Peter Beinart is a stuffy young coot, the kind prized by publications like The New Republic (where he used to work, and perhaps still does) and The Atlantic Monthly, themselves the preferred coffee table adornments of stuffy middle-aged coots. But recently, he has shed his neo-liberal upbringing and taken a turn for the worse, to what might appear to be reasoned analysis. And on what is perhaps one of the weightiest problems of the “modern” world. The Israel-Palestine business. Beinart’s questioning of the unequivocal fanboyism of American Jewish organisations has drawn responses far and wide. From Abe Foxman of the ADL, Jonathan Chait, another fine product of TNR, and other luminaries. On the left, The Nation’s Eric Alterman grudgingly credits Beinart for his infant steps towards critical thinking, but that is now why I bring up Alterman’s Nation article.

Often capitalism is equated to the Right and the struggle against capitalism is defining of the Left. But capitalism, as some of its ideologues will contend, has no moral pretensions. The Left might desire human rights for the Palestinians. The Right might wish the Holy Land to remain in friendly control in preparation for the upcoming rapture. But capitalism is best illustrated by the third comment on Alterman’s Nation article (image below).

PZ Myers, a.k.a Pharyngula, is a biologist who has carved out a niche in the blogistan (absent strong presence from big daddy Dawkins) for forceful opinion typically aimed at religion and related oddities, under the rubric of “skepticism”. And when the fanbase demands red meat, PZ obliges, casting the net ever farther and wider to find new candidates for ridicule. This time around, the lucky winner is Jainism.

Wikipedia might tell you that:Post

Jainism is an ancient religion of India that prescribes a path of non-violence towards all living beings. Its philosophy and practice rely mainly on self-effort to progress the soul up the spiritual ladder to divine consciousness.

But that’s just too much silly talk for old PZ, who offers an alternative description:

a petrified clown turd of foolishness that convinces people that it’s OK to be a credulous git

Now, you might wonder how one might back up such a definition and thus avoid seeming an incredulous git, and PZ has an answer:

Prahlad Jani, an Indian “fakir” (a term PZ has perhaps borrowed from that other pioneer, Winston Churchill, who used it to describe Mahatma Gandhi). And Jani, it has been claimed, lives merely on air and sunshine. PZ will have none of this tomfoolery of Jainism, and closes the case thus: the person who tested Jani is a “deeply religious Jain”, the “obvious flaws” in whose testing have been identified by “Indian skeptics”. Hence, concludes PZ, Jains (assuming here that PZ is concluding/summarising the thesis at the top of his post) are “kooks, plain and simple”.

Now, if you study biology at University of Minnesota where you might be fortunate enough to partake of the wisdom of PZ, and further, if Logic 101 is not a prerequisite for your programme, you might wish to have PZ’s attempt at it (logic) broken down for you, so here goes:

• Indian “fakir” claims to live on air and sunshine
• Dr. Sudhir Shah tests and validates this claim
• Sudhir Shah is a Jain and president of Jain Doctor’s Federation
• “Indian skeptics” have critiqued Shah’s claim

Therefore:

• Jains are kooks
• Jainism is a “petrified clown turd of foolishness”

Clearly PZ has inherited more than the beard from Aristotle!

 

He’s often your go to man if you want a can of whup-ass opened up (unless it needs to be opened up on George Galloway, which Hitchens is not up to). Like here, with D’Souza:

 

Dawkins by most accounts is not a philosophical heavyweight, preferring to peddle Biology in best-selling sound bites, unless occupied with furthering his false claim to the mantle of atheism. The heavy lifting on his behalf and that of their joint cause (New Atheism) is usually performed by Daniel Dennett. But in the video below, Dinesh D’Souza, Reaganophile, defender of Christianity, and all-around loathsome character, runs rings around Dennett in a debate at Dennett’s own home turf, Tufts University. Behold the spluttering philosopher:

in which Dennett, when not spluttering, attempts to address D’Souza’s points using every possible rhetorical sleight of hand. Such as appeals to authority:

I am not a physicist, but I know X, and if he were here he would agree with me…

I have spent years working on this stuff…

What is particularly pathetic, and revealing, is that D’Souza at times attempts coherent argument whereas Dennett opens with some photographs and slides ridiculing Mormonism and other oddities of religion, while accusing D’Souza of creating caricatures, dismissing D’Souza’s reference to the anthropic principle as a “cartoon version” (and dismissing it out of hand because neither he nor D’Souza are physicists or cosmologists).

This exchange is revealing because the techniques and argumentation of Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens exposes their dogmatic commitments, and the lack of the very rationality in debate that they claim to defend as a system of knowledge.

All of which undermines the cause and interest of good Old Atheism.