November 26th, 2009 by Justin
This question is raised by a great (and biased) article today by Valerie Tarico on the Huffington Post. To be sure, there are otherwise intelligent people who believe in intelligent design, including some scientists. The question really is if there is sufficient evidence or argumentation on the intelligent design side to warrant reasonable doubt of the theory of evolution. I think not, and Tarico agrees with me, as do the vast majority scientists and informed people. The overwhelming amount of indisputable, theoretical and experimental evidence compels the reasonable, objective observer to accept evolution as a fact.
Note that I said “objective,” meaning someone not weighed down by any preconceived notions or prejudices. This assumes a person who, like a jury, believes nothing that could ever influence their conclusion one way or another, allowing their decision to be based on the evidence alone. Surprise, surprise, this does not describe many or most of the religious. Religious people – whether Jews, Christians, Muslims or others – come to the issue with a whole set of assumptions and presumptions about the nature of life and the nature of the origins of life, thereby skewing their perspective in a very detrimental way before any evidence has been presented.
As Tarico notes, when these intellectual preexisting conditions meet the harsh reality of the findings of science, something has got to give:
…some religionists still labor to create the illusion of confusion. Unfortunately, this forces them to cast aspersions on the whole scientific enterprise. They love the fruits of science in the form of mammography and cell phones and airplanes. But they reject the obligations of the scientific method, which say that before making truth claims you must ask the questions that could show you wrong. And they are deeply suspicious of scientists themselves. (Why would scientists keep getting the answers so wrong unless they were deliberately trying to undermine faith?)
This is an excellent point that I have made in the past. The fundamental, profound contradiction of modern devout religiosity is that it persists within a civilization that owes its success and prosperity primarily to its commitment to secular reason and understanding.
The religious like to say that reason is “just a human invention,” that secularism is “just a faith like any other,” or naturalism or materialism “a worldview on par with any religion.” Without going into the details of the bald falsity and intellectual contemptibleness of this mindset, we can certainly say that this all boils down to rationalizing away straightforwardly obvious truths because of what one wants to believe. Again, to Tarico:
We all are prone to “confirmation bias” which is a tendency to seek information in support of what we already believe, disregarding any contradictions. Religious orthodoxy over the centuries has refined confirmation bias into an art form called “apologetics.” Apologists start with a set of handed down conclusions and then reason backwards from there, drawing in logic and evidence only as these support their foregone conclusion.
And this from a religious person. On one level, these issues are just matters of personal preference and don’t carry much currency in the grand scheme of things. On a larger level, though, we are compelled to realize that nothing less than the human mind is at stake, nothing less than the truth itself. The debate over teaching intelligent design to schoolchildren, or even “teaching the debate” over evolution, alone tells us all we need to know about the stakes of this intellectual war. Tarico rightly points out that the light of truth, reason and clearheaded understanding will win in the end. But in the mean time, how much potential will be lost? How many opportunities for enhanced knowledge will be unrealized from generation to generation? How much longer will we get sidetracked by ancient superstitious baggage? How much more time will we waste?
November 24th, 2009 by Justin
If only it were true. Unfortunately, the reality of the matter is much more complex. There is tons to be said on this issue. For now, take a look at this chart, released today by the OECD, and reported in the New York Times:
Relative to the US, there are higher taxed countries that are poorer, and higher taxed countries that are richer. And this, of course, is because the relationship between taxes and income, and between taxes and income growth, is more complicated than many or most would like to think. Higher taxes (1) are not necessarily bad in and of themselves, and (2) can actually be positive if they result in the state being able to provide more and/or better quality services for its people. The recently proposed war tax indicates the potential for higher taxes to result in more prosperity, assuming the war effort results in more security and peace for the country, and therefore more economic activity and growth (this particular Afghan conflict will not remotely result in that kind of thing, but that’s another topic).
We can conclude that the real issue is not the amount of taxation, although that is important, but rather what the government does with that tax money. It can foster an environment of economic prosperity through strategic investment, improving infrastructure, etc, or it can squander and mismanage the money. The preoccupation with the tax rate stems from the fact that it constitutes a number that is (1) simple and straightforward (at least on the surface), (2) extremely easy-to-understand by everybody, (3) affects everybody in an important way to some degree, (4) easily concentrates the angst and vitriol of a large number of people. Very few other phenomena share these characteristics. And that’s probably a good thing.
November 23rd, 2009 by Justin
He is what He is...or is He?
I recently have been engaged in a back-and-forth with some of the bloggers on Elect Exiles. One of the bloggers, Drew, put forward some ideas for proving the existence of god. I am addressing these here because they seem to be common arguments put forward by the religious.
In reference to Richard Dawkins, Drew criticized the notion of equating belief in the tooth fairy with belief in god, saying: “There is ample evidence that the tooth fairy does not exist. We know the truth–parents sneak in, take the tooth…” However, this does not prove that the tooth fairy does not exist. It proves that parents like to trick their children (or something similar), but it has not proven that a tooth fairy does not exist somewhere in the world.
It is extremely difficult to prove a negative. However, the point that I have heard Dawkins and Hitchens and the like make is that there is no evidence for the existence of a tooth fairy or a Loch Ness monster, and the vast majority of people don’t believe in those things. However, there is no evidence for the existence of god, and yet billions of people don’t let that stand in their way. If one is willing to accept the existence of one evidence-less thing, why not all the other evidence-less things?
Drew’s response would be that, in fact, there is evidence for god. And what, pray tell, is that evidence? I quote:
There is the empirical world around us that we can see, touch, taste etc. Where did all this complexity of life arise from? Even if you attribute it to the big bang, you are still not answering the question of where all this empirical matter came from to begin with. Further, we still have no legitimate or even scientifically reasonable theory for where life came from. For the sake of argument, let’s say life did evolve out of single-celled organisms–but where did the organisms come from? Bottom line is that we don’t know, no one does.
Nor do we know where we got our sense of right and wrong. Our capacity to love, our inherent sense of justice etc. These are huge questions that Christianity (or perhaps more pointedly, the Bible) gives answers to.
Here we have some typical claims made by religious people. Three things are dealt with—(1) the existence and complexity of life, (2) the existence of the universe and everything in it, and (3) human morality.
Regarding the existence or origin of the universe, no, we do not have all the answers, but we have infinitely more than we did 500 years ago, and even more than we did 1000 years ago. With a track record like this, why would we not simply inductively expect (1) that someday we will be able to answer many such questions that today seem impossible to answer to many people (just as today we are able to easily answer questions about the moon, sun, stars, weather, etc that our ancestors could never have possibly answered), and (2) that such questions are, in fact, answerable through science and reason, just as questions that were unanswerable ages ago are easily answerable today by a schoolchild? (This is a primer, but there are more arguments for trusting in science and reason for explaining the origins of the universe.)
More to the point, Drew poses a lot of questions like “where did all this complexity of life arise from.” How does posing questions provide evidence that god exists? The fact that we do not know x, y or z does not, by any stretch of the imagination, prove that an immaterial and transcendent sentient being created the universe. Take the following example: in the year 1000 AD, an average person might have said “what are the stars in the night sky? We do not know. No one on this earth can ever know the answer to that question. We can speculate, debate, imagine, etc, but we can never know the real answer. Therefore god exists.” Huh? What does our lack of knowing something have to do with the existence of anything, except our lack of knowing?
The second thing Drew deals with is the existence and complexity of life: “we still have no legitimate or even scientifically reasonable theory for where life came from.” This is completely wrong. Again, we do not know for sure but the main working hypothesis or assumption in science is that the original, extremely simple living cell arose out of chemical reactions somewhere in the primordial goop. And yes, some experimentation has been done to indicate that this is a likely explanation. It is some very fascinating stuff, if you do some research on it.
I note that he says “For the sake of argument, let’s say life did evolve out of single-celled organisms.” Drew makes it sound as if there is some uncertainty or debate. There is not. Evolution is an established fact.
Finally, he says “Nor do we know where we got our sense of right and wrong. Our capacity to love, our inherent sense of justice etc.” Once again, this is exactly wrong. In fact, science has given a significant amount of theoretical and experimental evidence that our morality stems from our evolutionary past. It is not very difficult for a layman to imagine this one: individuals who developed the tendency to care for each other and look after each other and establish a sense of justice and fairness lived in groups and communities that had a straightforward survival advantage over those that lived in groups and communities populated by inherently selfish, backstabbing and mistrustful individuals. Pretty simple. And again, the science is piling up every day that this is true.
In short, nothing Drew has written demonstrates to any degree that god exists. Or that two gods exist, or that a million gods exist, or that zero gods exist, to be sure. Now, let me be clear – believing in god is not irrational or stupid or silly, as many of the new atheists seem to think. There is just no real evidence for it, and therefore it is a matter of personal, subjective preference.
November 23rd, 2009 by Justin
Sexy or sexist? You betcha
American conservatism is undergoing a transformation. What is it transforming into? Tough to say. But I do know that by the time of the next presidential election, it will likely have very different characteristics than during the last one. It will likely be much more concerned with economic policy than with social policy (unless Obama and company get fiscal religion), and the realities of America’s public finances coupled with the realities of a changing world order will demand a different kind of foreign policy vision and a different attitude vis-a-vis military intervention abroad.
One interesting little development of late has been the rise of a rightist identity politics. The germ of it has been around for a while with Christian victimhood (probably beginning in earnest in the 1970s after Roe v Wade) and white resentment toward Affirmative Action. But over the last year in particular it has expanded and deepened into a staple of the conservative ideology. New components include a belief that federal politicians and bureaucrats are dangerously out-of-touch with middle America (at best), or fundamentally aligned contrary, and conspiring against them (at worst). In addition, the traditional distrust of the mainstream liberal media has morphed into open hostility coupled with vehement loyalty to the Fox News Channel – the latter a perhaps unprecedented development.
Consistent with this attitude toward media is the recent flap over the Sarah Palin Newsweek cover, but a new word has emerged in that controversy: sexism. Traditionally the exclusive property of feminists and pro-choice politicians, sexism has become in the age of Palin a legitimate buzzword for faith-and-family conservatives, hypocrisy be damned.
Add to all this the ever-present resentment of white conservatives vis-a-vis Affirmative Action or welfare, the apparent rising tide of homosexuality and gay marriage in this country as an existential threat to the traditional Christian family, and tea party populism against what seems an obtuse White House and congressional leadership, and we see the rightist identity politics is not just real, but increasingly essential to the conservative message.
P.S. Be prepared for more Christian victimology during the upcoming war on christmas.
