John Dehlin had up a post at his blog that got me thinking. His post is primarily about apologetics and whether it turns people off of Mormonism. Unfortunately like so many he tends to pick two figures who make up a distinct minority of apologetic writings and treats it as if they were representative of apologetics. That's unfortunate. Over at AML last month I'd had a similar conversation with someone else. I'll quote that reply of mine below as it says most of what I have to say about the apologetics issue. But I wish to perhaps expand the topic somewhat. What concerns me - or perhaps more accurately puzzles me - is how a group of people who are overly harsh in their rhetoric can drive people who held some ideas away from those ideas.
It doesn't just happen in religion. The best examples are in politics where I read of people being driven away from conservative ideology because of people like Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity. Now I'll be the first to decry especially Ann Coulter who just seems to be deliberately inflammatory with no connection to facts or ideas. I suspect that most of these figures do this to sell books or their shows. But clearly they drive away some people from reasonable ideas. Further (and perhaps more worrisome) they make their fans entrenched and unthinking about their beliefs.
But take a step away from this for a moment. What are we saying when we recognize this? We are saying that people don't believe ideas due to the strength of the ideas but based upon how much they like or dislike a small number of people espousing them. It's not even as if these people are representative of the people believing the ideas.
What boggles my mind in all this is how silly it would sound when moved to some other arena. Consider Isaac Newton who, by anyone's judgment, wasn't a terribly nice guy to be around. Should one stop believing in Newton's laws simply because of Newton? What about Richard Feynman who had an unfortunate tendency to seduce the wives of his friends at times and could perhaps be called a misogynist based upon a few of his books. Should we disbelieve quantum electrodynamics because of this?
The thing that strikes me is that people attacking these apologists usually criticize them primarily because of ad homen reasoning. Yet the very approach to the issue they bring is itself ad homen. There typically is, at least to my eyes, an eery mirror at play.
Now I think all this is much broader than religion or even politics. It gets into what some call intellectual bloodsport. I think it goes without saying that not all thinkers are terribly pleasant in discussions. I can think of several situations in my own past and even at this blog where discussions mired down in misunderstanding and heated rhetoric despite all I could do. Those who picture a kind of ideal situation at the academy where ideas are discussed "objectively" without passion clearly haven't spent much time either reading scholarship or listening to the debates and politics. (The current debate over String theory in physics being a great example)
So with that allow me to quote the email I mentioned. It addresses some issues of apologetics a bit different from what John did. But I think it pertinent.
No, except that FARMS does not fashion itself as apologists. They fashion themselves as researchers of history. That implies a certain objectivity. Apologetics don't. I don't expect objectivity from apologists. I do from historians. I expect neither group to badmouth other researchers of opposite opinions.
I think there are two issues here. First off I think FARMS position is that there isn't a dichotomy between historians and apologists. Further they'd probably suggest that your ideal of objectivity is a myth that never is achieved even in the academy. I know that I've read enough history and other academic disciplines to know that badmouthing of researchers is unfortunately extremely common. Heavens you should see how American philosophers go after the French philosopher Derrida. The term I hear bantered around a lot is "academic bloodsport."
Now that doesn't justify what often goes on in Mormon history. And clearly there is bad blood on both sides. (Interesting each side seems to think the mote is on the other side) But also undeniable is that for some the bad blood makes people overlook the well reasoned and more careful stuff that both sides put out. It's as if each side is judged by the worst that can be found. Once again, I think there are numerous parallels to this in regular academia. Sadly I suspect this sort of judging is just typical of our human condition.
Here's how it ought to work: Say you and I are both historians. I publish a book that takes the viewpoint that Shakespeare didn't write his own plays. You review the book and give examples of where my research was faulty, etc. You don't call me a butt-head because I disagree with you.
I wish it did work like that. Sadly it rarely does. Interesting for a discussion of just this sort of example, check out this Guardian article.
When I read a book on the history of Christianity, for instance, I want to feel reasonably assured that the writer's primary goal is to present the facts, and not overlay them with his own opinion.
Unfortunately often the world is not that convenient and the very things disputed within academics are those things where the facts fall short and one must coax out conclusions. Biblical studies, moreso than any other field roughly in the category of "history," is infamous for doing this the most. Most of what gets passed off as facts are really more societal consensus of a surprisingly small group of scholars. And those scholars typically, over the years, engaged in plenty of bloodsport while coming to that consensus.
Coming from the hard sciences I must confess I share your desire for what historians ought be like. But to be honest, very little could be said in history if such rigor was demanded. The pressures of publishing something interesting ensures that what is written is always somewhat speculative and rarely achieves the level of "fact." At least on the contentious issues (and often even on the mundane)
Now none of this is to justify what I take to be the badly written stuff that comes from all circles in Mormon studies. I do think we ought do better and that "doing better" really ought start at the top with editors from all groups. And I've even become so turned off and pessimistic that I'd go several years without reading certain kinds of stuff. What's most sad is often when books very guilty of these sins get praised as the best books of the year. C'est la vie I guess. I'm never quite sure if this is just me being rational or just me having a background in science with its traditional dim view of these soft disciplines.
Clearly I do wish many people would be more polite and focus on charitable persuasion rather than "battle" as their mode of discussion. But also clearly not everyone will. The question is whether it is fair to judge an entire movement because of this. Or, worse yet, reject the ideas because of some unfortunate conduct by a proponent.
"Most of what gets passed off as facts [in biblical studies] are really more societal consensus of a surprisingly small group of scholars."
Amen and amen to the truth of that statement.
Interesting thoughts. I suppose it would be an overstatement to say that using unduly harsh rhetoric will _never_ cause people who hold those same ideas to reject them. As they say, never say never. At the same time, I doubt that this is a significant phenomenon. Rather, I think it much more likely that this kind of rhetoric simply turns people away from ideas they never held in the first place.
To take politics, I know many republicans who think Coulter is a nut, but I don't know any who have switched to become a democrat as a result. At the same time, I know lots of democrats who think republicans are all mushy-headed, based, in part, on Coulter's outrageous comments. This, while unfortunate, is at least understandable.
Now I could see a situation where a person would no longer want to be identified with a particular group based on what had been said by an outspoken member of that group. Perhaps this is what you and Dehlin are getting at. But to actually reject affirmatively held beliefs because someone rudely defended those same beliefs? I have a hard time believing that happens very often. If it did, people would be flip-flopping constantly on matters like politics and religion, but I don't see that happening.
I don't think that's true Randy. Indeed the phenomena in question that is so interesting is precisely people who do hold the views that unruly defenders like Ann Coulter hold. They then leave their ideas because of the actions of some small minority of defenders. It's this which just seems like very odd intellectual integrity.
Now I suspect in many cases they aren't really leaving because of silly folks like Coulter. It's just a nice convenient excuse to let them rail in their frustration. But there are people who claim to leave beliefs because of defenders. There's no question about that. And there are people who claim to have left the Republican fold because of Coulter or Hannity. How honest they are being is an other question. (I was going to do a google search for examples of this but just didn't have the time)
Somewhat related to the above is this review from the Smithsonian on Great Feuds in Science and Portraits of Discovery.
It simply is constantly amazing to me the elevated height the academy is held in. These sorts of firestorms are sadly the norm rather than the exception. And when two worldviews are competing over some field, heaven help the world. Once again just look at the furor over postmodernism. And some of the stuff going on in string theory is quite surprising. And that's broad levels of attacks. Move beyond that to where scholars get personal and it's pretty amazing.
It probably doesn't help that perhaps intelligent people tend to have correspondingly poorer social skills than perhaps the average person. (No, I can't back that up, but its been my experience at labs, research facilities and universities - probably weak kinds of autism accounts for some of it, the poor socializing "geeks" get in schooling the rest)
Folks, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Al Franken and the like are entertainers, if you don't laugh at them or get offended by them, they were not doing their job. Comparing them with academics is off base. If you want objective news, go elsewhere (though you are probably going to never find truly objective news, some approximate it better than others).
The reason academics fight so much is because in general there is no money involved. In the business world you can differentiate yourself based on how much money you earn/save/sell for the business. In most academic circles there is no money so people start differentiating themselves based on heated rhetoric and academic politics as it's the only real way to get noticed. Toiling away in a lab or in a library may be the ideal, but it doesn't get you noticed.
The exceptions in the academy are those working in areas where there is significant amounts of cash floating around (molecular biology, biochem, computer science etc). Here people tend to keep their mouths shut because they CAN differentiate themselves based on how much $ they bring to the school. Also, if you start shooting your mouth off you can only do harm to your funding.
By the way, this was one of the main reasons I decided not to back to graduate school.
Correction that should have been, "One of the main reasons I decided not to go back to school for a graduate degree."
I think the problem is that the figures in question (with the possible exception of Franken) don't portray themselves primarily as entertainers. And if they are primarily entertainers what are they doing on news shows?
This blurring of the line between entertainment ala Saturday Night Live and serious newscasting is fairly troubling. I think in cases like say John Stewart it's defensible because it is undeniably entertainment first. In cases like Limbaugh, Franken, Crossfire, and others it gives the perception of news when in reality it is often little better than say The Daily Show.
Having said that I agree. It seems silly to get upset at what Limbaugh, Franken, Stewart or others say. Yet a lot of people do.
With regards to academics, even where there is big bucks things often get even more heated. Look at some of the bloodsport over say GM crops. There political views within the academy come out into even more heated exchanges (or, with GM crops, sometimes worse)
This blurring of the line between entertainment ala Saturday Night Live and serious newscasting is fairly troubling. I agree, I haven't found Saturday Night Live entertaining in years and am greatly troubled by that. Also, does it really matter if it is entertainment first and foremost? Shouldn't the hermeneutic circle allow one to correctly interpret and transcend the problem (don't answer, it's a rhetorical question)?
In cases like Limbaugh, Franken, Crossfire, and others it gives the perception of news when in reality it is often little better than say The Daily Show. Limbaugh admits he is an entertainer first and foremost. Franken is not entertaining but you perceive him to be an entertainer, so I guess by your admission he is o.k. Crossfire was cancelled last year, it was no longer entertaining.
GM foods are mainly an issue on the continent and the UK, for the most part no one in the U.S. cares about it (at least that's been my impression) and I was referring to U.S. academe, I am ignorant of the situation on the continent and the UK. Also, all GM debates I have seen have been in the political arena, never have they been in the academic world, though I must confess I don't pay that much attention.
Are there other examples where lots of money and bickering in academe mix? Bickering about lots of money in academe doesn't count, though I suspect you already knew that.
What bothers me is that all articles and apologertics efforts are lumped together as a single enterprise and they are all supposedly mean-spirited. Thus, the very argument made by John ends up being the particular ad hominem of guilt by association and ignoring the real arguments and evidence. I know Dan and Lou, and I like them both immensely. I never hear these same critics go off about the ex-Mo sits where truly reprehensible and uncharitable in exrtremis comments are the norm. That doesn't justify retaliation in kind; but it shows the kind of vitriolic that accompanies this one-sided discussion.
You are correct that this is the norm in behavior in our society. It isn't just apologia and new Mormon history, it isn't just the soft social sciences, It is in academia, it is in politic, it is in business, it is human nature period and it has its root in one simple thing, pride.
When people are learned they think they are wise. When proud they diminish those that would disagree. In short, they become consumed with enmity between themselves and their fellowman. This is damaging. I find it is extremely damaging to academic freedom, it destroys objectivity, It stifles innovation, it slows new discovery, stifles the exchange of ideas, and most of all, it shrinks people and positions into charicatures rather than the divine children of God they are.
I dream of one day, learning and growing in a true Zion society, where one need not fear open expression, open kindness, open emotion. I can only work on myself for now, but i dream of a day when we will all get there.
Among shoppers folks in the US don't care about GM crops. Among researchers it is sometimes an other matter entirely. The case I was thinking about was that of some corn research at Berkeley that was vandalized. Here's someone's cut and past of a New Scientist article on it. Be aware that New Scientist likes to play up the sensationalism a tad. There have been over the past few years similar situations in the US.
As to the hermeneutics of discerning what is or isn't entertainment. The problem is that people I agree are primarily entertainers like Limbaugh are taken as a kind of banner-holder for an ideological movement. When that happens all sorts of unfortunate side effects take place. (IMO) I think that in practice Limbaugh broke down a lot of doors allowing conservative ideology to actually get a place in the discourse. Something that the format of news before him didn't really allow. However the side effect is that discussions of politics are much, much more superficial and end up being more akin to the kind of debates one finds on sports shows.
Blake, I agree completely. While I'm very sympathetic to the basic charge (use more even-handed rhetoric) in practice those who get the most upset simultaneously engage in the same behavior.
I don't have a problem with Coulter et al as long as people clearly understand that they are pushing the limits of responsible opinion, stirring things up on purpose, to a degree trying to be outrageous just to be outrageous - waking people out of their intellectual slumber in a rather rude fashion. I happen to think conservatives are better at it than most liberals, perhaps because contemporary liberalism more represents the establishment status quo in the schools, the media, and the public sector.
What I have a problem with is the very strange irony of people who go around acting as if there are no facts, and then setting themselves up as the ultimate arbiters of what is a fact, or at least what is respectable opinion.
Now I am a moderate Ockhamist - in otherwords I do not generally believe there are absolutes beyond the very basic principles of natural science extending to the fundamentals of intelligence, free will, and perception. There are of course historical facts, but everything else is up for grabs, and the only eternal truths beyond those fundamentals are established by divine design.
So when somebody say in sociology insists that some principle is true, but doesn't have hard scientific argument for it, I say the only way we can call any principle true that isn't an absolute law of nature is if it is divinely legislated or a consequence of biology.
Otherwise they are trying to say that they are like God - they know better than we do what is right and what is wrong. If their position agrees with revelation, that may be credible, if it radically disagrees with revelation, not hardly.
I'm infamous for giving the social sciences a hard time. So I'll stay quiet.
But I will say that one probably should distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive rules, laws or principles. Most of what we encounter in physics and the hard sciences are prescriptive laws. We certainly have a few descriptive ones that are generally true. (One could, I suppose, argue Newton's laws even fall into that)
I think though in the social sciences there are lots of descriptive principles and laws that don't necessarily correspond to something "real." Which isn't to say they don't also find empirically regularities that could be considered prescriptive.
Yeah, it's my own terminology. But hopefully you get the idea I'm getting at. I'm not at all convinced all claims in the social sciences are as bad as you suggest, even though I'm a big social science skeptic.
Clark,
I am going to disagree with your terminology. All absolute laws are descriptive, otherwise they woudn't be absolutes. Biology though potentially otherwise is alos largely descriptive. History is is also descriptive.
Only principles subject to free will, i.e. choice one way or another can be said to be prescriptive.
So while there are some scientific (descriptive) principles of the social sciences, the worst controversy is all about the prescriptive (what should we do, the highest and the best) and not about descriptive things (things we cannot avoid).
There is no point in arguing about necessity, except in the context of choice. If global warming were a necessity, there would be little point in arguing about it. The debate is not only whether it is occuring, but whether we are causing it, and whether is possible for us to avoid it. More and more a prescriptive debate, not a descriptive one.
Most intellectual dishonesty comes in the form of people who distort the facts in order to match their preferred prescriptions. Social scientists and the humanities happen to be famous for it. Pretty hard to distort facts for very long in the physical sciences or engineering.
Again the irony of distortion of description in the social sciences, is that if the distortion were inevitable, it would be unnecessary in the first place. The highest aspects of the social sciences and the humanities are not about the inevitable, but about what should be, instead of what will be. In other words, religion.
Well it's made up terminology by a tired person in the middle of the night who really ought be in bed. So I won't push it too far. My descriptive I didn't mean it quite as you did but more limited descriptions of phenomena that don't claim to be regulative "laws."
I'm not quite sure I quite buy into the Ockham view of free will that you do however. So that may underlie some of what I reject.
I can see that some forms of metaphysics might blur the line, in fact all orthodox theologies do - God ordained this and ordained that, etc whether absolute or more fuzzy, I am just following convention, e.g. this distinction in linguistics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_and_description
where prescriptive means normative, and descriptive means as is.
Well I don't think I'm using them differently from that. What I'm more saying is that normative is an objective sense is what is underneath. Description is an account of the particulars but not necessarily the underlying normative laws.
Consider for instance a soccer game. The rules of the game are normative. But it is those rules that explain (and cause) why the ball changes teams when it goes out of bounds. The descriptivist account is "whenever I see the ball go out of bounds the referee gives it to the other team." But unless you prescind (a Peircean term) from the description the underlying normative rule you've not accomplished much.
Put more simply in the language of statistics, correlation is not causation. What we ought be doing is making inferences from our descriptions for causes which we then test thoroughly. It is that last step of first drawing the abstraction and then trying to test it that I think social sciences often (but hardly always) fall down upon.
I think the confusion is over normative in the sense of "arbitrary by human will." Whereas I was meaning something a bit more broadly and less arbitrary. But that aspect of will is, as I said, where I suspect some of the miscommunication is occuring.
But it probably was just a poor word choice on my part.
Clark,
The difference is that in a soccer game the rules neither explain nor cause what happens when the ball goes out of bounds, rather it is the common consent of the players, enforced by the referee to follow those rules, that explains what happens.
Science is different - the electrons presumably do not have a choice whether to follow the rules (laws) or not. The laws of any deterministic system are the baseline reality of the matter. They cannot be changed by anyone, no consent, no free action is required for them to be enforced. They just are. WE do not prescribe what an electron should do, we describe what a system of electrons inevitably does do.
The whole difference is whether the entities in the system are agents / actors or plain old things. A prescriptive law exists only in the minds of the actors, and can be ignored. A true descriptive law of science corresponds to that which cannot be ignored - something that is "out there", objective not subjective, descriptive not prescriptive.
The only way to void the distinction is to grant concious free will to ordinary material things. Then under suitable provocation, the electrons could just ignore natural law completely and "do their own thing", making natural law prescriptive of what electrons should so and not descriptive of what "they" cannot "help" but do otherwise.
Once again I understand. It gets to the arbitrariness of things. And thus your (Ockham's) view of free will. But I think as a kind of description it is helpful. Especially if one moves into a Peircean perspective where all law evolves in that way.
Blake said, "I never hear these same critics go off about the ex-Mo sits where truly reprehensible and uncharitable in exrtremis comments are the norm."
John wrote in the original post: "Now….one thing that I will openly acknowledge is that many/most anti-Mormons act the same way–which is also very, very disappointing."
I don't really like point for point arguments...but Blake...I think you mischaracterized me here. I detest anti-Mormon or ex-Mormon heat. Hate it.
John: I caught your statement. It just isn't on par really is it? When anti-mos do it, their conduct is "disappointing". When apologists do it, it is faith destroying. Can't you see the difference in judgment here? Moreover, instead of spending time ripping the ex-mos and antis for their way over the top obscenities and sheer delusion, you chose to rip the apologists. I ask myself: why that choice? I don't know you and don't presume to have any basis for judging one way or the other, but I think that choice speaks for itself. It expresses allegiances and the results you seek to achieve. I'm glad that you detest the anti heat -- but you seem to detest apologists as well. Why not focus on the good work by apologists? There is plenty of it. Would you say that my stuff involves such invective and that it is ill-imformed or just dishonest? I consider myself an aplogist of sorts and so when you paint with the broad brush that you did in your post, I seem myself plastered with your coloring outside the lines. So my real issue is about focus and the project you undertake.
I think John, the problem is, that there simply are fiery personalities out there. Look at how the comments in your post has become mired in rather nasty rhetoric that makes me not even want to read. It's human nature, as I said.
The problem, as I see it, is in labeling whole movements simply because a few writings in that genre partake of an all too human failing.
Neither Ann Coulter nor Rush Limbaugh is a mere entertainer, though they are entertainers. Neither is merely a political commentator, though they comment on politics. They are, to a substantial degree, satirists. And satire includes substance.
Much of the criticism of them strikes me as remarkably misguided.
It also seems to me a sad commentary on some of what passes for Mormon culture that satire is considered so reprehensible in some quarters. If you want to neuter humor and render commentary boring, insist that it absolutely must be "nice."
I hold no brief for truly vicious comment -- and do not plead guilty to having offered it -- but I'm also no fan of reducing our discourse to what Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith once mocked as "the great grinning mashed potato goodness of Mormon Utah." Sincere Christian discipleship doesn't require blandness.
I don't mind satire. In fact I rather love it. One reason why John Stewart doesn't bother me too much, although there was a stretch before the last election where he was too much even for me. I actually enjoy a lot of satire that goes against my own beliefs as well.
I think what bothers me about some commentators like Coulter is how thoroughly they blur the boundaries and distinctions. This then leads to the problem. It isn't always clear when they are being mean spirited, insightful or satirical. And I think far too many of them take the easy cop-out of "it's all just satire." That just doesn't excuse a lot of their comments.
There are a lot of benefits to mixing genres so thoroughly. However one has to expect the costs as well.
The danger of too much satire in more serious discourse is precisely that thoughtfulness is all too easily lost. And I say that despite many of my favorite authors having a strong satirical streak. Heavens, Derrida's Limited Inc. is one long piece of satire that is simultaneously quite serious. I think it a masterful work and among my favorite writings of Derrida. But I also think Derrida deserves a lot of the criticism he receives precisely because of this blurring of lines. He has to know he will be misunderstood and can hardly cry foul when he is. Especially when a large point of differance is that misunderstanding is inevitable and essential to texts.
Just as I think there is perhaps something insincere or at best naive when Derrida complained about misunderstandings I think there is when Coulter, Limbaugh, Stewart, or other satirists get in over their head.
I should add one thing. I think the key aspect for satire to be satire is substance. I feel that the big problem with many popular satirists is precisely that they lack substance and the engagement with the issues. Far too often they strawman and that just isn't good satire. You have to have the serious part down before the satire works.
All I can say is that the conservative satirists have got the serious part down a lot better than the liberal ones. The problem with modern liberals is they actually believe their worst satire, so much so that many mock themselves every time they open their mouth. It would be funny, if the long term consequences were not so deadly serious.
There are a few right wingers like that, but they generally do not hold public office, at least not anymore. The paranoid style in American politics is now rather dominated by the left, a dramatic reversal of the situation forty to fifty years ago.
I think that is in part due to who is in power, although the left did paranoid pretty good in the 60's and early 70's.
But I said it once and I'll say it again. The only thing saving conservatives with the public right now is the fact that liberals are even worse. Faint praise, sadly, since if liberals could get their act together the conservative movement will be in deep trouble.
Unless Ann Coulter is intended to be a crude satire of the right wing, I'm not sure how you can use the fact she is a satirist to deflect the off-putting nature of virtually all of her writing, which often seems intended to be as inflammatory as possible in order to sell her persona. She tries to satirize the left, not be a parody of conservatives who try to satirize the left. The word "satire" doesn't wipe away hateful, deceptive, false, or immoral comments when they are seriously made, and Coulter has volumes and volumes of such material. Being a satirist doesn't attach the qualifier "just kidding" to whatever you write in some way that makes it acceptable or substantive. To the extent that she represents political discourse from conservatives in a person's mind, I can see how she how she drives away people from ideas in the ballpark of her views. She makes herself into a living strawman version of other conservatives. One that properly inspires contempt, no less. Few would argue this ideal, but I don't think you you can rehabilitate her reputation in the minds of those who react this way by pointing out she satirist. I'm not sure why Daniel Peterson feels criticism of someone like Coulter is misguided, but without further elaboration, I'd have to agree with Clark that it's too easy to say "satire" as an escape hatch.
This reminds me of an old Tom Tomorrow comic strip in which he attempts to satirize an unfortunate tendency of some conservatives to soften the blow of rather awful commentary from right wing pundits like Coulter and Limbaugh by simply calling it humor.
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2006/06/19/tomo/story.jpg
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble