Free Inquiry
Listen to the MP3
Dec 7, 2007, Wausau, Wi — An issue that commonly comes up in discussions with skeptics is the role of free inquiry. Skeptics frequently see themselves as being free to ask questions and to go wherever the answers may take them, while religious believers are bound by the teachings of their religion. Religion, then, is automatically seen as bad because it limits our ability to learn. As with many of the criticisms of skeptics this view is not only self-serving, but false.
Built into our very being is the desire to seek explanations. Parents see this desire all the time in young children and their seemingly never ending question of “Why?” To be sure these questions can at times be very frustrating for the parent, or even teacher, who has reached the limits of their own personal knowledge, but such questions are the foundation of our quest for knowledge, of our seeking to understand.
Over time, most cultures have decided that questions can dangerous to the status quo, and this decision is not completely without reason. All societies are based on some sort of agreement, either formal, as in the case of laws, or informal as in the rules of etiquette. Some of these agreements are arbitrary, such as where on the road should one drive. But just imagine what would happen if tomorrow the societal agreement about driving was somehow removed from everyone’s memory. It would be chaos. And this is just driving. Such societal norms govern virtually every aspect of our interactions with each other, often without our even realizing it. For us, the reasons are lost in antiquity and it is now just how things are done.
Thus there is, and must be, some sort of balance between norms and questions. Societies that stress the norms too much stagnate. Societies that question the norms too much, loose the cohesion to remain a society and collapse. Loss of societal cohesion was one of the factors in the fall of Rome.
So whether from desire to maintain society, or just simply the frustration at not knowing the answers, at some point all societies teach their children to limit their questions in some fashion.
One of the things that made Western Civilization different is that at during some periods in our history there have been groups that encouraged questions, beginning with the early Greek city states. Granted such freedom of thought was not unlimited, nor necessarily was it for the general public, as questions could still lead to dangerous ideas that could undermine society. But it was allowed for a few, and still had some limits, as Socrates sadly found out.
As we saw last time, contrary to how history is commonly taught, this freedom of inquiry appeared again in the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages were a time or great intellectual development that, rather than suppressing inquiry, actually laid the intellectual foundations for the Renaissance and modern science. To be sure there still were some limits on inquiry, and a thinker who strayed too far beyond those limits could find themselves, like Socrates, in trouble.
Modern critics act as if these limits were some sort of aberration to be condemned. The problem is that, at least until very recently, the norm has never been free inquiry, but rather limits on inquiry and normally quite strong limits. What was unique about the Middle Ages was not that there were limits, but rather that those limits were loosen enough to allow for intellectual development, development that led to things like our current understanding of human rights, democracy and science. In addition these were not seen as contrary to Christianity, but were developed from it. The origin of Human Rights for examine has its roots in the belief that we are all created in the image of God, and what God has given no one can arbitrarily take away, not even the King.
Contrary to the skeptic’s self-perception, they also have limits on inquiry. During the Middle Ages, if one questioned church orthodoxy, one could be in trouble. Today, if one questions scientific orthodoxy, one can also be in trouble. The history of science if full of people who questioned the established science of their time, to find themselves ridiculed, rejected, denied employment, or otherwise punished. The theories of some of these people were later shown to be correct and have since become part of the established science of today.
This limiting of inquiry continues today, as scientists who question the theory evolution a little too much, or who begin to consider the possibility of intelligent design have found out. The only thing that has really changed is where the limits are and what the societal norms for punishment should be if one challenges those limits. Contrary to the charges of skeptics the punishment during the Middle Ages was not always burning at the stake. As with most things punishment was determined by the norms of the time. During some periods it was simply excommunication from the church.
So the skeptic’s view that religion limits inquiry while they are free, is simply false. While it is true that Christians have at time suppressed inquiry, history shows that this is the norm. It is also true that contrary to the norm, Christians played a role in expanding inquiry. After all as Paul wrote, “Test everything, hold on to the good.” (1 Thess 4:7)
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Historical Understanding
Listen to the MP3
Nov 30, 2007, Wausau, Wi — One huge difference between Christians and their critics is the framework in which judgments are made. Often it is the differences in the framework which results in their vastly different conclusions, more than the actual evidence. One key difference is over one’s view of history.
Critics often see religion in general, and Christianity in specific, as a vastly negative force in history. For example, they see the Middle Ages as the “Dark Ages” where the former brilliance of Rome was suppressed by the Church. When the iron grip of the Church weakened, this former brilliance broke free again in the Renaissance. In fact for them the Western History of the last 1500 years has been marked by a struggle to break free of the Church and its flat earth view of the world, so as to embrace a more rational view based on science.
Despite the popularity of such thinking is it nevertheless false and misleading. For example, it never was church doctrine that the earth was flat, nor did even a large number of Christians believe in a flat earth. This is a myth that originated among the critics of Christianity in the 18th century. As for the so-called Dark Ages, historians have long since realized that this was a somewhat self-serving view of history spawned by those in the Renaissance who saw themselves as restoring the glories of Rome, and not an accurate depiction of the period historians now refer to as the Middle Ages.
In reality the Middle Ages were a time or great intellectual development that, rather than suppressing inquiry, actually laid the intellectual foundations for the Renaissance and modern science. It was from the so-called Dark Ages of Church repression that we see the origin of Universities, the beginning of experimental science, and many discoveries and innovations like the incorporation of things like the decimal system and gunpowder. It is from this period we see the invention of eyeglasses, pendulum clocks and the compass. Magna Carta comes from this period, as does the jury system and habeas corpus, along with the beginnings of representative government in the English Parliament, and the French Estates-General.
As the historian Will Durant summarized it “It would be unwise to look down with hybritic pride upon a period that produced so many great men and women.” Durant went on to add “we shall never do justice to the Middle Ages until we see the Italian Renaissance not as their repudiation but as their fulfillment.” (Age of Faith, pg 1082, 1085)
To be sure, not everything was rosy. Like any period in history the complete picture was far more mixed. When compared with today’s standards, the Middle Ages often fall short. But judging the Middle Ages by today’s standards about as valid as saying that Newton, Galileo, or other early scientist, didn’t even know what would now be called High School science, and therefore were stupid.
A more accurate standard would be to judge based on the historical norm up to the period in question. This is why Newton and Galileo are seen as great. While they may not have passed a High School science test of today, they made discoveries and scientific advances unknown until then.
Unfortunately, history is so badly taught, and poorly understood, that the average person has little understanding of even recent history (or in some cases even current events outside of sports or music). This lack of any historical understanding is why Britain and America are frequently condemned for having slaves. Until recently, slavery was an almost universal institution, and one that still exists in some areas even today. Thus what was aberrational about Britain and America was not that they had slaves, but that they led the way in abolishing the slave trade and then slavery itself.
Significantly other notable exceptions to the historical norm of slavery were Ancient Israel, and the Middle Ages. While the Bible allowed slavery, it regulated it to the point that slavery virtually disappeared from Ancient Israel. Likewise, during the Middle Ages, under the influence of the Church slavery disappeared from most of Western Europe, only to be reintroduced after the Middle Ages.
Another example would be that, while we frequently hear of the atrocities committed by the early settlers of the Americas on the native inhabitants, one of the reasons we are able to do this is that the atrocities were documented by early churchmen seeking help in stopping them. Until then such atrocities were the norm, what was aberrational was the attempt to prevent them.
So when judging the actions of those in the past, we must be careful to factor in what was historically the norm for their time. What if in a couple of centuries from now, standards have change such that eating meat, driving your own car, watching football, or anything number of things we current do without a second thought, is then seen as barbaric and/or immoral? Would we consider ourselves fairly condemned for our failure to follow such future standards?
Instead of focusing on condemning those who followed the norm of their time, would it not be better to focus on those who broke from the norm to help bring us our modern understanding? But to do this would in many cases, be to acknowledge the positive impact of Christians, such as those in the forefront of the anti-Slavery movement.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Liberal Bias
The recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton by Carole Simpson, formally of ABC News, has one again fanned the seemingly eternal embers of debate about press bias. For conservatives there was hardly anything new or surprising that a former reporter, now college president would endorse Clinton. That is about as dog-bites-man as you can get. The only surprise would have been if she had endorsed a conservative, but given the bias of her past reporting, that was not going to happen.
But, while this was yet another piece of evidence for the liberal bias of the mainstream media, as if any more was actually needed, the utter denial of bias by liberals is yet another example of their near complete refusal or inability to deal with any facts that do not fit their view of reality. Now we all do this to some degree, and in fact we are trained to do so. We all have a mental picture of the reality around us. As we encounter something new it either fits our mental framework or is simply ignored as irrelevant. This is how we form our perception of the world around us.
But perception is not always reality. When I would train teachers on how to teach critical thinking, one of the things I would do is ask questions about some slides I would show. The teachers knew we were talking about perception, and they knew the slides were to show how they missed things. So they were on their guard. And yet almost all still failed to see what was obvious once it was pointed out and were puzzled as to how they could have missed it.
So that Liberals miss the overwhelmingly liberal bias of the news is not all that surprising. What is surprising is their steadfast denials; denials that are nearly complete immunity to contrary evidence no matter how much or how clear. In the example above, while the teachers were amazed at what they had overlooked, none tried to maintain that it did not exist once it was pointed out. And yet liberals continue to maintain the objectivity of the press despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
This is because not only does liberal bias conflict with their world view, in many respects so does the evidence for it. Liberalism is a form of existential narcissism. It is existential in that it is primarily concerned with the here and now. Previous failures are in the past, and thus do not matter. Any consequences are in the future, and thus do not exist. The only thing that matter is the here and now. It is narcissistic in that it focuses on the self and in particular one’s feelings.
Thus for global warming, the fact that such environmental scares have been a consistent feature of the left for the last 50 years and have all turned out to be wrong is not relevant to the current scare, that ‘s the past. That the future consequences of their proposed actions would cause tremendous suffering and harm without actually do much to solve the problem, is not a factor. We can’t really know the future. The only thing that matters is the current threat, and what “I” can do about it. “I” can change my light-blubs; “I” can drive a hybrid; “I” can by carbon credits; “I” can support environmental groups and candidates. Even if this actually doesn’t really help the problem, “I” am at least trying to do something, and “I” can feel good about that.
The narcissistic nature of liberalism also explains the emphasis on intentions for liberal. What actually happened is not really under their control, but what they can control is their intentions. For many intentions become primary, such as in hate-crime legislation.
This emphasis on intentions, combined with the general narcissistic nature of liberalism, means that everything is judged by the self. “I” want what is good, and if you do not want what “I” want, then you must not be good. This is why, while most conservatives tend to think that liberals are mistaken in their policies and ideas, liberals tend to think that conservatives are bad people, greedy, selfish, etc. In its extreme form this is currently expressed as Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Since everything is judged by the self, how could a liberal be biased? Their views just are. They are not really even liberal, they are just expression of reality. Thus were conservatives see tremendous bias in the major news media, liberals see simply reporting that agrees with their view, and since their view is not really liberal, but rather an expression of reality, the reporting is therefore just reporting reality, and how can that be biased? Reporting that differs from their view of reality, does not correct their view, but is dismissed as bias. Thus Fox news is bias because it presents both sides.
This also explains the very strange belief among reporters that they are objective as long as they don’t tell you what they support. Bias is saying you biased. If “I” don’t tell you, then you cannot know “I” have bias and therefore it does not exist. The idea that bias might actually exist in the way they write the story, regardless of what they say, does not seem to even be within the realm of possibility. After all they are just reporting reality.
So that Simpson now is publically supporting Clinton, for the liberals, says nothing about her past reporting. In fact, it would seem that her biggest crime was that she said it. But even here there is no big problem, for as one Liberal said in Simpson’s defense, supporting Clinton is not really an expression of liberalism. I guess not, after all isn’t that what any objective person not tainted by greed or selfishness would do?
Problem Solvers
There is a common perception, particularly among those who see themselves as independent thinkers, that the so called ideologues on both sides are the real problem because they put their ideology ahead of the good of the country. Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly recently expressed a version of this perception when he said that he didn’t care which side won, he just wanted people who would be “problem solvers” who would come in and fix things.
There are a couple of things wrong with such a view. One problem is that it is uncritically self-serving. It tends to be uncritical in that it dismisses those on the right and the left as biased towards their ideology while it sees the “independent thinker” as better because they are above the fray. The independent thinker does not get involved in fights between the various sides as they see this as little more than partisan bickering aimed more at winning than at getting things done.
Now there is certainly some truth in all this, as there are those on both sides of the spectrum for whom winning trumps all. But I do not believe this is an accurate generalization for this perception fails to realize is that there is in reality no such thing as just solving a problem. To solve a problem one must,
1) Realize that there is a problem.
2) Understand the scope and reasons for the problem.
3) Come up with a basic approach for a solution.
4) Work out the details of the solution to be implemented.
5) Implement the solution
6) Test the solution to see if it works.
Only if the last step gives a positive result can there said to be a solution. The problem is that many independent thinkers tend to act as if they are the only ones interested in reaching a solution, while the Ideologues are just too busy with defeating the other side.
In reality most people, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum want a positive result to step 6. For the most part, what the independent thinkers regards as partisan bickering are really disagreements over steps 1-4, and as a result of these disagreements, we never reach steps 5 or 6 on a whole range of issues.
One good example of this can be seen in the debate over Social Security. Now there is general agreement among most that there is a problem particularly the farther into the future you go. However this is not universal. When we come to point two, there is a major difference between Right and Left, for the Left sees Social Security as basically a sound programs that has a funding problem, whereas the Right sees it as inherently structurally flawed. This leads to little agreement over step 3, the basic approach to a solution, which means that we never even get to the rest of the steps required for a solution.
The Left wants to basically keep Social Security as it is, and change the benefits and/or taxes to bring it back into balance. The Right wants to fundamentally change how the program works so as to be closer to individual retirement accounts. These basic approaches for a solution are mutually exclusive. You cannot keep Social Security basically as it is, and radically change it at the same time. The reason neither side has solved this problem is that there is not enough of a consensus on either side to pass a bill.
Asking for a “problems solver” in this case makes little sense and it is counterproductive. It does not make sense because the basic dispute is not over should we solve the problem, with the independent thinkers coming down decisively on the side of solving it, but rather the dispute is over the scope and nature of the problem, a dispute which then leads the respective sides to propose fundamentally different approaches.
Nor can the independent thinker realistically say that it does not make a difference, either way is fine, because proposals of each side are mutually exclusive. If the Left is correct, and the basic system is sound, then the Right’s proposals could end up causing more problems, by replacing a sound system with one that is unsound. On the other hand, if the Right is correct, and the basic system is unsound, then the Left’s proposals would at best only delay fixing the problem. The time lost to discover this error would only allow the problem to get worst and even harder to solve.
While many bills can be passed by splitting the difference, for such a difference there is really no such thing, you either keep the basic system or you change it. To sort of change it is akin to being sort of pregnant, there really is no middle ground, and political compromises that allow politicians to claim a solution for the next election tend to result in the worst of both world rather than any solution.
Thus asking for a “problem solver” is counterproductive as it not only diverts attention away from the real problem, but it diverts it onto the very people that are at least actively trying to solve it. Thus we are currently at a stalemate, not only on Social Security reform, but on a whole range of other issues, such as Public education, Health Care, etc. The only way to break the stalemate is if enough of a consensus forms around one of the options so that effective legislation can become law. Yet this requires that the independent thinker pick a side. While to do so would make them a partisan, at least it would be for the good of the country.
Zeitgeist – The Responses II
Listen to the MP3
Nov 16, 2007, Wausau, Wi — Interest and discussion concerning Zeitgeist, The Movie and my three part review continues to grow, so this week I thought I would address a point that recently came up in a couple of relies to my review. These replies started out by agreeing with my review. One began, “this movie is based on incorrect facts.” Another said, “I am a Christian and I realize Zeitgeist part one was a complete total lie.”
But after agreeing, they went on to claim other grand conspiracies. The first writer went on to claim that while Zeitgeist was based on incorrect facts, the same could be said for the Bible, and religion was simply a means to control the masses and enslave them. The other writer said, “I believe the rest of the movie is true and that the US government had everything to do with [911]” and that “most Christians now believe 911 was an inside job, Satan is in control of our government.”
Both of these replies demonstrate in their own way the persistence of these grand conspiracy theories. Part of this is simply the flawed and often dishonest way in which they presented. We have a general, and somewhat necessary, view that people are honest. Even people who claim not to trust anyone still do a lot of trusting in their day to day lives. So when we hear someone telling something, there is a tendency to accept it unless we have a reason not to.
For example, one of the reasons the Christian writer gave that Parts II and III of Zeitgeist should believed even though part one was flawed is that there is a “video of Larry Silverstein admitting he demoed building 7.” Now a video of the building’s owner admitting that he was the one responsible for bringing down the building, rather than the terrorist would be pretty powerful evidence. But the actual situation is a good example of how these grand conspiracy theories work.
Now there is video of the owner, but what he says is “pull it.” The conspiracy theorists claim “pull it” is jargon which refers to bringing down a building by explosives, and thus their claim that the owner ordered the building brought down. So even when those who do check out this claim see the video, they will see just what the theorist have led them to see, Silverstein given the command to “pull it.” While this is conclusive evidence for the conspiracy theorists, and at first blush seems at least plausible, the problem is that there are other, and better, understandings of Silverstein’s statement.
Frankly given that he was talking to the Fire Department commander and his stated purpose in the video was to not to risk further loss of life, I find Silverstein’s own explanation that this referred to stopping the effort to put out the fires to be far more likely. After all if the building were to be demolished by explosives, it is extremely unlikely that the NYFD would have been in on any such conspiracy, given the number of firefighters who heroically gave their lives that day.
This is just one piece of evidence, and conspiracy theories are built upon a seaming endless stream of such claims. When people do take the time to refute them, they are often simply rejected, a part of the conspiracy. Thus when I pointed out some of refutations of the 911 conspiracy to the Christian writer defending them I was told that they were done by organizations that were “all run by a secret society called FREE MASONS.” Not only do these theory slant evidence to support them, they have a built in way of rejecting any evidence against them as part of the conspiracy.
Paul tells us that in the last days, people “will gather around them a great number of teachers, to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 tim 4:3-4)
There is a very simply principle, that truth cannot be grounded in error. As we try to reach the world with the truth of the Gospel, we must be doubly careful not mix it with error. This is not a new problem. There is always a great temptation to having secret knowledge, to know what others do not; to be in on the secret. During the time of the early church, this desire expressed itself in the form of Gnosticism, a religious movement based on secret knowledge that competed with Christianity in the second century.
The conspiracy theorists of today are the modern Gnostics. Laura Curtis summarized this nicely in her blog Suspending Disbelief, when she wrote “Like Gnostics, they are the Chosen Ones, privy to information the rest of us can’t comprehend. They’re special. Part of an elite few. We can’t handle the truth! They are the messiah, here to save us from our own dangerous ignorance.”
One of the worst aspects of these conspiracy theories is that there is real evil in the world and these theories only divert our attention away from it. One does not need to be a Bush supporter to believe that Islamic terrorism is both real and evil. It existed long before Bush, and will exist long after he is out of office.
As Paul said, “test everything. Hold on to the good.” (1 Thess 5:21-22)
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
