The (im)possibility of secular judgment
Stanley Fish (whose articles consistently elicit a response from me) has an interesting piece up on two troublesome distinctions in liberal thought: the distinction between religious and secular reasons and the distinction between public and private reasons. As is often the case, the article is really a supportive book review in disguise - this time of law professor Steven Smith’s “The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse.”
“Classical Liberals,” according to Fish, have long argued that when it comes to political debate, religious or value-laden arguments are inadmissible, since they operate on assumptions that are not universally shared or provable. Instead, they argue, we should rely squarely on “secular reason” to do the job of here-and-now policy-making.
But according to Smith / Fish, “secular reason” can’t actually solve ANY of our political problems. At least not without “smuggling in” some of that which it despises - metaphysical assumptions, values, and comprehensive doctrines. Science and reason can’t tell us what to do with data; we must choose how to use the tools of reason, what to aim them at, how to interpret information, and which facts really matter. Reason alone can’t do all of that picking, choosing, and ranking - we need some kind of substantive value system to do that.
Reason and faith in higher education
How should universities teach religion, if at all? It’s a touchy subject - one that even the mighty Harvard has struggled to wrap its collective head around. That’s the subject of an interesting recent Newsweek piece by Lisa Miller.
Miller tells the story of a general curriculum conflict at Harvard between those who want to integrate faith and spirituality into course requirements (via a mandatory module called “Reason and Faith”) and those who would rather keep religion out of the classroom. The author sides with the former group, suggesting that “[t]o dismiss the importance of the study of faith—especially now—out of academic narrow-mindedness is less than unhelpful. It’s unreasonable.”
Steven Pinker, the well-known evolutionary psychologist, led the charge against the “Reason and Faith” module, arguing that the university’s mission is not to give a platform to all popular claims, but to pursue knowledge through rational inquiry. Teaching the importance of faith - at least as part of a mandatory curriculum requirement - would be anathema to that mission. Read more
The Tebow ad, Continued…
So here it is, as it aired:
Not much controversial material there (viewers were told to visit Focus on the Family’s website for the full story, including Christian references and anti-abortion argument), but we’ve all heard plenty about the ad’s intent by this point.
But there’s more to debate here than the ad’s propriety - what about the validity of the argument? The argument being made is a version of the famous “Beethoven example” used by the pro-life community:
“About the terminating of pregnancy, I want your opinion. The father was syphilitic. The mother tuberculous. Of the four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth was also tuberculous. What would you have done?”
“I would have terminated the pregnancy.”
“Then you would have murdered Beethoven.”
Convincing, eh? Had Tebow’s mother made what many pro-choice advocates suggest is the “right decision,” we wouldn’t have her successful son Tim. Richard Dawkins rebuts this logic, reminding us that by the same reasoning, we should equally condemn each act of abstinence; after all, every decision NOT to have procreative sex deprives the world of a potential genius. Also, in order for Tim to exist, some 40 million rival sperm lost out in the race to an egg. One of those sperm could have grown up to cure cancer. Is Tim Tebow the man who prevented that cure? These thought experiments are quite interesting, and worth thinking about if we want to get our logic straight on abortion.
(That’s setting aside the factual inaccuracies of the example, as Beethoven was the eldest child, none of his siblings were blind, deaf, or dumb, and his father did not have syphilis).
-Colin
Vaccines and Autism
Bad science and good PR
Over the past few years, there has been a building movement against vaccinations in the U.S. on the grounds that they are either ineffective, harmful, or perhaps even part of an insidious government plot. This isn’t coming from the usual anti-science suspects, either - it’s largely coming from Hollywood: comedian Bill Maher has said he “would never get a vaccine,” and that he doesn’t trust the government, especially with his health. Maher believes that vaccines are a “Western” misunderstanding of health, and that a natural, healthy diet and lifestyle will ward off most maladies.
Actor Jim Carrey and former Playboy centerfold Jenny McCarthy are the most prominent among the anti-vaccine crowd, warning primarily of a link to autism. Autism rates have increased rapidly during the same period of time that vaccines have become widespread, they say. But the Carrey/McCarthy camp was dealt a serious blow last week when the British medical journal Lancet retracted a 1998 paper linking vaccines to autism by Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
Neutrality on sex education
Ross Douthat makes a typical neutrality-based argument for leaving sex ed decisions up to local communities, not the federal government. Liberals have attacked the fed’s endorsement and funding of abstinence education since the Clinton years, citing studies illustrating its ineffectiveness and often counterproductive results: teenage pregnancies have gone up, not down, with the introduction of abstinence-only. But Douthat contends that comprehensive sex ed does no better, and that this is more about culture than pragmatism anyway:
America’s competing visions of sexuality — permissive and traditional, naturalist and sacralist — have been in conflict since the 1960s. They’ll probably be in conflict for generations yet to come.
But as long as they are, it shouldn’t be Washington’s job to choose between them.
I don’t find this convincing. The fact that there are “competing visions” in a debate doesn’t mean one of them isn’t empirically correct and justifiable as national policy (there are many who don’t accept evolution, western medicine, or global warming, but I think it’s in our national interest to set policy according to the accepted science rather than popular opinion in those matters). But where you stand on this will depend on a number of philosophical assumptions, including your view of democracy, of individual liberty, and of course, on the line between perfectionism and neutrality.
Secondly, I think that Douthat, David Brooks and other conservatives sometimes jump too quickly to “we just can’t prove anything either way in this area”; it’s part of a larger worldview that holds many ethical and political questions beyond the power of reason to answer. Brooks recently used this ephemeral skepticism to call international aid into question and now Douthat employs it to lay sex ed arguments to rest. I think it’s dangerous to give up on analysis this easily - but perhaps that’s my liberal, “everything can be rationally understood” bias 
-Colin
Science v. Religion Pt. 574
Via Andrew Sullivan, The Economist has a fascinating post on the growing parallels between religion and theoretical physics.
It’s not that the physicists aren’t right. It’s just that, compared to the 19th century, more of the propositions that physicists are asking non-scientists to entertain are not vastly more elegant or evidence-based than those of religion. This may largely be an artifact of science journalism, with its focus on the weird and the unknown, rather than of science itself, most of which tends to be a lot more grounded and prosaic.
I think the author is on to something here. Religion’s goal, it seems to me and I think to many other non-believers, is to explain the world in a way that makes sense to them. Physics does the same thing — in the last several centuries, in ways that could be proven, but in the last 50 years in ways that are increasingly theoretical.
It goes to the point that debating The Existence Of God is pretty mundane and unnecessary for non-believers. The more interesting questions revolve around how beneficial or harmful religion and certain religions are. Physics too, since it’s not clear now how a better understanding of dimensions we cannot access will help us pass health care reform etc. When there is no way of proving a proposition, the better way to think about things is to understand what impact belief in that proposition will have.
-John
Subsidizing spiritual healing
Non faith-based reply to Marc
Marc argues that a strong moral argument exists to require insurance companies to cover spiritual healing. He writes that, “When risk is involved, the bearer of the risk should ultimately make the decision.” Since patients in need of care bear the risk of the success or failure of the procedure, if they desire a spiritual healing, insurance companies ought to cover the cost, Marc argues. This argument fails because the insurance companies—and all the fellow members of the insurance plan—are the people covering the cost and bearing the risk.
The purpose of insurance, Marc writes, “is to prevent bad luck from having a negative impact on our life circumstances.” The way it does that is by spreading the costs of bad luck and accidents. The individual who selects a faith healing procedure does not bear the risk alone; everyone shares the risk, at least financially. Assuming that those individuals who select faith healing procedures would have the opportunity to select science-based procedures should the former fail, the end result would be higher premiums for everyone. Why should others have to subsidize other people’s religious beliefs via a science-based insurance company? If the faith healing procedures were the same price or cheaper than the science-based procedures—and people who selected them couldn’t then see a medical doctor as well—it would be a different story. But even were that the case, I don’t see why such an option should be mandated by the government.
You were fired the day you were conceived
Genetic testing and employment
The ethical boundaries of the 21st century have increasingly focused on the rapid pace of scientific and technological advancement. The more we seem to know about how our world works, the fuzzier that world grows ethically.
In a week, one of those boundaries will be tested when the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act comes into effect. The Act prevents employers from either engaging in genetic testing or taking genetic information into account when deciding whether to hire, fire or promite someone. It will also bar health insurance companies from considering genetic information in decisions to provide coverage or set premiums.
This approach broadly reflects the sensibilities of modern liberalism, with one twist. Read more
The drone dilemma
When does efficiency cost too much?
The U.S. military and intelligence services have been using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or “drones”) since the Gulf War for surveillance, transportation, and combat. Drones are usually launched and landed by specialists on the ground, but they are often controlled by civilian contractors on American bases, thousands of miles away from conflict. Originally used only for gathering intelligence, drones are now used widely for what some call “targeted killing” - secretive attacks on enemies often carried out by the CIA, which runs its own drone program.
As Jane Mayer suggests in The New Yorker (I highly recommend this article), the use of unmanned technology to execute combat operations is quite controversial. There seem to be two large problems with drones: (1) We’re waging war with “machines” instead of soldiers; and (2) we’re using these machines in what many are calling assassinations, which are in violation of U.S. and international law.
What’s wrong with having drones do the fighting for us? It largely eliminates the human cost of war, and by extension, it makes the engagement seem costless and painless. Without the sense that our sons and daughters are sacrificing their lives in our defense, a declaration of war is checked only by its financial cost and strategic value.
We can breathe the air–but can we follow the rules?
Sci-Fi writer Charles Stross speculates on whether alien life could or would choose to inhabit earth. Conclusion? Less likely than you think:
78% of the surface area is seawater. Drop a naked meat puppet there and it’s going to go glug glug glub … tritely, this is Not A Good Start.
Of the remaining 22%, about one third is either mountain ranges, deserts, or ice caps. It’s reasonable to say that, in the absence of protective equipment, the meat probes are going to die of exposure in less than one diurnal period - possibly in as little as an hour if they’re unlucky enough to land in the middle of the Antarctic winter.
We’re down to about 15% of the planetary surface - 15% that isn’t lethal without life support equipment such as boats, tents, and clothing. Our meat probes can breathe the air without their lungs freezing or dessicating. They aren’t going to drown rapidly. And they aren’t going to roll off a cliff. They might get a tad sunburned or hypothermic depending on the weather, and they might be eaten by a mountain lion or bitten by a rattlesnake, but they stand a reasonable chance of making it through 24 hours on the surface without dying.
Whimsical questions such as these tend to leave out another important feature of Earth–our ethical systems. Ethical codes among Earth’s many cultures and peoples are hardly uniform, but there’s a lot that unites us. Would it unite the aliens, too?
One would think we can safely assume they will be rational in some sense. And to make it this far, the aliens would probably have to embrace a lot of our basic rules: some subset would be protected from wanton killing, lying would be limited to inconsequential circumstances, etc.
But maybe not. It’s funny that people like Stross always poke fun at how movies and TV portray Earth as an appetizing place to live. But none question whether it’s the way we live — rather than the place — that would be the real turn-off
-Sam
-
Follow us on Twitter
