Fathers’ Rights

A Chicago Blog

Archive for March, 2008

Grateful Dead- eyes of the world

Posted by madcap on March 6, 2008

I’m swamped with work and need to take a blogging break, but I’ll leave you with a song. One day gay science will wake up to discover that we are the eyes of the world!


Posted in Video | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by madcap on March 4, 2008

The Thunderbolts Project calls into question not only countless modern scientific assumptions, but also the billions of dollars of big-science government and corporate funding that continues to preserve and entrench questionable theories – elevating them to the status of doctrine – while systematically excluding legitimate alternatives that threaten the status-quo.  Alternatives that may represent the future of science.

The Thunderbolts Project offers remarkably simple explanations for ‘black holes’, ‘dark matter’, the electric sun, comets that are NOT made of ice, planetary scarring and many other ‘mysterious’ phenomena.

It proposes that much of the currently observable phenomena of deep space can be intelligently explained by already known principles of electricity.  High school students get it immediately.  A doctorate in higher math is not required.

This extraordinary new theory also redefines ancient history, linking rock art images carved in basalt 5,000 years ago with identical images found only in Hubble photographs of deep space or in photographs of recently declassified high-energy plasma discharge experiments generated in a billion dollar lab.

The Thunderbolts Project invites you to participate in this revolution, to test and even challenge its validity, or, if finding it rational and intriguing enough, to contribute to its expansion and further evolution.

Posted in Science, Video | 2 Comments »

Has Science Killed God? By,NORMAN PODHORETZ

Posted by madcap on March 4, 2008

Norman Podhoretz traces, from the time of Galileo, the various conflicts and connections between religion and science. While it was in becoming “modest” that the human mind seemed to have grown to superhuman proportions, it soon forgot, in the headiness of its accomplishments, the respect for its own limits. Now the idea spread that reason in the form of science had shown that it, not God, was omnipotent and was on its way to usurping the divine attribute of omniscience as well. (This is the pathology of vMEME #5, or gay science)

“By the 19th century, with the advent of Charles Darwin, the new philosophy had descended from the planets to the apes. And with this shift, the so-called war between religion and science, which Bacon had denied would ever occur, heated up to a veritable frenzy. Like so many of the scientists who had come before him, Darwin protested that he was not a nonbeliever and he insisted that his discovery of the descent of man from the apes did not refute the essential truths of religion.

But to little avail. There were (and still are) desperate efforts by many Christians either to refute Darwin or to find a way of maintaining their faith in the biblical ac count of creation in the teeth of his work. Great outpourings of religious enthusiasm even occurred here and there. And yet when the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed toward the end of the 19th century that God was dead, he was expressing a very wide spread feeling, often secretly held, that few others had the nerve to articulate s boldly,

Nietzsche welcomed the death of God as a necessary precondition for the fruition of human greatness. But his older Russian contemporary, the great novelist Foodor Dostoevsky, like John Donne before him, was appalled by the consequences that the victory of science over religion were likely to bring with it. If God was dead, he said (through the mouth of one of his characters, Ivan Karamazov), then everything was permitted.

At this point in the story, we run into another fascinating paradox. While it was in becoming “modest” that the human mind seemed to have grown to superhuman proportions, it soon forgot, in the headiness of its accomplishments, the respect for its own limits that had made the gigantic accomplishments of reason possible in the first place. Now the idea spread that reason in the form of science had shown that it, not God, was omnipotent and was on its way to usurping the divine attribute of omniscience as well.

And so it came about that modesty was replaced by the puffed-up pride the Greeks called hubris. The likes of the Marquis de Condorcet in the 18th century and then Auguste Comte in the 19th asserted that science need not even be restricted to the physical world; it could be adapted to the social world just as successfully. “Social science” could design plans for an ideal society, and in implementing them, it could at the same time — or so the most utopian of these social engineers expected — reshape and perfect human nature itself.

If, according to Dostoevsky, the death of God meant that everything (evil) was now permitted, the new worshippers of reason believed that everything (good) was now possible. But Dostoevsky was a better prophet than the utopian rationalists on the other side, as the grisly horrors perpetrated by the two main totalitarian systems that sprang up in the 20th century would demonstrate.

For both communism and Nazism were forms of social engineering based on supposedly scientific foundations. The communists who took over in Russia in 1917 explicitly saw themselves as “scientific socialists;’ carrying out the hither-to hidden laws of History as unearthed by the mind of Karl Marx and creating as they went along the “new Soviet man.” As for the Nazis, they justified their slaughter of Jews and others as part of a program of putatively scientific eugenics that would purify the human race and create the higher breed foreseen by Nietzsche in his vision of the superman…

Hence totalitarianism failed to make a dent in the hubris of the religion of science. But the atom bomb did manage to trigger a recoil among the physicists who had invented it. In yet another of the paradoxes that keep cropping up here, this most vivid demonstration of the seemingly limitless power of science brought about something of a return to Galileo’s modesty. Scientists like J. Robert Oppenheimer, who had supervised the project, took to agonizing over what science had wrought and were beset by doubts about its role in the total scheme of things.

In yielding to these doubts, Oppenheimer and others had been preceded by several scientist-philosophers, of whom the most eminent was probably Alfred North Whitehead. In Science and the Modern World (1925), Whitehead, from within a generally scientific worldview, raised deep questions about the idea that science provided an exhaustive account of reality. “Religion,” he wrote approvingly, “is the vision of something which stands beyond, behind, and within, the passing flux of immediate things.”

Full article


Podhoretz, Norman. “Has Science Killed God?” Wall Street Journal (February, 2000).

Also see:

Beyond Darwin: Integral Evolution

Posted in Science | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The Association between Nazism and Islam

Posted by madcap on March 4, 2008

Vodpod videos no longer available. from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Episode 5: Schopenhauer on Love

Posted by madcap on March 4, 2008

Episode 5: Schopenhauer on Love – Alain De Botton surveys the 19th Century German thinker Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) who believed that love was the most important thing in life because of its powerful impulse towards ‘the will-to-life’.

Posted in Video | Leave a Comment »

High Idols of Darwin and Hitler

Posted by madcap on March 3, 2008

Take Darwin’s highest idol, survival of the fittest, mix three tablespoons of Nietzsche’s will to power, shake well with a Wagner opera and, wallah! One holocaust coming up!

Darwin placed such power in survival of the fittest, that it appeared to be God. This was his highest idol. The reason for all the diversity and complexity of life was due to the power in the will to survive. This force was to him so powerful, that over time it was able to construct a world that appears to be created by a designer. To Darwin, God was dead.

Nietzsche recognized this force as well. To Nietzsche, the will to power was the greatest good. The will to power is so powerful, that over time, it could produce the “over-man”. It was his highest idol . Away with humility, throw virtue into the abyss! God is dead; Eco Homo!

Being that Hitler was a man of shallow thinking, he gathered most of his information from the people around him that to some extent would actually read a book. I doubt Hitler had any deep understanding of ether of the thinkers mentioned. He did however understand survival of the fittest and the will to power. These were Hitlers high idols. But I would admit that it was at the opera that Hitler really got his rocks off. Music is not hard to understand. It excites the passions with little effort.

I don’t hold Darwin or Nietzsche personally responsible for the holocaust. This debate is not really about Darwin. It’s about ideas. It’s about our idols.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 8 Comments »

A Thought From Nietzsche

Posted by madcap on March 2, 2008

Wouldst thou go into isolation, my brother? Wouldst thou seek the way unto thyself? tarry yet a little and hearken unto me.

“He who seeketh may easily get lost himself. All isolation is wrong”: so say the herd. And long didst thou belong to the herd.

The voice of the herd will still echo in thee. And when thou sayest, “I have no longer a conscience in common with you,” then will it be a plaint and a pain.

Lo, that pain itself did the same conscience produce; and the last gleam of that conscience still gloweth on thine affliction.

but thou wouldst go the way of thine affliction, which is the way unto thyself? Then show me thin authority and thy strength to do so!

art thou a new strength and a new authority? A first motion? a self-rolling wheel? Canst thou also compel stars to revolve around around thee?

Alas! there is so much lusting for loftiness! There are so many convulsions of the ambitions! show me that thou are not a lusting and ambitious one!

Alas! there are so many great thoughts that do nothing more than the bellows: they inflate, and make emptier than ever.

Free, dost thou call thyself? thy ruling thought would I hear of, and not that thou hast escaped from a yoke.

Art thou one entitled to escape from a yoke? Many a one hath cast away his final worth when he hath cast away his servitude.

Free from what? What doth that matter to Zarathustra! Clearly, however, shall thine eye show unto me: free for what?

Canst thou give unto thyself thy bad and thy good, and set up thy will as a law over thee? Canst thou be judge for thyself, and avenger of thy law?

Terrible is aloneness with the judge and avenger of one’s own law. Thus is a star projected into desert space, and into the icy breath of aloneness.

To-day sufferest thou still from the multitude, thou individual; to-day hast thou still thy courage unabated, and thy hopes.

But one day will the solitude weary thee; one day will thy pride yield, and thy courage quail. Thou wilt one day cry: “I am alone!”

One day wilt thou see no longer thy loftiness, and see too closely thy lowliness; thy sublimity itself will frighten thee as a phantom. Thou will one day cry: “All is false!”

There are feelings which seek to slay the lonesome one; if they do not succeed, then must they themselves die! But art thou capable of it- to be a murderer?

Hast thou ever known, my brother, the word disdain? And the anguish of thy justice in being just to those that disdain thee?

Thou forcest many to think differently about thee; that, charge they heavily to thine account. Thou camest nigh unto them, and yet wentest past: for that they never forgive thee.

Thou goest beyond them: but the higher thou risest, the smaller doth the eye of envy see thee. Most of all, however, is the flying one hated.

“How could ye be just unto me! must thou say- “I choose your injustice as my allotted portion.”

Injustice and filth cast they at the lonesome one: but, my brother, if thou wouldst be a star, thou must shine for them nonetheless on that account!

And be on thy guard against the good and just! They would fain crucify those who devise their own virtue- they hate the lonesome ones.

Be on thy guard, also, against holy simplicity! All is unholy to it that is not simple; fain, likewise, would it play with the fire- of the fagot and stake.

And be on thy guard, also, against the assaults of thy love! Too readily doth the recluse reach his hand to any one who meeteth him.

To many a one mayest thou not give thy hand, but only thy paw; and I wish thy paw also to have claws.

But the worst enemy thou canst meet, wilt thou thyself always be; thou waylayest thyself in caverns and forests.

Thou lonesome one, thou goest the way to thyself! And past thyself and thy seven devils leadeth thy way!

A heretic wilt thou be to thyself, and a wizard and a sooth-sayer, and a fool, and a doubter, and a reprobate, and a villain.

Ready must thou be to burn thyself in thine own flame; how couldst thou become new if thou have not first become ashes!

Thou lonesome one, thou goest the way of the creating one: a God wilt thou create for thyself out of thy seven devils!

Thou lonesome one, thou goest the way of the loving one: thou lovest thyself, and on that account despisest thou thyself, as only he loving ones despise.

To create, desireth the loving one, because he despiseth! What knoweth he of love who hath not been obliged to despise just what he loved!

With thy love, go into thine isolation, my brother, and with thy creating; and late only will justice limp after thee.

With my tears, go into thin isolation, my brother. I love him who seeketh to create beyond himself, and thus succumbeth.- Thus spake Zarathustra

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Montaigne on Self-Esteem

Posted by madcap on March 1, 2008

Episode 4: Montaigne on Self-Esteem looks at the problem of self-esteem from the perspective of Michel de Montaigne (16th Century), the French philosopher who singled out three main reasons for feeling bad about oneself – sexual inadequecy, failure to live up to social norms, and intellectual inferiority – and then offered practical solutions for overcoming them.

Posted in Video | Leave a Comment »