When Spiders Bite

I am losing my faith. This is not a confession that I've lost faith in humanity, or the future, or tomorrow morning. This is a confession of a crisis of spirit: My very religion is crumbling around me. Atheism almost seems comforting.

What, pray tell, do Derrick Z. Jackson, Ellen Goodman, Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman have in common? They have in common the grand prize of making me reconsider my belief in God. For I ask myself how is it that God–and the readers of the New York Times and Boston Globe, and the Pulitzer Prize committee–can countenance, with any seriousness other than serious alarm, the writings of these essayists? I am at a loss.

Perhaps I am a victim of ennui, the existentialist's boredom, a boredom induced in large part by overindulgence. For I have been a glutton, a foolish glutton, of the writings of myriad "critics" of Bush, Iraq, New Orleans. I have entered their nests, drawn close by blind curiosity, ignorant of their danger. I've been bitten. I am nearly paralyzed by their venom. I await the deflation of my skin, the result of my liquified innards having been sucked out through mendacious mandibles.

It is impossible to overcome, this all-out assault on reality by the opinion-shapers perched atop their righteousness. There are simply too many of them. Their webs are sticky.

Here's one statement from a rebuttal of a recent Christopher Hitchens essay. The rebuttal, written by University of Michigan professor Juan Cole and laced with pedantic and errant lessons on Hitchens' alleged fallacies, has this truly mind-boggling passage:

In essence, Hitchens is arguing for the legitimacy of a sort of hyperpower vigilantism, in which the sitting president of the United States decides which regimes may continue to exist, virtually by himself. The U.S. Congress did not even have the moral fortitude to declare war. The U.N. charter forbids wars of aggression, and, indeed, forbids all wars not clearly defensive that are not explicitly authorized by the Security Council. The Security Council may be, as Hitchens implies, corrupt and yellow-bellied, but it represents most of humankind, while Bush did not even represent a majority of Americans. [emphasis added]

It is tempting to think that the problem with modern American letters is that such letters are being drafted by members of the marijuana generation (and there really is such a generation). Cole's remark might very well have been drafted in a pot-induced haze, for its very imbecility invokes images of Cheech and Chong. One hardly thinks of Sir Bertrand Russell in the face of such polemics (other than Russell's atheism).

Here we have Cole, an opponent of the Iraq War and defender of the UN Security Council's leadership in the months leading up to the war, conceding that the Security Council may indeed be corrupt and pusillanimous, but it at least represents "MOST OF MANKIND." Bush, in contrast, "did not even represent a majority of Americans."

Excuse me while I pause at this moment so I may gouge out my eyes (but I can't, since I'm paralyzed).

Imagine, really imagine, that this statement was drafted by a PhD-holding professor, printed on Salon.com, and is meant to be an academic rebuttal of Hitchen's fallacies. Sadly, I can't imagine it. For me, it is beyond the fantastic; it is beyond the promises of even a serious acid trip. And I can't for the life of me believe that the universe in which this sort of statement is published is one governed by a God.

If a "corrupt and yellow-bellied" UN Security Council represents "most of mankind", does this mean that most of mankind is corrupt? If so, do we not want Mr. Bush to act contrary to that corruption? Moreover, doesn't the statement that Bush "did not even represent a majority of Americans" imply that the majority of Americans, who are part of "most of mankind", are also corrupt and yellow-bellied? Does not Cole's statement mean that Bush and his minority are actually NOT corrupt, but noble and courageous? Indeed it does.

Idiocy abounds, collecting paychecks and laurels.

***

Katrina Note

Now that the race card has been played in the Katrina-Bush slamfest, America is left with this truly dire fact: It can never respond more swiftly or efficiently to a natural or similar disaster than it did in New Orleans. For if it does, it will prove that the government does in fact prefer rushing to the aid of other people than the New Orleans victims. Woe to those all-white states that may face catastrophe. For if the federal government rescues them one second faster than the Katrina victims, it proves the essential racist heart of America.

Hence, we are stuck, damned for doing and not doing, because people with hard hearts have played the race card.

Nice job.

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Krugman, that gnostic

In the inaugural post for Contratimes, it is only fitting that I begin with New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, whose most recent op-ed, "An Academic Question" (NYT, 4.5.05) was tagged with this delicious subhead (NYT emailed edition): 'There are so few Republican university professors because the party tends to favor revelation over research.'

After reading Mr. Krugman's piece, I find it unlikely that the subhead, serving as precis, is Krugman's thesis; rather, it appears that it his conclusion. It is at least the conclusion of the New York Times editor who wrote that subhead, as there is no such line found in Krugman's essay.

But one would think that, with an editor of such apparent caliber perusing Krugman's piece, he or she would have at least noticed that Krugman's conclusion is itself not derived from evidence, but by something akin to revelation.

To this writer, Krugman's entire piece smacks of gnosticism, that ancient Christian heresy whose adherents claimed a special, privileged knowledge over their peers. For Krugman intimates, without presenting anything other than what he apparently gleaned from tea leaves, the reason why so few conservatives choose academic professions: conservatives resist intellectual progress. Moreover, Krugman just KNOWS, instinctively and intuitively, that conservatives, and Republicans under their sway, are simply anti-intellectual, medieval in scientific aptitude and mystical in epistemology.

Curiously, what Krugman is ultimately saying is identical to what one of my dinner companions said over our evening victuals: Liberals are in academia because they are smarter than conservatives.

Yes, yes, of course, liberals are smart. In fact, they're Krugman-smart.

Unwittingly (perhaps) Krugman has opened the entire debate regarding the predominance of liberals and the dearth of conservatives in academia to the full light of religion and philosophy. For his concerns are all about religious and philosophical presuppositions; about the foundations of knowledge (epistemology) and reality (metaphysics); about who determines truth, and who or what controls the rules as to how truth is ascertained.

Unfortunately, that light might be too bright for Krugman's concerns. Culling from surveys and data any real, quantifiable evidence that conservatives are academically deficient eludes Krugman's capabilities, as he merely extrapolates from the well-documented fact that liberals control academia. (That Krugman also ignores the operative word - control - is telling. Liberals do control academia.) Krugman essentially argues that because liberals sit in high places, and that they have embraced the grand modern paradigms, then conservatives, who are not in high places, must oppose those prevailing paradigms. Otherwise conservatives would sit in academic chairs.

(Of course, this is like saying that because the Pope is Catholic, those who are not the Pope must be anti-Catholic. Otherwise, they'd be Pope. A ridiculous fallacy, for sure.)

But what, pray tell, would become of Krugman's writing career without some reference to that laughingstock construct - Creationism - and the baneful term 'theocracy'? For Krugman, without flinching, implies that Republicans are theocrats, woefully ignorant of the finer points of Darwinism and the First Amendment. If more Republicans were Darwinists rather than fundamentalists, Krugman might say, perhaps Republicans would receive academia's most revered prizes.

KRUGMAN AND EVOLUTION

What Krugman fails to examine is what really irks conservatives (though by no means all). Conservatives are dubious of not so much evolution, but Evolution, that supra-scientific paradigm that declares what is beyond science's purview: that Evolution is all there is. Countless conservatives (yes, even conservative Christians) accept evolution: they see it in hybrid plants and exotic dog breeds every day. What they don't accept is the over-reaching claim that Evolution - Evolution with a capital E - is paramount.

Open-minded thinkers do not hold tenaciously to this supra-scientific dogma; nor do most critical thinkers who seek a new paradigm, or who are pressing closer to a unifying theory. Excluding a Designer, for instance, from scientific inquiry is like saying that close examination of an ancient building is only scientific if one precludes any concept of a builder. Yes, the modern scientist is expected to examine the parts of that ancient building - cornices, footings, pilasters and partitions - all interesting unto themselves; but he or she is not permitted to infer a builder, or to inquire of one's existence, since the concept of builder is pre-excluded as unscientific.

That this strikes the common man as ludicrous is clear; that it strikes the sophisticated as nonsense is no less crystalline.

I once knew a world-renowned biologist - Harvard-educated, an expert on estuaries - who shared how his 'love of Jesus Christ' infused his biology and informed his understanding of natural selection. For this man, a self-described evangelical, a Designer was not outside the realm of science; nor was design disqualified a priori. Science and God were in fact compatible.

No doubt the rejoinder to this is that God is not empirically verifiable, though one would be hard-pressed to find a scientific discovery that proves that.

But empirical justification, one may counter, is itself elusive: There were many 'scientific' things once considered empirically justified that are now dismissed as nonsense, the stationary earth being one of them. Science itself evolves, tossing away long trusted theories and facts like so much flotsam. Why, pray tell, do we think humanity cannot or will not discover God via scientific methodology? Why would anyone limit the scope of such human inquiry? Who dares restrict what may be deemed testable? Why such pessimism about the limits of science?

That conservative thinkers tend to be more sentient of their presuppositions; that they tend to be mindful of their own predilections for coloring data according to those presuppositions, may in fact preclude them from gaining equal footing in academia with those deemed infallible merely because they embrace the dominant paradigms.

Krugman can snicker all he wants at those he thinks are misguidedly open to the idea that the universe is not a closed system. (For that's what this all ultimately comes down to, whether the universe is open or closed.) But this writer's experience has been that the brightest and most creative thinkers have always believed that the universe is not some self-contained, self-perpetuating entity. They have been open to other frames of reference; they've thought outside the paradigm; and they've doubted whether what one sees is indeed what one gets.

As for theocracy, Krugman should take cover from the religious left that is stomping on the threshold of the American cult. For the religious left has its own goals for America, goals deemed 'true' and pleasing to God. (See God bless you please, Mr. Robinson, for starters)

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

--'It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.' Charles Peguy

Technorati tags: Paul Krugman, Gnosticism, Intelligent Design, evolution, Creationism