The Dark Secret of "The Secret"

I haven’t spent a lot of time talking about The Secret - the best-selling book which combines self-help, New Age principles, and a small dose of quantum science (although I’ve posted a few thoughts here and here). But whatever I say about The Secret won’t compete with Anthony Sacramone’s brutal takedown on the book’s philosophy (see here). Ouch.

A Double Standard?

On Wednesday, a white supremacist named James von Brunn opened fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., killing a security guard. As David Klinghoffer points out, von Brunn's online manifestos used evolutionary theory to defend his racist views.

Personally, I've been reluctant to mention the link between von Brunn and evolutionary theory because...well...based on what I've read so far, it seems that evolutionary theory wasn't central to his racism and nihilism (in the way it was for, say, Adolf Hitler or the Columbine Killers). Even so, Klinghoffer makes an important point about how the media has covered the case so far which has implications for the Darwinism/I.D. debate...

"For those who objected to my post yesterday quoting Holocaust Museum shooting suspect James von Brunn on the role of evolutionary doctrine, however distorted, in his rationale for racism, let me ask you a question. Try this thought experiment. If in his crazed manifesto he had somehow found support for his thinking not in evolution but in intelligent design, do you think we would have heard nothing about it from the media as in fact we've heard nothing (except from me) about his evolutionary thoughts? What if he had based his hate explicitly on Biblical literalist creationism? Or on Roman Catholicism? Or Evangelical Protestantism? Or Orthodox Judaism? Would that similarly have been hushed up?"

The question answers itself.

-Todd

Weekly Wrap-Up

David Warren on the Scandal of Darwinism: "The scandal is that the most primitive unicellular organisms discoverable on this planet are already monstrously complex, and already require genomic instructions that could fill telephone directories. Under some circumstances I'm willing to be a putz, & say, 'yes, that's the product of trial and error, & it just happened to work out nicely,' but this is too much for me. I am simply not capable of credulity on that scale."


Denise O'Leary on the Metaphysics of Dog Breeding: "Darwinism predicts that there are no taxonomic limits to variation. However, every breeding experiment of the last 100 years that attempts to see how far variation can go (E. coli, drosophila, etc.) always encounters limits beyond which further change is not possible. Thus, the fundamental prediction of Darwinian theory has been consistently falsified in a century's worth of experimental testing. Dog breeding, itself, encounters these limits...The bottom line is that dog breeding, and the observed limits to variation within dogs, falsifies the most important prediction of Darwinian theory."


Robert Higgs on "The Trouble with Science:" "Researchers who employ unorthodox methods or theoretical frameworks have great difficulty under modern conditions in getting their findings published in the 'best' journals or, at times, in any scientific journal. Scientific innovators or creative eccentrics always strike the great mass of practitioners as nutcases – until their findings become impossible to deny, which often occurs only after one generation's professional ring-masters have died off. Science is an odd undertaking: everybody strives to make the next breakthrough, yet when someone does, he is often greeted as if he were carrying the Ebola virus. Too many people have too much invested in the reigning ideas; for those people an acknowledgment of their own idea's bankruptcy is tantamount to an admission that they have wasted their lives. Often, perhaps to avoid cognitive dissonance, they never admit that their ideas were wrong. Most important, as a rule, in science as elsewhere, to get along, you must go along."


Barry Arrington Explains “My Views in a Nutshell:” A good 5-minute summary of why I.D. is superior to Darwinism.

Quote of the Day

A surprisingly honest statement by Richard Lewontin, an evolutionary biologist.

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Is Reality Real?

In this Uncommon Descent post, Barry Arrington expresses his support for the first tenet of Spiritual Rationalism, which is that “Reality exists, and is independent of our thoughts or feelings. In other words, there is a ‘there’ out there, which we can perceive with our 5 senses, and not an illusion that we can choose to ignore or manipulate based on our own whims.”

To quote Arrington…

“Keep in mind that our beliefs can never be justified in an absolute sense. You have a justified belief that you are sitting at your computer reading this scintillating post. Even though this belief is highly justified and almost certainly true, you cannot rule out that you are dreaming or that you are in the Matrix or that you have been deceived by one of Descartes’ demons…

It is interesting to note that the Matrix idea is not new. In the 1700’s George Berkeley (after whom the California city and university are named) proposed that an individual cannot know that an object “is.” He can only know that he has a “perception” that there is an object. In his “Life of Johnson” Boswell records Dr. Johnson’s response to Berkeley:

‘After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it – ‘I refute it thus.’

Up until now, I had never heard of this Dr. Johnson story, but it’s quite fascinating. Indeed, in Chapter 9 of The Mustard Seed, Heather Manning tells a similar tale.

“Imagine that you and I are in a room with a table. We see the table with our eyes. We touch it with our fingers. We smell it with our nose. If we wish, we can even taste it. Now, if I suddenly ran towards that table, I will trip and fall down– even if I prayed for the table to disappear. If you ran toward the table, the same thing would happen to you. The consequences are always the same. There is a ‘Reality’ out there whether we like it or not.”

Of course, the Johnson/Manning analogies aren’t 100% foolproof. Nothing in life ever is. As Arrington points out, we live in a world of probabilities, not certainties.

“At one level Boswell was right and Johnson was wrong. As a matter of pure logic, Berkeley’s ideas are irrefutable. Berkeley would have replied that when Johnson kicked the stone, all he could be certain of was that he had a perception in his mind that he kicked a stone. He could not be absolutely certain that he had in fact kicked a stone. Nevertheless, Johnson’s main point is valid. Our sensory experience of the outside world is all we have. If we doubt that experience, we are left in a hopeless mire of doubt and skepticism. Therefore, while we can never be certain that Berkeley was wrong, as a practical matter, in order to live our lives and make progress in science, we can safely ignore him.

It is beyond the scope of this post to discuss philosophical hyper-skepticism in detail. For my present purposes, I will note that even hyper-skeptics look both ways when they cross the street. In other words, while hyper-skepticism may be interesting to discuss in the parlor on Sunday afternoon after lunch, it is perhaps the least practically helpful idea in all of philosophy. For the scientific enterprise (and life generally) hyper-skepticism may be dismissed with a nod.”

Quote of the Day

Canadian columnist David Warren on Christians who pimp for Darwin:

"They are deluded, often wan and nominal Christians who simply do not grasp that if...Darwin's premises are true...Christianity cannot be true.”

In that case, how does the contradiction persist?

“I have found in all countries where I've stayed that people cope very easily with flagrant contradictions in their lives. Because at some level they do not cope at all.”

"The Happiness of the People"

Charles Murray is best known as the co-author of The Bell Curve, the book which unleashed a storm of controversy when it was released over a decade ago. Sadly, the highly-charged topic of that book – the relationship between race and IQ – has tended to overshadow the rest of Mr. Murray’s career – a career which includes a highly-effective defense of libertarianism found here.

This year, The American Enterprise Institute recognized Mr. Murray’s achievements by awarding him the annual Irving Kristol Award. While his acceptable speech (which is titled “The Happiness of the People”) is quite good, it also contains a major flaw. I’ve posted some of the best (and worst) material below.

The speech opens strong...

My text is drawn from Federalist 62, probably written by James Madison: "A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained." Note the word: happiness. Not prosperity. Not security. Not equality. Happiness, which the Founders used in its Aristotelian sense of lasting and justified satisfaction with life as a whole.

I have two points to make. First, I will argue that the European model is fundamentally flawed because, despite its material successes, it is not suited to the way that human beings flourish--it does not conduce to Aristotelian happiness. Second, I will argue that twenty-first-century science will prove me right.

Since happiness is a word that gets thrown around too casually, the phrase I'll use from now on is "deep satisfactions." I'm talking about the kinds of things that we look back upon when we reach old age and let us decide that we can be proud of who we have been and what we have done. Or not.

To become a source of deep satisfaction, a human activity has to meet some stringent requirements. It has to have been important (we don't get deep satisfaction from trivial things). You have to have put a lot of effort into it (hence the cliché "nothing worth having comes easily"). And you have to have been responsible for the consequences.

There aren't many activities in life that can satisfy those three requirements. Having been a good parent. That qualifies. A good marriage. That qualifies. Having been a good neighbor and good friend to those whose lives intersected with yours. That qualifies. And having been really good at something--good at something that drew the most from your abilities. That qualifies. Let me put it formally: If we ask what are the institutions through which human beings achieve deep satisfactions in life, the answer is that there are just four: family, community, vocation, and faith. Two clarifications: "Community" can embrace people who are scattered geographically. "Vocation" can include avocations or causes.

Seen in this light, the goal of social policy is to ensure that those institutions are robust and vital. And that's what's wrong with the European model. It doesn't do that. It enfeebles every single one of them.

Scandinavia and Western Europe pride themselves on their "child-friendly" policies, providing generous child allowances, free day-care centers, and long maternity leaves. Those same countries have fertility rates far below replacement and plunging marriage rates.

What's happening? Call it the Europe syndrome. Last April I had occasion to speak in Zurich, where I made some of these same points. After the speech, a few of the twenty-something members of the audience approached and said plainly that the phrase "a life well-lived" did not have meaning for them. They were having a great time with their current sex partner and new BMW and the vacation home in Majorca, and saw no voids in their lives that needed filling.

It was fascinating to hear it said to my face, but not surprising. It conformed to both journalistic and scholarly accounts of a spreading European mentality. Let me emphasize "spreading." I'm not talking about all Europeans, by any means. That mentality goes something like this: Human beings are a collection of chemicals that activate and, after a period of time, deactivate. The purpose of life is to while away the intervening time as pleasantly as possible.

When life is a matter of whiling away the time, the concept of greatness is irritating and threatening. What explains Europe's military impotence? I am surely simplifying, but this has to be part of it: If the purpose of life is to while away the time as pleasantly as possible, what can be worth dying for?

Every element of the Europe Syndrome is infiltrating American life as well.

There is every reason to believe that when Americans embrace the European model, they begin to behave like Europeans.

This is all pretty depressing for people who do not embrace the European model, because it looks like the train has left the station.

And yet there is reason for strategic optimism, and that leads to the second point I want to make tonight: Critics of the European model are about to get a lot of new firepower. Not only is the European model inimical to human flourishing, twenty-first-century science is going to explain why.

I agree with all that. But here’s where things get murky…

Harvard's Edward O. Wilson anticipated what is to come in a book entitled Consilience. As the twenty-first century progresses, he argued, the social sciences are increasingly going to be shaped by the findings of biology; specifically, the findings of the neuroscientists and the geneticists.

Over the next few decades, advances in evolutionary psychology are going to be conjoined with advances in genetic understanding and they will lead to a scientific consensus that goes something like this: There are genetic reasons, rooted in the mechanisms of human evolution, that little boys who grow up in neighborhoods without married fathers tend to reach adolescence unsocialized to norms of behavior that they will need to stay out of prison and hold jobs. These same reasons explain why child abuse is, and always will be, concentrated among family structures in which the live-in male is not the married biological father. And these same reasons explain why society's attempts to compensate for the lack of married biological fathers don't work and will never work.

There's no reason to be frightened of this new knowledge.

Quite frankly, this is nonsensical. First of all, Mr. Murray’s interpretation of science is about 35 years out of date. The “consilience” paradigm of E.O. Wilson and the rest of the hard-core reductionists isn’t gaining steam. Rather, it’s starting to falling apart. But let’s go with Mr. Murray’s prediction, anyway. If Mr. Murray is right – and reductionist science continues to destroy man’s traditional values – it would be “quite frightening” indeed. The example he uses – in which science supports the traditional view that young boys need fathers – is a poor, unhelpful one. The idea that young boys do better WITH fathers than WITHOUT fathers is grounded in common sense and has never been controversial.

What IS controversial is the entire reductionist paradigm - a paradigm grounded in the idea that - as Mr. Murray explains - human beings are simply a "collection of chemicals." Indeed, it was Mr. Murray who participated in the AEI panel, “Genes, Neuroscience, and Free Will” (which I wrote about here). The consensus of that panel is that free will is almost certainly an illusion (even though no one used those exact words).

In his acceptance speech, Mr. Murray correctly diagnoses the "bag of chemicals" philosophy as the source of the "Europe Syndrome," but he doesn't recognize that the syndrome can't be defeated by only treating the symptoms (in this case, rolling back the welfare state). The syndrome itself (reductionism) must be treated, as well. In some of the best unintentional comedy ever found in a political speech, Mr. Murray thinks reductionist science will help advance the conservative movement and facilitate the "happiness of the people!" Ha!

Thankfully, Mr. Murray finishes with a strong conclusion ….

That [knowledge] will not get rid of the slippery slope that America is sliding down toward the European model. For that, this new raw material for reform--namely, a lot more people thinking like grown-ups--must be translated into a kind of political Great Awakening among America's elites.

I use the phrase "Great Awakening" to evoke a particular kind of event. American history has seen three religious revivals known as Great Awakenings--some say four. They were not dispassionate, polite reconsiderations of opinions. They were renewals of faith, felt in the gut.

I use the word "elites" to talk about the small minority of the population that has disproportionate influence over the culture, economy, and governance of the country. I realize that to use that word makes many Americans uncomfortable. But every society since the advent of agriculture has had elites.

When I say that something akin to a political Great Awakening is required among America's elites, what I mean is that America's elites have to ask themselves how much they really do value what has made America exceptional, and what they are willing to do to preserve it.

American exceptionalism is not just something that Americans claim for themselves. Historically, Americans have been different as a people, even peculiar, and everyone around the world has recognized it.

The exceptionalism has not been a figment of anyone's imagination, and it has been wonderful. But it isn't something in the water that has made us that way. It comes from the cultural capital generated by the system that the Founders laid down, a system that says people must be free to live life as they see fit and to be responsible for the consequences of their actions; that it is not the government's job to protect people from themselves; that it is not the government's job to stage-manage how people interact with each other. Discard the system that created the cultural capital, and the qualities we love about Americans can go away. In some circles, they are going away.

The possibility that irreversible damage will be done to the American project over the next few years is real. And so it is our job to make the case for that reawakening.