The nature of Truth is different from the nature of Falseness. Falseness can contain some elements of Truth, but Truth can contain no Falseness whatsoever. Falseness might even contain all the elements of Truth regarding a subject, but then add falseness to those elements, rendering the overall to be false. Being “mostly true” is not the same as being True.
In effect, Truth does not tolerate Falseness.
Intolerance is part of logic and decision making. The new cultural focus on total tolerance is an attempt to open the door to false thinking. Even the idea of “multiculturalism” is a flawed concept, because those multiculturalists who welcome strangers with strange beliefs do not wish to adopt either the beliefs or the lifestyles of those strangers. Do those who fawn over the local mosque’s Muslims really intend to read the Qu’ran in the original Arabic, abuse their own women, and pursue the global caliphate? Do the uber-tolerant tolerate those who disagree with them? Obviously not. (Think Second Amendment).
Intolerance is part of discernment, which is a part of logic and rational thought.
Which brings me to my own excessive tolerance. I have long tolerated the abuse of this blog by the irrational behaviors of a few hangers-on. In fact, I thought that by allowing them their say that their irrationality would be demonstrated for all to see. But I tolerated too much of their absolutely destructive nonsense, and tolerated far too much of their time-consumption with repetitive drivel and refusal to even learn the basic concepts of logic and the philosophy of science, much less to engage in logical conversation.
The tenor of the blog became reduced to dealing with these irrational individuals, who absolutely refused to take any responsibility for providing rational discourse, but came to take up time in non-constructive rejectionism and accusations.
No longer.
Anyone, including those individuals, can submit comments which provide actual disciplined logical positions or analysis of positions, and they will be posted if they can provide constructive conversation.
No comments which persist in irrational (non-deductive or non-empirical) cases will be allowed to be posted.
Certainly there should be miscellaneous discussions of given positions, and counter arguments, and even non-related material such as discussion of Atheist activities around the globe. For example, an Atheist who wishes to critique the case for a rational, sentient creator for a universe containing sentience and rational intellect is welcome to do so, providing that the rules of logic hold sway.
My days of excessive tolerance for purposeful destructive irrational behavior are over. The intolerance starts now.
10 comments:
Thank you for your recent post! I wonder if many people are incapable of logical thought, because it doesn't always feel good. Can we, as a society, emotionally handle the conclusions of logical thought? Many atheists I dialogue with, on Twitter, appear to start out with a hatred of theism, then work out from that. So disappointing.
No. There shouldn't be any discussion or whatever with atheists. They are wrong. So any discussion with them is pointless unless they change their minds. The whole blog should be deleted and replaced witha sign saying "ATHEISM IS WRONG". If atheists want to speak they must first accept that everything they say is wrong and they deserve to burn in hell forever. God is felt not logical. He says so Himself.
Giving them a chance to talk may lead some people astray.
Welcome back Stan. Couple of quotes for you.
Liberalism. I use this protean word specifically to refer to the form of society in which government's only real concern is the maintenance of order, plurality and tolerance. It can have no views on the ethical or transcendant nature of human life, but rather attempts to provide a stable, neutral arena in which competing convictions about such things can co-exist. But the logic of liberalism means that the liberal himself can have no such convictions. So the ultimate liberal society is one in which all such convictions have been eradicated.( welcome back totalitarianism lol ) I take this to be the logical form of the scientific society and I also take it to be unlivable, meaningless and inhuman. Liberalism is the precise correlative of the scientific view that we must remove ourselves from the world in order to understand it-in liberalism the equivalent concept is that we must remove ourselves from values in order to understand them.
Science is still triumphant and our liberal societies are still scientific. But we are clearly in a decadent phase and, I think, a terminal one. The decadence arises from the obvious failure of liberalism to transmit any value other than tolerance. It cannot defend itself and it cannot celebrate itself. Education is in permanent crisis because neither pupils or teachers have any faith in what is to be taught. Bloom's portrait of American students is memorable and powerful because it is familiar. Teenagers have been taught plurality and tolerance and, as a result, think it is a virtue not to make up their minds about anything. They become blank, deadened inhabitants of the flow because they conceive of the flow as virtuous. The 'road movie' is a sacred text. Occasionally discontented, they pick up Hawking or Bronowski in a dim aspiration towards metaphysical succour. But they find only propaganda, the dissemination of unease, the old scientific sleight of hand that makes effectiveness seem like truth.
There is a further important sign of the terminal decadence of scientific liberalism. Liberal thought had long sought a specifically liberal defnition of values and virtue. All have failed because the idea is clearly impossible-how could plurality and tolerance alone provide a basis for concepts like 'justice' or the 'good'.
Eddie,
One thing about logic that chokes the AtheoLeftist: One must accept truth rather than create a false image of being true for your desired outcome. They pursue only their own freedom from external rerstrictions, so actual truth is outside their zone of desirable outcomes.
As for hatred, their hatred seems to start with various churches, Catholicism for example. When it comes to basic philosophical theism, they seem to dither in confusion and refusal to engage. They refuse to produce deductive arguments because, like you say, they are indulging their hatred, not rational reasoning.
Storm,
Your radicalism doesn't help those who are searching for answers and are seriously considering Atheism. There are answers to Atheism that are couched in logic and evidence, and those are the approaches which are convincing to the searcher demographic. Giving Atheists the chance to demonstrate their anti-rational positions gives one the chance to produce analysis templates which others can use... up to a point, that is.
Your approach appears quite totalitarian, and it is not up to you to decide who burns in hell. Assuming that you are Christian, that should be obvious to you, but apparently it is not. Dictating what someone believes seems to be more associated with Islam, so perhaps you are Muslim. Even then, it is not up to you, since you are not God.
Fred,
Interesting quote; what is the source please?
Understanding the Present by Bryan Appleyard
Stan, what will you do with atheists when they won't back down after you try to reason with them?
Stan, I need a public reply to my last question so I know whether I should spend my time here or not.
Fred,
I am not going to be on this blog all day, every day like I was before. I will address major issues as they come up, but not likely every day. So there will be days when I do other things.
I have banished Atheists before, and I just did it again. And I intend to be more aggressive about maintaining an environment of demonstrably logical assertions and their demonstrably logical analysis. For example, the post I made today is open to criticism concerning its logic, structure, premises and conclusions. But not irrational attacks which address my character for writing such a thing.
Post a Comment