Defending Relativism

Toward the end of the debate, my opponent said:  If there are no universal human values, why does no culture allow murder?

The conditions under which the taking of a human life is socially sanctioned vary tremendously from culture to culture.  'Murder' is the unjustified taking of another human life.  'Murder' by no means has a universally agreed-upon definition.

To acknowledge this obvious reality is not to advocate Mansonism.  Dr. Hippler's insight ('all societies prohibit murder') is naïve, as it rests on a word with a far too elastic definition.

Dr. Hippler may have then distilled his assertion into:  'No society allows people to wantonly kill anyone for no reason.'

I should have responded:

If your central position in this debate is that humans naturally converge on a single universal morality, and your evidence is that 'human societies usually don't sanction wanton mass killing'--then you have an extremely weak argument.  If you believe humans naturally converge on similar moral views, why do we observe such immense diversity in kinship arrangements?

I've previously quoted a person on the MN Atheists Meetup site who attended the debate and found considerable fault with my performance. 

I emailed him today and invited him out for coffee--as I am wont, when I find I have an intelligent critic.  (I assured him I just wanted to learn more of his perspective and had no interest in a boxing match.)  Alas he doesn't live in town, but he immediately mirrored my friendliness stance and gently retracted his one stinging word.  He then honed his critique into:

...you could have made a better case during the debate, primarily by abandoning ethical relativism and admitting that there are ethical universals.  The fact that some moral rules are culture-specific does not imply that all are, and the prohibition against random killing of one's societal associates, pointed out during the debate, is a clear example of a universal.  Arguably, such principles derive from our evolved human nature, especially our tendencies to be social creatures who feel empathy towards others.  They also derive from what we've learned as a species over millennia, and have embedded, meme-like, in cultural practices that are universal or nearly so:  For instance, you simply can't have a society in which people are allowed to randomly kill their fellows, and the institution known as private property contributes to general societal well-being.

The fact that all human societies prohibit random mass killing cannot be offered as proof that humans naturally converge on One Morality, can it?

The human tendency to feel empathy toward others is a similar example:  Many societies have displayed shockingly little empathy toward people living in their midst; examples too numerous to mention immediately spring forth--including within our own recent history, in America.  Humans are hypersocial primates, though cruelty, violence and aggressiveness are also widely observed.  The human tendency to feel empathy toward others simply doesn't tell us anything interesting.

Rules for the division of property vary greatly from one culture to the next and from epoch to epoch.  During most of our species' evolutionary history, individually-owned property was rare.  Prevailing contemporary property ownership law is entirely a social construction:  It is not the inevitable outgrowth of any built-in human moral rules-system--as can easily be verified by the most cursory examination of the anthropological record.

Different societies have come up with really, really distinct moral rule-books--with quite little observed moral convergence*.  The relativist responds, 'So what?  That's exactly what I'd expect!'

Since the debate I've been genuinely surprised by the prevalence--among atheists--of the assumption that the thinking non-believer is required to define one universal morality that can be accepted by everybody.  To the dustbin!

**

*'quite little convergence' when we compare isolated human societies that haven't experienced significant influence upon each other.

The convergence in values we observe in the world today--the international love of hip-hop or anime, i.e.--has no bearing on Dr. Hippler's argument, since:

Dr. Hippler argues that humans naturally gravitate toward a single vision of the good.  To show that that's correct, we'll want to look only at isolated societies.  Societies whose values have cross-contaminated remove them from consideration, of course.

Responding to JH

An atheist who attended Saturday's debate emailed me; I respond below.  I thank everyone who has provided me with debate feedback.

I'm aware now:  It was my job to impose discipline and clarity upon the conversation. I failed in that assignment.

We still don't know what Dr. Hippler believes.  We surmise it's something like: 

1) People naturally strive for the realization of the same basic values;

2) Conscience is built into humans; it isn't the product of culture;

3) Morality must be god-commanded, otherwise it's weak, degraded, undesirable and dangerous;

4) Accepting that evolution is true is harmful to morality.

There are very strong reasons for rejecting Dr. Hippler's various implicit assertions, though many religious people do view evolution as conflicting with their faiths. In allowing Catholics to choose whichever view they like on evolution, people such as Dr. Hippler are emboldened.

How do objective and relative morality differ in practice?

I do not accept that Dr. Hippler's morality is 'objective'--though he may describe it as such. I don't believe Christians get their morality from the bible:  There are so many moral teachings in the book that almost everyone today opposes.  They pick and choose.

the observed method of creating moral improvement is the same.

Has moral improvement really been definitively mapped out, in a manner applicable to human culture generally, everywhere?  I want to take a deliberate, unbiased look when people claim one cultural state superior to another. With Sam Harris, I acknowledge the possibility, though in practice such comparisons often reflect bias.

You seem to be asking 'If we identify butchery occurring in another society, might we be justified in intervening?' I'm not categorically opposed to intervention, I just think we should exercise great caution. Our public rhetoric on Iran now, for example, reflects a lack of reasonable caution, as regards a hypothetical intervention.

When people define hypothetical situations under which we might be justified in intervening in other countries, we should also discuss the historical circumstances under which a humanitarian foreign power might have been justified in abolishing our sovereignty, reminding ourselves just how resistant we'd be to such a thought. 

You discuss the complexity involved in defining a coherent morality.  I see many different moral commitments and systems, all having internal tensions, contradictions, dubious bases, self-deluded origin myths, etc. Of course it's a mess, though humans must adopt some moral perspective.  I advocate our working out such differences using honest, open dialog.  Dr. Hippler's assertion--that his morality has the endorsement of the author of the universe--I find off-putting and corrosive to social equality.

Answering my critics

Several more atheists have posted comments on the debate:

A waste of time. Terms were not defined and neither presenter could keep on topic.

It was my first such debate--and you're correct:  I devoted insufficient bandwidth to pinning down definitions and maintaining clarity.  In my defense, we were there to discuss:

Does Darwinian evolution undermine moral claims of conscience?

I ask the commenter:  Is there any aspect of my response that you don't understand--or with which you disagree?  Is there any aspect of Dr. Hippler's position that you do understand--or that you consider modestly coherent?

Another esteemed Minnesota Atheist offers:

I appreciate the effort Gavin made--it's not easy to engage in public debate, and Dr. Hippler was more practiced. The moral relativism argument derailed the proposition at hand--no evidence was provided (or asked for) that godless evolution really does undermine moral claims of conscience.

My response to the debate's central question is reasonable:  Some people will find integrating evolution's truth to pose significant challenges to their moral systems.  Others will encounter little difficulty.  Some will perceive no challenge at all.  If you view evolution as undermining morality, it's time for you to tweak your morality.

Unlike Pope Benedict XVI, Dr. Hippler is clearly unaware of the breadth of the scientific consensus behind evolution.

Dr. Hippler believes that some significant portion of elite scientists rejects evolution. During the debate, I responded emphatically--that evolution is not controversial, among university biologists. Should Dr. Hippler at any point wish to revisit this question, I can think of several easy ways of looking into it.

If--as the commenter states--Dr. Hippler provided 'no evidence' that evolution undermines moral claims of conscience, then I'm mystified as to how he can score the debate as anything other than a defeat for Providence.

A number Minnesota Atheists seem to hold this viewpoint:

No evolution does not "undermine moral claims"! Evolution is where moral claims come from. Why the bias in the debate title? Why not, "Does Religious moral claims undermine human development"?  

The 'evolution does not undermine [anyone's] moral claims!' shibboleth continues to strike me as head-in-the-sand.  Of course evolution disrupts some people's moral ideologies.  Should you require an example, please ponder Dr. Hippler.

The fact that your moral system gets disrupted when confronted with truthful scientific information is a problem you must deal with.  Dealing with the problem by seeking out the viewpoints of crackpots and charlatans and lying to the young is a dishonorable option.  I made these points during the debate.

After the recent Providence Academy uproar on my blog, Dr. Hippler suggested we hold a debate.  I enthusiastically accepted--and worried Dr. Hippler might withdraw the challenge.  So I told him I'd allow him to make all of the key decisions:  He then authored the central question and decided that audience questions would be written on note cards and passed up, rather than--as I preferred--allowing folks to speak into the microphone, unfiltered.

Hippler's View

Dr. Hippler [I mindread] hears atheists saying, 'Humanity got here as the result of random chance--without magical assistance.'  Non-believers would prefer Dr. Hippler phrase the atheist position a bit differently:  'There is no credible evidence for the existence of god--in the origin of our planet or species or anywhere else.'

Dr. Hippler believes that if no deity brought humanity into being, then it is impossible for humans to define any meaningful morality or ethics.  It is too bad our debate did not probe this popular misunderstanding.  Sam Harris responds to the claim brilliantly here.

I received this constructive feedback, from an atheist I'd not previously met.

Dr. Hippler is aware:  Adherent Catholics may accept evolution as true, but Dr. Hippler harbors skepticism. A thoroughgoing acceptance of evolution appears to remove god's role in our origin, he fears.

I am also aware that the Catholic Church allows the flock to accept or reject evolution as they please--and understand Dr. Hippler's concern.  Were I a believing, Magisterium-accepting Catholic, I too would deem it a concession to say no magical assistance was needed for life to evolve from the single-celled organisms of 3.8 billion years ago to the flora and fauna on earth today, including humans.

The commenter points out: Pope Benedict XVI accepts that evolution is true:

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

On this non-doctrinal point, Dr. Hippler is as free to disagree with the Pope as is anybody else, of course.

Some atheists think we need to argue, 'Evolution is not in conflict with your religious beliefs!'  But many religious people do perceive great conflict, Dr. Hippler being a clear example.

Dr. Hippler would reply that his abhorrence of atheism stems not from any moralistic demand that non-believers adopt his religious beliefs--but from a hyper-neutral, objective observation--that it is impossible to author any coherent morality in the absence of a Supreme Being.

Dr. Hippler is not arguing that atheists have no moral beliefs:  He knows that atheists are not indifferent to the values their children adopt, for example.  But he believes god-backed moral beliefs allow religious values to be binding--and that by contrast atheists' moral viewpoints have no force and are therefore of almost no value.

The contrast Dr. Hippler claims exists, between the force of religious morality and the flimsiness of non-religion-based morality, is false and cannot in fact be observed in daily life:  We often see purportedly religious people violating their key tenets--and we often observe people doing good things without religious motivation.  So if Dr. Hippler can point to any real-world evidence for accepting the superiority of god-backed morality, I'm interested.

When describing our opponents' views to ourselves, we sometimes exaggerate their weirdness:  We have a need to view opponents as unreasonable.  To counter this widespread human failing, we should facilitate uncensored, easily-accessed commenting, listen closely to our opponents' best arguments--and ask them often if our descriptions of their views are fair and balanced.  I hereby do.

**

I told my high school classmates [on facebook] about Saturday's experience:

It was an educational experience for me, having never participated in any such event; the library meeting room was SRO. The skeptics in the audience expressed mild to severe disappointment in my performance, though I had no intention of speaking on behalf of the team. A friendly person, not joking, told me afterwards I'd made him cringe several times. A non-anonymous 'Minnesota Atheist' commented 'Unfortunately, Mr. Sullivan wasn't able to demonstrate anything other than his own fecklessness.' My ex-wife attended and was suspiciously supportive and friendly to me afterwards. However much I/we made the audience suffer, I had a great time.

My Brave Face

I participated in a public debate this weekend which, for an event not actively promoted by the organizers, drew an unexpectedly huge crowd--due apparently to the stature of Dr. Arthur Hippler and to the recent Providence Academy blogfracas here.

Providence Academy is not a bad school, I say to my opposite, as we exchange a handclasp afterward.  I tell him I complain occasionally as the school could so easily be improved, were it only to jettison superstitious bias. The chairman of the Religion Department exits unconvinced.

Sensible-seeming, neighborly atheists give me quite low marks. One:

If in the future the Minnesota Atheists sponsor similar debates, they might want to have someone other than a moral relativist defend the secular position. There are compelling non-religious bases for ethics, deriving more or less directly from Darwinism. Unfortunately, Mr. Sullivan wasn't able to demonstrate anything other than his own fecklessness.

The admin at Minnesota Atheists quickly clarifies:  The organization played no role in organizing the event and had nothing to do with the selection of the speakers or anything else.

One could not evade awareness that one specific speaker particularly disappointed.  It is naturally that person's right to sift through the critics' barbs and, should he find any non-reasonable complaint, bark back:

Our debate's topic was, essentially, whether a thoroughgoing embrace of evolution undermines morality.

Atheists wanted their man to proclaim a bellowing no--defending a secular vision of Rationality and Moral Progress through Reason.  Some wanted me to defend a vision of non-spiritually based Ethics.

When we investigate whether knowledge of the truth of evolution undermines morality, we first need some context:  Whose morality?

The globe includes many cultural groups--with enormous moral diversity.  At least some such groups certainly will encounter difficulty accepting the truth of evolution, since it often is interpreted as casting doubt upon myths of origin, contradicting entrenched religious dogma.

From the other end of the telescope:  If we are released from any social requirement to speak dishonestly about evolution--and build the assumption evolution is true into day to day life--will our moral environment here in the Twin Cities be undermined?

Dr. Hippler's question is more revealing than meets the eye, as it delineates an intellectual predisposition: 'Before accepting truthful scientific information, we should weigh the potential advantages of disregarding the experts and listening to dingbats.'

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.  P. C. Hodgell

Among my egregious debating errors, I fail to persuade anyone of the advantages of being a relativist.  I don't think I even made clear what I mean by the term:  A person who acknowledges the world's mindbending moral diversity and tries to maintain awareness of his own culture's history of moral error, self-deception and herd-thinking.

It is the relativist in you twisting and turning when Republicans talk about America being an immaculate moral exemplar bequeathed by God to a fallen planet.  Your inner relativist can be your friend.

I try to convince Dr. Hippler that if values came with our genetic inheritance, we'd expect to see far less moral diversity in the world.  He argues that everywhere people in fact pursue similar moral ends--honoring bravery, respect for authority, the family, etc.  I reply that all of the values he lists are so variously defined as to be meaningless.

I fail to bring our dialog back to my sensible core point--and Dr. Hippler eventually argues [my paraphrase] 'since no culture allows people to go around killing others for no reason' therefore values are built into our genes.

Many cultures have allowed, even encouraged, homicide for reasons we would consider baffling--and rates of homicide vary greatly from one society to another.  His supporters leave thinking I advocate the repeal of Minnesota Statute 609.185.  You win some, you lose some.

My Opening Salvo

Thanks very much to my friendly opponent Dr. Arthur Hippler and to our moderator Grant Steves and thanks to all of you for showing up today.

A friend forwarded me an announcement of this afternoon's event, and it sounded somewhat funny to see 'Gavin Sullivan is an atheist,' with almost no other descriptive information—as if being an atheist were a full-time job or something.  An atheist is simply a person who sees no credible evidence for the existence of god—or a person who views the god concept as so muddled as to be difficult to seriously entertain even hypothetically, due to its utter incoherence.  Atheism is not a faith:  As Ricky Gervais puts it, 'Not going skiing is not a hobby.'  An atheist is a person resistant to committing herself to mass wishful thinking—and prefers to do his wishful thinking on his own.

Dr. Hippler and I made each other's acquaintance recently at Providence Academy and in my blog's comments section—where he very graciously suggested a debate.  I accepted and thanked him—and requested that Dr. Hippler author our debate's central question.  He soon put forward

Does Darwinian evolution undermine moral claims of conscience?

Dr. Hippler would be arguing in the affirmative, in other words, putting forth his view that to accept the near-unanimous scientific consensus—that evolution is true—undermines morality.

Whose morality?  I sensed Dr. Hippler was unlikely to be arguing that accepting evolution would undermine the morals of the Machiguenga of Peru or the San Chay people of Vietnam—or of average folks in Saudi Arabia.  No—Dr. Hippler thinks evolution undermines Catholic morality.

Relatedly, earlier this month Dr. Hippler left a pleasant, lengthy comment on my blog clarifying his position on evolution, stating that his view is the Catholic Church's view—expressed in the 1950 papal encyclical Humani generis.

The encyclical—Wikipedia confirms—does not endorse belief in evolution for Catholics, nor its outright rejection:  It deemed the evidence at the time not dispositive. Humani generis openly allows for the possibility of accepting evolution in the future.  In his comment on my blog, Dr. Hippler says the exact same thing:  While he doesn't know for sure, he does not reject evolution outright nor does he believe embracing evolution necessarily undermines Catholic claims of conscience.  So it's interesting to see that in the intervening fortnight, he's apparently reversed himself on this important question.

If you can't decide whether to accept evolution because you're waiting for a consensus to emerge among the experts, you are misguided.  Among leading university biologists, there is no debate any longer as to whether evolution is true. 

I asked Dr. Hippler for a bit more explanation of Does Darwinian evolution undermine moral claims of conscience? To be honest, I wasn't sure I even understood the question.

He provided me with the following Michael Ruse quotation—essentially restating our debate-topic:  (Ruse is the mutton chopped atheist philosopher of biology at FSU much beloved by religious dogmatists—'the Discovery Institute's favorite evolutionary philosopher' as PZ Myers calls him.) 

the position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.

The quotation I just read to you, then, constitutes three falsehoods and a tautology. 

1)  Modern evolutionists do not posit any specific universal 'awareness of morality' innate in Homo sapiens.  While people in all societies practice morality—inculcating right-wrong distinctions in the young, for example—such a practice does not require any self-conscious 'awareness of morality' as any separate, distinct realm.

2)  It is not in fact universally agreed that 'awareness of morality', whatever that means, was favored by natural selection.  Human beings all know that the sun is bright—as Jesse Prinz says—but that doesn't mean natural selection implanted this knowledge in us.

3)  The presence of morality in all human groups does not prove that morality was a biological adaptation.  Morality more likely is simply an inescapable aspect of being human.

The Michael Ruse quotation approvingly provided by Dr. Hippler, we should note, asserts that human morality can be explained entirely by materialism—'Morality is a biological adaptation no less than hands and feet and teeth.'

Somewhat ironically, I disagree with Ruse—and don't accept that morality was sculpted by natural selection as the hand was.  If morality was a biological adaptation, I'd expect to see far less diversity in moral systems. 

But I'd like to leave aside Prof. Ruse's three elementary misunderstandings and consider his summarizing tautology: 

Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.

Dr. Hippler considers this ostensible insight quite important:  In his blog-comment, Dr. Hippler restates Prof. Ruse's tautology in his own words:

If morality cannot be explained by materialism (only "explained away"), that is a reason for concluding that materialism is false.

I don't think Dr. Hippler has established that the study of morality completely baffles materialists; his assertion flies in the face of today's massive flowering of secular academic research into morality by scholars such as Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker, Joshua Knobe and Jesse Prinz.  But if materialist research were determined to be unable to provide insight into any specific facet of our world, I can't see how that would require us to conclude 'materialism is false.'  Perhaps better materialism might be called for.  Once again:

If morality cannot be explained by materialism…that is a reason for concluding that materialism is false.

Disregarding the non sequitur, then, this is Dr. Hippler's central point, regarding atheism:  He believes atheists seek to evade questions of ethics—and that an honest atheist would admit that, for our tribe—ethics is nothing more than my opinion against yours…as Sam Harris put it, 'In the absence of God, John Wayne Gacy could be a better person than Albert Schweitzer, if only more people agreed with him.'

And it can be frustrating to acknowledge that our arguments often fall upon deaf ears:  We cannot compel compliance even when we're quite sure we're right.

The morality on offer at the Catholic Church is far superior, in Dr. Hippler's view:  Once you've accepted its terms, it doesn't suffer from atheist-morality's disregardability:  It has purchase—and can place demands upon the individual, Dr. Hippler seems to think.

To respond, I would point out that—as Bertrand Russell said—There can't be a practical reason for believing what isn't true.  Christianity stands or falls on whether the Resurrection is historically true.  The evidence for believing in the Resurrection is zilch. No matter how badly I wanted to become a Christian, I'd have a very difficult time fooling myself into believing a speck of credible evidence points to the historical truth of the Resurrection.  For me, that would be a deal-breaker.

Nor has the Catholic Church, over the years, entirely steered a pristine moral path itself.  It has of late apologized for Galileo, to all women, to victims of the Inquisition, to Muslims slaughtered by the Crusaders, for the conquest of Mesoamerica, for the African slave trade, for Catholics showing contempt for non-Christian cultures and religious traditions, for the rape of children in church-run schools and for the inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust.  To put it quite reservedly, it's a track record not universally accepted as being exemplary.

Like all people, atheists have emotions and beliefs and passions about right and wrong.  When defending our moral views, atheists do not assert that they are endorsed by any magical entity for whose existence no evidence exists.  Atheists generally believe that such a claimed endorsement would be worthless, or worse.

Atheists don't envy conservative Christians when Christians assert that their moral claims deserve special reverence due to their being endorsed by a magical entity.

Dr. Hippler lists several texts he'll be referring to today—among these C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, which I happened to read last month at the suggestion of a Providence Academy student.  If you haven't read Mere Christianity, you should, it's really an amazingly wrongheaded, quaint book with a howler on every page.  At the moment I'd like merely to challenge its central assertion, wherein Lewis claims humans share an innate knowledge of correct morality:

This law was called the Law of Nature, because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right.

Lewis' assertion of an innate universal morality is contradicted by research:  The range of accepted practices, among societies, over history has been truly staggering—with slavery, infanticide, polygamy, child sacrifice, racism, political and economic inequality and disenfranchisement, stoning, nonconsensual sex, headhunting, cannibalism, the virtual ownership and trading of women, prevailing widely, often without notable objection.

It is manifestly false to assert that our human genetic inheritance naturally points us in the direction of a moderate-homophobic, guilt-wracked 1940s Anglicanism.  Mere Christianity is badly disfigured by its author's naïve ethnocentrism.

doll, sweetheart, free spirit

A tragic accident occurred on the roads here the other day; four young women were killed.

On a makeshift express-yourself shrine, a classmate wrote:
"I'll miss ya ... cya in heaven."

Can many religious believers seriously think they're going to be chilling with their schoolmates in the afterlife?

The article quotes various people--accompanied by video of one of the student's teachers--all issuing the regulation 'polite, somber utterances' expected under such circumstances.

One of the girls clung uncharacteristically to hearth, during what turned out to be her final weekend:

"It was just like God was preparing us for something," he said. "We had the whole weekend with her. She was happy and fun-loving."

The Star Tribune often puts tragedy journalism though a formulaic spiritualist wringer, extruding the expected moderate mysticism:  God was preparing us.

If the journalist gets paid for this line, something is amiss:  The school's grief counselors "will be available as long as they are needed," Pierskalla said.

A sunrise prayer service was scheduled for 7 a.m. Wednesday at the school's student center. Students are asking everyone to wear pink on Wednesday and purple on Thursday in remembrance. The American flag at Fargo City Hall was lowered Tuesday to half-staff in the memory of the four students.

Props to students who refrain from the pink on Wednesday purple on Thursday crap. 

Props to non-superstitious people who nonetheless attend the public prayer service--and quietly make known that it is not only the gullible who grieve in response to such a loss.

Public and private tragedies should not be conflated:  The Stars and Stripes should not be lowered, in response to an automobile accident.

Iran

When proposing a solution to any problem, we should honestly consider a range of possible outcomes.

If you believe the United States should now demand that Iran renounce acquiring nuclear arms, you should be discussing the most obvious cost of such a policy:  Growing international disgust with US hypocrisy on nuclear weapons.

It is important that we build relationships based on mutual respect, with the people of the Middle East, and that we not run roughshod over their feelings. 

Instead of imposing our will, we should make an effort to take seriously the preponderance of international public opinion:  War with Iran should be zealously avoided. 

Today's Iran issue is part of a larger international problem of wmd proliferation.  What are our primary options, in addressing the problem of global nuclear proliferation?

1)  We can respond in a one-off manner to each disliked country that shows evidence of acquiring nuclear weapons, ever worsening our country's public relations problem; or

2)  We can try to build an international organization whose goal would be to monitor, inspect and disarm all countries, eventually including ourselves.

It is weird how often we Americans act as if Option 2 doesn't even exist!

Debate Announcement

Dr. Arthur Hippler v. Gavin Sullivan
--moderated by Grant Steves--
"Does Darwinian evolution undermine
moral claims of conscience?"
RHR Meeting Room
Ridgedale Library
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Saturday February 25, 2012
2:00 to 3:30 pm
Free and Open to the Public

Barnes' 'Skillset'

Like me, Brian Barnes is seeking the DFL endorsement for US House in CD3.

Barnes often communicates with the public via his spokesman Christopher Truscott.  Today's email:

(Candidates who win) can talk about the important things in a way that’s compelling. Not just to people who vote for whoever the Republican or Democrat is. That’s not enough. For Paul Wellstone, Tim Walz or Brian Barnes to win … you have to be able to persuade people who don’t already agree with you to vote for you anyway. People have to be able to say, ‘You know, I’m not sure I agree with everything this guy is saying, but he has courage, he’s honest, he cares—he’s thoughtful in how he’s talking about these issues.’

It's the old 'more inside-baseball than thou' politico-snobbism. 'People will like our candidate for the ballsy stands he's always taking on the issues.  We're quite sure he believes courageous things, we think.' 

The email describes no issue position at all--but informs us of the campaign's most recent professional politico hire.  Another layer now separates the candidate from the people:  A postmodern achievement has occurred, or so we're supposed to perceive.

In crafting his public voice, in other words, Barnes aspires to an ideal of wooden partisan mediaspeak devoid of any originality or content.  Third District Democrats ought to request Barnes himself be the public voice of his campaign.

We Democrats have an obligation to strive for a substantive, issues-based campaign.  To that end, I ask readers to study Brian Barnes' stances on the issues: 

It's pure pabulum.

Brian Barnes claims to have had fifty supporters working on his behalf, within the recent precinct caucuses.  To Team Barnes I ask:

Can you please direct me to a single interesting paragraph that your candidate has ever published?   Please describe for me a single interesting idea, advocated by your candidate, ever.  I checked the website--and found none.

To Jeff Strate

I earnestly request the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party's backing to run against Rep. Erik Paulsen for Congress in 2012. 

One can receive the DFL endorsement by winning at the 4/28/12 congressional district convention or by winning the 8/14/12 primary.  When in nonalignment, the primary victor takes the endorsement.  Primary challenges rarely rattle the endorsed congressional candidate, in CD3.

I do not consider either route to the endorsement morally objectionable.  I plan to take my case to Third District primary voters, in mid-August.  If you think that's evil, I want to hear your opinion; please email me.

I am focusing on the issues:  I'm running for the US House because we're failing to notice the easiest solution to our nation's budgetary woes.

I am the sole candidate with a straightforward answer to our accounting crisis:  I want to reduce military spending to 1.5% of GDP. 

Currently we're spending 4.8% of GDP on our military.  I want to refocus America's military priority to defending the homeland from attack. 

Instead of spending $698 bn annually on our armed forces, I want to spend $219 bn. 

We will have to make many painful choices, as we fix America's long term balance sheet.  My proposal takes a giant leap in the right direction--and will reduce government spending by more than $4 tn over a decade.

The incumbent claims to be an advocate of limited government.  Should you encounter Rep. Erik Paulsen, please ask him for the name of the candidate in the present race who has called for $4 tn in government spending cuts.

American Spirit

When American adults gather, incoherent and false statements about American history are often warmly welcome, as signifiers of team membership. 

A favorite example of this commonplace phenomenon occurred after the 2010 Haitian earthquake, when Rep. Erik Paulsen issued the following statement:  'The American spirit of compassion has been shown throughout history during disasters such as this one.' 

I reminded Rep. Paulsen that many gigantic natural disasters have occurred without eliciting any discernable popular humanitarian response from our countrymen.  This shouldn't surprise us excessively:  Previous generations of Americans often identified quite little, for example, with Chinese flooding victims:  Americans themselves were often poor, undereducated, racist (or brutalized by the prevailing racism) and lacking in the sharable images that might spur communal action.

Most pre-Civil War white Americans did not consider participating supportively, within a slaveholding nation, to vex the conscience much.  The government-enabled land grabbing that displaced Native Americans disgusted very few whites.  Our aerial bombing of Vietnam resulted in massive civilian casualties--yet we often still speak of the Vietnam War as if it was our country which unfairly drew the short straw there.

In truth, the American spirit of compassion has often been shown to be non-existent.  We are fallible; we have often failed to assist the suffering--and have sometimes worked in league with promoters of injustice.  When failing to assist the suffering, we often erect convenient ideologies to explain away this or that group's right to make claims on our compassion.

When Rep. Paulsen lies about American history, it is odd that he expects constituents to thank him for it. 

During yesterday's hokey civility event, Kim Crockett asked the lofty superstition experts about a concern which occurred to her. I paraphrase:

Our country grew out of a great 18th century society built on the reality and ideal of limited government. As we now observe government grow and grow, shouldn't we be concerned that we might be losing that limited-government ethos upon which the country long flourished?

Do you think a random pre-Civil War African- or Native American would likely accept Ms. Crockett's assertion--that the society in which they lived could meaningfully be described as limited government? 

It would be likely they'd describe American society as 'evil in the extreme'--a government put in place to enable and protect unfairness and cruelty.  A system of government engineered to perpetuate the brutalization of two races by another.

We can and we ought to engage in ongoing discussion about the ideal size and scope of government.  We can do so without giving way to self-deceiving fantasies concerning colonial days--which were by no means characterized by 'limited government,' neutrally construed.

Dear Leith Anderson

This afternoon I attended another one of those elevated public discussions on civility.  Religious conservative Leith Anderson discourses first, followed by religious ultralib Peg Chemberlin, joined on stage by serious-seeming bipartisan worthies who occasionally feign sentience.

All participants blabber on, entirely missing the point; the packed Humph, flattered, laps it up.  Every person believes his own moral forte lies in adjudicating questions of civility.  It seems so easy; we fail to ask the most basic questions. 

Today's meeting is, in part, a ritualistic expression of disrespect for the non-religious:  Extremely gullible people make up the entire pool of morally serious adults, in Minnesota.  'Our leading Protestant ministers constitute our community's moral leaders,' goes the constipated meme.

At the lectern, Anderson praises his own supposed internet rectitude--he doesn't forward right-wing-nut emails and while he'll generally reply to inquiries, he stands on principle when it comes to bloggers--who can be disregarded, sight unseen.

The audience appears to embrace Anderson's cowardly anti-blogger libel.

It is not gentlemanly of you, Pastor, to assume ill intent simply because a statement gets expressed in a blog.  Some bloggers maintain high ethical standards; you happen to be dealing with one now.  If it is your view that any particular Eden Prairie citizen's voice must never be listened to, civility requires you to put forward the reasons for which you take your draconian stand. 

Unlike most people, you and I frequently advocate in the public arena.  An interesting difference:  Whenever I say anything, anybody is free to contradict me--communicating directly to my readers, explaining to them why I err.  But when people disagree with you, Pastor Anderson, you don't facilitate the spread of contradictory, critical opinions:  You suppress them.

For that reason, I sincerely ask:  What business do you have, speaking to me about civility?

Two Skeletons

My criminal history consists of two main items:

A DUI of more than a decade ago.  I'm embarrassed for what I did and agree that driving drunk is a serious crime.  I am sorry.

And:  In 2003, my ex-wife told the Edina police I had assaulted her.  Her allegation was false; the story she told the police was fortunately riddled with accidental truthfulness.  She admitted to the police that she initiated physical contact--pushing me--and that at no point did I ever strike her. 

In the mellifluously-named The State of Minnesota vs. Gavin Sullivan, the former was interpreting my ex-wife's statement to constitute positive evidence that I intended to cause her physical harm, but failed to do so. 

I am an extremely non-violent person, but the suggestion that I could intend to cause physical harm to my severely handicapped ex-wife but fail to do so--is itself a weird idea.

On the witness stand, my ex-wife admitted she took no position on my intentions during 'the assault'--during which no physical injury of any kind was being alleged.  It was a misdemeanor charge, I could have easily just paid a fine and been done with it.

At the end of four days in court, the jury took just a quarter of an hour to return not guilty.  It is a verdict of which every Minnesotan can be proud:  When you are accused of a crime and the prosecution cannot produce a single witness whose testimony supports the state's charge, a decent justice system ought to acquit you.

A TAND chat

Whiling away an hour at a local Starbucks this morning, TAND roused me from my Kindle, saying hi.  For a long time, Sheila Kihne was the go-to 'Reaganite' Eden Prairie blogger; she dropped the gig in May 2011.

During our chat, she tells me twice she views my attending Providence' Academy's 'open house' as okay.  Later she makes clear she thinks I violated some rule of decency, attending the event.  My attendance was legal but not okay.  She can't quite tell me why.  She's pissed.

Why do I adore her?

Providence Academy advertised in the newspaper that it was holding an open house.  The public, according to the advertisement, was invited.  I rsvp'd, telling the school's representative I had no child considering enrollment at Providence, I was simply a member of the community eager to learn more about the institution. 

My blogging on Providence led to dozens of comments--never including a claim that my open house attendance itself constituted some violation of etiquette.

During our talk, Sheila--wearing a Providence Academy jacket--makes clear she believes I singled out the school in order to attack her children.

I express an extremely mild level of indignation--and tell Kihne I have never had any prurient interest in any of my subjects, let alone their children.  She remains unconvinced; I nod my head in disbelief, that a grown adult could make such a bizarre, evidence-free accusation.

We move on to religion.  Sheila suggests I should consider attending Pax Christi, Eden Prairie's large Catholic church.  She says I'd like it--it's very liberal.

As an atheist, I sometimes feel less admiration for liberal Catholics than liberal Catholics think I'm supposed to.  The liberal Catholics I observe are quite spineless.  I'm not even sure an organization such as the Catholic Church can be reformed, it's so corrupt.  Edina's St. Patrick's--my church--has a significant ultralib contingent, but they really rock the boat quite little, and they're of no use to the open heretic.

Kihne then accuses me of obsessing my irreligion upon Catholicism.  In fact I have also excoriated Eden Prairie's megachurch Protestant ministers, Leith Anderson and Troy Dobbs. 

She then says I'm a hypocrite for not criticizing Islam.

In fact, I have a reason for choosing the targets I do.  I have a particular dislike of socially powerful religious institutions:  I want religion to stay out of public affairs.  I care a bit less about the powerless religious.

Further, Muslims in our community are often unfairly looked down upon, by the majority population.  I insist on making my anti-chauvinism clear, before informing Muslim acquaintances that I perceive all religion to be based in falsehood.

Less is a Bore

Perhaps you know by now:  I am a believer in that occasionally clichéd American concept, the 'citizen's campaign' for office.

A contest including two or more aspirants is usually preferable to one in which only a single candidate comes forward.  I consider it very welcome news, in CD3 political life, that John Howard is now challenging Rep. Erik Paulsen for the endorsement.  Howard has come forward in an attempt to communicate with Republicans that most of their thinking on global warming is without merit.

I have met twice with John Howard.  Judged fairly, his candidacy's success should be assessed by his ability to get Third District Republicans to embrace his liberal position on global warming--his central issue.  Difficultly, this project is a near-impossibility, short term:  Local Republicans are in the grip of an anti-intellectual, anti-science hysteria that does not at present appear responsive to rational thought.

Maybe John Howard knows something about getting elected that I don't.  If he surprises me, he'd without doubt be an improvement upon the incumbent.  I suspect he'll end up attracting no more that a small fraction of Republican primary voters, if indeed his name appears there.

Even if Howard gets creamed in the primary, Third District citizens benefit from his effort:  A small discussion will break out where otherwise none would have.  I hope Howard's presence requires Rep. Paulsen to clarify his public position on climate change.  Howard might perhaps bring to the attention of some Republicans that their views on this topic are ill-considered.

I detect an amount of political naïveté then, in Howard:  He appears to genuinely expect to be given a fair hearing, within his party--that primary voters will be rational and concentrate on the issues and choose him.  Excessive earnestness can at times cost one money; happily we benefit without cost.

Howard, who says he has minimal funding, told me he had a few publicity ideas.  He's had the community newspaper publish little notifications of his events, he has a cheapo flyer he hands out, he says he's working on getting Stephen Colbert to mention him.

John Howard and I resemble each other (as penniless-pest 'metacandidates'), though we're hugely different in many ways.  Howard's campaign does not appear to include a media-criticism wing, for example--and Howard sidesteps character entirely.  It's a topic upon which any successful candidate must have a few interesting things to say, IMHO.

 My free advice, to ambitious political nobodies:

A free blogger account is all the 2012 'citizen's candidate' really needs.  Start writing, several times a week, and tell us what's on your mind.  Respond to commenters.  Model civility for us.

When the candidate engages in regular blogging, citizens are in a far stronger position to participate and make rational appraisals.

Repeal the Second Amendment

During John Howard's event the other day, the candidate was asked for his position on gun rights.  Howard made plain he rejects the Supreme Court's Heller decision.  He believes that from an originalist position, the framers conceived of the Second Amendment as applying only to weapons far less lethal than those sold today.  Howard would have the Court allow reasonable restrictions on guns.

He again appears unaware just how unappealing he is, to average local Republicans--who include many Second Amendment lunatics.  Let me explain:

Two broad interpretations often occur to people, upon reading the Second Amendment:  The first thirteen words either restrict and contextualize the ensuing ones--or they are window dressing.  If we interpret the initial thirteen words as limiting the application of the rest, then a reasonable Supreme Court would allow governments to enact many restrictions on firearms ownership.

When I read the Second Amendment, then, it does not say what the Court interprets it to mean, in Heller.

Two plausible interpretations present themselves; one interpretation currently holds political power.  I should then work to see that no Republican gets to make a Supreme Court appointment:  Sooner or later the justices will have been reconstituted to the point that they'll be able to overturn Heller--and announce that governments can now only pass gun restrictions which do not hinder the good management of the United States Armed Forces.  ('They can do anything they damn well please,' i.e.)

Such a change in Supreme Court thinking would be welcome, though in the meantime I favor repeal of the Second Amendment.

Only 2% of constitutions, internationally, include Second Amendment-like guarantees.  When you list individual civil rights in a constitution, you're enumerating those rights essential for the flourishing of a just society.  We can't envision a reasonably-just society that doesn't allow freedom of assembly, speech, religion, etc, i.e.

In the presence of John Howard's captive audience (consisting of two right-wing Edina Republicans) I mentioned I lived for a long time in Taiwan--a country which had been under martial law for four decades when I arrived, in January 1987.  During my eight years in Taiwan, I saw the country move from right-wing dictatorship to something more and more resembling liberal democracy.

During martial law and now, firearms ownership in Taiwan was/is severely restricted.  Most people I met wanted firearms ownership to remain severely restricted.  Many people I met consider America's gun saturation our country's least attractive feature.

So I told the two Republicans, 'See?  Firearm rights are simply not a sine qua non of liberal democracy.'

One of the Republicans says that no--I have it wrong:  If those Taiwanese citizens had possessed enough guns, they never would have allowed the martial law to have been imposed in the first place.

The Gipper and The Generalissimo in Taipei in 1972

Under its lengthy one-party dictatorship, Taiwan's government enjoyed effusive love from the far conservative wing of America's Republican Party.  Contemporary Edina Republicans have radicalized to the point they now wish Barry Goldwater's friends in Taiwan had been shot dead, in other words.  No squishes they.

The other Republican delivers an impromptu speech explaining why Nazism itself could never have triumphed in Germany had private firearms ownership not been eliminated there.  I ask the man to cite a single prominent American historian who finds his thesis credible; he cannot produce any name.

We need the Second Amendment--the Republican says--so that we can fight the government if it goes too far.  'And a lot of reasonable people think it's already gone too far!'

In dealing with these GOP echo-chamber products, often you can just repeat what they've said back to them--and they can see how stupid they sound: 

"So when I don't like the decisions of the government, you believe I have the right to start shooting political leaders?"  "You believe we've already crossed into that situation, where killing politicians is justified?"  "Please describe how we will know when shooting government officials is okay."

Our Revolutionary Spirit

 

Your humble servant and John Howard, outside Starbucks

Three or four days ago, I saw in the Eden Prairie News that a young local candidate is now challenging Erik Paulsen within the Republican Party--centering his messaging upon global warming.

I don't think John Howard's call is likely to catch fire within the CD3 Republican ranks:  I don't see much intra-party dissension, over climate change, in the GOP.

That said, Howard is running--and submitted to taking coffee with me at an Eden Prairie Starbucks the other day.  Then this evening I attended his meet-and-greet at the Edina Davanni's.  One can certainly hope him well; he's a very nice guy.  He caught that elite private liberal arts college good citizenship yen, is all.

Howard's job has something to do with wind energy; he lives with his parents (big supporters) in Eden Prairie.  A somewhat mildly-committed Episcopalian, he doesn't much have an opinion on abortion--and he doesn't want to axe Obamacare, though he would do away with the individual mandate.  He doesn't object when reminded that once Obamacare takes full effect, tens of millions of Americans will then have medical insurance who otherwise wouldn't--often due to subsidies.

Howard would not support any change in Obamacare that would result in a significant reduction in the numbers of citizens with health insurance. 

He's good at table tennis.

The Davanni's event had been announced somewhere, though I learned of it from a friendly post-coffee follow-up email, from the candidate.  Three Republicans showed up, in addition to Howard's parents and me.  One left soon after the event started.  We then soon learn the two remaining Republicans attendees are conservative Republicans, both strong disbelievers in the scientific consensus on global warming.

Observing Howard straight in the path of strong climate change nay-sayers, he does not exhibit any special gift in bringing them to his side.  We must allow that Howard participates within a political party that celebrates scientific stupidity.  The two normal, 50ish, suburban conservative Republican men I observe this evening object to attaching any importance to 'scientific consensuses,' full stop.  One of the men--a non-scientist--presents himself as a worthy appraiser of peer-reviewed scientific articles.

In the case of global warming, huge evidence has been suppressed--the two rightists instruct us--and there is a lack of academic freedom within university climate-science faculties.  The climate scientists are acting in their own selfish economic self-interest, twisting findings to please their socialistic paymasters.  Big Science is just as corrupt as Congress.

That's the mindset Howard has to deal with.  The two conservative Republican men--who display momentary charm, here and there--eventually seize upon 'the best idea' in Howard's lit piece:  To reduce the federal deficit by 5% each year.  Howard, who gives little evidence of investing curiosity in the topic of economic theory--reaffirms his support for this ill-considered proposal.

Howard attended the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa. The candidate's heart is clearly focused upon one issue. 

The classic, always within-bounds question for the congressional candidate:  What do you want to do to get this economy humming again?  Howard wants to start instituting cuts in government spending, trimming the fat and the fraud.  He doesn't think an immediate, dramatic reduction in government spending would have any negative economy-wide repercussions.  His discussion of 'the nation's economic troubles' itself quickly segues to climate change.

Howard is a friendly and welcome addition to the Hail Mary pass segment of the political scene.  He says he hasn't received any hate from Paulsen supporters, though the challenger is quick to point out he makes no ethics-based critique of the congressman.  ('That's too bad,' a blogger must somewhere be thinking.)

During our coffee Howard mentions he'd glanced at my blog prior to our sit-down--and tells me he accepts my position, concerning running in primaries. 

Howard mentions repeatedly:  He's running in the primary.

Your Smile Forms Part of Our Work

I attended my Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party precinct caucus this evening.  Even a stickered-up Brian Barnes supporter couldn't have been more neighborly.  I had feared some emotional head-cracking but in fact people greeted me with the same attitude they'd greet any other person who, according to the CW, has no chance of getting the party's endorsement. 

That was about the least bloodthirsty of the various possible psychic stances my opponents might take, this evening--in my pregame psychoanalysis--so all is well.

Our nation is at present facing severe economic challenges.  We're in a delicate, slow-growing economy--and I understand President Obama's reluctance to reduce government spending before sustained growth returns.  In other words, I don't agree with Erik Paulsen--who believes a contractionary fiscal policy would increase growth immediately.

To increase our economic growth in the long-term, we must steeply reduce military spending. 

As someone who once supported both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, I reflect with considerable self-reproach for the grave damage to innocent people these two foreign policy errors brought forth.  Having gigantic, globally-deployable armed forces tempts each successive US President to use it. 

We'll actually be safer, in my view, with a much smaller military. 

I've specified that when I call for a reduced military budget, by this I mean getting it under 1.5% of GDP--when it's currently at 4.7%, or so.

Vietnam and Iraq, which each entailed mindbending human suffering, dramatically diminished America's moral authority in the world.  In the future we must be far more circumspect with the use of our nation's military--and we must warn Israel not to engage in reckless cross-border aggression.

Looking back upon the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars with regret, sorrow and remorse should be considered among the most obvious sane emotional dispositions, when we discuss these episodes in the public square. 

Our ostensible obsession with heroism--when we discuss our military's impact, over there--draws attention to the seldom-acknowledged moral abyss most people in the region view to be our country's legacy there.

Various Paradoxes

When a person puts himself forward as a congressional candidate, he often feels required to speak of himself in a weirdly self-worshipful tone.

One fundamental lesson I've learned from blogging is that over time, local writers veer in the direction of party-line team-playing, often losing any semblance of independent thinking.  For some odd reason that didn't happen to me.

Once you become a made member of the local PC lefty club, for example, you're socially rewarded for wording criticisms of team-enemies in groundlessly personalistic terms, vilifying dissenters over picayune differences, implicitly banning intra-group criticism--in the soulless political-hack tradition.

When I read local bloggers denounce this or that person's moral character I often identify underlying toadying agendas.  I learned this lesson the hard way, being myself--extremely falsely--personally attacked by a talentless buffoon.  It reinforced within me that painful but valuable lesson:  To distrust prevailing waves in public sentiment--which are so often clouded by self-deceiving emotional needs.

Civility dictates:  We should assume the best in others and move on to issues-based discussions.  To be a good citizen necessarily entails the intention to disregard debunked claims when forming character assessments.

Looking at America's long-term fiscal position, we may well identify opportunities for increasing efficiency and accountability in government--and saving money--though during this election we will be remiss if we don't say out loud the name of the primary government department from which king-sized cuts will have to come.  Long-term, we should reduce our military outlay to under 1.5% of GDP.  In other words, I strongly believe America is capable of defending itself for approximately the same amount other comparable economies now do.

I have put a controversial policy proposition on the table.  As always, I welcome civil dialog in the comments--and can rarely resist replying.  One of my central values:  I facilitate upright disputation; I'm aware people feel strongly about their various candidate and issues priorities.  Recognizing this, I have always stridently affirmed:  We are capable of having a good-willed, serious, adult, public, not excessively polite discussion. 

Wouldn't it be cool if other candidates embraced this commonsensical, friendly starting-point?

The Hippler Question

To prepare me for the debate later this month, a reader just sent Creationism 'alive and well' in Minnesota biology classes, by Beth Hawkins, published in MinnPost a year ago.

To be clear, we are going to debate the following question:

Does Darwinian evolution undermine moral claims of conscience?

Charles Darwin was perhaps the greatest scientist of the 19th century--and an elegant and companionable writer.  His insights have been superseded and corrected in certain areas, which is no devastating criticism of Darwin; he couldn't possibly have been expected to get everything right:  Even the best scientists may err, given cultural baggage and their particular epoch's toolkit.  So let us be clear:  I defend evolution; contemporary biology is not in sync with Darwin on all points.

What 'moral claims of conscience' would we now embrace were we unaware of evolution?  Our answer would much depend on which culture we came from and/or which religion we'd received.  It isn't easy to imagine modernity without Darwinism.

When confronted with the truthfulness of evolution, many religious people have reacted negatively--and have suppressed it as an affront to their primary historical claims.  Others have argued evolution does not undermine their 'claims of conscience' at all.  (The perspectives of many lie between these extremes, of course.)

As an atheist I am entirely allowed to feel ambivalent on this question:  As a practical matter we observe considerable division, among believers, as to whether evolution's truthfulness presents a threat to 'religion's credibility.'

It appears Providence Academy does not adhere to any coherent perspective on evolution.  Some Providence students have commented that they have been instructed about evolution--while others have expressed disdain for the topic.  Providence's breathtakingly dishonest headmaster, for example, is an open anti-evolutionist. 

I surmise Providence teachers feel safest telling students that they can believe what they choose--that rejecting evolution is an honorable option.

When an educational institution instructs students that they can accept or reject evolution, depending upon their own opinions, an error occurs.  Schools do not ask students to reflect upon their intuitions to determine whether cigarette smoking harms health.  When a student argues cigarette smoking enhances health, an ethical educator should tell him he's wrong.

A respect for academic freedom does not require allowing teenagers to decide for themselves whether cigarette smoking is dangerous.  When a teacher implicitly communicates to students that scientific truths are just a matter of opinion--and students are free to adopt whichever views they like--education fails.

Prior to befriending Dr. Arthur Hippler, I sat in on a brief, small-group session during which he introduced Providence Academy's approach to religious instruction to prospective students and their parents. During the Q&A, a dad asked Dr. Hippler to reassure him that the school does not teach 'evolution is true.'

Dr. Hippler issued a vague reply designed to set the man at ease.  He did not state the school has a policy of telling students 'evolution is true.'  He let the father know that the school respects all manner of magical caveat--limiting evolution's implications and scope--and that no popular criticism of evolution is explicitly rejected at Providence.

Some Christian believers assert that the bible is inerrant.  (Eden Prairie's two largest Protestant congregations both embrace 'biblical inerrancy' on their websites.)  While seemingly reality-delimiting, biblical inerrancy is a deceptively elastic ideology:  Biblical language is often elliptical, allusive and metaphorical.  Even at the far-right end--at Eden Prairie's Grace Church (where Rick Santorum will speak tomorrow) a wide range of opinion prevails among congregants.

Some hold one can be a Christian while viewing the bible as nothing but metaphor and inspiring story.

So the shape of the debate depends hugely on what Dr. Hippler discloses as his own and his school's considered views on these questions.  If he believes in evolution--and believes evolution in no way diminishes his faith claims--we might then ask why he didn't say so, when the question was put to him directly, at the Open House.

The Beth Hawkins piece, mentioned up at the top of today's post, is interesting, and suggests many Minnesota students are being taught creationism in their biology classrooms--and perhaps Catholic schools are less wed to such error than are other institutions.  (As an atheist Catholic my heart swells!)  Certainly an interesting finding--though not having any obvious implication for our debate question--or am I overlooking something?

Replying to John Lundbeck

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my site.

My blog is somewhat unusual:  I comment on a very wide variety of issues, people and events.  I frequently defend unpopular viewpoints.  My comments section remains uncensored.  I don't engage in cheap shots.  I let the people I criticize have full access to my readers--so that they can respond as they wish.

While a Democrat, I frequently criticize people across the ideological spectrum.  I am not a team player.

My commentary is permanently banned (due to its unfair excess in persuasiveness) on the websites of Sheila Kihne and Jeff Fecke, two widely-read Minnesota blogs that stretch from the far right to the progressive left.

Prof. Jessica Pieklo of Hamline University organized feminist bloggers to ostracize me--with notable success--and enlisted her local police department to silence me.  I have on occasion expressed outrage over the inanity published by the Minnesota Progressive Project.

I am the most independent political blogger in the Twin Cities, bar none.

Congressman Erik Paulsen had his goons eject me from a political convention to which I had been welcomed.  The next day, Michael Brodkorb--much to his credit--telephoned me, profusely apologizing for Congressman Paulsen's incivility.

The two local, Eden Prairie papers published numerous articles about an Eden Prairie aviator who died in a fatal Osprey crash in Afghanistan.  When the Air Force released its report, blaming pilot error and negligence for the disaster, I published the dismal news.  To this day I remain the sole Eden Prairie media outlet that has published this information.

In fact-gathering for one post, I was robbed by a cop, while an Eden Prairie Police officer observed with approval.  When a popular Chanhassen priest was run out of town for purchasing a blow in a St. Paul park, he had one defender.

I criticize religious thinking--generally focusing my broadsides against the smuggest and most socially powerful.  I have invited many clerics out for coffee; half a dozen or so have accepted--and we discussed the strengths and weaknesses of believing nonsense (viewed from one party's perspective).

At 2 PM on Saturday, February 25, 2012, I will publicly debate Providence Academy's Dr. Arthur Hippler at the Ridgedale Library--on 'Evolution and Morality.'  There will not be a free seat, I assure you.

I read every single comment that gets submitted to this website--and respond whenever possible.  I make a serious effort to listen respectfully to people who do not share my views.

So when you refer to my mindset, John, I have no idea what you mean.  Do you have some record of citizen-pundit sleuthing you'd like to bring to my attention, so that I might compare your work to my own?

If you believe there is a single idea I repeat too often, why do you not provide several quotations, so as to back up your claim?

I have never said evolution is the answer to everything--or anything similar.  My position is plain:  I'm not sure studying evolution is going to solve any of our moral problems.

As you might know, I am an atheist--a person who sees no credible evidence for the existence of god.  As such, when there's a question to which I don't have the answer, I feel no reason to put forward magical mumbo jumbo.  I'd prefer to find the truth.

I am not a physicist, nor am I au fait with contemporary origin-of-the-universe theorizing.  I am not tempted to adopt any Iron Age third-hand story-telling to get the answer.  I'd prefer to listen to people like Lawrence Krauss--serious scientists whose views are based upon observation, facts and rationality, not superstition.