Walla Walla Bing Bang

In the 47-page essay that makes up the first third of her short book For The New Intellectual, Ayn Rand makes much use of two archetypal terms coined by Nathaniel Branden. Two kinds of human, one a figure of force and the other a figure of faith.

For a completely slanted (and often vitriolic) summary of the history of philosophy, FTNI is an interesting read. It was with good reason that a friend of mine once remarked, "Miss Rand should always be read with one eyebrow permanently raised." But even if it's not much good for anything else, the essay makes great use of the two archetypes played against each other, and against mankind. The rubric used lends a compelling perspective to certain cultural trends, both throughout history and in the present.

So, the archetypes. The first is called Atilla. This is the psychological symbol of blunt might, of violence as the solution to all problems, of destruction of one's enemies as an ideal. The second is called the Witch Doctor. This is the human who eschews reality, who retreats "into his emotions, into visions of some mystic realm where his wishes enjoy a supernatural power unlimited by the absolute of nature." They might seem like polar opposites, but Rand plays them as two sides of the same coin. Both are interested in forcing reality to conform to their desires; and while Atilla strives for physical conquest, the Witch Doctor seeks to rule the soul. The muscle of Atilla can take purpose from the values of the Witch Doctor, and in turn the Witch Doctor gains protection from and power over "any recalcitrant who may choose to challenge his authority." Rand plays both as the enemies of reason, and as proponents of the precept that wishes are superior to reality.

From page 17:

Since the clash [between reality and wishes] is constant, the Witch Doctor's solution is to believe that what he perceives is another, "higher" reality―where his wishes are omnipotent, where contradictions are possible and A is non-A, where his assertions, which are false on earth, become true and aquire the status of a "superior" truth which he perceived by means of a special faculty denied to other, "inferior," beings. The only validation of his consciousness he can obtain on earth is the belief and the obedience of others, when they accept his "truth" as superior to their own perception of reality. While Atilla extorts their obedience by means of a club, the Witch Doctor obtains it by means of a much more powerful weapon: he pre-empts the field of morality.

There is no way to turn morality into a weapon of enslavement except by divorcing it from man's reason and from the goals of his own existence. There is no way to degrade man's life on earth except by the lethal opposition of the moral and the practical. Morality is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions; when it is set to oppose his own life and mind, it makes him turn against himself and blindly act as the tool of his own destruction. There is no way to make a human being accept the role of a sacrificial animal except by destroying his self-esteem. There is no way to destroy his self-esteem except by making him reject his own consciousness. There is no way to make him reject his own consciousness except by convincing him of its impotence.

The damnation of this earth as a realm where nothing is possible to man but pain, disaster and defeat, a realm inferior to another, "higher," reality; the damnation of all values, enjoyment, achievement and success on earth as a proof of depravity; the damnation of man's mind as a source of pride, and the damnation of reason as a "limited," deceptive, unreliable, impotent faculty, incapable of perceiving the "real" reality and the "true" truth; the split of man in two, setting his consciousness (his soul) against his body, and his moral values against his own interest; the damnation of man's nature, body and self as evil; the commandment of self-sacrifice, renunciation, suffering, obedience, humility and faith, as the good; the damnation of life and the worship of death, with the promise of rewards beyond the grave―these are the necessary tenets of the Witch Doctor's view of existence, as they have been in every variant of Witch Doctor philosophy throughout the course of mankind's history.

The secret of the Witch Doctor's power lies in the fact that man needs an integrated view of life, a philosophy, whether he is aware of his need or not―and whenever, through ignorance, cowardice, or mental sloth, men choose not to be aware of it, their chronic sense of guilt, uncertainty and terror makes them feel that the Witch Doctor's philosophy is true.

In contemplating such forceful rhetoric, I think of our culture and the tag-team of the Religious Right and the Republican party over the past couple decades. It isn't a perfect match for Rand's perspective in the early 1960's, but in some ways it fits remarkably well. Perhaps where I differ from Rand's formulation is in my questioning of whether the two archetypical characters must necessarily be joined as a team. To wit: what happens if Atilla and the Witch Doctor are no longer able to get along?

My current hypothesis is that, should the tag-team continue to be stressed by Giuliani's leading in most polls, and should the stress be maximized if/when Giuliani wins the nomination, and if that were to result in the evangelical/fundamentalist "base" of the conservative party actually refusing to vote for Giuliani because of their myopic view of a few social issues, we will see two things happen. One, the Democratic candidate will win the White House; and two, the tag-team of religious conservatives and the Republican party will be (permanently?) damaged, perhaps dissolved. If our culture and our discourse and our politics can all three step together into the 21st Century to join the rest of Western civilization, the modern Republican party might only remain relevant to the extent that it marginalizes the evangelical/fundamentalist block that it has so long courted. We may very well be staring at the cusp of a political and cultural shift as it is about to happen, with the result being that we finally escape some of the ancient social taboos that we've so long been shackled to.

Spook Country

"The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel."

Thus Gibson began his first novel, twenty-three years ago. About 2,173 pages later, he gives us the following...

Milgrim had never been one for metaphysics, but. . . .this text was starting to reveal the pleasure to be had from metaphysical contemplation. Particularly if you were contemplating these Free Spirit guys, who seemed to have been a combination of Charlie Manson and Hannibal Lecter.
And insofar as everything was equally of God, they taught, those who were most in touch with the Godness in every last thing would make it a point to do anything at all, particularly anything still forbidden by those who hadn't yet gotten the Free Spirit message. To which end they went around having sex with anybody they could get to hold still for it, or not, as the case might be—rape being viewed as particularly righteous, and murder equally so. It was like a secret religion of mutually empowered sociopaths, and Milgrim thought it was probably the gnarliest single example of human behavior he'd ever heard of. Someone like Manson, for instance, simply wouldn't have been able to get any traction, had he landed among the brothers and sisters of the Free Spirit. Probably, Milgrim guessed, Manson would've hated it. What good would it be to be Charlie Manson in a whole society of serial killers and rapists, each one convinced that he or she was directly manifesting the Holy Spirit?
But the other aspect of the Free Spirit that fascinated him, and this applied to the whole text, was how these heresies would get started, often spontaneously generating around some single medieval equivalent of your more outspoken homeless mumbler. Organized religion, he saw, back in the day, had been purely a signal-to-noise proposition, at once the medium and the message, a one-channel universe. For Europe, that channel was Christian, and broadcasting from Rome, but nothing could be broadcast faster than a man could travel on horseback. There was a hierarchy in place, and a highly organized methodology of top-down signal dissemination, but the time lag enforced by tech-lack imposed a near-disastrous ratio, the noise of heresy constantly threatening to overwhelm the signal.

It surprised me, as I progressed through the novel, that Milgrim ended up being one of the main vehicles of step-by-step commentary on interesting subjects not intrinsically tied to the plot of the book. I didn't guess him for that type of character, early on in the story.

Blog Against Theocracy

So the next couple days are Blog Against Theocracy weekend. There's a neat website called First Freedom First (which has lots of interesting information, a great petition you can sign in seconds, and some pretty neat t-shirts), which is how I found out about the blogswarm.

I've touched on a few subjects related to this in some past posts. I mentioned neo-Fundamentalism and religiously-based discrimination back in October, and religious bigotry's presence in the voting booth back in November. And last August on my other blog, I wrote about separation of church and state in the public school system.


But in celebration of Blog Against Theocracy weekend, I thought I'd take a different approach. It seems to me that the general issue here (theocracy = bad; separation of church and state = good) is pretty obvious, and should be almost automatically agreed upon by all reasonable people. I mean, you don't hear almost any Americans, Christian or not, Republican or not, defending the wonderfulness of concepts like militant Islam or Sharia law. When we, as a culture, look out on the world and see laws or cultural rules that have no basis at all outside of faith-based religious commitment, we don't think twice about the inherent idiocy and intrinsic unfairness of such systems. For example, we do not hesitate to question and criticize the severe oppression of women, up to and including rigid (and often violently enforced) dress codes (such as Taliban-mandated Burqas) and barbaric punishment, reminiscent of the Old Testament and the Inquisitions, for breaking the rules.

When it comes right down to it, in our culture 100% of us seem to agree that religious discrimination is wrong, while a full half of us then turn around and embrace it fully when it agrees with our own religiosity. How does this, in so many of our minds, not trip the breaker of intellectual consistency? How can so many in our nation affirm that theocratic public policy is wrong in other cultures and religions, while gladly (and hypocritically) embracing it in their own?

One of the great things about our country is that people are free, within certain constraints of course, to believe what they want. So if a person wants to have a view of certain topics (such as politics in general, or homosexuality in particular) that is decided solely by their religious faith, they can. But another one of the great things about our country is that just because you have a religious belief about a certain subject, that doesn't mean that I have to believe it too. And it is this, precisely, that seems to be the trouble lately. An astonishing number of people in our country seem to have come to believe that their religious faith is, all by itself, a good enough reason to make rules and laws that discriminate against and deny the rights of others. Somehow the idea that a religious opinion only shared by some should then be forced on all others (others that perhaps prefer to have opinions that are informed by more than faith-based commitment to ancient religion) has avoided the criticism it so richly deserves, in a startling amount of our population.

So the question becomes, why? If we as a culture want to make laws that declare something wrong and illegal, like rape or fraud, for example, we should be able to give many sound reasons why. Not surprisingly, we find that this is exactly what we have done. Grand theft auto is not illegal because a minority religious viewpoint desires it to be. It's illegal because we, as a society, have used our reasoning minds to figure out what things we don't want people to be doing, with the general principle of freedom in mind to constrain us. We allow individuals to pursue their individual freedom and happiness, up to the point where such pursuit would infringe on the rights of other individuals. What this means is that if a group of religious people, small or large, wants there to be a certain law, they must be expected to give sound reasons why. In the absence of good reasons and in the presence of statements like "I just believe" or "my holy book says," it should be exquisitely clear that theocratic rules that discriminate against others based on nothing but religious conviction should be dismissed as worthless. No Christian would want to be told how to live their life based on the faith of a different religion. It is high time that our society leaves theocracy and religious bigotry behind us, back in the dark ages where it belongs.

(If you would also like to participate in Blog Against Theocracy weekend, click on over to the home page to find out what to do and how to let them know you're involved in the blogswarm.)

Sam Harris on the radio

A certain Sam Harris wrote a small book recently, a sequel of sorts to a larger one from two years before.

A radio show that I like then proceeded to have Mr. Harris on for the first half of a two-part series on religion and public policy. During his interview, Harris explains his position and reasoning regarding politics and religion. In the second half, two clergymen are interviewed in order to represent an opposing perspective. (Note: radio-haters or YouTube addicts may prefer the other Sam Harris links at the bottom of this entry.)

You can listen to the first half, with Sam Harris, by going here.

You can then listen to the second half, with Pastor Russell Johnson and Reverend Timothy McDonald, by going here.

Read no further if you want to have the opportunity to listen to the series without the influence of my opinion. After listening to both sides for yourself and considering them thoughtfully (hopefully without my comments introducing bias), you can then read the following for my take......

First, some comments on the second half of the series.

Pastor Johnson was incredibly frustrating to listen to. For instance, the host has a very hard time getting him to actually answer questions as they are asked. So much so that she actually re-asks one or two questions at least three different times, which still results in Johnson refusing to give a direct and honest answer. He uses the word "candidly" so many times it becomes humorous. Then he uses it even more and it becomes insane (and makes him sound just plain dumb).

Pastor Johnson displays a constant misunderstanding of the issues Sam Harris has raised: he consistently gives misdirected answers, and relies almost exclusively on the same fundamentalist rhetoric that Harris is trying to criticize. Somebody even chuckles at him around the 22:08 mark.

Pastor McDonald is a bit more sensible. He criticizes rigid literalism and the extreme religious right, pointing out that such a position has always resulted in harm in the past. He is also critical of the present problem of religious belief that tries to impose laws that discriminate against the freedom of individual people.

But McDonald's responses have their own set of problems. He too is unable to actually respond directly to several questions raised by Sam Harris. One defense he offers is that moderate Christians can act as a check-and-balance against fundamentalist Christians. But this defense doesn't seem an adequate answer, in light of the actual issues raised by Harris concerning moderates actually helping foster the problem of fundamentalist religion. McDonald also claims, boldly but ignorantly, that atheism is a religion. He is also quite wrong in his attempt to make the defenders of religious liberty (and the separation of church and state) seem identical to Christians who want to legislate their "morality" across the board, forcing those who do not share their belief to obey their edicts. The two positions are distinctly different (diametrically opposed, even), and both he and Johnson are apparently blind to the difference.

The few people who call into the show during the second interview are, well... Their contribution to the discussion speaks for itself.

Now, to quickly comment on the first half.

Harris' comments, introducing the thrust of his books and summarizing a few points from them, are succinct and cogent. He's clearly prepared to give short and understandable explanations that both answer the question(s) raised and invite the listener to read his book to view the entire argument. He even deals well with Mrs. Martin's somewhat sloppy interview.

For a shorter chat with Harris that aired a few days earlier and on a different NPR program, click here; for yet another program's short report from a few weeks later, click here (both are handled more professionally than the interview by Mrs. Martin). However, if you're interested in a longer and more sustained presentation (or if you're just more visually inclined), you can click here to watch Harris talking at ideaCity for about 19 minutes, or you can watch his lecture at the NYSEC (click right here for part 1 of 4).

What do you think:
After having listened to the two-part radio series, what are your thoughts? What are your reactions to the issues Harris raises? Are you satisfied with the answers given during part two? Or, if you watched the videos instead (or listened to a different radio clip), what is your response? If you choose to be generous enough to take the time to respond, please specify which radio/video clip you're talking about..

The Autumn Reading Summary (part 1)

Pindar said: "Mistress of high achievement, O lady Truth, do not let my understanding stumble across some jagged falsehood."

In between the time I've been spending reading my sociology and geoscience textbooks, I've found a bit of time (every now and then) to read for enjoyment and personal interest. Here are a few excerpts that I found particularly interesting...

First, I've been reading a bit of Plato. Specifically, several of his dialogues of Socrates. All of the following quotes (except one) are thus Plato's account of what Socrates said.

From Euthyphro, "Consider this question: is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved?" This question of yours, Socrates, has been named the "Euthyphro dilemma," and ever since you asked it more than 2,400 years ago, it has been running philosophers and theologians around in circles. I'm mildly annoyed that I was 26 years old before I came across it..

In Phaedo, Simmias says, "[That idea] appealed to me, without any proof to support it, as being based on plausible analogy; which is why most people find it attractive. But I realize that theories which rest their proof upon plausibility are imposters, and unless you are on your guard, they deceive you properly, both in geometry and everywhere else." He has a good point there, Socrates. And he voices this insight right in the middle of a conversation in which you clearly demonstrate man's ability to prop up quite ridiculous beliefs by all means of dubious "proof." That's ironic, in my opinion.

From Meno, "...true opinions...are not worth much until you fasten them up with the reasoning of cause and effect." Quite true, Socrates, but good luck convincing most people of that.

To which Socrates might reply, "But my dear Crito, why should we pay so much attention to what 'most people' think? The really reasonable people, who have more claim to be considered, will believe that the facts are exactly as they are." I don't think I can disagree with you there.

From Phaedo, "You know how, in an argument, people who have no real education care nothing for the facts of the case, and are only anxious to get their point of view accepted by the audience?" I think I know just what you mean, Socrates...

Second, in keeping with my occasional habit of science reading just before bed (previously Stephen Hawking, or Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy), I've started reading The Whole Shebang. It was written by Timothy Ferris, and so far it is quite good. From the preface:

"Religious systems are inherently conservative, science inherently progressive."

And...

"Scientific findings, even the most imposing ones, customarily stumble into the world fraught with blunders that have to be worked out before they really begin to fly. They lack the satisfying, thunderclap certitude of religious and pseudoscientific dicta that admit to no error. But they are alive, and the withering of one branch of a theory does not necessarily mean that the theory as a whole is doomed."

That second sentence is a truly impressive sequence of words. It reminds me a bit of some of the text that I plan to share in part two of my autumn reading summary, which I will hopefully post soon.

The Summer Reading Summary

Among the joys of married life, I've found time recently to get some reading done. Here's a glance at what I've enjoyed so far.

Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility by Dewey M. Beegle

This was one of those accidental and exciting finds you sometimes come across while browsing through a rummage shop of old odds and ends - antiques, used furniture, miscellaneous books. After starting to read through parts of it, imagine my surprise when I realized that along with McKinsey, Beegle is the main target of all of the inerrancy reading I've done for classes at college. Of course, my schooling tells me that these two men are scoundrels - how dare they question inerrancy, let alone have the audacity to list case after case where errancy is proven. Beegle's text is lucid, and he cogently presents individual cases as well as he summarizes general problems, such as the New Testament's heavy reliance on the (often wrongly translated) Septuagint when quoting from the Old. Later, in reflecting on results, he wrote...

"From beginning to end, history warns us that theological Maginot lines or fences fail to achieve their purpose. Not only do they fail to protect, but they also restrict the outreach of the truth being guarded. This is the ultimate tragedy of all legalism."

Later, in explaining the authoritarian reasoning behind inerrancy, he quotes James Smart:

"Doctrines and practices soundly based on an infallible Scripture could not be subject to any essential change. There could be no error in them. Thus has man in different ages used Scripture to establish his own or his own human church's authority over men."

The Dharma Bums by Jack Kerouac

Buddhist philosophy, hitchhiking, and living out of a rucksack as Kerouac wanders 1950's West Coast America. I laughed at his recounting of a time when he was living in a small shack with his friend, a shack that neighborhood kids thought was abandoned. The kids snuck up to the tiny house to peek inside, but just then Kerouac opened the door while holding a big black cat and said "I am the ghost." The kids were quite frightened, ran away and didn't return.

Towards the end of the book, describing time he spent as a fire lookout on Desolation Peak in Washington state, you will find one of my favorite parts of the story.

"Standing on my head before bedtime on that rock roof of the moonlight I could indeed see that the earth was truly upsidedown and man a weird vain beetle full of strange ideas walking around upsidedown and boasting, and I could realize that man remembered why this dream of planets and plants and Plantagenets was built out of the primordial essence. ...But let the mind beware, that though the flesh is bugged, the circumstances of existence are pretty glorious."

Situation Ethics: The New Morality by Joseph Fletcher

The strength of this text lies in it's attempt at systematic destruction of two other kinds of ethics - legalism and antinomianism. Early in the book, he wrote:

"[Plain legalism] may reveal a punishing and sadistic use of law to hurt people instead of helping them. How else explain burning at the stake in the Middle Ages for homosexuals (death by stoning, in the Old Testament)? Even today [1966] imprisonment up to sixty years is the penalty in one state for those who were actually consenting adults, without seduction or public disorder! This is really unavoidable whenever law instead of love is put first..."

Later, two small points that Fletcher makes are of large importance in my mind. The first is the simple (and fully adequate) response to reactionary arguments such as the "slippery slope" and "abuse of freedom" tacts. Simply: Abusus non tollit usum - abuse does not bar use. Second, he questions the ubiquitous maxim "the end does not justify the means." To this oft-assumed statement he asks: then what does? What else but the end could justify the means? Certainly, he makes sure to be clear that the ends do not justify any old means we can think of, but in the final analysis his reasoning is compelling: if means are not justified by their intended end, then they are not good means.

In a shorter dose, I also recently read an excellent article (and subsequent discussion) concerning bad religion. It was written by Mark Isaak and is called "The Larger Issue of Bad Religion." You may find it interesting.

My intention now is to read yet another book. This time, a book by some silly scientist named Stephen Hawking, called "I know more than everybody."