Letter from MLK

In an excellent essay in yesterday's Washington Post, W. Ralph Eubanks gives extended props to what is arguably Martin Luther King's greatest rhetorical achievement, his "Letter from Birmingham Jail."

If the "I Have a Dream" speech showcases Martin Luther King Jr.'s oratorical skills, the "Letter From a Birmingham Jail" exhibits the depth of his intellect. In its handling of the themes of law and justice, it is a literary argument in the tradition of Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience." To make its points, it evokes theologians and other thinkers from each of the traditions of the eight clergymen to whom it is directly addressed. King quotes a Catholic saint, Thomas Aquinas, on unjust law, the 20th-century Protestant theologian Paul Tillich on the sin of "separation," and the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber to make the point that segregation relegated black Americans to "the status of things."

Despite the clergymen's pleas for moderation and patience, King knew that the struggles of black Americans could not wait. "For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!' " he wrote. "It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This 'Wait' has almost always meant 'Never.' We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that 'justice too long delayed is justice denied.'"

Whole thing here.

Eubanks, author Ever Is a Long Time: A Journey Into Mississippi's Dark Past, plans to read the letter with his children today. Which is a pretty damn good thing to do.

King's letter, fully in the tradition of "higher law," is well worth poring over, partly because it makes a general case for civil disobedience. A snippet:

There is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

Whole text of King's letter here.

Comments

[Ken Shultz]

Generally speaking, I'm not a big fan of big national monuments--and standing on the spot at the Lincoln Memorial where King preached his "I Have a Dream" sermon is probably just as effective as any new memorial would be. Still, if we were going to build a new memorial, I think our next one should be to Martin Luther King.

I've heard some on the right claim that King shouldn't have a national holiday because he wasn't a soldier and he wasn't elected or even appointed to be anything. As a libertarian, I find this argument laughable, of course; to my mind, the fact that he did what he did outside of government is further evidence of his greatness.

...I find myself wondering if some libertarians might object to his memorial on the basis that he was a religious figure.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

...I find myself wondering if some libertarians might object to his memorial on the basis that he was a religious figure.

I have no objections, as long as the memorial is privately funded.

If I was going to contribute to a memorial, the two I would consider would be Nimitz and a memorial to those native to the land that we exterminated. And no, Foxwoods doesn't count.

[Douglas Fletcher]

"Generally speaking, I'm not a big fan of big national monuments..."

What's the matter, you don't like pigeons?

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

What's the matter, you don't like pigeons?

This is going to turn into a debate about the French, I can feel it.

[clarityiniowa]

Ayn_Randian ?

Also, regarding adultery ? before some Rand-hater picks up and runs with this hackneyed old ball ? you may want to reread "Atlas Shrugged," paying particular attention to the relationship between Hank Reardon and Dagny Taggart. Additionally, the extramarital relationship between Ms. Rand and Nathaniel Branden, prior to Branden's being repudiated by Rand and her associates, is well documented.

[Gary Gunnels]

I find it highly ironic that a Randroid would bitch about someone having an extra-marital affair given Rand's desire for young, extra-marital cock.

clarityiniowa,

He he he .... "Randhater."

[Call me snake]

Shultz beat me to it but I was going to tweak Gillespie for such high praise for an ordained minister, who according to official Reason dogma, basically is a moron who guides mindless, faithful sheep around for a living.

I know that to most liberals/libertarians any discussion of religion means that the speaker intends to re-start the spanish inquisition, but there are blatantly obvious parallels between King's "Letter" thesis and Bush 43's "Freedom is God's right to mankind" theme.

[Gary Gunnels]

Look into the past of any American "hero" and you're bound to find a lot of rotten things.

My favorite bit of knowledge about Washington that I tell people (beside the fact that he was a mediocre general) is how obssessed he was with manners and formality. He was in many ways a peacock.

[SR]

"there are blatantly obvious parallels between King's 'Letter thesis and Bush 43's 'Freedom is God's right to mankind" theme.'

Yes, except for that minor difference on the whole "Let's invade other countries, slaughter thousands of locals and expect the wogs to be grateful for us enlightened Americans showing them the error of their ways" thing. Or have you forgotten King's utter opposition to the war in Vietnam?

"And they ask and rightly so, 'But what about Vietnam?' They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive violence to solve its problem to bring about the changes it wants? Their questions hit home. I knew that I could never raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without speaking clearly against to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today, my own government. I cannot be silent."

http://www.peacefulresistance.com/article.php?story=20030915082029831&mode=print

[Gary Gunnels]

George Washington was a plagiarizer, BTW.

[Skeptikos]

SR, For those of us who remember the hoses, and the lynching, and the unequal treatment before the law, there is little doubt what color hood "call me snake" would be wearing, lily white and pointed. And you know he woulda been grinning beneath it.

[Gary Gunnels]

Call me snake,

Care to detail the parallels for us?

BTW, why is freedom "God's right?" It seems to me that neither Christianity nor Judaism are much interested in "freedom" as we find those faiths in their holy texts and that what find common amongst practitioners today is merely the outcome of taming those religious beliefs.

[Phil]

Pretty amazing. You've got a government that, for nearly 400 years, engaged in a systematic program of force and fraud against a group of people based on their national origin and skin color, having kidnapped them from their homes and violated their basic human rights on a daily basis. Then you have a man, a member of that oppressed group, who comes along and fights them tooth and nail, often risking his own freedom and safety, and sets in motions chains of events that will force them to change that behavior. And Ayn Randian can only think of bad things to say about him. Utterly incredible.

[Skeptikos]

Phil,

Yea, Ironic isn't it, when a Randian objects to someonse "WILL TO OVERCOME". Says a lot about what this particular "Randian" really believes.

[Gary Gunnels]

Call me snake,

For instance, nothing in the New Testament appears to forbid a state from outlawing other religions besides Christianity, blasphemy, etc., or mandating capital punishment for homosexuals, or legally recognizing slavery. Indeed, as Christianity has developed it has changed its message not in line with the New Testament, but with the society around it and what humans found to have utility.

[Ken Shultz]

I wasn't trying to "tweak Gillespie" for praising an ordained minister.

I have detected a streak in some Reason staffers--not quite a trend--that suggests that moral appeals are somehow undesirable. Lately, I've detected that the worm may have turned, particularly as it regards torture. Once again-- say what you will--the argument against torture is primarily a moral argument.

The argument against slavery was primarily a moral argument, and the eminently logical case that Martin Luther King made against segregation and Jim Crow was a moral argument too.

I don't often miss a chance to "tweak" those who think that not believing in God is eminently more logical than believing, but that wasn't what I was getting at here--my angle was the power of moral persuasion.

...and I suspect there was also a bit of thread spillover. I was pokin' a little at a commenter who seemed to suggest, recently, that Christians don't really belong in the Libertarian Party.

[Gary Gunnels]

Phil,

King didn't set it in motion; he was part of a long chain of individuals, he being one of the most visible. What the King holiday does is to symbolize the efforts of many people. IMHO that task could be done with less controversy and greater understanding by having a general "Civil Rights" day.

[Gary Gunnels]

Ken,

But neither the arguments against slavery or segregation were based solely or even primarily on religion or religious belief (indeed, with regard to the former, it was the efforts of 18th century secular humanists - who would be some of the forefathers of the romantic movement - as much as the religious who helped end slavery).

[Gary Gunnels]

Ken,

Indeed, one has to ask, if indeed religion were crucial to bring about the end of slavery why did it take some Christians ~1650 years (the rest would have to wait another two hundred years or so) to realize this?

[Ken Shultz]

I don't claim to be an authority on Randian hero theory, but it seems to me that, for Objectivists, it's not enough for the man to have done heroic things--they must have been done for the right reasons.

Those reasons can't be religious or, like the "Poor People's Campaign", can't be poisoned with any hint of collective equity. To them, he's not a real hero unless he's a hero for the right reasons.

P.S. I can't help but wonder that if Martin Luther King had lived, he might have made the association between prosperity and liberty just as he did between liberty and justice.

[Jesse Walker]

an ordained minister, who according to official Reason dogma, basically is a moron who guides mindless, faithful sheep around for a living.

Really, Snake? Please point us to an article in the magazine or on the website that makes that argument, or something akin to that argument, or something that someone not retarded could easily mistake for something akin to that argument. (Peanut-gallery posts in these comment threads don't count.)

Re: King and Jefferson, the former was definitely a plagiarist, but I've never heard anything about the latter cheating on his wife. The alleged affair with Sally Hemmings is supposed to have taken place long after Mrs. Jefferson died.

[Gary Gunnels]

Jesse Walker,

Jefferson was clearly a plagiarist in at least some instances. Compare passages of the Declaration of Independence to Locke's second essay Concerning ... Civil Government. Folks at the time realized that he had indeed plagiarized the Locke's text, or at least James Madison did (since he commented on the matter).

[Ken Shultz]

Mr. Gunnels,

I would argue that the abolitionist movement gained traction by way of the Second Great Awakening.

Admittedly, my opinion may be colored by personal family history. I've confessed before--I think--one of my ancestors was a Virginia tobacco farmer who did the right thing out of religious conviction during the fervor of the 1840's. However, John Brown was, obviously, driven by religious conviction, and, as I've read elsewhere, many, many other abolitionists were too.

Is it possible that we're talking about two sides of the same coin here? Did the abolitionist arguments of secular humanists gain traction because of the religious fervor of the times?

[Jesse Walker]

I'm not weighing in on whether Jefferson was a plagiarist, a question on which I plead ignorance. I've weighing in on whether he was an adulterer.

[raymond]

one has to ask, if indeed religion were crucial to bring about the end of slavery why did it take some Christians ~1650 years...

Because Paul wrote: "Slaves, obey your masters."

[Call me snake]

Walker, I was using a bit of obvious humor and hyperbole to outline what is an easily supportable claim...that you and many other Reason editors/contributors are atheists/agnostics and you mildly disdain those with religious beliefs.

[Gary Gunnels]

BTW, technically, Lenin took from the work of others, but that's not what makes him a monster.

For example, the title of his most famous work - What Is To Be Done - isn't of Lenin's creation. He took it from the title of Nikolai Chernyshevsky's book What Is To Be Done?. Lenin loved the book; that is, he found much in the storyline to inspire him. It inspired other Russian revolutionaries like Plekhanov and Stalin as well.

I on the other hand agree more with what Ivan Turgenev wrote about What Is To Be Done?.

"I could hardly get through Chernyshevsky. His style arouses physical revulsion in me, like worm seed. If this is - I won't even say art or beauty - but if this is intelligence and something worthwhile - then all I can do is crawl under a bench somewhere."

Note that Dostoevsky's book Notes from Underground is a partial parody of What Is To Be Done?. Maybe that's why I love Notes from Underground so much. 🙂

Ken Shultz,

You'll find that there is an argument amongst a set of Christians that Christianity is sole reason for the end of slavery. While I am willing to grant that Christianity was important with regard to its end, it is very significant to note that anti-slavery amongst Christians was a minority view well into the 19th century and that the first anti-slavery activists were the peculiar and originally persecuted sect known as Quakers. Indeed, most of the modern churches of today lagged behind what was happening on the ground where slavery was present in the "West" (by this I included the colonies of Western nations).

And this doesn't really explain why the backbone of much of this - a different notion of liberty - arose. Compare the liberty of the moderns (us) with that of the ancients (the Greeks, Romans, etc.) and you'll see that ours is an individual liberty whereas their's was not (call it liberty of the community or somesuch).

[Gary Gunnels]

BTW, the dream sequences to What Is To Be Done? are especially revolting.

[grylliade]

Walker, I was using a bit of obvious humor and hyperbole to outline what is an easily supportable claim...that you and many other Reason editors/contributors are atheists/agnostics and you mildly disdain those with religious beliefs.

Huh. I've never, ever gotten that impression from anything that I've read in Reason. Some of the posters here on Hit and Run are rather anti-religious, but Reason has never struck me as having much of anything to say on religion. Stupidity in the name of religion, yes, but that's no different than stupidity in the name of anything else.

[Gary Gunnels]

grylliade,

Yeah, I don't where he/she is getting that from either.

[Ken Shultz]

I second Grylliade.

Mr. Gunnels,

Have you read Orlando Patterson's "Freedom Vol. 1: Freedom in the Making of Western Culture", and, if you have, what did you think of it?

[Jesse Walker]

Well, Snake, the editorial staff includes one devout Jew who's married to a rabbi (and who probably doesn't consider her "a moron who guides mindless, faithful sheep around for a living"). There's certainly an atheist/agnostic contingent among the editors, but it's hard to say how big it is, because most of us don't wear our religious views on our sleeves. We're certainly an irreverent bunch, but if you take that as disdain it probably says more about you than about us.

(I do suppose it's possible to take my endorsement of Dumbism the wrong way.)

[thoreau]

There are plenty of reasons why one might criticize Dr. King. The difference between him and the numerous other people who did those things is that he also did some monumentally good things that far exceeded the good done by so many other people with similar (or even lesser) faults.

And while there are certainly aspects of his political stances that libertarians might (quite reasonably) object to, he still worked hard against monumental wrongs and used non-violent and (at least mostly) non-coercive means to end those wrongs. However much one might object to some of his stances, the fact remains that the triumph of his movement made America a freer place in the end. Maybe not freer in every respect, but the net effect was indisputably positive. (Though no doubt some will dispute that anyway.)

In the end, libertarians can always find something to bitch about in anyone, but at the end of the day Dr. King remains a man worthy of great praise.

And if that means that I must lose my secret decoder ring and surrender my copy of Atlas Shrugged, well, that's fine. I can join the Democrats if that would make everybody happier ;->

[Gary Gunnels]

Ken Shultz,

I read a review of it. As I recall it was heavily criticized for its traditional view (from the 19th century) that the seeds of modern freedom are found in the middle ages. Its a field fraught with a heck of a lot of controversy.

I do recommend Patterson's Slavery and Social Death; for anyone interested in the sociology, history, etc., of slavery as a worldwide institution its a must. Of importance is his notion (that can be garnered from the title) that slaves are the "socially dead" - a person who in his words ceases "to belong in his own right to any legitimate social order" - a "secular excommunication" or a "geneological isolate" in other words.

I find this to be one of the most conceptually interesting and powerful ways to look at slavery.

[Gary Gunnels]

There are clearly some anti-religious folks (like me) here, but I'd say that's largely not true of the editors. Anyway, since I am an atheist that makes me anti-religious per se, but I don't see what's horrible in that.

[Ken Shultz]

Sartre once claimed that, although an atheist, he had more in common with Christian existentialists than with atheist philosophers of other stripes.

I feel that way about libertarians. Politically, I think I have more in common with libertarian atheists than I do with Christians of other political stripes.

That last claim is rarely controversial.

However, when I claim that atheist libertarians, politically, have more in common with Christian libertarians like me than they do with atheists of other political stripes, well, that seem to be very controversial indeed.

[dhex]

you'd think someone who put his ass on the line to fight the unjust might of the state would get a bit more slack from libertarians.

[Ken Shultz]

Take a closer look dex, King gets a lot of slack. It's just one person--really.

[Jennifer]

Two things occur to me: One, if you're only going to admire people who are perfect, you'll never find anybody to admire. Two, in addition to the excellent points already made by Thoreau, Dr. King helped this country in a BIG way that I never see anybody talk about.

Considering how the pressure was building in the 50s and 60s, it was pretty much a given that sooner or later institutionalized segregation and racism would end; the only question was, would it be done peacefully (as was largely the case) or through a violent revolution? We did come close there, for awhile. If not for Dr. King and his non-violence movement, civil rights for minorities might only have been achieved after Civil War II, which would have succeeded in destroying us where World War II and the Cold War didn't. That alone is reason enough for this atheist to have a profound respect for the Reverend Doctor King.

[Henry]

Ken, is there discussion where you DON'T introduce some religious bullshit? I mean you started right out of the box here. Talk about a man obsessed....

thoreau was 100% on target about why King was important; the rest is jerking off.

[Skeptikos]

Ayn Randian,

No, I don't think it makes you un-pc, if it did, that would be praiseworthy, I love a shit-disturber, no, I think your comment is un-randian. Actually this guy, except for those mushy love senitments, is one of the most will-to folks are country has ever spawned.

I just think we may have read the same books, without ever reading the same ideals. For me, he's one of the only Americans I wanted to honor, other than Patton.

[Gary Gunnels]

madpad,

Don't know much about the historical record I see.

I'm always reminded of the antics of Jefferson regarding Washington and Adams (and boy were they nasty) when someone starts to complain about how sad our political, etc. discourse is. Shit, Jefferson didn't even have the nuts to attack his opponents in person or through his own pen, the fucking coward that he was, he had to depend on "mercenaries" to do it.

Anyway, Ayn Randian seems to be only one really busting MLK jr.'s chops.

[Gary Gunnels]

Skepticos,

Remember that Randroids hate Nietschze (though Rand heavily plagiarized from the fellow) - though they hate Kant more. 🙂

[madpad]

Gary,

Actually, I'm well aware of how nasty things have been in the past...but in fairness - and in context - you're right to remind me.

I guess my lament is that it's STILL that way and that - on a board like this anyway - I hope for better than that.

[Ayn_Randian]

Gunnels

I think that the irrational hate with which Objectivists treat philosophers because of some things they did is silly, we should take what's good about the person and use it.

Everyone else: (geez)
I understand that yes, that applies to Dr. MLK Jr., however, I just don't think that he qualifies for a monument. Big whoop. I thought we would all be pleased that taxpayers money isn't going to some kind of misplaced hero worhisp.

And if you think that Dr. King's legacy isn't being thoroughly corrupted and manipulated by the multicultural offices of Universities all around the United States, I have a mill to sell you in California.

[Abiola Lapite]

And if you think that Dr. King's legacy isn't being thoroughly corrupted and manipulated by the multicultural offices of Universities all around the United States, I have a mill to sell you in California.

Do you mean to imply that the new-found freedom of African-Americans to vote, speak their minds, marry whom they please and live where they please is somehow being "thoroughly corrupted and manipulated" because some universities somewhere happen to be teaching subjects you don't like? Is that what you're saying?

Somehow I get the feeling that despite all your protestations to the contrary, what really disturbs you about MLK is that all those "g*dd*mn minorities" are being granted a level of cultural and academic visibility you think they're thoroughly undeserving of: "civil rights for blacks is alright, but do they have to be so in your face and everything? Why do they have to flaunt their culture and history in our classrooms?"

Well here's news for you, amigo - whatever you might wish, we aren't going back to the 1950s, when colored folks knew their place and "Real Americans?" never had to bother themselves with the notion that all those funny brown people might have contributed something to American civilization. That is Martin Luther King's legacy, and to say you resent its "corruption" is highly disingenuous: what you don't like is the legacy itself.

[Ken Shultz]

"Do you mean to imply that the new-found freedom of African-Americans to vote, speak their minds, marry whom they please and live where they please is somehow being "thoroughly corrupted and manipulated" because some universities somewhere happen to be teaching subjects you don't like? Is that what you're saying?"

I'm sympathetic to your arguments Abiola, but, as much as I disagree with Ayn Randian's suggestion that Dr. King's achievements are in some way tainted, I don't think that's what Ayn Randian was saying.

I think Ayn Randian was criticizing the sort of political advocacy that masquerades as scholarship at some of our universities--that's not the same as bemoaning the freedom of oppressed people.

[Rick Barton]

Concerning the question of Jefferson's alleged plagiarizing of Locke-Here are the two passages:

John Locke, Concerning Civil Government, 1693, second essay, Ch. 19:

"I answer, such revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs. Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws, and all the slips of human frailty will be borne by the people without mutiny or murmur. But if a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going, it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the end for which government was at first erected..."

Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I've wondered if the plagiarism question would have been raised if it were not for the "long train of abuses" phrase. But I do think that James Madison got it right when he said of this passage of Jefferson's, that it was an "observed, rather than discovered truth".

Also, I don't think that there is much of a case to be made that Jefferson was trying to pass Locke's ideas off as his own because Locke was so widely read by the Colonists, not just the founders. In The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution Bernard Bailyn notes "In pamphlet after pamphlet American writers cited Locke on natural rights and on the social and governmental contract..." (pg.27)

Note as well that Locke's ideas were oft-repeated and discussed among the colonists. In The English Libertarian Heritage, Ronald Hamowy observes that "the writings of Trenchard and Gordon (the colonies two premier pamphleteers) bear the unmistakable imprint of the political philosophy so forcefully expounded by John Locke in his Two Treaties of Civil Government, published some thirty years earlier." (pg. vii)

[Ruthless]

King was one of the first "racial racketeers."

I was going to propose building monuments to ideas versus humans, but I recall the history of a monument to "the law," locally. It was hewn on a prominent spot. Nobody ever "got it." It was ugly. After a very few years, it was moved to a blatently non-prominent spot. As is usually the case, the tax-payer was snookered for sure.

So, in the future, all monuments should be only in cyberspace: sort of like ice sculptures.

And every day should be a holiday for the Workers of the World.

[Ayn_Randian]

Abiola

You don't know me, and I don't need your smarmy elitism. All I said, was two things:

1) King has done and advocated for things I didn't agree with, and I don't think we need to hero worship him.

2) King's legacy is absued by Multicultural Offices all over the country. Period. At my school today, we have a " MLK Day of Learning", where we have to listen to tired liberal propaganda, such as when the keynote speaker (a black State Senator) accused Ken Blackwell (our black Secretary of State) of disenfranchising black voters. This isn't a workshop I am talking about here, it was the fucking keynote address.

A big fuck you very much, Abiola, in essence. I agree with most of the goals of the CRM, except for the forced intergration of private businesses and the monster that has become affirmative action. So, kiss off and die, and work on those reading comprehension skills instead of race-baiting me, although I know one is a lot easier and more convenient than the other.

[T Bone]

Abiola had a point earlier: King's legacy is that the civil rights themselves exist, and that they were achieved non-violently (on the part of the activists). No Multicultural Office can fuck with that.

And boy am I indignant that you had to listen to more tired liberal propaganda! I sure hope that for the next big assembly at your school the keynote speaker hashes out tired propaganda of a different sort. What, did you expect something substantive on a day of memorial? Really now.

[Jeff Smith]

Two thoughts on the "is Reason anti-religious"
debate. First, Tim Cavanaugh really, really
isn't quite done getting over his Catholic
upbringing, a fact that comes through loud and
clear in some of his posts on matters related
to the Catholic Church. I have no brief in
favor of papists, but I that some of those
posts could fairly be described not just as
anti-dumb but also anti-religious.

Second, it seems to me that the whole debate
over religion is a bit silly. Everyone, whether
they rely on "science" or "religion" (or as with
most Americans, hedge their bets with a bit of
both) they are building their view of reality
on fundamentally untestable hypothses. As this
is obvious in the case of the religious, let me
defend the point for science. The scientific
method depends fundamentally on the assumption
that the universe is governed by time invariant
rules. There is no way to test that assumption.
It is, in a very real sense, a religious view.

It is this fact, that reality is fundamentally
"under-identified" to use the language of
econometrics (that is, there are infinitely
many models but only a finite number of data
points) that make most athiests so tiresome.
They merely reveal over and over that they
have not thought very hard about the philosophy
of science.

Jeff

[clarityiniowa]

Jeff Smith - If, by your overflown rhetoric, you are saying that at the bottom of both religion and science are axioms, that is, propositions that, while in themselves unprovable, appear to be so self-consistent that they can be relied upon, then, yes, both religion and science have them. They simply choose different axioms.

The difference is, when a scientific axiom fails, it is discarded, sometimes immediately, eventually if not. If a religious axiom fails, or is shown to be either false to fact or on its face unreasonable, religionists cling to it even harder. That is the power and the tragedy of "faith."

[clarityiniowa]

Ayn_Randian -

I sympathize with your struggle to deal with apparent contradictions in Dr. King's legacy, but it seems to me you're struggling too hard. King cannot be blamed for affirmative action, as that didn't appear on the scene till after he was assassinated. Nor can he be blamed for some of the pseudo-intellectuals and carpetbaggers - both black and white - that have inhabited college campuses since his death.

Was he a pure hero? No. Personally, I've never met one. Most of us still need to wipe our feet before coming in the house so we don't leave clay footprints all over. But he was a profoundly intelligent and in many ways courageous man whose experience in twentieth century America induced him to take up a cause, and stand up for what he considered to be a higher moral value than his own life. For that, he has earned my respect.

As to the subject of memorials, buildings, statues and the like, well, I would of course prefer they be privately funded affairs, but I can't think of too many men more deserving than King, who don't already have some chunk of marble named after them.

[gaius marius]

The difference is, when a scientific axiom fails, it is discarded, sometimes immediately, eventually if not. If a religious axiom fails, or is shown to be either false to fact or on its face unreasonable, religionists cling to it even harder. That is the power and the tragedy of "faith."

when rigorously practiced, mr clarity. but who among us does so? fwiw, there are ten thousand faithful adherents to scientism for every scientist.

speaking of "science" as something more than the narrowly limited method of discovery it is -- as some philosophy of material that will bring us to a technological promised land, as the vast majority implicitly (if unconsciously) do -- betrays a irrational faith that is far from science.

[clarityiniowa]

gaius marius - speaking of "science" as something more than the narrowly limited method of discovery it is -- as some philosophy of material that will bring us to a technological promised land, as the vast majority implicitly (if unconsciously) do -- betrays a irrational faith that is far from science.

You appear to be stretching the definition of science to fit your premise, which is, pardon me for saying so, unscientific. Any discussion of science must start with the scientific method, rooted as it is in skepticism, not belief. Unfortunately, most schools, public and private, skip that part and start the kiddies playing with chemicals and tinkertoys before any discussion of the value of skepticism, intellectual rigor, observation and experimentation. That is why when most people speak about science, they may be speaking, if you pardon me again, religiously.

But, the behavior of the untutored does not in any way dilute the difference between science and religion, or bring their two approaches any closer to parity. It is interesting to me that religion is consistently trying to both couch itself in scientific terms, AND to denigrate science as nothing more than an alternative religion. Note that scientists rarely try to attract religous converts, merely go on about their business. Carl Sagan may have been an exception to that, but otherwise...

[dhex]

"If a religious axiom fails, or is shown to be either false to fact or on its face unreasonable, religionists cling to it even harder."

minus all the countless schisms, sects, cults and spin-offs, that is.

[clarityiniowa]

gaius marius - Something about your last post bugged me, and now I know what it is. Question: You described science as "a narrowly limited method of discovery."

I'm just curious, limited in terms of and compared to what, exactly?

[Ken Shultz]

Clarity,

I think the point is that the scientific method can be applied to a religious hypothesis just as rigorously as a scientific one. The method, based on inductive logic, has limitations--results are often heavily qualified. Still, few would dismiss the qualified hypothesis of an astrophysicist who subscribes to a yet unproven theory as merely a product of faith.

I would also suggest that skepticism, in this instance, is much like bias. An astrophysicist may be skeptical of String Theory, for instance, but if he comes across evidence that the theory is correct, he is not rigorously following the scientific method if he ignores evidence contrary to his hypothesis.

I will concede that, historically, Christians don't have a good record of rigorously applying logic to their beliefs, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done.

[Ken Shultz]

I would also suggest that skepticism, in this instance, is much like bias.

If I had that to write over again, I might have written that skepticism can become much like bias--as can belief.

[gaius marius]

mr clarity -- the philosophy of science is a field unto itself of which i am no expert, but i think it not rash at all to say that knowledge which scientific method is useful in acquiring is severely limited.

if we take the method to be 1) observe 2) hypothesize 3) predict and 4) test -- we see the knowledge which is subject to the method must have observable consequences and be subject to falsification by experiment.

what is "known" in this fashion is pretty small -- and moreover, in the grand scheme of what is possibly put into hypothesis, what can be known in this way is not much.

gravity, for example, we have formulated a good mathematical hypothesis of which has been reasonably confirmed by experiment -- but how it works is highly speculative still. current hypotheses on gravity are falsifiable (with great difficulty), and so the pursuit of it can remain science.

but string theory, for example, has no test for falsification. there is no observation and no experiment. we can say definitively then that string theory is not science. and we are bumping into more and more of that as we apply the method to more and more.

the example is very similar to differential equations, where what we can postulate far exceeds our ability to solve -- the vast vast majority of differential equations are unsolvable.

to say that they are not yet solvable implies faith that they will be solvable one day -- akin to saying that the mechanism for gravity will one day be known, or that the test for string theory will one day be devised. this is scientism.

[clarityiniowa]

Ken Schultz - An astrophysicist may be skeptical of String Theory, for instance, but if he comes across evidence that the theory is correct, he is not rigorously following the scientific method if he ignores evidence contrary to his hypothesis.

But if he does so, Ken, he is no longer doing science, by definition. The scientific reaction would be to drop the pet theory as soon as a preponderance of evidence demonstrates against it. Again, you are redefining science to fit your premise, and naming any behavior done by someone titled a "scientist" as "science."

[clarityiniowa]

g.m. - Two of your paragraphs here strike me: the philosophy of science is a field unto itself of which i am no expert, but i think it not rash at all to say that knowledge which scientific method is useful in acquiring is severely limited.

Then what other methods are there for acquiring objective, concrete knowledge, and moving those bits of knowledge from the category of "things unknown," to "things known?" Be careful, now, I'm not interested in "things believed." The best statement of the scientific philosophy I've ever heard was by Indiana Jones. "Archaeology is the search for FACT, not TRUTH. If it's truth you want, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

to say that they are not yet solvable implies faith that they will be solvable one day -- akin to saying that the mechanism for gravity will one day be known, or that the test for string theory will one day be devised. this is scientism.

Okay, so what is the non-faith position in this case? Are you saying that the only non-religious position is to assert that we can NEVER know these things for sure. Isn't that also an article of faith? Or are you saying it is impossible to avoid religious convictions. If so, I agree, as long as you can manipulate the definitions at will.

To have confidence that, eventually, one may move a particular datum from the category of "things unknown" to "things unknown" does not require faith, merely logic. If that datum fails to prove out over any stretch of time, it falls under the category of "null data," or something that is untrue, or that does not occur or exist.

[clarityiniowa]

Excuse me, the phrase should have been "things unknown" to "things known."

[Ken Shultz]

"Again, you are redefining science to fit your premise, and naming any behavior done by someone titled a "scientist" as "science."

By no means.

I'm saying that both Christians and scientists are subject to the same logic. You're absolutely right--if a scientist abandons the scientific method, he is no longer behaving like a scientist, his conclusions are suspect at best, etc. This is true of Christians too--if they abandon the laws of logic, they are likewise no longer behaving logically, their conclusions are suspect, etc.

Please note that many people look at all of this backwards--they assume that because someone believes in God, he isn't thinking logically, which is a false assumption. It's just like assuming that because an astrophysicist subscribes to an as yet unverified theory, he isn't thinking logically.

I think I know why so many people look at this backwards--it's because there are so many vocal, well publicized Christians who don't base what they believe on logic. However, turning that observed fact into the idea that Christians don't arrive at their conclusions logically is a gross generalization--certainly a fallacy of composition if nothing else.

G. Marius,

I like the example of String Theory because, to the best of my knowledge, it isn't yet verifiable. Some day String Theory may become verifiable, but, then again, maybe it won't. Likewise, each of us may find ourselves confronted by the creator of the universe one day, in which case the God hypothesis will be verified absolutely. Then again, perhaps there is only oblivion.

[clarityiniowa]

Ken, Please note that many people look at all of this backwards--they assume that because someone believes in God, he isn't thinking logically, which is a false assumption. It's just like assuming that because an astrophysicist subscribes to an as yet unverified theory, he isn't thinking logically.

I would love to hear a logical basis for Christianity. So why is it a false assumption to say that because a person believes in God, he isn't thinking logically?

[gaius marius]

Then what other methods are there for acquiring objective, concrete knowledge

i know of none, mr clarity, in the sense which you mean it. but that doesn't mean that scientific method then has infinite scope.

one of the things that people in the thrall of scientism have difficulty acknowledging is that the vast majority of the answers to possible postulates are probably unknowable in any sense.

but worse,

objective, concrete knowledge

i think you can find a good basis to state that reality is fundamentally unknowable. popper was right to say that hume's problem of induction is a mess, and sidestepped it with falsifiability -- which produces (instead of a set of "objective, concrete" laws) a set of approximations, all of which are assumed wrong in some degree and probability.

you look at your rubber duckie and it is yellow. you look again and it is yellow. how many times do you have to look at it before you "know" it is yellow?

hume's answer is that no number of times is sufficient -- induction by enumeration is not a valid method of reasoning. popper would say that the duckie is yellow until falsified -- meaning that your "knowledge" of its yellowness is only an approximation of some usefulness.

and indeed, quantum mechanics suggests that the outcome of events are random and probabilistic -- that eventually, if you look enough times, the duckie will eventually look blue.

so in essence,

Are you saying that the only non-religious position is to assert that we can NEVER know these things for sure[?]

yes, i am saying that -- and

To have confidence that, eventually, one may move a particular datum from the category of "things unknown" to "things unknown" does not require faith, merely logic. If that datum fails to prove out over any stretch of time, it falls under the category of "null data," or something that is untrue, or that does not occur or exist.

is false except in the fields of logic and finite mathematics. to believe that you know something certainly -- even that your rubber duckie is yellow -- is always an irrational demonstration of faith.

fwiw, it was popper's (powerful, imo) thesis that realism is neither demonstrable or refutable.

[gaius marius]

Please note that many people look at all of this backwards--they assume that because someone believes in God, he isn't thinking logically, which is a false assumption. It's just like assuming that because an astrophysicist subscribes to an as yet unverified theory, he isn't thinking logically.

mr schultz -- we have to be careful with the word "logic", which is totally uncorrelated to phenomena. i think a better term than "logically" might be "rationally".

but the difference between the astrophysicist and the religious believer is that the astrophysicist -- if he is a scientist -- subscribes to theories which are falsifiable.

the question then is this: is a religion falsifiable? can it be proved untrue?

while some derivations of, say, catholicism can be and are, the central theology cannot be.

gravitation, on the other hand, could be falsified and in fact was by einstein.

[Ken Shultz]

"I would love to hear a logical basis for Christianity. So why is it a false assumption to say that because a person believes in God, he isn't thinking logically?"

Some people take the teachings of Jesus and test them against their experience and find that those teachings are true. Some pray for things like compassion and comfort, and when they feel compassionate and comforted, they cite this as evidence of God. Both of those examples are highly subjective.

When other people in similar circumstances take the teachings of Jesus and test them against their experience, they find that those teachings are false. They may pray for compassion and comfort and either feel nothing at all or attribute what they do feel to something else. I would argue that we're all subject to perspective.

In the absence of conclusive evidence either way, I would argue that people in both groups can and do look at the available evidence and interpret it logically.

...I am no philosopher. But I think this is what Kierkegaard was writing about when he wrote about a "leap of faith"--breaching two logical but divergent conclusions born of absolute uncertainty. I differ from Kierkegaard in that unlike he (and Strauss), I don't believe that a Christian must leave rationality behind anymore than an atheist who, effectively, makes the same jump.

[clarityiniowa]

g.m. - is false except in the fields of logic and finite mathematics. to believe that you know something certainly -- even that your rubber duckie is yellow -- is always an irrational demonstration of faith.

Oh, for Pete's sake, man, that is an absurd, affirmative, and absolute, assertion. Care to prove or even demonstrate it? Seems a metaphysical bit of sophistry to me, on a par with not being able to cross the distance between two points a finite distance apart because there are an infinite number of points in between. Nothing but a word game with no more reality than the geometry of an M.C. Escher drawing.

If I cannot rely on my senses, then, which is the upshot of the above statement, what means of survival are left to me? I may not be able to assert for certain that the duckie is yellow, but I can certainly explain and reproduce the forces, materials and circumstances that make it appear so to me, and to anyone else with a similarly functioning set of sensory organs. I can even duplicate those forces, materials and circumstances to create an identical "yellow" duckie. Is it, then, in some Platonean, ideal sense, "yellow?"

Depends what your definition of "is" is.

[clarityiniowa]

g.m. -the question then is this: is a religion falsifiable? can it be proved untrue?

Neither the rules of logic nor scientific method insist on falsification in the sense you mean. I cannot sit here and prove to you that I don't beat my wife, or that there is NOT an invisible dragon in my garage. It is up to the one who asserts a positive case to demonstrate it. What these rules require is that the proposition be testable one way or the other. Such testing can take the form of experimentation, observation of a preponderance of similar cases, mathmatical analysis of theory, and many other forms.

Just because I cannot "disprove" that there is an omnipotent old guy with a beard, doesn't mean it's logical to think so. The affirmative case must be made.

[gaius marius]

Seems a metaphysical bit of sophistry to me,

far from it, mr clarity. what i'm talking about has very real, profound and immediate consequences once recognized -- including a healthy shot of proper humility. i'd recommend popper or kuhn for reading.

it is also the *defense* of scientific method, which never purports to arrive at metaphysical certitude but is always seeking more observation.

If I cannot rely on my senses, then, which is the upshot of the above statement, what means of survival are left to me?

taking the percepts of your senses and the product of the sciences with the appropriate mix of faith, cynicism and humor, i find.

[gaius marius]

I cannot sit here and prove to you that I don't beat my wife

however, mr clarity, the statement "i don't beat my wife" is falsifiable -- whereas the statement "god is (or isn't) a trinity" is not. one can observe your wife constantly in an effort to test the statement for falsification. it can be a working theory until or unless it is falsified.

The affirmative case must be made.

hume reasoned (with great power) that the affirmative case can never truly be made by reason because causation can never be proven. one can never say A causes B because the mechanism is never observable -- it all requires a modicum of faith.

why do electrons interact repellently? we don't know. but, without understanding causation, we rely on the probability that they will continue to when we lean on a lamppost because they have in the past.

note that this is different from saying that electrons always repel one another. that cannot be proven. if they ever don't in some example, we can point to hume.

popper went around hume by stating that we do not know that A causes B -- but do not need to if we have working hypotheses which define a reasonable probability that we will experience B coincident with A. this was called the negative solution to the problem of induction, but i think it more of a dodge.

[clarityiniowa]

g.m.

Although I respect Hume, I'm not particularly interested in philosophical word-play. Reducing concretes to semantic, and more often only linguistic, puzzles that have no more validity in real life than optical illusions on paper is what soured me on my philosophy major.

The scientific mind, as I believe you implied, deals in ever increasing degrees of confidence in a proposition, theory or phenomenon based on repeated observation, experimental results, etc. At what point that confidence becomes "metaphysical certitude," is a point of debate. But to say that one can never arrive at certitude about anything because of some semantic legerdemain is, in itself, not "falsifiable."

That term, by the way, is heinous, in that it places the burden of proof where it does not belong. It is often used by pseudoscientists, Creationists and Intelligent Design mavens in particular, to try to downplay the value of scientific thought and discovery, and the capability of the human mind. The proper term should be "verifiable," or "not verifiable" as it places the burden of proof, or at least demonstration, where it belongs.

With regard to the existence of The Old Man ? without constant cultural cues from birth that such exists, atheism would simply be the default position.

I do not care what one believes in his or her private thoughts, but when one cares to convince me of anything, they need to refer to concretes, or concepts and abstracts that can be arrived at through direct perception. If I can't throw a roundhouse kick at it, I am under no obligation to grant even the possibility of its existence, whether or not I am able to "falsify" the proposition. I am also under no obligation to help you prove your point, or to grant that you may have other, superior perception than I do. You can't tell me there's an invisible magic dragon in your garage that I can't perceive by any means, then tell me that it's rational or logical for you to believe there is an invisible magic dragon in your garage. Logic, proof and reason are all on my side in this regard, and it takes no faith whatsoever, NOT to believe in your magic dragon.

[clarityiniowa]

Coming back to MLK for a moment, the weakest argument he made for racial equality and integration was the religious argument. Religionists assert that religious laws are "transcendent" meaning that they are valid for all, and can and should be enforced over all. Unfortunately, one man's "transcendent" is another man's "imaginary." There is no shakier basis for human rights than religious theory and theology.

He also, like our friend Tyrone Biggs, never came to grips with the fact that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, condoned and supported slavery, going so far in Leviticus to explain in detail whom could be bought and sold, and under what circumstances.

[Ken Shultz]

"I do not care what one believes in his or her private thoughts, but when one cares to convince me of anything, they need to refer to concretes, or concepts and abstracts that can be arrived at through direct perception."

I know you directed this comment to G. Marius, however, as I wrote above, it seems to me that both atheists and Christians draw their conclusions from direct perception. The direct perception of an atheist, of course, is in no way superior to the direct perception of a Christian; stated otherwise, that is, one cannot tell whether a man is thinking logically just because he believes in God.

[clarityiniowa]

Ken, in philosophical terms, as I think you know, the terms percepts, perception and direct perception have very specific meanings. An atheist and a Christian reading the same passage of the Bible and coming to different conclusions about it is not an example of "direct perception". An atheist and a Christian each stubbing their toe on the same rock is a better example of the direct perception of the same concrete by two different observers.

[clarityiniowa]

Let me put it more crudely, just for fun:

I go to the proctologist, and, while he prepares the scope, and I happen to see it on the monitor, it occurs to me that my anus is the center of the universe. Several things just happened:

A. I took in sensory data through my eyes by looking at the monitor, saw me sphincter, which is a "concrete," a physical object.

B. I form the "percept" of it in my mind. It is a process of identification. I recognize it as a concrete, and perceive that concrete to be my anus.

C. The thing that allowed me to recognize that puckery thingy for what it was was the broader "concept," of "anus."

D. Identifying it as the "center of the universe" is an "abstraction," and a very farfetched one at that. If you postulate an infinite, ever-expanding universe, I suppose me old backdoor may be as eligible to be the center of it as any other point. Otherwise, in making that abstraction, I am apparently thinking with that which I just perceived.

[clarityiniowa]

Now: back to the rock and the toes. If you accept the fact that logic and rationality favor the least hypothesis, that is, the simplest theory that seems to fit the facts, and that the conclusions to be drawn should follow from that least hypothesis, which of these scenarios is more logical/rational?

Non-theist: "Oh, I have stubbed my toe on this rock. Clumsy me. My, that hurts. Clearly, I should seek first aid."

Christian "Oh, God has placed this rock in my path for me to stub my toe upon. Praise the Lord! My that hurts. Clearly, I must repent of my sin."

[dhex]

"With regard to the existence of The Old Man ? without constant cultural cues from birth that such exists, atheism would simply be the default position."

there would be no default position - assuming cultural cues were scattershot and not driven in one particular direction. we would enjoy some glorious spiritual anarchism, or at least a nice appearance thereof.

[clarityiniowa]

dhex - Okay, I agree, although if you took my generic term "atheism" to mean some sort of organized movement, an idea which is as contradictory as "Libertarian Party," that is not what I meant.

[Ken Shultz]

"Ken, in philosophical terms, as I think you know, the terms percepts, perception and direct perception have very specific meanings."

I have to confess that I don't know anything about the specific meanings of those terms. I know enough of philosophy to know that I need to be wary of misusing words and that the things I know are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the things I don't know.

"An atheist and a Christian reading the same passage of the Bible and coming to different conclusions about it is not an example of "direct perception". An atheist and a Christian each stubbing their toe on the same rock is a better example of the direct perception of the same concrete by two different observers."

...But atheists and Christians do stub their toes on the same rock(s). Logically thinking Christians test the precepts of the New Testament against their experience of the same world logically thinking atheists do, but they come to a different conclusion.

Both groups are born, grow up, get married or not, have children or not, get divorced or not, their friends and family die by various causes. Both groups find a way to make a living. They face death. They subscribe to beliefs.

People in both groups can watch the Sun rise in the east and set in the west and conclude that the Sun orbits the Earth rather than visa versa, but logically thinking atheists and Christians won't come to that conclusion because they can verify that the Earth actually orbits the Sun with other evidence.

To a certain extent, the precepts taught in the New Testament are more like that--both atheists and Christians can test the precepts of the New Testament against the same world. It may be a highly subjective verification, but the precepts of the New Testament are verifiable, are they not?

Christians also believe in God. The evidence upon which Christians base their belief is also highly subjective, but, once again, it is evidence. The evidence upon which atheists base the belief that there is no God is subjective as well--no one can claim to have looked everywhere in the universe at the same moment and, thus, be able to verify that there is no God.

This situation--two logically constructed but diametrically opposed theories--can occur in the face of absolute uncertainty. When I choose between the two, regardless of which side I choose, I don't see why choosing one requires me to leave logic behind.

[clarityiniowa]

Ken - It is clear to me that we are not able to debate constructively because we do not share common definitions of terms such as "evidence," "perception" or "rationality," nor do we share an understanding of the rules of logic, which generally require that the affirmative case be proved. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with theists, not non-theists.

In short, someone who "believes" something to be true without *objective* evidence is welcome to do so, but he may find himself alone in that experience, and has a tenuous claim at best to be doing so according to "reason," "rationality" or "logic."

[Ken Shultz]

What "objective" evidence do you propose shows that there is no God? Such objective evidence is impossible to produce, is it not?

Objective evidence of God's existence suffers from the exact same handicap. That is to say, objective evidence of God's existence isn't more impossible to produce than objective evidence that God doesn't exist; it's the same--impossible.

[Ken Shultz]

I don't know a lot about Objectivists. Is the idea that you should only believe in things for which there is objective evidence the central message of Objectivism?

What is done for situations in which objective evidence is impossible? Are Objectivists limited to only making judgments about things for which there is objective evidence?

If an Objectivist always sides against theories for which there is no objective evidence, isn't he biased in a situation in which objective evidence is impossible?

[Nike Free scarpe da uomo v]

piuttosto buono