A Smattering of Prudence

I’m taking a brief break from the regular Friday blog posts and will resume the How does a Conservative differ from a Secularist? series next week. In the meanwhile, I didn’t want to leave you loyal readers hanging so I thought I’d compile a smattering of conservative wisdom:

Russell Kirk

political theorist, moralist, historian, social critic, and literary critic

“I think that men are better than beasts, and that life is something more than the gratifying of appetites. I think that variety and growth—not equality and uniformity—are the characteristics of a high culture.”

“They will never dare when they ought to dare, who do not fear when they ought to fear.”

“What, indeed, are our liberals liberal about? They do not aspire to make the human person truly free, under God; their aspiration is to make us into identical units in a monolithic society. To the representative modern liberal, the world is a very simple place, and man has only very simple—though consuming—material needs.”

G. K. Chesterton

writer, poet, philosopher, dramatist, journalist, orator, lay theologian, biographer, and theologian

“Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.”

“He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative.”

“People first paid honor to a spot and afterwards gained glory for it. Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”

Barry Goldwater

U.S. Senator, author, businessman, and presidential nominee

“Conservatism, we are told, is out-of-date. The charge is preposterous and we ought boldly to say so.”

“It has been the fashion in recent years to disparage ‘property rights’—to associate them with greed and materialism. This attack on property rights is actually an attack on freedom. It is another instance of the modern failure to take into account the whole man. How can a man be truly free if he is denied the means to exercise freedom?”

Edmund Burke

statesman, author, orator, political theorist, and philosopher

“The Liberty I mean is social freedom. It is that state of things in which Liberty is secured by the equality of Restraint.”

“The pretended rights of these theorists are all extremes; and in proportion as they are metaphysically true, they are morally and politically false. The rights of men are in a sort of middle, incapable of definition, but not impossible to be discerned.”

“Men have no right to what is not reasonable.”

“Duration is no object to those who think little or nothing has been done before their time, and who place all their hopes in discovery.”

“Religion is the basis of civil society, and the source of all good and of all comfort.”

Thomas Sowell

economist, author, and social theorist

“What does “scarce” mean? It means that what everybody wants adds up to more than there is.”

“People tend to do more for their own benefit than for the benefit of others. Freely fluctuating prices can make that turn out to be beneficial to others.”

“Specific knowledge is one of the scarcest of all resources, regardless of how many people there may be who can talk in glib generalities. The net result of all this is that even countries which have long been food exporters often begin to have difficulty feeding themselves after the government has taken control of agriculture.”

Irving Kristol

journalist, editor, and magazine founder

“What rules the world is ideas, because ideas define the way reality is perceived; and, in the absence of religion, it is out of culture—pictures, poems, songs, philosophy—that these ideas are born.”

“Poverty is abolished by economic growth, not by economic redistribution—there is never enough to distribute.”

“In a republic, a fair degree of equality and prosperity are important goals, but it is liberty that is given priority as the proper end of government. In a democracy, these priorities are reversed.”

“Perhaps the most extraordinary fact of twentieth-century intellectual history is that all thinking about socialism takes place in nonsocialist countries.”

Roger Scruton

philosopher and author

“Conservatives…wish to keep the frail crust of civilization in place as long as possible, knowing that beneath it there does not lie the idyllic realm of Rousseau’s noble savage, but only the violent world of the hunter-gatherer.”

“Toleration means being prepared to accept opinions that you intensely dislike. Likewise, democracy means consenting to be governed by people whom you intensely dislike.”

“We do not merely study the past: we inherit it, and the inheritance brings with it not only the rights of ownership, but the duties of trusteeship. Things fought for and died for should not be idly squandered. For they are the property of others, who are not yet born.”

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Episode 25 - Developing Your Worldview with Bryan Baise

How developed is your worldview? How deep does it go? Have you taken the time to rigorously study and challenge your belief system or have you—like most of us—struggled to find the time as so many other important things in life have kept you busy?

The pathway most of us take as we develop and mature is to adopt the belief system of our upbringing—typically whatever our parents believe. Then, sometime around high school and on into college, in an effort to “find ourselves” we begin to question whether what we’ve always believed is actually so. For some of us that might look like a smooth transition that lands us fairly close to where we started while, for others, we bounce from one “crisis of faith” moment to the next until we end up at a place that’s barely recognizable from where we began.

Either way, the entire process can be draining, time consuming, and fruitless. Understandably, many of us lose interest at some point and happily settle into a worldview cobbled together from our past and present circumstances. But an underdeveloped worldview leaves us susceptible to a host of dangerous ideologies and faiths, not to mention it makes it all the more likely we’d experience another “crisis of faith” sometime down the road when we have even less energy or inclination to navigate it. And far too many have reached the point of not allowing anything they believe to be challenged.

Joining Josh in this episode is Bryan Baise, professor of philosophy and apologetics at Boyce College. Bryan is the program director of philosophy, politics, and economics and the program director of the Christian worldview and apologetics. As will become evident from the conversation—Bryan is someone who took the development of his worldview very seriously and made gargantuan efforts to do so. Bryan walks us through the process of what his own journey looked like and shares the beauty and depth of the conservative worldview he’s developed. He offers encouragement to seek out the things that matter for us all and provides a list of resources to help us get there.

LISTEN HERE

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

How does a Conservative differ from a Secularist? – Part 2 (The Fallacy of Scientism)

Secularism, like most political terms these days, can mean many things. As I endeavored to explain in Part 1, the sort of secularism I wish to compare and contrast with the conservative view is the secularism that is not merely neutral on religious matters, but holds to the belief that religious and moral teachings have no business in the public square because they cannot be factual in the same way that science can be factual.

This is a belief we might call scientism. And Scientism is the view that the only genuine knowledge of reality can be obtained through science and nothing more. In other words, any truth claims reached by some means other than science are to be rejected out of hand or—at the very least—are fine so far as they go so long as they’re supported by scientific fact. It may be well and good if a person wants to go on believing in some supernatural myth if that’s what helps them get on in life, but it’s quite another thing when that person begins to suggest their belief is actually true and—worse yet—that we’d all be better off believing it as well. Only science can be believed in. Only science can be trusted to tell us what’s true and what isn’t.

This is pure nonsense, and I’ll spend the remainder of this post offering reasons why.

Scientism is Self-Refuting

If scientism is the view that the only genuine knowledge of reality can be obtained through science and nothing more, one might reasonably ask how do we know that to be true? Did we arrive at that belief through scientific means? If so, what scientific means exist that might help us reach such a conclusion?

Science is the study of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation. It is not in the business of making self-reflective truth claims on the nature of science. But there is another field that is equipped for just such a task: Philosophy. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, and the question is science the only means of obtaining genuine knowledge of reality? is a philosophical—not a scientific—question.

“Scientism is a philosophical assertion that claims that philosophical assertions are neither true nor can be known; only scientific assertions can be true and known,” argued philosopher and theologian J. P. Moreland in his book, Scientism and Secularism. The obvious problem here is that if scientism makes a philosophical claim that only science is capable of providing us knowledge, scientism is self-refuting. At a minimum, scientism must acknowledge that at least one philosophical truth exists outside of science: the notion that science is the only tool we have for obtaining truth, except for the philosophically true notion that science is the only tool we have for obtaining truth.

But scientism’s self-refuting goes deeper still. If we have no other tools at our disposal for determining what is true, then the very instruments we use to conduct scientific experimentation—our senses and our reason—cannot be relied upon either. If the only way to arrive at truth is science, we would have no philosophical basis for asserting that truth corresponds to what we see, feel, hear, taste, and smell; nor could we argue that our minds were capable of perceiving truth because just such an argument would have to be made philosophically.

The Is/Ought Fallacy

Because humans are hardwired to think in terms of moral imperatives, this one can be hard to spot at first. But, the fact is, nothing in science can demonstrate how we ought to behave, speak, or think. Science might be able to provide interesting insights into why the grisly act of torturing infants for pleasure is disadvantageous, but science cannot provide a reason why it is immoral.

This is what’s known as the is/ought fallacy: The assumption that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. It may be that the vast majority of people would strongly detest the act of torturing infants. But if some psychologically deranged person found the act quite enjoyable and had no empathy whatsoever to the suffering of infants, there’s nothing in science that can provide some moral code that imposes an ought. Religion can. Philosophy can. Science cannot.

If scientism is true, your feelings on the subject of torturing infants for fun are literally personal preferences and nothing more.

Science Can’t Explain Everything

While it is true that science cannot explain everything, this is an area that often trips up theist or those who defend a religious viewpoint. I recall in my younger home-school days Dad teaching me a lesson on the process of pollination. The Christian science textbook we were using went on to explain that, while science could explain an awful lot about the process, there was still much we did not know. And because science was unable to explain the process through and through, the gaps that were missing must surely be miraculous and, therefore, be evidence for a Creator.

This is what’s known as the God of the gaps fallacy: The idea that in order to account for some natural phenomenon that science (currently) cannot explain, God must be behind the “gaps” in our knowledge. There are plenty of problems with this line of thinking; not the least of which is, just because science can’t (currently) explain some natural phenomenon doesn’t mean it will never be able to explain it. Indeed, many a child raised in a Christian home departed from the faith of their parents when they began to explore the trustworthiness of science for themselves and found that many of the supposed gaps had been covered quite nicely by science. If one’s evidence for a Creator rests on what we currently can’t explain, that evidence evaporates the moment we can explain it.

It is, however, quite true that science cannot explain everything. The problem with the God of the gaps fallacy is that it looks for natural phenomenon that science cannot (currently) explain. A much better approach is to look for supernatural phenomenon. Science cannot explain the supernatural not because of some current limitation on our part, but because science is literally operating only inside the realm of the natural universe. As J. P. Moreland put it, “The problem is not that we lack sufficient data—the problem is that these are the sorts of things that science cannot explain, even in principle.”

Moreland continues:

“Causes that are physical or that are subject to scientific law presuppose time, space, and matter to exist. But [if] we are asking what caused time, space, and matter, the cause itself must be something other than each of these. In other words, it must be timeless in order to cause time; it must be nonspatial in order to cause space; it must be immaterial in order to cause matter; it must therefore be supernatural, capable of existing without the natural world and without being subject to the ultimate laws of nature.”

Science can give us incredible insight about things that exist. But science can’t tell us how the things that exist got here in the first place. Science studies process. But Moreland points out that “coming into existence from nothing is not a process. It is not as though the entity in question starts off being 100% nonexistent, then is 90% nonexistent and so on until it is 100% existent…Science can only be applied to transitions of one thing into another, but coming into existence is not a transition; it is, as it were, a point of action or instantaneous event.”

A Priori Truth vs A Posteriori Truth

What exactly do we mean when we say that science is true or is a means of obtaining truth? Is science true in the same sense that a statement like “I think, therefore I am” or the notion that one and one make two is true? Certainly not. But why not?

We’ll focus on consciousness in Part 3 but for now, think of the mathematical truth that adding one and one gets you two. Can you imagine a universe in which adding one and one gets you three? I’m betting you can’t. Now think of the scientific truth of the Theory of Gravity or the Law of Gravity. Can you imagine a universe in which it never occurs to Sir Isaac Newton to develop the theory because the apple tree he happened to be sitting under that day grew apples that flew to the sky instead of drop to the ground? I’ll grant you it sounds absurd, but you are able to imagine such a thing. In fact, you probably envisioned a floating apple the moment I said it, but you still can’t get one and one to give you three.

What’s going on here is the difference between a priori and a posteriori truths. Both are true, but not in the same sense. An a priori truth is something that is true by reason alone; that is, no “proof” or use of your senses is necessary to arrive at the truth. In fact, a priori truths are the very foundation that other truths rest upon. An a posteriori truth, conversely, is something that is discerned by appealing to empirical observations. So, a priori truths are self-evident and need no further evidence whereas a posteriori truths require evidence to demonstrate that they are true.

The practical upshot of all this is that truth arrived at through science can—and often is—revised or even discarded as further experimentation and observation shows that previous “truths” were, in fact, not true. If tomorrow we discovered an apple tree with floating apples we’d either need to determine why this particular apple tree was defying the law of gravity—perhaps someone had engineered it so—or revise the law of gravity to account for the phenomenon.

None of this means that truths we arrive at through scientific means are wrongheaded or untrustworthy. But these truths are necessarily secondary to a priori truths. A scientific truth can be wrong. An a priori truth cannot. And the best example of an a priori truth I can think of is one that’s likely even more certain to you than one and one gets you two. And that is where we’ll pick up in Part 3.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

How does a Conservative differ from a Secularist? – Part 1 (Defining Secularism)

Thus far in the How does a Conservative differ series I’ve compared conservatism to libertarianism, authoritarianism, populism, centrism, and—most recently—nationalism. Now I’d like to turn our focus to secularism.

And by secularism I’m not referring to the principle of separating institutions of government from institutions of religion—though that idea is present. Rather, I mean an indifference, rejection, or exclusion of religious considerations or appeals to supernatural explanations. I am including here both a person who rejects all supernatural explanations as well as a person who—though they may consider themselves to be religious personally—for all practical purposes behave as if all that exists is the material world.

Secularism can mean the belief that governments should remain neutral on the matter of religion and should not enforce nor prohibit the free exercise of religion, leaving religious choice to the liberty of the people. However, I believe this describes a viewpoint held by many religious and nonreligious people and is not wed exclusively to a materialistic worldview. Secularism, for our purposes here, has less to do with whether a person has fine feelings about government neutrality on religious matters and everything to do with whether or not they believe religious matters comport to reality or hold any weight beyond mere private superstitions.

Comparing Apples to Oranges

I suppose this might strike some as an unusual comparison project in that it makes sense to differentiate what conservatives believe with, say, what libertarians believe; but why would someone’s conservative convictions hinge on their religious piety or lack thereof? Isn’t that like comparing apples to oranges? Isn’t that like asking whether or not conservatism is compatible with being left-handed?

To the extent that both conservatism and secularism are worldviews—that is, a particular philosophy on the reality of life, the supernatural, and our relationship with the supernatural—then it’s entirely fair game to compare and contrast. Barry Goldwater wrote in The Conscience of a Conservative that the first obligation of a political thinker is to “understand the nature of man. The Conservative does not claim special powers of perception on this point, but he does claim a familiarity with the accumulated wisdom and experience of history, and he is not too proud to learn from the great minds of the past.”

I believe we should take great comfort in Goldwater’s notion of leaning heavily on ancestral wisdom. The ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything was a task too cumbersome for even the supercomputer Deep Thought to answer. In our highly individualized age where our culture has internalized such blarney as speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have, the magnitude of answering such a question all by one’s self can be crushing. Thankfully, the conservative knows a search for answers is a group project.

The Good in Secularism

I am not trying to argue that those who don’t hold religious convictions or believe in the supernatural are incapable of embracing a conservative worldview; although, as it will become evident in future posts, doing so may prove quite challenging. However, since I will be taking a critical view of secularism in the posts that follow, I would like to begin by pointing out the good—and there is much good—in secularism. Namely, a certain quantum of secularism in our world is enormously helpful in reaching political consensus without force and violence. “Secular law adapts, religious law endures,” wrote British philosophy Roger Scruton.

As we explored in the series on nationalism, a nation built on the identity of shared national feelings, traditions, history, and experiences in addition to shared religious beliefs allows for the emergence of laws of consent. “A community is governed by man-made laws and human decisions, without reference to divine commands,” Scruton continues, “Religion is a static condition; politics a dynamic process. While religions demand unquestioning submission, the political process offers participation, discussion, and law-making founded in consent.”

The problem with secularism arises when it begins to encroach on religious territory. Irving Kristol observed a shift in American politics in the twentieth-century that he described as a movement from secular to secularist: “A secular political party, in the traditional sense, has been neutral as between religions—at least insofar as they represent different versions of traditional morality. A secularist political party is neutral as between religion and irreligion: It believes that moral issues ‘have no place in politics,’ and replaces such issues with the idea of ‘fair and equal’ treatment of all ‘lifestyles,’ all beliefs about what is permissible and what is not.”

This shift in thinking can be difficult to label: Secularism, naturalism, materialism, agnosticism may all be used to describe this phenomenon, though they might also be said to preserve certain conservative impulses that a purely anti-religious “secularism” would not preserve. I myself prefer the term scientism to distinguish between secularism as a process of enacting laws through consent and the secularism that rejects religious validity in the public square.

Scientism Defined

What then is scientism? In his book Scientism and Secularism, philosopher and theologian J. P. Moreland defines scientism as “the view that the hard sciences—like chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy—provide the only genuine knowledge of reality.” Moreland stresses that, far from being pro-science, scientism is ultimately at enmity with science—a topic we’ll delve into in Part 2.

What’s important for today’s purpose is to notice that since scientism claims the only genuine knowledge of reality can be gained through the hard sciences, the implication is that any truth claims reached by some means other than science are to be rejected out of hand. “According to scientism, the claim that ethical and religious conclusions can be just as factual as science, and therefore ought to be affirmed like scientific truths, may be a sign of bigotry and intolerance,” Moreland explains.

None of this is trivial semantics. Where we land on these matters provides the very foundation upon which the remaining political elements of any practical worldview may be built. “Ideas matter,” Moreland insists, borrowing a familiar cliché. “Indeed, we are largely at the mercy of our ideas. As the ideas that constitute scientism have become more pervasive in our culture, the Western world has turned increasingly secular and the power centers of culture (the universities; the media and entertainment industry; the Supreme Court) have come increasingly to regard religion as a private superstition.”

What—if anything—do we stand to lose if we lose our religious heritage as a culture or as an individual? Is there any evidence that reality can be found outside of the hard sciences, or were myths of old simply useful for their time but far too antiquated and oldfangled to be of any use today? Of what harm is there in constructing a purely materialistic political worldview? And where does the conservative come down on all of this? Those are the topics we’ll attempt to tackle in this series in the weeks ahead.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Episode 24 - Conservative Activism with Alexandra DeSanctis

Across college campuses and in our nation’s capital political activism is on the rise. But it’s not just a tool of the Left as more and more Right-leaning activist organizations are appearing. What exactly is political activism? What are its potential benefits or defects? And how might activism fit with a conservative worldview?

Joining Josh on the podcast is National Review staff writer Alexandra DeSanctis. Alexandra has been active in the prolife movement for many years and offers her thoughts on political activism put into practice. She first began working for the magazine as a William F. Buckley Jr. Fellow in Political Journalism in 2016. She cohosts the Ordered Liberty podcast twice a week with National Review senior writer David French. It can be found on the National Review website, iTunes, or Google Play. Her Twitter handle is xan_desanctis.

LISTEN HERE

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Does Howard Schultz have Good Grounds to Run for President?

Social media was aflutter this week with former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s noncommittal announcement that he’s actually most certainly totally serious about considering running for president in 2020.

As an Independent.

Now, this post isn’t about whether Howard Schultz has a plausible chance of winning (he doesn’t). Nor is it about whether Schultz is likely to make a good president (he isn’t). Nor is it about whether Schultz’s run as an Independent would likely help get Trump reelected (it would). Rather—if you’ll pardon my negligent punning—it’s about whether Schultz has good grounds for a presidential run.

You see, I believe that what’s oftentimes far more important than who is running for president is the political climate that exists during a presidential race. Donald Trump—to put it bluntly—is the sort of candidate whose successful race had almost nothing to do with Donald Trump and quite a lot to do with the desire many had in the Republican party to elect an “outsider” and “businessman” who would “stir things up” and “Make America Great Again!” Much like the previous era’s desire for “hope” and “change”—whatever the heck that means—gave us Obama, Trump’s ascendance would not have been possible had large swaths of the population not been so frustrated with Washington that it seemed to make more sense to burn things down than build things up.

The viability of a candidate such as Shultz rests predominantly on whether the American people are drinking up what he’s roasting. Do we think a third-party will break the political gridlock? Do we think an outsider is what’s needed on the inside? Do we want change or to stay the course? Do we fancy a business or a political leader? Do we want a uniter or a fighter? Are we thirsty for a plain vanilla latte or another round of the pumpkin spice variety?

The chief conundrum here is that none of these ideas are solutions to our problems because they don’t actually mean anything. For example, here in Oklahoma we just elected a new governor largely on the notion he was a “businessman” and an “outsider”. I’m still not clear how those empty phrases make someone an ideal candidate. Does that mean—should he run for reelection in four years—his supporters will oppose him on the basis he’s now a “politician” and an “insider”? What makes someone an “outsider”? Under what circumstances does an “outsider” become an “insider”?

It’s evident Schultz’s schtick is to position himself as the third-party centrist who’s a “uniter” in a time of chaos and division where Republicans and Democrats appear to be in a polarized race to who can out-extreme the other. Running as an Independent I get, but what makes him a “centrist” or a “uniter”? “Becoming better begins by repairing our broken two-party system, which is why I am seriously considering running for president of the United States as a centrist independent.” Schultz wrote this week, “I will spend the next few months deciding by traveling the country, and listening to my fellow Americans.” That last part seems a bit embellished, but I digress.

Schultz is rehashing the tiresome argument that Americans secretly want a third choice in political parties and that somehow—God willing—this time it’ll be successful in spite of over two centuries of evidence to the contrary:

“A formidable third choice for president also has a chance to succeed for the first time since George Washington because this precise moment in history is uniquely perilous, and brimming with possibility. The toxic mix of social and fiscal challenges, extreme ideological divisions and political dysfunction threatens to deteriorate the greatest democracy in human history. How can elected officials solve complex problems such as unaffordable health care, a crumbling national infrastructure, a debilitating national debt, unequal access to education and employment, and disappearing middle-class jobs if our leaders cannot hold a productive conversation—or keep the government open?”

There’s a powerful and unspoken assumption that underlies Schultz’s message: namely, the idea that the pathway to solving what ails our nation rests in the hands of electing an independent, centrist political figure. I do not deny that the increasing hostility and extremity between our two parties is a problem. Nor do I deny that a unifying leader would be highly beneficial right about now. But I do believe that this simplistic view of the situation risks masking our underlying cultural and spiritual problems.

Stand-up comedian Jim Gaffigan joked that the color black had the power to make fat people look in shape. Perhaps. But it doesn’t have the power to actually get people in shape. In much the same way, the main problem with the idea of a third party solving our woes is that it ignores the source of our woes. The polarization, incivility, and inability to put the interest of the nation over one’s personal interests does not stem from the two-party system. The problem rests with human beings, not the structures they inhabit. Changing the label from Republican/Democrat to Independent doesn’t make us angels.

It isn’t an accident that America has essentially had a two-party system since Thomas Jefferson’s presidency. There are structural reasons why it’s nearly impossible for a third-party to get ahead, as National Review correspondent Jay Cost argues here. The upshot of this is that if we’re truly interested in addressing our problems it would be better to focus our time, talent, energy, and finances on reforming the party’s we’ve got than springing for an option that’s never been tried successfully.

But far too many would rather reach for the shiny and empty promises of easy fixes that involve no real sacrifice on their part. This way of thinking can best be summarized as populism. And while two populists may radically disagree on which course of action to take, their modus operandi is essentially the same: we can solve problems by putting the “right people” in office instead of the “wrong people”.

By leaning so heavily on the notion that what America needs to be united again is an independent centrist, Schultz is ironically singing from the same hymnal that got Trump (and Obama) elected. All of these men—no matter how different they may appear at first blush—are essentially selling us on the idea that the pathway to healing our nation involves electing the “right guy” for the job which, coincidentally, just happens to be them.

Of course, anyone running for president has to convince us they’re the “right guy” to some degree. Whether we settle for empty, meaningless phrases instead of demanding of them actual ideas, arguments, and credentials is entirely up to us. So, as 2020 approaches and the nation once again enters the frenzy of another presidential race, might I humbly suggest that if we’re serious about solving the nation’s problems we’re going to have to look much deeper, further, and broader than yet another presidential hopeful trying to convince us they can fix what the last guy never could.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog