Why Would They Do This?

This piece by Matthew Xiao at The Washington Free Beacon should receive more air time than it's been getting.

Ever since October 7th we've heard that the Israelis are causing a huge humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This, despite the fact that the Israelis have been allowing hundreds of relief trucks into Gaza and the United States has been air-dropping food and medicine to Palestinian civilians.

The U.S. is even constructing a pier to offload humanitarian relief into Gaza, but true to their nature, Hamas has launched a mortar strike against the pier:

Gazan terrorists on Wednesday launched mortar shells at a site off the coast of Gaza where the United States is planning to construct a floating pier to deliver humanitarian aid, according to a report from Israeli outlet i24NEWS.

The mortar attack damaged American engineering equipment and left one person injured, i24NEWS reported on Thursday. The United States could start building the humanitarian pier as early as this weekend, with the Israel Defense Forces reportedly in charge of providing security during the construction.

President Joe Biden first announced the pier’s construction during his State of the Union address on March 7. U.S. military personnel will assemble the floating pier, an 1,800-foot-long causeway attached to the coast of northern Gaza, Pentagon press secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said the day after Biden’s speech.

"As the president has said, not enough aid is getting in [to Gaza]," Ryder said, noting the pier is expected to help deliver "up to 2,000,000 meals in a day."

One has to ask, what kind of individuals are these who would attack this facility in what was apparently an attempt to thwart efforts to get food and other necessities to their own people? Why would they do this if they cared at all about their own kin?

Well, in fact they're the same barbarians with whom the moral blank slates on our university campuses across the country have chosen to identify themselves.

This incident should tell us something about both Hamas and the young people who think Hamas is worthy of their praise and support.

Divine Hiddenness

There are two antitheistic (against the existence of God) arguments that non-theists have found particularly convincing over the last several centuries.

One of these is the problem of evil which has received perhaps its greatest literary expression in The chapter titled "The Rebellion" in Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov.

The other argument, which is in some ways similar to the problem of evil (or suffering), is based on what philosophers call "Divine hiddenness" and which the Japanese Catholic Shusako Endo portrayed so powerfully in his novel Silence (See also the movie based on the book).

The technical form of the argument from Divine hiddenness can be found here, but in simpler English the argument goes something like this:

1. If a good God exists, He would not allow anyone who would otherwise believe in Him to remain ignorant of His existence and be lost for eternity.
2. There are people, however, who are ignorant of God's existence who would otherwise believe in Him if they knew of Him.
3. Therefore, there are people who would believe in God if they knew of Him who are lost for eternity.
4. Therefore, a good God does not exist.

Or, put more simply, because there are people who are innocently unaware of God's existence and who would believe in Him if they knew, therefore He doesn't exist.

This argument makes three questionable assumptions. It assumes that there really are those who are genuinely ignorant of God's existence; it assumes that those who are ignorant of God's existence will necessarily be lost for eternity; and it assumes that God could not possibly have overriding reasons for not revealing Himself in ways that persons ignorant of His existence, if such there be, would find compelling.

Each of these assumptions is doubtful, and in this form, at least, the argument is not very persuasive.

Perhaps a more psychologically compelling version of the argument is the one developed by Endo in his novel.

Roughly based on a true story, the novel describes the terrifying ordeal of a 16th century missionary to Japan who is put through mental tortures to persuade him to commit what seems to be a relatively minor act of blasphemy. He's required to step on a crude portrait of Jesus, and his refusal to commit this act of desecration is punished by Japanese samurai who subject innocent Christian villagers to unimaginable suffering until the missionary relents.

Despite his agonized prayers, however, there's no apparent answer from heaven. God seems silent, hidden, absent.

As emotionally gripping as this story is, in the end it doesn't demonstrate that God does not exist. The only thing it demonstrates about God is that He's sometimes, perhaps frequently, inscrutable, but believers already knew that.

It's interesting, too, that Endo's missionary, although crushed and broken by his ordeal, ultimately retains his belief in God.

To say that the argument from Divine hiddenness ultimately fails is not to minimize, however, its emotional and spiritual force.

God's seeming absence has been the cause of much anguish among many believers in the midst of great suffering and fear throughout most of human history. I have a friend who has drifted into agnosticism largely because of it.

A family member recently sent me a simple vignette that's a parable about the doubt materialists have about life after death but which actually, if perhaps inadvertently, also addresses the problem of Divine hiddenness. It goes like this:

In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?”

The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”

“Nonsense,” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”

The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”

The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”

The second insisted, “Well, I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”

The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover, if there is life, then why has no one ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery, there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”

“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”

The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”

The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her, this world would not and could not exist.”

Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only reasonable to believe that She doesn’t exist.”

To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

In other words, from the fact that the babies don't perceive her, don't see or hear her, it surely doesn't follow that she doesn't exist or care about them and their well-being. So it is with God's silence.

Just Plain Evil

Abe Greenwald, executive editor of Commentary magazine, posted some penetrating questions for the Pro-Hamas demonstrators on our university campuses. Townhall's Guy Benson fills us in on Greenwald's fiery post.

Greenwald writes:

Why aren’t the “protestors” demanding that the terrorist group Hamas release hostages and surrender? Literally none of them are calling for that. All the fury is aimed at Israel, none at the party that started the war with an act of mass slaughter and rape and that keeps it going with hostage-taking and human-shielding.

Hamas has turned down every “ceasefire” offer. Why would pro-ceasefire activists support the side that refuses a ceasefire? Why would a supposedly anti-war movement overtly support the side of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, all of whom exist only to wage war?

Why haven’t these wonderful humanitarians mounted similar campaigns in response to actual genocides, such as those carried out against Muslims in China, Syria, Sudan, and Myanmar? Slaughters that have claimed many more innocent lives than the war in Gaza?

I’ve screamed and written about these atrocities for years. Where were they? Why do protesters cite Hamas statistics as gospel? Why do they ignore the fact that most wars—especially those wars that have been overwhelmingly celebrated as righteous—have far worse civilian to combatant ratios than does the current war in Gaza? World War II comes to mind.

Why did they start protesting Israel immediately after October 7, before Israel even launched its ground invasion in Gaza? Why do people who would be apoplectic over the most microscopic indication of anti-black racism or Islamophobia downplay the flagrant and widespread violent anti-Semitism of these rallies as the unrepresentative behavior of “just a few jerks”?

Have they not seen the total saturation of Hamas slogans at these events? Why are these protests growing larger, more active, and more violent at the moment that Gaza has been becalmed? Israel pulled out the majority of its troops weeks ago and the death toll dropped dramatically months before that (even by the bullsh*t Hamas numbers).

Why does a political movement that claims to believe in indigenous rights, immigration, gender-equality, refugee acceptance, democracy, and religious pluralism support a non-indigenous, conquering, theocratic tyranny of female servitude, murderous homophobia, religious intolerance, and totalitarian subjugation against a democratic state of an indigenous people that values equal rights and personal liberty?

Greenwald goes on to state what's pretty obvious to everyone who's paying attention. I'll paraphrase since Greenwald's anger leads him to use some intemperate language - These students and their professorial abettors are know-nothing hypocrites.

Either that or they're just plain evil. After all, what else can you call people who applaud those who committed the horrors of October 7th.

Haters

In a column highly critical of President Biden's waffling when asked if he condemns the anti-semitic bigots protesting on some of our university campuses, Jim Geraghty says something that bears especial emphasis.

He writes:

As I have pointed out before, notice that these people, who often insist that they’re just anti-Zionist, not antisemitic, take out their anger on any Jewish people they can find. They’re not marching over to the Israeli consulate. They’re not going down to Washington to protest outside the Israeli embassy. Nope, they’re protesting and harassing people outside campus Hillels, synagogues, and JCCs.

These bitter little hatemongers keep claiming they’re upset about Israel, but they keep taking out their rage on any Jew they can find. Folks, that’s antisemitism! Do not judge people by what they say, judge people by what they do.

The people protesting on our campuses, or at least many of them, are filled with hatred, not just for the Israeli government, not just for the nation of Israel, they're filled with hatred for Jews.

The longer the war in Gaza continues the more the mask they wear slips and the more blatant are the expressions of their hatred.

This is the American left. It began in the sixties talking about "peace and love' and has morphed over the last sixty years into a seething cesspool of loathing and violence.

The religion of the left is Marxism, its expression is anarchy. Its deepest desire is the destruction of the West, and any policy, any movement, which facilitates that end is embraced as a cause célèbre.

The means to this end, as Marx makes clear in his The Communist Manifesto, is the destruction of the traditional family, community, religion, the capitalist economic system, the education system, and every other institution that has made America the greatest nation in the history of the world.

The goal is the complete atomization of society, the dissolution of whatever glue holds individuals together in society, which is why it does all it can to drive wedges between the races. It's why the left pushes identity politics and anything else that divides us rather than unifies us.

As Hannah Arendt observes in her master work, The Origins of Totalitarianism, the individual, solitary and alone, cannot withstand the pressures exerted by the state to bend the masses to its will.

The left is driven by its detestations to "tear it all down," and their hostility is directed at anything and anyone that represents success, achievement, and merit.

Today it's the Jews because they're an easy and vulnerable target and have been hated all through history. Tomorrow it'll be some other group. Perhaps it'll be the group to which you belong.

The protestors, or at least many of them, at Columbia and elsewhere are anti-semtic bigots, and bigots who despise people who are Jewish should have no more place in our society than those who despise people because of their skin color.

Naturalism's Daunting Challenge

Within the last fifty years, and especially the last twenty, the belief that nature is all there is (i.e. naturalism) and that everything in the universe can be explained by natural processes, has run up against a serious, and perhaps fatal, difficulty. 

The problem is that biologists have come to realize that the fundamental substrate of living things is not matter, as naturalism has always held, but information. Information is contained in codes like the amino acid sequence in proteins or the nucleic acid sequence in DNA and RNA, and the origin of information, especially in the first living cell, is inexplicable in terms of random, unguided, unintelligent natural processes.

This 21 minute video does an excellent job of explaining the problem in terms that are easy to understand and follow. It features a protein chemist (Doug Axe) and a philosopher of science (Stephen Meyer), both of whom have played prominent roles in bringing the significance of biological information in the origin of life to public attention.

Any naturalistic explanation of the origin of life has to show how the enormous improbabilities of evolving just a single protein can be overcome by mindless chance.

It's a daunting challenge. Watch the video to see why:

Two Amazing Fish Stories

The following two short videos are really quite remarkable.

The first explains the astonishing biology that enables the Pacific salmon to navigate back to the same stream in which it hatched. The second tells a fascinating tale about a particular salmon that overcame enormous obstacles to return to its hatchery.

The amazing thing about this second feat is that the hatchery is not actually in the stream into which the fish was originally released, and how it got there was, for a time, a real mystery.

Check them out:

Liberal Fascism (Pt. II)

Yesterday's post, borrowing from Jonah Goldberg's 2007 book Liberal Fascism, addressed the relationship between progressivism and fascism, and sought to show that fascism is in fact an ideology of the left, and not, as is so often alleged nowadays, a species of extreme conservatism.

This post will try to bolster that case by going into a bit more detail about the origins and nature of fascism.

Fascism is a difficult concept to define and even scholars disagree on what it is. Nazi fascism under Hitler, for example, was much different than Italian fascism under Mussolini.

The Nazis were racist anti-semites. The Italians were not. In fact, Jews were relatively safe in both Spain and Italy until 1943 when the Germans took over the government of Italy. They were much safer in those fascist states than they were under the liberal regimes in France and the Netherlands.

Goldberg states that, "Before Hitler ... it never occurred to anyone that fascism had anything to do with anti-semitism."

What both forms of fascism shared in common, however, was a totalitarianism that was nationalistic, secularist, militaristic, and socialist. Mussolini began his political life as a radical socialist and the Nazi party was formally called the National Socialist party.

Both forms of fascism were strongly revolutionary, anti-capitalist, and anti-Christian. Indeed, Mussolini was a firm atheist who despised the Catholic church and who declared Christianity to be incompatible with socialism.

Both forms of fascism suppressed free speech (as our contemporary progressive social media platforms are doing); both were eager to force people to be healthy for their own good (as many progressives are urging our government to do with mask mandates); and both feed on crises because crises present opportunities for government control and national unity.

Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short circuits debate and democratic deliberation. Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency.

It was the progressive Rahm Emanuel, advisor to President Obama, who asserted that one should never let a crisis go to waste, and the perpetuation by the left of the sense of crisis over the current pandemic is a good example of how a crisis affords ample opportunities for the expansion of government power.

The differences between fascism and the communism usually associated with the left were minimal. Perhaps the biggest difference was that communists believed that the strongest bond between workers, regardless of nationality or ethnicity, was their struggle against the propertied classes. Communism was, and is, an internationalist movement.

Fascists recognized that this was nonsense. What bonded people together, they saw, was not class but ethnicity and nation, blood and soil. Other than that the two ideologies were fraternal twins.

When Mussolini founded his fascist party in 1919 their platform consisted of a number of proposals among which were the following:

• Lowering the voting age to eighteen
• Ending the draft
• Repealing titles of nobility
• A minimum wage
• Establishing rigidly secular schools
• A large progressive tax on capital that would amount to a partial expropriation of all riches
• The seizure of all goods belonging to religious congregations, i.e. repealing the church's tax-exempt status
• The nationalization of all arms and explosives industries

There's nothing in that list that wouldn't warm the heart of an old socialist warhorse like Bernie Sanders or a young one like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

As for the version of fascism embraced by the Nazis, Goldberg says this:

The Nazis rose to power exploiting anti-capitalist rhetoric that they indisputably believed.... Nazism also emphasized many of the themes of later New Lefts in other times and places: the primacy of race, the rejection of rationalism, and emphasis on the organic and holistic - including environmentalism, health food, and exercise - and, most of all, the need to "transcend" notions of class.

For these reasons Hitler deserves to be placed firmly on the left because first and foremost he was a revolutionary. Broadly speaking, the left is the party of change, the right the party of the status quo. On this score Hitler was in no sense, way, shape, or form a man of the right. There are few things he believed more totally than that he was a revolutionary.

To somehow seek to conflate Hitler in particular and fascism in general with contemporary American conservatism, as many have tried to do ever since the 1950s, is historical idiocy. "American conservatives seek to preserve both traditional values and the classical liberal creed enshrined in the Constitution," Goldberg writes, "... whereas Hitler despised both of them."

In that his fascism, and that of Mussolini, has much more in common with today's left than with the modern right.