“The Other America” Is “Coming Apart”

This (shorter) version appeared in papers throughout Indiana last year. The longer, more academic version appeared recently in the Acton Institute's journal, Markets and Morality.
__________________

Published 50 years ago, Michael Harrington’s The Other America provided a sweeping description of poverty in the United States. His book is given credit for awakening the nation to the plight of the poor and forwarding the idea that the federal government should become heavily involved in trying to help. It is routinely hailed as one of the most influential books of the 20th century.

Even so, the author embraces facile policy prescriptions: welfare, minimum wage, and government job training. The book is socially conservative in its worldview, overtly hostile to multiculturalism (especially to African-Americans), and condescending toward the poor. His paternalistic outlook encouraged policymakers and bureaucrats to control the lives of the poor.

Harrington briefly references what were then relatively mild troubles with family structure among the poor: “There are more homes without a father, there are less marriages, more early pregnancy…As a result of this, to take but one consequence of the fact, hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of children in the other America never know stability and ‘normal’ affection.”

Family structure has deteriorated markedly over the past 50 years, especially among the poor and lower-middle class. What would Harrington say today? At least in part, we can look to Charles Murray’s recent book, Coming Apart, for the answer. Like Harrington, Murray approaches the subject from economic and sociological angles, brings relevant data to the table, and is unafraid to tackle sensitive topics.

In Losing Ground—the book on welfare from the 1980s—Murray described how welfare changed the “rules of the game” for the poor, encouraging them to make decisions that were detrimental in the long-term. The book was highly controversial. But within a decade, it had become conventional wisdom—and welfare programs were overhauled in 1996. In Losing Ground, Murray focused on African-Americans, given limits in the data, and received spurious criticisms for his approach. In Coming Apart, he avoids this problem by focusing on whites only.

Looking back on poverty before the War on Poverty began, Murray notes that measured poverty had fallen dramatically over the previous 15 years—from 41% to 20%. “Poverty had been dropping so rapidly for so many years that Americans thought things were going well…95% of the respondents [to a Gallup poll] said they were working class or middle class…America didn’t have classes, or, to the extent that it did, [we acted] as if we didn’t.” So, Murray engages Harrington’s thesis, but largely rejects it for the 1960s.

But one might say that Murray is applying Harrington’s thesis to today. Murray believes that American culture, society, and economy have evolved into three wildly different classes, with vast and growing differences between the lowest and highest classes. Movement between the classes is still available, but less prevalent.

Murray compares and contrasts the top 20% and the bottom 30% over the past 40 years. “The other America” has reduced their labor force participation and employment—and measured “disability” has increased markedly. They have much less emphasis on marriage; they are more likely to remain single and to get divorced. As a result, there is a large and growing proportion of “non-marital births” and relatively few children raised in two-parent homes.

The academic literature on children who are born and raised in these settings is sobering and unsurprising. Moreover, the effects are intergenerational: parents often pass along their success or failure to their children. Murray warns that the implosion of marriage and two-parent families “calls into question the viability of white working-class communities as a place for socializing the next generation.”

Murray bemoans our loss of community and believes this is especially devastating for those who struggle with a lack of non-material resources. He is pessimistic about the future, but holds out hope that an awakening can occur. He also overlooks the strongest reason for optimism. By generalizing the two groups under study, he largely ignores the solid members of both the top 20% and the bottom 30%. And he omits the vast middle half of the population: plenty of good, hard-working folk, the bread-and-butter of American society.

Harrington’s book is a “classic”. But Murray’s book is a must-read if one is in poverty, inequality, and American society. For those who understand the limits of public policy, the importance of community, the sanctity of the individual, and the dignity of the human person, one can hope that many in “the other America” will find a way to escape dysfunction—and that a solid middle class will carry the day.

review of Steven Guthrie's "Creator Spirit"

I really enjoyed Steven Guthrie's Creator Spirit: the Holy Spirit and the Art of Becoming Human. Guthrie looks to improve our "pneumatology"-- our theology of the Spirit. In this, I'm reminded of C.S. Lewis' quip that we're all theologians; the question is whether we're good or bad theologians.

In terms of bad theology, God-- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit-- suffer(s) from various distortions. (A related problem is that people are reductionistic toward the Trinity, resulting in some of these errors, among others.) God the Father is imagined to be unjust or without omnipotence because of "the problem of suffering". God the Son is reduced to a great moral teacher or a nice guy.  God the Holy Spirit is invoked for ill gains in some circles, but typically suffers from inattention (hey, couldn't we just drop Him from the Trinity?) or reductionism (imagining Him as a vague force).  

I've often been struck by the article in front of Holy Spirit's "name"-- and how it leads to the unfortunate inference that He is an It. The word "the" implies a title or description (as with God the Father and God the Son), so it's accurate enough. But given our limited understanding of the Holy Spirit, the article can feed the misperception. Perhaps we should use "God the Holy Spirit" to avoid this?

A word on the title. It's a bit unsatisfying in that it narrows the scope of the work. Yes, Guthrie discusses the Creator role of the Spirit. Moreover, the book focuses on creativity and the role of the Spirit in our humanity, particularly within art. And I'm not sure I can come up with a better title, so perhaps it would be better not to quibble!

Fortunately, the subtitle is more helpful. It makes the art/spirit/Spirit connection explicit and it brings in a vital theme for Guthrie-- the Holy Spirit's role in allowing us to become more (truly) human.

On the human spirit, the Holy Spirit, creativity, and art, Guthrie discusses the universal principle of "God's provision and our participation" as it applies to art. In most things, outcomes are some function of God's provision and our participation: God always provides, but we are typically called to participate. This is an amazing and powerful concept. My favorite verse on this? Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are not saved to do good works, but Ephesians 2:10 says we are saved to do good works, which were prepared in advance (from the time of Creation) for us to do!

What's true in general is certainly and obviously true within art. Guthrie is interested in various theories about the extent of our participation in artistic endeavors-- the primary purpose of his book. On one extreme, God is out of the picture and art is a purely human creation. On the other extreme, God does all of the inspiring and the human is merely a vessel by which God's artistry is expressed.

In terms of bibliology, one sees a similar debate between Muslims who believe that Muhammad was a passive recipient and transmitter of the Koran-- whereas Christians recognize that the Bible is "inspired by God" but influenced by the particular attributes and experiences of the authors. As such, we see physician references from Luke; we understand Revelation in light of John's exile on Patmos; we read Matthew as a Jewish-focused gospel; we recognize context in Paul's letters; and so on.

The very framework of Guthrie's book is a survey of philosophers and artists who have different ideas on the way in which art is received and developed. He ranges from Coltrane to Monk; from Kandinsky to Kandera; from Tolstoy to (Ann) Tyler; from Plato to Athanasius. In this, the book is somewhere between cool (especially if you're into his examples) and provocative.

Beyond art, God the Holy Spirit plays a huge part in Biblical history and the plan of "salvation". First, in Creation, He animates the dust of the ground. A cool observation: "God draws very near-- much nearer, and in a much more intimate posture, than the moment of life-giving famously portrayed by Michelangelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel." (35; add to DC). 

Second, in Christ, He "incarnates". He works to conceive/animate and then empower Christ, making Himself available to Christ in His ministry as a human on Earth-- and ultimately, in His resurrection. "In Jesus, the eternal word of God is made flesh by the power of the Spirit." (42) Here, we see the Spirit's provision and Jesus' participation-- done perfectly.

Third, in us, He hopes to "re-humanize". He is the means by which we can become more human in our life on Earth (John 5:30, 15:5). Biblically, "salvation" is more than "getting saved". Again, God has Ephesians 2:10 in mind for us-- to participate within God's provision; to train up disciple-makers; to be workers in the field; and so on. The biblical term for salvation implies a wholeness and an abundant life (Jn 10:10) that extends far beyond a moment of salvation. As such, for the Christian, at least biblically speaking, being "spiritual" is Spirit-ual. "The work of the Spirit is to bring dust to life and fill it with glory-- in other words, to make us truly human, the image bearers of God." (42)

A great quote on this (153): "The work of God's Spirit is to restore sight: to allow human beings to see truly, no longer blinded by ideology and priestcraft. The work of the Spirit is to restore speech: to allow human beings to speak truly and creatively, no longer passive conduits for the Muse or the Big Other. The work of the Spirit is to restore freedom: to empower human beings to not only receive creation but also to become givers who add to the world."

As such, "discernment is not a matter of divining those rare instances when God shows up. Instead, it means learning to recognize, as Moltmann writes, 'that in everything God is waiting for us'." (158) As Dallas Willard puts it, God can only bless you where you're at. This is a key concept-- for understanding a personal and intimate God who wants to empower us to do great things for His Kingdom.

Let me close with two other ways in which we have a limited view of art and God. First, from Guthrie: "The eternal plan and purpose of God was to bring about a differentiated community...If our churches have often done a poor job at [this], perhaps it is in part because they resemble only the unity, and not the diversity, of our triune God." (164) Second, art is both an event and a lifestyle. Often we reduce prayer, worship, economics, study, etc. to "events" rather than seeing them as both. Art is the same. Art is something you do-- and art is a way of life.

As we ponder our pneumatology and our "art-ology", Guthrie is helpful in knocking out heresies and other unlikelihoods. But Guthrie is quite comfortable with the mystery of both the Holy Spirit and His influence on art. I really liked his reference to a line in a Madeleine L'Engle poem (she, of Wrinkle in Time fame): "Had Mary been filled with reason, there'd have been no room for the child." Our faith is reasonable, but reason must have its limits in things as immense, complex, mysterious, and as ineffable as God, love, and art.

MW in (a small part of) Tacoma

A key excerpt from a relevant article at MSN.com:

A voter initiative to enact a $15 minimum wage for thousands of workers in a Seattle suburb that houses the region's main international airport won a narrow victory on Tuesday that proponents hailed as a signal moment in the nationwide fight for livable wages.

The measure mandates that some 6,300 workers at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and nearby hotels, car rental agencies and parking lots receive a minimum hourly wage more than double the federal minimum wage of $7.25.

Notice that they keep it restricted to the airport, areas nearby, and to services closely connected to the airport.

On one hand, it's gutless (and disingenuous) not to extend the glorious legislation to the entire city.

On the other hand, it's genius, since the demand for airport services is highly inelastic and the demand for airport-related services is somewhat inelastic. Those enterprises are in a relatively good position to absorb the MW "tax" and pass it along to customers. Moreover, the supply of some services-- particularly those with large fixed costs-- is also inelastic, since they cannot get away from the tax easily. (Imagine taxing a casino at a higher level, after they've been built. What are they going to do?)

It will/would be interesting to watch the shifts that will likely occur: 1.) a (probably modest) decline in those services being available in the zone; 2.) relevant smaller businesses moving just outside the MW-tax zone (e.g., rent-a-car companies); 3.) relevant larger-fixed-cost businesses (that cannot move easily and don't shut down) shifting away from lower-end labor (e.g., hotels and parking lots moving toward more automation); 4.) hotels will contract out their cleaning services to companies outside the zone, so that they're not employed by the hotel anymore or subject to the MW-tax; 5.) workers will shifted to part-time and will lose health-insurance or other benefits, as firms seek to keep compensation near market-levels; and so on. Can you think of others?

Do you know the other famous people who died that day?

A shorter version of this appeared in at least one local newspaper; the longer version may come out in the C-J on Sunday and will come out in the Indiana Policy Review's journal next quarter. Enjoy!
__________________________________

November 22^nd marks the 50^th anniversary of the death of three highly influential people: Aldous Huxley, John F. Kennedy, and C.S. Lewis. Kennedy—in his life and especially in his death—is the most famous of the trio. But all three had an impressive impact during their lives and in the decades since.

All three have ancestral roots in Great Britain: Kennedy was a third-generation Irishmen; Lewis was born in Ireland and lived in England; Huxley was from England. Kennedy was a war hero whose family connections, wealth, and political aspirations led to holding office in the U.S. House, the Senate, and the White House. His assassination at age 46 is considered one of the most memorable moments in 20^th century American history. Huxley and Lewis lived into their 60’s, didn’t have memorable deaths, and are not as well known—but have arguably had a bigger influence on the world.

Huxley was an author whose most famous novel, Brave New World, is routinely rated in the Top 100 of all time. Brave New World covers topics from eugenics to a State-enforced class system, from the massive use of prescription drugs to euthanasia. Alongside George Orwell’s dystopian novels, Animal Farm and 1984, Orwell and Huxley have served as prophets of a technological, totalitarian, and bureaucratic society. The thoughts behind these books have influenced generations of readers in a way that is difficult to measure.

Lewis was a Literature professor whose prolific writing ranged from academic to popular. He used a wide variety of genres: children’s literature, science fiction, allegory, poetry, and non-fiction Christian “apologetics”. Recently, his work has been a significant player in pop culture. Max McLean has had a long and successful run with his one-man play version of Screwtape Letters. Some of Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia—a seven-book series that combines a children’s story with strong Christian references—has been the subject of high-budget films. (The first was The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe.) Narnia has been a staple of family reading for decades, selling more than 100 million copies.

Lewis’ books on apologetics are more popular than ever. From the “modern” logical approach of Mere Christianity to the “post-modern” narrative approach of The Great Divorce, Lewis showed remarkable literary range as he tried to make the Christian faith reasonable and compelling—for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. Lewis’ emphasis on “mere” Christianity is also important—focusing on the “mere” essentials of the faith, with its resulting pluralism and strong but broadly-defined unity.

The religious views of all three men were also interesting. I became aware of this coincidence of deaths through a neat little book by Peter Kreeft, Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death. Kreeft writes as if recording a discussion between the three as they await Judgment. For Kreeft, Lewis represents biblical Christianity; Kennedy represents “cultural Christianity” or a tepid Deism; and Huxley represents a combination of agnosticism and pantheism.

As for Kennedy, beyond his status as a historical figure and a cultural touchstone, his political impact was also significant. From one angle, we can see echoes of Kennedy in Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Both were effective with television and popular with the general public. And Kennedy’s muscular (if not always effective) anti-communist foreign policy and “supply-side” economics served as pre-cursors to Reagan’s policies.

Kennedy reduced corporate income tax rates and cut personal income tax rates dramatically across the board. (Kennedy reduced the top tax bracket from 91% to 70%; Reagan then reduced it from 70% to 28%.) As Reagan, Kennedy noted that in the presence of high tax rates, “the soundest way to raise revenue in the long term is to lower rates”.

Likewise, Kennedy’s most famous inaugural address line—“ask not what your country can do for you”—points to fiscal conservatism and relatively small government, at least by today’s standards. Tellingly, in a December 1958 TV interview, Eleanor Roosevelt said that she would do all she could do to prevent a “conservative like Kennedy” from being the party’s nominee. In these arenas, Kennedy’s distance from the bulk of today’s Democratic Party is noteworthy.

But in other ways, Kennedy was a precursor for those who led the charge for larger government and greater Executive Branch power. Using techniques made famous by subsequent presidents, JFK (allegedly) got the IRS and the FBI to target and wiretap groups that were hostile to his administration’s goals. 

In a speech to the National Press Club as he campaigned for President in 1960, Kennedy argued against “a restricted concept of the presidency”. Instead, a president “must be prepared to exercise the fullest powers of his office — all that are specified and some that are not.” Kennedy imagined a president who would “build more schools” (an interesting role for the federal government!), “be the center of moral leadership”, and who “alone…must make the major decisions of our foreign policy”. As such, Kennedy’s vision for a more powerful presidency governing a more expansive government has been prophetic as well.

As we observe November 22^nd, we should give consideration to the work of all three men. Kennedy’s short presidency left a mixed legacy and his assassination is still the subject of sensationalism. But the lives of Huxley and Lewis have a more enduring legacy that should receive more careful reflection.

review of Willard's "Knowing Christ Today"

Knowing Christ Today is another fine book by Dallas Willard. I don't think it's at the level of The Spirit of the Disciplines or The Divine Conspiracy (then again, what is?!), but it's still likely worth your time. (In terms of difficulty, it's similar to the former, but less thick than the latter.) 

Willard focuses on "knowledge" and claims about knowledge. More specifically, he is concerned "with the trivialization of faith apart from knowledge and with the disastrous effect of a repositioning of faith in Jesus Christ, and of life as his students, outside the category of knowledge...Those beliefs are to relegated to the categories of sincere opinion, emotion, blind commitment, or behavior traditional for their social group." (1)

But this is a strange definition for belief-- whether done innocently or for more sinister purposes. "Belief cannot reliably govern life and action except in its proper connection with knowledge and with the truth and evidence [that] knowledge involves." (3) And "a steady life directed, in a communal setting, toward the good and right can be supported only within a framework of basically sound knowledge and understanding. This does not fundamentally change when we come to religion." (7)

Willard notes that belief "has no necessary tie to truth...or evidence...[it] is a matter of tendency to act...involves the will in a way that knowledge does not." (16a) This comports with the economist's discussion of tastes and preferences which underline subjective benefits and costs, which then set up the decision to act on those preferences (or not), depending on incentives. Whether theism, deism, or atheism-- whether buying pizza or working overtime-- actions will be based on beliefs and the constraints one faces.

Beyond "belief", commitment "need not involve belief, much less knowledge...choosing and implementing a course of action." (16b) And then "at an even greater distance from knowledge is profession". (17) The sad result, for many in the Church, of missing this last point? Many "confuse what they need to teach with what one must believe in order to be saved. This leads to their members professing lots of things they neither believe nor are committed to-- indeed, do not even understand." (228)

As for Christianity, Willard notes that "the central teachings of the Christian religion, such as those of the Apostles' Creed, were from the beginning presented and accepted as knowledge...the Biblical tradition as a whole presents itself, rightly or wrongly, as one of knowledge..." (19-20) Moreover, "an act of faith in the biblical tradition is always understood in an environment of knowledge and is inseparable from it." (20) So, too, with any realm where knowledge is available but insufficient for dogmatic inference. The Bible even defines eternal life as knowledge (e.g., see: John 17:3; I Jn 1:1-5, 2:3, 4:7-8,13; Phil 3:10; II Tim 2:12, II Pet 1:2-5, 3:18).

But there has been an evolution over time in beliefs about beliefs and knowledge (23-29), caused by a variety of factors (71-83)-- a change that was embraced or at least condoned by Christians (as they moved toward inner experience, the Social Gospel, or withdrew from society). "These values and principles were relocated, by subtle increments within a long drawn-out process, into the domain of feelings and cultural traditions." (71) 

Alongside the diminution of religious belief and knowledge, we've seen the over-reach of science into realms beyond its own knowledge or even its competence. As an example, Willard quotes Dr. William Provine (5): "There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either." Willard notes that these claims are "simply laughable", not addressed by the scientific literature, and in fact, not within its purview. "Myth-making, as it turns out, is not the sole prerogative of religion. It is also a very active secular and academic pastime...perhaps it is some kind of human necessity." (10)

Worse yet, many of these critics lack the intellectual honesty/integrity to study such things earnestly. In this, they ironically play the part of the dogmatic, blinkered, anti-intellectual, fundamentalist (163-164).[Willard traces this back as far as 1855 (215, FTN 5). Willard also cites Feynman as a notable exception (217).]

In chapter 2, Willard goes into "worldview", using Hosea 4:6's reference to an improper worldview built on the shifting and false sands of idolatry (37-45). From there, he describes four elements of a worldview's sense of reality (What is real? What is well-being? Who is a good person? How does one become a good person?; p. 45-50), followed by the answers that Jesus gives to these four elements (50-54). Then, Willard asks the vital 5th question (55ff): "How do we know which answers to these four questions are true?"

From there, Willard makes a case for the existence of God (ch. 4); lays out a case for miracles (ch. 5); describes the Christian sense of "abundant life" and Sanctification (ch. 6); describes the call to Christian pluralism, true tolerance/unity and inclusivity (ch. 7, esp. 181-190); and concludes with a "post-Millennial" Kingdom view with its emphasis on disciple-making based on true knowledge/wisdom (ch. 8).

On miracles, Willard notes that they cannot be ruled in an open system/universe like ours. And he notes the possibility that one law of nature can transcend other laws. Turning to the religious angle, a belief in miracles more likely stems from a belief in a personal God, rather than the passive/apathetic god of deism (126). And he has a very helpful discussion of what would constitute proper interpretation of miracles as evidentiary (128-136), including the Resurrection (133-136, 226). 

I can detail this further if you're interested and don't want to read Willard's book, but one of the punchlines is that a "miracle" would not likely be understood by someone who doesn't want to believe. So, despite the protestations of non-believers who say they would believe if God "showed Himself", it is unlikely to be sufficient since they would probably convince themselves that it had some other cause or never really happened.

Willard also runs with a cool Peter Berger quote (145-146): "...the only Christian resolution of our argument...a confrontation of our perception of society with the figure of Jesus Christ. It is this figure of the crucified one which continues to haunt both the oppressors and the oppressed, casting its shadow over the religious celebrations and at the same time intruding its disturbing light into the corners where one escapes the sacred drums...a demand that transcends both society and religion—the demand to follow this figure of the crucified one. This demand calls us to an exodus, not only out of the Egypt of social mythology but also out of the Zion of religious security...

Willard comments: "The most profound critic of society and the 'masks,' Christian and otherwise, is Jesus himself. In this respect he stands in the line of the sharp-tongued Hebrew prophets and brings it to completion. He then quotes Berger again: “the crucial point of the relationship between Christian faith and the antireligious critique is to be found in a theological proposition....something very different from religion...Religion has many critics, but Jesus very few...In him God breaks through...Christian faith is not religion."

Some other small things: 
1.) Willard makes a nice point about higher ed-- and its purposes in producing, storing, and retailing information and knowledge, if not wisdom (56). 
2.) Willard notes that knowledge comes through three means: authority, thinking, and experience (58), whereas fundamentalists of various stripes seek a narrower range to avoid "messiness" (61). 
3.) Willard provides a useful discussion of the Silver Rule ("do not do to others...") vs. the more powerful Golden Rule (89). 
4.) Willard continues to sing the praises of Frank Laubach-- and this time, recommends his book, Letters by a Modern Mystic.

review of Nagel's Mind and Cosmos

I read Nagel's Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False alongside deWaal's most recent book. (See: my review of deWaal here.) Both books are well-written by thoughtful atheists; effective at laying out what's known and not known; and take shots at atheists who are silly or overplay their hands. Differences? Nagel is a philosopher focusing on epistemology (the study of knowledge); deWaal is a scientist. Nagel's book is slender but thick, needing to address a skeptical academic audience; deWaal's work is larger but breezier, aiming for a popular audience. And deWaal is much more optimistic about (capital-E) Evolution-- for reasons that Nagel addresses.

More broadly, both books reminded me of the desire of (some) atheists to do more than oppose theism. (See: my time with an impressive local group of atheists.) It's relatively easy to claim what one doesn't believe. It's far tougher to look at what one does believes. It's tougher still, intellectually and emotionally, to analyze what one must implicitly believe-- and whether those beliefs are probable, speculative but reasonable, or more fantastic than the views so confidently rejected. (Another recent book by an atheist philosopher that looks relatively good: Alex Rosenberg's Atheist's Guide to Reality. H/t: CRJ's review in vol. 36, #3.)

As always, I'm not denying the existence and power of evolutionary mechanisms. Instead, I question whether (capital-E) Evolution CAN provide a comprehensive explanation for the development of life as we see it (the possibility seems fantastic to me)-- and noting that it certainly doesn't do anything close to that at present. Nagel focuses on these questions-- noting but then putting aside the huge but unanswered questions of ultimate existence and the origins of life.

Nagel is certainly not religious at all (in the traditional sense of the term)-- and he takes great pains to make this clear, repeating it often (e.g., see: p. 7, 12, 22, 26, 91, 95). He also admits that this is purely subjective for him. For example, he says "I am talking about something much deeper-- namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God...I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."

Why is this important? It increases his credibility with other (religious) skeptics and (capital-E Evolution) supporters. "My skepticism is not based on religious belief, or on a belief in any definite alternative." (7) There is, seemingly, no ulterior motive for him-- either way.

Nagel notes that the preeminent focus on the biological questions of Evolution has been reductionistic. This approach has borne much fruit, but is necessarily limited. It is both more comfortable for scientists-- and more easily prone to (seemingly) reasonable extrapolation. But the flip sides of this reductionism are ignoring important factors that have been reduced from one's model; imagining that reductionism is the only possibility; and ignoring what Nagel appropriately and ironically labels a "Darwinism of the gaps" (127).

The physical/biological/material questions are difficult enough-- and a nearly-infinite number of huge gaps remain (in terms of providing an explanation). Nagel acknowledges this and is hopeful that these gaps will continue to close, but is quite unconvinced that this will or can happen. Beyond this, Nagel focuses on what he sees as insurmountable barriers to determining-- or whether we could possibly determine-- an explanation for the supposed evolution of consciousness, cognition/reason and objective (vs. subjective) reality, and values. 

His argument on values is fascinating (105, 111, 116) but beyond the scope of a short review. On reason and reality, Nagel notes that "the ability of creatures like us to arrive at such truth, or even to think about it, requires explanation...The problem has two aspects. The first concerns the likelihood that the process of natural selection should have generated creatures with the capacity to discover by reason the truth about a reality that extends vastly beyond the initial appearances...The second problem is the difficulty of understanding naturalistically the faculty of reason that is the essence of these activities." (73-74) He continues by describing these problems at length (78-86), before concluding that one can assume that reason emerged as a "fluke", ex nihilo (88). Of course, this would not be an explanation, but the sort of (cosmic) hand-waving usually criticized by dogmatic atheists. Throughout, Nagel is careful to note that an explanation requires attention to both the contemporary and the historical. And in a word, he says "good luck with that".

But at least for now, Nagel does "not find theism any more credible than materialism as a comprehensive world view. My interest is in the territory between them." (22) For Nagel, that reduces to non-theistic and largely undefined "natural teleology"-- the idea that there must be "something" beyond the purely material, but without any commitment to theism per se.

Nagel points to one intriguing inference: that an embrace of non-reductionism-- if true-- is not only helpful but required if we are to pursue truth in Science (69). Along these lines, he does not find ID compelling, but is thankful for the space it has created on these questions (12). (He does not explain his take on ID-- nor would one expect that in this book. One hopes his views are not based on the all-too-common ignorance of what ID is/does.)

Nagel's concluding paragraph is useful as a summary and quite provocative: "It is perfectly possible that the truth is beyond our reach, in virtue of our intrinsic cognitive limitations and not merely beyond our grasp in humanity’s present stage of intellectual development. In this process, the ability to generate and reject false hypotheses plays an essential role. I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its Neo-Darwinian extension. But...I find this view antecedently unbelievable--a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense. The empirical evidence can be interpreted to accommodate different comprehensive theories, but in this case the cost in conceptual and probabilistic contortions is prohibitive. I would be willing to bet that the present right-thinking consensus will come to seem laughable in a generation or two — though of course it may be replaced by a new consensus that is just as invalid. The human will to believe is inexhaustible."

For those who subscribe to Touchstone, David Bentley Hart provides a similar treatment of these questions/problems in the second half of a recent "Back Page" essay (November 2013). [For some reason, it is not available on-line, but the issue can be ordered at http://www.touchstonemag.com/.] On subjectivity, Hart gets off a great line, noting that it "poses philosophical difficulties that even the tireless and tortuous bluster of a Daniel Dennett cannot entirely obscure. From there, he also ranges through abstract concepts, reason, consciousness, intentionality, "and so on". He concludes: "Not that there is room here to argue these points. Nonetheless, there are very good reasons why the most consistent materialist philosophers of mind-- when, that is, they are not attempting to get around these difficulties with non-solutions like 'epiphenomenalism' or incoherent fantasy solutions like 'panpsychism'-- have no choice in the end but to deny that such things...exist at all."

If you want to read someone who has the "room" to argue these points, pick up a copy of Nagel's book. If you don't want to slog through it, please know that philosophers have something to offer in this debate-- at the least, humility and perspective about what is known and what can be known.

review of de Waal's The Bonobo and the Atheist

A subset of our old book club recently got back together to discuss Frans deWaal's latest book, The Bonobo and the Atheist. (This is my second de Waal book after reading Good Natured.)

DeWaal is a good writer who provides a layperson's guide to evolution in general-- and ape research in particular. But from the title, one can tell that he has another fish to fry-- in particular, sharing reflections on evolution, religion, and atheism. In a word, deWaal is a moderate voice among atheists. This is generally true in his discussion of the science-- and certainly, in terms of interacting with those who are religious. (Here, of writers I've read, he joins Neil Shubin-- across the aisle from Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins. Then, there are moderate theists who are active in this realm-- e.g., Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins; see: p. 40.)

DeWaal's primary purpose is to discuss the presence of emotions and morality in general-- and empathy, altruism, and gratitude in particular-- among non-human animals (particularly mammals). He provides a ton of really cool examples, especially among bonobos-- but also other apes and other animals.

Since the Bible describes animals as having a spirit/breath-- the same term used for humans (1:30, 2:7)-- this does not seem to be problematic biblically. The other fascinating Biblical angle is deWaal's discussion of animal "awareness of death". Biblically, it reminded me of Genesis 6 and Leon Kass' observation about man's response to his (known/seen/experienced) mortality in the run-up to the Flood, as recorded in the 3rd Creation Account.

As an economist, I'm fascinated by tastes and preferences-- although we largely take them as a given or at least as derived in a complex/black box. This extends from pizza toppings to ideas about "equity" (what's fair or not). Apparently, there is some research on variance in preferences within and between species. Between species is not all that interesting to me. But from what de Waal presents, it looks like there is some variance within species. It would have been nice to see more on that (if the literature exists).

DeWaal touches on econ a few times and does ok-- at least compared with others (ok, I know that's a low bar to set).

Most important to the purpose of the book: he's not clear or consistent on his definition of altruism (27-28, 32-33, 50, 52-53, 122). He notes (correctly) that the term implies a voluntary choice to bear costs for the individual in order to benefit another. But the choice to bear costs and achieve benefits is itself (generally) thought to be the best net-benefit choice at the time.

Likewise, economists talk about "self-interested" behavior, distinguishing it from "selfish" behavior. Often, I eat pizza or write a paper because the benefits of an action exceed the costs to me (directly). But economic models are plenty large enough to incorporate how my actions can derive from an awareness of benefits or costs for others. (See also: deWaal invocation of a narrow economic model of behavior on p. 42.)

In the case of altruism, benefits and costs to others become paramount to me. For example, although a charitable decision is not selfish, it is "self-interested" since I thought the benefits would outweigh the costs of the alternative uses of that time/money. (Likewise, deWaal misapplies "irrationality" in describing the Ultimatum Game [232]. Lack of clarity on such things-- see also: incoherent but common definitions and applications of the term "greed"-- is regrettable but quite common.)

Miscellany:
-He misunderstands/misrepresents ID (170).
-He notes the "science" of eugenics, Tuskegee, and torture (22).
-He cites Jonathan Haidt's work (41-42)-- an appropriate and cool connection.
-He notes, in passing, that early theorizing about Evolution "skipped complexities" like empathy (33). (This is something that really bothers Thomas Nagel-- whose book I read at the same time and will review shortly.)
-It was fascinating to see deWaal pit Darwin against Huxley and Dawkins.
-One really interesting argument: that starting society all over, we would definitely get religion (even without revelation), but it's not clear that we would get science (214-218).
 
The other big theme in the book is sporadic and then concentrated discussion of atheists-- and how silly they are to:
-be against something more than being for something (109)
-worry about something that (supposedly) is not real (96)
-use moronic or dishonest arguments. (He takes the "Flat Earth" argument to task for using "pure propaganda", frustrated that its proponents would "pee in their pants with delight" in using such an inaccurate argument [91]. See also: his fun with literalists on "the heart"-- p. 8)
-fight against something that others enjoy and benefit from (216; so the science says)
-not recognize the limits of science-- both in what's been discovered, what will be discovered, what (relatively little) can be discovered (19-21), and how far science speaks (106)
-"serially dogmatic" as atheists (87-91)-- to the point of "fundamentalism' (103)-- as it is dangerous from believers (84)
-fail to recognize the possibility of bias (and other problems) in scientific endeavors (97-99)
-fail to recognize that "the field still teems with 'just-so' stories that are hard to take seriously" (103; the just-so story puts one, at best, on par with Creation/theism)

DeWaal closes by encouraging atheists to "stop sleeping furiously". Of course, I would go a step further and encourage them to inquire again earnestly-- at both what they have and what they don't have intellectually and otherwise.

the Providence HS prayer for its football players

For this moment, parents laid hands on their son, while we all stood in a circle.

"Lord, I lift up my sons to you and ask that you would put a hedge of protection around them. Protect their spirit, body and mind from any kind of evil or harm. I pray specifically for protection from accidents or injury. Thank you Lord for your many promises of protection. Help them to walk in your ways and in obedience to your will. Keep them safe in all they do and wherever they go. Lord, I put my sons in your hands this day. Guide, protect, and convict them when sin is trying to take room. Strengthen them in battle when Satan attempts to gain a foothold in their hearts. Help me not to live in fear of possible dangers but in the joy and peace of knowing that you are in control. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen."

on President Obama's college speech yesterday...

On President Obama's college speech yesterday...

A great title from a John Ransom article: "Making it Cheaper No Matter What it Costs". This explains the President's approach to health care and now, post-secondary education. (In that, he has a bi-partisan crowd of ignoramuses behind him on this, so he's far from alone.)

I happened to catch part of his speech yesterday on CNN-Radio. What a mess.

First, he talks as if access to college is a primary factor in escaping poverty. This ignores the over-arching impact of K-12 education (without which you ain't going to be successful in college...yo!) and ignores the larger factors of hard work and family structure (although I can see why he wouldn't want to talk about those).

Second, by focusing on consumers only, he completely misses the connection between subsidies and higher overall costs-- as if he can extend the subsidies on something without driving up total costs further.

Third, did you catch the new bureaucracy and rating system he wants to create-- as if that would work. Hilarious.

Is this ignorance or duplicity/rhetoric?