Garrison’s (deluded) World Pt. 1

After going through the five-part Cosmic Fingerprints series and all its shortcomings, I have stumbled across the semi-intellectual (sounding) Garrison’s World at enewschannels.com.

Rather than a confused old-Earth creationist who doesn’t get what information is we come across a blithering theologian who seems to write for the pure intellectual masturbation of it (I won’t confirm nor deny whether that’s my reasons for writing, but I’m sure he’s attempting to “reach” people).

His series is entitled “The Irrelevance of Rational Atheism and the New Philosophy of the Non-Rational” and part I is called “The Two Brands of Atheism.” I’ll also say I found some odd irony with an add for The God Who Wasn’t There on the top and an add for the Scientology Video Channel on the sidebar.

So what are the “two brands”? In typical false-dichotomy style we are informed that there are two kinds of atheists – rational-optimists, and irrational-pessimists. To cut through his long-winded explanation, essentially he believes the optimists worship reason as a false-idol and the irrationalists “take atheism to its final moral, philosophical and psychological conclusion.” He spends a lot of words to get to this conclusion, but that’s about all he says in Part I. He also sets up his own view of “non-rationality” in that he seems to be agnostic about whether the universe is rational or not. However, he still sticks his fit in the ground and cries there is a God, so I’m not sure why he can take a stand on theism but not rationalism.

It really seems more like he’s a balls-less irrationalist. He wants the right to use rational arguments with the atheists who have challenged his faith, but he also realizes at the basis his theism is irrational (he admits his God can be good and evil, because He’s fucking God!). So to argue rationally he calls himself “non-rational” and then wants to play ball with both the theists and the athesits.

Finally, he claims science disproves absolute rationalism, because with quantum mechanics the world is at its very core irrational.

I’ll admit, I didn’t get through this entire article all at once, and I don’t want to go back through it to quote him, because it makes my head hurt. But I did read all of Part I, and will continue with the series.

Back to his point. Quantum mechanics isn’t inherently irrational because Garrison can’t comprehend it. QM is non-deterministic, but still follows rules. We came about to the QM description of the world through rational means, and I don’t see why that means rationalism is self-defeated.

Really, can people who don’t know anything about quantum mechanics stop talking about it. Either schools need to teach a lot more physics, or a lot less. Because this half-assed shit has to stop.

Now, there’s an extra bonus if you read the comments, because Garrison actually responds to a couple of them. The first comment is from an atheist and comments on how Garrison can’t comprehend that people can go through life without worshipping something (getting at the original idea that rationalists worship reason), but Garrison responds by saying its nothing but an ad-hominen while mischaracterizing and insulting the commenter!

Try to read the original if you can, and I’ll be back on Monday with more on Garrison’s strange little world he seems to have constructed.

FacebookTwitter

One thought on “Garrison’s (deluded) World Pt. 1”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Refresh Image

*