Thanks for clearing that up, Roque. I'm also not anti-Zionist, though. Most modern day Zionists simply believe in the right of Israel to exist. I am anti-expansionist, and those Zionists who believe in achieving a "greater" Israel to the detriment of peace or the Palestinians have none of my support.
Call me cold or callous or what you will, but why should America sacrifice good jobs simply out of some noble notion that by doing so we help other nations? Perhaps the very basic concepts we have about how other nations ought to run their economies are flawed. I question the entire economic establishment. Perhaps westernizing and industrializing the whole world is a mistake. And maybe African nations would be better off protecting not only their goods, but their ways of life. A Carribbean island can grow most if not all of its own food, creating livelihoods for its populace, and a self-sustainable culture. Free trade brings in food that is too cheap to compete against, destroys the very most natural jobs and way of life for those people, and forces them into a completely different way of life. Often tourism becomes the sustenance of such people, and they become totally dependent on the whims of rich tourists and the economies of those countries.
You miss many of my points, largely because you confuse support of Israel with support of Israeli policies. Of course I support Israel's right to exist. I support their right to live peacefully, and I don't support the right of return, as I believe it is impractical and foolish. However, that does not mean that Israel should postpone dismantling its settlements. The two need not happen together. The settlements can be dismantled and at the same time, Israel can deny the right of return.
Why not just go all out and say “some of my best friends are Jews” while at the same time supporting policies that would end up by destoying the state of Israel
I have to say, your implications that I am somehow anti-Semitic are A) totally unfounded, and B) predictable and beneath you. You have better arguments than that, and whenever you stoop to the "attack the messenger" ploy, or question the motives when all you have to work with is assumption, well, you lose the heft of your argument.
Let's see, why do I take the "Arab's side" in my discussion of the history? Do I? You're right, I did leave out the fact that Israel was attacked first, that they played defense in 67 and 72 (etc.) I did not do so on purpose. I honestly didn't want to summarize too much what I feel is quite common knowledge. Of course they were attacked--is that even disputed? And of course they had every right to defend themselves, and still do.
My problem is with the foolish policies that the Israeli Government is implementing that I truly believe will spell disaster for the Israelis themselves. This stubbornness, this caving to the settlers, will leave, in the end, Israel alone without the patronage of the USA. I don't want to see that happen. At all. I don't want American public opinion to get to the point that Europe is at.
But I do want to see Israel reign in its own aggressive policies that are only doing more damage than good now. You can call that anti-Semitic. You can call me whatever you want. But I stand by my admiration for Israel, no matter how clumsy its inception, or how foolish its policies are now. I want for it to succeed, but it won't if it runs the course its on.
You mean a blanket ideology or economic theory can't be applied blindly to all people all at once? What a revolutionary notion!
But in all seriousness, this is a very good post. I think you're certainly on to something in regards to the way nations have developed. Japan used protectionist policies to gain the industry leadership it now enjoys, and even though its economy has slowed--perhaps, the very notion of a "growth" economy are at the root of many of these problems. Or perhaps it is not that there is anything wrong with growth, per se, but with the speed and consistency which seem necessary to sustain a free-market system. I think the world, at some point, will have to adjust to a slower growth model, and I think beyond any of this lies certain moral implications that I will get into more in my follow-up. (thanks for starting the series, by the way).
Here's a good little post on the moral questions involved in the debate, and a preview of what I intend to discuss.
Mark, that's a very good point. Often there is more to fear in the one that may "smile and smile" and yet be a villain, than in the one that is so obviously a nutjob. But that's not really my point. My point is the overall direction Israel is headed. The very momentum seems so counter-intuitive and reactionary...
Democracy is probably the most unstable form of Government. It can really only flourish when ensconced in a tradition of both cultural and legal order. Afghanistan has neither, which is why monarchical systems work so much better. Add to this, of course, the religious extremism, Pakistan and the warlords and....well, I see no room for optimism.
If you oppose punitive tariffs because they hurt foreign populations, shouldn’t you oppose protective tariffs for the exact same reason?
No, because the one bolsters American interest, and the other only causes harm. In other words, its one thing if it's a choice between two beneficiaries--us or them--and quite another if there is no choice, merely punishment.
Also, I am well aware that the going theory for some time now has been that the net effect of free trade is that all benefit, and certainly in this "flattening" world of ours the effects of free trade and globalism on the rising wealth of nations is immense. However, it seems to me that America is suffering a huge loss, especially in our industrial sector, that will be hard to ever recover, and that is also an essential piece of a healthy economy. And the illusion that our wealth has increased at the same time is being sorely tested by the revelations surrounding this current collapse, the debt load of this nation, companies, and individuals, etc. In other words, I believe we are existing now in an artificial economy of grossly exaggerated wealth, that is in fact little more than a house of cards with a subprime mortgage.
I'm not against trade, and I'd like it to be as free as possible and healthy, but there is something amiss when a nation starts to exhibit signs of major trade deficits and no apparent way to stop it short of actual (dirty word!) protectionism.
Are there pitfalls in this sort of process as well? Sure. But the free market in theory and in practice are two different beasts. In practice it's too painful for most to bear, and so we see these massive bailouts happen all at once instead of having reasonable, sensible restrictions and protections to avoid this sort of disaster.
This gets into my insistence on governance as the process of seeking out good order above all things, and avoiding chaos as much as possible. Capitalism is a fantastic system to produce goods and generate wealth, but it can be taken to degrees in which it becomes inherently too chaotic for people to withstand.
In any case, this is starting to feel too long for a comment. More later...
Actually, trade restrictions exist in abundance all across the globe. The notion that there is actually a restriction-free global economy is simply not true. And there is a major difference between erecting trade restrictions in order to prop up your own country's economy (a la Japan post-WWII as they protected their manufacturing and steel industries and eventually built Giant-killing car companies, electronics companies, etc.) and imposing punitive trade embargo's that arbitrarily destroy an economy. There is a moral and practical difference.
And listen, I used to be right there with everyone else preaching the theoretically lovely idea of free trade, but in practice, as with so many things, it just doesn't pan out...
Now then, why do many people, after a couple hard laps on the track, slow to a walk, clutching their stomachs and gasping loudly, while others continue to zoom along, picking up steam as they go? The former lack discipline, will, and skill (which is achieved through discipline and will), while the latter possess all three in great quantities because they have dedicated themselves to the pursuit of success.
That may be true. It also may be true that certain people are genetically predisposed to long-distance running. And again, it may be true that some people were given opportunities to pursue track and field at a young age, by supportive families, while others were not. And further, it may also be true that some people have the leisure to pursue running while others have to work long hours, or at multiple jobs to provide for themselves or their families. There are far, far more factors involved in success than mere determination and will, though that certainly does help.
My daughter is 20 months old and the first time she went out in the snow she fell in it face-first, and has had a deep suspicion of it ever since. She does want to help me shovel, though. I figure I can take a raincheck on the offer until she's a bit older.... ;-)
The individual never used to be held on such a pedestal, and modern conservatism has idolized the nature and potential of the individual far beyond what is reasonable. This is not to say achievements aren't also grounded to some degree in natural ability, in hard work, etc. but the accident of our birth is a huge deciding factor in where we end up. For instance, two equally talented men could be born, one in the US, and one in Kenya, and their lives might not quite mirror one another, despite their best efforts, despite their equal talents...
Chris, these are all red herrings. You leave out the historical, the human, the fact that the belief in God is not the same sort of belief that a belief in a living Elvis is. Look, science can explain a great deal. Reason can explain a great deal. But when we leave ourselves at the mercy of our own isolated reason, and throw all semblance of tradition or history, or culture to the wind on the basis that they are rooted in things that cannot be explained, we also cast off something inextricably human in the nature of belief, or in our search for the divine, the sacred, whichever. This is not the same as belief in the FSM. Once upon a time, people did believe in Zeus, it's true. And in that historical context, that belief had a great deal of societal value. If someone were to believe in Zeus now it would seem funny because it would deny the historical ties, the deep-rooted cultural ties, and so forth that separates the Christian (or Muslim etc.) God from those ancient gods. This is the problem with modern druids as well. There is actually very little historical data, and absolutely no generational traditions tied to druidism, only the invented druidism of the 19th century which guesses at the original rites and practices.
Of course, that's fine with me. Again, faith is faith, no matter how silly it might seem to some. Part of faith is the practice of it, and no matter how implausible one may view God, the traditions, the practices, the prayers associated with celebrating whichever tradition are real, tangible things. They give people sustenance for that other implausible thing: the soul.
Roland, the US did indeed need a bit of help from the French and Dutch to get our feet off the ground. Then again, one might argue that the revolution was itself a hastily maneuvered war, that the colonies may have been wiser to work longer and harder at peaceful means of separation. Canada, to my knowledge at least, was able to grow into a healthy, autonomous nation without shedding any blood at all. I'm not passing judgment on the founders by any means, but there is always another option to war. Or at least, there is almost always another option.
Scott and Roland are both right, however, that there is always more nuance to all of this than meets the eye. I'm not utterly against intervention of the military variety, I just think it requires a great deal sounder reasoning than what I've heard so far. Typically humanitarian interventionism is backed by a good deal of emotional response and not a whole lot of complex understanding of the geopolitical/historical realities of the conflict. That's a problem.
Now, should we as wealthy nations do more to aid those in the developing world, and is there a place for us to do our best to help oppressed people the globe over find a better way to live? Sure. Certainly. But military means almost always make those efforts worse.
Do you imagine the French would have helped us if the situation had been different? If say we'd been an African tribe battling it out with a couple other tribes over the false borders constricting us all to a superficially shared nation-state? Probably not. The fact is, our rebellion was in fact a pretty straightforward conflict. And the French had a very real, very immediate interest in aiding us against their enemies, the British. There is simply no parallel whatsoever to the Iraq debacle or to hypothetical interventions in Darfur or Zimbabwe or Burma etc. etc. etc.
Fine, it's arbitrary. I'm not sure what your point is. I personally find the notion of teaching religion instead of science in a classroom semi-diabolical. However, I find no incompatibility between God and evolution, nor do I think the workings of the two need be in the form of intelligent design, which is shallow in that it accepts God's hand in creation, pretends to accept God's hand in evolution, and then rather sneakily denies all the basic mechanisms of evolution. I see the natural world and believe that there is the hand of God in it, but not in some humanly constructed way, but in the way it actually is. Evolution is evolution. Biology is biology. That all of it comes from God does not diminish the actuality of its workings. And there's the difference between me and the ID crowd. Call it what you will, I really couldn't care less.
Chris--you're preaching a fairly standard atheistic evangelism here. Yes, of course it's all very implausible. Then again, so are any countless number of things in this world. This world is implausible. Civilization as we know it is implausible. A virgin getting pregnant is, too, but if you accept that there are acts of God, that God does work in people or events, etc. etc. than it is not really important whether it is implausible. Which is essentially what you already knew I'd say. Then you write:
And that is why religion is a bad thing. That is why the atheists write their books.
Which is where you lose me. That's why religion is a bad thing? Because it eschews reason for other things? Because it makes little sense to try to convert others to your own implausible faith/myth?
Listen, there is more to all of it than this. There is more to it than a virgin birth or the resurrection or any of that very un-scientific, unlikely stuff. But as I've said, I'm not the missionary type. I believe quite simply in the personal practice of whatever faith you choose, or lack thereof. I don't believe in hell or damnation. I don't believe in eternal exclusivity. I have no reason, nor do I see any reason to seek out converts to what is quite plainly my own personal belief.
But in a brief way, there is in my view of the world, something else that exists beyond the rational, reasonable, plausible, straightforward, scientific, plotted out universe. There is some implausible other. Perhaps it is just my mind playing tricks on me. Perhaps it is just the conditioning of the ages. I'm not sure. And quite frankly, I don't care. I've been down the road of the atheists, and sat on the fence with the agnostics. I've studied Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, the Sufi poets; I've read the atheists and the conversion stories; I've pondered plenty. I've dropped acid and smoked pot and done a few other things I'd have been better off without. I've been around this block and that block and done my research.
And in the end, well, I go the way that gives me peace and contentment. There's really no debating this issue, in any case. In the end we all make that choice, whether it leads us down the same path or not. We gravitate toward what's calling us, however implausible our own will'o'the'wisps may be....
Paul, that example if you'll pardon my bluntness, is rather awful. I mean, you've failed to add into the mix all the other necessary similarities one would need to compare the two situations.
For instance, if Peoria was an internationally recognized pseudo-sovereign nation which was supposed to belong to the Peorians instead of the Americans, and then the Americans pushed the Peorians to host elections, and then got in a huge fuss when the results landed Blago in power, and then claimed they were totally null and void, well then there we might have a good analogy. But Peoria, unlike Palestine, was never supposed to be a separate nation. Palestine, however, was and everyone (or nearly everyone) claims a desire for a two-state solution. So, I guess I'm just completely lost as to where you're going with that comment....
As to your second point, no democracy is most certainly not only about elections, which is why I'm playing the skeptic in regards to the recent Iraqi elections. Democracy is the natural extension of a long history of the rule of law, and quite frankly that is not a description that fits Iraq. So they had elections, so what? As far as I can tell it's just a giant Gaza with oil...
Indeed, I would consider myself in terms of religious views a "liberal" Christian, though I think Christianity itself is best viewed as a sort of "liberal" and liberating religion. It can most certainly be used as a far more destructive thing, of course.
Regarding the virgin birth--well, religion requires leaps of faith, no? Such is the nature of the beast, as it were. So yes, I do believe in the virgin birth, though who honestly knows? It's possible that God worked in some other manner. It's possible she was impregnated in some other fashion and that somehow the soul of Jesus was simply infused into the child of Jesus. Anything's possible.
Regarding our mideast policies, I fail to see the connection. Our mideast policies are wrong-headed for any innumerable reasons, but the virgin birth should certainly not factor into our foreign affairs. A study of history, especially that region's history should suffice to dissuade us from further military foibles in that arena.
I'm sure you think your little riposte is very clever, too, but let me tear it apart for you.
First off, the reason intelligent design is a "human" notion is that somehow they think that God must work in human ways to create existence as we know it, not for a moment stopping and thinking that perhaps God works in ways infinitely more complex than we can even imagine.
Second, I did not, in fact, state that God was "clever" in the human sense. I said I thought it much more clever to devise a system such as evolution by which to implement the universe. And, as we can agree that this is how the universe (or at least the biological universe) functions, through evolution, I'd say we can agree that if there is a God, such method is much more ingenious than a constant "intelligent design" by which the steady and ubiquitous hand of the creator is kept always at work, which is what the ID folks believe. They propose that evolution does not in fact work by random selection or any of that, but rather through a guidance system.
So how is that I'm saying exactly what the ID people say? For one, I don't believe for a second that God or any intelligent or creation story should be taught in schools. I think only the science should be taught in schools. Creation etc. etc. is a subject for Sunday school or theology seminars.
So I have to write off your comment as a quibble over semantics. I stated that an action was "clever" and you immediately suppose that I am anthropomorphizing God. I believe in creation through evolution, and you reveal that you have no sense of the distinction between that concept and the concept of Intelligent Design.
Quibble away, quibble away...
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Israel, Alone”
Thanks for clearing that up, Roque. I'm also not anti-Zionist, though. Most modern day Zionists simply believe in the right of Israel to exist. I am anti-expansionist, and those Zionists who believe in achieving a "greater" Israel to the detriment of peace or the Palestinians have none of my support.
On “Can The (Economic) Ladder Be Restored?”
No, I think the discussion will flesh out whatever various concepts of protectionism we all may have. But it's up to you. Define as you see fit....
"
Call me cold or callous or what you will, but why should America sacrifice good jobs simply out of some noble notion that by doing so we help other nations? Perhaps the very basic concepts we have about how other nations ought to run their economies are flawed. I question the entire economic establishment. Perhaps westernizing and industrializing the whole world is a mistake. And maybe African nations would be better off protecting not only their goods, but their ways of life. A Carribbean island can grow most if not all of its own food, creating livelihoods for its populace, and a self-sustainable culture. Free trade brings in food that is too cheap to compete against, destroys the very most natural jobs and way of life for those people, and forces them into a completely different way of life. Often tourism becomes the sustenance of such people, and they become totally dependent on the whims of rich tourists and the economies of those countries.
Free markets line up nations like dominoes.
On “Israel, Alone”
Roque--
You miss many of my points, largely because you confuse support of Israel with support of Israeli policies. Of course I support Israel's right to exist. I support their right to live peacefully, and I don't support the right of return, as I believe it is impractical and foolish. However, that does not mean that Israel should postpone dismantling its settlements. The two need not happen together. The settlements can be dismantled and at the same time, Israel can deny the right of return.
I have to say, your implications that I am somehow anti-Semitic are A) totally unfounded, and B) predictable and beneath you. You have better arguments than that, and whenever you stoop to the "attack the messenger" ploy, or question the motives when all you have to work with is assumption, well, you lose the heft of your argument.
Let's see, why do I take the "Arab's side" in my discussion of the history? Do I? You're right, I did leave out the fact that Israel was attacked first, that they played defense in 67 and 72 (etc.) I did not do so on purpose. I honestly didn't want to summarize too much what I feel is quite common knowledge. Of course they were attacked--is that even disputed? And of course they had every right to defend themselves, and still do.
My problem is with the foolish policies that the Israeli Government is implementing that I truly believe will spell disaster for the Israelis themselves. This stubbornness, this caving to the settlers, will leave, in the end, Israel alone without the patronage of the USA. I don't want to see that happen. At all. I don't want American public opinion to get to the point that Europe is at.
But I do want to see Israel reign in its own aggressive policies that are only doing more damage than good now. You can call that anti-Semitic. You can call me whatever you want. But I stand by my admiration for Israel, no matter how clumsy its inception, or how foolish its policies are now. I want for it to succeed, but it won't if it runs the course its on.
On “Can The (Economic) Ladder Be Restored?”
You mean a blanket ideology or economic theory can't be applied blindly to all people all at once? What a revolutionary notion!
But in all seriousness, this is a very good post. I think you're certainly on to something in regards to the way nations have developed. Japan used protectionist policies to gain the industry leadership it now enjoys, and even though its economy has slowed--perhaps, the very notion of a "growth" economy are at the root of many of these problems. Or perhaps it is not that there is anything wrong with growth, per se, but with the speed and consistency which seem necessary to sustain a free-market system. I think the world, at some point, will have to adjust to a slower growth model, and I think beyond any of this lies certain moral implications that I will get into more in my follow-up. (thanks for starting the series, by the way).
Here's a good little post on the moral questions involved in the debate, and a preview of what I intend to discuss.
On “Israel, Alone”
Mark, that's a very good point. Often there is more to fear in the one that may "smile and smile" and yet be a villain, than in the one that is so obviously a nutjob. But that's not really my point. My point is the overall direction Israel is headed. The very momentum seems so counter-intuitive and reactionary...
On “God keep our land…”
As long as none of the Olympic athletes are pictured smoking a bong, you should be okay....
On “Mushroom Kingdom weirdness”
Wow.
On “God keep our land…”
Do they have those in the States? :)
On “modesty in Afghanistan”
Democracy is probably the most unstable form of Government. It can really only flourish when ensconced in a tradition of both cultural and legal order. Afghanistan has neither, which is why monarchical systems work so much better. Add to this, of course, the religious extremism, Pakistan and the warlords and....well, I see no room for optimism.
On “Economic Interventionism”
I'm going to start a series on protectionism very soon, so be ready for some econo-brawls in the near future....
"
Will--
No, because the one bolsters American interest, and the other only causes harm. In other words, its one thing if it's a choice between two beneficiaries--us or them--and quite another if there is no choice, merely punishment.
Also, I am well aware that the going theory for some time now has been that the net effect of free trade is that all benefit, and certainly in this "flattening" world of ours the effects of free trade and globalism on the rising wealth of nations is immense. However, it seems to me that America is suffering a huge loss, especially in our industrial sector, that will be hard to ever recover, and that is also an essential piece of a healthy economy. And the illusion that our wealth has increased at the same time is being sorely tested by the revelations surrounding this current collapse, the debt load of this nation, companies, and individuals, etc. In other words, I believe we are existing now in an artificial economy of grossly exaggerated wealth, that is in fact little more than a house of cards with a subprime mortgage.
I'm not against trade, and I'd like it to be as free as possible and healthy, but there is something amiss when a nation starts to exhibit signs of major trade deficits and no apparent way to stop it short of actual (dirty word!) protectionism.
Are there pitfalls in this sort of process as well? Sure. But the free market in theory and in practice are two different beasts. In practice it's too painful for most to bear, and so we see these massive bailouts happen all at once instead of having reasonable, sensible restrictions and protections to avoid this sort of disaster.
This gets into my insistence on governance as the process of seeking out good order above all things, and avoiding chaos as much as possible. Capitalism is a fantastic system to produce goods and generate wealth, but it can be taken to degrees in which it becomes inherently too chaotic for people to withstand.
In any case, this is starting to feel too long for a comment. More later...
"
Actually, trade restrictions exist in abundance all across the globe. The notion that there is actually a restriction-free global economy is simply not true. And there is a major difference between erecting trade restrictions in order to prop up your own country's economy (a la Japan post-WWII as they protected their manufacturing and steel industries and eventually built Giant-killing car companies, electronics companies, etc.) and imposing punitive trade embargo's that arbitrarily destroy an economy. There is a moral and practical difference.
And listen, I used to be right there with everyone else preaching the theoretically lovely idea of free trade, but in practice, as with so many things, it just doesn't pan out...
On “calling bullshit on bullshit”
Philip--
That may be true. It also may be true that certain people are genetically predisposed to long-distance running. And again, it may be true that some people were given opportunities to pursue track and field at a young age, by supportive families, while others were not. And further, it may also be true that some people have the leisure to pursue running while others have to work long hours, or at multiple jobs to provide for themselves or their families. There are far, far more factors involved in success than mere determination and will, though that certainly does help.
On “Falsifying the Unfalsifiable”
Oy vey. Literalists.
On “Snow in Arizona”
My daughter is 20 months old and the first time she went out in the snow she fell in it face-first, and has had a deep suspicion of it ever since. She does want to help me shovel, though. I figure I can take a raincheck on the offer until she's a bit older.... ;-)
On “calling bullshit on bullshit”
The individual never used to be held on such a pedestal, and modern conservatism has idolized the nature and potential of the individual far beyond what is reasonable. This is not to say achievements aren't also grounded to some degree in natural ability, in hard work, etc. but the accident of our birth is a huge deciding factor in where we end up. For instance, two equally talented men could be born, one in the US, and one in Kenya, and their lives might not quite mirror one another, despite their best efforts, despite their equal talents...
On “Falsifying the Unfalsifiable”
Chris, these are all red herrings. You leave out the historical, the human, the fact that the belief in God is not the same sort of belief that a belief in a living Elvis is. Look, science can explain a great deal. Reason can explain a great deal. But when we leave ourselves at the mercy of our own isolated reason, and throw all semblance of tradition or history, or culture to the wind on the basis that they are rooted in things that cannot be explained, we also cast off something inextricably human in the nature of belief, or in our search for the divine, the sacred, whichever. This is not the same as belief in the FSM. Once upon a time, people did believe in Zeus, it's true. And in that historical context, that belief had a great deal of societal value. If someone were to believe in Zeus now it would seem funny because it would deny the historical ties, the deep-rooted cultural ties, and so forth that separates the Christian (or Muslim etc.) God from those ancient gods. This is the problem with modern druids as well. There is actually very little historical data, and absolutely no generational traditions tied to druidism, only the invented druidism of the 19th century which guesses at the original rites and practices.
Of course, that's fine with me. Again, faith is faith, no matter how silly it might seem to some. Part of faith is the practice of it, and no matter how implausible one may view God, the traditions, the practices, the prayers associated with celebrating whichever tradition are real, tangible things. They give people sustenance for that other implausible thing: the soul.
On “The Humanitarian Empire”
Roland, the US did indeed need a bit of help from the French and Dutch to get our feet off the ground. Then again, one might argue that the revolution was itself a hastily maneuvered war, that the colonies may have been wiser to work longer and harder at peaceful means of separation. Canada, to my knowledge at least, was able to grow into a healthy, autonomous nation without shedding any blood at all. I'm not passing judgment on the founders by any means, but there is always another option to war. Or at least, there is almost always another option.
Scott and Roland are both right, however, that there is always more nuance to all of this than meets the eye. I'm not utterly against intervention of the military variety, I just think it requires a great deal sounder reasoning than what I've heard so far. Typically humanitarian interventionism is backed by a good deal of emotional response and not a whole lot of complex understanding of the geopolitical/historical realities of the conflict. That's a problem.
Now, should we as wealthy nations do more to aid those in the developing world, and is there a place for us to do our best to help oppressed people the globe over find a better way to live? Sure. Certainly. But military means almost always make those efforts worse.
Do you imagine the French would have helped us if the situation had been different? If say we'd been an African tribe battling it out with a couple other tribes over the false borders constricting us all to a superficially shared nation-state? Probably not. The fact is, our rebellion was in fact a pretty straightforward conflict. And the French had a very real, very immediate interest in aiding us against their enemies, the British. There is simply no parallel whatsoever to the Iraq debacle or to hypothetical interventions in Darfur or Zimbabwe or Burma etc. etc. etc.
On “Falsifying the Unfalsifiable”
Tim,
Fine, it's arbitrary. I'm not sure what your point is. I personally find the notion of teaching religion instead of science in a classroom semi-diabolical. However, I find no incompatibility between God and evolution, nor do I think the workings of the two need be in the form of intelligent design, which is shallow in that it accepts God's hand in creation, pretends to accept God's hand in evolution, and then rather sneakily denies all the basic mechanisms of evolution. I see the natural world and believe that there is the hand of God in it, but not in some humanly constructed way, but in the way it actually is. Evolution is evolution. Biology is biology. That all of it comes from God does not diminish the actuality of its workings. And there's the difference between me and the ID crowd. Call it what you will, I really couldn't care less.
Chris--you're preaching a fairly standard atheistic evangelism here. Yes, of course it's all very implausible. Then again, so are any countless number of things in this world. This world is implausible. Civilization as we know it is implausible. A virgin getting pregnant is, too, but if you accept that there are acts of God, that God does work in people or events, etc. etc. than it is not really important whether it is implausible. Which is essentially what you already knew I'd say. Then you write:
Which is where you lose me. That's why religion is a bad thing? Because it eschews reason for other things? Because it makes little sense to try to convert others to your own implausible faith/myth?
Listen, there is more to all of it than this. There is more to it than a virgin birth or the resurrection or any of that very un-scientific, unlikely stuff. But as I've said, I'm not the missionary type. I believe quite simply in the personal practice of whatever faith you choose, or lack thereof. I don't believe in hell or damnation. I don't believe in eternal exclusivity. I have no reason, nor do I see any reason to seek out converts to what is quite plainly my own personal belief.
But in a brief way, there is in my view of the world, something else that exists beyond the rational, reasonable, plausible, straightforward, scientific, plotted out universe. There is some implausible other. Perhaps it is just my mind playing tricks on me. Perhaps it is just the conditioning of the ages. I'm not sure. And quite frankly, I don't care. I've been down the road of the atheists, and sat on the fence with the agnostics. I've studied Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, the Sufi poets; I've read the atheists and the conversion stories; I've pondered plenty. I've dropped acid and smoked pot and done a few other things I'd have been better off without. I've been around this block and that block and done my research.
And in the end, well, I go the way that gives me peace and contentment. There's really no debating this issue, in any case. In the end we all make that choice, whether it leads us down the same path or not. We gravitate toward what's calling us, however implausible our own will'o'the'wisps may be....
On “the democracy fallacy”
That said, Paul, thanks very much for stopping over and commenting! It's very much appreciated!
"
Paul, that example if you'll pardon my bluntness, is rather awful. I mean, you've failed to add into the mix all the other necessary similarities one would need to compare the two situations.
For instance, if Peoria was an internationally recognized pseudo-sovereign nation which was supposed to belong to the Peorians instead of the Americans, and then the Americans pushed the Peorians to host elections, and then got in a huge fuss when the results landed Blago in power, and then claimed they were totally null and void, well then there we might have a good analogy. But Peoria, unlike Palestine, was never supposed to be a separate nation. Palestine, however, was and everyone (or nearly everyone) claims a desire for a two-state solution. So, I guess I'm just completely lost as to where you're going with that comment....
As to your second point, no democracy is most certainly not only about elections, which is why I'm playing the skeptic in regards to the recent Iraqi elections. Democracy is the natural extension of a long history of the rule of law, and quite frankly that is not a description that fits Iraq. So they had elections, so what? As far as I can tell it's just a giant Gaza with oil...
On “The Humanitarian Empire”
Philip, that last comment...you sure you're on the right thread?
On “Falsifying the Unfalsifiable”
Chris Bell--
Indeed, I would consider myself in terms of religious views a "liberal" Christian, though I think Christianity itself is best viewed as a sort of "liberal" and liberating religion. It can most certainly be used as a far more destructive thing, of course.
Regarding the virgin birth--well, religion requires leaps of faith, no? Such is the nature of the beast, as it were. So yes, I do believe in the virgin birth, though who honestly knows? It's possible that God worked in some other manner. It's possible she was impregnated in some other fashion and that somehow the soul of Jesus was simply infused into the child of Jesus. Anything's possible.
Regarding our mideast policies, I fail to see the connection. Our mideast policies are wrong-headed for any innumerable reasons, but the virgin birth should certainly not factor into our foreign affairs. A study of history, especially that region's history should suffice to dissuade us from further military foibles in that arena.
"
Tim --
I'm sure you think your little riposte is very clever, too, but let me tear it apart for you.
First off, the reason intelligent design is a "human" notion is that somehow they think that God must work in human ways to create existence as we know it, not for a moment stopping and thinking that perhaps God works in ways infinitely more complex than we can even imagine.
Second, I did not, in fact, state that God was "clever" in the human sense. I said I thought it much more clever to devise a system such as evolution by which to implement the universe. And, as we can agree that this is how the universe (or at least the biological universe) functions, through evolution, I'd say we can agree that if there is a God, such method is much more ingenious than a constant "intelligent design" by which the steady and ubiquitous hand of the creator is kept always at work, which is what the ID folks believe. They propose that evolution does not in fact work by random selection or any of that, but rather through a guidance system.
So how is that I'm saying exactly what the ID people say? For one, I don't believe for a second that God or any intelligent or creation story should be taught in schools. I think only the science should be taught in schools. Creation etc. etc. is a subject for Sunday school or theology seminars.
So I have to write off your comment as a quibble over semantics. I stated that an action was "clever" and you immediately suppose that I am anthropomorphizing God. I believe in creation through evolution, and you reveal that you have no sense of the distinction between that concept and the concept of Intelligent Design.
Quibble away, quibble away...
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.