Monthly Archives: August 2015

Taking Down the Thought Police

A useful handbook is available here. It’s about time that someone – especially men – finally decided to grow a spine and get some pushback started. Too bad it’s about 30 years late: but it’s only to be expected that the anti-Establishment warriors in question are broadly secular young men.

I can tell you one thing: if the world was to wait for the feminized and compromised churches to lead the fight… we’d still be waiting.

I find Trump’s fight to redeem his name and take down an ‘objective, unbiased’ opponent here to be useful. While I don’t support politicians in their quest for power, outsiders like Trump can be to some extent educational in learning how to fight an unprincipled, slanderous, and vicious Establishment.

When Christian laymen, weary of the oppression and loathsome nature of Our Hateful Masters, decide to reconstitute a free Christian society (over the objections of our seminary-broken clergy), they must make sure to enforce Biblical standards of law in all areas of life, including the issue of false witnesses.

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;

Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;

And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;

Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.

And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

— Deuteronomy 19:15-21


Science and Reason: In Desperate Need of Christians


Neither the Kingdom of God, nor the people of the world, are in need of defeatist, retreatist, Rapture-minded escapist Christians.

What the world – and, even more importantly, the Kingdom of God – is in need of are Christians who will stand and fight for the truth, regardless of the cost, or the pain of early defeats and setbacks.

And nowadays, it looks like the world also needs Christians to defend the very concept of reason and objective reality!

Example One

Popperian thinks he is oh-so-sophisticated. “Words are so ambiguous; I can’t possibly condemn the killers.” Meanwhile the slaughter of innocents continues unabated.

Damn your pseudo-sophisticated sophistry Popperian. It is counterproductive to dignify it by getting into the weeds and countering your logical fallacies point by point. Instead, like Dr. Johnson and his famous rock kicking demonstration, I refute your moral theorizing thusly:

Does your moral theory compel you unambiguously to condemn the practice of chopping little boys and girls up and selling the pieces like so much meat?

No? Then your moral theory is as worthless as a fresh steaming pile of dog feces.

Lesson: We need Christians to call evil by its right name. In public.

Example Two

From Aeon:

Curiosity about trivial things might have evolved. Not because it’s likely to be adaptive, but maybe as a necessary by-product of a drive to understand the world, which is itself useful.

But even if the truth is valuable in itself, that doesn’t mean it’s always better to know. There might still be situations where we should choose ignorance. Indeed, it’s important to distinguish here between intrinsic value and overriding value. Saying that truth has intrinsic value means that something being true is a reason in favour of believing it, and that it might sometimes be good to pursue the truth even when it’s not useful for anything else. It doesn’t mean that the truth is so valuable as to override other things we might value: like pleasure and beauty, for example. So even if truth is intrinsically valuable, we still have to weigh up costs and benefits.

“Intrinsically valuable” means we don’t have to weigh up its costs and benefits. It is the difference between one’s 7 year-old child and one’s 7 year-old computer.

Where does all this leave us? Beyond its practical value, many people feel intuitively that truth might be worth pursuing as an end in itself. But even if truth does have some intrinsic value, there will still be cases where it’s outweighed by other, greater, intrinsic values: I might still be better off avoiding the truth if it would cause me a great deal of pain, for example. This doesn’t mean that truth might not still be worth pursuing in the absence of practical benefits – learning about even obscure topics can be very rewarding for many people.

If a person does not want to know the true state of affairs, apart from practical benefits, there is no point in having a discussion about such matters.

Lesson: Intellectual cultures that place no innate value on truth don’t have long to live. Christians should be running to build an alternate intellectual system, complete with actual curriculums, lesson plans, source materials, Christian-written textbooks (and not Establishment-approved delusional blather), experienced and effective teachers, etc.

Example Three

It could not have come at a better time. In the past few weeks I have noticed an increase in plain old irrationality from our opponents. You catch them in outright falsehoods; they do not acknowledge it. They just spew out another comment. You catch them in a contradiction; again, they ignore it and act as if there was no contradiction and you did not catch them. You state a self-evident fact. They deny it.

Quite honestly, they have begun to wear me down. It turns out I am not alone. Kocher writes:

It is a fact of life that you cannot win an argument with someone who is not sane. Sane bystanders may come to agree with your presentation, but you have no way of convincing someone who is not sane of anything. . . suppose that I say that the red pen I happen to have in my hand at this moment is a red pen. Further suppose that someone else says it is not a red pen, but is instead a flower pot, or a suitcase or a TV set. As a practical matter, I am unable to refute the assertion that what I am holding in my hand is not a flower pot. That does not mean that I’m incorrect when I say that it is a red pen. Nor does it mean that I am intellectually weaker than the other person who is arguing that it is not a red pen. Nor does it mean that his assertion that it is not a red pen is correct.

It means that I have no stronger argument than the red pen being in my hand. There is no stronger argument possible than the simple fact of the red pen being in my hand. No stronger refutation of the other person’s arguments is possible. At some point there must be agreement on what constitutes basic reality.

What if there is no such agreement?

The resolution of differing assertions, if there is to be one, will not be on the basis of intellectual reasoning or investigation, but on the basis of resolving a severe mental disorder. . . . If there is intractable disinclination, no resolution is possible.

I say the Holocaust is objectively evil. Learned Hand says that the Holocaust is not objectively evil and that the only thing he can say about it is that he does not prefer Holocausts and that he subjectively believes his preference in that regard is superior to the contrary Nazi preference (by which he means that he personally prefers his preference over the Nazi preference).

Learned Hand is saying that the red pen in my hand is a flower pot. We have a fundamental disagreement about basic reality. His view is literally insane. But I cannot hope to convince him of his insanity any more than I could hope to convince him that the red pen in my hand is a red pen and not a flower pot.

I have no stronger argument that the Holocaust was objectively evil independently of anyone’s subjective preference than the self-evident fact that murdering 18 million innocent men, women and children is objectively evil. LH either accepts that or he does not. And if he does not he is insane or evil or both. And the most I can hope for is to convince the lurkers.

Lesson: It is not possible to change people who have decided on evil. But, it is possible to persuade the lurkers, the observers, and those of an open and interested mind.

Yes, even a rational mind.

I have long seen rationalists as simply another name for atheistic materialists, but it looks like dedicated, leading-edge atheists have decided to ditch the rationalism. Fair enough: Christians should move to retake the mantle of objective reason, in the name of the God who created objective reality, complete with objective, measurable laws, and concepts that can be falsified (and so proved to be false) or verified (and so proved to be true).

Example Four

In a recent post I castigated Zachriel for his support of the practice of chopping little boys and girls into pieces and selling the pieces like meat in the marketplace.  In response Popperian weighs in with this:


The problem, which Barry seem to have difficulty grasping, is that all words are ultimately undefined. As such it’s not possible to make a pure moral statement outside of a particular moral problem to solve.  All we can hope to achieve is to define words well enough so that we can all understand their usage in the context of a specific problem. Yet, Barry is demanding that Zachriel somehow do otherwise as if it were possible, in practice. It’s unclear how this is a reasonable or even rational request.

Seversky adds in a different post:

Words can mean whatever we want them to mean . . .

There you have it dear readers.  Words have no meaning, or conversely, they mean anything we want.  George Orwell had the number of such as Popperian and Seversky in 1984.  The rulers of the hyper-totalitarian government at the center of that book understood that mutilating language is a useful tool if one intends to mutilate people.  Do you remember the government’s three slogans?


“Hear! Hear!” say Popperian and Seversky.  Words have no meaning and we can pour any concept we like into any phrase.  Why can’t “peace” mean “war”?  No reason.  No reason at all.

Orwell was doubtless influenced by earlier versions of the linguistic nihilism Popperian and Seversky are pushing.  After all, when 1984 was published (1949) the camps over whose gates the famous phrase “Arbeit macht frei” was emblazoned had been closed for only four years.

With their comments Popperian and Seversky reveal their latent fascism.  They say there are no binding moral principles, and even if there were there are no meaningful words with which to express such principles.  But with no binding moral principles and the language to express those principles, justice itself is impossible, because justice rests on the twin pillars of language and logic.  If there is no justice, there is only power.  The strong prevail; the weak succumb.  And the unborn are the weakest of all.  Popperian and Seversky are in favor of continuing the utterly depraved and barbaric practices going on this very day at Planned Parenthood.

I attempt to call them to account for the boundless evil they advocate by asking:  “Shall we chop little boys and girls into pieces?”   And they respond with “What do you mean by “boy” and “girl” and “chop” and “pieces”?  Those words have no meaning.”

Popperian and Seversky are liars, and their lies are dangerous, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn knew all too well when he wrote:

Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.

Lesson: If you hate the Word of God, you end up hating language itself, and soon enough logical, clear though… and finally the very concept of truth.


The Creation does not need Christians hiding in a ghetto somewhere, praying for some Rapture escape from reality. The Creation needs Christians to obey the commandments of Christ, to expand the Kingdom of God in the here and now, and follow Jesus’ lead in the redemption of the world.

This redeemers need to be deeply rooted in God’s Law-Word, increasingly sanctified and strengthened, and and confident in Christ’s victory over the increasingly deluded, incompetent, discredited, delegitimized, disempowered, and utterly bankrupted ‘rulers of the world.’

Christians also need not only bravery and vision, but also capital and hard work to redeem (i.e. buy back) the world – ergo, the need for capitalism and the free market.

(As opposed to socialism, which is all about redistribution of stolen goods, from the people we don’t like, to the people we do like, at the point of a government gun.)

But at best, we only follow the example of Christ, who forged the way forward, with the example of purchasing with His own life the redemption of Creation and the salvation of those who are called by His Name.

Redemption is not only a matter of hard work, serving the customer (and profiting thereby), and teaching the nations, disciplining them to obey the commandments of God – established by His will, spelled out by Moses, and ratified by Christ. It also means the redemption of all of man’s thoughts, bringing all of our mind and dreams and logic and discoveries and reason and calculations (as well as our money and families and governments and schools and nations and businesses) under the domain and authority of Christ.

The alternatives – unreason, delusion, fantasy & lies, willful poverty, deserved humiliation, the second death, hell, the lake of fire – are to be shunned.

Where Ben Carson is Really Needed


Does anyone out there really think that another Black president – regardless of beliefs, ideology, or party – is going to actually improve the life of either the poorest Black folk, or Black Americans in general?


Well then, what can get results?


If there was one thing that could be done immediately, it would be to eliminate prison for non-violent drug offenses at the federal level.

Two things? Eliminate the minimum wage while you’re at it.

Three? Eliminate Federal subsidies to Black education. Those gang-run drug and violence emporiums called the public schools are the number one destroyer of Black futures, and federal subsidies to Black colleges make them nothing but lapdogs of the current Establishment, and it’s comprehensive hostility to large-scale Black achievement.

(Various selected tokens and tools – Republican and Democratic – are acceptable, since they aren’t going to rock the boat.)

I said it before, and I’ll say it again: Blacks would be far better off if they were simply teaching their kids to read from the KJV Bible. Not just in mastering truly majestic English speech and a rather high literacy level, but in morality and spiritual wisdom as well. The mother/child connection isn’t nothing to sneeze at, either!

Is there any chance of these things getting done? Not this side of the Great Default: that bus left with Ron Paul. Thinking that anyone else, Democratic or Republican, Black or White, is going to get it done is nothing but a pipe dream.

So, there is nothing that can be done that will immediately solve some of the serious problems that afflict Black America.


There is nothing that will be done – certainly not in the political sphere – that will have a major, rapid, positive impact on Black America. But if you turn away from the yammering of various politicians and extend your time horizons, there are quite a number of things that can be done to build up Black America in general.

The number one door that is open right now is to build and extend a high-quality Black Christian homeschooling program.

I believe that there is absolutely no chance of Democratic Black America getting together and setting up a program: they are far too committed to the public schools, and are utterly comfortable in locking up Blacks – especially Black boys – in invisible cages of ignorance and hopelessness. Just as they have been doing for the last four, five decades or so – with the vigorous and delighted support of their White Democratic counterparts.

“We who only want what’s best for you.”
Followed by a huge smile…

So, I turn to Republican Blacks, who – at least in their rhetoric – support Christianity, capitalism, and Western Civilization. This is for the good, as I have the deepest distrust of socialist Men of the People, have no interest in power-seeking lawlessness of secularism/atheism, and highly value certain concepts within Western Civilization, especially in regard to law, liberty, individualism, historical truth, and the ideas of progress and scientific investigation, grounded in a predictable universe of laws (slanted to favour humanity, and which can – and should – be understood by men).

I also like the idea of Black people generating their own wealth – the more, the better – instead of pleading for reparations, set-asides, and all the rest of it. Capitalism: it’s how you stand on your own two legs, with a straightened spine.

What Can be Done, and Should Be Done

Forget political blather for now. We’ll get to that eventually, but as Gary North says, “Politics fourth.” The self-disciplined individual, family (and businesses), and churches all come before politics. And even in the realm of politics, local, ward, and county politics come far before the cesspool of State and Federal politics.

Instead, get to the heart of the matter, and spend your most valuable time shaping the future: that is, Black girls and especially Black boys.

That means getting together successful, achieving Black men to spend the time and money to build top-tier programs, to teach young Black children – again, with a unapologetic focus on Black boys – to master literacy, numeracy, the foundations of science and business (including entrepreneurship), all grounded in a high view of Scripture (and the God that Scripture points to.)

If feminists whine enough, I’m more than happy to recommend an explicitly masculine homeschooling program, targeted solely to Black boys. Nothing good is going to happen in Black America – nothing – until Black boys are built up, to rise and become the powerful, knowledgeable, effective, wise, disciplined, and victorious men God expects them to be.

Because we already know how utterly incompetent and worthless the current public education system is, especially when it comes to Black boys – decade, after decade, after decade…

I’m done waiting for change.

Especially from our Democratic friends.

I love the pro-entrepreneurship angle of the Ron Paul Curriculum, but with the Ben Carson Curriculum, I’d expect a stronger focus on math, science, logic, and an outstanding biological and medical program.

What I want to hear is something like “Look at this! Twenty-five percent of all incoming medical professionals – from doctors to nurses to EMTs, black and white, male and female – are graduates of the Ben Carson homeschooling program!”

If you’re good enough, nobody is going to care about your sex or race or religion, only that you deliver top-shelf results, over and over and over again. THAT is what that goal of Christian education should be… instead of the fourth-rate, warmed-over drool we have today.

So, Ben Carson, after you’re done with politics, put your name and your heart into something that will have a real impact on the world… something that actually matters.

The Ron Paul Affiliate Program

I recommend starting this up for yourself, on your own webpage.

Sure, it’s a hands-up for a good cause. But more than this: this is a great way to learn how to advertise on the internet… and instead of grades, you get money. The better the results, the more money you get. What’s not to like?

(You may want to check out North’s Advertising department as well, to get the tools to better push your rankings… and your income.)

Pushing Forward

Pushing Forward

Elite Economic Incompetence

Current stock market troubles suggest that there will be a recession coming in the near future, within a year or so. I expect it to be a very tough one – but not the immediate end of the Keynesian system, nor of the central banks, nor of the fiat regime. That’s still a few decades away, even in my optimistic eyes.

(But see North’s The Great Brick Wall of China: Planning by Inflation, which suggests that at least Keynes will be discredited by the coming crumbling of China within the next decade. Reality pushes on, but it takes a while for the idols of the day to be ground to powder, one by one.)

No Cowards in Heaven… but the Righteous Should Multiply

With the end of the Establishment – preferably by delegitimization, bankruptcy, and decentralization, rather than costly, centralizing, and wasteful violence – comes the question, what should Christians do?

I am not speaking to Christian cowards, eager to submit to evil men who enjoy grinding their heels into their faces. Many Christians by their passivity empower the wicked, driven by to their safety-seeking, risk-denying, faithless behaviour, rooted by the fear of men rather than of God. These Christians must repent, before they can do anything else.

I am speaking to those Christians who wish to have all nations disciples of Christ, to have the Kingdom and Laws and Authority of Jesus Christ dominate and direct the world. They are a minority in the churches, but this group of men are the only men that actually matter in this life, as they are the only ones who are interested in obeying Christ’s command to reshape and redeem the world.

These believers, rooted in their faith in Christ, must start working now to ensure the expansion of the Kingdom – at a slow rate today, but at an ever-increasing rate. (Think logarithms – you know, ‘from a single cell’… or twelve men, in our case.) Of course, this means an absolute confidence in the victorious Christ – Christus Victor – in this life, as well as the next. “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in Earth, as it is in heaven.”

But it is wrong to just say “God will do it” and live our self-serving lives. Our lives must serve God and His kingdom, and this means investing in the future. For the vast majority of men, that means building up their families and homeschooling their children, teaching them to exalt God, grounded in a good education (especially in English, Math, and Entrepreneurship), loving God’s Law-Word, knowledgeable of the foundations of Western civilization (the good and the bad), and ready to reshape the world.

(Also: the more children, the greater the force that can be applied to exalt God. “Four is good, but ten is better.”)

Official Seminaries, Official Mouthpieces

It would be good to expand house-churches as well. The seminaries are worthless, but there are lots of good software out there, for those who wish to master Biblical Greek and Hebrew. A strong grip on Calvin’s Institutes and his commentary on Deuteronomy is also wise. I also have a fondness for Rushdoony’s works (especially his Institutes of the Christian Religion), as they are structured to have a high regard for God’s Law-Word. More study materials can be found at North’s Freebooks site.

To build the future, you need Biblical Blueprints (also available at the Freebooks site). This future must be planned out, financed, and built, as the secularist elite are simply incompetent at running a civilization, and the rest – Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism – are at various degrees of slavery, sterility, idolatry, oppression, ritualism, and escapism. None are capable of bringing humanity forward.


The decentralizing, enriching, and gatekeeper-smashing nature of technology must be understood by the Christians of the future.

Our Hateful Masters love a massive centralizing, and an unaccountable bureaucracy to create and enforce the right kind of laws, beyond popular votes or the reach of the common man.

Note especially their love of Supreme Courts, accountable only to themselves – but don’t miss the endless expansion of administrative law, and the natural Establishment loathing of the jury trial, the greatest safeguard of our liberty.

All this is paid for by fiat and debt (as Our Masters have no intention of actually ruling within their means… and The People who support them don’t care about the long run either (a la Keynes), so long as they get their government welfare/retirement/health care goodies. Let the fantasies roll, as long as the can is kicked, and kicked, and kicked again. “The problem can be dealt with after I’m dead and gone.”

Christians will be here, after the Establishment is dead and gone. After the Great Default. After the system goes bust. And since we’ll be here, we are the ones who will have to build a new civilization after the current mess of willful evil and drooling destructiveness is over.

Failure and collapse is not natural: they are the natural result of disobedience, of contempt for God and His rule. The natural goal of Christian societies is to deepen and expand their obedience – and teach other nations to do the same – and not to conquer, oppress, rob, and slaughter them, in the Imperialist style beloved by pagans, nationalists, and racialists, as well as Christian heresies such as Communism and Islam.

The guiding point for a better civilization is “God’s will, God’s Law, God’s Kingdom”. Secularists (and Muslims) love crushing centralized militaristic empires: Christians are to shun them, as being far more costly, lawless, and morally destructive than they’re worth. Secularist ideology (and the Islamic religion) love the idea of stolen wealth, by inflation or by conquest/enslavement: Christians are to understand that theft is evil, and shun it. We must work to build the Kingdom of God, with our own sweat and blood, time and thought.

Present Sacrifice for Long-term Victory

Rapture escapists have no interest in working to build the Kingdom of God – not only because of laziness and a love of cheap religion that cost them nothing, but also of a need to escape accountability for their inevitable failures and mistakes in building the kingdom. They have counted the cost of obeying God – and decided that it’s far too high. Better to live in comfort under the godless – even as the comforts continues to shrink, and the hostility of the godless continues to grow…

Biblical Christians, people who believe that Christ is Victorious in the Here and Now (as well as in the hereafter) should recognize that they will fail to reach their goals – but if they persist in obedience to God, turning away from their sins, their strength and skill will increase, and defeat will be replaced with victory.

All this takes time. Eleven of the twelve apostles (as well as Christ Himself) were killed in the service of the Kingdom of God. William Wilberforce, who laboured so hard to free the slaves, died even as the passage of the slavery abolition laws was in motion. Christians must expect to die with their boots on, and they must prepare successors and inheritors of their mantle and their task.

God Commands. We Must Obey.

There will be no Rapture escape from our duty to expand Christ’s kingdom, until justice and peace fills the world. When we die, God will judge us on how we personally obeyed His command to expand His rule. First in our lives, but also in our families, churches, businesses, and communities.

And not only this: He will demand to know how we actually worked to expand His kingdom, to obey His direct command to disciple the nations. He will weight the time we spent on this. He will see how much money we spent on this, compared to spending on our own selves. He will want to know if we even tithed as He commanded. (See North’s The Covenantal Tithe and Tithing and the Church for more.)

We will be held eternally accountable to God for our actions: and a substantial bit of the consequences will be felt in this life, as well – as a early reward (blessing) or a early warning (curse), as the case may be.

Read God’s word – in the Bible.

Listen to His word – in a church worthy of the name.

Watch how He moves – in your life.

Hear God, and obey His holy and perfect will.

(Instead of the powerful and wealthy men who despise God…and who prefer to gain your obedience in His stead, obedience that rightfully belongs to God alone.)

And gain the victory, for yourself, your people, and even all Creation, in this life and the next!

If Christians Studied Logic…

…they could do a lot better in ditching atheistic handwaving.

From Uncommon Descent’s Remedial Logic for Materialists:

Materialists have a lot of stock responses they use to distract themselves from the explanatory poverty of the “answers” their faith commitments require them to spew out in response to obvious objections.  Consider the materialist responses to my last post, Quashing Materialist Appeals to Magic (Again).

Briefly, I argued that unless materialists can provide some sort of an explanation of the process by which the physical electro-chemical properties of the brain result in the mental properties of the mind, then merely invoking “emergence” has exactly the same explanatory power as invoking “magic.”  I quoted atheists Thomas Nagel and Elizabeth Liddle, who concur.

Now to the materialist’s stock answer (courtesy of Popperian):  Barry, you have committed the Fallacy of Composition.  The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something must be true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.


I have not committed the fallacy of composition.  Instead, you [materialists – AP] have committed the fallacy of false analogy.  The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property.  The structure or form may be generalized like so:

  1. P and Q are similar in respect to properties a and b.
  2. P has been observed to have further property c.
  3. Therefore, Q probably has property c also.

A person commits the fallacy of false analogy when he makes a faulty inference from analogy.  And Popperian’s inference is faulty.  Let’s see why this is so.  Here is Popparian’s argument from analogy:

  1. Water and the brain are similar as to the following properties:

(a) Water molecules are made of parts; the brain is made of parts.

(b) The constituent parts of water molecules are organized in a particular way; the constituent parts of the brain are organized in a particular way.

  1. Water molecules have been observed to have a further property, namely the emergent property “wetness” resulting from the organization of its parts even though none of those parts exhibits that property.
  1. Therefore, the brain probably also has an emergent property, namely consciousness, resulting from the organization of its parts even though none of its parts exhibits that property.

An analogy is false if the similarities are not relevant to the conclusion.  In this case, the similarities are completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant to the conclusion.

We know why water is wet.  From Wikipedia:

[…snipped Wiki explanation: basically, oxygen atoms are very eletronegative, leading to hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding is amazingly important: see the video below for details.

One day, someday, there will be serious Christian scientists who will draw out all of the implications of the existence 1) light 2) water 3) information 4) time. That day is not today, though: we have a lot of homework to do first, grasping and understanding the nature of reality-as-it-exists before we can make disprovable predictions regarding it.

God demands that we understand the nature of the creation He has given to us, in order to better exercise dominion over it. It would be good if we got serious about obedience to His will.]

In summary, we know why water has the emergent property of wetness….


If we had reason to know that the parts of the brain were causally adequate to result in consciousness, then that analogy would be apt.  But we don’t.  In fact, just exactly the opposite is true.   We don’t have the first idea how, even in principle, the physical properties of the brain are causally adequate to account for the mental properties of the mind.

Therefore, the analogy to the wetness of water gets us exactly nowhere, because we simply have no reason (other than materialist metaphysical faith commitments) to believe that the wetness of the water is similar in relevant respects to the consciousness of the brain.


Not only has Popperian committed the fallacy of false analogy, but he also has committed the fallacy of “affirming the consequent.” This error takes the following form:

If P, then Q.


Therefore, P.

The reason this is false is because there may be other causes of P besides Q, as the following example demonstrates.

If it is raining the streets are wet.

The streets are wet.

Therefore it is raining.

Why is this reasoning invalid?  Because while it is certainly the case that if it is raining the streets will be wet; the converse is not also true.  The streets can be wet when there is not a cloud in the sky (as for example when a fire hydrant breaks).

Here is how Popperain affirms the consequent when he invokes emergence to account for consciousness:

If there are emergent properties, the whole has properties that cannot be reduced to the properties of its individual physical components.

The mind/brain system has properties that cannot be reduced to the properties of its individual physical components (i.e., consciousness).

Therefore, the mind/brain system exhibits emergent properties.

Why is this affirming the consequent?  Because there could be another reason besides emergence to account for consciousness, namely, the existence of an immaterial mind.

Popperian, the streets are wet.  That does not necessarily mean it is raining.  Write that down.

So what have we learned?

Atheistic pretensions of intellectual superiority can definitely be deflated, right before the eyes of the world. But to do so, Christians must actually put some elbow grease into understanding the issues; put in the hours (or weeks or years or decades) into mastering the subject; and grow the spine needed to face the hostility of the (idiotic, intensely self-serving, and increasingly bankrupt) Establishment.

If said Christians do their job right, they will have a massive-if-delayed impact and, about one to four generations later (i.e. after they have died), they will have a paragraph in the history books. But of course, like the prophets, they were not working to gain the favour of powerful men today, but to gain the approval of the God of Truth for eternity.

Sure, count the cost before challenging Our Lying Masters… but also, count the rewards of pleasing our true Lord and God, Jesus Christ.

For some of us, weakening the Establishment is its own reward.

But this is not a joy limited to a select few dedicated warriors. All Christian men can profit in training their sons for victory (in this life, and the next), by:

  1. getting and staying employed (or better yet, running their own profitable business)
  2. getting and staying married to a godly and good woman
  3. having children (preferably, one more than you think you can afford), and
  4. homeschooling the lot, grounding them in Biblical doctrine, morality, and history; English; Math; the structure of Western Civilization; and entrepreneurship (all provided by the Ron Paul curriculum, by the way)
  5. gaining their university degree at home (and save a ton of money).

THIS is how you fight and win the cultural war…

…as opposed to, say voting Republican. (Points and laughs.)

Multiverses and Fake Universes

The falsity of the multiverse, revealed:

Professor Paul Davies is no friend of Intelligent Design. Nevertheless, he puts forward a formidable argument against its best scientific alternative, the multiverse, in an interview with Robert Lawrence Kuhn, creator and host of “Closer To Truth,” and author of a recent article titled, Is our universe a fake? (, July 31, 2015). Kuhn summarizes Davies’ argument as follows:

“If you take seriously the theory of all possible universes, including all possible variations,” Davies said, “at least some of them must have intelligent civilizations with enough computing power to simulate entire fake worlds. Simulated universes are much cheaper to make than the real thing, and so the number of fake universes would proliferate and vastly outnumber the real ones. And assuming we’re just typical observers, then we’re overwhelmingly likely to find ourselves in a fake universe, not a real one.”

So far it’s the normal argument.

Then Davies makes his move. He claims that because the theoretical existence of multiple universes is based on the laws of physics in our universe, if this universe is simulated, then its laws of physics are also simulated, which would mean that this universe’s physics is a fake. Therefore, Davies reasoned, “We cannot use the argument that the physics in our universe leads to multiple universes, because it also leads to a fake universe with fake physics.” That undermines the whole argument that fundamental physics generates multiple universes, because the reasoning collapses in circularity.

Davies concluded, “While multiple universes seem almost inevitable given our understanding of the Big Bang, using them to explain all existence is a dangerous, slippery slope, leading to apparently absurd conclusions.”

Davies’ reductio ad absurdum is a devastating one: the multiverse undercuts the basis of physics itself. And Davies is not alone. Physicist Paul Steinhardt, who helped create the theory of inflation but later came to reject it, declared last September: “Our universe has a simple, natural structure. The multiverse idea is baroque, unnatural, untestable and, in the end, dangerous to science and society.” Steinhardt believes that the multiverse hypothesis leads science away from its task of providing a unique explanation for the properties of nature. Instead, it simply deems them to be random – which, for Steinhardt, feels like giving up on the scientific enterprise.

Yes, many of Our Intellectual Masters would rather destroy science itself, than face the fact of it’s intensely and massively organized and fine-tuned nature.

That bird ain’t going to fly: there’s just too much money, too much profit to be gained in assuming a well-organized and lawful universe. Not that’s going to stop Our Masters – who already demonstrated their love of impoverishing, theft-based socialism and fascism over the free economy.

But that just means that today’s Establishment will rot in place, to be increasingly ignored, powerless and deluded, by other, more intelligent men on the make. Living in a fantasy is a surefire way to powerless irrelevance: just ask the Rapture-bound, culturally defeatist/retreatist, antinomian Christians for more information.

Some other interesting thoughts from the article’s author:

If the transcendent God of traditional theism exists, and wishes to make Himself known to His creatures, then the last thing He’d want to do is give the intelligent life-forms within this universe the power to create other universes. For if these intelligent life-forms discovered that they had this power, then they would also realize that it was highly likely that they, in turn, were created by intelligent life-forms in another universe. This disturbing realization would make it much harder for them to infer the existence of a transcendent God. So my prediction would be that to prevent this from happening, a Transcendent Creator would make it impossible for intelligent life-forms to simulate human consciousness on a computer – and probably animal consciousness, as well. This is just what we find, as I reported in my article, Could the Internet ever be conscious? Definitely not before 2115, even if you’re a materialist. In that article, I calculated that the human brain is 31 orders of magnitude more complex than the entire Internet. And to those who would appeal to Moore’s law as a way for scientists of the future to catch up, I have some bad news: Moore himself declared in 2005 that his law would reach a “fundamental limit” in 10 or 20 years – i.e. by 2025 at the latest – and according to Intel’s former chief architect, Robert Colwell, Moore’s law will be dead by 2022, largely for economic reasons. Darwinist philosopher Daniel Dennett is also skeptical of the Internet ever becoming conscious. In a recent article by Slate journalist Dan Falk (September 20, 2012), he remarked:

“The connections in brains aren’t random; they are deeply organized to serve specific purposes,” Dennett says. “And human brains share further architectural features that distinguish them from, say, chimp brains, in spite of many deep similarities. What are the odds that a network, designed by processes serving entirely different purposes, would share enough of the architectural features to serve as any sort of conscious mind?” (Emphasis mine – VJT.)

Dennett also pointed out that while the Internet had a very high level of connectivity, the difference in architecture “makes it unlikely in the extreme that it would have any sort of consciousness.”

After addressing some other interesting issues, the author returns to the concept of God demonstrating His existence to inhabitants of this universe, by the very nature of this universe:

The way forward for ID?

For my part, I do think Davies is right about one thing. It is not enough to argue that the laws of the universe must have been designed by some Intelligence. For a hypothesis to be scientifically fruitful, it needs to make predictions. What the Intelligent Design movement needs is physicists who are not afraid to “get inside the mind of God,” and freely speculate about why the universe has the laws, fundamental principles and underlying mathematical structures that it does. Why was the universe designed this way, and not some other way? To say that it was designed to support intelligent life is all well and good, but we need to go further, and explain why alternative life-permitting designs for the cosmos would have been less suitable than the one that we find ourselves in. I have previously suggested that Intelligent Design could be rendered more fruitful if it incorporated the assumption that one of the Designer’s aims was to make His existence known to His intelligent creatures, and I also suggested above that the Designer wants to make His transcendence known to us. Finally, I would suggest that the cosmos is as beautiful in its underlying principles as it possibly can be, while at the same time remaining mathematically comprehensible to the human mind. Taken together, these three assumptions might narrow the range of life-permitting possible universes to the point where we can eventually conclude, on purely scientific grounds, that this universe is the best possible design that a Transcendent Creator could have selected, had He wished to make His existence known to human beings. That, I think, would be a fruitful line of inquiry.

Something for the scientifically-minded Christian to ponder.