When I get a particularly thoughtful comment, even when I disagree, I make an effort to highlight it. Because I think discussion healthy, I do my best to encourage it.
What follows is a comment with which I happen for the most part to agree. The comment came during a debate at this post, DEBATING THE ETHICAL FOUNDATION OF GOVERNMENT. Note that I corrected the misspelling of Dominionism, and I provided a link to Wikipedia for a definition.
Russ White says:
Just wanted to point out one thing… In reality, there are many types of Christians in the world, and Christian theology can be divided along multiple “bright lines.” For instance, is salvation through some form of works, or all through grace? Are people elected before they are born because it’s God’s will, or because of God’s knowledge, or not at all?
One of the various dividing lines is over Christianity’s relationship with the Government. How should Christianity, as a whole, relate to government? There is a school of Christianity (represented by the Quakers, for instance), that believes Christianity should have nothing –absolutely nothing– to do with the government. There is another school –Dominionism its various flavors– that believes Christianity should be government. Here we find the Roman Catholic Church pre Vatican 2, for the most part –the Church should crown kings.
There is another school that says government should be founded on Christian principles because these principles are the closest to the real situation we find ourselves in, and therefore are the most likely to actually produce a working society. Not a _perfect_ society, not a “Christian utopia,” just a _working_ society. The best humans can actually do given their fallen and imperfect nature.
This just happens to be the school of Christianity I belong to (and the school I think Tom belongs to).
I’m not trying to build “utopia” of any sort, because I don’t think such a thing can be built by humans. Communism, socialism, fascism, and even, in some forms, capitalism (specifically the versions that don’t admit God), are all trying to build a perfect utopian world. They do this by trying to correct what they see wrong in people. For instance –people don’t always care for the poor in their midst. Socialism tries to solve this by forcing them to care.
The school of Christianity I live in says, “you can’t force people to care –you’re just going to make things worse!” Socialists and communist reply, “humans are plastic, infinitely bendable to the will of the state.” In other words, “I can make people take action, even if I can’t make them care!”
So in the real war, the Christians where I live aren’t on the side of the “utopians.” We’re on the side of those who believe there is a limited amount the government can do, and that limit, in reality, is rather small. That when you step over the line a little, you wind up stepping over the line all the way, simply because you must in order to support the little point at which you’ve already stepped over the line.
Take, for instance, the government’s statement that you must be able to unionize. Simple enough, right? Well, now that the government has declared it a “right” to unionize, someone has to control the conditions under which a union must be form. Those rules, as a matter of course, can be gamed, so they must be made ever more complex to cover situations no-one ever thought of, and must be enforced. This one rule –that everyone has the right to unionize– must be defended and upheld by a forest of rules, each of which must be enforced. Each of these must, in turn, by supported by another forest of rules, each of these which must be enforced. Thus the government creeps from a single idea to the point of telling companies and employees everything they may, and may not, do.
If you believe you can make society a “little better” with a “little utopianism (socialism),” then you will easily slide to “I can make society a lot better with a lot of utopianism.” Unless you can identify the specific line you won’t cross, and the specific reason you wont’ cross it (other than “no reasonable person would go there,” because people aren’t reasonable), then don’t go down that path in the first place.
There is no “little” government without a lot of humility about what our limits are as humans. The problem with socialism and communism is they don’t believe we have limits as humans. In Christianity, particularly among creationists, we believe humans have limitations, and we know what those limitations are.
Russ
Note that the limited government Russ describes requires two things from each of us. The first is self restraint. When the use of the force of government cannot be morally justified, we must restrain ourselves from trying to use the government to get what we want done. The second involves the willingness to accept personal responsibility. We must each assess our personal gifts and voluntarily contribute the use of those gifts to the welfare of our fellows.
What is not required, however, is that we act solely as individuals. In fact, I believe God both wants us and designed us to work in fellowship with each other. Why do I believe this? We have an example. In the America that once was, Americans readily — without the force of government — took it upon themselves to work with others to satisfy the needs of their communities. Check out THE RIGHT OF FREE ASSOCIATION. Here I reference Alexis De Tocqueville, the author of that classic work, Democracy in America.
The spirit that Tocqueville described still exists in America, but we do need to revive and renew it.
P.S. – With respect to his comment, I have one minor point of disagreement with Russ. Whereas Russ identifies himself as Creationist, I do not. I will readily agree that God created us. Nonetheless, I have the same problem with Creationism that I have with the Theory of Evolution. Scientists have no way to test either theory.
Even if we take Genesis literally, we must remember that the Bible is not scientific treatise. God intended that the Bible could be understood by people without any scientific training. Hence, while the Bible makes it crystal clear that God created us and why, the Bible says little that addresses how God created us.
Citizen Tom 
Tom,
I’ve been thinking about it, and you probably think it sort of mean spirited and hypocritical that I come on your blog just to criticize you and others for having an opinions on your blog. I don’t intend to be unfair.
Lately, however, it seems to me that there is an ever increasing coarsening of the political rhetoric by both sides the likes of which I have not seen in my lifetime.
As an example, is it morally and intellectually honest to say that our president is a Socialist? A
Communist? A Fascist? Is it fair to compare Obama to Stalin or Hitler, both of whom murdered millions? Or is right to use such superlative language, as Newt often does about everything, in saying that Obama is the “most” dangerous President in American history? Was it fair for the other side to use the same sort of references with President Bush? How much damage do we do to our honor if we perpetuate such overstatements and outright falsehoods? How much should we even listen to the increasingly outlandish rhetoric from pundits and politicians from both parties, and even from each other, before we have an ethical obligation to call them, and each other, on it? To say, as Mr. Welch did at the McCarthy hearings, “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
I would like to think that we are all finally coming to that point because, within the echo chambers of blogs, the Internet, 24 hour news and entire networks dedicated to becoming increasing more high pitched and sensational in order to get our attention, I believe the corrosive language is eroding away, as Lincoln called it, “the better angels of our nature” and making it impossible to incrementally change things, even in ways that most of us can agree would be better.
I’m not aiming this at you or your blog in particular or at Republicans in particular, but at all of us who may be guilty of it. Nor am I interested in trading jabs as to whom is most to blame for it or in debating specific allegations or conspiracy theories? I do hope, however, that you might make the idea of a return to civility, to stepping away from the impulse to demonize the loyal opposition, and to toning down the dishonest hyperbolic rhetoric, a topic for further discussion. No expertise is required to have an opinion in such a discussion – we all should be experts on how to act decently.
Oh one more thing, our system of government has always been wonderfully messed up.
Your favorite governor wanted for the government to probe women’s vaginas. It’s not whether we have know-it-all busybodies in this mix, it just seems to me to be a dispute about over what to be a know-it-all busybody about. Anyway, sorry, you get the last word Tom. It’s your know-it-all busybody blog after all. God bless back atcha bro.
Tony -You just doubled down? You are not just a self proclaimed ignorant busybody; you are a profoundly ignorant self proclaimed ignorant busybody?
Given that you are so enormously ignorant, what makes you think you have the capacity to determine which self proclaimed experts we are suppose to trust? You don’t, of course, but you are too foolish to admit it.
No wonder our government is so messed up. 🙄
Tom wrote:
“What I find particularly troubling is that Tony does not have sufficient confidence in own knowledge to actually argue for his belief that evolution is science. Nonetheless, he still insists upon forcing that belief upon other people’s children as science. If that sort of busybody nonsense does not constitute an excellent case for limited government, what does?”
All the things that I am ignorant of fills libraries and museums around the world brother. Pedagogical authority is just one more thing. One more topic I will leave to the experts (like you?) to propound on I suppose. Besides, who needs schools anyway when we can proclaim ourselves know-it-alls on everything without the need of them?
I’ll have to think about the website idea. Perhaps the humility of admitting the limitations of one’s knowledge and expertise to opinionate on all things would be refreshing in the blogosphere, but judging from what I have seen here, I doubt it will catch on. Stupidity is indeed a virus and we are all carriers here.
How bout another poem:
God Is Indeed a Jealous God
God is indeed a jealous God
He cannot bear to see
That we had rather not with Him
But with each other play.
Emily Dickinson, c.1864
Tony and Russ – Sort of interesting to watch you two go at it. Since I try to respond to the interests the people who comment here, I will do a post specifically on this issue. What you two demonstrate quite well is the subject is rife with freedom of religion/conscience concerns. Since I fail to see how either of you can cite proof for either theory, I fail to see how teaching students that either theory is proven does not constitute religious instruction. What I find particularly troubling is that Tony does not have sufficient confidence in own knowledge to actually argue for his belief that evolution is science. Nonetheless, he still insists upon forcing that belief upon other people’s children as science. If that sort of busybody nonsense does not constitute an excellent case for limited government, what does?
Russ – Thanks for the links.
Tony – If you want to offer up a website in line with your views (self proclaimed ignorance?), you are welcome to do so.
Please don’t project your demons on me Russ. I was joking about the deep breathing, and had no idea that your emotions were so easily, how did you put it, “manipulated.” I certainly have not gotten my feelings hurt by your, what did you call them, “emotional bombs.” I can’t speak for, what did you presume to label me, “liberals”, but I certainly try to be tolerant of other’s feelings. If yours are hurt, then I, and I mean this sincerely, do apologize.
Perhaps some day we’ll meet by chance over a cup of coffee and solve all the problems of the world while no one is watching. Please, no hard feelings.
PS
Hey, you didn’t think what I said was “well reasoned”? Maybe I should feel hurt. Now we’re even buddy.
Lit a fire under you did I Russ? Calm down now. Take a deep breath. That’s right breath. Ok, here is what you wrote about what I wrote about what you wrote:
Let’s review what you said and see who’s right.
I would only add Karl Popper’s definition that a theory can be “scientific” only if it is ultimately subject to falsification (if it is false). The “theory” of evolution is a scientific theory because it is subject to falsification and/or corroboration through scientific methodology (logical conguency or error, experimentation, empirical evidence, etc.).
You are claiming that a theory can only be scientific if it can be falsified here.
I don’t, however, know that there is one big experiment that has or every will once and for all turn this scientific theory into a scientific falsehood or a scientific fact.
And here you’re claiming that not all scientific theories are falsifiable.
Now read again what you quoted from me: ” logical conguency or error, experimentation, empirical evidence, etc.” Experimentation is just one tool of in the scientist’s took box. For example, Copernicus did not need a grand experiment to prove that the Sun did not revolve around the Earth. He disproved that theory through observation, geometry and mathematics. Evolution theory is subject to falsification (and corroboration) through all these methods in the scientific epistomology. Perhaps there is also an experiment as well – it would seem that genetics would be an obvious area where some experiment might be devised to disprove evolution theory. Maybe they have already tried and failed. That would not be news, but it would seem that we would have all heard about it if they had succeeded in completely debunking Evolution.
As for the next item in your tantrum above, I agree that the conventional scientific wisdom is almost always wrong, or at least it is almost always not completely correct and all incompassing. In fact it would, by definition, be unscientific to think that a scientific theory is absolutely and completely right (or for that matter to believe the fundamental knowledge of everything can be ultimately achieved scientifically – that makes science a religion and takes a leap of faith that is not scientific). As I said, some scepticism is not only healthy, it’s necessary in order to be a rational person. However, in my humble view of the world, it is the height of foolishness (and not very conservative, I might add) to ignore all the conventional wisdom and expertise. As Tom said, scientific knowledge is iterative and cumulative, but it also evolves through inductive insights and deductive reasonings that are subject to falsification.
And that brings us nicely to the last of your little huff. Why on earth do you care what I think about the Theory of Evolution? I have repeatedly stated that I don’t know what I am talking about. Neither my graduate, nor my undergraduate education and training was in science. Currently, I fly airplanes for a living. I love reading about science and watching science programs on the tube, but to your average high school advanced placement science student, I would be considered a science imbecile. I could come up with a dissertation of data defending Evolution that I copied from the Internet or picked up from TV or cherry picked from books, but why on earth would you waste your time reading it? Like you, I’ve got opinions about everything, but unlike you, I try not to publish them to everyone unless I at least have some superior expertise to impart on the subject and unless I think that there is something be be gained by the effort.
Since I have no reason to believe you know what you are pontificating about on Evolution (and because your scientific reasoning appears dubious), you are not going to convince me that the establishment scientific view on the origins of species is completely wrong, nor should you let me convince you that your crackpot ideas are wrong either. However, even if one of us did manage to persuade the other or perhaps someone else wasting their time reading all this nonsense, what good would that accomplish? We would just have one more person who doesn’t know what he is talking about because he or she listened to people who didn’t know that they were talking about. It seems to me that the viral spread of such ignorance is more destructive than helpful.
Ultimately, my friend, the only reason that I am indulging in this strange discourse is not to expound my grand opinions on profound fields (not even the ones that I do know something about) to the poor misguided masses. Nope, instead it’s for the pure amusement of challenging you and Tom’s other readers that they should not take seriously any of us folks with allegedly informed opinions on everything, but real credentialed expertise on nothing. Even if someone really did want to get a wise, authoritative, methodically reasoned opinion on a complex, profound topic, then a blog like this is the last place they should look for it. On the other hand, if you want affirmation of what you already believe about everything and everyone that you disagree with, you’ve come to the right place, and I apparently have served as a perfect foil for you to do just that – just angrily label me a liberal and dismiss me. Hah!
Whoops – I’ve probably upset you again Russ. Sorry. Deep breaths. Deep breaths.
Nope, instead it’s for the pure amusement of challenging you and Tom’s other readers…
In other words, you post simply to get emotional reactions –to attempt to control other people through emotional manipulation. And here I thought liberals were the ones who wanted honest open discussion, and were rational rather than emotional? I thought liberals were the ones who were tolerant? Guess not.
At any rate, when we’re at the point where all you have to offer is emotional bombs rather than reasoned discussion, there’s no point in continuing to talk.
Russ
Russ said,
1. You defined what science means, and now you’re saying “oops, sorry, no longer true, you don’t need a falsifying experiment to prove it’s science.”
Not even close to what I said. Russ, I’ve noticed that your favorite rhetorical ploy is to flagrantly misquote the other side’s facts and reasoning, and then to engage the straw man you’ve created. Well, to paraphrase a line from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, since there ain’t no rules for this knife fight, I guess you can utilitize whatever devices you want here in the blogosphere, as long as we all realize that’s what’s happening.
As for the rest, you simply prove my point. You apparently feel that Evolution Theory has been properly and scientifically falsified by supposedly credible scientists in supposedly serious “peer review” scientific journals and by supposedly sound scientific methodology. (And you apparently believe that Creationism has been proven in much the same way). If that is true, then Evolution must fit Popper’s definition of a “scientific” theory because it is not only falsifiable, according to you, it has already been completely debunked by these supposedly credible scientists. It’s all on the Internet and somebody published it somewhere so it must be true, even if the vast majority of the scientific establishment is conspiring to keep it a secret.
Or perhaps both the scientific establishment and your creationists have it all wrong. Maybe we actually came from little green men who decended from outer space, mated with our ape ancestors, and when they occasionally returned, we mistook them for gods. Poof – the answer to all our questions on both religion and anthropology. Just google it. You’ll get lots of affirmation from supposedly serious scientists. Books have been written supporting this “Ancient Astronaut” theory. TV shows have been made. There is probably even a museum for it somewhere.
The only reason that it is not the mainstream scientific theory is because all those serious scientists are secret Stalinists and have conspired against putting it in our socialistic public museums and against teaching it in our socialist supported universities. They know that the real truth will set us free from their intellectual domination. All the establishment science departments in the credible colleges and universities are ploting against us. We don’t need years of scientific study, serious practice in highly technical areas or any advanced degrees to have an expert opinion. We have the internet. We can become instant experts on anything. Our opinion on anything at all is just as credible as these so-called establishment “elites”.
We should forget all that hard work and study in science, government and law. We should disregard those who have achieved acclaim in teir specialize fields. All the knowledge that we need to perform brain surgery, write all the laws, run the economy, solve all the mysteries of the universe and affirm all our preconceptions can be gotten through a search engine in a couple hours of surfing the web.
Personally, however, I’ll leave that to you. Although I think that some scepticism of people who call themselves experts is healthy in all things, I still think that I will let credible doctors operate on me when I when I need surgery.
I think that I will leave it to more knowledgeable experts to falsify, corroborate or modify by credible scientific methodology what is by far the dominant scientific theory on the origins of species. Maybe you’ve done it Russ. If so, I’ll await your Nobel Prize and applaud with genuine enthusiasm.
Anyway, although not much has been accomplished by it, I too have enjoyed the discussion. I particularly have enjoyed the discomfort of my brother (who actually holds advanced degrees in science) in trying to play both scientist and right wing religious political zealot. Tough line to walk there, but I admire the effort Tom. Later.
I wasn’t go to answer, but this is nonsense, and I must call you on it.
Not even close to what I said. Russ, I’ve noticed that your favorite rhetorical ploy is to flagrantly misquote the other side’s facts and reasoning, and then to engage the straw man you’ve created.
Let’s review what you said and see who’s right.
I would only add Karl Popper’s definition that a theory can be “scientific” only if it is ultimately subject to falsification (if it is false). The “theory” of evolution is a scientific theory because it is subject to falsification and/or corroboration through scientific methodology (logical conguency or error, experimentation, empirical evidence, etc.).
You are claiming that a theory can only be scientific if it can be falsified here.
I don’t, however, know that there is one big experiment that has or every will once and for all turn this scientific theory into a scientific falsehood or a scientific fact.
And here you’re claiming that not all scientific theories are falsifiable.
And then you accuse me of misrepresenting your case –which is absolute nonsense. You said one thing, I challenged you on it, and then you said another thing which contradicted what you said in the first place.
If you’re going to accuse someone of something, then make certain they’ve actually done what you’ve accused them of. But I’ve long noted that it’s a favorite tactic of liberals to accuse others of what they, themselves, are doing –if you can’t win the argument, resort to ad hominim attacks while you’re running away.
For instance, you then go on to build a straw man of my statements:
You apparently feel that Evolution Theory has been properly and scientifically falsified by supposedly credible scientists in supposedly serious “peer review” scientific journals and by supposedly sound scientific methodology. (And you apparently believe that Creationism has been proven in much the same way).
Do you even read what other people write? What I have actually said is this:
1. “Evolution” has two meanings.
2. One meaning is clearly religious, and therefore outside the “scientific” realm just as much as creationism is. Neither Creationism nor Evolution in this sense are falsifiable scientific theories.
2. The second meaning, as a scientific theory, is falsifiable. There are a number of subclaims within this second meaning of the theory. Some of these subclaims stand, others have been clearly disproven. It so happens that the ones the first definition of evolution purports to stand on are the ones that have been clearly and totally falsified.
Your next argument, if you can even call it an argument, is “the majority of experts agree…” The majority of experts once agreed that QM was total bunk, and Einstein was just shy of insane. The majority of experts once agreed that the Earth was flat, and that if you sail far enough, you’ll fall off the edge. The majority of experts once agreed that some races are inferior to others, and should be kept in subjugation.
These were all scientific opinions, based on observations of the real world. You’ll say they were all religious, of course, because you apparently believe that you can have your own facts as well as your own opinions.
You consult the opinion polls to determine what truth is, and I’ll consult real measures of truth. When the majority opinion states you can jump off a tall building and fly, feel free to try it, because, after all, the majority must be right.
The rest of your screed is back to emotional bomb throwing, quite typical of a liberal backed into a losing position.
Russ
By the way, I do need to move on from this conversation. Not because I think there’s nothing more to talk about, but simply because I really need to get other things done. It’s been a good conversation –you’ve actually driven me to do some research and refine and restate some arguments.
Russ