The Good and the Right

MOVING DAY

2005-09-04T22:39:00.000-05:00

The Good and the Right has moved to http://thegoodandtheright.blogsome.com/.

Please, please, please: Update your blogrolls . . . or, add me to your blogrolls if you haven't done so already.

A new The Good and the Right?

2005-09-03T00:39:00.000-05:00

I've been considering finding a new blog-hosting service for a little while now (for a few reasons), and I've just recently found Blogsome. So I've quasi-relocated. Before I make the move, however, I'd like the opinions of my (very) few readers: Is the new spread better, worse, or are you indifferent? I kind of like the layout of Blogsome a little better, but if I get the impression that my readership prefers things the way they are, I'll stick around here. I've opened the comments up so that anyone can toss in their two cents. Thanks in advance for any responses.

The (potentially) new and improved The Good and the Right can be found here.

Blog update

2005-09-02T17:32:00.000-05:00

I've added a few names to my blogroll (look for the bold lettering).

The latest in "classy" from The Huffington Post

2005-09-02T07:43:00.000-05:00

I don't think I could make this nonsense up if I tried. From Van Jones over at The Huffington Post:

Don't say that a hurricane destroyed New Orleans. Hurricanes don't drown cities.

It was a "perfect storm" of a different kind that put that great city underwater: Bush-era neglect of our national infrastructure, combined with runaway global warming and a deep contempt for poor African-Americans.

In a few related stories:

Lighting doesn't split trees in half, Bush-era neglect does.

Strong gusts of wind don't blow people's hats off, Bush-era neglect does.

Frozen precipitation doesn't make driveways slippery in the winter, Bush-era neglect does.

But we can't get too upset with this administration, because:

The sun doesn't give people tans, Bush-era neglect does.

And, lest we forget:

The refraction of light doesn't cause rainbows, Bush-era neglect does.

So remember: If Bush weren't "wasting" so much money on this "war for oil," there'd be no rainbows. Food for thought.

Seriously though, S. T. Karnick at Tech Central Station addresses the claim that Katrina can be linked to Van Jones' "runaway global warming".

And I've got lots to say about that "deep contempt for poor African-Americans" comment, but at least for now, I'll hold my tongue.

APPENDIX A: Here's an impressive, but nowhere-near-exhaustive list of left-wing crazies and their responses to Katrina. [My favorites are #8, #9, and #11.]

APPENDIX B: It's quite a time-consuming read, but Michelle Malkin's got everything you need to know about the underfunded-levee argument that those on the left are heralding.

APPENDIX C: I meant to add this earlier, but the guys at Right Hand of God have got their hands on photographic evidence tying Bush to Hurricane Katrina.

ADDENDUM: Since I decided to hold my tongue in regards to Van Jones' pulling of the race card, I'll simply refer you to these two posts (this one and this one) at Pike Speak.

On a personal note: I've actually spent time in the projects of New Orleans. I've met those people. And I can gaurantee that, for the most part, they decided to stay in the city during the hurricane, not because they didn't have the means to evacuate, but because they didn't care enough to evacuate. These people are not looting Foot Lockers because they've been driven to do so by some storm or by some repressive federal government, but because they see this as an opportunity to snag some new Air Force 1s. It's not a matter of circumstance; it's a matter of character.

Living in a big city, my heart breaks for homeless people who are suffering because of other people's poor decisions (e.g., kicked out of the house by their deadbeat parents, etc.). My heart does not break, however, for homeless people who got themselves there because of their own dumb choices (e.g., drug addictions, infidelity, etc). (Someone sucker-punching you in the face is one thing; slamming your own face into a wall is another.) Similarly, I feel horrible for those who were unable to get themselves out of the city in time. Everything in our power should be done to help those people out. On the other hand, when you're told that a giant hurricane is headed for your rickety-old home and you stick around - presumably to test your own endurance - it's really, really hard for me to feel sorry for you when you find yourself stranded in the middle of a river that was once your living room. Since when were people obligated to feel sorry for others having to face the consequences of their own really bad decisions? If you walked up to someone crying with a broken nose and asked, "Oh my gosh, what happened? Are you alright?" and the guy looked at you and said, "I slammed my face into a brick wall just to see if I could," how compelled would you be help the guy out?

Call me a hard-ass, but here's how it is: All suffering humans ought to be helped . . . and when you stop using this disaster as an opportunity to rob jewelry stores, when you stop fighting other people for their belongings, and when you show yourself to be human, help will be on the way.

To all the innocents: Help is on the way. I've donated as much as I can afford. And you are, of course, in my prayers.

So much for holding my tongue.

[And just in case anyone takes these comments of mine as racist: Not only have I spent time in the projects of New Orleans, but I've also spent time in Nigeria. The black people of Nigeria (at least, all the ones I had the pleasure of meeting) are humiliated by the kind of behavior we're all seeing from some of the black people in New Orleans. Nigerians, by and large, are some of the most malnourished and mistreated people on Earth; they're also some of the smartest, most joyful, appreciative people I've ever met. I've got nothing against black people . . . but I've got a real problem with idiots.]

Some reading for your Labor Day weekend

2005-09-01T19:10:00.000-05:00

It's been called ""the most brilliant cover-up ever achieved in a nation where investigative procedures are well developed and where the principles of equal justice prevail, at least during some of those moments where people are watching." Can you guess what I'm talking about? Answer (and much, much more) here

For some reason . . .

2005-09-01T16:28:00.000-05:00

. . . this picture makes perfect sense to me.

Seriously though, I'm not trying to make a mockery of this horrible situation; I just couldn't help but smile when I saw this.

Can you blame 'em?

2005-09-01T15:56:00.000-05:00

From here (underline mine):

Buddhist Monks Leave Order for Beer Girls
In central Cambodia, according to an AP report, two Buddhist monks fell in love with two teenage girls who sold beer across from their temple. The monks, both 19, apparently abandoned their vows and pursued the beer girls. Cambodia, with a population of 13 million people, has 60,000 monks who live in more than 4,000 pagodas across the country. Ninety percent of the population is Buddhist.

I can imagine how difficult it must've been to concentrate during their meditations. "Dude, do you see what I see?"

Unacceptable drivel from a philosopher

2005-09-01T11:40:00.000-05:00

Brian Leiter has done it again. It's amazing to me when professors of philosophy seem so incapable of thinking critically. I don't mind that some philosophers are naturalists, I just disagree. Similarly, I don't mind that some philosophers prefer Continental studies to Analytic studies, though I'm not sure I see the point. However, I can't quite get my head around the fact that there are professors of philosophy out there who honestly blame the devastation in New Orleans on George Bush.

The title of Leiter's post almost says enough: "A 'Natural' Disaster--But Also a Manmade (i.e., Republican) One"

Leiter cites this story, which states:

As the New Orleans Times-Picayune has reported in a devastating series of articles over the last two years, city and state officials and the Corps of Enginners had repeatedly requested funding to strengthen the levees along Lake Pontchartrain that breeched in the wake of the flood. But the Bush administration rebuffed the requests repeatedly, reprograming the funding from levee enhancement to Homeland Security and the war on Iraq.

This year the Bush administration slashed funding for the New Orleans Corps of Engineers by $71.2 million, a stunning 44.2 percent reduction from its 2001 levels. A Corps report noted at the time that "major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. . . . Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now."

Work on the 17th Street levee, which breached on Monday night, came to a halt earlier this summer for the lack of $2 million.

"It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay," Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana told the Times-Picayune in June of last year. "Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."

These are damning revelation that should fuel calls from both parties for Bush's resignation or impeachment.

First of all, is there any way of quantifying how much of the destruction in New Orleans is due solely to the weak levees? No. There's really no way of knowing how different, if at all, the scene would be if the $71.2 million were kept in the hands of the NOCE. So we're already operating on assumptions.

Second, a modern-day parable: Suppose I built my house on a foundation of sand. After some time, it becomes clear to me that this shaky foundation just won't hold up, so I ask the Federal Government for $71.2 million in order to correct my poor decision and protect my family from potential disaster. They respond, "We'd love to, but right now we've got splendid reason to think that more people than just your family are at risk of potential disaster. Terrorists have their eyes set on America, so we've decided it best to spend that $71.2 million on the protection of our nation. When our hands aren't tied by the threat of terror, we'll get some money to you as soon as possible." And unfortunately, my house's foundation shifts, the walls cave in, and my family is tragically crushed beneath the rubble. Who's to blame for the tragedy? Only an idiot incapable of seeing a world beyond his own agenda would respond, "The Federal Government."

Third, suppose it wasn't Katrina, but another terrorist attack on America. Whose fault would it have been for not spending enough money on homeland security? Bush is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Then Leiter cites this story which states:

The catastrophic hurricane was an act of God. But the U.S. war effort in Iraq is a continuing act of the president. And now, that effort is hampering the capacity of the National Guard to save lives at home.

Wrong. Less than 35% of the National Guard is currently deployed. That leaves over 65% of the Guard here at a home for rebuilding efforts. During our history, the National Guard has always promised state governors that at least 50% of any state's National Guard would be available at any given time to address concerns within the state. Both Louisiana and Mississippi currently have over 60% of their National Guard forces ready for rebuilding efforts, with much more available from surrounding states. There's plenty of personel to do the job.

In the end, thousands of people are dead in one of America's greatest cities. Is this really the time to politicize? It would seem that common human decency would say "No." I can only suspect that Leiter has none.

What an embarrassing shame to my future profession.

Promising statistics

2005-08-31T21:58:00.000-05:00

From here:

In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.

The poll was conducted July 7-17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.

John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."

"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.'"

Hmm. Teaching more than one side of an issue and letting students figure things out on their own . . . in some circles, that's called education. Heaven forbid.

Reason #374 to be a Republican

2005-08-31T21:03:00.000-05:00

[Click on the image to see a larger view]

Hardly angels

2005-08-31T20:29:00.000-05:00

In a speech recently, Cindy Sheehan claimed to have the support of tens of thousands of angels. Well, they're hardly angels, but Ms. Sheehan can rest assured that the White Nationalists are there for her. Kinda makes you feel all warm inside.

Crazy is as crazy does

2005-08-31T15:32:00.000-05:00

Elephants in Academia on the parallels between Ward Churchill and Cindy Sheehan.

On "Moral Philosophy as Applied Science"

2005-08-31T08:37:00.000-05:00

I've just finished reading an article by Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson entitled "Moral Philosophy as Applied Science." In it, Ruse and Wilson argue that morality, if not already, will soon be reducible to the facts of biological evolution. According to the authors, "the empirical evidence suggests that cooperation between human beings was brought about by . . . evolutionary mechanisms."

What Darwinian evolutionary theory shows is that the sense of "right" and the corresponding sense of "wrong," feelings we take to be above individual desire and in some fashion outside biology, are in fact brought about by ultimately biological processes.

How, then, do they explain away the fact that this moral "sense," these "feelings" apparently, are so deeply ingrained in our nature? Simple: An ad hoc claim of genetic deception.

Human beings function better if they are deceived by their genes into thinking that there is a disinterested objective morality binding upon them, which all should obey.

[...]

Epigenetic rules, genetically based processes of development that predispose the individual to adopt one or a few forms of behaviors as opposed to others, . . . give the illusion of objectivity to morality, they lift us above immediate wants to actions which (unknown to us) ultimately serve our genetic best interests.

Elsewhere, Ruse and Wilson repeat:

. . . ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. [Ruse and Wilson, "Evolution of Ethics," New Scientist 17 (1989): 51]

This all raises some interesting questions. First of all, if we humans are beings so deceived, how is it that Ruse and Wilson can assume some sort of privileged perspective? In other words, if this genetic deception has had millions and millions of years to set in, how sure can Ruse and Wilson even be that they've risen above it and figured it all out? Sounds a lot more like self-aggrandizement than science.

Second, if ethics is merely a kind of genetic chimera, then genuine "ought-ness" is also chimerical. But if "ought-ness" is illusory, what is there to keep me from acting unethically? The closest Ruse and Wilson come to answering this question is here:

A person functions more efficiently in the social setting if he obeys the generally accepted moral code of his society than if he follows moment-by-moment egocentric calculations.

Who cares? I can conceive of an example in which acting unethically wouldn't disrupt social efficiency in any way. Suppose Susie is in a deep coma and Jones rapes her. Nobody but Jones ever knows what Jones has done. Susie never awakens; she never felt any pain, whether emotional or physical. Literally no suffering results from Jones' action; in fact, the net hedonic result of the circumstance is positive, as Jones was pleasured by it all. The episode here imagined would cause no friction between Jones and his social setting, so, especially since they've abandoned any claims of moral realism, Ruse and Wilson have no grounds upon which they might say that Jones did something wrong.

Something Darwinian ethicists seem not to understand: If obligation is illusory, then we're not obliged to our society in any real way.

And finally, the authors offer their misguided critique of religiously-based systems of morality.

Indeed, the materialist view of the origin of morality is probably less threatening to moral practice than a religious or otherwise nonmaterialistic view, for when moral beliefs are studied empirically, they are less likely to deceive. Bigotry declines because individuals cannot in any sense regard themselves as belonging to a chosen groups [sic] or as the sole bearers of revealed truth.

Couple things. First of all, common sense tells us that the decreased likelihood of our being wrong about our moral beliefs leads to an increased likelihood of bigotry, intolerance, and dogmatism, not the other way around as Ruse and Wilson suppose. More on this here.

Second, how odd that Ruse and Wilson point a critical finger at religious ethicists for "regard[ing] themselves as belonging to a chosen groups [sic] or as the sole bearers of revealed truth," when they were earlier claiming special knowledge that, despite the fact that moral truths seem so plainly obvious, we're all secretly being deceived by our genetic history in order to get us to cooperate. "Umm, Pot? Hi, this is the Kettle. Yeah, you're black."

I bet they weren't flinging poo.

2005-08-31T08:29:00.000-05:00

Here's an interesting story about the recent decision made by the London Zoo to exhibit "three male and five female Homo sapiens side by side with their primate relatives."

And, no surprise, Imago Dei's got a great response. (Pay close attention to the Chesterton quote. Actually, just pay close attention to Chesterton . . . period.)

Cool, Old (or Dead) Philosopher of the Week (#5)

2005-08-31T08:00:00.000-05:00

This week's Cool, Old (or Dead) Philosopher of the Week is Sir Alfred Jules Ayer (1910-1989).

Ayer was one of the chief proponents of the 20th Century movement known as Logical Positivism. In his famous Language, Truth, and Logic (which he wrote when he was only 24 years old), he advances many of the theses of Positivism, including the self-referentially incoherent verification principle.

See here for a kind of reader's digest, or "squashed," version of the book that put Ayer on the map.

Although I fundamentally disagree with nearly all of Ayer's philosophy, he certainly was cool . . . and he certainly is dead.

Philosopher's Carnival #18

2005-08-30T07:23:00.000-05:00

The latest Philosopher's Carnival can be found here, just in case you're even half as geeky as I am.

Here's something . . .

2005-08-30T07:13:00.000-05:00

. . . that Ted Turner would rather you not read.

I once had a discussion with a liberal in which I explained to them that a canister of Sarin gas, if it were to achieve its maximum explosive potential, could kill over 500,000 people. His response (and no, I'm not making this up): "Well . . . I'd hardly call that a weapon of mass destruction." What a loon.

[Sorry the posts have been so skimpy lately. I'm workin' on it. In the meantime, throw caution to the wind and waste an entire afternoon over here. You'll feel so lazy you'll want to hang yourself . . . and that's my gift to you.]

Consciousness and the value of persons

2005-08-27T21:27:00.000-05:00

Great stuff here on abortion and the value-conferring properties of persons . . . whatever those might be.

New feature over at Elephants in Academia

2005-08-27T21:22:00.000-05:00

"Conservative men we love . . . and why we love them"

Interesting stats for your weekend

2005-08-27T21:17:00.000-05:00

Keith Burgess-Jackson on the prospects of the Democratic Party becoming a permanent minority party.

ADDED: He's also got some interesting comments on intrinsic and absolute value for those who might be interested in that sort of thing.

Things that make you go, "Hmm."

2005-08-25T18:32:00.000-05:00

While taking a kind of pictorial tour of Princeton University, I came across some great pictures. For instance, the caption for the following picture is: "A Beautiful Campus"

Agreed. I bet that area is beautiful, especially in the Fall and Winter.

The caption under the next picture is: "Access to Great Minds"

And again, I couldn't agree more. Princeton just so happens to have one of the strongest moral philosophy faculties in the world. I would kill to end up there.

But the next picture threw me off a bit. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something tells me that they ought to have either (a) found a better picture for the caption, or (b) thought of a better caption for the picture.

The caption under this picture is: "Encouraging Original Thought"

Now, to be fair, there's an explanation under the caption that clears things up a bit. But seriously, at first glance, I doubt there's any "original" thought going on in this picture.

Just an administrative word

2005-08-25T18:23:00.000-05:00

I've added the "word verification" thing to my comments in order to avoid blogspam. I hope this does not deter anyone who might be interested in commenting from doing so. I trust you'll understand. Thanks.

Wow

2005-08-24T19:36:00.000-05:00

You really ought to read this.

[Hat tip: Elephants in Academia]

Blogspam?

2005-08-24T17:00:00.000-05:00

Anyone have any ideas how to stop it . . . other than turning Comments off?

Theistic philosophers

2005-08-24T16:04:00.000-05:00

Here's a list. My undergraduate professor's on there. As are two of his close friends and his Ph.D. advisor (who's also still a good friend of his).

A couple of Intelligent Design tidbits.

2005-08-24T15:26:00.000-05:00

First, here's a funny cartoon that basically wraps up how most modern-day scientists have chosen to respond to Intelligent Design.

Second, some of you might already know about this, but I've just stumbled across The Intelligent Design Weblog of William A. Dembski. For those who are not familiar with Dembski's work, he's one of the foremost voices in contemporary ID theory.

What's the world coming to?

2005-08-24T15:06:00.000-05:00

If this article doesn't scare you half to death, check your pulse. Especially for a conservative student of philosophy with clear and distinct thoughts regarding ethical and political issues like myself, this is seriously discouraging news.

[Thanks to my wife for pointing the article out to me.]

Cool, Old (or Dead) Philosopher of the Week (#4)

2005-08-24T08:39:00.000-05:00

This week's Cool, Old (or Dead) Philosopher is G. E. Moore (1873-1958).

From here:

During his long career at Cambridge University and as Editor of the premier British philosophical journal, Mind, G. E. Moore made an enormous contribution to the development of twentieth-century Anglo-American thought. Although he had studied with Bradley and McTaggart at Cambridge, Moore was an early leader in the revolt against absolute idealism. Amazed by the peculiar character of philosophical controversy, Moore supposed that common-sense beliefs about the world are correct as they are. The purpose of philosophy is not to debate their truth, but rather to seek an appropriate analysis of their significance.

As my tentative thesis topic is a defense of common sense intuitions in metaethics, Moore is of particular interest to me. He was a kind of modern-day Thomas Reid (who, by the way, is bound to show up as a future Cool, Old (or Dead) Philosopher of the Week).

More on Moore and common sense:

Later in his career, Moore expressed more explicitly the methodological basis for his philosophical work. The ordinary beliefs human beings hold are to be accepted at face value: they mean what they say and are true, standing in no need of philosophical correction or proof. The purpose of philosophical analysis, according to Moore, is merely to explicate the precise implications of the truth of such beliefs, and that is the procedure he followed in "A Defence of Common Sense" (1925).

Moore began with a simple list of "common-sense" beliefs that each of us holds about many things, including my own body, other human bodies, my own experiences, and the experiences of other human beings. He then declared further that we all know that each of these simple beliefs is wholly true in just the (unanalyzed) sense in which they are commonly meant. Philosophers who hold opposing views Moore divided into two groups:

Some of them deny the truth of the beliefs (as, for example, do idealists who reject the reality of time, space, or self). But this Moore took to be indefensible, self-defeating, and never consistently held as a basis for ordinary life.

Others deny only that we know the beliefs (as, for example, do skeptics about the external world). This position, Moore argued, is not only self-defeating and impractical but also logically inconsistent.

Thus, Moore concluded that in fact we do really know all of these common-sense beliefs to be true.

Good stuff.

First is the worst, and second's the best, right?

2005-08-23T18:59:00.000-05:00

It appears I took home the silver in this past weekend's caption contest over at GOP and the City. Not too shabby.

Terrorism and Intellectuals

2005-08-23T18:54:00.000-05:00

If you've got the time, read this article. And if you haven't got the time, print it up and set it on the floor by the toilet. You'll have some time sooner or later, and it'll be right there waitin' on ya.

A change of pace

2005-08-22T07:54:00.000-05:00

Classes begin for me today (as a student and a teacher), so my pace, as it's already done this past weekend, is going to have to get a bit lighter.

So for the time being, don't miss this article. Some encouraging news for a potentially discouraging Monday.

[Hat tip: Power Line]

ADDED: Here's an interesting piece on the disconnect between the actual state of the American economy (quite positive) and the attitude of Americans regarding the economy (on the whole, pretty negative). Two explanations come to mind: (1) the mainstream media shudders at the thought of actually reporting positive news about our economy, and (2) for some reason, as wonderful as the economy could ever be, Americans tend to hold a kind of grudge when gas prices rise. I hate it too, but come on, try seeing the bigger picture, people.

Busy, busy, busy

2005-08-19T07:13:00.000-05:00

Today I'll be preoccupied with matters philosophical, so posting will be slim . . . if any at all. Until then, check out this new feature over at Right Hand of God.

[The sad part about all of this: The (two) guys at RHOG make up roughly two-thirds of my readership, so I'll really only be redirecting them back to their own blog. Ah well.]

Sad, Sad Saddam

2005-08-18T14:11:00.000-05:00

Are you anxious?

Sad?

Depressed?

You may be suffering from DEDAS (Deposed Evil Dictator Anxiety Syndrome).

If you think you are currently suffering from DEDAS, please . . . call your doctor.

Actually, on second thought, why not just do us all a favor and kill yourself.

[Courtesy of Mark D. Linville, former philosophy professor of mine and accomplished parody author]

Intellectual honesty

2005-08-18T07:35:00.000-05:00

Keith Burgess-Jackson's got a nice piece up about the virtue of intellectual honesty. I quote:

The commitment to truth imposes discipline on intellectuals. It rules out any methods that are not reliable in producing truth. It casts suspicion on emotions. It imposes strict standards on the investigation, discovery, analysis, and presentation of facts. It requires logical consistency (for if two propositions are inconsistent, then at least one of them is false). It prefers the simpler account to the more complex account, other things being equal. It prohibits certain fallacies, such as evaluating a belief on the basis of its origin and dismissing claims or arguments on the basis of the personal character of those who make them. It requires charity in interpretation, which means, among other things, giving the benefit of the doubt to one’s interlocutors. Intellectually honest people focus on propositions and arguments, not persons, character, or motives. This is not to say that we don’t or shouldn’t care about persons, character, or motives; it’s to say that these things have nothing directly to do with truth.

We might call the items I listed (which are illustrative, not exhaustive) the canons of intellectual honesty. Those who flout these canons—or even disregard them, however unintentionally—forfeit the right to be considered an intellectual. Intellectuals would rather not persuade at all than persuade by disreputable means. They are process-oriented, not result-oriented. They deny that the end of persuasion—changing people’s minds or behavior—justifies the means. The canons of intellectual honesty constitute a set of deontological constraints on inquiry, analysis, and argumentation. They function like rights in moral and political discourse. They express the view that certain techniques may not be employed, no matter how good the consequences.

By the way . . .

2005-08-17T09:22:00.000-05:00

. . . did anyone happen to see "The Today Show" this morning? I usually can't help but notice their typical main-stream-media spin on things, but there was just no getting around that soldier's response to Matt Lauer. Priceless. I can't recall his exact words, but the exchange went something like:

Lauer: How's the general morale over here? Has it gone down at all?

Soldier: Sir, with all due respect, if it was anything like the way you all report it, our morale would be down. But it's not.

Then Lauer began to ask whether or not anyone wished they could head home soon and, before he could even finish the question, everyone was shaking their head "No." The soldier with the microphone said something like: "Not until the job's done, sir."

P.s. And the video of that other soldier getting shot in the chest by a sniper was pretty incredible, too. Thank God he's okay.

An enlightening timeline

2005-08-17T09:19:00.000-05:00

This just about says it all.

Cool, Old (or Dead) Philosopher of the Week (#3)

2005-08-17T08:30:00.000-05:00

This week's Cool, Old (or Dead) Philosopher is Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951).

From here:

. . . [Wittgenstein] became interested in the foundations of mathematics and pursued philosophical studies with [G.E.] Moore at Cambridge before entering the Austrian army during World War I. The notebooks he kept as a soldier became the basis for his Tractatus, which later earned him a doctorate and exerted a lasting influence on the philosophers of the Vienna circle. After giving away his inherited fortune, working as a village schoolteacher in Austria, and designing his sister's Vienna home, Wittgenstein returned to Cambridge, where he developed a new conception of the philosophical task. His impassioned teaching during this period influenced a new generation of philosophers, who tried to capture it in The Blue and Brown Books (dictated 1933-35). From the late 'thirties, Wittgenstein himself began writing the materials which would be published only after his death.

In the cryptic Logische-Philosophische Abhandlung (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) (1922), the earlier Wittgenstein extended Russell's notion of logical analysis by describing a world composed of facts, pictured by thoughts, which are in turn expressed by the propositions of a logically structured language. On this view, atomic sentences express the basic data of sense experience, while the analytic propositions of logic and mathematics are merely formal tautologies. Anything else is literally nonsense, which Wittgenstein regarded as an attempt to speak about what cannot be said. Metaphysics and ethics, he supposed, transcend the limits of human language. Even the propositions of the Tractatus itself are of merely temporary use, like that of a ladder one can discard after having climbed up it: they serve only as useful reminders of the boundaries of our linguistic ability. This work provided the philosophical principles upon which the logical positivists relied in their development of a narrowly anti-metaphysical standpoint.

I've just found the complete text of the Tractatus online. Note proposition 4.11:

The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science (or the whole corpus of the natural sciences).

But what about this proposition? Proposition 4.11 is not a part of "the whole corpus of the natural sciences" and is, therefore, not a part of "the totality of true propositions," as, according to Wittgenstein, the two sets are materially equivalent. Proposition 4.11, then, is self-refuting.

His connection to the Vienna Circle and the resulting movement of Logical Positivism is no surprise.

Also of interest is this Lecture on Ethics.

I fundamentally disagree with almost all of his metaphysical conclusions, but I've got to admire his practically unmatched intelligence and the fact that he's got one of the most intense stares the history of philosophy has ever known. Goodness gracious. If I were a student of his, I'd be too frightened to ever speak to him. "Umm, Professor Wittgenstein? Is it okay if I hand my thesis in a little late? You see, my girlfriend and I have been arguing a lot lately and I just kinda wondered . . ."

Regarding same-sex marriage

2005-08-16T21:20:00.000-05:00

The latest issue of Philosophia Christi includes four articles (and four responses) that were originally presented as papers in a debate over same-sex marraige at the November 2004 meeting of the American Academy of Religion. Francis Beckwith, Associate Director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies and Associate Professor of Church-State Studies at Baylor University, and J. Budziszewski, Professor of Philosophy and Government at the University of Texas at Austin, argue that the traditional understanding of marraige as a one-flesh union between man and woman ought to be upheld. Marvin Ellison, Bass Professor of Christian Ethics at Bangor Theological Seminary, and Ronald E. Long, Associate Professor of Religion at Hunter College of the City University of New York, argue to the contrary.

A full PDF text of the exchange as it has been printed in Philosophia Christi can be found here. It's 50 pages, so you might have to read it one article at a time; but it's certainly worth the time.

I read the whole exchange the day I got it in the mail and found it all really interesting, especially since my sister, a recent graduate of Yale Law, is gay. Personally, I felt that Professor Ellison's and Professor Long's responses were more emotional than academic and suffered as such. Judge for yourself.

More on Cindy (sound it out) . . .

2005-08-16T10:04:00.000-05:00

Gosh, you know, I promised myself I wouldn't get into this Cindy Sheehan spectacle, but here I am writing my second post about her. The latest from The Drudge Report:

Anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, is calling for Bush's "impeachment," and for Israel to get out of Palestine!

"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," Sheehan declares.

Aside from the fact that both of these ideas are painfully, obviously wrong, doesn't this make just about as much sense as saying, "As long as you never own anything, you'll stop robbery," or, "If everyone just commits suicide, you'll stop murder"?

Sheehan, who is asking for a second meeting with President Bush, says defiantly: "My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial."

I honestly don't mean this to be rude, but . . . I live in a big city and this is the kind of stuff I hear homeless people muttering. Surely this woman doesn't see a real connection between her fallen son and her duties as a tax-payer. Surely.

As her protest entered its second week, hundreds of people with conflicting opinions about the war in Iraq descended on the area.

TIME mag reports in new editions on Monday: Sheehan gets support from her surviving son, Andy, in principle, but he recently sent her a long e-mail imploring her, "to come home because you need to support us at home."

That's right. While those on the left hail her as the world's greatest mom, her own children suggest otherwise.

Cindy Sheehan doesn't have the world's attention because she's standing up for a respectable cause; she's got the world's attention because, no matter how hard we try, no one can take their eyes off a person completely disassembling. It's like a car crash.

What is "conservatism"?

2005-08-16T09:52:00.000-05:00

I found this definition of "conservatism" over at The Brothers Judd and thought it particularly inspiring. Enjoy.

Roughly speaking, conservatism is structured around the defense of freedom and includes the ideas that : the powers of government should be minimized; that the traditions and customs of the culture should be given a great deal of respect and deference; that there are certain natural laws which exist prior to government and which do not depend on the acquiescence of government for their moral authority (the oft forgotten corollary to this is that neither politics nor economics are truly central to our lives); that individuals must take responsibility for their own lives, even if this means that some people will enjoy greater success in life than others (and conservatives, though they've become less vocal about it, do assume that there is an inherently unequal distribution of talent within the species and that some will do extremely well while some fail utterly and the great masses muddle by); and underlying all of these ideas is the fundamental notion that men are essentially selfish creatures, willing, given half a chance, to exploit each other, to threaten each others freedom. One final defining characteristic is the tendency towards pessimism : understanding men to be loutish by nature, conservatives don't generally expect to have their own ideas prevail, expecting instead that the deluge is coming, probably imminently. Within this broad set of principles then different strands of conservatism will choose to emphasize different ideas and de-emphasize others, but no one who is truly conservative (as opposed to what is colloquially termed Right Wing, though it is closer to fascism) will stray too far from the ground of freedom.

In response to Butler Schaffer

2005-08-15T12:55:00.000-05:00

Today, self-professed libertarian Butler Schaffer, professor at the Southwestern University School of Law, contributed an article to the "Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market" LewRockwell.com entitled "The War Against Cindy". An excerpt:

There is, however, a cost to politics that none of the participating parties can afford to confront: the diminution of respect for the worthiness of the individual. Politics both degrades and destroys life, nowhere in a more depraved manner than in the institution of war. For centuries, young men and women – and their families – have been told fantastic lies to get them to throw themselves on a grenade in furtherance of some allegedly "noble purpose." The current war in Iraq is but the latest chapter in this swinish endeavor, with administration liars and their media megaphones constantly changing the rationale for the resulting death and destruction.

One woman has chosen to call all of this into question. Cindy Sheehan – whose son, Casey, was killed in Iraq last year – has been waiting outside George Bush’s Crawford, Texas, ranch for him to come out and explain to her "what was the noble cause Casey died for"? She openly confronts the Bush administration’s claim that ending the war now would "dishonor" those who have died. She responds that "by sending honorable people to die, they so dishonor themselves. They say we must complete our mission . . . but why would I want one more mother to go through what I have, just because my son is dead?" She wants to tell Mr. Bush "don’t you dare spill any more blood in Casey’s name."

This is powerful language, not just because it comes from a mother whose son was killed as a result of an act of unprovoked aggression by the United States against Iraq; but because her words are a clear challenge to the collective mindset upon which every mob depends for its power. Cindy’s stance is reminiscent of that of Wang Wei-lin, the young man who confronted the row of Chinese tanks in Tiananmen Square in 1989. When the human spirit stands up to the cold, faceless, dehumanizing, destructive machinery of the state, there is a release of emotional energy whose force transcends material calculation.

And, predictably, I have a few comments.

First of all, while I grieve alongside anyone who's lost friends or family members in war, I wonder whether or not both Cindy Sheehan and Butler Schaffer have forgotten that Casey volunteered himself to the Armed Forces. Upon literally no evidence, Professor Schaffer insists that Casey's volunteered service and subsequent death is actually the fault of, perhaps, Casey's recruiter for telling him all of those "fantastic lies." Personally, I find it quite sad and offensive that niether Schaffer nor Casey's own mother would have the decency to see the nobility in this soldier's passing. Furthermore, if the administration, and not the enemy, is to be blamed for everything that goes wrong at war, then that same administration, and not the soldiers, is to be praised for every success of war, something agenda-driven idiots all-too-often fail to understand.

Second, I presume everybody knows by now that "Cindy's stance" is actually a bit of a surprising twist, considering what "Cindy's stance" was the first time our President met with her. Where I come from, that kind of about-face is called "hypocrisy," and, frankly, I only wish I was surprised that those on the left (and, of course, this "libertarian") have again chosen to heroize someone with two faces.

Third, the war against Iraq is just as much "an act of unprovoked aggression" as was America's involvement in the Second World War, but nobody in their right mind would question the ethics of that decision of ours. Something that confuses me so much about political liberalism is this: Their reaction to the mistreatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay makes them appear as if they don't see lines of ethical duty drawn between countries. In other words, liberals love to paint themselves as unwavering universalist humanitarians. However, in order for an American offensive to be justified, it must be in response to an act of war committed directly against America. All of the sudden, they're unwavering nationalists. If you're truly a humanitarian, then an act of injustice against any innocent person, American or not, is provocation enough to justify retaliatory actions, American or not.

If I was walking down a sidewalk with my family and we witnessed an innocent person being beaten up, it is our ethical responsibility to do something in defense of the victim. Were I to stand there and wait until the aggressor did something to my family, all the while watching as this poor fellow is killed, then his killer is not the only person at fault. I, too, have wrong the victim with my negligence. If any nation sits back and watches as a madman like Saddam Hussein or a group of madmen like al Qaeda victimizes innocent people, American or not, we are similarly responsible for doing something about it (and similarly culpable for sitting on our able hands).

This is the "noble purpose" for which your son died, Cindy Sheehan.

UPDATE: In case you haven't seen it, Cox & Forkum's latest cartoon is a great one.

Cool, Old (or Dead) Philosopher of the Week (#2)

2005-08-09T12:34:00.000-05:00

This week's Cool, Old (or Dead) Philosopher of the Week is Alvin Plantinga (1932- ). He is currently the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.

From his "Advice to Christian Philosophers":

Philosophy is many things. I said earlier that it is a matter of systematizing, developing and deepening one's pre-philosophical opinions. It is that; but it is also an arena for the articulation and interplay of commitments and allegiances fundamentally religious in nature; it is an expression of deep and fundamental perspectives, ways of viewing ourselves and the world and God. Among its most important and pressing projects are systematizing, deepening, exploring, articulating this perspective, and exploring its bearing on the rest of what we think and do. But then the Christian philosophical community has its own agenda; it need not and should not automatically take its projects from the list of those currently in favor at the leading contemporary centers of philosophy. Furthermore, Christian philosophers must be wary about assimilating or accepting presently popular philosophical ideas and procedures; for many of these have roots that are deeply anti-Christian. And finally the Christian philosophical community has a right to its perspectives; it is under no obligation first to show that this perspective is plausible with respect to what is taken for granted by all philosophers, or most philosophers, or the leading philosophers of our day.

In sum, we who are Christians and propose to be philosophers must not rest content with being philosophers who happen, incidentally, to be Christians; we must strive to be Christian philosophers. We must therefore pursue our projects with integrity, independence, and Christian boldness.

I'd also recommend reading the following articles of his:

"Methodological Naturalism? Part One"

"Methodological Naturalism? Part Two"

"Darwin, Mind and Meaning"

And for those of you who have lots and lots of time on your hands and a few bucks lying around, buy and read this book. I promise you won't be disappointed. The first half of the book is spent explaining why the problem of evil is really no problem at all; and the second half of the book is an exposition of the Plantingian Ontological Argument. Hot stuff.

Addendum: You can also read Professor Plantinga's spiritual autobiography here.

Po-tay-toh, po-tah-toh, I guess

2005-08-08T09:30:00.000-05:00

Brian Leiter reports (or rather, cites someone else's report) on the world's declining opinion of America here. From Leiter Reports:

No surprises here, but worth flagging if only because it won't get much play in the U.S.:

The US is increasingly viewed as a "culture-free zone" inhabited by arrogant and unfriendly people, according to study of 25 countries' brand reputations....

"The US is still recognized as a leading place to do business, the home of desirable brands and popular culture," said Simon Anholt, author of the survey. "But its governance, its cultural heritage and its people are no longer widely respected or admired by the world...."

The US ranked 11th in the Brands Index, which asks people around the world to rate 25 countries according to their cultural, political and investment potential and other criteria. Australia received the highest overall score, with respondents expressing "an almost universal admiration of its people, landscapes and living and working environment", according to the report.

Although the US received high marks for its popular culture, it ranked last in cultural heritage, a measure of a country's "wisdom, intelligence, and integrity", according to Mr Anholt.

That the world takes a dim view of the US people will surprise most Americans themselves: the study's American respondents consistently placed the US at the top of all six categories polled.

Now, it seems pretty clear what Professor Leiter hopes to accomplish with this report of his: To convey to his readers that the whole world agrees with him - America is horrible. But is that what this report actually says? Absolutely not.

First of all, if you follow his link, the report is one concerned with business ventures and the image of the U.S. overseas not as a beacon of character, but as a selling point. The reach of this study is not nearly as wide as Professor Leiter must have hoped.

Second, " . . . its governance, its cultural heritage and its people are no longer widely respected or admired by the world . . ." Let's think about this for a second. How is it that these people are forming their opinions of America? Visiting? Meeting Americans? Reading up on American history? Probably none of these things. They're forming their opinions of our country in the same way (sadly) that most of our own countrymen form these opinions - the media. And what elements of our "governance, . . . cultural heritage and . . . people" are consistently given the most air-time by the main-stream media?

Images burned into the world's minds by our nation's oh-so-patriotic broadcasters:

Our "governance":

Our "heritage":

And our "people":

And where's the media? Oh, there they are, not skippin' a beat.

Heaven forbid the world ever see pictures like this one . . .

or this one . . .

or this one . . .

So while, in Professor Leiter's mind, the results of this report undoubtedly have everything to do with them damned Republicans! and that damned warmonger president of theirs!, I'd say it's got something to do with all of America's asses getting the most attention.

But, po-tay-toh, po-tah-toh, I guess.

In response to bumper stickers.

2005-08-06T00:41:00.000-05:00

Let it be known immediately that I hate war. I am not, by any stretch of anyone’s imagination “pro-war.” My father is a Chief in the Air Force and has been away from my mother since April, not returning until January. My heart goes out to the family members of those who have died, and breaks upon hearing news of more losses. I am, by nature, a negotiator; I truly wish that every disagreement, great or small, could be settled with words and not weapons.

That being said, I’d like to respond to the bumper stickers and lawn decorations I’ve been seeing so often lately in my neighborhood insisting that “War is not the answer!” The question must first be asked: Just exactly what does one mean when they say that war is not the answer? That war is not the answer in Iraq? Or that war is never the answer?

This latter contention can be countered relatively easily with an understanding of Western history.

In the 18th Century, King George II took significant steps to tighten his grip on the freedoms of the American colonists. Existing taxes were raised and many, many more were imposed (cf. the Stamp Act of 1765, the Townsend Act of 1767, etc.). The colonists were unfairly forbidden from moving Westward over the Appalachians (Proclamation of 1763), printing and using their own currency, and other freedoms we simply take for granted in 2005.

In 1773, in response to the authoritarian imposition of the British, 50 or so members of the Sons of Liberty boarded 3 ships in the Boston Harbor and defiantly dumped the imported Darjeeling into the sea. Though he was no fan of mob activity, John Adams once wrote of the Boston Tea Party: "There is a dignity, a majesty, a sublimity, in this last effort of the patriots that I greatly admire."

And so the story goes. Two years later, George Washington took command of the Continental Army, leading our forces, alongside the French (oh, the historical irony!) to an eventual victory.

On July 4th, 1776, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and the other members of the Continental Congress declared, on behalf of all Americans, our independence. Five days later, General George Washington read his copy of the Declaration of Independence to his forces, prompting citizens of New York to pull down the statue of George III and melt it down into bullets for the Continental Army.

Not long after, we were a free people.

There can be no denying it: In the later half of the 18th Century, war was the answer.

Fast-forward almost 2 centuries and the world meets this man.

As history has revealed, Adolf Hitler had his eyes locked on two ends: a German nationalism intent on world domination and the elimination of the Jews. Lest we forget:

Despite the appeasement efforts of many in the UK, one man stood strong, insisting that Hitler must be stopped by force – Sir Winston Churchill. Speaking of Hitler’s advancements towards the aforementioned goals of his, Churchill once remarked, “If a dog makes a dash for my trousers, I shoot him down before he can bite.”

If history has taught us anything from the events of the Second World War, it is that war was the answer.

Not long after, the United States of America and her allies found themselves in the middle of the Cold War, which lasted from 1947 until (technically) the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Despite the unfortunate and predictable fact that many liberals refuse it, Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War. And how, one wonders, did he do it?

In 1983, President Reagan sent American troops to Grenada to liberate the people their from their Communist dictator, an event that “signaled the end of the Brezhnev Doctrine and inaugurated a sequence of events that brought down the Soviet empire itself.”

From here:

The Brezhnev Doctrine stated simply that once a country went Communist, it would stay Communist. In other words, the Soviet empire would continue to advance and gain territory, but it would never lose any to the capitalist West. In 1980, when Reagan was elected president, the Brezhnev Doctrine was a frightening reality. Between 1974 and 1980, while the United States wallowed in post-Vietnam angst, 10 countries had fallen into the Soviet orbit: South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South Yemen, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Grenada and Afghanistan. Never had the Soviets lost an inch of real estate to the West.

The liberation of Grenada changed that. For the first time, a Communist country had ceased to be Communist. Surely the Politburo in Moscow took notice of that. The Soviet leadership, we now know from later accounts, also noted that in Ronald Reagan the Americans had elected a new kind of president, one who had resolved not merely to "contain" but actually to "roll back" the Soviet empire.

[…]

Historian Barbara Tuchman argued that instead of employing a policy of confrontation, the West should ingratiate itself with the Soviet Union by pursuing "the stuffed-goose option -- that is, providing them with all the grain and consumer goods they need." If Reagan had taken this advice when it was offered in 1982, the Soviet empire would probably still be around today . . .

. . . and one can only wonder how larger and more powerful it might have become.

Reagan might have won the Cold War “without firing a shot,” as Margaret Thatcher put it, but there can be little doubt whether or not he would have been willing to do so. Only by his policy of confrontation was Ronald Reagan able to put an end to this period of worldwide fear, intimidation, and uncertainty.

So in a strong and irresistible sense, war was the answer in latter half of the 20th Century as well.

[And by the way, to anyone interested in debating whether or not credit ought to be given to Reagan for the end of the Cold War: I’m ready and willing.]

So the claim that “War is never the answer,” if that is indeed what my neighbors are trying to to tell me, is, at best, an exercise in outright lunacy. No person in his or her right mind would deny that the early American Minutemen, Sir Winston Churchill, and Ronald Reagan were dead right in their willingness to stare oppressive, evil empires in the face and wage war.

So what about the other claim? “War is not the answer in Iraq.”

It’s been my experience that those making this claim know very little, and often nothing, of the religions of the world – including, of course, Islam. While I make no claims of expertise, mind you, I do happen to know quite a bit about this particular religion.

Islam is not a religion of peace. Unfortunately, there is a kind of pop-Western idea that “Islam” is a term that ought to be defined in terms of peacefulness. “Islam,” literally and existentially, means “surrender” – i.e., surrender to Allah, either by word or by sword.

From here:

To get to the heart of Islam, start with its founder: Muhammad. Like Christianity, Islam's essence is tied to the nature of a central figure who gives the religion its distinctive soul. Muhammad's professional life as a religious leader can be divided into two, roughly equal periods. In the first, he preached tolerance while he struggled for acceptance in Mecca. But in the second period, after he rises to power in Medina, he became increasingly harsh, mean-spirited and warlike.

In Medina, he inaugurated his reign of terror by assassinating two critics who posed no physical threat: an elderly man and a poetess. Unaccustomed to the farm life of Medina, he tried his hand at raiding caravans traveling to and from Mecca. After several failed attempts he finally succeeded -- during the holy month. (As usual, he conveniently had a revelation to justify this breach of regional ethics.) Muhammad had found his calling: plunder.

The mere existence of the Jewish tribes in Medina threatened Muhammad’s authority. Muhammad packaged his religion as the completion and perfection of the monotheistic religions: Judaism and Christianity. His converts were Arabs; Jews refused to accept him as an authentic prophet of their religion. In a policy of ethnic cleansing, he banished two of the three Jewish tribes and slaughtered the third. Of the several dozen battles fought either by Muhammad or in his behalf, only one, the Battle of the Ditch, was defensive. Islam, however, classifies them all as defensive, virtually removing any meaning from the word. Muhammad had perfected his technique: slaughter.

In addition, and if you’ve got the time, read through Surah 9 of the Qu’ran, paying particular attention to verses like 5 and 14.

More can be found in this post of mine.

Islam is to religion what Adolf Hitler was to politics. It is an ideology bent upon the hatred of innocent Westerners (for, as Westerners, we are inherently deserving of punishment), the hatred of Jews, and – this ought to be sounding familiar if you’ve been paying attention – world domination. While I am thankful that there are many tolerant, peaceful Muslims in the world, it seems unfortunately true that these people are, in fact, the inconsistent ones.

History has taught us an undeniably clear lesson when we’ve found ourselves in the face of powerful forces intent on the extermination of others and indoctrination of all - war, it pains me to say, is the answer.

Cool, Old (or Dead) Philosopher of the Week (#1)

2005-08-03T22:28:00.000-05:00

Appearances to the contrary, my passion in life (beside my wife and family, that is) is actually not politics, but philosophy. (Politics and current events, it seems, just make for a more exciting post.) So, in a show of solidarity with my philosophical forebears, I've decided to post a picture every week of some cool, old (or dead) philosopher who, in my opinion, deserves some of the spotlight here at The Good and the Right. (I should tell you, though, I've got the worst memory, so we'll see how long I can keep up with this).

Anyway, this week's Cool, Old (or Dead) Philosopher is the late Willard Van Orman Quine (1908-2000).

He could've never published a word in his life and he still would've shown up on this blog on the merits of his wonderful name and, of course, the fact that he is quite possibly the only philosopher in Western history to make a beret look cool.

Brian Leiter, at it again.

2005-08-02T09:07:00.000-05:00

First, Brian Leiter, distinguished professor of philosophy and jurisprudence at the University of Texas at Austin, blames the recent terrorist attacks in London on the U.S./British involvement in Iraq (a claim disputed by yours truly here). Now, he has this to say about the attempts by some in Texas to have their children taught something other than mere evolutionary biology:

If your child attends a public school purportedly teaching the Bible from a non-sectarian perspective, be sure to read this report by the Texas Freedom Network. Texas beat back the creationists at the state level, but the Texas Taliban are charging full speed ahead in Odessa. These battles really are so depressing. There is a sound moral case for religious liberty, but there is an even sounder case for keeping religious practice strictly in the private sphere. Why in a country that affords quite extraordinary accomodations to private religious observance do at least some believers feel the need to forecefeed their predilections down the throat of other people's children?

Well, I suppose we know the answer, but it involves two words ("fascist" and "theocracy") that, shall we say, agitate the self-deceived. This article is perhaps unusually clear about what these folks are really after. God help us!

It should first be noted that the primary concern on the minds of "the creationists" is not that their children be taught a cosmogony straight out of the book of Genesis, but that, if Darwinian evolution is to be taught, it ought to be taught flaws and all. In November of 2003, as Leiter puts it, and to the disappointment of those of us with open minds,

The Texas State Board of Education stood up for science and the future of Texas, voting overwhelmingly to approve all the biology textbooks up for adoption, none of which suggest, falsely, that there are any scientific doubts about Darwin's theory of evolution.

Notice that the concern on the minds of the objectors is not whether the creation account in Genesis lasted a literal 7 days or not, or some other strictly-Biblical matter; no, their concern is that students be taught everything about Darwinian evolution, including the doubts that many scientists (including Darwin himself!) have, and have had, about the theory. Even Mr. Leiter is careful to name it "Darwin's theory of evolution".

Furthermore, despite Professor Leiter's insistence that there are none, there just are significant doubts in the minds of many regarding the full explanatory power of Darwin's theory. Three come immediately to mind.

#1

Despite the fact that Darwin himself used the language of a "Creator" breathing life into certain species,[1] most contemporary Darwinians use his theory to justify their own philosophical naturalism. However, whether or not Mr. Leiter finds the arguments compelling to any degree, there is significant debate in the philosophy of science over whether or not a purely naturalistic cosmogony, resulting, in time, in the biological evolution of species as Darwin theorized, ought to be supposed to be true at all. If any of the life-permitting forces in the universe (strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic force, gravity) were off by even a hair in either direction, life would not have been possible. And the odds of some chance explosion of a singularity billions and billions of years ago resulting in these sensitive forces being the way they are is something like 1 in 10 to the 10th to the 123rd power. Facts like this one have been taken by many scientists to be evidence of what's called "fine tuning," which suggests some sort of Fine-Tuner. Robin Collins (Ph.D., Notre Dame), fellow of the Discovery Institute and professor of philosophy Messiah College, goes into much greater detail (a few of his papers can be found here).

#2

Even Darwin himself wondered:

With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?

This is commonly referred to as "Darwin's Doubt." Alvin Plantinga develops a probability argument upon this doubt which concludes that the probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable (R) given only naturalism and evolution (N & E) is either low, or its value is inscrutible. Once this reliability is determined, the argument goes something like:

1. P(R|N & E) is low or inscrutible.
2. Therefore, if you believe N & E, you should withhold assent from R (that our cognitive faculties are reliable).
3. If you do not believe R, then you should withhold assent from anything else you believe.
4. So if you believe N & E, then you should withhold assent from N & E.
5. Therefore, you should not believe N & E.

The conjunction of naturalism and evolution, accepted by many contemporary scientists and certainly implied by modern science textbooks, is self-defeating. Plantinga has shown that, if you believe N & E, then you shouldn't believe N & E.

#3

The problem of the minimal cell is explained here and here.

#4, #5, . . . #n

More on these issues can be found here, here, and here.

So, Professor Leiter, why not teach students the latest science has to say about Darwin's theory of evolution? Why not encourage a many-sided discussion in our nation's classrooms? After all, this is what education is about - seeing the pros and cons of a given issue, hearing the cases for and against the issue, discussing the issue with others interested in the truth of the matter, and eventually coming to an informed conclusion. It would seem that someone in your professional position would want a system like this one.

Instead, however, you imply that all those who voice concerns about a Darwin-only science education are fascist theocrats. How very professional of you.

UPDATE: Thank you, Mr. President.

Footnotes:

[1]

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." [Origin of Species (J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 1928) 462-463]

Two sides to every story . . . but from the same storyteller?

2005-08-01T15:57:00.000-05:00

Eric Cohen and Bill Kristol, from the Weekly Standard, on Senate majority leader Bill Frist's recent comments on embryonic stem cell research:

The incoherence of Frist's position is staggering. In his Senate speech, he explained that the "embryo is a human life at its earliest stage of development." He said that he believes, as a person of faith and a man of science, that "human life begins at conception." He reminded us that "we were all once embryos." He called on all citizens, including scientists, to treat human embryos with the "utmost dignity and respect." It was a clear and elegant statement on the dignity of early human life, backed up by a doctor's understanding of elementary embryology.

But then, as if giving a different speech, Frist called on the federal government to promote, with taxpayer dollars, the ongoing destruction of human embryos. In a television interview that day, he said that research using and destroying the "spares" can be done ethically so long as there is a "moral framework around informed consent." But if embryos deserve respect as nascent human lives, as Frist says he believes, it should not matter whether researchers have permission from their parents to destroy them. If embryos are "human life at its earliest stage," as Frist says he believes, then none of us possesses the authority to consent to their destruction. To promote embryo destruction and still claim to be "pro-life," as Frist did throughout his speech, is absurd.

Agreed. Remove this idiot from his post and slap some sense into him before he's even partly responsible for forcing taxpayers to sponsor something they consider to be an undeniable evil.

UPDATE: Found this here.

A response to Senator Dodd

2005-08-01T15:10:00.000-05:00

Senator Dodd's comments on today's events:

The president has done a real disservice to our nation by appointing an individual who lacks the credibility to further U.S. interests at the United Nations. I will be monitoring his performance closely to ensure that he does not abuse his authority as he has in the past.

"Credibility"? I see. Let's first remind ourselves of the credibility of the United Nations.

From here:

The United Nations is under increasing attack by critics in the United States and other countries. At the heart of the organization's mounting problems is an almost total lack of accountability, which gives rise to suspicions of wholesale corruption. Existing evidence indicates that corruption and mismanagement go beyond the routine fraud, waste, and abuse of resources that mark all public-sector enterprises.

[...]

The United Nations is in dire need of reform, starting with a comprehensive, independent audit. Even if a complete audit were performed, however, there is no guarantee anything would be done about the problems identified. And radical change may not be possible, no matter how obvious the need. Given all the earlier, failed attempts to put things right, even on a limited basis, optimism about meaningful reform may be an exercise in wishful thinking.

More here:

There is mounting evidence that the United Nations Oil-for-Food program, originally conceived as a means of providing humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people, was subverted by Saddam Hussein's regime and manipulated to help prop up the Iraqi dictator. Saddam's dictatorship was able to siphon off an estimated $10 billion from the Oil-for-Food program through oil smuggling and systematic thievery, by demanding illegal payments from companies buying Iraqi oil, and through kickbacks from those selling goods to Iraq--all under the noses of U.N. bureaucrats. The members of the U.N. staff administering the program have been accused of gross incompetence, mismanagement, and possible complicity with the Iraqi regime in perpetrating the biggest scandal in U.N. history.

And here:

Last month a classified United Nations report prompted Secretary General Kofi Annan to admit that U.N. peacekeepers and staff have sexually abused or exploited war refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The worst of the 150 or so allegations of misconduct--some of them captured on videotape--include pedophilia, rape, and prostitution.

I could go on, and on, and on.

So, Senator Dodd, tell me: Just exactly what sort of "credibility" would a person need to represent the United States to a group of despot-endorsing amateur pornographers?

A discussion of rights

2005-08-01T13:54:00.000-05:00

As most Americans know, the United States' Declaration of Independence makes the following claim:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now in the 21st Century, those who lean left politically are quick to jump to the defense of various persons or people groups, screaming something along the lines of "Racial profiling!" or "Intolerance!" These charges are often accompanied by hackneyed explanations of how some public figure's remark or federal policy or action violates the rights of this person or group. This month, for instance, the debate rages over whether or not profiling of any sort ought to be employed by law enforcement officers as a measure of protecting our systems of mass transportation (cf. the bus and subway bombings in London). Last Month, the eyes of the ACLU and other human rights organizations were focused upon the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In the words of Amnesty International:

Hypocrisy, an overarching war mentality and a disregard for basic human rights principles and international legal obligations continue to mark the USA's "war on terror". Serious human rights violations are the inevitable result. The detention camp at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba has become a symbol of the US administration’s refusal to put human rights and the rule of law at the heart of its response to the atrocities of 11 September 2001.

There are a few interesting questions, however, that have to be raised.

First, as a political ideology, philosophical liberalism considers the rights-granting documents penned by the founders of our country to be "living documents" - that is, that they are growing, flexible documents that should adapt to changing times and a changing culture. For this reason (and others), those espousing this ideology are often called "progressives." I wonder, however, how much sense it makes for liberals, or progressives, to be so concerned with conserving certain aspects of our constitional democracy, while allowing other aspects to be bent to and fro according to the whims of their own political preferences. Is there any non-arbitrary method for drawing this line? President Bush using his constitutional right to appoint John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador is an "abuse of power," but war criminals had better not have to listen to any more Christina Aguilera down there at Gitmo! This is what happens when post-modern moral relativism finds its way into the minds of politically-charged halfwits.

Second, surely we all understand that human rights are not unconditional. Prisoners do not have those rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to anywhere near the same extent as I do. Why? Because I have not committed a felony. The rights of citizens are conditional upon, if nothing else, the behavior of those citizens. If, for instance, an adult citizen were to rape and kill a child, that person will have successfully sacrificed his or her own freedom to, say, take trips to theme parks, go grocery shopping, and go site-seeing around this great country of ours. And rightfully so, I might add.

So since, as we've seen, many of the rights for which liberals so often scream are, in fact, conditional, who is to say that there shouldn't be some sort of profiling going on in our country? Who's to say that depriving war criminals of sleep is "un-American" of us? Who is to say that there aren't conditions upon which such actions might be appropriate? It seems some would like to have their cake and eat it, too - they want a "living" constitution, vulnerable to their own desires, but also some sort of definitive case for the protection of "unalienable rights."

And third, for the philosophical naturalists, upon what ground can you even explain "human rights"? According to your own cosmogony, human beings are merely another phenomenon of natural selection, on a metaphysical par with monkeys, flowers, and fungus, different only in certain unsignificant aspects of our anatomy and, of course, our higher powers of reason. At best, you can explain "human rights" in terms of humans, collectively, granting themselves these rights (cf. Social Contractarian theories, etc.). But, if humans are the arbiters of their own rights, then humans are perfectly capable of denying those rights to some (e.g., prisoners) or determining the extent to which those rights ought to be granted to others. Only on theism is there an authority greater than humanity, which is what one would need to begin to make the kind of case for "unalienable rights" that so many wish to make (and even then, we're on shaky ground).

Bush circumvents the Senate

2005-08-01T08:36:00.000-05:00

President Bush has bypassed the Senate's opposition and appointed John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations. Story here.

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and others have, quite predictably, already expressed disappointment with President Bush's (constitutionally supported) decision. It's clear to many what bothers Democrats most about John Bolton. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kent.):

“Look, we’re not nominating somebody here for Miss Congeniality. . . . We know that Bolton is a person, a forceful person, a person of strong opinion.”

In the 21st Century, people who have "strong opinions" on issues of morality and, specifically, foreign policy are considered to be threatening figures. This is a day and age when "strong opinions" are to be kept to oneself, else one be called "un-diplomatic," "rude," "bigoted," etc.

Heaven forbid we send someone to the U.N. - that righteous, trustworthy, and dignified organization that it is - who is unafraid to point a steady finger at corruption and call it what it is - wrong.

American Islamic leaders' fatwa is - surprise, surprise - a sham

2005-07-29T08:03:00.000-05:00

Yesterday morning (Thursday, July 28, 2005) a group of American Islamic leaders issued a fatwa (that is, an Islamic religious ruling) condemning terrorist activity. Unfortunately, . . .

. . . the fatwa is bogus. Nowhere does it condemn the Islamic extremism ideology that has spawned Islamic terrorism. It does not renounce nor even acknowledge the existence of an Islamic jihadist culture that has permeated mosques and young Muslims around the world. It does not renounce Jihad let alone admit that it has been used to justify Islamic terrorist acts. It does not condemn by name any Islamic group or leader. In short, it is a fake fatwa designed merely to deceive the American public into believing that these groups are moderate. In fact, officials of both organizations have been directly linked to and associated with Islamic terrorist groups and Islamic extremist organizations. One of them is an unindicted co-conspirator in a current terrorist case; another previous member was a financier to Al-Qaeda.

More here.

Disappointing news out of the UK

2005-07-28T17:15:00.000-05:00

Story here.

The most disturbing part of the article, in my opinion, is this:

Ann Furedi, cheif executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said: "Women today want to plan their families and, when contraception fails, they are prepared to use abortion to get back in control of their lives.

"Motherhood is just one among many options open to women and it is not surprising that younger women want to prioritise other things.

"We should stop seeing abortion as a problem and start seeing it as a legitimate and sensible solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy."

It's one thing for women to "want to plan their families." It's quite a different thing to give women the right to kill those things of which they are not entirely in control.

Note to Ann Furedi's children: Do whatever mommy tells you to do . . . or, odds are, she'll kill you.

UT Austin professor confuses derrière with a hole in the ground

2005-07-28T08:35:00.000-05:00

University of Texas at Austin professor of philosophy and jurisprudence Brian Leiter had this to say of the recent terrorist attacks in London:

Asked by a reporter last week about the (obvious!) connections between the terrorist attacks in London and British participation in the immoral and criminal war in Iraq, Prime Minister Tony Blair was fortunate to have the conservative Australian P.M. John Howard on hand to confuse the issues.

[...]

Critics have focussed on the connection between the Iraq War and terrorist incidents in, for example, London and Madrid, precisely because the Iraq War was illegal and unjust, and thus should never have been undertaken in the first place. That it also has as a (reasonably) predictable consequence the incitement of more mass murder by religious fanatics is, one might think, a further objection to the policy, at least among those who have not been apologists for war crimes.

And later, quoting University of Michigan professor of history, Juan Cole:

Many commentators are putting out the straw man argument that the Iraq War cannot be blamed for terrorism because September 11 and Bali, e.g., happened before the Iraq War.

This argument is so dishonest that it should make your blood boil when you hear it. No one is alleging that all the instances of radical Muslim terrorism can be traced to the Iraq War. What is being argued is that the Iraq War provided the already-existing terror networks with an enormous propaganda and recruiting windfall. Would Hasib Hussein, who was 14 in 2001, really have agreed to kill himself and 20 others on a London bus if Bush and Blair had acted responsibly and declined to bog the West down in a guerrilla war in the Muslim country of Iraq? What if instead they had captured Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, put $200 billion into rebuilding Afghanistan, and used their enormous diplomatic and military weight to resolved the Israeli-Palestinian and Kashmir issues?

First of all, as any dimly-lit bulb ought to realize: Blaming any terrorist attacks on the involvement of British and American forces in the Iraq War does not in any way justify any of those attacks. I trust that someone as learned as Professor Leiter understands this, but wonder why he seems so much more trigger-happy when discussing those things he believes to be the fault of the U.S.

Second, in response to Professor Cole's questions: Perhaps, had the Iraq War never taken place, Hasib Hussein would not have agreed to kill himself and 20 others on a London bus. Perhaps. However, what is certainly clear, especially from bin Laden's 1996 declaration of jihad and 1998 fatwah, the issue isn't merely their reaction to U.S. activity in the Middle East. There is a larger issue at work here, which bin Laden himself makes clear. Bin Laden, from the 1996 declaration of jihad:

Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)" [here bin Laden quotes from Surah 9.5 of the Qu'ran]; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders."

Let me elaborate.

Several decades ago, Hassan al-Banna, a prominent figure in the Muslim Brotherhood, concluded that Egyptian and Islamic societies were destroying their culture by adopting some of the ideas and lifestyle of the "Infidel Westerners." From al-Banna's "Five Tracts of Hassan al-Banna":

How wise is the man who said: "Force is the surest way of implementing the right, and how beautiful it is that force and right should march side by side."

Later, praising the early Islamic conquerors:

Their homes on their saddles and their swords in their hands, and with the clear argument on the tips of their tongues, calling on all mankind to accept on of these three: Islam, Tribute (Jizya), or Combat" (trans. Charles Wendell; Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 1978; 80, 82).

Despite a few setbacks following the assassination of al-Banna, the movement gained new strength, now calling itself Al-Takfir wa al-Hijrah, "Infidelity and Flight." "Their method for building an Islamic society was the systematic use of violence and the spread of fear" [Zacharias, Light in the Shadow of Jihad (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah, 2002) 46]. While Al-Takfir wa al-Hijrah continued to gain strength, Muhammad Abd el Salam Farag, an engineer from Cairo, Egypt, wrote The Missing Religious Precept, a book inspired by this movement of the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Farag, the "missing religious precept" which most Muslims had forgotten was the command to jihad, which, unsurprisingly, he considered to be the most important precept of Islam. On October 6, 1981, it was Farag behind the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Farag's movement came to be known as Al-Jihad. Farag, referring to Sadat's assassination:

I am the principal conspirator in the operation to assassinate the president of the Republic. By this means I wanted to implement the law of the almighty God, to eradicate the rule of the unbeliever. The aim was to establish an Islamic State ("A Moment of Crisis," 20/20, October 1982).

One look at The Missing Religious Precept makes clear exactly where bin Laden is coming from. Comparative religions expert Ravi Zacharias:

If that document [The Missing Religious Precept] is believed by even a handful of men, it is a fearsome thing. It seethes with hate, incites to kill and destroy, calls for the spread of fear among the 'backsliders and infidels,' for the murder of leaders, for the scorching of a nation's vegetation and its livelihood, and for building absolute fearlessness in its followers. The promise given through it all is that at the end, Islam will conquer and all its opponents will be vanguished (Zacharias 47).

The events of September 11 in America, these July attacks in London and Egypt, etc., are all the result of this snowballing ideology of hate and religious domination. The wife of assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat even remarked that the same men who were responsible for the death of her husband were responsible for the deaths of thousands on September 11.

So you see, Professor Leiter and Professor Cole, had we not gone to war in Iraq, perhaps young Hasib Hussein might not have agreed to kill himself and 20 others on a London bus in July of 2005. But we can all rest assured, he'd have found an innocent target elsewhere. Blaming the activity of these Islamic extremists on the actions of the U.S. is futile and a show of one's own fundamental ignorance of what's really going on here. If it's not London, it's Sharm el-Sheik. And if it's not Sharm el-Sheik, it's somewhere else. Terrorist activity can never be regarded as mere "(reasonably) predictable consequence," as if they're just trying to defend themselves against the oppresive United States. Judging by their own ideology, it is the terrorists who are the ones on the offense.

Has the U.S. done some things in the Middle East that we shouldn't have? Sure. However, it ought to be clear by now that we're dealing with an enemy who will "slay [us] wherever [they] find [us], seize [us], beleaguer [us], and lie in wait for [us] in every stratagem (of war)" whether we had gone to war in Iraq or not.

UPDATE: This from the Middle East Times:

The excuse in all the above cases was the war in Iraq, but let us not forget that in September 2001, long before Iraq, Osama Bin Laden proudly announced that he ordered the killing of some 3,000 in the United States, in the name of avenging Islam. Let us not forget that the killing began a long time before the invasion of Iraq.

Indeed, jihadis have been killing for a decade in the name of Islam. They killed innocent tourists and natives in Morocco and Egypt, in Africa, in Indonesia and in Yemen, all done in the name of Islam by Muslims who say that they are better than all other Muslims. They killed in India, in Thailand and are now talking of killing in Germany and Denmark and so on. There were attacks with bombs that killed scores inside Shia and Sunni mosques, inside churches and inside synagogues in Turkey and Tunisia, with Muslim preachers saying that it is okay to kill Jews and Christians - the so called infidels.

Ignorance, it seems, repeats itself.

2005-07-26T12:05:00.000-05:00

Hard-set on out-doing Tom Cruise, it seems that Hanoi Jane, despite 3 decades of apologizing for being an idiot in the 70's, has decided once again to mount an anti-war offense while she promotes her new book. Aren't celebrities supposed to have hired people to make sure they don't do anything stupid, trivializing their careers . . . again? Tom Cruise's brilliant publicist - that is, his sister - must be behind this.

Some people never learn.

UPDATE: More on Ms. Fonda's poor decision-making. Note: It seems I'm not the only one putting Jane Fonda and Tom Cruise in the same dumb boat.