“People make decisions to act, and then from that, construct for themselves and potentially for others a narrative about why that is OK, or what the rationale would be, or how this could be justified,” Borum says. “It’s sort of a reverse pattern from what we would typically think.”
On the contrary, this is the normal way humans think. Reason is used even by the “insane” to achieve specific objectives:
Another assumption people make about assassins is that they’re insane — people completely divorced from reality. But this study — to a degree — rejects that idea as too simplistic. Yes, the authors write, many of the people were experiencing or had experienced serious mental health issues: 44 percent had a history of depression, 43 percent a history of delusional ideas, 21 percent heard voices. But, as Fein points out, the way these people sought to address what they saw as their main problems — anonymity and failure — wasn’t inherently crazy.
“There’s nothing crazy about thinking that if I attacked the president or a major public official, I would get a lot of attention. I would get a lot of attention. My goal was notoriety,” Fein says. “That’s why I bought the weapon.”
This, of course, contradicts the cherished superstitions of the political animals. When they say, “Everything is political,” they don’t mean that everything can be interpreted through a political narrative; they mean that they think everyone’s motives are political and can be discovered by comparing them to some ideological platform. I absolutely reject political animals, whether they are liberal, conservative, or libertarian. They are committed to fanciful idealism and psychological projection, using the methods of the intellectually incompetent and the morally corrupt.
It is a conceit to believe that one’s particular prejudices are more rational that someone else’s, and then to use that to justify dehumanizing the other person. This is the special project of the politically liberal scientific atheist.
I will note that, despite his idiotic assertions and unethical behavior, I don’t have any personal animosity toward PZ Myers. I don’t believe it is necessary for him to behave otherwise, because I don’t feel the need to purify science.
Purifying science is the special project of creation science, where it is deemed necessary to have science conform to Biblical truth, so that some people will accept the Bible as true because it is scientific, while others will accept science as true because it is biblical. Those are political and social objectives that have nothing to do with Chrisitanity.
One presumes that without the authority of science supporting the Bible, no one can be saved. Such a belief is nothing less than idolatry, a corruption of the Gospel.
The other presumes that without the authority of the Bible supporting science, society cannot be saved. This is also idolatry, because it identifies science as God’s special tool to perfect society, not to mention the rest of creation. It is the foundation of a Deist priesthood in spotless white lab coats that mediates between the ignorant, helpless “sinner” and a god who is not beyond nature, but is Nature itself. There is no reason for the Bible to “support” science. If science is nothing more than observation of the natural world, the testing of hypotheses, and the development of practical ways to use natural resources, then it needs no special biblical authority. Either it works or it doesn’t, and its principles are already firmly established in biblical doctrine. If science is anything more than that, then it deserves no special biblical authority. Let it fall apart on its own.