Category: Books
Gore’s ‘assault on reason’
Written by Chad Phillips
Sunday, 01 July 2007 10:00
1 Comment

Evidently, Al Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason is an assault on reason. Frequent MTW contributor, Troglodad brought an interesting column to my attention from the Chicago Sun-Times which outlines recent scientific data refuting many of Gore's claims.

In addition, PETA has published a study which states that bovine flatulence is public enemy number one when it comes to Global Warming. Their antidote for this is simple. People need to stop eating meat. Since Gore is a meat eater, PETA asked Gore to put his money where his mouth is and refrain from eating meat. Gore's response? Pass the A1 sauce, please.

 
Conservation The Conservative Way
Written by Cal August
Wednesday, 20 June 2007 15:39
2 Comments

Considering myself a conservative, I have noted that those with an environmentalist agenda seem to be of the liberal persuasion. Conservatives in general seem to be a bit skeptical of the environmentalist agenda. So often it seems that this agenda conflicts with conservative principles, especially those dealing with the freedom of commerce.

As much as the environmentalist agenda can be one that seems to chafe conservatives (from the overprotective attempts to squash developments in areas where there is particular “vulnerable” wildlife, to tree-hugging antics) I do not agree with those conservatives who think all attempts to protect the environment should be thrown out the window to protect things like free trade.

There is a balance. Michael Medved, who has a gift for expressing conservatism, has pointed out that conservatives who like to preserve and protect the environment might better be termed “conservationists,” rather than “environmentalists.” Conservationists protect and watch out for the environment, and are good stewards of it. Environmentalists, on the other hand, often engage in wacko tactics to harm people and economies in order to protect some "rare" form of insect or animal life. Many would typically label these "endangered" species as vermin. With respect to environmentalists, that may sound a bit stereotypical, but I think in general the description is accurate.

As a conservative, I think “conservation” is a good thing. When I go to Yellowstone, I prefer that the environment there is maintained and protected, that hikers just don’t go gallivanting around and plugging up the magnificent steam vents with their careless disposal of trash. I also don’t believe that nuclear power industries should be given a blank check when it comes to disposing of nuclear waste, particularly when it comes to the neighborhood sewer. Moreover, government should come down heavily on anyone that pollutes the environment in such a way.

It would be a good thing for us to cut back on pollution in a major way. One way to accomplish this would be the serious pursuit of a car that could run exclusively on salt-water (as it is more abundant than fresh) and on energy gathered from the conservation of braking energy, solar power, and perhaps even wind-power principles. I also have an ulterior motive. I would like to see our nation no longer depending on the energy supplied by corrupt and tyrannical regimes, especially Middle-Eastern ones. Such breakthroughs would benefit the entire world, (and of course, help put some of these thugs in their places).

I also believe that homes powered by "greener" energy sources could be beneficial to our health and revolutionize our lives. In this way, scientific principles could benefit the world. A more green-friendly society could be beneficial economically, as well. We just need to be green in the right ways, not in ways which do more harm than good, or in ways which entirely hamstring our national security and the American economy. It is my sincere hope that we can move to a more responsible energy policy in our society, one which garners respect for the environment, but not at the expense of people. That means a common sense conservationist approach to the environment. –Cal Samuel August

 
Deconstructing Da Vinci (part 5)
Written by Chad Phillips
Tuesday, 13 June 2006 21:10
1 Comment

“Poor method”
Early on I asserted that Holy Blood, Holy Grail (HBHG) suffers from what I termed as “poor method.” This involves logical blunders. Once again, there are many examples of this in the book, but for our purposes, we’ll just examine one. On page 329 of HBHG the authors write the following:

“On the basis of our own research we, too, concluded that the Fourth
Gospel was the most reliable of books in the New Testament—even
though it, like the others, had been subjected to doctoring, editing,
expurgation, and revision. In our inquiry we had occasion to draw
upon all four gospels and much collateral material as well. But it
was in the Fourth Gospel that we found the most persuasive
evidence for our as yet tentative hypothesis.”

Did you catch the error? Prior to this admission, the authors spent 28 pages attempting to undermine the credibility of the gospels. They then go on to use the source material they claim is corrupted to argue for the veracity of their claims. This is circular reasoning and therefore without merit.

The authors go on to state on page 330 of HBHG:

“It was not our intention to discredit the gospels. We sought only to
locate certain fragments of possible or probable truth and extract
from the matrix of embroidery surrounding them…fragments that
might attest to a marriage between Jesus and a woman known as the
Magdalen. Such attestations would not be explicit. In order to find
them, we realized, we would be obliged to read between the lines,
fill in certain gaps…we would have to deal with omissions, with
innuendos, with references that were, at best, oblique.”

In other words, they would have to use their imaginations, get creative, be inventive… This hardly sounds like the work of solid scholarship.

Summary
My dilemma is that many people are accepting the Da Vinci Code claims (and by implication the research Brown’s book is based on) as authoritative. And so my approach was to investigate the Brown’s primary source material (HBHG).

The Question I heard over and over again was: “Why should I believe your sources and your experts are any more valid than Dan Brown’s?” Subsequently, the form my apologetic took was a critique of (HBHG).

I stated early on that the problem with the book as a literary form is not what it is, but what it pretends to be. It masquerades as a work of scholarly import. My contention is that it is not.

I then went on lay out some basic criteria for scholastic enquiry. I said that the work must be balanced, meaning it must invite testing of the explanation it is positing, and it must be logically consistent.

In both these areas (HBHG) fails miserably. The fact that the authors’ were committed to presuppositionalism (or bias) was born out in their choice of scholars and their spiritual orientation. They only chose to show one side of the story, and that story was consistent with their agnosticism.

Finally, the methods that the authors used in expositing “proof texts” for their claims were logically inconsistent—embracing among other things, isogesis and circular reasoning. As proof of this I cited examples from their book in which they systematically attempt to undermine the validity of NT documents. Next they reason from verses they have pulled out of context from those same documents to make their case. But they never give us any reason why only the portions they chose are worthy of belief. Thus, HBHG (and by extension the book which popularized its ideas, DVC) fails the scholastic litmus test, and so no confidence can be placed in the truth claims either work.