From Men Warn Me About Things. Women Help Me.

The thing that I’ve been reflecting on a lot recently is the pattern of interaction when I am talking to people about my projects after having reached out to them to learn more about their relevant experience or because they’ve reached out to me.

Put simply, men warn me about challenges. Women try to help me solve them.


In the Harvard Business Review researchers noted that funders tend to ask men about potential gains and women about potential losses:

According to the psychological theory of regulatory focus, investors adopted what’s called a promotion orientation when quizzing male entrepreneurs, which means they focused on hopes, achievements, advancement, and ideals. Conversely, when questioning female entrepreneurs they embraced a prevention orientation, which is concerned with safety, responsibility, security, and vigilance. We found that 67% of the questions posed to male entrepreneurs were promotion-oriented, while 66% of those posed to female entrepreneurs were prevention-oriented.


[Women] ask engaging questions and then often almost immediately and collaboratively brainstorm ideas with me. It’s not that we never discuss challenges, it’s that they don’t assume I’ve never thought about them and the conversation isn’t anchored on pitfalls but what can be done to overcome them.

“I know someone you should talk to.”

“This conference would be really useful to you.”

“There’s this thing that might be interesting for you to know about.”

And more than just tell me about it, women frequently start using their own social capital to help by offering to make introductions or they email or call someone on my behalf. They find me at conferences or events and walk me over to someone to make an introduction, they connect me with their networks. They offer advice and a second pair of eyes on things I’m sending out into the world. They offer ideas and follow through. It’s not been uncommon to hear from them weeks later checking in on how things are going or if I was able to successfully connect with someone they recommended.

There is no substitute for a knowledgeable, insightful woman with real authority.


Achilles VS Hector, David vs. Goliath

The ancient pagan view of war is a lot different than the Christian one: David, a sling, and five smooth stones against a giant.

Hector could have picked up something from the shepherd boy:

  • Just carry what you need.
  • Practice.
  • Accuracy trumps size and strength every day of the week… and twice on Sundays.
  • Forget the armour, if it doesn’t fit and won’t help.

In The Tortoise, the Hare, and the Knitter, Gary North notes two other factors:

  • The holy anointing… which skipped the older brothers, and was given on the youngest one. Size doesn’t matter: righteousness does.
  • David was actually too young to join the army: you had to be 20+ to be chosen to fight (Exodus 30:15).
  • David wasn’t just angry that some worthless pagans was defying the People of God: He also likes the money and the girl – King Saul’s daughter – that came with victory. “Doing well by doing good” is a God-approved way to live.

I would add:

Offense over defense, projectiles over swords, skill over strength.
Make the battlefield work for you: if it doesn’t pay to get close in, don’t get close in.

And, when you’re ready, aim at the champion of the enemy host.
“Strike the shepherd” works both ways.

“Who are these uncircumcised Philistines,
that they should defy the armies of the living God?”
— David (slightly modified)

That’s what I want to know, today!

The Survival Imperative

In a number of ways, I see Japan as perhaps a generation ahead of us, a pointer of what a rapidly aging society may look like.

This definitely looks to include a revival of nationalism, even among the senior politicians of the nation. It does not look like mistakes have been learned from (except, perhaps, don’t fight the US or China): there is an insistence that wartime atrocities never occurred, an attitude shared with other conservative nations like Russia, Turkey, and even Poland. All these nations inflict legal penalties on those who say otherwise. They all have or desire a state supernatural religion, too: yes, many conservative people in Japan want to reinstate the Imperial Cult.1

I don’t believe that any such revival will occur in the West: things are too far gone for that. There may be some kind of revival of conservative moralism, to keep the country together and a last-ditch attempt to raise birthrates and rebuild the tax base: but in Western Europe, that revival will be dominated by Islam. The rising new generation will eventually outvote and outmuscle the declining old secularists — nope, not a Western Christian in sight, their era in Europe died out in the 1960s & 70s — and living religions are what politicians listen to, not dead ones.

1 A return to their vomit, to the poison that nearly killed them. It doesn’t matter if it’s Germany, or Russia, or anyone else: don’t deify your political leader.

There’s Something Odd About Our Universe

This is something odd about the fabric of this universe.

We should investigate it, as God expects us to.

After all, this is a universe of predictable, exceptionless laws… but this phenomenon does not match what we expect. Why?

I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that there are some good applied technologies out there that we can definitely use, if we can really master what’s going on here.

Know the Laws – moral and physical, spiritual and material – and Prosper!

Define the Terms, Win the Argument

Quotes from Uncommon Descent, below:

KF, 28 (in reply to 21): >>Strawman soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the issues:

a lot of this reads like complaining because science isn’t coming up with observations and theories that you like or, more specifically, that are consonant with your religious presuppositions.

What part of:

Science seeks to accurately observe, describe, explain, predict and enable us to act effectively in our world. So truth-seeking is critical to science. Therefore we have to respect findings of related disciplines that support that work. Therefore, we must anchor on empirical observations and recognise that theories are inferences to the best current explanation and are inherently provisional. They remain [live] theories so long as it is credible that they may be substantially true and no further. They are inherently provisional; subject to empirical testing and the requirement of well-tested empirical reliability.

This holds for experimental sciences. It holds doubly for observational sciences and doubly again for scientific investigations of origins, where that deep past cannot itself be observed; we see traces and try to reconstruct and date past circumstances back to origins. All of this successively degrades strength of epistemic stance of relevant theories.

All of this, the a priori materialist activists and their enablers will not acknowledge and have repeatedly tried to turn into accusations of stealth Creationism, “religion” inserting itself into the temple of science and the like.

— is so hard to understand?

Or, do I need to point to the exchanges in Kansas c 2001 – 2007:

2001 radical re-Definition imposed by evolutionary materialism activists: “Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations of the world around us.”

2005 correction to that tendentious re-Definition: “Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”

2007 re-imposition after a dirty agit-prop operation and threats from NSTA and NAS to hold the children of the state hostage: “Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”

Of course, “natural explanations” is patently a code for naturalistic explanations. Imposing an ideological a priori as Lewontin indicated, is grand question-begging, indoctrination and disregard for duty to seek, present and stand by truth. The accurate description of reality.

Further, this was backed up by outright abuse of influence to hold families, children and their education hostage. Here is an excerpt from the NAS-NSTA letter that makes a very ugly downright threat that the complicit, enabling media did not expose:

. . . the members of the Kansas State Board of Education who produced Draft 2-d of the KSES have deleted text defining science as a search for natural explanations of observable phenomena, blurring the line between scientific and other ways of understanding. Emphasizing controversy in the theory of evolution — when in fact all modern theories of science are continually tested and verified — and distorting the definition of science are inconsistent with our Standards and a disservice to the students of Kansas. Regretfully, many of the statements made in the KSES related to the nature of science and evolution also violate the document’s mission and vision. Kansas students will not be well-prepared for the rigors of higher education or the demands of an increasingly complex and technologically-driven world if their science education is based on these standards. Instead, they will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world.

Utter moral and intellectual bankruptcy expressed in outright nihilistic, will to power might and manipulation make ‘truth,’ ‘right,’ ‘knowledge,’ ‘history,’ ‘education’ and more.

This was and remains utterly indefensible.

Just by contrast, let me clip some high quality college-level dictionaries from the period before this radical redefinition was imposed by domineering and disregard for truth:

science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990]

scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster’s 7th Collegiate, 1965]

The first battle for leadership in science is to restore sanity to the basic understanding of what science is and does.

It will take actual work to weed out and dump all the corruption woven right into today’s view of science.

We might as well start now…

…and NOT wait for the preachers and pastors and priests to do their jobs.

Science: Applied Dominionism, Surrender, and Resurgence

The below is from The problem of using “methodological” naturalism to define science

Sometimes the most obvious facts are the easiest to overlook. Here is one that ought to be stunningly obvious: science as an organized, sustained enterprise arose only once in the history of Earth. Where was that? Although other civilizations have contributed technical achievements or isolated innovations, the invention of science as a cumulative, rigorous, systematic, and ongoing investigation into the laws of nature occurred only in Europe; that is, in the civilization then known as Christendom. Science arose and flourished in a civilization that, at the time, was profoundly and nearly exclusively Christian in its mental outlook.

There are deep reasons for that, and they are inherent in the Judeo-Christian view of the world which, principally in its Christian manifestation, formed the European mind. As Stark observes, the Christian view depicted God as “a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being and the universe as his personal creation, thus having a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting human comprehension.” That was not true of belief systems elsewhere. A view that the universe is uncreated, has been around forever, and is just “what happens to be” does not suggest that it has fundamental principles that are rational and discoverable. Other belief systems have considered the natural world to be an insoluble mystery, conceived of it as a realm in which multiple, arbitrary gods are at work, or thought of it in animistic terms. None of these views will, or did, give rise to a deep faith that there is a lawful order imparted by a divine creator that can and should be discovered.

[–> Clue: why do we still talk about “Laws” of nature? Doesn’t such historically rooted language not suggest: a law-giver? (And indeed, that is precisely what Newton discussed at length in his General Scholium to his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.) Of course, that will not move the deeply indoctrinated and polarised, but it is a clear marker to those who are willing to think more open-mindedly.]

Recent scholarship in the history of science reveals that this commitment to rational, empirical investigation of God’s creation is not simply a product of the “scientific revolution” of the 16th and 17th centuries, but has profound roots going back at least to the High Middle Ages . . . .

Albertus Magnus — prodigious scholar, naturalist, teacher of Thomas Aquinas, and member of the Dominican order — affirmed in his De Mineralibus that the purpose of science is “not simply to accept the statements of others, that is, what is narrated by people, but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature for themselves.” Another 13th-century figure, Robert Grosseteste, who was chancellor of Oxford and Bishop of Lincoln, has been identified as “the first man ever to write down a complete set of steps for performing a scientific experiment,” according to Woods.

WHEN THE DISCOVERIES of science exploded in number and importance in the 1500s and 1600s, the connection with Christian belief was again profound. Many of the trailblazing scientists of that period when science came into full bloom were devout Christian believers, and declared that their work was inspired by a desire to explore God’s creation and discover its glories. Perhaps the greatest scientist in history, Sir Isaac Newton, was a fervent [–> though of course, unorthodox] Christian who wrote over a million words on theological subjects. Other giants of science and mathematics were similarly devout: Boyle, Descartes, Kepler, Leibniz, Pascal. To avoid relying on what might be isolated examples, Stark analyzed the religious views of the 52 leading scientists from the time of Copernicus until the end of the 17th century. Using a methodology that probably downplayed religious belief, he found that 32 were “devout”; 18 were at least “conventional” in their religious belief; and only two were “skeptics.” More than a quarter were themselves ecclesiastics: “priests, ministers, monks, canons, and the like.”

Down through the 19th century, many of the leading figures in science were thoroughgoing Christians. A partial list includes Babbage, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Maxwell, Mendel, and Thompson (Lord Kelvin). A survey of the most eminent British scientists near the end of the 19th century found that nearly all were members of the established church or affiliated with some other church.

In short, scientists who were committed Christians include men often considered to be fathers of the fields of astronomy, atomic theory, calculus, chemistry, computers, electricity, genetics, geology, mathematics, and physics. In the late 1990s, a survey found that about 40 percent of American scientists believe in a personal God and an afterlife — a percentage that is basically unchanged since the early 20th century. A listing of eminent 20th-century scientists who were religious believers would be far too voluminous to include here — so let’s not bring coals to Newcastle, but simply note that the list would be large indeed, including Nobel Prize winners.

Far from being inimical to science, then, the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only belief system that actually produced it. Scientists who (in Boyle’s words) viewed nature as “the immutable workmanship of the omniscient Architect” were the pathfinders who originated the scientific enterprise. The assertion that intelligent design is automatically “not science” because it may support the concept of a creator is a statement of materialist philosophy, not of any intrinsic requirement of science itself.

The redefinition of science in materialist terms — never wholly successful, but probably now the predominant view — required the confluence of several intellectual currents. The attack on religious belief in general, and Christianity in particular, has been underway for more than two centuries . . . . IT WAS THE AWE-INSPIRING SUCCESS of science itself, nurtured for centuries in a Christian belief system, that caused many to turn to it as the comprehensive source of explanation. With the mighty technology spawned by science in his hands, man could exalt himself, it seemed, and dispense with God. Although Darwin was by no means the sole cause of the apotheosis of materialist science, his theories gave it crucial support. It is perhaps not altogether a coincidence that the year 1882, in which Darwin died, found Nietzsche proclaiming that “God is dead…and we have killed him.”

The capture of science (in considerable measure) by materialist philosophy was aided by the hasty retreat of many theists. There are those who duck any conflict by declaring that science and religion occupy non-overlapping domains or, to use a current catchphrase, separate “magisteria.” One hears this dichotomy expressed in apothegms such as, “Science asks how; religion asks why.” In this view, science is the domain of hard facts and objective truth. Religion is the realm of subjective belief and faith. Science is publicly verifiable, and is the only kind of truth that can be allowed in the public square. Religion is private, unverifiable, and cannot be permitted to intrude into public affairs, including education. The two magisteria do not conflict, because they never come into contact with each other. To achieve this peace, all the theists have to do is interpret away many of the central beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

This retreat makes some theists happy, because they can avoid a fight that they feel ill-equipped to win, and can retire to a cozy warren of warm, fuzzy irrelevancy. It also makes materialists happy, because the field has been ceded to them. As ID advocate Phillip Johnson remarks acerbically:

Politically astute scientific naturalists feel no hostility toward those religious leaders who implicitly accept the key naturalistic doctrine that supernatural powers do not actually affect the course of nature. In fact, many scientific leaders disapprove of aggressive atheists like Richard Dawkins, who seem to be asking for trouble by picking fights with religious people who only want to surrender with dignity.

But the ID theorists do not go gentle into that good night. That’s what’s different about intelligent design. ID says that the best evidence we have shows that life is the product of a real intelligent agent, actually working in space and time, and that the designer’s hand can be detected, scientifically and mathematically, by what we know about the kinds of things that are produced only by intelligence. It is making scientific claims about the real world. Because it relies on objective fact and scientific reasoning, ID seeks admission to the public square. Rather than retreating to the gaseous realm of the subjective, it challenges the materialist conception of science on its own turf. It thus threatens materialism generally, with all that that entails for morality, law, culture — and even for what it means to be human.

THOSE WHO NOW OCCUPY the public square will fight to keep possession of it. The advocates of Darwinian materialism believe that they are in possession of The Truth, and are perfectly willing to invoke the power of the state to suppress competing views [–> which should be a big warning-sign that something has gone very wrong] . . . [“What’s the Big Deal About Intelligent Design?” By Dan Peterson, American Spectator, Published 12/22/2005; also cf his earlier popular level summary on ID here. (HT: Wayback Machine.)]

Christian leaders are a cowardly lot, aren’t they?

I mean the loathsome products of theological academic training, of course.

Other Christian academics are somewhat more craven than the general population, but not nearly so spineless as the pastors, priests, and clergymen that demand leadership of the church!

Worthless shepherds.

Fortunately, these men, their kneel-before-power theologies, and their comfortable and secure positions are on the way out.

The secular world long ago learned to utterly ignore them (when they don’t frankly laugh at them): it’s long past time for Christians to do so as well.

Purge the pulpits.

What is Theonomy?

From American Vision:

Once or twice a year or so, someone asks me about something a critic says about “Theonomy,” usually because they have encountered some straw man version of it. They are now confused and want clarification. “So and so has said this. . . .” “Have you seen this link? . . .” Such occasions are good for helping the honest inquirer and exposing the misinformed and the dishonest all at the same time.

In order to clear any confusion, here’s both a reiteration of a simple definition of Theonomy that no theonomist would disagree with, and the proof that this simple perspective has always been the same, and always will be.

The word “Theonomy” comes from two Greek words, theos (God) and nomos (law). Together, these words simply mean “God’s law.” Since every Christian has some view of the role of God’s standards for living, every Christian believes in “theonomy” to some degree. What has come to be called “Theonomy,” however, is a particular view of the role of God’s law that includes the application of aspects of Old Testament law to all of life including the social realm and civil government. Those who hold to this view are properly called “theonomists.” . . .

Theonomy, then, can be defined as follows: the biblical teaching that Mosaic Law contains perpetual moral standards for living, including some judicial laws, which remain obligatory for today.

“Theonomy” is a much broader subject than merely civil government and social theory, but this is where it is, in my opinion, most distinct from other positions. It is also where it has been most controversial, owing to the fact that most Christians in history have allowed the civil realm to be governed by pagan and humanistic ideas and laws. Biblical direction here has always been badly needed.

Basically: God demand justice and righteousness, privately and publicly. And it is in the Law that God handed to Moses — and modified/fulfilled by Jesus Christ — that defines these standards.

If you don’t care to be spat upon by your secularist betters, you had better uphold – and enforce – God’s standards. In private, and then in public.