01.02.07
Now, now, watch the name-calling…
I happened to read a little piece in this morning’s paper. It was one of those color commentaries that are written by highly opinionated people, apparently for the sole purpose of being controversial. Just so I don’t need to quote it extensively, I looked and found it for you on the net.
So certainty is bad – but are you sure about that?
It’s written by Jonah Goldberg, a young conservative editor for the National Review. Yup, he’s young, or at least youngish on the geezer scale (b.1969). I’ll be waiting for him to get some wisdom, but I won’t be holding my breath.
He has written an angry diatribe against people (exclusively liberals, of course) who don’t think blind faith is a good thing, and feel fairly sure about this. Um…ok. Well at least we know where you stand, Jonah. Blind faith good. Reason bad. Knowledge bad. Wisdom…well who needs that when you already know everything you need to know based on blind faith?
According to his logic, true certainty is only obtainable through blind faith. Real facts are illusory, a distraction, a vale of tears. I guess. He pokes fun at people who express certainty in this way, and asks them, “Are you sure?” as though he’s come up with some sort of humorous self-evident truth.
News for you, boy. You forgot to ask yourself the same question. I’m sure you have no clue if you’ve firmly placed your faith exclusively in things that are either demonstrably false or based on absolutely nothing but your wishful thinking. After all, Archie Bunker said, “Faith is when you believe in something that nobody in his right mind would believe in.”
He says, “…for the new “liberal” (sic) champions of skepticism and philosophical humility, hell is other people’s certainty.” Ok, liberal is liberal, but “liberal” is not liberal, those quotes make it mean ‘conservative’. This sentence is just so messed up and meaningless. Perhaps the only reason why liberals might find it hellish to be in your presence is because you’re such a dumbass. And there’s nothing worse than a dumbass who is a crusader for his own bizarre brand of moral certainty. Just look at what an embarassment our Prez is.
So Jonah, are you really sure about that?
Publus said,
January 3, 2007 at 11:07 am
“Jonah” mischaracterizes the debate. The problem with the Jonahs of the world, and their ilk, isn’t merely that they’re “certain” about something — it is that they are moral absolutists and empirical relativists. They will choose what they think of as being a “moral absolute,” (we need to invade Iraq, gay people are evil, abortion is murder, or whatever you like), and cling to it the way a three-year-old clings to his teddy bear. Then, they will pick and choose facts based — not on data — but on whether a particular fact happens to fit with the moral absolute they created.
Iraq has a large stockpile of weapons of mass distruction, they say. Never mind the mountains of evidence indicating that Iraq does NOT have weapons of mass distruction. Such evidence is to be ignored because it doesn’t fit with the moral absolute we selected. You’re either for us or against us (the Sith Absolute), and if you’re for us you’ll agree that Iraq has a large stockpile of weapons of mass distruction. If you acknowlege the existence of evidence that Iraq has no such weapons, you’re against us.
BTW, Bush never said that Iraq had a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. No, don’t bother pulling out those video tapes, press releases, or transcripts that prove he did, he never said that. If he had claimed that Iraq had a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, then such a statement would run afoul to the Doctrine of Presidential Infallibility. You’re either for us or against us, and if you point out that Bush incorrectly claimed that Iraq had a large stockpile of weapons of mass distruction, you’re against us.
Abortion causes breast cancer. Never mind all of the scientific research that disproves any link between having an abortion and breast cancer, the important thing is the moral absolute that Abortion is Murder. Since the claim that abortion causes breast cancer tends to support that moral absolute, it must be true. You’re either for us or against us, and if you don’t think that abortion causes breast cancer, then it must be because you’re against us.
As for Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, if anybody makes the case for reality based thinking, it would be those two. The prevailing “Moral Absolute” at that time was that black people were inferior to white people in terms of intelligence, wisdom, and morality. Empirical evidence showed no significant difference between the races in this regard, but that empirical evidence was supposed to be disregarded. You’re either for us or against us . . .
The Nazi “moral absolute”: Jews are evil. The Jews are responsible for the Great Depression. The Jews are responsible for the Reichstag fire. The Jews are responsible for Germany losing the Great War. You’re either for us or against us, and if you acknowlege the ample empirical evidence out there tending to prove (for example) who really caused the Germany to loose the Great War, then you’re against us and there’s a special place for people who are against us in Auschwitz.
Perhaps the Jonahs of the world simply suffer from an inadequate education.