Dr. Horton Insults Reconstructionists

In a recent broadcast of the White Horse Inn, Dr. Michael Horton insults Christian Theonomist and Reconstructionists by comparing our position to that of radical Anabaptists and liberal theologians like John Milbank, an English theologian advocating Christian socialism.

The broadcast is called “The City of God” and can be heard by clicking here: http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_White_Horse_Inn/archives.asp?bcd=1/18/2009

I took the liberty of transcribing the relevent portion of the show. The entire broadcast is around 45 minutes long. My transcription begins at 32:22 in:

Dr. M. Horton: I gave a paper awhile back at a conference where John Milbank was present. John Milbank is a leading British theologian who’s had an enormous effect, especially on younger evangelical theologians; and argues very strongly for a recovery of Christendom. We had this exchange over what it means to live in a secular culture. The title of my paper was kind of provocative, designed to provoke a debate with Milbank “In Praise of the Secular.” 

You still doing that? (Laughing) 

Dr. M. Horton: Yeah, still doing that (laughing.) He responded to it all by calling me a heretic. It’s interesting when you’re called a heretic for siding with Augustine. He has more recently argued, I just heard him recently at a conference announce, that only Christians have the right to rule, and the Bible teaches Christian socialism and so we need a Christian socialist world order and Christians will run it. There was something called Christian Reconstructionism or Theonomy on the right that held views that are very similar to John Milbank’s views (very similar). Folks, this is actually closer to radical Anabaptism, not the pacifist kind of Anabaptism, but the radical Anabaptism of Thomas Munzer, John of Leyden, and others at the time of the Reformation. 

This is why Europe is secularized to this day. They don’t want to ever see anything like that again! 

Dr. M. Horton: Exactly. This is a quote from the Schleitheim Confession of 1527 of the Anabaptist. This could take you, either into (because its both Christ against culture; a radical Christ vs. Culture approach). It could take you directly into either of what we call today Christian Reconstructionism or Theonomy, (liberation theology either of the left or the right) OR into what is more commonly known as Anabaptism of today. The Mennonites, or even more, the Amish, separating from the world. But both from this same kind of theological conviction expressed in the Schleitheim Confession 1527: 

“We are agreed on separation. A separation shall be made from the evil and from the wickedness of which the Devil planted in the world. (Notice also the Devil planted in the world, not because of human rebellion.) In this manner, simply that we shall have no fellowship with the wicked and not run with them in the multitude of their abominations (assuming we don’t commit abominations, while the community there in Munster was communist, polygamist, and they were sharing…(and naked) AND naked! They shared not only each other’s money, but each other’s wives! This is the way it is, the confession says.) Since all who do not walk in the obedience of faith and have not united themselves with God, so that they wish to do all His will, are a great abomination to God and it is not possible for anything to grow or issue from them except abominable things.” 

Dr. M. Horton: And so, there you have the theological justification for a very different view of Christ’s relationship to culture. Not a distinction between the Kingdoms of Christ and the kingdoms of this world, but a real hostile opposition to the two kingdoms. When the Reformation came along, it was opposed both to what Calvin called the “contrived empire of Christendom” and to the radical “Christ vs. Culture” position of Anabaptism.

Gary DeMar and Joel McDurmon of American Vision have responded with two 15 minute vlogs.

See them by clicking here: http://www.americanvision.org/media/main/

They are under “Gary’s Radio Show” and are named: “Thoughts on Theonomy” and “Tertullian and Theonomy.”

Listening to Dr. Horton drone on about how ignorantly defenseless Christians should be in society makes a response by Mr. DeMar and Mr. Mcdurmon, very satisfying.

The Psychedelic Standoff

What do you tell the little girl who walks outside with her hands on her hips…stares up at the noon-day sky and declares: “SOMEONE!!! SOMEONE SHOW ME THE SUN!!!” when all the while it is staring her in the face?  – quote from the charming and ruggedly handsome Shotgun.

Mr. HRG replies with all the civility and cleverness of the modern God-hater:

What do you tell the hallucinating man who is totally puzzled that you cannot see the colorful spirals that are staring him into the face?

Hint: Inanimate devices can objectively detect the sun, but will show a blank where spirals are allegedly seen. This resolves the question about what has a higher chance to be real. I’ll leave it to the reader to determine whether the proposed evidence for some god is more analogous to the evidence for the sun or to the evidence for the spirals.

Shotgun replies…

Ahhh,

But, Mr. HRG, you forget the rules of your own illustration.

An allusion to one set of colorful hallucinations, demonstrating their authoritative statements about other hallucinations…will not settle the fact in the mind of the (quite) patient gentlemen standing to the side observing…(or perhaps he is just a colorful hallucination as well?)

I realize that you meant to counter my illustration about the little girl, but it turns out that you’ve provided quite the illustrive noose for yourself.

The only resolution to this (psychedelic) standoff is for us to enter into the hallucination and wreak total havoc among the mirage of reasons we find there.

Perhaps the world does not consist of total colorful illusions at all, but is really the result of a cosmically irrational accident…with complex life arising spontaneously from mud puddles after getting hit by magical lightening? Suppose such were the case, and in this (frankly absurd) world…it is possible for some complex arrangements of atoms to have fancies about colorful lights?

If such were the case (and thank God it’s only an absurd illustration that no one would ever take seriously) then the man viewing the colorful swirls must be persuaded to give up his basic conviction about the nature of the swirls by a demonstration of the self-refuting nature of his illusory reality.

An appeal to the magical lightening and other such reasoning from the puddle will not…upon final examination…convince the unfortunate individual cursed with colorful hallucinations.

It seems like you and I, Mr. HRG, are stuck in our own psychedelic standoff.

Will you dare step into my colorful illusion with your metaphorical wrecking ball of reason?

Should you decide to do so…remember, turn about is fair play…and I have quite the wrecking ball.

A Critique of Robert T. Pennock’s Attempt to Arbitrarily Define Supernaturalism Out of Science

In Robert Pennocks’s article “Supernaturalist Explanations and the Prospects for a Theistic Science” or “How do you know it was the Lettuce?” the attempt is made to arbitrarily define the supernatural out of a proper view of science.

(See his article here: https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_SupNatExpl.html )

Mr. Pennock is responding to a “Creationist” Phillip Johnson.

Pennock reconstructs Johnson’s argument like this:

Phillip Johnson argues that evolutionary theory rides on the metaphysical coat-tails of a scientific naturalism that denies by fiat any supernatural intervention, and that if it were not for this “dogmatic speculative philosophy” Creationism would be recognized as the better theory. He recommends that scientific naturalism be replaced by a theistic science that embraces the absolute truth of divine interventions in the world and incorporates supernatural explanations.

He responds by attempting to show that “Science” no more presupposes any sort of atheism than other common jobs like that of a plumber or doctor. He also wishes to distinguish between “methodological naturalism” and “metaphysical naturalism.” This distinction, it turns out, is a major foundation of his response.

It is misleading for Creationists to characterize science in general and to define evolution in particular and as being “godless.” Science is godless in the same way that plumbing is godless. Evolutionary biology is no more or less based on a “dogmatic philosophy” of naturalism than are medical science and farming. Why should Johnson find methodological naturalism so pernicious and threatening in the one context and not the others? Must we really be seriously “open-minded” about supernatural explanations generally? As Bertrand Russell said, it is good to keep an open mind, but not so open that our minds fall out! Surely it is unreasonable to complain of a “priesthood” of plumbers because they only consider naturalistic explanations of stopped drains and do not consider the “alternative hypothesis” that the origin of the backed-up toilet was the design of an intervening malicious spirit. Would it not be bizarre to reintroduce theistic explanations in the agricultural sciences and have agronomists tell farmers that their crop failure is simply part of God’s curse upon the land because of Adam’s disobedience, or suggest that they consider the possibility that the Lord is punishing them for some moral offense and that it may not be fertilizer they need but contrition and repentance?

He continues with this summary of what the proper role of Science should be:

Given the nature and limitations of scientific modes of investigation, the proper role of the scientist is to search for natural causes of such occurrences and not to beg off the investigation by attributing them to supernatural interventions, divine or otherwise. Clearly scientists are not being dogmatic or atheistic in proceeding under the methodological heuristic that such events have natural explanations.

He continues his argument by attempting a “reductio” of Johnson’s position by comparing it to the medical field. It would be silly to teach medical students how to perform exorcisms. According to Pennock however, such education would be necessarily required given the truth of Johnson’s position.

Pennock also presents a clever illustration about a lawyer who refuses to defend the civil rights of Jews. This particular lawyer does not happen to be a civil defense lawyer, and so Pennock argues, that it would be unfair of us to paint her as a bigot for not defending the civil rights of a Jew. This, he says, is what “Creationists” do when they accuse “Science” of being anti-God.

…science does not have a special rule just to keep out divine interventions, but rather a general rule that it does not handle any supernatural agents or powers.

He goes on to demonstrate that “Science” can have explanatory power by using an illustration about the sun. When asked “Why does the sun shine” two different meanings are possible. “Why” in the teleological sense is something for the poets (he says) while “why” in the genetic sense is the realm of science.

It is here that I can interject my criticism of Pennock.

I cannot find much to disagree with him about when it comes to the job of the plumber or doctor. These men do necessarily rely on their empirical sense perceptions in order to perform their daily tasks.

Is it true however, that in doing so, they are totally devoid of any position on God? I would assert rather, that their actions have very profound presuppositions concerning the nature of the universe and God.

When these implicit presuppositions are realized, then Pennock’s case falls apart. His distinctions become nothing more than arbitrary assertions about the nature of reality; and worse, to perform science at all, he must contradict his own idea of methodological naturalism.

To put it simply, there is no such thing as methodological naturalism in principal. It is only an asserted position by the likes of Pennock. His opponents were correct to refer to it as “methodological atheism.”

When fixing pipes it is vital to remember certain physical laws of nature. We could begin by asking why the pipe is leaking. Speaking of this in a teleological way would be unhelpful to the plumber.

Is it true then, that to describe the leaky pipe in a genetic way does not require any position regarding the nature of God?

Well…in order to fix the leak, the plumber must keep a few things in mind. He can’t forget to bring his wrench under the house with him. Nor should he leave his sealant. He knows he needs these things because they have worked to fix leaks in the past. He realizes that if he uses these tools just right, he can fix the leak.

This reliance on past information to inform him about the future did not come about due to any empirical observation on the part of the plumber. Rather, he simply believes that the future will be like the past. (To say that reality has always acted so…and thus is reliable, is to claim that you simply believe it for that reason. My argument here is that it is not a belief based on empirical data, but rather on conclusions drawn from empirical data. It is impossible to observe the future being like the past.)

Here we see the first flaw in the plumber’s so called “methodological naturalism.” He is already, necessarily, presupposing certain conclusions that are not based on empirical data.

He must also presuppose the validity of his sense experiences. (You can base your belief in the reliability of your sense experiences on certain experiences you’ve had in the past…but this begs the question that your past experiences are reliable.)

He must also presuppose that abstract universal concepts have some form of union with random particular objects else he’d never know how to approach a leaky pipe. One particular leak may require duct tape and a wrench…another may require an Indian rain dance or a stick of dynamite.

I’ve listed three non-empirically verifiable (in principal) presuppositions that the plumber must hold before approaching the leaky pipe.

According to Pennock, such things are beyond the realm of scientific discussion. He also says that “Science” “has a general rule that it doesn’t handle any supernatural agents or powers.”

However, as I’ve just shown, the plumber necessarily approaches his task with at least three presuppositions regarding the nature of reality. Reality must be uniform (in order for future events to be like the past); reality must be intelligible (in order for him to know anything about it via his sense experiences); and there must be some form of union between abstract thoughts and particular objects in reality (in order for him to reason about his sense experiences.)

Christian Philosopher Greg Bahnsen concludes:

The activity of science is never impartial; there is always a substructure of metaphysical or religiously motivated belief. If there were not, science would be futile, its feet firmly planted in mid-air. The naturalistic scientist claims to work with “the facts.” Yet even to speak of “facts” is to make some metaphysical declaration concerning the existence of factuality itself. The only “honest” metaphysics for the philosopher who rejects God’s revelation is an agnostic solipsism, an “I-don’t-know-and-it-can’t-be-known-ism.” Yet, if there is one metaphysics besides Christianity that the scientist abhors, it is solipsism. But, on what basis can he discredit this “logical” position? What source of information can refute it? – http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa001.htm

I would assert along with Dr. Bahnsen, that only the Christian God can provide for these preconditions.

Even if such a bold claim were rejected, it is still clear that Mr. Pennock was careless in assuming that a naturalistic procedure could exist without alluding to metaphysical or even spiritual issues.

Lion Tales!

My life began with the meeting of two rather different lions.  From what I’ve been able to piece together, it was a partnership between eccentric thoughtfulness and youthful passion; a beautiful arrangement befitting the luscious (yet metaphorically) green sea-side known to my sister and I as “Bluefield College of Evangelism.”  From this shore-side pavilion, the entire ocean could be seen with a clarity that only youth offers.

 

It was here, through rather normal (though profound) circumstances, that a particular set of events were put into motion leading ultimately to the birth of a pair of screaming lions into a world between Ocean and Jungle.

 

It wasn’t long before society compelled my parents to join their fellow beasts and plunge headfirst into the ocean.  They moved to Edenton North Carolina.  I can’t blame them for leaving the clarity of the shore, and to their credit they raised my sister and I as if we were still on the precipice looking down.

 

Perhaps when I become better known to the City of Man, it will be pointed out that their main failing as parents was teaching me of a Jungle in the first place.  Credulity demands that such childish notions be put aside in our contemporary society.  We are all, (after all,) drifting along in the same ocean.  We beasts; we mammals; have no time to give credence to this thought of “land” or “jungles” where once the lion ruled.  We dare not entertain such notions lest the Sharks and Dolphins grow weary of our bloviating and decide to rend us in two.

 

We will swim along, content with our lots.  Or so they say…

 

There is, (according to the old stories) a bright light that shines over the Jungle, and I believe, (nay…KNOW) He reigns sovereign over the Ocean as well.  When reflecting on my life I realize that he controlled the swells that have brought me within sight of land.

 

While congregating with the other young mammals in what they call 9^th grade, I found myself unusually attracted to the ocean’s library.  In this foreign place I felt connected to my parents and the teachings they delivered to my sister and I.  While stumbling through the various shelves, I found a book that changed my life (the first of many) called: “1984” by George Orwell.

 

During that time, a rather large lion named Bill Clinton had defeated Bob Dole in an election and those of us who dreamed of land were greatly distressed.  Clinton had made a pack with the Sharks you see.  Here was a novel (I assumed) that would finally glamorize the downfall and overthrow of the ocean and show, at least through story, a return of us all to the Jungle.

 

I was greatly disappointed and the closing chapters describing the torture scenes made me sick to my stomach.  I tried in vain to send determination and anger through the pages into the heart of Winston, but to no avail.  This novel so moved me that I became determined to overcome this ocean and find a jungle if it even existed.

 

The throngs of swimming mammals assured me that it did not.  I was assured, even by those in the church that such was a fable; a myth worthy only of being discussed formally in sermons on Sunday (if then.)

 

I was lost.  I desperately wanted to find a Jungle, but I didn’t know what it was, or what it looked like, or if it even existed.  I soon discovered the banjo and began pouring my frustration into it, refining my creative side in the process.  I had no idea which direction the Jungle lay and no one I asked knew. My parents provided brief hints with their stories of a sea-shore but the concept of a Jungle was foreign to me.

 

Nevertheless, the light shone favorably on me, and I set forth into the world to find this place…and if it didn’t exist, then I would at least arm myself against the Sharks and other Ocean dwelling predators.  I joined the Navy with the goal of being a Navy SEAL. 

 

The light has other plans for me however, at least in the short run.  I left the safety of the pack and was quickly attacked by sharks and dolphins…small scavenger fish bit and nibbled at my toes.  I was helpless.

 

This, it seems, awoke a passion in me like nothing ever had before.  I began truly growing, reading, educating myself.  I learned that my supposed “education” was worthless, and worse, unhealthy.  I gradually met individuals like Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Rushdoony, Van Til, and others.  These men not only believed in the jungle…they LIVED there!  I had stumbled across messages in bottles; faint cries of reason in an otherwise reasonless ocean.

 

So, I find myself paddling along…a wet lion in an ocean full of nit-picking, self-righteous and unregenerate sea-creatures; hoping to find my place in this world.

 

Is all the world an ocean (as the City of Man would have us believe)?  Or is there a place somewhere…a place on dry land…a place where the warmth of the Light can be felt, appreciated, and enjoyed?  

A place where I am king?

Tears For My People…(Warning: Strong Content)

This video clip brought tears to my eyes.

When looking around at the majority of my kinsfolk, I see morbid obesity.  I see confusion.  I see fear.  I see a lack of resolve.

Furthermore, I see and hear the sly laughter of those who would oppress my race and it turns my blood to pure venom.  I, for a brief moment, imagined the girl in the above video clip to be my sister, and I couldn’t see straight…my vision was skewed with anger.  What is worse…I know this sort of travesty takes place on a daily basis.

I’ve said it before and I’ll continue saying it as long as valiant discourse is possible:

If ever some woman loses her mind and marries me; and God blesses us with children;  the “State” will have to pry them from my cold dead arms before I give them up for that faux they call “education.”  To reduce my beautiful daughter…my own personal miracle…to the level and dignity of an ANIMAL;  forcing her to degrade herself and condescend to the level of other animals…to be beaten and spit on by animals!

Dear Lord I thank you for giving me the resolve to never live through such a thing, and if it must happen…it will be a drama for the eyes of a bullet riddled corpse.

For a very insightful article written on this topic…giving an overall look at the fate of our race…see here: http://thecaucasianliteraryreview.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-people-our-people.html

Movie Review: The Watchmen (0 out of 5 stars)

See my preliminary (and somewhat reactionary) thoughts on this movie:  http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/watchmen-preliminary-discussions-warning-this-blog-contains-strong-language/

Streets stank of Fire.  The void breathed hard on my heart turning its illusions to ice, shattering them.  Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. – Rorschach , Watchmen chapter VI page 26.

Our struggle from the primal ooze, every childbirth, every personal sacrifice rendered meaningless, leading only to dust, tossed on the void-winds. – Adrian Veidt, Watchmen chapter XI page 22.

Man before God is the only alternative to man in the void. – Cornelius Van Til, Psychology of Religion pg. 73.

Since the dawn of mankind our species has been at constant war with our own finitude.  When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they acknowledged their lordship over God thereby establishing a faux moral realm of neutrality in which they were free to act:  a void.

The constant enemy man faces is his own nature; his own lack of god-hood.  To admit this would disclose that he does not live in the void at all, but is rather a subject.  A helpless and derivative being existing in total servitude to the true Lord of all reality.  This, fallen man cannot and must not admit to. For eternity he will strive to cover up this blasphemy.

The Lord of the cosmos is a loving and gracious God.  In His kindness, He has granted me and many others infinite forgiveness.  He sent His one and only son to die a humiliating death that we foul beasts may arise from the void and regain our place as His righteous vice regents over the created realm.

There arises from this a basic dichotomy among men.  We regenerate are pitted against those who cherish the void.  All of our history can be understood in terms of this basic gospel message.  It is with this in mind that R.J. Rushdoony wrote the following:

“The purpose of Biblical history is to trace the victory of Jesus Christ.  That victory is not merely spiritual; it is also historical.  Creation, man, and man’s body, all move in terms of a glorious destiny for which the whole creation groans and travails as it awaits the fullness of that glorious liberty of the sons of God (Rom. 8:18-23).  The victory is historical and eschatological, and it is not the rejection of creation but it’s fulfillment.” – Rushdoony, The Biblical Philosophy of History pp. 25-26.

In opposition to this we find various different schools of humanist thought and historical interpretation.

Alan Moore, author of “The Watchmen” cherishes the void and wishes to maintain his own god-hood by denying the power of the cross in history.  His novel, and the subsequent movie adaptation, demonstrate a clear understanding of what is at stake.  Unfortunately his view of the matter is more accurate than many Christians would admit; a fact that compels me to write this review for purposes of education and warning.

Upon realizing possible implications of the theory of thermodynamics, the co-founder of communism, Frederick Engels writes:

“…we arrive at the conclusion that in some way, which it will later be the task of scientific research to demonstrate, the heat radiated into space must be able to become transformed into another form of motion, in which it can once more be stored up and rendered active.  Thereby the chief difficulty in the way of the reconversion of extinct suns into incandescent vapour disappears.
For the rest, the eternally repeated succession of worlds in infinite time is only the logical complement to the co-existence of innumerable worlds in infinite space….It is an eternal cycle in which matter moves, a cycle that certainly only completes its orbit in periods of time for which our terrestrial year is no adequate measure, a cycle in which the time of highest development, the time of organic life and still more that of the life of beings conscious of nature and of themselves, is just as narrowly restricted as the space in which life and self-consciousness come into operation; a cycle in which every finite mode of existence of matter, whether it be sun or nebular vapour, single animal or genus of animals, chemical combination or dissociation, is equally transient, and wherein nothing is eternal but eternally changing, eternally moving matter and the laws according to which it moves and changes.” – Frederick Engels, Dialectics of Nature pp. 23-24.

To allow scientific principal to highlight a possible future end of man (as thermodynamics may) is to propose the death of man’s god-hood thereby destroying the illusion of the void.  Engels cannot allow this and so, along with many pagan cultures of the past, he posits an eternal history of cyclical motion.  An infinite nature of infinite causal events.

Engels concludes:

“…we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can ever be lost, and therefore, also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the Earth its highest creation, the thinking mind, it must somewhere else at another time again produce it.” IBID p. 25

The Watchmen is a story with a complex message.  Drawing upon the view of history highlighted by Engels; Alan Moore seeks to present a serious moral quandary to his characters  having them ultimately resolve it in a way that preserves the void and demonstrates the foolishness of Christian society all in one stroke.

It all started, (according to Hollis Mason, the original Night Owl) in 1938: “The year when they invented the super-hero.”  It was in 1938 (according to the story) that the first issue of Action Comics came out and people were fascinated by tales of super heroes.   Riding this wave of enthusiasm, a “hooded vigilante” intervenes to stop a mugging.

Others were inspired and soon afterwards an alliance of colorful citizens assembled to fight crime.  Over the years for various reasons, they retire or get themselves killed.  Further adding to the doom of this group’s optimism was the horrific transformation of scientist  Jon Osterman into the god-like character Dr. Manhattan.  As Mason declares to Dr. Manhattan, “With someone like you around, the whole situation changes.  You can do anything.  All I got to offer is a good left hook.”

The introduction of Dr. Manhattan plays on a common humanistic theme that man will eventually be able to make himself into something more than “human” and escape the horrible notion of the true God once and for all.  (See Erik J. Wielenberg‘s “Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe” specifically chapter 4.) This theme is prominent throughout the story as characters react to Dr. Manhattan and can be seen in his own dialogue. It is also crucial for the development of the main message in the film, demonstrating that man can become his own god.

The old group of heroes retire, but a new generation arises to take their place.  Their actions, along with the strict control over society by the god-like Dr. Manhattan (who teleports people around and disintegrates them at will) causes political strife in the nation and eventually leads to legislation against all vigilantes.  Some of the heroes go into hiding, some expose their identities in order to capitalize on them, and others remain legally active, working for the government.

In the background of this story, relations between the Soviet Union and America are declining.  They face off over Afghanistan after America’s victory in Vietnam (thanks to Dr. Manhattan.)  The harsh realities of this Cold-War world, as well as the anti-vigilante legislation, strike at the heart of the new alliance of heroes and eventually drives them apart.

The novel begins with the murder of one of these heroes, “The Comedian.”  In response, Rorschach (who refused to quit adventuring despite the new law) launches an investigation.  Being characteristically paranoid, he believes that someone is out to kill all the ex-superheroes.   His suspicions prove true when someone tries to kill Adrian Veidt, aka: Ozymandias, the so called “smartest man in the world.”  Events spiral out of control when Dr. Manhattan is driven into seclusion and Rorschach is arrested.

With three of the heroes disposed of, and an attempt on the life of a fourth, Night Owl and Ms. Jupiter dust off their old uniforms and go to spring Rorschach from prison.  Meanwhile the Cold War escalates and nuclear war is immanent.

Night Owl and Ms. Jupiter (aka Silk Spectre II) rescue Rorschach and escape to safety.  Upon arrival Jupiter finds Dr. Manhattan waiting for her.  (The two were romantically involved and while in seclusion on Mars, Manhattan sensed Jupiter’s need for him prompting his return.)  He teleports them both to Mars where Ms. Jupiter tries to persuade him to stop the impending nuclear war.

During this conversation, author Alan Moore makes his view of history and “meaning“ abundantly clear.  It is difficult to see how Frederick Engels could disagree with much of the following dialogue between Manhattan and Jupiter:

Dr. M:  I don’t think your life’s meaningless.

Ms. J:  You don’t?

Dr. M:  No.

Ms. J:  But…listen, you’ve just been saying life is meaningless, so how can…?

Dr. M:  I changed my mind.

Ms. J:  But why?

Dr. M:  Thermodynamic miracles…events with odds against so astronomical they’re effectively impossible, like oxygen spontaneously becoming gold.  I long to observe such a thing.  And yet, in each human coupling, a thousand million sperm vie for a single egg.  Multiply those odds by countless generations against the odds of your ancestors being alive, meeting, siring this precise son, that exact daughter, until your mother loves a man she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization it was you, only you, that emerged.  To distill so specific a form from that chaos of improbability like turning air to gold.  That is the crowning unlikelihood.  The thermodynamic miracle.

Ms. J:  But…if me, my birth, if that’s a thermodynamic miracle…I mean, you could say that about anybody in the world!

Dr M:  Yes.  Anybody in the world.

Here we find the ultimate attempt at fallen man to find meaning and purpose for himself from out of the chaos of the void.  Earlier in the discussion, Dr. Manhattan discloses his disbelief in any creator.  He says:

Perhaps the world is not made.  Perhaps nothing is made.  Perhaps it simply is, has been, will always be there…a clock without a craftsman. – Watchmen, chapter IV page 28.

Alan Moore puts this same concept in the mouth of Rorschach who supposed to be representing a different view of the world.  We can see, however, that he has the exact humanistic and fallen view of history as Dr. Manhattan.

Existence is random.  Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long.  No meaning save what we choose to impose.  This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces.  It is not God who kills the children.  Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs.  It’s us.  Only us.  Streets stank of fire.  The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them.  Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world.  Was…Rorschach. – Watchmen, chapter VI page 26.

Thus in the dialogue between Ms. Jupiter and Dr. Manhattan we find this concept of “meaning emerging from the void” made manifest.  This ideology has had profound effects on human action throughout history leading to all sorts of institutionalized depravity. (1)

When all notion of God is done away with in favor of the void then it is only the power of man that can dictate what is right and wrong.  As Rorschach says, after accepting the void he was then free to scrawl his own design on a morally blank world.

While Ms. Jupiter is on Mars with Dr. Manhattan; Night Owl and Rorschach discover that Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias) is the man behind the conspiracy to dispose of the heroes.  They track him to his fortress in Antarctica where Veidt quickly overpowers them and lays out his plan.

He had genetically engineered a giant, psychic squid which he hoped to teleport into downtown New York.  Upon arrival the squid would die (the fate of all teleported objects) and release a psychic wave, killing millions.  This,Veidt hoped, would cause the world to unite in peaceful cooperation against what they perceived as a common, extra-terrestrial, threat.  His plan was successful, having been carried out strategically, leaving Night Owl and Rorschach helpless to stop it.

Dr. Manhattan and Ms. Jupiter teleport from Mars to New York where they see the massive devastation and the remains of the squid.  Dr. Manhattan quickly figures out the source of the problem and teleports them both to Antarctica where they meet up with the others.

After assessing the situation, the group of heroes decide collectively to keep silent about the true nature of the disaster, preferring to hide the truth rather than risk the new-found peace.  All of them, except for Rorschach, who stubbornly walks out of the fortress.  He is brutally murdered by the god-like Dr. Manhattan.

From watching the movie, Rorschach’s intentions were unclear since his diatribe about a meaningless universe was left out while his words about God were left in.  It lead the viewer to think initially that perhaps this, coupled with his frequent discussion of the depravity of society, meant that Rorschach’s character was displaying a sort of Christian ethic.

After reading the novel, it is abundantly clear that he was simply holding (however righteously) to his own higher standard of morality.  If Rorschach could violently impose his will on the world, then so could Dr. Manhattan, and in the end, it looked as if Rorschach was consistent in this view.  He didn’t try to run or stop his own murder (not that he could have.)  He literally accepted that his view of morality and Dr. Manhattan’s were different, and Manhattan had the power to enforce whatever he wanted.

The closing dialogue between Veidt and Manhattan is especially telling:

V:  I know I’ve struggled across the backs of murdered innocents to save humanity…but someone had to take the weight of that awful, necessary crime.  I’d hoped you’d understand, unlike Rorschach…

M:  …yes I understand, without condoning or condemning.  Human affairs cannot be my concern.  I’m leaving this galaxy for one less complicated.

V:  But you’d regained interest in Human life…

M:  Yes, I have.  I think perhaps I’ll create some.  Good bye Adrian.

V:  Jon, wait, before you leave…I did the right thing, didn’t I? It all worked out in the end.

M:  In the end?  Nothing ends Adrian.  Nothing ever ends.

Well, I thank God that Engels, Moore, and Dr. Manhattan were wrong or else this travesty of a novel may have gone on indefinitely. To spiral on and on forever, spawning, destroying, then re-spawning consciousness would be utter Hell.  In the end, that is all the chaotic void turns out to be.  The death of all possible meaning and all possible freedom or happiness.

Perhaps the final joke will be on Alan Moore after all, because, just like the stranded mariner in a particular sub-story running throughout the “Watchmen” novel…he will in the end become the very thing he hated the most.  He will gain total interdependence from God…thus integrating himself fully and consistently into the void…destroying all possibility of rational existence for the rest of eternity. (2)

If he screams loud enough in Hell, I wonder if Dr. Manhattan will save him?

(1):  This depravity includes modern trends in the art world.  Humanism and postmodernism have drastically affected the way modern artists view language, meaning, beauty and art.  The  Wikipedia entry for Alan Moore notes that he is considered a pioneer for applying “formalist sensibilities” to the genre.  This is clearly an example of his formalist (postmodern and existential) sensibilities being displayed through the moral convictions of his characters.

(2):  This is a somewhat controversial view of Hell. I’ll not take a dogmatic stand on it for now.  I will admit that due to God’s nature, no creature, even those in Hell can fully escape His Lordship. I believe He will abstain His providential blessings from those in Hell to such a degree that they can no longer make sense of the myriad of experiences their brains encounter and will be reduced to an infinite state of pure existentialism where all that exists is the “now.”  A “now” filled with pain, humility, dishonor, and incoherent thought.  Such is the true nature of the void.

Wicked Worldview Deception of Modern Medicine

Mike Adams is quickly becoming a new hero of mine.

To see why I appreciate him so much, see his article here:

http://www.naturalnews.com/025833.html

Adams clearly lays out the case against Big Business Medicine and the oppressive and sinful grasp it has over our nation.

I give the above article 5 out of 5 stars on the Shotgun coolness scale.

One of the first steps I’ve taken to “get off the grid” is to take charge of my own body and health.  This is going to be a revolutionary concept in a few years.

Bahnsen Rap?

This had me ROLLING this morning!

How hilarious?

It’s a rap about Christian apologist Dr. Greg Bahnsen.  I hope the author does eventually do a youtube clip of this.

http://skepticalstudies.blogspot.com/2009/03/for-lighter-side-of-debate.html

God Bless The Comedian!

Thanks to the free markets, competition, and largely to YouTube, we freedom lovers have hope that the coming storm of tyranny will not go unchallenged!

This clip contains some harsh language, but it is so great that I had to post it.  Comedian John Stewart hits the nail directly on the head!

Additionally, see Don Harrold’s reaction.  He says that Stewart was far too soft on Jim Cramer.  Don does us all a favor by going through and highlighting many of the embarrassments produced by Cramer’N”Chief.

Beyond Tyranny:

For more information on this newest travesty, see here:

http://aaaletawomanlearn.blogspot.com/2009/03/criminalization-of-organic-farms-hr875.html

And here:

http://naturalconsequences.blogspot.com/2009/03/agrarian-beware-hr-875.html