[Vision2020] Douglas Wilson's Rationale: Logos School {Rationalization in this case, not rationale}

[Art Deco]

Re: Remarks of Ted Moffett

I agree that superstition plays an important role in many people's lives.
Santa Claus, Mother Goose, and god(s) are examples.  Belief in soothing but
unverifiable or false beliefs is a normal psychological defense mechanism.
Those mechanisms become pathological, however, when the believer cannot
distinguish fantasy from reality in the long term.  A common joke among many
is that the religious are those whose parents finally told them there is no
Santa Claus, but forgot to tell them the same about god(s).

Thousands of different gods are still worshiped today.  Some of the
worshippers of these gods tenaciously hold that their alleged god is the
only true one, etc.  The problem is that there is no way to unequivocally
test to see which, if any, of these contradictory beliefs are true.

I agree that rhetorically and strategically that to successfully challenge a
religious person's view point means discussing and showing their fundamental
assumptions improbable or contradictory.

However, from a logical point of view, there is another way to skin a cat..
The truth of  their fundamental assumptions can be challenged sometimes
successfully by showing the absurd conclusions that follow from them.  If A
implies B, then not B implies not A.  Unfortunately, logic and belief part
ways when compartmentalization, rationalization, and other defense
mechanisms enter into the picture.  This is true not only of religious but
of most important to a person, strongly held, unverifiable (sometimes as in
the case of love,
for example, verifiable) beliefs.

People may believe and express their beliefs freely.  Harm comes when they
act on some of their fantasy beliefs and/or try to impose them on others.

Thank you for responding to my opinion.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ted Moffett" <>
To: <deco@moscow.com>
Cc: <>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Douglas Wilson's Rationale: Logos School
{Rationalization in this case, not rationale}


>
> Wayne Fox and All:
>
> My vision2020 post on this subject was intended merely to point out, with
> quotes from Douglas Wilson and my own likely erroneous attempt at
> paraphrasing what these quotes expressed, that Wilson had offered a
> "rationale" to have an all male school board at Logos School.  Several
times
> it has been stated during this controversy that no rationale was given.  I
> was merely offering to outline what I thought the rationale was that
Wilson
> offered, fairly and completely.
>
> I clearly stated I was not expressing my personal views on this matter.
And
> my post was not "on behalf of" Douglas Wilson.
>
> I also pointed out that if you are going to argue against deeply held
> religious convictions logically, starting at the fundamental assumptions
for
> the religious convictions makes logical sense.  It may not make emotional
> sense, and may not convince many people, because most people believe what
> they do based on very emotional influences, not reason.
>
> Good luck, Wayne, in your crusade to save us from religious superstition!
> People want superstition, it satisfies great emotional needs, as does
> religion.  To not address this aspect of human reality dooms your effort
> from the start.  What will you offer to replace religion to satisfy this
> dimension of human existence?  Art?  Sports?  Nature worship?  What
> foundation will you use to establish an ethical system that is not up for
> grabs to be interpreted in any manner any one wishes based on their
personal
> interpretation of reality, without the "ultimate" foundation religion
> offers.  It's easy to just dump religious "superstition" and suggest
> everything will be grand.
>
> Given certain assumptions of monotheism, or the more complex and subtle
> "Trinitarianism," and a divinely revealed Bible, there follows certain
> ethical rules that followers of this interpretation of life and the
universe
> feel compelled to follow.  You can present arguments endlessly to
challenge
> the details of an ethical system based on these assumptions, but if the
> original assumptions are strongly believed, as they say, God's wisdom is
> beyond the human mind to comprehend.
>
> I have debated in great detail with many Christian's the veracity of the
> claim the Bible is divinely revealed by a God.  If you cannot challenge
this
> foundation for a certain type of religious faith, other sorts of logical
> argument often get you nowhere.   Unless you go for the solar plexus, make
> emotional appeals, and so forth.  It works, just look at politics and
> religion!  Emotion is the main proselytizer, not logic.
>
> I will not comment on any other details of your post, since they do not
> address any issue I was addressing, from my point of view, in my post on
> Douglas Wilson's rationale.
>
> I suggest you direct your arguments to Douglas Wilson or others at Logos
> School or Christ Church.
>
> However, it seems Wilson is more aware of how you think and feel on this
> issue than you appear to understand.  Consider his comment that I quoted:
>
> "I am aware of the fact that all this is perfectly appalling in our
> egalitarian era..."  Douglas Wilson, Tuesday April 8, 2003 vision2020.
>
> As a quick comment on this quote, I would like to suggest that our era is
> far from "egalitarian."  If it was, how can you explain that in the US
House
> of Representatives, only 59 of 535 seats are held by women, while in the
US
> Senate, there are only 14 out of 100?  It seems male rule of the USA is
> alive and well at the highest reaches of power.
>
> I think Wilson has an inflated image of how far egalitarianism rules our
> culture, and exagerates how marginalized his point of view really is.  His
> views are more mainstream than I think many Americans realize.
>
> Perhaps he is just more honest about what he believes, while many males
play
> the gender equality image for all the political correctness it is worth,
an
> image they mock in private.
>
> Ted
>
> >From: "Art Deco" <deco@moscow.com>
> >To: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
> >CC: <vision2020@moscow.com>
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Douglas Wilson's Rationale: Logos School
> >{Rationalization in this case, not rationale}
> >Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 19:47:31 -0700
> >
> >Re:  Try to explain so-called Pastor Wilson's sophistry.
> >
> >The explanation offered by Ted Moffett on behalf of Douglas Wilson for
> >discriminating against women is simply a long winded sophistry which says
> >that there are some things that men can do better by nature than women
and
> >running a cult school appears to be one of them.
> >
> >Do the leaders and members of the cult think that every man is better
> >equipped to run their cult school than any women or to do any other task?
> >Is
> >even the smartest woman less qualified than the dumbest man?  Just
> >understanding this last two statement makes a mockery of their arguments
> >and
> >empirically false claim that women lack reason and prudence.
> >
> >Here's another of their sleight of hand arguments:  so-called Pastor
Wilson
> >quotes scripture to the effect that his alleged god thinks than that
women
> >should not be in positions of authority.  In the next sentence says he is
> >not relying on that.  Why quote it in the first place?  The intended
> >audience for the scriptural quote are the sheep in the cult who will
accept
> >that as the reason knowing that Wilson is just saying otherwise to disarm
> >us
> >heathens despite the awfulness of the arguments used to support his
> >apparent
> >secular position.
> >
> >Here's another of their sleight of hand arguments:  The cult claims they
> >are
> >more at legal risk for having de facto discrimination on their board than
> >for discrimination by rule.  What a silly-assed, ignorance based
argument!
> >It is always easier to legally attack discrimination by rule than de
facto
> >discrimination.  With de facto discrimination the plaintiffs must
> >demonstrate  by clear and cogent evidence that such discrimination
exists.
> >No such proof is required for discrimination by rule.  The rest of the
> >legal
> >case is the same for both positions.  I don't know who the cult is
getting
> >their legal advice from (if anyone) but that person(s) is certainly inept
> >and/or possibly god struck.
> >
> >An interesting study was publicized just in the last two weeks in the
> >business news in the Spokesman and on the internet:  Businesses started
and
> >managed by women have half the failure rate than those started and
managed
> >by men.  Suggestions that cult leaders and members have castration
> >complexes
> >gain even more credibility in the light of this study.  Perhaps they
would
> >allow women on their board if the men could wear armor proof protective
> >cups.
> >
> >Perhaps the cult is worried that women do not appear to be as susceptible
> >as
> >men to being god struck, a phenomenon studied and reported by many
> >therapists.  Besides the more serious pathology associated with being god
> >struck (think Jim Jones, David Koresh, perhaps Douglas Wilson) than that
of
> >being stage struck, those who are god struck inflict much more pain,
> >anxiety, guilt, and do much more harm to others than themselves.
> >
> >My personal ethic is that It is contrary to the basic ideals of freedom
to
> >restrain and limit men or women from reaching their full non-criminal
> >potential and function in an open, free society.  My arguments for this
> >position are heuristic, not religious.
> >
> >It is clear that the Christ Church cult only believes in freedom so far
as
> >it advances their religious ideals.  I do not share these ideals; I think
> >they are based on pathology and delusion rather than evidence and good
> >will.
> >I would guess that many on the Palouse who are familiar the cult's true
> >beliefs are repulsed rather than attracted by them.  This ongoing
> >discussion, despite smoke screening by the cult, has opened many eyes.
> >Even
> >some cult members are starting to question their adulation and
> >unquestioning
> >belief of the cult leaders.  Stay tuned!
> >
> >For now let's work for a society where every person can work towards
their
> >full potential unlimited by artificial and delusional barriers erected by
> >fear and superstition.
> >
> >
> >Wayne Fox
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>