Saturday, November 04, 2006
Iraq not OK..Afghanistan OK..Haiti OK,..Iran not OK...
OK this post is for Devin and others for whom a discussion of embryonic stem cells apparently cannot help but mention the diabolical Bush on Iraq. Post away... But you might want to watch this first, CLICK HERE. I love Traffic's "Low Spark" background music.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
I am no foreign policy expert. (I have noticed that almost all the previous war supporters have changed their tune and their reasons seem well-founded and reasonable). My only concern is a philosophical one. There may be many reasons to depose a dictator, but one of the calculations that you MUST take into account is this: America, a force for good in the world, must commit very evil acts to achieve a desirable end in war. Killing of innocent civilians, mothers, fathers, children; is an inevitability in war. We know that it is going to happen; the fact that the acts are happening half way around the world does not make us as a nation any less culpable. I have come to terms with this fact, and I think it is the intellectually honest thing to do that most of our decisions (including the Iraq war) are purely utilitarian. We are clearly hoping that the ends justify the means (it doesn't look as though they will). This is my confusion which I don't think has been answered yet. Killing what you think is a life (I would disagree but I understand why you think that way) with no feeling, discernable features, hopes, desires, to (hopefully) help diseased people (with hopes, desires, families, feelings,) is not okay. But (I assume) you support war (any war really) that results in the horrible deaths of hundreds of thousands becuase you see the end as justifying the means. I just don't understand that.
Oh, it's "Devin" by the way. haha. Don't worry, I think everyone I know spells it wrong.
Did you get to see the aish flash news story about how many major media sources were manipulated into reporting on civilian deaths that turned out to be greatly exaggerated and sometimes even fully fabricated? It is likely on my blog somewhere. It was intriguing as AP, Reuters, NY Times, Gannett, US News and World Report, and others were implicated with photo and journalism evidence etc.
OK, yes in war noncombatants are not infrequently the victims. In terrorism it is such by intentionality and design, for terror. I believe in police work it is somewhat of an obvious and known factor that there will be mistaken uses of forces as well. In court case sentencing, proportionality errors also will no doubt happen and if you are on the receiving end, it is clearly not good.
Does this mean the engagement of any and all wars and any and all police action and any and all court trials and sentencing should be disallowed or seen as only utilitarian enterprises alone? The greatest good for the greatest number? I do not personally think so and would not reason on this basis alone or as the sole deciding factor.
Part of believing that each human being is in the 'image of God' means that each individual must be treated with dignity (not manipulation for propogandizing by either side) as well as the valuing of their extended families etc. Does this play out imperfectly?
A wise person once said that the universal affects of the biblical doctrine of the fall, are verified daily in groups and in individuals. It is tricky to both be so greatly of value and yet so fatally flawed due to (yes, I will say it) sin. It is complicated. But knowing such not only about others but about ourselves, while not diminishing certain rightful aspects of idealism, does temper our utopian expectations. However, while working hard for bettering life in the here and now, for the Christian world view in harmony with biblical revelation, there really is 'pie in the sky' and not of our own invention or imaginings or wish fulfillment. SomeOne rose from the dead, is alive now, and is coming again. It makes a difference! I'm not sure you get the balance of these truths in utilitarianism, or even from the good atheist or good agnostic. Where does the idealism not vanish? Where does ultimate meaning arrive? Where do the books get balanced? Why do I have utopian longings? Is it negative, torturous evolution rather than simply being happy tree swinging primates? I don't think so.
Okay. I'm not going to keep droning on and on about this. I would just reiterate what I have been saying all along: it seems strange to embrace (or tolerate) a horrible, bloody, painful, tortuous means to an end in one case; but not in another. I would say that the case for going to Iraq was/is overtly utilitarian and the criticisms being leveled are also overtly utilitarian. (Not to mention conservatives defense of torture in some situations.) Also, the fact that many news agencies have exaggerated the amount of casualties, I think Fred Kaplan said it best: anyone who puts an "only" in front of a number of thousands of dead people doesn't understand the horrors of war. The truth is, if 500,000 civilians have been killed or if 50,000 have, neither of those tolls (sp) is an "only." And to support the war you would have to support the utilitarian ideal of "I support killing X amount of people to achieve the end Y." Of course, this is not the "sole deciding factor" but that makes no difference; it certainly HAS to be A factor.
I'm not sure I would call the resurrection (sp) a "truth," just as I don't see the actions and events described in the Epic of Gilgamesh as "truth." (In fact, Notre Dame just had a debate between two Christian Scholars - both priests - who have differing views if the resurrection is history or just an analogy for the rise of a new church.)
I think you are correct that agnostics/atheists/humanists don't understand these truths, because we know (I'm sure you do also, but maybe in a different way) the virtue of doubt (described in the Bible I believe beautifully as seeing "through a glass darkly" - right? hope I quoted that correctly), the virtue of understanding that their are things human intellect can not conclude. The universe is a beautiful mystery, a mystery that becomes more obscure even as we delve deeper and deeper into its recesses. But, the mystery should not be labeled God; and the mystery should not hand to us dogmatic views that poison politics and argument. Doubt is essential to humanity and I think fundamentalism is a hindrance to that essential characteristic.
What is ultimate meaning? I'm not sure, and to know for certain is beyond the human realm (if their is some ultimate objective meaning - I doubt it). I am not depressed about that, not one bit. I am content with forming my own meaning; Kai Neilson describes the secularists life-meaning as simply helping others. For many, including myself that is a very satisfying condition, a condition that can stand without "God" or god.
As for happy tree swinging primates, I don't know what you're getting at. I would just say that if you are saying evolutionary theory would make us not human, but monkey; you're just wrong. No more than evolution makes a monkey an kangaroo, does evolution make humans into monkies (sp).
I also just want to add this. I think Andrew Sullivan is correct when he says the important distinction in politics today is not right and left, but certainty and doubt. (I would actually use the words binary vs. nuance.) Again and again, I have heard the Republicans and Christian activists use words like good and evil. The world is drawn in shades of gray; this certainty, given legs from fundamentalism, hurts our politics, the policies that flow from our politics, and the people who are affected by those policies.
I came here with much trepidition. The last time someone left his blog url on my post, it was totally disgusting porn! But I took the bull by the horns, clicked, peeked between my fingers, and braved it. Whew! Glad to see you run a valid blog. I always check out new commentors, as do most of the people who comment on MRB, so you don't need to leave a link.
I'm truly glad to discover you're legit! :)
To devincarpenter: You certainly are not a foreign policy expert. You say: "But (I assume) you support war (any war really) that results in the horrible deaths of hundreds of thousands becuase you see the end as justifying the means. I just don't understand that." Well, I'll tell you what. When someone pushes, you have to push back. Have you seen "Obsession"? If you have, and you still think you are right, then you simply do not think. This is war, sir. War isn't pretty. The expression "War is Hell" is the absolute truth. But please study up on the Koran as I have, and understand what fundamentalist Islam is all about. Understand they are even willing to kill their own. They want no one on this planet to live who isn't fundamentalist Islam. That's why they are Islamofascists. Study. Read. Perhaps you will learn something. We must protect ourselves. We must, at all costs, keep them occupied elsewhere so I, and everyone else who owns a weapon in this country, aren't fighting these asshats in our own back yard. If you want 100 reasons to not vote Democrat, visit my blog. They are there. What is posted is total and absolute fact. Think before you vote, and if you can't do that rationally, please do not vote!
I don't undertand half your post "GAYLE" but I'll try to respond. It seems strange to frame the Iraq war as a defensive war, it was a war of choice. As for "war is hell" I completely agree and think you are missing the point of the conversation which is contrasting utilitarian principles in two situations (stem cells and war). I completely agree on the horrors of fundamentalist Islam (or any fundamentalist religion really) but I don't see how that says anything about the soundness of utilitarianism. We wouldn't be fighting these "asshats" (your word) in our own backyard if we hadn't engaged in war, the NIE report any many others from foreign countries have made that clear. Also, one must only look at Spain and Britain to see that terrorism can rise in a homegrown setting even when we are...in another area. I don't see the logic in the statement "fight them their so we don't have to fight them here." I would love to hear some of those reasons, but I'll say why I voted Democrat: spending, corruption, embryonic stem cell research, oversight, Iraq, Katrina, torture, gridlock, minimum wage, prescription drugs, lobbying reform....etc. I could go on. The only "rational" vote is for a Democrat.
I just watched the video, I would just say this: I've never thought that what George Bush said in the run-up to the war were "lies." There was dissent in the administration that external senators were not aware of and could have been expressed in a more nuanced way by our president (not very strategic in the run-up to war though). Almost all intelligence agencies (not just our own) thought that Hussein still had WMD's so I wouldn't blame the GOP or various Democratic politicians for echoing that general sentiment. But, and this a big but, the Bush administration is responsible for the horrible bungling of this war. The lack of troops, the lack of a plan, the dismantling of the army, the implementation of torture...I could go one. The administration seems to filter reality ("State of Denial" by Woodward makes that clear) and I think the Democrats would be a much needed dose of reality. So, I don't really care that they agreed with Bush back then...they don't now. (P.S. Even the Military Times -group of four newspapers - are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation now.)
Oh, my...
When someone mentions Traffic in a post, I really feel my age.
Must John Barleycorn really die?
Joking aside, I flew solo on the radio program yesterday, and my guest was former NY Congressman John LeBoutillier. He thinks the election was a rebuke to neo-cons, whom he describes as former liberals who came to the idea that an isolationist foreign policy wasn't a good thing. He was critical of Iraq as a distraction.
Whatever. Now that we're there, we'd best finish the job or the results will be far worse.
I'd like to hear a proposition on how we "finish the job." I would reccommend Max Boot's (very conservative commentator) article in the LATimes recently. He outlines every possible tactic that could be employed and says that each is going to fail. The real question now is this: Should we withdrawel? Or should we stay their forever with no plan? P.S. If you are just now learning that Neo-conservatives are liberals disenchanted with the isolationism of McGovern and liberals in general after the Vietnam War (something that has been discussed widely in political magazines and books in the last few years) then...I don't know. I'm sorry, I just think that should be known.
Devin,
I am not "learning" anything about neo-cons. I was just passing on the comment from my radio guest. I am fully aware of them and have been. I've been a student of history and global geopolitics for many years.
"Our time is just a point along a line that runs forever with no end." (Al Stewart, "Lord Grenville", 1976)
Not quite theologically accurate, but poetic and makes my point. :)
I apologize if i took what you said as wrong. But it seems strange that you would say this: "whom he describes as former liberals who came to the idea that an isolationist foreign policy wasn't a good thing," if you knew the history of neoconservatism already.
What do you mean by a "student of history and global politics?" I didn't see that expertise on your bio: "have been involved in media since 1978, primarily radio. Full time Christian ministry since 1988, including radio, apologetics, written publications, preaching and teaching." I was just wondering where you were a student at and what was your major interest.
If neo-cons are non-isolationist, wealthy liberals, then would that mean George Soros is a neo-con? I've frankly never understood the definition of neo-con. It has struck me in its usage by the ranting left and by liberals who will admit to being liberal, as a name-calling thing for anyone who is not anti-Israel's right to exist with defensible borders in the Middle East. By that definition I tend to dismiss those who use the word neo-con as either simply name-calling, uninformed, or something I have yet to understand. Pat Buchanan is called by some a neo-con because he hasn't been too friendly about Israel's right to exist with defensible borders, but his pro union anti NAFTA and GAT stance struck me as a tad bit (not huge but a bit) isolationist. But I think neo-con today just means some liberal or leftist's rant on anyone more conservative than they.
You are right that for some (misinformed, idiotic) liberals, neo-con does mean simply "crazy right-winger." But in reality it does have a certain foreign (and by partnership) domestic policy outlook. After the Vietnam war and the rise of the McGovern wing of the Democratic party many liberals became dissillusioned, beliveing that we still had a duty to help people of foreign nations. Through time, these liberals found a home amongst conservatives, and by partnership became linked to social conservative policies also. (See Weekly Standard.) Pat Buchanon is NOT a neo-conservative. In fact, he has been one of the most vocal critics of neo-conservative policies. Pat Buchanon can best be termed a paleo-conservative (isolationist, socially conservative etc.). What I think of when I think of neo-conservatism is: 1. The shrugging off of international organizations (UN, NATO etc.) 2. America as a "benevolent hegemony." 3. The thought that a stable democracy in one country in an unstable region would spread throughout the region. 4. America has a moral duty to bring democracy and freedom to the rest of the world.
5. The embrace of "preventive" war. Of course, I am no expert on this and could be wrong on one, some, or all of those points. I generally think they are correct though. Also, George Soros wouldn't be a neo-conservative becuase of 1. His social policy 2. His distaste for "preventive" war. and 3. Who cares about George Soros? haha
Aha! I found a great article just now after I posted. You can read and compare to what I said; either I will look stupid or marginally competent. Here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html?story
No one is talking...
"is anybody in there?..."
Devin, here's your definition of a neo-con then: 1. The shrugging off of international organizations (UN, NATO etc.)
OK, perhaps I would not fully shrug them off, but I don't like being under the UN thumb as their anti USA positions transcend all modern USA administrations and remain constant. Also I wouldn't put USA troops under UN authority in blue helmets. Is that a shrug?
2. America as a "benevolent hegemony."
I am somewhat cynical of the USA being benevolent especially in domestic policy. By comparison with Iran, Syria, and N.Korea or terrorist who attack us, I've no problem with us. Hegemony is problematic but I haven't seen people litigate an imposition of Islam, Judaism, or Christianity successfully or with populist sympathy in the USA recently, but I can show you the signs of radical secular hegemeny called 'political correctness' within 2 minutes of looking at any major newspaper or listening to any broadcast of CNN. So I guess I'm not a neo-con on this one either.
3. The thought that a stable democracy in one country in an unstable region would spread throughout the region.
I wish good was contagious. I see some rare examples of such. But I KNOW evil is contagious. I see a stable democracy in an unstable region as a good thing and possibly even slowing the spread of corruption and instability (to use your word). So my optimism on contagious democratic republics rules me out of being a neo-con on this one as well.
4. America has a moral duty to bring democracy and freedom to the rest of the world.
I do believe in morality and I do believe in freedom and democracy. Bringing it to the rest of the world depends on how it is 'brought'. Living it, promoting it in the realm of ideas and principles, and defending it, OK. I think the devil is in the details of how one 'brings it.' I do think on this point of use and belief in morality and such principles above, that those that namecall with 'neo-con' are moral relativists (you seem to prefer the word 'nuanced') who dislike moral notions or that people universally have them. Not necessarily the same ones, but they all clearly have moral notions. I suspect even nuancers find those with too much confidence in their notions, somewhat morally repugnant. If holding morality in esteem makes one a neo-con, then I guess I'd have to say I'm one. Rats, and I was doing so well.
5. The embrace of "preventive" war.
Embrace is an interesting term. Do I believe that wars can be justified and preventative? Yes, I do. Do I believe I've seen this clearly demonstrated? No, I haven't, so I'm not exactly embracing or loving the concept. Have we had a 911 on USA soil since war? Not yet. Will we with the non neo-con Democrats controlling both houses and the courts? I frankly am going to be surprised if we don't, and within a year or two at the most. Do I think WW2 prevented a national superpower or even a nation-State that endorsed Arian ethnic supremecy and expansionist military ambitions globally from existing or ever existing again to this day? Yes, I do. And Yes, it did.
Do I think you and the Democrat leadership in both Houses and in controll of the courts have what it takes to stop Islamic jihadists who have very similar paradigms with a different worldview supremecy philosophies and ethnicity? No, I don't. I think you and they are far too busy worrying about morality and defending the secular hegemony against imagined evangelical theocracies and other hobgobblins of either a guilty conscience or an overactive (V is for Vendetta) imagination. I wish I didn't think such but again...two minutes with any CNN broadcast or 30 seconds with any major newspaper.
Have you seen the recent reports (without bias from the major media outlets, e.g. without laughing out loud!) about how Syria (father of Hezzbolah in Lebannon) is going to help out with Iraq? Or how Iran is calling Iraq and Syria to the peace table to talk? And these are serious, no joking headlines. Peace is clearly at hand, said Orwell to the real hegemony.
About this post in total, I would just say that you should read the article that I posted titled “Neo-Conservative 101.” One by one:
1. “Also I wouldn't put USA troops under UN authority in blue helmets. Is that a shrug?”
I’m no fan of the United Nations either. Every government body has corruption (our own is no different) so that, while bothering me, is much less a bother than its lack of teeth. It does seem strange that the world relies on the UN for so many tragedies and yet conservatives still view it as an evil.
2. “but I can show you the signs of radical secular hegemeny called 'political correctness' within 2 minutes of looking at any major newspaper or listening to any broadcast of CNN.”
To make a claim of a “radical secular hegemony*(sp)” and then not back it up makes me curious to see what you think radical secularism is. If you can find it in 2 minutes I’m sure it won’t be difficult to present me with some evidence.
3. “that those that namecall with 'neo-con' are moral relativists (you seem to prefer the word 'nuanced') who dislike moral notions or that people universally have them. Not necessarily the same ones, but they all clearly have moral notions. I suspect even nuancers find those with too much confidence in their notions, somewhat morally repugnant. If holding morality in esteem makes one a neo-con, then I guess I'd have to say I'm one. Rats, and I was doing so well.”
I’ve never understood this criticism. I’m not sure how war critics so worried about dying children, torture, and a shattered government are relativistic? Also, I don’t remember using the word nuance is defined as a “very slight difference in meaning.” In life, a life filled with subtle shades of gray, nuance is important. I don’t know why you have so much disdain for it. For example, it would be very helpful if most politicians understood the nuances between Shia’s Sunni’s and Kurds.
4. “Have we had a 911 on USA soil since war? Not yet. Will we with the non neo-con Democrats controlling both houses and the courts? I frankly am going to be surprised if we don't, and within a year or two at the most.”
Let’s spell out your argument:
1. We haven’t had a terrorist attack.
2. President Bush has been in office.
3. Bush stopped the terrorists.
1. We haven’t had a terrorist attack
2. President Bush has been in office
3. Anyone else will cause a terrorist attack if they are in office.
If you don’t see how blatantly idiotic that argument is and how un-nuanced…oops. Now, what you don’t do is point to a specific plan, policy, or ideology that the Democrats will bring to the table to actually cause a terrorist attack. Will them implementing the 9/11 commission reports recommendations make it happen?...
More later, I’ve got to go.
"Do I think you and the Democrat leadership in both Houses and in controll of the courts have what it takes to stop Islamic jihadists who have very similar paradigms with a different worldview supremecy philosophies and ethnicity? No, I don't. I think you and they are far too busy worrying about morality and defending the secular hegemony against imagined evangelical theocracies and other hobgobblins of either a guilty conscience or an overactive (V is for Vendetta) imagination. I wish I didn't think such but again...two minutes with any CNN broadcast or 30 seconds with any major newspaper.
Have you seen the recent reports (without bias from the major media outlets, e.g. without laughing out loud!) about how Syria (father of Hezzbolah in Lebannon) is going to help out with Iraq? Or how Iran is calling Iraq and Syria to the peace table to talk? And these are serious, no joking headlines. Peace is clearly at hand, said Orwell to the real hegemony."
Okay
1. Why am I worried about islamic fundamentalism? People who have lost the ability to doubt so much that they feel the obligation to kill innocent human beings. Why am I worried about christian fundamentalism? People who have lost the ability to doubt so much that they condemn activity that causes no suffering, and make science something to scorn and fill the desire to know the truth by filling children's minds with idiotic myth.
2. To think that Democrats (who are almost ALL religious themselves by they way) care more about keeping the Ten Commandments out of a courthouse or prayer out of school that protecting the very people inside of those court houses and inside of those schools is simply delusional. But, then again, to be accused of "worrying about morality" is a compliment in my eyes. So thanks.
3. What do you think Syria and Iran are going to do exactly? Disarm the militias? Stop the religious and sectarian hatred. Peace is clearly at hand? Side-bet, 1000 dollars. Sadr will not be disarmed, the government won't disarm him becuase...he is PART of the government. We have created more terrorists than there was before (NIE), while drastically shifting public opinion against the United States, limiting our military options with Iran and North Korea (one of which actually has nuclear weapons). The Bush Doctrine is a failure. Period.
Time Magazine Lede:
"Analysis: It has been clear for some time that the U.S. is not in control of events in Iraq. But the latest sectarian bloodshed suggests that even help from Iran and Syria may not be enough to stop the slide into chaos"
Devin,
I can see a lot has transpired here since I last visited, so I'll restrict my reply to your last query to me.
No need to be mystified by the way I quoted former Congressman LeBoutillier. I'm a trained journalist and when someone says something, you quote them, accurately I hope. My quoting what someone said shouldn't make you question the level of my familiarity with neo-conservatism.
Second, I hope I don't detect academic elitism in your query about my being a "student." I didn't mean literally a "student" i.e. enrolled in some university or educational program. Those days are long past for me. One does not cease being a student because one no longer is a formal student enrolled in higher education. In fact, I am beginning to be of the opinion that the longer one spends in so-called higher education, the less educated they actually become. Things look different in the real world than they often look in the ivory tower.
Aside from my college education (and high school before that), I have read widely all my life and have, as a journalist, interviewed plenty of experts and discussed a lot of issues with said experts over the years. You may include lots of officials and politicians in that number.
I think JBW will testify that I am not a rube or a hick.
Okay, two quick things
1. Solameanie: I was simply asking where you recieved your schooling as a "student" of "history and global politics." I know that you have read many books.
2. A defense of the UN that fits with my view:
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20061211&s=trb121106
Excerpts Peter Beinart in The New Republic:
"n the world today, there are three models for how to save a country on the brink. The first is Iraq, where the United States--largely alone--is trying to prevent a dictatorship from sliding into chaos. The second is Afghanistan, where the United States is doing much the same thing with nato support.
The third is almost invisible to Americans. It is the Congo, where the largest U.N. peacekeeping operation in the world is struggling to rescue one of the most wretched countries on earth. And it is doing so with virtually no high-level involvement by the United States."
...
"But, a couple of years ago, the peacekeeping mission began stirring to life. It gained a savvy new head, replaced a hapless contingent of Uruguayans with more numerous--and more experienced--Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis, and moved aggressively into the Congo's lawless east. The European Union sent 2,000 of its own soldiers to help secure Kinshasa.
In 2006, in perhaps the greatest logistical accomplishment in electoral history, the Congo held its first free election in 40 years. In a country as big as western Europe, with only 500 kilometers of paved roads, the U.N. spearheaded an effort that registered 25 million people and established 50,000 polling places. The election was moderately fair, and turnout topped 80 percent. This week, after a second-round runoff, the Congolese Supreme Court certified Kabila as the winner."
...
"Then there's the United Nations itself--which, while often mocked in the United States (sometimes deservedly), has become the foremost repository of peacekeeping expertise in the world. As rand's James Dobbins has pointed out, both the United States and the United Nations did a lot of postwar stabilization in the '90s. But, while the Bush administration essentially discarded that knowledge and started from scratch in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United Nations now has a cadre of officials with extensive nation-building experience. Of course, Turtle Bay can't overthrow governments. But, when it comes to ushering post-conflict societies toward democracy and peace, as Dobbins notes, the United Nations actually has a better record than the United States."
Devin, I believe you overstated my case stating wrongly that I said something to the effect that 'anyone but Bush would do worse on the war on radical islamic jihadists' or that no Democrat could do better. I said neither.
I will say this, and it is rather easy to follow, but since you mention Bush's lack of control on what is going on in Iraq, here goes: No human is in control of what is going on in Iraq.
You ask how Syria and Iran could mess up stuff in Iraq. I think I'll let you figure that one. But you also asked what some Democrat leadership people could do to make domestic terror attack here easier, teasingly adding other than take the advice of the committee on how to make it less likely.
Well, here I have to say that I sometimes find Democrat leadership rhetoric in campaigns far more pandering to radical leftist overstatements. I'm hoping this is the case. Cut and run brings the battle here. Banishing aspects of the patriot act ame the Immams stunt on the planes seem like an elementary school yard stunt. IF they are calling friends of Bin Laden from the USA (and they said they are his friends apparently), I hope like crazy we are listening in.
I view a commitment to secularism as radical as it is anti all religion and not so principled in pluralism. I know a lot of people in the hard science and other sciences that are Christians. Those you lump into the 'ridiculing all science' category, I do not know. Ridiculing parts of Darwinism, yes, I know these and affirm them on a point by point agree or disagree basis. It's called free thinking. My guess is on each point of my disagreement I can find a secular scientist who would agree.
Again, I give an argument and I feel as though you change the subject. Whatever, I'm over it. In the case of Bill Muhlenberger:
1. "Atheism Kills"
Sam Harris has said over and over again that his book "The End of Faith" was a specific polemic on religion, but he could have written a similar screed called "The End of Dogmatism" which would have covered all those secular tyrannies as well. His argument is this: certainty and dogmatism poisons discussion and morality. I agree.
2. "The Faith of Unbelief"
I think I will just bring up Bertrand Russel. I don't think I need "faith" (in any relevant cultural or philosophical sense) that there isn't a flying teapot in the orbit of the sun. Just as I don't need faith to believe that Zeus doesn't exist, I don't need faith to believe that Yahweh doesn't.
3."Faith Un-Belief and the Real World"
This is an embarrasment. The author seems to confuse popularity with truth. Just becuase religion makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside and therefore can attract a large following (a following that chooses to be blissfully ignorant?...) doesn't say anything about truth or morality claims. Also, in a secular world there is much to be in awe over. Religion doesn't have a monopoly in that realm.
4."Atheist Rage and Venom"
He hasn't even read the book first of all. Second of all, Dawkins is childish. I know that. His central point is sound though: the conversational rules are slanted in religions favor, in modern day religion is a menace in many parts of the world, and that design arguments are completely false.
One more thing. This sentence strikes me:
"Remember, the spiritual battle we face involves a war of ideas. And truth is the ammunition we use to counter false ideas. Or as Paul said, We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Cor. 10:5)"
His view: the Bible is inerrant, the bible says to "demolish arguments" against God, any argument against God is wrong.
THAT is the type of thinking that scientists are disgusted with. The complete lack of dialogue and open-mindedness that view ends with is a crime to human reason.
Also, I see you took another cheap shot at the word "nuance." I don't know why you hate it so much Rush...I mean...Joe. But here is the definition. It has nothing to do with radical leftist secular hippies, I promise.
1. subtle difference: a very slight difference in meaning, feeling, tone, or color
2. use of nuances: the use or awareness of subtle shades of meaning or feeling, especially in artistic expression or performance
Devin,
Mind if I recommend a good book to you? It's called "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist" by Dr. Norm Geisler and Frank Turek.
Given that we might define "faith" differently, I have to disagree with you (or at least what you SEEM to be saying). To take a position on anything requires some kind of faith. If you didn't have said faith, you wouldn't be so bold in asserting your correctness on the position you take, unless you were being either stupid or intellectually dishonest.
See my point?
One more thing regarding "nuance."
The reason Joe (and many conservatives) disdain "nuance" as it's being used is because it is used to weasel around on a subject/issue and avoid direct, clear answers. Postmoderns love nuance. So do politicians. John Kerry is a master at it and so is Bill Clinton. However, nuance eventually comes back to bite you right square on the bum.
I will be the first one to admit that some issues have complexities that need clarification and differentiation. However, I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
I just wouldn't call what you are defining "faith" in any (said before) "relevant in any cultural or philosophical sense." Sure, I must have "faith" to think that a piece of chalk will fall to the floor if i drop it. But that is aided by induction, religion isn't.
Devin, Gayle, Joel (Meanie), Joseph, MEH, David, and lurking others,
With my recent post in response to the Baker 'blue ribbon' panel and whether it totally repudiates Bush, and my discovery of the Red, White, and Blue panel recommendations, my guess is there is a lot of FUEL for your posting responses. Have at it! All the best.
In a review of a book that you recommend:
“Atheism requires gobs of blind faith while the path of logic and reason leads straight to the gospel of Jesus Christ."
hahahahahahahahahahahahah
Post a Comment