He told me of a Mormon friend who in conversation with an Evangelical Protestant had asked him whether a Christian who committed adultery would lose his salvation.  The Evangelical answered, “No.” The Mormon followed up with this query, “What if the Christian had murdered someone? Would he then lose his salvation?” The answer, again, was “no.” Then the Mormon asked, “Well, what if he had become a Mormon?” The Evangelical answered, “That’s a good question. I don’t know.”

With Evangelicals considering only Gingrich and Santorum for their endorsement, Beckwith argues they are making a similar calculus.

Now I’m not entirely sure that’s fair. After all if one is doing a calculus in terms of results then it might be better to have someone who behaves unethically but gets the results one wants. If I pick a doctor I want the one who’s going to make me most healthy not necessarily the one who lives the best life. Likewise I can see Evangelicals finding Gingrich’s personal life abhorrent but thinking a Mormon as President might normalize acceptance of Mormonism leading to fewer Evangelicals much more than Gingrich would lead to more adulterers.

That said it has long been interesting to me that some Evangelical opposition to Mormons seems so much stronger than opposition to other things. It’s one thing to say something is theologically wrong. But frankly most lay Evangelicals believe lots of things that Evangelicals formally think is just as heretical as how they perceive Mormon belief. Why emphasize one rather than the other?

Related posts:

1. Claiming Christ: Evangelical – Mormon Dialogue
2. Mormons and Evangelicals
3. Beck, Mormonism and Evangelicalism

Anyway let me quote from Jonathan Adler’s post:

Those attacking Christie are suggesting there is only one politically acceptable position on climate science — that one’s ideological bona fides are to be determined by one’s scientific beliefs, and not simply one’s policy preferences. This is a problem on multiple levels. Among other things, it leads conservatives to embrace an anti-scientific know-nothingism whereby scientific claims are to be evaluated not by scientific evidence but their political implications. Thus climate science must be attacked because it provides a too ready justification for government regulation. This is the same reason some conservatives attack evolution — they fear it undermines religious belief — and it is just as wrong.

I hope this is the beginning of some sanity on this issue. However my sense is that if any of the non-Mormon Republicans win the nomination (i.e. Perry or Bachmann) it’ll get worse not better.

Related posts:

1. Where Did Warming go
2. NS on Global Warming Ended in 1998
3. Unexpectedl Support cientific consensus on global warming

Now I’ve argued before that questions like these can be tricky. I especially think they are tricky for Mormons who often have a fairly nuanced view of the issues. Unless you phrase things in just the right way to pick out the appropriate view people get confused. Yet the way the questions often get cast is from a fully secular view which can be misleading.  The question in the above is, “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals” to which one had to say true or false. Honestly, that’s a pretty good take on the question. Better than most.

I wanted to find a more wide ranging poll though in terms of countries. The best I could find was from April of this year. It was a Reuters poll and can be found at the Ipsos site. It was a poll trying to tease out religious belief from 23 countries. What I liked about the poll is that it tries to present three options: Creationism, Evolutionism or Both. (As a believer in both evolution and God I think something like the “both” option is correct)  However while I loved the attempt the question was a bit more problematic. Here’s the question:

There has been some debate recently about the origins of human beings. Please tell me which of the following is closer to your own point of view:

• Some people are referred to as ‘creationist’s’ and believe that human beings were in fact created by a spiritual force such as the God they believe in and do not believe that the origin of man came from evolving from other species such as apes.
• Some people are referred to as ‘evolutionist’s’ and believe that human beings were in fact created over a long period of time of evolution growing into fully formed human beings they are today from lower species such as apes.
• Some people simply don’t know what to believe and sometimes agree or disagree with theories and ideas put forward by both creationist’s and evolutionist’s.

Why do I have a problem with this? OK, maybe it’s me being nit-picky but I hate the introduction of, “some people simply don’t know what to believe.” In other words it’s not really a choice of both but more a choice of “I don’t know.” So I think that may bias things somewhat. Still it’s a much better question than most. What was very interesting were the results. (Sorry I don’t have fancy graphs – I don’t do graphs a lot so you’re getting pretty bare-bones ones)

It seems to me that the “both” choice in particular is much more all over the place. Admittedly it is more pulling out the folks who have strong views one way or the other. (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, German and Sweden) But looking at any of the graphs you see that you get a bit more nuanced view. I think for instance that the % evolutionist graph is much more linear with a few outliers (Saudi Arabia, US, China, and India)

Anyway, no terribly significant point to make from this beyond agreeing that there does appear to be a strong relationship between wealth and belief in evolution.

Related posts:

1. Schelling, Heidegger, Freedom
2. PoMo Conservative against Atheists
3. Mormons Worse at Believing Evolution?

All that said an editorial of his from Friday seems quite relevant.

We’re in the midst of a great four-year national debate on the size and reach of government, the future of the welfare state, indeed, the nature of the social contract between citizen and state. The distinctive visions of the two parties — social-democratic vs. limited-government — have underlain every debate on every issue since Barack Obama’s inauguration: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, health-care reform, financial regulation, deficit spending. Everything. The debt ceiling is but the latest focus of this fundamental divide.

The sausage-making may be unsightly, but the problem is not that Washington is broken, that ridiculous ubiquitous cliche. The problem is that these two visions are in competition, and the definitive popular verdict has not yet been rendered.

For all the justified complaints of government the past years I think this is roughly right. The real debate is over the relative size of government to GDP. Many Republicans would love to keep it about the way it was at the end of the 80′s. Liberals don’t want that but want something closer to Europe.

The problem is that there really is no consensus on this issue. In the absence of consensus both sides have tried various tricks to move government the way they want.

Conservatives and Libertarians have taken a “starve the beast” approach. That is they think by limiting taxes and make it difficult for liberals that eventually liberals will have to cave. The problem for conservatives is that this “moment of caving” is apt to be a crisis point where the country will be left worse off. (Indeed some might say now is that point)

Liberals have actually used consensus building against conservatives — quite well too. Every time there is a debate a position is reached somewhere between Republicans and Democrats’ ideal states. (Where depends upon the fortunes of each party at the moment)  The problem is that if Democrats want something up around 28% GDP and Republicans want something at 18% GDP consensus often results in a gradual increase in the size of government. I think you can see just that the past 25 years or so.

Now one can debate on both idealogical and practical grounds the size of government. However I think it undeniable that there is nothing remotely like a consensus on this point. Unlike I think a lot that went on in prior decades.

What I wish was going on though was less trying to “sneak” plans in that achieve one side’s aims and more actual convincing of the public through rational discourse.  (Maybe this illustrates the naivetee I hold)

Related posts:

1. Levi, Ethics and Politics
2. Consensus
3. How Racist are White Conservatives?

Badiou’s ethics is not designed to formulate a set of rules that would tell us how to respond to situation x (hence the “one size fits all” critique is a bit of a red herring or straw man). What Badiou is interested in is what might keep us committed to a certain project despite all the things that stand in our way.

Sounds very Kierkegaardian.  In case it’s not obvious – I don’t know Badiou well.  I have a couple of his books I started just before life became a busy hell that I need to get back to.  (Along with Harman’s books)

…the political realist or pragmatic realist would argue that we have to recognize the social constraints on change and limit ourselves to doing what is possible in the reigning social framework, rather than pursuing the significant change called for. For Badiou the ethical political subject is the one that rejects this logic and remains committed to this cause hell or high water regardless of whether it appears impossible from the standpoint of reigning common sense.

It’s interesting how well this describes the tea party within the last six months or so.  However it’s interesting that it’s precisely here that I find myself most opposed to the tea party.  I actually favor a lot of the general principles of small government they at least give lip service to. I find myself aghast at how they are bringing this about. For example holding those opposed to their views hostage to fear of the debt ceiling. I also find that many tea party people have odd beliefs about what is actually going on in the world. (Here speaking of those I’ve actually conversed with rather than any particular leader or blogger)

The call of “hell or high water” to me goes against the very democratic impulse I think we ought have. I understand the anti-democratic sentiment of many people. Why should the ignorant have so much power to decide elections? However it seems clear to me that our nation is based upon a system of governemnt in which consensus building is pre-eminent. What activists on both the left and the right really seem to desire is a more parlimentary system in which you never have divided government and winners more or less get to do what they want.

Last year I was constantly rolling my eyes at Matthew Yglesias’ constant pining after a parlimentary system to replace the flaws he saw in the Senate. I’m not at all unfamiliar with parlimentary systems. (I’m originally from Canada after all) Personally I do prefer our system, when it is working. However the problem is that right now both sides seem to be thinking in terms of a parlimentary system wheras they are acting in terms of our more consensus building system. In particular I think this will come back and bite the tea party in the butt.  (Much as Obama and liberals faced a backlash over Obamacare because there wasn’t sufficient consensus on the issue)

Getting back to Levi’s post, what I think happens is that this “impossibility” is thought in terms of capturing (via political means) sufficient political office independent of popular opinion. With the tea party this was possible due to backlash against Obamacare as well as working in the lightly attended to primaries within the Republican party.

They don’t begin with an answer of what is to be done, but rather invent that answer in their practice. This is precisely what politics and ethics is (cf. my article in Deleuze and Ethics). Politics and ethics begins at that precise point where the normative sphere fails, where there isn’t a pre-delineated answer in terms of an existing norm. This is why ethical philosophies that propose a pre-delineated norm or rule from which applications in particular situations miss the boat.

I agree completely with Levi here and I think it is precisely at the point of institutional breakdown that these sorts of events transpire.  Had you talked to any Republican prior to the recession no one took seriously the idea of not raising the debt ceiling. As has been frequently quoted Reagan has this to say about the matter:

The full consequences of a default – or even the serious prospect of default – by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar.  (Ronald Reagan in 1983 to Senate Majority leader Howard Baker)

What’s happened though is a breakdown in trust of economists due to first the massive failures of prediction with regards to the beginning of the recession and then a doubling down on the weakly argued Keynesian view of a solution. Whether one agrees with the Keynesians or not, I think one has to agree the empirical evidence is pretty weak relative to stronger economic theories — thus the wide disagreement by even Nobel Prize winning economists. It’s instructive to compare the nature of economic disagreement with say the nature of scientific debate over global warming.

It’s at this moment of breakdown (and not just on this economic issue but on a slew of issues aggrevated by the economy) that people start questioning everything. In this view the tea party is a symptom of this breakdown. It doesn’t mean the tea party is right (or that Krugman is right). However I think it explains the ethical event that this moment of time highlights.

Related posts:

1. Disparity and Party Politics
2. Elections
3. Party Line Continentals

My dad used to always put about two Fermi Problems on his honors physics final. Things like, “how much of Caesar’s dying breath did you just breath” or “how thick is the rubber you lay down on the road every day on average.” He had about twenty five great questions of this sort.

What’s your favorite Fermi Problem?

Here are my two favorites.

1. Over your lifetime how much will you earn for each hour of homework you do?

2. How much energy does a grasshopper use jumping?

Related posts:

1. XKCD on Physicists
2. Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence
3. Why Physicists Are Bad At Philosophy

First let me ‘fess up to my biases. I’m thus far a pretty big Huntsman fan. I keep wanting to like Romney but am deeply troubled by how ambitious he appears and how he seems willing to say nearly anything to become President. I just have a hard time trusting someone like that and I hope this is just an artifact of the media. I’m also pretty deeply troubled by the populist move within the Republican party that somehow manages some pretty incoherent pushes. (i.e. a strong libertarian streak among the tea partiers while simultaneously a nearly xenophobic anti-immigrant streak: and don’t tell me it’s just about illegal immigration) Simultaneously there are some disturbing anti-scientific streaks. Believe what you will about global warming but the way it’s been made into a party litmus test freaks me out. (And don’t get me started on the treatment of evolution in some parts of the country)

The more interesting things to me are how fractured things have become in politics.  The LDS Church made the rather rare move of becoming involved in political matters.  Yet just recently a majority of  Utah Republicans went against the Church on the immigration issue.  (The Church had backed a compromise bill offering much more support to illegal immigrants against the wishes of the anti-illegal immigration activists)

On the one hand this (hopefully) has the benefit of showing the conspiracy minded that people don’t vote the way the Church says.  (And honestly the Church typically takes a pretty studied neutral stance on most things – even if most Mormons take a somewhat conservative political stance)    On the other I think it a bit unexpect this happened.  It shows some pretty deep divides.  Behind the scenes in Utah politics there have been some pretty harsh words traded between groups.

In addition to the immigration issue the fact there are two Mormon Presidential candidates have divided the state.  I think it safe to say that Romney is certainly doing best here.  (Somewhat surprisingly in some ways)  However more interesting than the divides within establishment Utahn Republicans are the base/activists.  There we see a lot more tea party activism and libertarian activism.  That group frankly hates both candidates.

Once again more interesting to me are what appear to be some of the tensions in the background that don’t raise to the foreground much.  And I do think that religion plays as prominent of a role here as it does on the immigration issue.  There are some who deeply distrust libertarianism on religious grounds.  There are some who deeply are attracted to ideological libertarianism on religious grounds.  I’ve heard from both sides arguments which end up resting on religious arguments.  The libertarian one is an old one: the idea that it is Satanic to try and force someone to chose the right and that all charitable service should thus be voluntary.  The opposing view is even more interesting looking both at the history of Church/State involvement and the fact the Church never has promoted libertarian principles.  But more deeply than that noting that the Church opposes libertarian canards like the legalization of gambling, prostitution and the like.

All of this gets complex fast.  After all the tea party folks are some of Huntsman’s biggest critics.  (At least from what I can see as a somewhat outsider)  Yet Huntsman arguably broke down more of the social conservative government restrictions in Utah than any other Utahn politician.  What some call his social liberalism or moderate policies can just as easily be seen as libertarianism.  But he doesn’t appear to get much support from self-identified libertarians.  (And of course some self-identified libertarians end up supporting social conservativism on key issues)

It’s all enough to really confuse some of us trying to make sense of it all.

Related posts:

1. Why are Religious Happier?
2. Hardy on the Book of Mormon & Immigration
3. Happy Church Attendance

“Philosophy, it seems to me, has spoked its own wheel in its hyper-late-post-modern deconstruction that somehow deconstructed itself. It broke down in such a way that the philosopher is now so divorced from real life and sucked into a simulated one (modelled) that often he has nothing constructive to say on current events.”

I have to admit this makes little sense to me. It’s like saying theoretical physics is pointless since what have Lie Groups done to help Obama? I think the misunderstanding pops up because in the early modern period it was philosophy making quite a few criticisms of various practices like slavery, denying women suffrage, and so forth. But by the same token physics in those days was doing all sorts of cool things like complex pulleys that revolutionized shipping. The problem is that we ran out of low hanging fruit. The problems today are pretty complex and require years of study to even understand the problem.

Now the author over at The Eternal Universe (operating under a nom de plume) thinks philosophy’s problem is science.

What it comes down to is that the field of study known as philosophy stopped offering answers or solutions to practical problems, and got caught up in arguing about trivial things (such as trying to prove that we don’t exist). The reason why this happened is because there was another outlet, namely science (mostly physics) where people could turn for answers.

I don’t want to dispute that when it comes to answers physics is the place to go. I think part of the problem was in the hairy days of early modernism there wasn’t much of a divide between philosophy and science. Most did both (think Leibniz for example). It was all natural philosophy. I think one big problem is that for some empiricism became not just where we had the most successful answers but the only place we should turn for answers. That is a certain segment of the academic community turned towards scientism in various guises. And this persists today.

That said I’m not sure philosophy ought aim at answers beyond working out implications of what is already believed or showing inconsistencies. Philosophy’s primary value is in problematizing what we thought were solid answers. I don’t think that’s denying truth in the least. (And honestly I don’t think too many philosophers dispute truth) Rather I think that questioning and trying to understand where we are making ungrounded assumptions is just inherently useful. Maybe it freaks some out. And maybe some wish philosophy could give answers to things the way physics describes the motions of billiard balls. But the fact it doesn’t do what some wish is no strike against it. That’s akin to berating a fish for not having legs.

I also think that one big trouble the scientism proponents have (especially those who don’t recognize their position is scientism) is suggesting that science has all the answers. However honestly most of the questions the typical person has just aren’t answerable by science. (Who do I love, what movie should I see, how do I be a better person, etc.)

Related posts:

1. Fermi Problem
2. New Blog
3. Revisionist Accounts