It's true, happenstance plays a major role in how we end up, not the least of which is the accident and fortune or misfortune of our birth. That's why a society that values order and humanity will do its best to provide the best possible network for its citizens. A strong middle class is the surest way to create better opportunities for the most people. I'm afraid our current trajectory promises more pain than stability, and it's high time to re-evaluate that course.
Look, to all who make the point that the New Atheists have to write this sort of book to ever even be heard--that is a very true thing. I know this post is loaded with snark on the futility of it all, but you're absolutely right that to even be noticed and welcomed into the debate, atheists needed these sorts of spokesmen to break on through to the other side...
And so I say, "bravo, New Atheists!" Futility aside, we do need a healthy debate between religious and non-religious. And again, both Hitchens and Dawkins are wicked smart, and very enjoyable reads.
Bill Maher, however, is an insufferable buffoon who I absolutely cannot stand. If he was any more full of himself it'd be coming out his ears...
Kain, perhaps you mean something different than I do when you say you believe in evolution. So let’s get more specific. Do you and your Christian friends believe in the common ancestry of all life? Do you believe, for instance, that humans share a common ancestor with the apes?
Is there some other kind of evolution that I haven't heard of that I could possibly be confusing this with? If my memory serves, evolution was "discovered" by a Christian, Charles Darwin, was rather more fleshed out when notes of a certain German Monk (Mendel) helped explain how it worked, and has been pursued and honed by Christians and non-Christians alike ever since.
And yes, apes are common ancestors, and so is primordial sludge. See, it's quite frankly compatible in every manner with religion. Science, to my mind, explains the function of the universe, but not the why, nor the origins. It's like looking at the engine of a car, studying the manuals, learning all about how it works etc. and then saying that because we know all of that there can be no engineer that designed it. Or contra that, it's like saying "There was an engineer, and that's all there ever was! The car was not built, it simply came into being when the engineer decided it should!"
And no, I also don't support the ID folks. They'd demean the beauty of natural selection by infusing it with the very human notion of intelligent design. Quite frankly, I think the method God has chosen (random selection, survival of the fittest, all that...) is far more clever than the shallow claims of the ID purveyors.
And yes, even my ultra-conservative Catholic grandmother believes this. But I know many Christians don't, and it's a shame...
We haven't really saved anyone from genocide in Eastern Europe. We've adopted an age old stewardship of a region that needs badly to work out its differences without the intervention of the Ottomans, the Soviets, or the Americans. We are merely prolonging the inevitable.
Jack, thanks...and you and the many who have critiqued my critique of Dawkins are right on that score also, to some degree. What irked me about The God Delusion was that Dawkins really does attempt to disprove God, at least through one side of his mouth, while at the same time admitting that it can't be done. Then why try? That's the point I'm making here. It's an exercise in futility. And writing books about the evils of religion is an exercise in redundancy. But that's just my take, and you all have raised some valid points.
I don't know, Bob. I think the whole "ownership-society" is problematic. Then again, I think the concept of single-family homes is problematic. I think the drift away from extended-family living is not the direction humanity was supposed to move. It creates undue burdens on workers, on the State, on the individual. Ironically, I just began Gladwell's Outliers, and there in the first chapter is at least a little validation for this point. Everything is bound to community, and yet we now do our best to tear away at that most essential fabric of society.
Was the world built to sustain homes for every family? Perhaps, but perhaps families were meant to work together, multi-generational efforts, to realize this. Now we all want everything.
I agree, Freddie. Douthat and Salam are not always correct, I think, but their work on GNP and elsewhere is fantastic in that it is fresh, and new, and actually attempts to deal with the concept of governance and society rather than whatever it is the rest of the conservative movement is doing whilst twiddling its proverbial thumbs...and crying foul at any move by those "damned libruls!"
Chris, there's a lot to go through in this but I think you've hit on some key points. I did a piece a while back about the Anbar Awakening and the consequences Iraq faces should the Shiite majority attempt to disenfranchise, disarm, and stop paying these useful militias. Won't be good.
“Is a generational commitment. But it is not a generational commitment in military terms; it is a commitment of our support to them, our political support and an understanding that democracy takes time.”
First of all, generational commitments of this nature do end up becoming military commitments. Our interference in the Middle East has lasted longer than my entire lifespan. They began before I was born, and have continued up to this day. I see no reason that they won't continue on through to the next generation and the generation after that. Good lord, the Middle East has been in a state of near-perpetual war for centuries. To think we can end all that...?
And yes, Dr. Rice is correct--democracy does take time. It takes generations. Civil order over centuries, failed governments, a steady increase in the sort of minds and coalitions that can make democracy a reality have to be fostered organically from within. The conditions necessary for true, stable democracy cannot--simply cannot--be forced down a nation's throat.
What is the alternative?
Leave them be. Set up trade. Keep the world as open as possible. Live by example. Encourage liberalism where we find it. Publicly discourage tyrannical behavior. Keep trading. Help create a world where the flow of goods can be realized. Democracy sprouts where we see strong middle-classes develop, where the eventual rule of law takes hold.
The fact is, post-Nazi Germany was a much more likely candidate for democracy than Iraq ever was, not because Hussein was worse than Hitler--far from it--but because Germany had the proper historical conditions to evolve into a democratic nation--it had already been a democratic nation. Iraq? I see faux-elections there, and the steady rise of a Shiite authoritarian State.
The alternative is not isolation, not by a far cry. It is looking to our own interests first and foremost, and that does not include turning thorny bushes into trees, as Michael Yon so recently, and eloquently, put it....
Also good points. However I would say Germany was every bit a Democratic State when it went to war. Yes, a fascist party had taken control, but it had done so through the democratic system. That democracies may be less likely to go to war with one another is true, but I would say that is more due to trade than to shared electoral process...
I agree Freddie. And by "pro-America" I think I mean, pro-the-idea-of-America, not pro-everything-we-do. Kind of like what I mean when I say that I am "pro-Israel." And no, I am not referring to purposeful action on the part of America toward Iran. The free market is a better tool than government intervention even culturally. Propaganda will never be as effective as the accidental influence of trade.
One major point of disagreement here, Freddie. While Western culture exports may not lead directly to liberalization or freedom, they do start to plant seeds. Where much of these exports may be trash tv and pop music, somewhere in that flood will be real philosophy and literature. Somewhere in all that pop culture, you'll also get some notion of freedom of speech, of these other basic values we hold dear. It may not happen quickly, but that's not to say it won't happen at all. Sure Kim Jong Il isn't "westernized" by his cowboy movies. But the influence of western culture in Iran, contra to your claim, actually has made a difference. The Iranian people are not the mullah-revering, anti-American mobs so often portrayed on the news. It's a young country and very pro-America in many regards, very modern, very black-market-liberalized. All the more reason, I say, to not bomb the hell out of them.
Great comment, Roland. Your point about Korea is well taken. However, whether the outcome of the South Korean State justifies the foreign policy that got us involved in that conflict is another matter. The Southern European nations were democratized without any military intervention; the Eastern European nations that have democratized, did so after a policy of containment that never turned into a US intervention.
Also, I would hesitate to compare Confucian society to Islamic society, not because one is more or less warlike, but because of the nature of the faiths themselves. Confucianism is a bit more lax, a bit more secular. It is a set of guidelines combined with some ancestor reverence and basic household roles (I know, I simplify); whereas Islam is a faith of extreme submission. Perhaps there is also something about the geographical quality of S. Korea--peninsular as it is, and cut off from much of the other nations in the region.
In any case, I am specific to the Middle East in this piece because I do think it is a unique region in the world--though I might add Africa to the basket of military quagmires. Could the region become democratized? Yes, I think so, though not by military force save at too great a cost. And would that democracy truly benefit the West? Or Israel? That's another question entirely, and I'm not so sure the answer is "yes."
That said, I think I fall in line with the Krauthammer piece you quote above, and I am not completely against intervention. I think that it has become over-used, however, with little cultural and historical understanding on the part of its advocates, and too much idealism.
In any case, thanks very much for stopping by. I hope we can continue the debate!
Bob, a lot of the comments are a bit crazy. Any time this subject is broached the comments get a bit crazy. But I'd say a lot of them are really pretty amazingly good, reasonable, etc. Funny thing, though, OG Mark Thompson has been called a Godless nihilizt and a Christianist during this series, so you gotta admit, that's a bit off...
And I, for one, am entirely against closing comments. For one, the comments have and will spark future posts and series and I very much value *most* of the comments we've received so far. Besides, Sullivan must have to dig through loads of email. Comments are so much easier.
I don't know. The question is not so much "if Constantine did or did not do this" since it happened. If it had not happened, some other thing could have. There is no way to know how history works. As with God, there is no way to prove one way or another if God is working through history or not. Or through biology, or through any other thing.
You always have to assume something, but some hypotheses can explain the data while assuming less than others. I’m sorry, it’s obvious that the atheists assume less.
I'm not so sure. For the most part, I think I am right there with the atheists on almost all the major assumptions. I believe in science as a tool we use to understand the world. I believe in reason and logic. I just also believe in God.
I hardly think this has to do with being "willfully ignorant" at all. I think you read this entirely the wrong way. I think the vast majority of existence is unknown, and at some point humility requires that we accept that. We are only human. There is a great deal we can know, and a great deal of knowledge we can gain, but at some point we will hit a wall. Accepting our limitations is not at all the same thing as being willfully ignorant.
Not only that, but many, many people of faith (or non-faith) are actually a great deal uncertain about many of these fundamental questions. Of course there are those who are certain about everything under the sun, but that does not in any way describe the vast majority of people, full of doubt, questions, etc.
Exactly! This is why they declared war on us. This is why no negotiations are possible because to negotiate, one must accept pluralism and the nation-state to begin with. If Islamists did that, then there would be no war.
It must be nice to have such a cut and dry, simplistic, one-sided perspective with which to rationalize and condense all the world's nuance. It allows you to say such absurdly simplistic things. If only they were like us there'd be no war. We'd all live in peace and harmony. Right, the West has gotten along so well. We never warred amongst ourselves, right? Oy vey...
Nonsense, Roque. We have been meddling, and you have to have your head in the sand to think otherwise. We've been sticking our hands into a nest of vipers and expect not to get bitten. Of course no amount of our pre-9/11 activities justify in any way the jihadists attack on our civilians. But when dealing with irrational entities we have to be careful. Defensive jihad--jihad in general--is just an overly aggressive, globalist form of nationalist expansionism. And we think we can overcome the notions that gave rise to that by implementing democracy in the region? How exactly does that work?
Quick thoughts: No, it was most certainly not GW that brought this "clash" about. Prior to this we've seen the rise and fall of Empires--the Byzantine, the Ottoman, etc.--no, this is a much larger story to be sure.
However, that was not the thrust of my argument. Given that said Clash of Civilizations exists and will continue to do so, we should avoid ideological interventionism in favor of practical trade relationships or (hopefully someday) as little a relationship as possible at least in the trade of oil. Avoidance, really, of that quagmire of a region may be our best eventual policy.
Good points, Bob. I'd add I do not believe in Hell, and in fact the momentum in Christianity is to do away with that nonsense altogether. I forget the link, but I found stats on the number of times the word Hell is included in modern Bibles, and it is diminishing.
I also have come to believe that most "Holy wars" or religious wars are actually nationalistic with overtones of religiosity only. Religion is a great recruiter, but it rarely inspires wars, which are more often fought for land, wealth, power...women. ;)
No, Bob, I'm not. But there's plenty of ways to interpret that Gospel and to interpret how that should influence one's actions and behaviors. I personally believe in the lead-by-example method, rather than to proselytize. I really can't imagine how that could make me "anti-Jesus."
And clamflats, those are sarcastic little names I came up to describe a handful of the new atheists who I think are profiting from a pointless attempt to somehow prove their is no God. I do not include the vast majority of atheists in my snark, a far cry from say Maher's ridicule of the religious.
On “calling bullshit on bullshit”
It's true, happenstance plays a major role in how we end up, not the least of which is the accident and fortune or misfortune of our birth. That's why a society that values order and humanity will do its best to provide the best possible network for its citizens. A strong middle class is the surest way to create better opportunities for the most people. I'm afraid our current trajectory promises more pain than stability, and it's high time to re-evaluate that course.
On “Tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury…”
Look, to all who make the point that the New Atheists have to write this sort of book to ever even be heard--that is a very true thing. I know this post is loaded with snark on the futility of it all, but you're absolutely right that to even be noticed and welcomed into the debate, atheists needed these sorts of spokesmen to break on through to the other side...
And so I say, "bravo, New Atheists!" Futility aside, we do need a healthy debate between religious and non-religious. And again, both Hitchens and Dawkins are wicked smart, and very enjoyable reads.
Bill Maher, however, is an insufferable buffoon who I absolutely cannot stand. If he was any more full of himself it'd be coming out his ears...
On “Falsifying the Unfalsifiable”
Cello--
Is there some other kind of evolution that I haven't heard of that I could possibly be confusing this with? If my memory serves, evolution was "discovered" by a Christian, Charles Darwin, was rather more fleshed out when notes of a certain German Monk (Mendel) helped explain how it worked, and has been pursued and honed by Christians and non-Christians alike ever since.
And yes, apes are common ancestors, and so is primordial sludge. See, it's quite frankly compatible in every manner with religion. Science, to my mind, explains the function of the universe, but not the why, nor the origins. It's like looking at the engine of a car, studying the manuals, learning all about how it works etc. and then saying that because we know all of that there can be no engineer that designed it. Or contra that, it's like saying "There was an engineer, and that's all there ever was! The car was not built, it simply came into being when the engineer decided it should!"
And no, I also don't support the ID folks. They'd demean the beauty of natural selection by infusing it with the very human notion of intelligent design. Quite frankly, I think the method God has chosen (random selection, survival of the fittest, all that...) is far more clever than the shallow claims of the ID purveyors.
And yes, even my ultra-conservative Catholic grandmother believes this. But I know many Christians don't, and it's a shame...
On “the inevitability dodge”
We haven't really saved anyone from genocide in Eastern Europe. We've adopted an age old stewardship of a region that needs badly to work out its differences without the intervention of the Ottomans, the Soviets, or the Americans. We are merely prolonging the inevitable.
On “Tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury…”
Jack, thanks...and you and the many who have critiqued my critique of Dawkins are right on that score also, to some degree. What irked me about The God Delusion was that Dawkins really does attempt to disprove God, at least through one side of his mouth, while at the same time admitting that it can't be done. Then why try? That's the point I'm making here. It's an exercise in futility. And writing books about the evils of religion is an exercise in redundancy. But that's just my take, and you all have raised some valid points.
Thanks!
On “calling bullshit on bullshit”
I don't know, Bob. I think the whole "ownership-society" is problematic. Then again, I think the concept of single-family homes is problematic. I think the drift away from extended-family living is not the direction humanity was supposed to move. It creates undue burdens on workers, on the State, on the individual. Ironically, I just began Gladwell's Outliers, and there in the first chapter is at least a little validation for this point. Everything is bound to community, and yet we now do our best to tear away at that most essential fabric of society.
Was the world built to sustain homes for every family? Perhaps, but perhaps families were meant to work together, multi-generational efforts, to realize this. Now we all want everything.
On “Opportunity, Society, and the Role of the State”
I agree, Freddie. Douthat and Salam are not always correct, I think, but their work on GNP and elsewhere is fantastic in that it is fresh, and new, and actually attempts to deal with the concept of governance and society rather than whatever it is the rest of the conservative movement is doing whilst twiddling its proverbial thumbs...and crying foul at any move by those "damned libruls!"
On “Intervening into the Unknown/The Unknown Intervening into US”
Chris, there's a lot to go through in this but I think you've hit on some key points. I did a piece a while back about the Anbar Awakening and the consequences Iraq faces should the Shiite majority attempt to disenfranchise, disarm, and stop paying these useful militias. Won't be good.
In any case...more on this later...
On “the democracy fallacy”
I think it really depends on the neocon. As I'm full aware, as with any project, the motivations of neocons range across a wide spectrum...
More on this later...
"
Courtney--
First of all, generational commitments of this nature do end up becoming military commitments. Our interference in the Middle East has lasted longer than my entire lifespan. They began before I was born, and have continued up to this day. I see no reason that they won't continue on through to the next generation and the generation after that. Good lord, the Middle East has been in a state of near-perpetual war for centuries. To think we can end all that...?
And yes, Dr. Rice is correct--democracy does take time. It takes generations. Civil order over centuries, failed governments, a steady increase in the sort of minds and coalitions that can make democracy a reality have to be fostered organically from within. The conditions necessary for true, stable democracy cannot--simply cannot--be forced down a nation's throat.
What is the alternative?
Leave them be. Set up trade. Keep the world as open as possible. Live by example. Encourage liberalism where we find it. Publicly discourage tyrannical behavior. Keep trading. Help create a world where the flow of goods can be realized. Democracy sprouts where we see strong middle-classes develop, where the eventual rule of law takes hold.
The fact is, post-Nazi Germany was a much more likely candidate for democracy than Iraq ever was, not because Hussein was worse than Hitler--far from it--but because Germany had the proper historical conditions to evolve into a democratic nation--it had already been a democratic nation. Iraq? I see faux-elections there, and the steady rise of a Shiite authoritarian State.
The alternative is not isolation, not by a far cry. It is looking to our own interests first and foremost, and that does not include turning thorny bushes into trees, as Michael Yon so recently, and eloquently, put it....
"
Satya--
Also good points. However I would say Germany was every bit a Democratic State when it went to war. Yes, a fascist party had taken control, but it had done so through the democratic system. That democracies may be less likely to go to war with one another is true, but I would say that is more due to trade than to shared electoral process...
"
True, Roland. And I don't think that any society is intrinsically un-democratic. It's all in the timing, though. And in the execution...
On “the inevitability dodge”
I agree Freddie. And by "pro-America" I think I mean, pro-the-idea-of-America, not pro-everything-we-do. Kind of like what I mean when I say that I am "pro-Israel." And no, I am not referring to purposeful action on the part of America toward Iran. The free market is a better tool than government intervention even culturally. Propaganda will never be as effective as the accidental influence of trade.
"
One major point of disagreement here, Freddie. While Western culture exports may not lead directly to liberalization or freedom, they do start to plant seeds. Where much of these exports may be trash tv and pop music, somewhere in that flood will be real philosophy and literature. Somewhere in all that pop culture, you'll also get some notion of freedom of speech, of these other basic values we hold dear. It may not happen quickly, but that's not to say it won't happen at all. Sure Kim Jong Il isn't "westernized" by his cowboy movies. But the influence of western culture in Iran, contra to your claim, actually has made a difference. The Iranian people are not the mullah-revering, anti-American mobs so often portrayed on the news. It's a young country and very pro-America in many regards, very modern, very black-market-liberalized. All the more reason, I say, to not bomb the hell out of them.
On “the democracy fallacy”
Great comment, Roland. Your point about Korea is well taken. However, whether the outcome of the South Korean State justifies the foreign policy that got us involved in that conflict is another matter. The Southern European nations were democratized without any military intervention; the Eastern European nations that have democratized, did so after a policy of containment that never turned into a US intervention.
Also, I would hesitate to compare Confucian society to Islamic society, not because one is more or less warlike, but because of the nature of the faiths themselves. Confucianism is a bit more lax, a bit more secular. It is a set of guidelines combined with some ancestor reverence and basic household roles (I know, I simplify); whereas Islam is a faith of extreme submission. Perhaps there is also something about the geographical quality of S. Korea--peninsular as it is, and cut off from much of the other nations in the region.
In any case, I am specific to the Middle East in this piece because I do think it is a unique region in the world--though I might add Africa to the basket of military quagmires. Could the region become democratized? Yes, I think so, though not by military force save at too great a cost. And would that democracy truly benefit the West? Or Israel? That's another question entirely, and I'm not so sure the answer is "yes."
That said, I think I fall in line with the Krauthammer piece you quote above, and I am not completely against intervention. I think that it has become over-used, however, with little cultural and historical understanding on the part of its advocates, and too much idealism.
In any case, thanks very much for stopping by. I hope we can continue the debate!
On “Idealism with a Sword”
Never called you an idiot, Roque. Just stated that your reasoning in this matter was simplistic, which it is.
On “Unanswered Questions”
Bob, a lot of the comments are a bit crazy. Any time this subject is broached the comments get a bit crazy. But I'd say a lot of them are really pretty amazingly good, reasonable, etc. Funny thing, though, OG Mark Thompson has been called a Godless nihilizt and a Christianist during this series, so you gotta admit, that's a bit off...
And I, for one, am entirely against closing comments. For one, the comments have and will spark future posts and series and I very much value *most* of the comments we've received so far. Besides, Sullivan must have to dig through loads of email. Comments are so much easier.
"
I don't know. The question is not so much "if Constantine did or did not do this" since it happened. If it had not happened, some other thing could have. There is no way to know how history works. As with God, there is no way to prove one way or another if God is working through history or not. Or through biology, or through any other thing.
You always have to assume something, but some hypotheses can explain the data while assuming less than others. I’m sorry, it’s obvious that the atheists assume less.
I'm not so sure. For the most part, I think I am right there with the atheists on almost all the major assumptions. I believe in science as a tool we use to understand the world. I believe in reason and logic. I just also believe in God.
"
I hardly think this has to do with being "willfully ignorant" at all. I think you read this entirely the wrong way. I think the vast majority of existence is unknown, and at some point humility requires that we accept that. We are only human. There is a great deal we can know, and a great deal of knowledge we can gain, but at some point we will hit a wall. Accepting our limitations is not at all the same thing as being willfully ignorant.
Not only that, but many, many people of faith (or non-faith) are actually a great deal uncertain about many of these fundamental questions. Of course there are those who are certain about everything under the sun, but that does not in any way describe the vast majority of people, full of doubt, questions, etc.
On “Idealism with a Sword”
Roque
It must be nice to have such a cut and dry, simplistic, one-sided perspective with which to rationalize and condense all the world's nuance. It allows you to say such absurdly simplistic things. If only they were like us there'd be no war. We'd all live in peace and harmony. Right, the West has gotten along so well. We never warred amongst ourselves, right? Oy vey...
"
Nonsense, Roque. We have been meddling, and you have to have your head in the sand to think otherwise. We've been sticking our hands into a nest of vipers and expect not to get bitten. Of course no amount of our pre-9/11 activities justify in any way the jihadists attack on our civilians. But when dealing with irrational entities we have to be careful. Defensive jihad--jihad in general--is just an overly aggressive, globalist form of nationalist expansionism. And we think we can overcome the notions that gave rise to that by implementing democracy in the region? How exactly does that work?
"
Quick thoughts: No, it was most certainly not GW that brought this "clash" about. Prior to this we've seen the rise and fall of Empires--the Byzantine, the Ottoman, etc.--no, this is a much larger story to be sure.
However, that was not the thrust of my argument. Given that said Clash of Civilizations exists and will continue to do so, we should avoid ideological interventionism in favor of practical trade relationships or (hopefully someday) as little a relationship as possible at least in the trade of oil. Avoidance, really, of that quagmire of a region may be our best eventual policy.
Thanks!
On “Tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury…”
Good points, Bob. I'd add I do not believe in Hell, and in fact the momentum in Christianity is to do away with that nonsense altogether. I forget the link, but I found stats on the number of times the word Hell is included in modern Bibles, and it is diminishing.
I also have come to believe that most "Holy wars" or religious wars are actually nationalistic with overtones of religiosity only. Religion is a great recruiter, but it rarely inspires wars, which are more often fought for land, wealth, power...women. ;)
Just some thoughts...
"
No, Bob, I'm not. But there's plenty of ways to interpret that Gospel and to interpret how that should influence one's actions and behaviors. I personally believe in the lead-by-example method, rather than to proselytize. I really can't imagine how that could make me "anti-Jesus."
And clamflats, those are sarcastic little names I came up to describe a handful of the new atheists who I think are profiting from a pointless attempt to somehow prove their is no God. I do not include the vast majority of atheists in my snark, a far cry from say Maher's ridicule of the religious.
On “Falsifying the Unfalsifiable”
clamflats:
If you think that's what this series has been about then you haven't read very closely.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.