The Clash of Orthodoxies

I recently finished reading "The Clash of Orthodoxies", by Robert P. George.  Dr. George describes the clash that is at our doorstep between those who claim the Judeo-Christian worldview and those who have abandoned that worldview in favor of, what he calls, the "secular orthodoxy".  "The issues immediately in play," he says, "have mainly, though not exclusively, to do with sexuality, the transmitting and taking of human life, and the place of religion and religiously informed moral judgment in public life."

In this post I want to look at Dr. George's critique of secular views on sexuality as contrasted with the traditional, Judeo-Christian view.  Professor George is a philosopher.  As such, it might take a few readings of the included quotes to fully grasp what he is saying.  If you take the time however, I think you will find his views quite enlightening. 

Professor George claims that the liberal misunderstanding of sexual morality is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the human person.  He explains it this way:

Implicit in [secular views on sexual morality] is a particular understanding of the human person as an essentially non--bodily being who inhabits a nonpersonal body. According to this understanding--which contrasts with the Judeo--Christian view of the human person as a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit--the "person" is the conscious and desiring "self" as distinct from the body which may exist as a merely "biological," and, thus, sub-personal, reality.

Secularist ideology holds to a 'dualistic' view of the human person.  The body is seen as a mere instrument of the true "self".  The real "you" is your consciousness.  Your body is not truly part of you, but rather an instrument to be used by your consciousness in seeking pleasure and other forms of personal fulfillment.  Thus bodily unity, through sex acts that are procreative in type can never be personal unity because the body is not truly part of the person.  The most that can ever be achieved between two individuals is emotional unity.  Sexual conduct is simply a means to express affection, experience pleasure, and heighten the emotional intensity of a relationship through sex play.  This emotional unity through sex play can be achieved as easily by two men or two women as it can by a man and a woman (or as Professor George asks, "...if it is a purely emotional bond, some ask, why only two?)

Contrast the secular view of sexual morality with the traditional, Judeo-Christian view.  Professor George describes it as follows:

Rational reflection on marriage as it is participated in by men and women makes it clear: since men and women are essentially embodied (and not simply inhabitors of a suit of flesh [contrasting with the secular view]), the biological union of spouses in reproductive--type acts consummates and actualizes their marriage, making the spouses truly, and not merely metaphorically, "two in one flesh." The sexual union of spouses--far from being something extrinsic to marriage or merely instrumental to procreation, pleasure, the expression of tender feelings, or anything else--is an essential aspect of marriage as an intrinsic human good. Marital acts are the biological matrix of the multi--level (bodily, emotional, dispositional, spiritual) sharing of life and commitment that marriage is.

But, one might ask, is a true bodily or "biological" union of persons possible? Indeed it is. Consider that for most human functions or activities, say, digestion or locomotion, the organism performing the function or act is the individual human being. In respect of the act of reproduction, however, things are different. Reproduction is a single act or function, yet it is performed by a male and female as a mated pair. For purposes of reproduction, the male and female partners become a single organism, they form a single reproductive principle. This organic unity is achieved precisely in the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species--even in cases (such as those of infertile couples) in which the nonbehavioral conditions of reproduction do not obtain.

Properly understood in light of a non--dualistic account of the human person, the goodness of marriage and marital intercourse simply cannot be reduced to the status of a mere means to pleasure, feelings of closeness, or any other extrinsic goal. Indeed, it cannot legitimately be treated (as some Christians have, admittedly, sought to treat it) as a mere means to procreation, though children are among the central purposes of marriage and help to specify its meaning as a moral reality even for married couples who cannot have children. [Marital] acts realize the unity of marriage (italics added), which includes the coming to be of children.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition bodily, sexual union is personal union.  Since the body is not seen as a mere instrument of the conscious and desiring "self", sex cannot be reduced to a means of pleasure seeking, expressing affection, or even to the begetting of children.  It is properly viewed as a biologically unifying act that forms the foundation of a multi-level (biological, spiritual, emotional, etc.) sharing of life between two individuals.  As I have noted in a previous post, this view helps to make sense of the consummation requirement that is part of the legal tradition of all western civilizations.  Short of a sex act that was procreative in type, the marriage of a couple was not viewed as legally complete since it lacked the biological unity that was seen as an essential element of a completed marriage.

Why is the liberal view on sexuality so damaging?  Because it is a lie.  And like all lies, once it is accepted it leads to other lies.  Liberal views on abortion are a natural outgrowth of their views on sexual morality.  They want sexuality to be an innocent pleasure, but they cannot hide from the fact that quite often, sexual behavior manifests its biologically unitive characteristic in the creation of new life.  Rather than recognizing the error of their ways, they claim that the fetus (while human) is not yet a person (lacking the conscious and desiring aspect to qualify as a 'self').  Thus, it is not due full respect under the law and can be discarded at the mother's whim.  The mother, buying into the secular lie, is often faced with tremendous guilt following an abortion because she senses the lie at some level of her soul.  Once again, rather than acknowledging the lie, secularists hope that by repeating the lie often enough and loud enough, the guilt will be removed.

Sexual activity is immoral, secularists claim, only when it is non-consensual or when the consenting persons do not take proper precaution to avoid unwanted pregnancy or disease.  When presented with evidence of continued unwanted pregnancies, disease, and the emotional distress that are a natural outgrowth of their secular dogma (and this in spite of their best efforts to promote safe-sex and abortion as necessary), they blame it on 'Christian Fundamentalists'.  These problems are easily solved, they claim.  If Christians would stop blocking secular policy efforts and join the secularists in advocating abortion and safe-sex practices, individuals could continue to enjoy the free and easy pleasures of sex without the unpleasant side-effects.

What if secularists achieved their goals?  What if all of humanity joined in the crusade to make sex the innocent pleasure that secularists want it to be?  What if abortion put an end to all unwanted pregnancy, and safe-sex was practiced so perfectly that sexually transmitted disease was completely eradicated (actually if safe-sex was practiced perfectly I suppose there would be no need for abortion)?  Would we have reached the state of sexual nirvana where we could have our proverbial cake and eat it too?  Dr. George thinks not:

The psychosomatic integrity (i.e. mind/body unity) of the person is another of the basic or intrinsic goods of the human person. This integrity is disrupted in any sexual act that lacks the common good of marriage as its central specifying point. Where sex is sought purely for pleasure, or as a means of inducing feelings of emotional closeness, or for some other extrinsic end, the body is treated as a sub--personal, purely instrumental, reality. This existential separation of the body and the conscious and desiring part of the self serves literally to dis--integrate the person. It takes the person apart, disrupting the good of acting as the dynamically unified being one truly is.

Did our Christian forebears invent this idea of integrity? Did they dream up the notion that sexual immorality damages integrity by dis--integrating the person? No. Christianity has had, to be sure, a very important role in promoting and enhancing our understanding of sexual morality. But in the dialogues of Plato and the teachings of Aristotle, in the writings of Plutarch and the great Roman stoic Musonius Rufus, and, of course, in Jewish tradition, one can find the core of this central, important teaching about the way sex is so central to integrity, and therefore so central not only to us as individuals but to us as a community. Disintegrated, individual human beings cannot form an integrated community.

Individuals who are 'disintegrated' will be incapable of then integrating with other individuals to form lasting families, and communities that are necessary to the functioning of a free society.  The truth of this claim is most easily witnessed in those countries where state sponsored welfare is most prevalent.  Is it any coincidence that those countries that are most heavily dependent on the government to provide for basic welfare needs are also those countries most entrenched in secular orthodoxy?  As the voluntary forms of social bonding and support break down, it falls to the state to perform these welfare functions.  Once again, rather than recognize that this unfortunate result is the natural consequence of secular ideology, secularists pretend that state sponsored welfare is 'enlightened' and 'desired.'  This socialist dream, which sounds so wonderful in theory, does not look so rosy when viewed in the light of history. Perhaps it is this destructive state that the leaders of my faith had in mind when they said:

"We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

Am I a Glenn-Beck-ificator Too?

So I got in a debate with some libertarian-types who were bemoaning the state of our country.  "How did we get here?", they ask.  "If we could just pull the government out of everything then our creative abilities would be set free to solve everything and we would reach the state of libertarian nirvana!"  So I pitched my now fairly firm belief that this is IMPOSSIBLE unless we start rebuilding the family and other institutions to take care of the social welfare needs of society.  Something has to take its place!  I added a bit about my view that social liberalism and its views on sexuality (I think I called it sexual anarchy in the debate) are incompatible with a free society.  Social liberalism participates in the destruction of families, churches and other institutions that HAVE to be strong if we ever hope to get off the government teat.  Here was Smitty's response:

SMITTY:You're a Fruit-Bat. What a bunch of Bunk. No wonder Mormons are persecuted... the sh** you're peddling doesn't square with reality.

You just invent non-sense to square with your non-sensical views. You just throw around terms; 'Leftist', 'Liberalism', 'Welfarism'... you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. This is the Glenn Beck-ification of American discourse. You just talk sh**.

Individualism is what the US is all about. Just because one is individualistic doesn't mean that they are anarchists.

The Government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.. and sexual morality laid down by Mormons, would be a pretty comical, but deserving fate, for an America that would subscribe to your vacuous prattling.

Who are you, to be fit to determine what a 'norm' or a 'standard' would be?... You believe in 'fairy tales'... and follow a Religion invented by a two bit Con Man...

Anyone who brings 'sexual morality' and 'family values' into a conversation about the Constitution, is clearly a Dogmatic Bunko Salesman.

The Pea-Brains that are proliferating at an alarming rate...who follow to the nit-wittery that you subscribe to, are the primary reason the United States is becoming a laughing stock.


SAM: Pretty good for an ad hominem attack Smitty but you didn't even address anything I talked about, and I don't even think you tried to understand what I am saying.

In his initial post Occam despaired the loss of the constitution due to the fact that the government is doing too much for us now. A HUGE chunk of that is related to social welfare expenses. I see a direct connection between the breakdown of institutions such as the family, the church, community institutions and the rise of the government to fill those roles. Maybe that is a stretch...it seems pretty obvious to me. Anyone who wants to advocate a decline in government expenditure on welfare, but not propose anything to fill the void is kidding themselves. I'm proposing some things that are necessary to fill the void.

I'm all for an 'individualistic' society. Fine. But there are social welfare needs that can only be addressed collectively. We either choose to come together as individuals, or we let the government take over those social welfare needs. And when we give the government control over greater and greater pieces of the national wealth we shouldn't be surprised when they do things we don't agree with.


SMITTY: You post bunk.. I throw To-Mah-Toes... there are no rules.

There's no sense in debating your assertions. You put forth no evidence or logic... you simply make sh** up and present it as fact.

Like everything you post.. it's circular logic.. you believe things.. and you speciously substitute your beliefs, for something that could be debated.

Your POV is not an argument... you offer no facts to be debated.

This is the state of American discourse... people pull stuff out of the a** and run with it, as if it is something for debate... or as if they are seeking some sort of 'understanding'...

Basically, ideologues push their Dogma.. until you the shoot them. would I bother to have a debate with Mohammed Atta? Osama Bin Laden? Pat Robertson? Marshal Applewhite? No. There's no point in debating dogma or faith or non-sense...

You would just keep presenting more bunk.. and more dogma.. and more of your self acclaimed assertions, as being some sort of evidence... it would be pointless.

You get the point.  The more I thought about it though, he's kinda right.  I do just make assertions.  Most of my assertions are extensions of my gospel testimony.  They aren't open to refutation.  Now do not misunderstand me...there is nothing wrong with bearing a testimony or even advocating political postitions based on spiritual testimony of truth.  But, as Elder Oaks reminded us in his speech at BYU Idaho last fall,

"...religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society."

Smitty's criticisms of my argument actually reminded me of the criticism that the BYU professors (cited in an earlier post) made about Glenn Beck:

"Most of the books of Beck's I've picked up … are like his manic, ADHD television personality," said BYU political science professor Ralph Hancock. "He's just throwing stuff out there. They're not meant to be read as discursive arguments. They're just thrown out there to try to entertain people who would rather be Twittering or playing video games."
I find in [Beck] a trace of anti-intellectualism," Hancock said. "My interest is to help connect a certain LDS conservative impulse or mood with a more deeply grounded intellectual conservatism. We can't enter the political field with the argument that all the bad, but smart people think X, but we good dumb people think Y."

 So I suppose I am a bit of a Glenn-Beck-ificator...no apologies but definitely a wake up call to do better!

The Constitution is Dead

This is another great post from my buddy Occam on the CommonSense forum with a bit of back and forth as follow up (sorry again for such a long post to anyone who actually bothers to read...It's worth it I promise!)

OCCAM:
Every person elected as President of the United States must recite the following oath.

Quote:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Every president since FDR has utterly failed to uphold this oath.

Upholding the Constitution's sharp limits on government was once a sacred duty for the men who worked in the oval office, even if that meant making unpopular decisions.

They knew that limiting the scope of the federal government was crucial to the continuation of the American experiment. They knew that turning the federal government into a giant money pool would ultimately destroy the freedoms our forefathers had fought so hard for. They knew that, sometimes, they would have to make the hard choices, even if it meant they would be ostracized.

That is why they took that oath.

Quote:

President Franklin Pierce’s 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill read, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

One cannot even imagine a president today vetoing a reading program for the mentally ill. But that is exactly what presidents of the past did, on a regular basis. Or government, by design, was never meant to be a public charity. But that is exactly what it has become.

On the issue of using federal funds to build up infrastructure, something similar to Obama's recent Stimulus Program, President James Madison had this to say:

Quote:

“Having considered the bill this day presented to me . . . which sets apart and pledges funds ‘for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,’ I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution. . . .”

Madison could find no provision in the Constitution allowing federal infrastructure projects precisely because no provision ever existed. The federal government, as the founders envisioned, was never intended to take on the responsibility of building roadways or transport. In their minds, these were best left to the states.

The definition for what is allowable under our constitution has shifted so much in the last 100 years that today's federal government would be unrecognizable to presidents of the past.

Today, every congressman goes to Washington with his or her hand out, trying desperately to funnel as much money as possible into their districts. This comes in the form of road projects, bridges, government office buildings, financial assistance, tax breaks, etc.

This system has shifted the focus of our lawmakers from good governance to begging. They beg for campaign contributions so that they can go to Washington, D.C. to beg for money to pay back their campaign contributors. Then they must beg for more to keep their constituents happy, so that they can win another election and beg for more. This cycle is destroying our nation. It is obvious from our ballooning federal debt. And We always want more. But we never want to pay for it.

This is where principled men and women are supposed to stand up and shout "No!" No to stimulus spending! No to health care spending! No to education spending! No to welfare spending!

We want all these things, of course. We think these things will end our reliance on our crappy jobs, or on our crappy economy, we think these things will set us free, free to do the things we really want to do.

But what many do not realize is that these things end up controlling us. Huge swathes of our economy, including millions of jobs, live or die depending on how much our government wants to spend on a particular project.

Our spending through Medicare and on health insurance tax cuts is driving health care prices through the roof, making health care unaffordable to anyone who is not receiving federal benefits.

Our spending on education has centralized control of tens of thousands of schools, millions of teachers, and tens of millions of students into the hands of a few people in Washington, D.C.

Our welfare spending, which we say helps people without jobs, takes money out of the economy, money that could have been used to create jobs for the very people we claim to be helping.

Just Say No

It is time to say "No." If you want special interests out of Washington, remove what is bringing them there: the money. If you want to cut spending and reduce the deficit, you have to remove money. If you want to bring politics back to the state and local level, where you actually have a voice, then you need to take back the money. But it begins by saying "No."

The transition will not be easy, but when have Americans ever shied away from a challenge? Living under a paternalistic government is easy, but it quickly builds dependence. And once you are dependent, you are no longer free. We claim we want freedom, but we need the government constantly. We need the benefits it gives us. We have stopped providing for ourselves. Instead we look up to the government, with our hands out. We have given our freedom away, in exchange for convenience.

America was not meant to have a government that cares for you, that picks you up when you skin your knee, that makes you sandwich when you get hungry. Americans are supposed to be brave. We are supposed to take what life gives us, good or bad, and thrive.

America was meant to be the land of opportunity, the land of freedom, the land where you did what you want, and took responsibility for yourself. That is what the founders had in mind when they penned the Constitution 224 years ago. The government was there to protect your freedom to follow your dreams, and little more.

America was not supposed to be easy. It was supposed to be free. We have strayed so far from that ideal that I do not know if we can ever find our way back. But I will try, because I know what must be done. I know what must be done to revive the American spirit, to get back to the ideals upon which this country was founded, to get back the ideals that made this country great.

It starts by saying "No."

SAM: Those are great thoughts Occam. The problem I see with this type of reasoning however, is that it all depends on Americans being organized in a way that they are prepared to take care of themselves. This requires a spirit of community founded on strong families that help each other because they want to. If we simple yank the government out of the welfare business, there are still people that are suffering (emotionally, financially, etc.) that need to be taken care of. I think in our more primitive days as a country we were better organized and willing to address these needs. As we've chosen a path of greater individualism and self-fulfillment we ironically find ourselves more reliant on self-serving bureaucracies to take care of our welfare needs.

OCCAM: The spirit of community did not spring up simply because people liked talking to their neighbor. The spirit of community is a survival mechanism created by humans to face the daily challenges of living.

Government is supposed to be an institutionalization of the community spirit, but it has become so abstracted from reality, especially on the federal level, that the spirit in which it was created no longer exists, but rather it has taken on a life and mind of its own.

As follows naturally from what I just said, by yanking the government we stand a strong chance of remaking new communities to help each other. With the advent of the internet, communicating and organizing has never been easier or faster. We simply have no motivation to do so, because the government ostensibly is there to serve that purpose. However, as we can all plainly see, the government is doing a rather terrible job of it, and putting us all into debt to boot.

I submit we can do better, if given the opportunity.

SAM:I agree with you for the most part. I guess where we differ may be in how we got here. I don't think it is the result of a government coup. I think we gradually let down our defenses over the years. We have decided to sacrifice devotion to family and community in pursuit of selfish desires. Politicians have seized the opportunity to acquire greater power by promising to clean up the mess we leave behind. They never fully succeed of course. But the government increases in power as a result and over time develops a 'mind of its own' as you say to pursue ends we never intended. But that is what ALWAYS happens when we give the government more power...we think we are granting it power to pursue particular end but it inevitably uses that power to pursue ends we never intended.

Maybe we do stand a chance to "remake new communities to help each other" as you say. I certainly hope so. I fear that the transition is something that most Americans don't have the stomach for.

OCCAM: You are absolutely right. We got here because we got lazy, and believed politicians who promised us more than they could deliver. In the end, we got more than what we bargained for, and the very power we gave these politicians to help us ended up being used against us.

Taking Conservatism Back to It's Roots

Here is an article by Pat Buchanan I found on The American Conservative .  The article is entitled "Liquidating the Empire" and it is a critique of American foreign policy.  I was tipped off to this article when I listened to Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast this morning.  Why have conservatives become the pro-war party?  What happened to the Robert Taft version of conservatism that advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy?  Or even in the LDS tradition, what happened to the voices of men like J. Reuben Clark who declared in the aftermath of WWII (article link here):

In our course under the new gospel of interference with everything we do not like, we have gone forward and are going forward, as if we possessed all the good of human government, of human economic concept, of human comfort, and of human welfare, all of which we are to impose on the balance of the world,— a concept born of the grossest national egotism. In human affairs no nation can say that all it practices and believes is right, and that all others have that differs from what it has is wrong. Men inflict an unholy tragedy when they proceed on that basis. No man, no society, no people, no nation is wholly right in human affairs; and none is wholly wrong. A fundamental principle of the operation of human society is to live and let live.  Yet, to repeat, we have entered into new fields to impose our will and concepts on others. This means we must use force, and force means war, not peace.  What has our apostasy from peace cost us?

Pat Buchanan declares that our "apostasy from peace" has cost us our national soul in some sense.  America, once universally admired, is now equally scorned.  And beyond the loss of respect, the loss of blood and treasure is reaching the point where 'liquidation' of the empire is becoming inevitable.  Give it a read and tell me what you think:

A decade ago, Oldsmobile went. Last year, Pontiac. Saturn, Saab, and Hummer were discontinued. A thousand GM dealerships shut down.  To those who grew up in a “GM family,” where buying a Chrysler was like converting to Islam, what happened to GM was deeply saddening.
Yet the amputations had to be done — or GM would die.
And the same may be about to happen to the American Imperium.
Its birth can be traced to World War II, when America put 16 million men in uniform and sent millions across the seas to crush Nazi Germany and Japan. After V-E and V-J Day, the boys came home.
But with the Stalinization of half of Europe, the fall of China, and war in Korea came NATO and alliances with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan and Australia that lasted through the Cold War.
In 1989, however, the Cold War ended dramatically with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the retirement of the Red Army from Europe, the break-up of the Soviet Union and Beijing’s abandonment of world communist revolution.
Overnight, our world changed. But America did not change.
As Russia shed her alliances and China set out to capture America’s markets, Uncle Sam soldiered on.
We clung to the old alliances and began to add new allies. NATO war guarantees were distributed like credit cards to member states of the old Warsaw Pact and former republics of the Soviet Union.
We invaded Panama and Haiti, smashed Iraq, liberated Kuwait, intervened in Somalia and Bosnia, bombed Serbia, and invaded Iraq again — and Afghanistan. Now we prepare for a new war — on Iran.
Author Lawrence Vance has inventoried America’s warfare state.
We spend more on defense than the next 10 nations combined.
Our Navy exceeds in firepower the next 13 navies combined. We have 100,000 troops in Iraq, 100,000 in Afghanistan or headed there, 28,000 in Korea, over 35,000 in Japan and 50,000 in Germany. By the Department of Defense’s “Base Structure Report,” there are 716 U.S. bases in 38 countries.
Chalmers Johnson, who has written books on this subject, claims DOD is minimizing the empire. He discovered some 1,000 U.S. facilities, many of them secret and sensitive. And according to DOD’s “Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country,” U.S. troops are now stationed in 148 countries and 11 territories.
Estimated combined budgets for the Pentagon, two wars, foreign aid to allies, 16 intelligence agencies, scores of thousands of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our new castle-embassies: $1 trillion a year.
While this worldwide archipelago of bases may have been necessary when we confronted a Sino-Soviet bloc spanning Eurasia from the Elbe to East China Sea, armed with thousands of nuclear weapons and driven by imperial ambition and ideological hatred of us, that is history now.
It is preposterous to argue that all these bases are essential to our security. Indeed, our military presence, our endless wars and our support of despotic regimes have made America, once the most admired of nations, almost everywhere resented and even hated.
Liquidation of this empire should have begun with the end of the Cold War. Now it is being forced upon us by the deficit-debt crisis. Like GM, we can’t kick this can up the road any more, because we have come to the end of the road.
Republicans will fight new taxes. Democrats will fight to save social programs. Which leaves the American empire as the logical lead cow for the butcher’s knife.

Indeed, how do conservatives justify borrowing hundreds of billions yearly from Europe, Japan and the Gulf states — to defend Europe, Japan and the Arab Gulf states? Is it not absurd to borrow hundreds of billion annually from China — to defend Asia from China? Is it not a symptom of senility to borrow from all over the world in order to defend that world?  (italics added)

In their Mount Vernon declaration of principles, conservatives called the Constitution their guiding star. But did not the author of that constitution, James Madison, warn us that wars are the death of republics?
Under Bush II, conservatives, spurning the wisdom of their fathers, let themselves be seduced, neo-conned into enlisting in a Wilsonian crusade that had as its declared utopian goal “ending tyranny in our world.”
How could conservatives whose defining virtue is prudence and who pride themselves on following the lamp of experience have been taken into camp by the hustlers and hucksters of empire?
Yet, now that Barack Obama has embraced neo-socialism, Republicans are about to be given a second chance. And just as Rahm Emanuel said liberal Democrats should not let a financial crisis go to waste, but exploit it to ram through their agenda, the right should use the opportunity of the fiscal crisis to take an axe to the warfare state.
Ron Paul’s victory at CPAC may be a sign the prodigal sons of the right are casting off the heresy of neoconservatism and coming home to first principles.  -  Pat Buchanan

Religion vs. Science

I have been involved for the past few days in a discussion with mostly atheists and some agnostics on the value of religion. The discussion has helped me formulate my own thoughts so I decided to transfer excerpts to my blog (sorry for such a long post!).  Check it out if you have any interest and let me know what you think.  If you are interested in this type of thing, check out this 2006 debate between two evolutionary biologists: Francis Collins (a Christian, and Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute) and Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion.)  I also highly recommend Francis Collins book The Language of God.

SAM:  Religion responds to the 'why?' questions in life. Why are we here? What is our purpose on earth.  Where do we find answers to these questions outside of religion?  CS Lewis describes it in this manner ( from Mere Christianity):

"Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such -and such a temperature and it did so-and-so.' Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science--and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes--something of a different kind-this is not a scientific question. If there is 'Something Behind,' then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, 'Why is there a universe?' 'Why does it go on as it does?' 'Has it any meaning?' would remain just as they were?"

VANESSA:  Okay, so you say the question is "what is our purpose on earth?" That could be answered simply enough, in evolutionary terms. Our purpose is to survive long enough to pass our genetic material to the next generation. If the question is widened to include all humanity, then it could be answered that our purpose as a species is to survive and perhaps evolve in such a way that we stave off extinction for as long as possible.

If the question is, specifically, "What is our spiritual purpose on earth?" then you have to define spirit and spiritual and explain why you think these things exist and why they demand a purpose if they do.

If the question is "How can I as an individual find a satisfying purpose for my individual life?" then the answer could be any of a wide range of possibilities. It could come through work or through relationships with others or art or music or religion. But it couldn't be a universal answer, because different people can be shown to find meaning and purpose in different ways.

If you have chosen the middle option then we would have to first agree that there is something which could be described as spirit or spiritual before we answer. So describe what that thing is and why it's not a matter of brain chemistry and evolutionary or cultural pressures on the particular animal we call human.


SAM:  [On the first question] all you are saying here is that the purpose of life is to perpetuate more life. So we are right back to square one. Why do humans exist at all?

[On the question, "What is our spiritual purpose on earth"] I'm not sure I would draw such a strong distinction between the spiritual and material. If there is a spiritual realm, it is apparently integrated with the material and it seems unlikely that the two spheres of existence have completely separate purposes.

I think my question is better expressed in the following ways: Is there a purpose for the existence of humanity (besides just perpetuating more humanity)? Do we share a common destiny? Is there existence beyond this earth life? If so, do our individual actions determine our place in the eternities? If my actions do matter, how am I to act? Did I exist in some manner before I was born?

These are the types of questions that lead people to religious inquiry. Many on this board apparently don't care. That's fine...I don't suggest that people have to ask these questions. But many of us do. In fact, the history of humanity suggests that most of us do. And it is ignorant to suggest that only the deluded and irrational ask these questions. There are countless examples of brilliant thinkers who were also deeply religious.

VANESSA: If the question is posed in a fair way I think it would have to be "Is there a (greater, spiritual, etc) purpose behind the universe and our existence?" Asked in that way, the Atheist can simple answer, "No." If you ask instead "What is the purpose?" or "Why are we here and no fair answering with how we came about through evolution?" that is a rigged question. It presupposes that you can't simply answer that there was an evolutionary reason for religions forming or that something in the human brains pattern recognition systems tends to recognize patterns and intentionality even where none exist.

There aren't any questions that can't be answered by beliefs in things like brain chemistry and evolutionary pressure. This does not mean that those are the true answers, just that I insist that it be recognized that some people find them perfectly acceptable and explanatory.

I tend to think that there is something to the totality of lived experience, morality, beauty, consciousness, that is better explained by spiritual answers than by science. However I don't see any reason to privilege one religion over any of the others unless it happens to be the religion you were brought up into.

I've always found my vague sense of something greater, my appreciation of art and music and nature, and my occasional doubts and tendencies towards atheistic explanations are very fulfilling and don't leave me with a sense of lacking anything either morally or in any other way. I also know that many atheists are perfectly happy explaining everything this through brain chemistry and evolutionary pressures and seem to feel they're not missing out on anything. They may feel the same awe I do on a mountaintop or under the night sky and enjoy it thoroughly without needing to find anything more than interesting neuro-chemistry behind it.

Now, a question for those believers who feel more strongly that atheists are wrong and/or their own religion is the right one:

If it's true that there are atheists (or believers in other religions) who have an internally consistent system of beliefs and live their lives in a way which is moral and find themselves as happy and satisfied in their lives as much as anyone, do you feel that this would somehow conflict with your own beliefs in some way? Does it make God less likely to be real?

Now I think of it, the question can be posed just as easily to the more vehement atheists. So:

If there are believers who have thought things through and arrived at a consistent set of beliefs which accord with science, and who are happy and moral etc, does this somehow threaten your own beliefs or your world view? Would it make god more likely to be real if other people persist in believing in spite of hearing all your arguments?


SAM:  Vanessa, thanks for a very insightful comment and great questions. As to your restructuring of the "Why?" question I posed, I think I see your point, but I don't think it gets us anywhere. If, in response to your question "Is there a (greater, spiritual, etc) purpose behind the universe and our existence?" an atheist answers, "No", the question is simply extended "How do you know there is no (greater, spiritual, etc.) purpose behind the universe and our existence?" It seems that the atheist has no answer other than to say, "that's my opinion." If this is the case, the best an atheist can claim is to be agnostic. All they are saying is that for some reason they don't care about asking the "Why?" questions.

[In response to your question to the believers,] it should be noted that the question is loaded with certain conditions that would certainly never come to pass. An astute believer would probably probe the atheist until they found holes in their supposedly "internally consistent belief system." The gaps in logic that the believer found would undoubtedly be challenged by the atheist, and an argument would ensue that would have no resolution. In fact, I think it is fair to say that this is the current state of affairs on the very question you are posing: an ongoing argument. Also, the whole idea of persons being "as happy and satisfied in their lives as much as anyone" presupposes that there is some objective measure of happiness agreeable by all. I can't imagine such a universally accepted happiness meter existing.


[In response to your question to the atheists,] once again, I think the question is posed with certain conditions that are unimaginable. Religious belief presupposes that certain premises are taken on faith. How could science ever prove (for example) that Christ truly atoned for the sins of mankind, or that His resurrection ensures the resurrection of humanity? Every religion has these type of faith-based features. These are the features that make them 'religions'. A 'person of faith' who's belief system accords fully with science has necessarily ditched certain faith-based beliefs and is no longer a 'person of faith'.

VANESSA:  Well, as you say Sam an atheist can always find things he feels to be inconsistent or ridiculous in the believer's system, and a believer can always say that a simple "no" answer to the question "Is there a larger/greater/spiritual purpose behind the universe" is not good enough. When I say "consistent" I mean, there's no question you can pose to this hypothetical atheist that they can't answer in a way they find satisfying enough for themselves, with the converse true for the believer.

What I intended was just to exclude cases where the believer insists on things are completely opposed to all scientific evidence (young earth creationism comes to mind). And also exclude cases where the atheist insists on things which can be proven factually inaccurate- like those who claim that religion is a consistent force for evil and is at the root of all wars and killing or whatever.

I'm not sure, but you sound like you might be saying that an atheist who considers themselves happy and moral and satisfied with their life isn't really any of those things, by your measurement of those things, and that yours is right and their own is wrong. Is this what you believe- that they don't know what they're missing?

SAM:  If that is what is meant by your question, then I think the answer is obvious in both instances (the question to the atheist and believer) for that is the situation in which we find ourselves. Atheists and believers are convinced of the internal consistency of their belief systems. If they recognized (and admitted) an inconsistency how could they possibly be 'happy' in their belief system? They would be forced to reevaluate their system of belief to find contentedness.

[As for the 'young creationists' as well as those who insist religion is always a force for evil,] I think individuals that fall into either camp are not even worth having a conversation with.

What I meant [in regards to the happiness issue] was that both sides would most likely define happiness in such a way that excluded the possibility of happiness to the other side. The religious believer may base a large portion of their happiness on the joy they find through their faith. They may, therefore, conclude that anyone lacking that type of happiness has bought into a false and fleeting form of happiness. The atheist may conclude that a believer who is 'happy' because of their faith is deluding themselves and is actually mentally deranged. "The believer would be much happier", the atheist might say, "if he would face the truth and drop his delusions." My point was that the whole idea of an objective version of happiness could never be settled on.

DIATRIBALIST:  I suppose [Vanessa's comments about those who claim religion is a consistent force for evil] was directed partially at me. I have read much on the history of the creation of the Catholic Church and the corruption associated with it. There is nothing factually inaccurate in my assessment. The Church has a history of cruelty and corruption. And after the reformation, the Protestant religions did not do much better.
I do not believe in evil. What I do believe is that humans are animals. They have animal instincts. Religion is an attempt to quell those instincts. Instead, it gives an outlet to those instincts for the leaders and some enterprising followers. The instinct to control others. The instinct to do as little work as possible for the greatest reward. The instinct to feel superior to your fellow creatures. These instincts have lead people, using religion, using the fear of god, to start wars for economic gain. To torture and kill for the glory of god and the riches of the church. From the Crusades to the Inquisition. To Prohibition and todays modern Isalmic Jihadis, Religion has been the bane of civility for centuries. Always with the "best of intentions" and for "the glory of god", religious crusades always end in a bloody mess.

Religion was created out of human instinct. Humans are animals, so it follows religion will conduct itself with animalistic characteristics.


[And Sam,]the goal of life should be truth, not happiness. But if people are happy believing in god, then so be it. The problem I have is when religionist take their beliefs into the public square and try to influence laws, forcing their specific morality on society at large. Pray in the closet, as Jesus suggested. Don't be proud in your faith, humble yourself before the lord and respect others right to disagree and possibly anger your god. That is the essence of religious tolerance.

SAM:  [In response to Diatribalist,] although there may be nothing factually inaccurate in your assessment, it is clear that you choose to selectively exclude the tremendous good that churches do as well. You speak about the history of 'cruelty and corruption' but you fail to include the work of someone like Mother Teresa who was motivated by her faith. That is why people like you are not worth having a conversation with. You look at religion with blinders on and you refuse to look at evidence that contradicts your preconceived notions. The irony is you accuse the church of 'cruelty and corruption' yet within the same breath you express your belief that evil does not exist.

Your foundation of moral relativism provides you with no firm basis on which to judge the actions of the church. The best you can say is that the church does things that you would choose not to do. But even in this statement you would be indicating the possibility of choice (and free will) thus lending an attribute to humanity that distinguishes it from the brute animal.

'Pure religion' is not created out of human instinct. It seeks to channel human insinct into its proper bounds. Human beings are agents in that they (i) possess a capacity to choose between options and (ii) possess the power (in many instances) to act on their choices (see Oxford Companion to Philosophy). This distinguishes the human animal from the brute animal, as the brute animal is guided entirely by instinct. Human beings are prompted by instinct, but they choose whether or not to act on those instincts. Religion seeks to guide those choices. I really like the way CS Lewis describes it:

"We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct--by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires--one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of' the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, 'Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,' cannot itself be the herd instinct."

 [And Diatribilist,] on the 'enforcing morality' issue, you are deluding yourself. Laws are by definition a codification of morality. Religious participants are wise to advocate their positions in terms that are agreeable to secularists, but they are under no obligation to do so. Astute religionists are every bit as capable of defending their moral positions rationally as any secularist out there. But the fact is, we live in a democratic society, and it is (as Prez Obama said) "[a practical absurdity] to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality into public policy debates."

Ron Paul vs. Sarah Palin

I found this article on the Huffington Post today, Ron Paul vs. Sarah Palin for the Soul of the Tea Parties.  From the opening paragraph:

"There's trouble brewing between the Ron Paul libertarians who staged the the first modern tea party in 2007 by dumping tea into Boston Harbor, and the neocon war hawks led by Sarah Palin who are furiously trying to hijack their message."

I am currently less sanguine about the prospects of a Ron Paul style libertarian regime solving our country's problems than I was in 2007.  But I am convinced that Dr. Paul is principled to the core and really is trying to help the country.  And I am MUCH less sanguine about the prospects of a completely unprincipled neocon style regime effecting any real change. That is a recipe for Bush 2.0.

The Tea-Party movement casting out Ron Paul?  The guy whose followers started the Tea Party movement a few years ago??  This is a great example of the Republican establishment putting the kibosh on an effort at real change.

The Dumb Conservative

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."    - John Stuart Mill

That statement made in the 19th century rings (alas) somewhat true in our ears today.  My thoughts today are inspired by a variety of recent events:  Sarah Palin's performance at the Tea Party Convention, , a Deseret News article dated 12/4/09 about Glenn Beck (link here), and Jon Stewart's interview of Newt Gingrich (link here).

Let's start with Sarah Palin.  I do not know a lot about her.  I have listened to a speech or two, heard some soundbites, and watched a couple of interviews.  The truth is she has not caught my interest.  Can someone please help me understand the fascination??  She has that kind of down-home, hot mom next door (sort of) thing going, but I really do not get it.  She strikes me as, well, not that smart.  Or better said, she strikes me as someone with a native intelligence, but who has never taken the time to read books.  Maybe ill-informed is a better descriptor.  And even when she does speak on an issue it all seems a bit rehearsed, like someone told her what to say.  Or to put it another way, I sense that I have a better grasp on history and the current issues than Sarah Palin does.  That may or may not be true, but nevertheless I feel that way when I listen to her.  And to me, that is a problem. 

If Sarah Palin is the next great hope of the Republican party, conservatives are in trouble.  To me she is the embodiment of the anti-intellectual thread that runs through the conservative movement.  In the previously referenced Deseret News article, several BYU professors address this issue as it relates to the wild popularity of Glenn Beck (not coincidentally, Beck is a HUGE fan of Sarah Palin).  Here is the most relevant piece of the article:

The discussion organized by BYU's Tocqueville Project included three BYU professors and Paul Skousen, the son of the late, prolific political writer who was formerly best known for his best-selling book "The Naked Communist."

However, Skousen has gained renewed interest since Fox News pundit Beck began touting Skousen's book "The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World, Principles of Freedom 101."

"It's easy for me to see why (Beck) would have picked up on Cleon Skousen's book and found it inspiring," Davis said. "It fit in with his own performance."

And that's a lot of what Beck does — perform, the professors said.

"Most of the books of Beck's I've picked up … are like his manic, ADHD television personality," said BYU political science professor Ralph Hancock. "He's just throwing stuff out there. They're not meant to be read as discursive arguments. They're just thrown out there to try to entertain people who would rather be Twittering or playing video games."

Hancock said he agrees with some points made by Beck and Skousen but overall finds their arguments lacking in substance and scholarly research.

"I find in both a trace of anti-intellectualism," Hancock said. "My interest is to help connect a certain LDS conservative impulse or mood with a more deeply grounded intellectual conservatism. We can't enter the political field with the argument that all the bad, but smart people think X, but we good dumb people think Y."

Hancock told students that if they are serious about conservatism, they, and he, need to "study diligently to increase our confidence that our intense feelings are common sense … and can be rationally articulated."

"(There are many) superior alternatives to the kind of proof-texting, quote-listing approach that too many LDS stop with," Hancock said. "I wish (Skousen's books) would point a little more beyond themselves to this literature that is more substantial and sound and teaches us how to do battle with a certain intellectual mainstream in a more substantial and coherent way."   (a list of recommended reading is provided in the article)

I think this is what Elder Dallin H. Oaks had in mind when he spoke at BYU Idaho last fall on the topic of religious freedom.  He said:

"The call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification. At the same time, religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society."

So with all of these thoughts running through my head, I watched an interview that Jon Stewart did with Newt Gingrich a few days ago.  Newt is a guy that is clearly informed, very articulate, and a passionate conservative.  I do not know much about his stands on particular issues, but I certainly do not feel like I know more than him.  And for me that is a starting point.  And when conservatives are looking for the next leader of the free world, is asking for the whole package really all that unreasonable?  Newt for president in 2012?  Hmm....