came along, so it's hard (if not impossible) to argue that evolutionary theory was responsible for this.

The column continues with garbage like this:

"Devious evolutionists have been quick to exploit this general ignorance in an attempt to distance Darwin and his theory of evolution from the crimes of the communist killers of the previous century... these atheists and evolutionists frantically attempt to scrub and scrub away at the historical record, desperate to wash the blood of tens of millions off the hands of their stained ideologies."

Sure, guy. Perhaps you can explain how exactly the theory of evolution is responsible for "the blood of tens of millions."

Theodore tries to support his position by quoting Trotsky:

Pedants think the dialectic is an idle play of the mind. In reality it only reproduces the process of evolution, which lives and moves by way of contradictions.

– Leon Trotsky, introduction to "The History of the Russian Revolution, Volume Two"

Is this your best material? What Trotsky is saying here is that there is a parallel between "natural selection" on the one hand, and a method of discussion called "dialectics" on the other. Dialectics is defined as "The art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments." Sort of a "survival of the fittest" of ideas. It's a method we still use in our Democracies, and is far from being exclusively Communistic (let alone "responsible for the blood of tens of millions").

Let's see how else Theodore supports his argument:

"in a collection of his 1958 speeches published by the Red Guard entitled "Long Live Mao Zedong Thought", Mao praised 26 men he considered to have demonstrated a fearless intellectual spirit in advancing human knowledge. The only three westerners he saw fit to name were Marx, Lenin and Darwin."

When you look at the actual source, you see that Mao also mentions Confucious and the inventor of the sleeping pill (who was also a Westerner). Mao did not go through this list to catalogue those whose ideas he had drawn upon, but rather: "My purpose in citing so many examples is to show that the young people must surpass the old and the less educated can excel the more educated." So still, there is no real support for Theodore's claim that "Darwinism was, and is, a core element of Marxist ideology."

He continues:

"the direct link between Darwin and communism is less well understood"

Yet Theodore does not explain this link in his entire article. All he seems to be saying is that belief in Darwinian evolutionary theory contributed to the philosophical materialism of several Communist leaders (through the process of dialectics, which they certainly used). Nothing is offered to suggest that evolutionary theory itself contributed to the complex non-competitve economic ideologies of early Communists (which pre-dated Darwin), nor that it was essential to any of the totalitarian techniques used to implement those policies.

In fact, the scientific theory of evolution was explicitly appropriated by the diametrically opposed viewpoint. The self-proclaimed "Social Darwinsts" held an exactly opposite ideology, stressing unrestrained Capitalism whereby the strong survived (economically) and the weak perished. Theodore offers no similar material in his Darwin-Marxism argument. Just vague mentions of "materialism" and gratuitous jabs at atheism:

"The atheism of communist killers such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Choibalsan and dozens of other mass-murderous rulers is unquestionable. Explaining how their atheism was the causal factor of their lethal actions is a matter I shall address in detail at a later date."

At a later date, Theodore continues to state that:

"every single major Communist not only subscribed to Darwinist evolution but considered Darwin to be second only to Hegel as a pre-Marxist socialist figure."

This comment ignores the fact that Darwin was not a "pre-Marxist" at all, as well as that the fact that Stalin (the most murderous of all Communist leaders) did not subscribe to Darwinian evolution. Stalin was actually vehemently opposed to our modern evolutionary theory. He banned the teaching of it, and banned all research that even hinted at implicit support of the concept. Some were even executed for this reason. In its place, Stalin appointed the insane, anti-evolutionary Trofim Lysenko.

In the end, it appears that Theodore's argument boils down to something like this: (1) Darwin's evolutionary theory led to broader acceptance of philosophical materialism; (2) Communists also subscribed to materialism (through dialectics), and some cited evolutionary theory as buttressing that position; therefore, (3) evolutionary theory is responsible for all the crimes committed by Communists. It's a ridiculous argument, and deserves nothing but contempt.