The Progressive Diminishment of Man

Rebecca Bynum of the New English Review authors a fine essay titled The Progressive Diminishment of Man. Her piece is reminiscient of C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man and offers many good insights into the dehumanization of modern man. I have only two minor quibbles with it.

I think she could have been a bit more clear that the problem is scientism not science. She does say this, but the point needs more emphasis, I think, than she gives it. Nor do I think the rejection of the monistic materialism naturalism, or scientism, entails is a sufficient remedy to the problem. In my view nothing short of an explicit acknowledgement that there exists a personal Creator in whose image we are fashioned will suffice to address the "diminishment" Bynum so skillfully exposes.

But these quibbles are insignificant compared to her overall case. Start with these paragraphs:

In the space of a few short generations, man has descended from seeing himself as a little less than the angels to king of the beasts to nothing more than a complex machine. The effect this has had on culture, on art and literature, has been devastating. For as the essential importance of man has decreased, so has his ability to portray life in anything other than absurd terms.

[L]iterature has been reduced to a prolonged and tedious exploration of the aberrant....Indeed, the importance of human life has been so reduced that certain philosophers argue, with dead seriousness, that it is actually immoral to prefer human life over than the life of an animal.

The high priests of scientism, from Stephen Hawking to Richard Dawkins, argue that given enough time, science will eventually answer all questions, and implied is the idea that science, and science alone, contains all truth. However, upon examination, we find great areas where science has already abdicated. Science cannot, for example, explain the difference between a living and a dead organism in purely scientific terms. Scientists observe the elliptical movements of the planets and the mathematical precision of the orbits of electrons around the atomic proton, and postulate the existence of forces to explain these motions, but they cannot tell us what these forces actually are. For example, science can describe the effects of electricity, but it cannot tell us what electricity is any more than it can tell us what life is or what gravity is.

This is an excellent point. Scientism is the belief that science has all the answers to life's most important questions and any question that science can't answer isn't really worth asking. Yet as Bynum points out, science really can tell us very little. Not only does it not know what a force like gravity or magnetism actually is, neither can it tell us what matter is, what energy is, or how they interact. It can't tell us what a mind is, what an idea is, how we experience sensations like color or sound, what consciousness is, or even what life is. It can not give us a satisfactory explication of moral obligation, it can't tell us what our purpose is or give meaning to life. Nor can it explain why truth matters. It can discover the principles that enable us to build cars, televisions, i-pods, computers, and nuclear weapons, but it can't tell us how these things should be used. We could go on, but I think the point is made. Science can describe what happens when one bit of matter comes close to another, but it cannot tell us much else of importance about life.

Bynum goes on:

[I]t is my contention that even the possibility of exploring the non-material realm of mind has been effectively blocked by the overwhelming consensus of modern science that we live in a meaningless material universe and only the weak-minded would say otherwise. It is because science has progressively diminished man in his own eyes that philosophy has been stunted. We stand dumb in the face of confident Islamic assertions because we long ago abandoned the search for an effective and modern philosophical response to materialism. Islam is, in essence, an extremely materialistic religion with many similarities to secular materialism: both remove human dignity and envision man as a slave.

The reinvigoration of Western culture must include the restoration of man to a place of dignity in a meaningful universe. The first step must be to restore mind to a level of reality, not illusion, otherwise meaning and values cannot be considered to be real. If mind is not real, then all of man's knowledge and all his finest accomplishments in art and science are as nothing and the Muslim designation of the fruits of our culture as worthless jahiliyya would be justified. Perhaps it is time to revisit the works of Kant, Descartes, Aristotle and Plato and recognize that the banishment of mind from the realm of reality has not necessarily been wise. For without mind, where is will? and without will, where is freedom? Let us restore man to his proper and dignified place in a meaningful and thus mind-filled universe. One may even assert that in mind, we live, move and have our being.

By quoting Paul (Acts 17:28) Bynum is apparently tip-toeing up to the suggestion that though the reassertion of the dignity of man and a meaningful universe requires a restoration of the belief in mind (or soul) that in itself is not enough. We need to see the universe as the palette upon which God is painting a beautiful picture. We need to see human beings as being precious in the eyes of their Creator. Nothing less will afford us a basis for thinking man has any genuine dignity or worth. Nothing else can serve as a basis for human rights.

Anything less than a full-blooded acknowledgement of this metaphysical truth will prove ineffectual in restoring man to the exalted status Bynum rightly and eloquently calls us to reclaim.

RLC

Wallis Throws Down on Beck

Jim Wallis of Sojourners' issues a challenge to talk radio host Glenn Beck to debate him on whether the Bible obligates governments to engage in social justice (i.e. social welfare programs). Beck won't do it, of course, but I wish he would. Wallis is miffed at Beck because Beck has claimed that there is no such mandate in the Bible and that, in fact, the rubric of social justice has been used by fascists, communists, nazis, and socialists of all stripes throughout the 20th century to justify their aggrandizement of centralized power.

Here's Wallis being interviewed by Stephanie Miller:

I'm afraid that Wallis, not to mention Miller, misses the point here. Beck isn't saying that Christians shouldn't care for the poor. What he's saying, I think, is that there's nothing in Scripture that makes such care a responsibility of government. The Biblical imperatives enjoin individuals to help the poor. The Bible leaves it to those individuals to decide whom they will help and how much. Nowhere, as far as I'm aware, do they say that government has the duty or right to take property from one person to give it to others.

When government assumes the responsibility of caring for the poor then such care quickly becomes a right. So the poor have a right to food, education, heating fuel, and now to health care. By what logic can they be denied a right to a house (or at least home insurance), a tv, air conditioning, and a car (or at least auto insurance)? And if they have a right to all those things then their fellow citizens - you and I - have a duty to provide them. Should government be permitted to seize the property you work hard to earn and build in order to provide all these benefits for those who can't, or won't, work for them themselves?

Wallis says yes, Beck says no. I'm with Beck.

RLC

This Too Shall Pass

Imagine as you watch this OK Go video that you were told that the system designed for the video had somehow been erected by mindless forces acting by chance and you'll get some idea why so many people just feel intuitively that life is the work of an intelligent Engineer. After all, a single cell in your body is far more sophisticated and carries far more information than this amazing contraption:

Remarkable, no? But I suppose that given a couple million years the parts and the precise arrangement of this system could have accidentally been constructed. I mean, it's possible - in the same way that a bullet fired at random into outer space could possibly hit a dime-sized target on the other side of the universe - and according to a lot of Darwinians, as long as something's possible that's the same as being inevitable.

RLC

Texas Textbooks

Conservatives won a skirmish in the culture wars last week when the Texas school board adopted standards for all public school social studies textbooks used in the state. According to a New York Times report by James McKinley the new standards stress "the superiority of American capitalism, question the Founding Fathers' commitment to a purely secular government and present Republican political philosophies in a more positive light."

The vote was 10 to 5 along party lines, with all the Republicans on the board voting for it which makes wonder if the five Democrats think capitalism is not a superior economic system and that the Founders really were thoroughgoing secularists.

McKinley, who seems to be barely able to conceal his own disappointment with the success of the conservative faction on the board, goes on to note that the new standards include a change in "the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the nonviolent approach of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported."

The Board also approved an amendment saying students should study "the unintended consequences" of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. The new standards will also mention that Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.

The new standards also cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone.

I don't know whether Aquinas deserves more notice than Jefferson, but I do think John Locke does. Jefferson's thinking on revolution was largely influenced by Locke whose Second Treatise on Government provided the philosophical framework for Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.

At any rate, it's a consolation to read that there's at least one influential state determined to do what it can to insure that high school students aren't simply fed a fetid porridge of half truths and untruths about the history of their country. Perhaps other states will be emboldened to follow Texas' example.

Thanks go to Jason, who happens to teach history in Texas, for the link.

RLC

Media <i>Schadenfreude</i>

The liberal media have been having a feeding frenzy this past week at the expense of the hapless and strange Democrat from New York, Eric Massa. Mr. Massa, who has resigned his congressional seat, has admitted to participating in "tickle fights" with his assistants, as well as other behaviors most of us might consider somewhat unusual for a fifty year old husband and father. He's also been accused of making unwelcome sexual advances on male subordinates both in Congress and while serving as an officer in the Navy.

So much for the sad story of Eric Massa. What I'd like to focus on is the peculiar response to this episode by the liberal media which has been relishing and abetting the spectacle of this poor man humiliating and debasing himself in nationally televised interviews. They can't seem to get enough of the sordid details. My question for the media progressives, then, is what, exactly, do they consider Mr. Massa's offenses to be that he so richly merits their derision and contempt?

Are they scandalized by his alleged unwelcome gropings and advances? If so, where were they when Paula Jones, Kathleen Willy and Juanita Broaddrick were making the same, or worse, sorts of allegations against President Clinton? Back then the media couldn't do enough to discredit the women who were making the charges and to protect the President from their "slanders." In what significant way is Mr. Massa's behavior any different from President Clinton's? Indeed, it could be argued that it was not nearly as bad. Juanita Broadderick, after all, accused Mr. Clinton of having raped her and Kathleen Willey accused him of having molested her in the Oval Office. All of these women were subsequently subjected to smears, aspersions, and intimidation, and the liberal media happily piled on. Rather like Mr. Massa's friends were said to pile on him to celebrate his fiftieth birthday.

Perhaps, then, it's the homosexual nature of Mr. Massa's advances the media finds so titillating. But haven't they been instructing us for a generation now that gay sex should be looked upon in the same way we view "straight" sex? To ridicule Massa because his frolics were homo- rather than heterosexual is to violate one of the major tenets of 21st century liberal sexual orthodoxy. Why would enlightened liberals be snickering at Mr. Massa's conduct as though it were a degrading perversion, unless, of course, they're hypocrites?

Well, we don't want to think that so maybe the media are amused simply by the fact that this pathetic man is making a public fool of himself. But, again, if that's what has set them all to chortling why aren't they rolling on the floor in laughter over Nancy Pelosi's steady flow of inanities? This woman makes a fool of herself almost every time she opens her mouth. The other day she told us that Congress had to pass the health care reform (HCR) bill so that we could know what was in it. No sooner did we get done scratching our heads over that one than she followed it up with soothing assurances that if the measure is passed those of us who wish to be artists or writers won't have to worry about having to keep a job to pay for our insurance since our neighbors will be required to pay for it for us. Isn't that swell? If you decide to leave your job to go splatter paint on a canvas can you expect your neighbor to buy you your food and gas, and pay your mortgage, too?

Anyway, the liberal media's treatment of Massa is not about his sexual gropings. If it were they would've been outraged by Bill Clinton. Nor is it about the fact that his romps were homoerotic because liberals profess to see nothing wrong with that. Nor is it about his embarrassingly ridiculous attempts to justify his behavior in televised interviews for if it were they'd be scoffing merrily at Nancy Pelosi's vacuous attempts to justify HCR.

No. Under the pretense of illuminating Mr. Massa's ethical and moral transgressions the media is trying to destroy him because, despite being one of the most progressive members in the House of Representatives, he was a "no" vote on HCR. If he'd been a "yes" they would've had scarcely a word to say about his ethical problems, just as they've been loath to say much about Chris Dodd's or Charles Rangel's problems or those of the late Jack Murtha.

Perhaps the best explanation for the liberal media's conduct in this case - other than that, like bullies, they take pleasure in kicking people who are down (vide their delight in exposing every sleazy and harmful detail of Tiger Woods' personal life) - is that, perhaps unconsciously, they want to make Massa look as weird as possible so that the public will come to associate opposition to HCR with total weirdness.

RLC

Call Us Ishmael

Kevin Ferris of the Philadelphia Inquirer has penned a helpful summary of what's wrong with the President's plan for health care reform. His column is, in fact, a recap of the points made by congressman Paul Ryan at the Health Care Summit convened a couple of weeks ago by President Obama.

Ferris writes:

[O]ne thing was missing in the summit and in the 10 days since: answers to the sharp criticisms raised about the Obama/Reid/Pelosi health-care bills. Yet Obama and congressional Democrats charge ahead: We must have reform. Now. And it must be this Obama/Senate bill.

The public has been skeptical all along, doubting Congress' veracity and its accounting skills. Last week, a CNN poll showed only 25 percent in favor of the current Democratic plans, while 48 percent say start over.

Yet opposition and legitimate criticisms have been largely dismissed, and this was true at the summit, too, when raised by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) and others. So let me join Investor's Business Daily's Feb. 26 issue and others who have repeated Ryan's concerns, so these serious flaws can be addressed before "reform" is jammed down our throats:

"If you take a look at the CBO analysis, analysis from your chief actuary, this bill does not control costs; this bill does not reduce deficits. Instead this bill adds a new health-care entitlement, at a time when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have."

This bill "is full of gimmicks and smoke and mirrors."

"The bill has 10 years of tax increases of about one-half trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts of one-half trillion dollars to pay for six years of spending. What's the true 10-year cost of this bill? In 10 years, it is $2.3 trillion.

"When you strip out the double-counting and what I call the gimmicks, the full 10-year cost is a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit."

"It takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets, but that is really reserved for Social Security. So either we are double-counting them or we are not planning to pay those Social Security benefits."

"It takes $72 billion and claims money from the Class Act, that's the long-term-care insurance program. It takes the money from premiums that are designed for that benefit and instead counts them as offsets. The Senate Budget Committee chairman said this is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud."

"It treats Medicare like a piggy bank. It raids a one-half trillion dollars out of Medicare . . . not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program."

"The chief actuary of Medicare . . . is saying as much as 20 percent of Medicare providers will go out of business or stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage they now enjoy. You can't say that you are using this money to extend Medicare solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That's double-counting."

"We don't think we should cut [Medicare reimbursements to] doctors 21 percent next year. . . . It was in the first iteration of all these bills, but because it was a big price tag, and made the score look bad, it has been taken out of this bill and is going along in stand-alone legislation. But ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending does not reduce spending. . . . "

"Are we bending the cost curve down or bending the cost curve up? If you look at your own chief actuary at Medicare, we're bending it up. He's claiming we are going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have."

"We are all representatives of the American people. We all do town hall meetings. We all talk to our constituents. And I've got to tell you the American people are engaged. If you think they want a government takeover of health care, I would respectfully submit, you are not listening to them."

"What we simply want to do is start over, work on a clean sheet of paper, move through these issues step by step, and fix them, and bring down health-care costs and not raise them."

Ryan speaks as the author of a health-care plan that would cut costs, extend coverage, and not add to the deficit. Obama has continually made the same three promises, but while all Democratic plans extend coverage, they increase costs and the deficit.

Their response to Ryan thus far: We must have reform. Now. And it must be the Obama/Senate bill.

They're half-right. We must have reform. But it most definitely should not be this bill.

Democrat pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen bemoan that their party is committing political suicide by pursuing the great white whale that is their plan for health care reform. Like the insane Captain Ahab, the Democrats' refusal to listen to any other opinion and their obssession with passing the Senate plan will end in them destroying themselves and taking as many of us with them as they can.

Does this sound like anything else you've ever heard of?

Ramirez thinks so:

RLC

Millenial Fury

Most members of the Baby Boom generation are beginning to realize, if they hadn't already, that their retirement will not be the bowl of cherries they'd planned. Medicare and social security are probably going to be scaled back and retirement funds are worth only a fraction of what they were a few years ago. Factor in inflation over the next ten years or so and there'll be a lot of bitterness toward the people responsible for the Boomers' dashed plans for a pleasantly smooth sail into their dotage.

The Boomers will be angry, to be sure. Many of them already are, which is why we have the Tea Party mobvement. But the group who'll be most furious, according to The Washington Examiner's Mark Tapscott, is the children and grandchildren of the Boomers, the group he calls Millenials. Why will they be angry? Because they're the ones who'll be compelled to make up the shortfalls through higher taxes, lower wages and a lower standard of living.

Tapscott describes the Millenials' future:

Their federal taxes will hit unprecedented levels as Washington props up Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlement programs. So will state and local taxes, thanks to similarly generous pensions for teachers, cops, firemen, and bureaucrats.

Good health care will be harder to get for middle class Millennials and their kids, thanks to government rationing of medical services.

With a no-growth, high-tax, "green economy," entrepreneurial opportunities will be scarce, new jobs rare, and standards of living falling for the first time in American history. Most things will cost more, everyday tasks like getting to work and grocery shopping will be more tedious, and the general quality of life will be noticeably less pleasant.

In the process, millions of Millennials will have to take in their aging Boomer parents or otherwise care for them, and do so with fewer personal resources and under far greater economic pressures than those faced by perhaps any previous American generation since before the Great Depression.

Upon whom will the Millenials vent their anger and frustration? Tapscott prognosticates that it'll be profligate Progressive Democrats like Obama, Reid and Pelosi who sought to bloat the role of federal control over everyone's life and who borrowed and spent the country into a state of economic servitude to our creditors:

First, the dominant values of Millennials are inimical to centralizing, top-down, command-and-control government at the heart of the Progressive vision. Millennials grew up in a decentralized digital world of endless choices, limitless opportunity, and transparency in everything.

Think about that: Where Obama and the progressives dispatch reams of bureaucratic edicts, legions of bureaucrats, and tons of tax dollars to solve a problem, Millennials reach for their laptops, Internet creativity, and collaboration with each other. They don't need officious, over-paid GS-14s in Washington to tell them what to do. And they know it.

Second, it will be crystal clear who caused the entitlement crisis. Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are seeing to that now in their mad rush to pass Obamacare, even if means doing so over unanimous Republican opposition.

So, trust me, when the entitlement crisis hits home in full force during the next two decades, the Millennials will be hit hard and they will know exactly who to hold responsible. There will be hell to pay, with no grace period, no more bailouts and no more patience for politicians peddling lies about what government will do for them.

Perhaps this partly explains why we no longer see young people swooning as President Obama dispenses his oratorical flourishes. People in our land of Oz are peeking behind the curtain to catch a glimpse of the wizard and are discovering that the wizard is sadly something of a fraud.

We're justified in feeling bitter at having been duped by the intoxicating campaign rhetoric. It's understandable that people are disillusioned that Barack Obama turns out to be more like Jeremiah Wright than Denzel Washington. Our anger at what the Democrats are doing to the economic health of our nation is completely warranted, but before we submit to bitterness, disillusionment and anger we should pray for these people. Perhaps it's not too late for the horses pulling the wagon of state to back away from the brink of the abyss, or at least, if they're determined to rush headlong over the cliff themselves, to at least unhitch the wagon first.

RLC

Facts and Crack

Cornelius Hunter finds himself amused at the insistence of the Darwinians that their theory is a fact as well-established as the fact of gravity. I myself have read this claim on occasion and always thought it odd. Darwinism may be true, in the sense that it's certainly possible that things actually transpired in the way Darwinists claim, but the idea is hardly testable. I.e. the insistence that natural processes are sufficient to explain the diversity of life and all the appurtenances of living things is not amenable to falsification.

You can test the existence of gravity a hundred times every day before breakfast but try to imagine testing the truth of the claim that nothing but physical processes generated and diversified life. A Nobel Prize to whoever comes up with a way to do it.

Anyway, Hunter has this to say:

[E]volution has an ontological status that transcends the scientific details. There is the fact of evolution, and then there is the theory of evolution. This fact-theory dichotomy is a key apologetic in evolutionary thought. Notice that it decouples evolution from the evidence and makes the theory immune to the facts of biology. You can point out all the evidential problems you want--they don't affect the facthood of evolution.

But if the facts of biology can't hurt evolution, then they can't help either. How then do we know evolution is a fact? If evolution is not an empirical fact, and we cannot infer it from the evidence without substantial speculation and heroics, then why are evolutionists so sure?

The answer, of course, is that the only live alternative to evolution, or, more precisely Darwinian evolution, is intelligent design and that's a metaphysically repellant option to anyone who has committed his or her life to a naturalistic worldview. It's like waving a crucifix in front of a vampire (no offense intended to my Darwinian readers). People who have invested their lives in a worldview find it just as wrenching to relieve themselves of it as does an addict who tries to kick his addiction "cold turkey." Darwinism is to a naturalist what crack is to an addict. Take it away and their world is thrown into unbearable turmoil and pain. Darwinism must be true, it has to be true. The alternative is just unthinkable.

RLC

Nancy the Mad Hatter

Maybe Ramirez read our post yesterday titled Nancy in Wonderland.

Don't laugh, he could have:

RLC

Making Babies Cry

The E-Trade ads are better, but these are still pretty good:

Thanks to Hot Air.

RLC

Time and the Multiverse

Wired Magazine has an interview with physicist Sean Carroll in which he discusses his research on the nature of time. His work has led him to conclude that there are other universes, or more precisely, other regions of space that are closed off to our region - a version of the multiverse hypothesis. Carroll is not a theist but when he describes the origin of our space-time as a splitting off from a parent universe he seems to be describing God:

HT: Telic Thoughts

Wired.com: Can you explain your theory of time in layman's terms?

Sean Carroll: [T]he particular aspect of time that I'm interested in is the arrow of time: the fact that the past is different from the future. We remember the past but we don't remember the future. There are irreversible processes. There are things that happen, like you turn an egg into an omelet, but you can't turn an omelet into an egg.

Basically, our observable universe begins around 13.7 billion years ago in a state of exquisite order, exquisitely low entropy [disorder]. It's like the universe is a wind-up toy that has been sort of puttering along for the last 13.7 billion years and will eventually wind down to nothing. But why was it ever wound up in the first place? Why was it in such a weird low-entropy unusual state?

That is what I'm trying to tackle. I'm trying to understand cosmology, why the Big Bang had the properties it did. And it's interesting to think that connects directly to our kitchens and how we can make eggs, how we can remember one direction of time, why causes precede effects, why we are born young and grow older. It's all because of entropy increasing. It's all because of conditions of the Big Bang.

Wired.com: So the Big Bang starts it all. But you theorize that there's something before the Big Bang. Something that makes it happen. What's that?

Read the interview to see how Carroll answers the question. One of the things he says that I think he's mistaken about is this:

Even in empty space, time and space still exist. Physicists have no problem answering the question of "If a tree falls in the woods and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?" They say, "Yes! Of course it makes a sound!" Likewise, if time flows without entropy and there's no one there to experience it, is there still time? Yes. There's still time. It's still part of the fundamental laws of nature even in that part of the universe. It's just that events that happen in that empty universe don't have causality, don't have memory, don't have progress and don't have aging or metabolism or anything like that. It's just random fluctuations.

First, whether the tree makes a sound when there are no observers present depends on whether we define sound as a sensation or as compressions propagating through the air. The falling tree generates compression waves, to be sure, but the sensation of sound is produced by our hearing apparatus, not the tree. Sensations require senses, if there are no senses present there is no sensation, just energy.

Likewise with time in completely empty space. Time requires events, as Carroll acknowledges, but what events would there be in an empty space? If time exists despite the complete lack of events then what is it that's existing? It's not material, it's not energy, it's not a substance of any kind, so what could it be? If it's simply a dimension similar to the three dimensions of space we might wonder whether the idea of time apart from events makes any more sense than the idea of space apart from material objects makes sense.

The interview concludes with Carroll acknowledging that so far his view is merely speculative:

If you think you understand the rules of gravity and quantum mechanics really, really well, you can say, "According to the rules, universes pop into existence. Even if I can't observe them, that's a prediction of my theory, and I've tested that theory using other methods." We're not even there yet. We don't know how to have a good theory, and we don't know how to test it. But the project that one envisions is coming up with a good theory in quantum gravity, testing it here in our universe, and then taking the predictions seriously for things we don't observe elsewhere.

If this is all that his theory is, if there's no way to test it, then in what sense is it science? Why would it be okay to discuss Carroll's ideas in a science class but not the ideas of intelligent design theorists? Is it because Carroll's ideas are not a threat to metaphysical naturalism but the implications of ID are?

RLC

The View from Britain

Simon Heffer of the Telegraph U.K. wonders aloud if it's not the end of the road for Barack Obama's presidency. His column opens with this:

It is a universal political truth that administrations do not begin to fragment when things are going well: it only happens when they go badly, and those who think they know better begin to attack those who manifestly do not. The descent of Barack Obama's regime, characterised now by factionalism in the Democratic Party and talk of his being set to emulate Jimmy Carter as a one-term president, has been swift and precipitate. It was just 16 months ago that weeping men and women celebrated his victory over John McCain in the American presidential election. If they weep now, a year and six weeks into his rule, it is for different reasons.

Despite the efforts of some sections of opinion to talk the place up, America is mired in unhappiness, all the worse for the height from which Obamania has fallen. The economy remains troublesome. There is growth - a good last quarter suggested an annual rate of as high as six per cent, but that figure is probably not reliable - and the latest unemployment figures, last Friday, showed a levelling off. Yet 15 million Americans, or 9.7 per cent of the workforce, have no job. Many millions more are reduced to working part-time. Whole areas of the country, notably in the north and on the eastern seaboard, are industrial wastelands. The once mighty motor city of Detroit appears slowly to be being abandoned, becoming a Jurassic Park of the mid-20th century; unemployment among black people in Mr Obama's own city of Chicago is estimated at between 20 and 25 per cent. One senior black politician - a Democrat and a supporter of the President - told me of the wrath in his community that a black president appeared to be unable to solve the economic problem among his own people.

Mr. Heffer goes on to suggest that it's not premature to be writing Mr. Obama's political obituary, but perhaps there are a couple of problems with his analysis. First, he seems prone to exaggeration as for example when he states that FOX News "pours out rage 24 hours a day." There are, maybe, two hours of programming a day in which one could say that the network expresses something more than mere displeasure with the Obama administration. To aver that it "pours out rage" is to discredit one's case.

Mr. Heffer also seems to underestimate the fickleness of the American people who, though they may be abandoning Mr. Obama in droves today, might well return to him in droves tomorrow if the economy, despite the President's best efforts, turns around and jobs reappear.

Mr. Heffer also misses the mark somewhat when he notes that:

A thrashing of the Democrats in the mid-terms would not necessarily be the beginning of the end for Mr Obama: Bill Clinton was re-elected two years after the Republicans swept the House and the Senate in November 1994. But Mr Clinton was an operator in a way Mr Obama patently is not. His lack of experience, his dependence on rhetoric rather than action, his disconnection from the lives of many millions of Americans all handicap him heavily. It is not about whose advice he is taking: it is about him grasping what is wrong with America, and finding the will to put it right.

Mr. Obama's problem, however, is not that he lacks the will to put things right. His problem is that his view of what is wrong and what can be done to fix it are both obfuscated by the left-wing lenses through which he views the world. You can't fix a problem if a) you don't know what the problem is and/or b) you do know what the problem is, but your remedy is greater government control, higher taxes, and deeper debt.

During the Vietnam war the Left hooted in derision when some general justified bombing a village that harbored the enemy by opining that sometimes you had to destroy a village in order to save it. Today the Left's avatar, Mr. Obama, has adopted the same philosophy concerning the country. He seems to believe that he must destroy it in order to save it.

RLC

Nancy in Wonderland

It's hard to believe that someone who has climbed all the way to the rarified heights of political accomplishment attained by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and who has maintained even a minimum level of consciousness throughout the battles over Health Care Reform that have ebbed and flowed across the nation over the past year would say something as bizarre as Ms Pelosi said yesterday.

In a speech to the National Association of Counties the Speaker intoned:

You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America .... It's going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. (Emphasis mine)

Isn't this exactly backwards? Shouldn't we know what's in the measure before we pass it? Do the congresspersons who'll be voting on this 2000 page monstrosity of a bill really know what's in it, or are they, too, waiting until they pass it so they can find out? Is there any significant difference between Congress and Lewis Carroll's Wonderland?

Here's the incriminating video of the Speaker articulating her political dyslexia:

It's no wonder Americans think so little of their politicians. The Mad Hatter is more sensible.

RLC

100 Best

For movie buffs Moviefone lists the 100 best explorations of spiritual or religious themes of all time.

The films don't have to be explicitly religious to make the cut, nor do they have to be made with religious intent. Some of the films are made by atheists. I've only seen about ten of the films on the list myself so I can't judge their choices, but I do heartily agree with the inclusion of several of them. The Ingmar Bergman films, Seventh Seal and Winter Light, certainly deserve to be on it (I would have added The Silence), and I also agree that The Apostle and Man for All Seasons merit inclusion, but I'm really puzzled about the omission of Bella, Lord of the Rings, the Passion of the Christ, and, for that matter, Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth. I also would have added The Hiding Place, and perhaps Namesake, Arranged, and End of the Spear.

On the other hand, I wasn't a big fan of Bergman's Wild Strawberries or Babette's Feast, though I'm probably in the minority on this one, and I have to object, too, to the inclusion of Au Revoir Les Infants which I found disappointing.

Anyway, you can check the list out for yourself here.

RLC

Peter and Christopher

The Mail Online features a poignant, even lovely, piece by Peter Hitchens on his conversion from atheism and his lifelong feud with his brother, Christopher. Many readers will recognize Christopher Hitchens as the brilliant journalist who also has made it his mission to wage a personal jihad against all theistic religious belief. After publication of his book, God Is Not Great, Christopher embarked upon a tour of the United States debating various spokespersons of the Christian faith on the question, Does God Exist. In one of those debates in 2008 he and his brother Peter crossed swords in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Peter's account of their relationship is sad, although it does contain a somewhat happy ending.

In the course of his essay Peter offers some very insightful observations about the weaknesses of the atheist's belief system. After explaining his own long journey back to God he remarks that:

Why is there such a fury against religion now? Because religion is the one reliable force that stands in the way of the power of the strong over the weak. The one reliable force that forms the foundation of the concept of the rule of law.

The one reliable force that restrains the hand of the man of power. In an age of power worship, the Christian religion has become the principal obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power.

He also emphasizes a point that we have made numerous times here on Viewpoint:

He [his brother] often assumes that moral truths are self-evident, attributing purpose to the universe and swerving dangerously round the problem of conscience - which surely cannot be conscience if he is right since the idea of conscience depends on it being implanted by God. If there is no God then your moral qualms might just as easily be the result of indigestion.

Yet Christopher is astonishingly unable to grasp that these assumptions are problems for his argument. This inability closes his mind to a great part of the debate, and so makes his atheist faith insuperable for as long as he himself chooses to accept it.

One of the problems atheists have is the unbelievers' assertion that it is possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God. They have a fundamental inability to concede that to be effectively absolute a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter. On this misunderstanding is based my brother Christopher's supposed conundrum about whether there is any good deed that could be done only by a religious person, and not done by a Godless one. Like all such questions, this contains another question: what is good, and who is to decide what is good?

Left to himself, Man can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities; the deportation, slaughter, disease and starvation of inconvenient people and the mass murder of the unborn.

I have heard people who believe themselves to be good, defend all these things, and convince themselves as well as others. Quite often the same people will condemn similar actions committed by different countries, often with great vigor.

For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source. It must be beyond the power of humanity to change it to suit itself.

Its most powerful expression is summed up in the words 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends'.

The huge differences which can be observed between Christian societies and all others, even in the twilit afterglow of Christianity, originate in this specific injunction.

Peter Hitchens gives us an interesting, honest, very human account of alienation and redemption. It's well worth the few minutes it takes to read.

RLC

Technology and Happiness

My friend Matt discusses the interesting relationship between Technology, Excellence and Flow on human happiness. He offers a lot of good insights on the effects of technology and excellence on our sense of well-being and also on the importance of hard work in order to be able to do anything well. Musicians will be especially interested in part 2. Give them a look:

RLC

Irreconciliation

Yuval Levin at NRO clarifies a bit of confusion that surrounds the current debate over what's called "Obamacare." The House of Representatives is going to vote in a couple of weeks on the bill passed by the Senate on Christmas eve. If the House approves it, it will go directly to the President's desk to be signed into law. All the talk about the bill going back to the Senate for a reconciliation vote is something of a red herring. There will be no need for reconciliation if the House passes this bill because it's the same bill the Senate has already approved:

It's worth reiterating something [others] have pointed out: The focus on reconciliation in the past few days confuses things a bit. The question in the health-care debate at the moment is whether Nancy Pelosi can get enough of her members to vote for the version of Obamacare that passed the Senate late last year. If the House passes that bill, it will have passed both houses, will go to the president, and will become law.

Some liberal House Democrats have problems with that bill - especially with some of its tax provisions, though also a few other things. So to get some of their votes, the leadership is now telling them that if they vote for the Senate bill, the House could then pass another bill that amends the Senate bill to fix some of what they don't like about it. The Senate could then pass that amendment bill by reconciliation and it would also become law, and so the sum of the two laws would be closer to what they want.

But that amending bill wouldn't change the basic character of what would be enacted (and to the extent it would change it at the edges, it would be mostly for the worse): Either way, if the House passes the Senate bill then Obamacare would become law, complete with its massive, overbearing, costly, intrusive, inefficient, and clumsy combination of mandates, taxes, subsidies, regulations, and new government programs intended to replace the American health-insurance industry with an enormous federal entitlement while failing to address the problem of costs. Just about everything the public hates about the bill is in both versions. The prospect of reconciliation is just one of the means that the Democratic leadership is employing to persuade members of the House to ignore the public's wishes and their own political future and enact Obamacare.

In other words, any House Democrats who vote for the Senate bill thinking that the Senate will then revisit it to make it more palatable to them, are deluding themselves. Once the House passes this bill there'll be no need for the Senate to do anything. It'll be law.

This puts House Dems who don't want to buck their party but who do want changes made to the bill in the position of having to either vote against the bill, and keep it from becoming law in its present form, or vote for it and trust Obama and the Democratic senators to keep their word that they'll remove some of the more offensive provisions in reconciliation. The House Dems will have to trust that both the Senate and House leadership as well as the White House will work to produce a more moderate bill when in fact all three want a more liberal bill. They have to trust the party leadership even though neither Obama nor the Democrats have anything to gain and much to lose by going through the reconciliation process.

That's a lot of trust to place in politicians.

RLC

More on Son of Hamas

Over the weekend I read a book I talked about a little bit last week. The book is titled Son of Hamas and is written by Mosab Yousef the eldest son of one of the founders of Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization (though it wasn't founded as a terrorist organization). Yousef became a spy for the Israelis when he was 18 and converted to Christianity shortly after that. It's a fascinating story, but something about it leaves me dissatisfied or maybe curious is a better word.

Yousef never really explains how it was seemingly so easy for him to start working for Shin Bet (the Israeli security service). He was devoted to his father. He admired him and wanted to emulate him yet he betrayed him (His father, as well as the rest of his friends and family, have all since disowned him). He also abandoned his Islamic faith (which his father loved above all else) and embraced Christianity. This spiritual transition was gradual, but nonetheless, for a young Arab living in Ramallah it must have been more wrenching than Yousef makes it appear.

At any rate, there's no doubt that Yousef is a brave man, though he never trumpets his courage, and he certainly saved a lot of lives. Indeed, it was his refusal to assist in the assassination of a group of Hamas terrorists that eventually led to the demise of his career as a spy. Surely his life is at risk now that his story has been published, and, given the sort of people he betrayed, it takes incredible courage to publicly discuss what his former friends and fellow Hamas members will certainly see as treachery.

Indeed, the picture he paints of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations is exceptionally ugly and brutal - their brutality is one reason he offers for accepting the Israelis' offer to work for them. The Palestinian people have much more to fear from their fellow Palestinians than they do from the Israelis.

The Wall Street Journal has a very fine review of the book, and I encourage any readers who are interested in Yousef's story to check it out. The book itself can be ordered at my favorite bookstore, Hearts and Minds. I highly recommend it.

RLC

Does a Multiverse Help?

Last Wednesday we discussed the weakness of the weak anthropic principle as a reply to the argument for a designer of the universe based on the mind-boggling precision of the cosmic parameters. These finely calibrated values are set with breath-taking exactitude to just the values necessary to produce a universe which can sustain life. We mentioned in that post that there's a second more popular rejoinder to the fine-tuning argument for the existence of a designer that's gained a lot of currency in the last decade or so called the multiverse hypothesis (MH).

The MH comes in several different permutations but essentially it acknowledges that though our universe is extraordinarily improbable if it's the result of chance, the probabilities can be raised by assuming that there are a near infinite number of universes, all different in their basic laws. If this is the case, then it becomes much more probable that in all these worlds there will be one like ours, just like it becomes more probable that you will draw an ace from a deck of cards by increasing the number of draws. In fact, if the number of worlds is nearly infinite the existence of every possible world, including ours, becomes a near certainty, and we shouldn't be surprised that such a world exists.

This being the case a lot of materialist scientists who seek to avoid the unpleasant metaphysical implications of a universe that has been designed by an intelligent agent have embraced instead the theory that ours is just one of an untold number of worlds out there.

Unfortunately for the materialists, the MH doesn't help much. Indeed, it winds up making the existence of a designer far more likely than the materialist might have originally feared.

The problems with the MH are many. For instance, it's exceptionally unparsimonious, i.e. it multiplies entities beyond what's necessary to explain the facts of our world. Any theory that posits an infinity in order to explain the existence of the unimaginable precision of the fine-tuning of this world is by definition unparsimonious, especially if the alternative is to posit a single entity - an intelligent designer. This is especially true given that there's no evidence of any other universes, much less an infinity of them. All we know is that some versions of string theory allow for them, but we don't even know if string theory is true.

The MH violates the principle that it's always preferable to accept the theory for which there's evidence over the alternative for which there's no evidence. We have plenty of evidence, of course, that precision and fine-tuning can result from the actions of intelligent agents. But we have no evidence whatsoever either that fine-tuning on this scale of precision can result from sheer chance or that there any universes besides our own exist.

Nor have we any explanation for how these universes have been produced, and no way to test, or falsify, the claim that they exist.

Moreover, it is necessary, to make the argument work, to assume that all the universes are different, but this assumption is itself based on string theory, and, as noted above, we don't even know if string theory is true.

But worst of all for the multiverse proponent trying to escape the conclusion that there's a cosmic designer, is the fact that the MH actually winds up being an argument for the existence of a designer. To see this, assume there are a near infinite number of universes exhibiting a near infinite variety of physical constants, laws, and other states of affairs. If so, then any possible state of affairs would have to exist somewhere among them. The existence of a universe designed by an intelligent being is a possible state of affairs, therefore in at least one of our universes it must be true to say that a designed universe exists. Therefore, a designer exists, and since we know a designer has designed at least one world then, since our world certainly appears to be marvelously designed, it's reasonable to believe that the designer engineered our world as well.

Another way to put this is in the form of a modal argument for the existence of a maximally great being (MGB). If there is a state of affairs among worlds in which every possibility is realized then we can conclude that there must exist an MGB. We can conclude this because it's possible that an MGB exist (it would only be impossible if the concept of an MGB were incoherent), so if the multiverse is a state of affairs in which every possibility is actualized then every possible being must be actualized.

Thus, an MGB exists somewhere in the multiverse, but if a being is maximally great it must exist not just in one part of the multiverse but in every part, otherwise it's not maximally great. Therefore we can conclude that if there are a near infinite number of universes there must exist a maximally great being which designed and created them all.

In any event, neither the weak anthropic principle nor the multiverse hypothesis give the skeptic a safe escape from the conclusion that our universe was intentionally and intelligently engineered for life.

RLC

City of Angels

For those who remember the horror stories about urban crime coming out of Los Angeles a decade or so ago Timothy Egan's post at Opinionator may come as a surprise, or even a shock:

Since the 90s, homicide is down nearly 80 percent through this year, and overall violent crime has taken a similar plunge. In 2008, the last year for full F.B.I. statistics, even Omaha, Neb., had a slightly higher murder rate than L.A.

And the trend continues: murder in L.A. is now down 50 percent from the relatively placid levels of two years ago.

Nationwide, the story of crime falling to half-century lows is an ongoing miracle. How New York went from the crack-addled days to tourist theme park is well known. But it's a pattern that's been repeated all over the United States, with the exception of a few hard patches - cities like New Orleans, Detroit and Baltimore.

The causes are many, and mostly speculative:

A high-tech mapping strategy, where police move on crime hot spots in something close to real time, was pioneered in New York and mastered here (give praise to William Bratton, who oversaw the departments in both cities, for that effort); the stuffing of prisons with career criminals also gets much of the credit; the role played by legalized abortion, according to the authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner in their book "Freakonomics," in preventing a generation of unwanted children from being born; and the settling down of the drug trade, the source of so much violence during the formative years of narcotic fiefdoms, to such a degree that in many parts of the city there are now more medical marijuana dispensers in Los Angeles than Starbucks outlets.

See here for a post on some of the controversy surrounding this aspect of the book Freakonomics

This is a good example of good news/bad news, at least for conservatives, especially black conservatives. Urban crime is trending sharply down - that's good news. It's going down largely because conservatives were right that tough sentencing of criminals would keep them off the street - that's good news. But it's also going down because we're aborting tens of thousands of potential criminals every year, particularly in the inner cities where the population is mostly black.

If you are pro-life, or you are African American, or both - that's not good news. If you fall into one of these categories what do you think about this? Does achieving a more civilized inner city justify the abortion of over a million black and Hispanic babies every year?

RLC