BAROQUE MERITOCRACIES GONE WILD – THE BLIND PSYCHIATRIST

I recently visited a blog published by one Robert Godwin, a clinical psychiatrist who describes himself as “an extreme seeker and off-road spiritual aspirant who has spent no less than one lifetime looking for the damn key to the world enigma.”

What I discovered was more than the usual vitriol spewed forth by the large percentile of theists (not all, I might add: unlike the good doctor, I try mightily to avoid painting all believers with a broad brush, as I dislike the hasty generalization, which this fellow apparently wallows in).

I simply tested the water so: at the post entitled “Men Without Chests and Women Without Breasts” and commented so:

“As a leftie, liberal atheist, I gotta say:A more obvious poisoning of the well, I have not seen. 'The other side is a bunch of sissies.'I've had a nose-to-nose yelling match w/a Neocon (who backed off), & faced off on a few street punks, who've promptly backed up or ran.& for a leftie, I got a mean right hook.Oh, & I don't cave easy.”
It was a simple effort to illustrate that it was a hasty generalization.

I’d read some of this fellow’s content before. He does have a way with words, to be sure, a strong voice, no doubt. I had skimmed his posts prior to my visit – buried deeply within his rhetoric was an obvious distaste for any materialistic points of view whatsoever. He waxes on about how there is ever so much proof for the existence of his non-existent deity, without providing much substance.

And, predictably enough, I was immediately besieged with catcalls of ‘barbarian’ and ‘girly man’: one such wit felt the need to announce “TROLL!” several times (either doubting his or his compatriots’ reading comprehension, no doubt). Apparently, he has a steadfast following of K12 children. I called no names: I simply presented anecdotal evidence (myself)

In less than twenty-four hours, this gentleman, secure in his masculinity and mouthings of truth, launched a minor offensive. I call it minor, because it was more annoying and amusing than earth shattering. He titled it “Going Nous-to-Nous with Atheism”, and he comes out swinging:

“A self-acknowledged “leftie atheist” paid us a visit yesterday, leaving a comment that speaks for itself. If there is any pseudo-philosophy worthy of a priori dismissal, it is atheism, for it is naively self-contradictory at every turn.”

He managed to take a few swings at my character (typical for these self-proclaimed arbiters of light). A few brief tastes, only:” Many in the west have been so poisoned by secularism that it is difficult for them to any longer perceive God. For that is a key point. The existence of God may be easily proved, but only to a generous intellect that is inclined to accept the evidence.”

“It is just so with atheism. One might well ask an obligatory atheist, “how can you tolerate a world view that is so painfully narrow and stupid?” Not only would they have no idea what I was talking about, but they would probably be offended at the blasphemy, for one of the curiosities about the atheist is that he is quite passionate about something that his philosophy denies at the outset, which is totalistic and certain metaphysical truth.”

And this little bit of arrogant fucktardery:

” The intellect corrupted by secularism will nevertheless come up with its own substitute wisdom, such as this little neo-Marxist bon mot by our post-civilized visitor: “Reinvention is key to the progress of the individual.” Er, wrong. The key to the progress of the individual is not “reinvention,” if for no other reason than we are not invented to begin with--at least not by ourselves. Rather, the key to progress--both psychologically and spiritually--is self-discovery.”

If this fellow had the least bit of scientific acumen, he would’ve done a little more research: I am not, repeat, AM NOT a neo-Marxist. Capitalist, born and bred.

Wait, there’s more!” Suffice it to say that this perfectly accurate statement makes no sense to the atheist, because he lacks (or is alienated from) the perceptual apparatus to understand it--that is, the intellect properly so-called.”

The short, undressed version is: all atheists are stupid.

So then, I left this bit of skullduggery:
”Intriguing.If there is any pseudo-philosophy worthy of a priori dismissal, it is atheism, for it is naively self-contradictory at every turn.
& you have some sort of proof for that, outside of pretty rhetoric?Poisoning the well.
It only adds to the irony that this particular atheist congratulates himself on being a sophisticated “renaissance man,”
Ahem, you left out the 'sort of'.
It is just so with atheism. One might well ask an obligatory atheist, “how can you tolerate a world view that is so painfully narrow and stupid?”
& again.
Human beings, on the other hand, are much more difficult to account for--in fact, impossible for materialistic science to explain. Of this I am certain.
Then I respectfully advise you read more books on science, & a few less on iambic pentameter.
And where was that self before it was discovered? What is the ontological status of the “I” that exists in potential but awaits deployment in time?
Try out Julian Jaynses' 'Origins of Consciousness In the breakdown of the bicameral mind', for starters. “Short version: you talk real pretty, but not really overly impressed, sorry.”

In the meantime, the posters there indulged themselves with the usual stereotypical discussion of atheists. Efforts were made on a few occasions to correct these, but there’s no reasoning with the irrational.

I began to experience a creeping horror: if this fellow is so adamant against those like myself, being a clinical psychologist, would his belief system and prejudice impact his treatment of a patient who professed to be an atheist? His words speak volumes, ghastly volumes. He denounces a large group of people roundly, without equivocation. He states that he has no problem with ‘indifferent atheists’ (read: those that keep their mouths shut). Which would come first? His own messianic leanings (they are quite pronounced: read some of his work) or his Hippocratic oath? Would I WANT this guy probing into my brain with his ‘fingers of light’, correcting what he saw was wrong? Perhaps I do him an injustice.

Twenty-four hours later (or less), he pops up with this gentle little piece:”Mind of Goo, Mind of Ice, Mind of Light”. Here he drops his little homilies of hubris all over the place.

“Atheist writing can be a little prosaic at times . Now that’s putting it mildly, isn’t it? As our barbarian visitors have demonstrated, atheistic writing is necessarily coarse and ultimately infrahuman, for the simple reason that it is a perfectly imperfect adequation to the coarse and infrahuman--to the lowest level of existence only.”

Infrahuman is defined as such: “Of a lower order than humans; subhuman.”

Such people as Harlan Ellison and Isaac Asimov? Both self-proclaimed atheists? What would this magickal thinker think if he were to learn of Lance Armstrong’s atheism? What of Epicurus, or Anaximander? Would he quote Shelley, if he were to learn of that worthy’s acknowledged atheism? The list is long and varied, from Diderot to Camus, Woody Allen to Lovecraft.

And again:”Bacon Eating Atheist Jew has demanded that I prove the existence of God to him. This is something I, of all people, cannot do, if only because the injunction against casting pearls before swine loving swine is absolute.”

So, this lover of ‘ineffable’truth regards all atheists as subhuman, Marxist swine. Don’t deny it, Doc: you’re an arrogant metaphysical bigot, no more, no less.

I laid into him roundly, telling him he was remarkably ignorant for such a learned man, telling him all the logical fallacies he committed (he seems particularly fond of Loki’s Wager, among many), informing him that atheism predated ‘Grandma O’Hairbrain (O’Hare)’ some thousands of years prior.

And I quote:
“That was interesting. I hadn’t intended to generate such panic in the atheist community.
No, you flatter yourself unduly. Most don't know you exist. Last count, we were at #3 in the population, beating out hinduism.Let's synopsize briefly, shall we?On your post about 'men w/o chests', I simply offered myself up as anecdotal evidence that not every last 1 of us are 'whimps'. I called no names. I stated clearly that you were poisoning the well (go ahead & look that 1 up: I can wait). I offered evidence (an unrepresented example? Perhaps) that you were wrong. & the 'intellectual heavyweights' (including yourself) devolved rapidly into high school histrionics more worthy of middle-school martinets. Shrill cries of 'Troll!', 'Barbarian', & 'girly-man' were pronounced stridently.In less than 24 hours, you drafted up a post where, w/o indulging anyone concerned in a real dialogue, you came after me in a most dishonest manner, & declaring your 'victory' by slandering any & all dissent.Primitive men, BTW, worship that which is not. Civilized men do not. You also show a shocking lack of knowledge in re: atheism. Atheism predates Madalyn O'Hare by some 1000s of years, Epicurus & Anaximander to illustrate 2 such worthies.Let's dissect this:
On the other hand, a larger percentage of atheists have been traumatized or repulsed by a dysfunctional version of religion as a child.
Do you draw on anything other than assertions? This is a stereotype, & a poor 1 at that.
For the record, I have read thousands of books on the former and none on the latter, but somehow I must have missed the scientific breakthrough that has explained human consciousness. In fact, in the course of obtaining a Ph.D. in the field, it somehow eluded me that materialistic science has fully accounted for all of the miraculous properties of human consciousness. I’m sure I must have been absent that day.
I am truly shocked & chastened then: I had mistaken you for a scientist, when in fact you are remarkably ignorant for such a learned man.Science doesn't provide FULL ACCOUNTS. It provides ongoing data - the world is still a work in progress.Shall I enumerate the logical fallacies you have indulged your ego in, then?Being such a learned man, I would think you could spot them yourself, but everyone can deceive themselves. Even you.Poisoning the well.Ad hominem.Appeal to authority. Appeal to incredulity.Hasty generalization.Association fallacy.For a degreed scholar, you behave like any other theist.Poorly.Do get off your high horse, & wallow in the mud w/the rest of us, that is, unless you're convinced you're on a higher plateau than the rest of us.”

But he is not beholden to an ‘infrahuman Marxist barbarian swine’ such as I.

Now normally, I’d dismiss such a fellow, but for his self-proclaimed Ph.D in clinical psychology. His prejudice is exposed for the entire world to see, as is his ignorance. That such a bigot, so enthralled with himself, is allowed to tinker with the vast recesses of the human mind is more than boggling: it’s downright frightening.

Tantaene animis coelestibus irae? - Virgil.

In heavenly minds can such resentments dwell?

Apparently so. There is no amount of evidence that will dissuade these dispensers of the divine that we are human as well. No words that will cause the blind hatred to become seeing light: the empathy in them is shorn cleanly upon difference or diversity. Only by joining the ranks of the elite, might we be ‘saved’.

I have tasted of the waters, and found them laced with the poison of ignorance. Ad hominem is part and parcel of their ‘revelation’, no matter how nuanced.

Once upon a time, I would’ve been shocked and dismayed at the profound level of contempt evinced by those who claim to dispense manna from on high.

Sadly, he is no better, and no worse, than any of his fellow theists. He is a rhetorician in the third definition of the word: “A person given to verbal extravagance.” The owner of a baroque, grotesque meritocracy of the worst sort:

The snob.

That, dear readers, is my nickel’s worth. Spend it or flip it: the choice is yours.