The problem with the "reality-based community" is that much of it can't handle reality. That's the basic premise of Paul Berman's Terror and Liberalism, in which Berman essentially says that many liberals, grounded as they are (or at fancy themselves to be) in Western rationalism, simply can't accept the notion that millions of people could subscribe to an utterly irrational ideology. He cites the French Socialists prior to WWII as another example of this phenomenon:

The anti-war socialists gazed across the Rhine and simply refused to believe that millions of upstanding Germans had enlisted in a political movement whose animating principles were paranoid conspiracy theories, blood-curdling hatreds, medieval superstitions and the lure of murder. At Auschwitz the SS said "Here there is no why." The anti-war socialists in France believed no such thing. In their eyes, there was always a why.

(Berman is a leftist, by the way.) A large portion of the left needs a "why." No one would fly loaded airliners into skyscrapers without a really good reason; thus the self-immolation of the hate-America crowd.

I think Berman's onto something there, and I think the conspiracy theories may be the flip side of the same coin. If you're not willing to accept the possibility of an irrational, murderous, evil ideology with sufficient backing to organize a 9/11, and if you also don't accept the proposition that America did something so horrible as to justify 9/11 on rational grounds, then you have to find some other way to explain those three thousand dead people. I think conspiracy theories are another way to do that.

Of course the people who buy into conspiracy theories are themselves falling prey to an irrational ideology -- and they're implicitly accepting the very proposition about people in American government (for example) that they're unwilling to accept about certain foreign Muslims. So much for their commitment to Western rationalism. But that just proves that the human capacity for self-deception is almost unlimited.

Cognitive dissonance indeed.

Of course in Rosie's case the problem may just boil down to the fact that she's a fat, stupid sow.

Hey, I am a "lurker" by your own definition. I drop in from time to time, yet rarely comment. I like your spot and mourn its passing in advance. I like your take, and your response most ususally, and when I don't you at least open up a new avenue for me to pursue. Keep up the good work, keep the faith. Jay

Annika,

"There is no convincing one who has abandoned all reason and logic in exchange for fear and superstition."

I don’t know Annie, it seems to me that the foundations and "facts" that stimulate the paranoid delusions that plague Rosie are 1000 times more concrete than the foundation for a belief in a supreme being, his children, his ghost, his intentions, his interest in us as individuals, a virgin birth, reincarnation, heaven, hell and all the other silliness that is stuffed in to the bag(s) of religion. No? She may be drawing wrong conclusions and seeing conspiracies that are not supported by facts but she is at least still in touch with reality

Strawman, how did you determine that the multiplication factor is exactly 1,000? Please cite your source or sources for that figure.

Will, are you posting under Annika's name?

Annika,

Are you familiar with Lorenz's Butterfly effect, Von Neumann architecture and Godel's incompleteness theorms? It can also be gotten at from Gell-man's work in QCD.

Let me know and I'll show you the how this factor was derived. It is a complex and very long winded proof but it is very rewarding more rewarding even than painting your nails, donning gingam wedgies and strutting your stuff around the pool! Well,on second thought, maybe not.

"more rewarding even than painting your nails, donning gingam wedgies and strutting your stuff around the pool!"

Straw, is there something you're not telling us? .......Or maybe not telling yourself?

Have you ever read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis? Also, "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel is good for those with massive doubts--not to say that we believers don't have our doubts--that's why I have these books lying around the house. They're good friends on the journey. So, Rosie...hmmm...I think she lost it somewhere along the way. She used to be a lot of fun. My guess is hormonal changes and brain chemistry have something to do with it.

Yes Joules, that, and not coming to terms with her unnatural hatred of men. Early success (money) in life, before forty, tends to arrest emotional and intellectual development, and one risks becoming something bizarre.

Perhaps a better question is why you would bother polluting your blog with this MORON'S statements. She's totally beneath anyone with any critical thinking ability.

Rosie O'Donnell's utterly stupid statements are "concrete" but Catholicism is "silliness."

Straw, when Annika closes shop (what a quitter, by the way), promise us you will learn how to THINK.

Y'know, posting Rosie's blog is a kind of public service for people who aren't surrounded by irrational people every day. It allows us to practice responding to Rosie-heads in the comfort of our own homes!

CONcrete:

Of or relating to a material thing or group of things as opposed to an abstraction.

Gee Mark, did I miss something?

Joules, I notice you don't have Bertram Russels "Why I am not a Christian" laying around to help you on your journey.

http://englishatheist.org/whynot.shtml

Or:

http://members.aol.com/chasklu/religion/private/whynot.htm

BERTRAND, of course, sorry.

"Are you familiar with Lorenz's Butterfly effect, Von Neumann architecture and Godel's incompleteness theorms? It can also be gotten at from Gell-man's work in QCD."

Strawman, that was amazingly condescending even for you. I am a long-time lurker, and I have before now let you be, but unless you are a mathematical physicist you know a hell of a lot less about those things than I do (I'm a Ph.D. physical chemist).

If you are technically trained then I have no use for that kind of attitude coming from those of us in the technical community when dealing with laymen. But given the shotgun approach I betting you're bluffing. Explain to me what exactly you meant, because I'm at a loss how any of those disciplines gives a probabilistic estimation for the likelihood of the existence of a god. I am most familiar with Quantum Chromo Dynamics, but I have more than a passing interest in Chaos Theory, and while I know little to nothing about CS, I'm still at a loss to how a data / instruction design in a human made computer system sheds any light on this question. Enlighten me. I doubt there's any math that you can throw at me I won't understand.

And apologize to our hostess.

John administered what is technically known as a bitch slap.

You feeling OK, Straw? Cuz that had to hurt a lil'.

Well, duh! (I'd love to see presidential candidates yelling "Duh!" at each other during a debate.) It's primarily a journey of FAITH--the assurance of things hoped for; the conviction of things not seen. I'll look at these links when I have a chance. About all the physics: I have this funny feeling that all the disciplines are easier to understand than I think they are--but try telling that to the rest of my brain. I have a book lying nearby called, "Physics for the Rest of Us"--which is supposed to make Physics easier to understand--but I bogged down in chapter 2 and never finished it.

You might like this one Joules, I'm reading it now.

The Fabric of the Cosmos

Dear John and Annie and Joules,

A thousands lardons.

I thought Annie's retort was tongue in cheek (I’m sure it was) and I thought my response was as well. I thought my references were clearly frivolous (to the argument only) and not on any point since belief in a supreme being is the domain of religious belief; not science. I did not intend to be condescending nor do I purport to have more than a passing knowledge of these areas of study, and if anybody, your self included was offended, I apologize. I would never use my extensive knowledge of wood for instance to make someone feel inadequate. When I wish to offend, which is, I hope some may notice, becoming less frequent as my affection my associates and hostess grows, I usually do it with irony not condescension, unless of course its directed at Kasha varnishkas who insists on remaining unlikeable and a truly condescending ass.

I thought the references were clearly humorous because I am, as most around here know, like our lord Jesus Christ, a simple worker in wood laboring not in the rarefied air of quantum chromo dynamics, but rather in a miasma of a thick suspension of sawdust, carcinogenic volatile hydrocarbons, and other unhealthy elements too numerous to list. I am enjoy reading these subjects on the level of the “Dancing Wu Li Masters”, or listening to the wonderful Richard Feynman lectures from Cal Tech and other such lay fare.

Annie, you got it as a joke, right?

"I wish I knew half as much about anything today as I thought I knew about everything
when I was twenty." Bill Ayers

i always love reading the trash posted on sites such as this. it is amazing that people so utterly unable to comprehend the point of views of others can only deal with this deficit in their own abilities by calling the others names. rosie may be annoying, vocal, and not always politically correct. however, she at least makes judgements for herself. you all, however, find it easier to right her off as a "fat, stupid sow", a "moron" undergoing "hormonal changes", jealously refer to her early successes as responsible for "arrested emotional and intellectual development" and reveal a telling fear of lesbians which does not, in fact, surprise me at all. calling someone names in no way challenges the arguments that they make. you need to look at the facts for yourself and make your own judgements - but i fear that most of you would be too scared by what you might find out. a pity.

Whatthe,

Comprehending an inane argument (held by Rosie and other "truther" morons) does not require agreement. I and other regulars at this site comprehend their idiocy well.

I've got an idea self-righteous, smug guy: Why don't you go ahead and provide an intellectual defense of Rosie's stupidity. We'll all be waiting with baited breath. Nothing like reading the rantings of deluded conspiracy theorists - for a good laugh anyway.

Now get back to your bong and your latest version of Loose Change.

Hey Blu,

So what is your problem with smoking dope? You deride people as bong users and I wnat to be clear if it is the use of a bong that you don't like or just smoking reefer in general.

Whatthe,

You noticed, eh?

Straw,

Was it bong resin that diminished your brain capacity and led to your bizarre and amoral political philosophy?

Regarding your question, I tend to be a libertarian when it comes to drug use. I am not a user myself, however. While I may not agree with current government policy on the matter, I am not, like many who share my policy belief, just looking for an excuse to get high.

Bong resin coupled with the plastizer in the PVC tubing. Sometimes we would smoke with nothing in the bowl and never notice a difference.

To Whatthe,

Some of us have looked at the facts for ourselves and made our own judgements. You want to challenge the ad hom on Rosie, fair enough. But if you want to imply that there's something behind what she says, then you're the one who needs to look at facts for yourself and make your own judgement.

Besides, what's this defense that she "makes judgements for herself"? Like hell. She's repeating verbatim the 9/11 Conspiracy Fantasy, right down to the terminology and the mistakes. That's not "thinking for herself", that's being a blind savant, echoing only what she's been fed. It's one thing to "look at the facts for ourselves", it's another thing to mistake fantasy for reality, and it's a whole other level of mental laziness beyond that to not even analyze what you read and just parrot it forth. So go ahead and criticize folks saying mean things about her person; that's warranted. But don't make the mistake of defending her intellectual honesty. Regarding 9/11 and the World Trade Center, she has none.

Strawman, you are totally cool with me. I always have to remind myself that this type of communication means you miss vocal inflection, facial expression, etc. So, what's the best product to use to clean wood that's been varnished, like furniture?

Whatthe, a good, thorough analysis of a person or situation involves looking at it through different lenses, from different perspectives. For example, I'm sure a psychologist would have a field day with Rosie and probably everyone here. We could even analyze Rosie from the perspective of a musician (if Rosie's voice were an instrument, she'd be the sandpaper blocks!) or a microbiologist or a Tupperware Lady, for that matter.

We might learn something about Rosie and ourselves by analyzing her in different ways. Like the rest of us, you don't know Rosie personally so you're as little qualified to comment intelligently as we are. That doesn't keep any of us from doing it, though, which I think may be the most fun part about posting on the internet.

Rosie's ideas remind me of my conspiracy theorist carpet cleaner, who could show you a dollar bill folded so that it makes the twin towers. He thinks the Illuminati (which includes most government heads of state worldwide, according to him) planned the disaster ahead of time so they just printed it on our money...for some reason...which is really dumb and I'm going to go get some ice cream.

I may need the Fabric of the Cosmos to make myself a new pair of jeans. I spent the weekend in Oklahoma City with an old college friend and we ate every meal at a restaurant!