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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. ;)
Since when did elitist become such a dirty word, anyways? And why solely in the realm of politics? I don't refer to a good doctor or a smart professor as elitists in order to call them out in some way.
Andrew, the Nazis used Darwinian theory to promote their pure race ideology and "science" and science itself is a tool that can be used for good or ill, much like religion.
The Discovery Institute is a fringe organization and in no way represents the vast majority of modern Christians. Once again, matoko, you paint in the broadest of strokes, eschew evidence in favor of your own bloated opinions, and fail to see the larger picture because you have such a very set vision of how you perceive things to be.
Elizabeth, you may be right. I agree, it must be frustrating on a certain level...though at the same time, I think it should be viewed more as an opportunity than as something to be bitter over. Every expansion of media technology has lead to a wider potential dispersion of media and commentary, from the printing press to cable news to the blogosphere. And yes, each generation takes that new medium for granted....
Thanks. You're right, and I may have been a little too sarcastic...
So what's the point? So people believe things that have consequence. Everything has consequence. Stalin was an atheist, right? Was it his belief in power and his lack of faith in a power higher than himself that lead to his madness and murder? I don't know. Belief or lack thereof has consequence, and to each individual or situation that changes. Who says that belief in God is any more detrimental than the loss of that belief? We are in muddy waters assigning such certainties to such unquantifiable data. I am vehemently opposed to teaching creationism in school, but far more opposed to the idea that somehow we need to snuff out that viewpoint. There is such thing as the rule of law, and our particular laws should protect us from creationism, and protect our church's as well from the secularism of the State.
No, of course I have no proof of that, Bob. I do believe that such a book is a form of shock-literature, though. And of course it has sold far more copies than any of his previous works, which is fine. I just don't think it's the most intellectually honest pursuit Dawkins has undertaken.
But similarly, science demeans itself when it used as a proof of the non-existence of god. Science is not meant to provide unfalsifiable answers, nor is it intended to answer questions that can only admit of unfalsifiable answers. To do so is to turn the scientific method on its head. And in so doing, science demeans itself because it loses part of its very essence.
...is brilliant. Indeed, I often feel the same when religious types try to push religion overtly into legislation, that it demeans Faith. Same with science in the context you use here.
And to the rest of you, nobody here is preaching anything other than there is no point in proving or disproving God's existence. I don't see any of these posts as apologetics for Christianity or the Christian God at all. Maybe I'm missing something. It's funny though, the one thing that seems to bother people the most is proselytizing by the religious on the non-believers. This, I too feel is a problem. And yet, when atheists do it, you jump to their defense with as flimsy a rebuttal as "Well you do it too!" or "You did it first!"
And no, I certainly don't speak for most theists on this matter. I speak only for myself. And I disagree with other religious types as often as I do with atheists. In fact, this is really more a matter of debating against the wrong questions, not the wrong ideas.
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 “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 “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 “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 “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?
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...
On “eating my vegetables”
Since when did elitist become such a dirty word, anyways? And why solely in the realm of politics? I don't refer to a good doctor or a smart professor as elitists in order to call them out in some way.
On “Falsifying the Unfalsifiable”
Andrew, the Nazis used Darwinian theory to promote their pure race ideology and "science" and science itself is a tool that can be used for good or ill, much like religion.
"
The Discovery Institute is a fringe organization and in no way represents the vast majority of modern Christians. Once again, matoko, you paint in the broadest of strokes, eschew evidence in favor of your own bloated opinions, and fail to see the larger picture because you have such a very set vision of how you perceive things to be.
On “eating my vegetables”
Elizabeth, you may be right. I agree, it must be frustrating on a certain level...though at the same time, I think it should be viewed more as an opportunity than as something to be bitter over. Every expansion of media technology has lead to a wider potential dispersion of media and commentary, from the printing press to cable news to the blogosphere. And yes, each generation takes that new medium for granted....
Thanks. You're right, and I may have been a little too sarcastic...
On “Falsifying the Unfalsifiable”
Andrew,
So what's the point? So people believe things that have consequence. Everything has consequence. Stalin was an atheist, right? Was it his belief in power and his lack of faith in a power higher than himself that lead to his madness and murder? I don't know. Belief or lack thereof has consequence, and to each individual or situation that changes. Who says that belief in God is any more detrimental than the loss of that belief? We are in muddy waters assigning such certainties to such unquantifiable data. I am vehemently opposed to teaching creationism in school, but far more opposed to the idea that somehow we need to snuff out that viewpoint. There is such thing as the rule of law, and our particular laws should protect us from creationism, and protect our church's as well from the secularism of the State.
On “Tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury…”
No, of course I have no proof of that, Bob. I do believe that such a book is a form of shock-literature, though. And of course it has sold far more copies than any of his previous works, which is fine. I just don't think it's the most intellectually honest pursuit Dawkins has undertaken.
On “Falsifying the Unfalsifiable”
Mark, this:
...is brilliant. Indeed, I often feel the same when religious types try to push religion overtly into legislation, that it demeans Faith. Same with science in the context you use here.
And to the rest of you, nobody here is preaching anything other than there is no point in proving or disproving God's existence. I don't see any of these posts as apologetics for Christianity or the Christian God at all. Maybe I'm missing something. It's funny though, the one thing that seems to bother people the most is proselytizing by the religious on the non-believers. This, I too feel is a problem. And yet, when atheists do it, you jump to their defense with as flimsy a rebuttal as "Well you do it too!" or "You did it first!"
And no, I certainly don't speak for most theists on this matter. I speak only for myself. And I disagree with other religious types as often as I do with atheists. In fact, this is really more a matter of debating against the wrong questions, not the wrong ideas.
Believe and let believe. Or not believe.