A comment on Tyler Cowen's blog, in a post about Sarah Palin. Palin has a child with Down Syndrome, and decided to not abort it, even though she found out early in the pregnancy. That's a very moral thing to do, and I respect Palin for doing it. She seems to truly believe and practice what she says she does, which is more than I can say for many (affair-having, closeted homosexual, money embezzaling) Republicans.
Anyway, a commenter named 'talenkine' posts this:
Surely Palin knew that having a down syndrome baby would be a credibility indicator, so that makes her decision less of a true credibility indicator. It seems plausible that she wanted to abort the baby but didn't because it could help her career (and because of the risk that someone might find out about her abortion, which could be devastating to her as a pro-life politician).
As you know, I don't really give a lot of credence to the 'culture wars'. I hold religious beliefs that many people find out-dated, offensive, silly, or stupid. I think their religious beliefs are offensive or stupid. Then we arm wrestle, I win, and that's that. But when someone is so jaded and cynical that every action is a calculated move for More Power, I am surprised and start to buy into the Culture Wars theory.
Palin also wants to teach Creationism in the classroom. As a believer in Creation who supports teaching Evolution in public classrooms, I am less impressed with her. My view of science is less that it is a Pursuit of Truth, and more a Pursuit of Workable Solutions. You may believe that disease is caused by tiny trolls living inside your belly. Someone else might think it's the result of escherichia coli, which can be combated by substituting penicillin to make their cell walls burst from water pressure. It matters less which theory of disease is Correct, and more which theory of disease is more likely to lead to technology which prevents disease.
There, I said it. Science is only a tool for better technology, not a means of Finding Truth. Sucks to your ass-mar, Richard Dawkins. That's something only an absurdly reductionist arrogant engineer would say. Andy, I expect you to categorize this belief- I can't remember if it's Determinist, Consequentialist, Popperian, post-Popperian or what. And none of your sass.
And another thing! A friend of mine commented on how Don Miller gave the closing devotional at the Democratic National Convention last week. Don Miller is a writer, popular among young Evangelicals. He's also a Democrat. I'm no Evangelical, but the prospect that there could be other young Christians who are also politically liberal and vote Democratic is very exciting to me. Here's his prayer:
"Father God,
This week, as the world looks on, help the leaders in this room create a civil dialogue about our future.
We need you, God, as individuals and also as a nation.
We need you to protect us from our enemies, but also from ourselves, because we are easily tempted toward apathy.
Give us a passion to advance opportunities for the least of these, for widows and orphans, for single moms and children whose fathers have left.
Give us the eyes to see them, and the ears to hear them, and hands willing to serve them.
Help us serve people, not just causes. And stand up to specific injustices rather than vague notions.
Give those in this room who have power, along with those who will meet next week, the courage to work together to finally provide health care to those who don’t have any, and a living wage so families can thrive rather than struggle.
Help us figure out how to pay teachers what they deserve and give children an equal opportunity to get a college education.
Help us figure out the balance between economic opportunity and corporate gluttony.
We have tried to solve these problems ourselves but they are still there. We need your help.
Father, will you restore our moral standing in the world?
A lot of people don’t like us but that’s because they don’t know the heart of the average American.
Will you give us favor and forgiveness, along with our allies around the world?
Help us be an example of humility and strength once again.
Lastly, father, unify us.
Even in our diversity help us see how much we have in common.
And unify us not just in our ideas and in our sentiments—but in our actions, as we look around and figure out something we can do to help create an America even greater than the one we have come to cherish.
God we know that you are good.
Thank you for blessing us in so many ways as Americans.
I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice.
Let Him be our example.
Amen."
Sorry for the weird formatting. But is it too reactionary of me to be a little uneasy with this prayer? I'm not saying you have to pray the Book of Concord or the Large Cathecism or anything, but something a little more Jesus-y than 'gave his own life against the forces of injustice' would be nice. There's nothing particularly wrong or doctrinally unsound about the prayer, but I'm beginning to understand more and more why WELS frowns upon this sort of thing. It's very easy and tempting to reduce prayer to something so bland and non-offensive that no one can be upset with it, but that isn't exactly how Jesus taught us to pray.
My brother and I went to a Fraternity Dinner once, when the Whitewater Chapter came over to celebrate the opening of a Pi Kappa Alpha chapter here in Madison. The people were interesting, the food was delicious, and it was a fancy time. But I haven't been more uneasy than when they led a prayer at the dinner. Everyone had their heads bowed except for Ed and I. We shared a look of skepticism and discomfort. That makes us caricatures of prudish, WASP-y, WELS-er elites, I know, but surely someone out there on the Internet will have my back on this one.
Look at my record-high levels of ennui! I ask for Democratic Christians, and when one makes a prayer I think is wussy, I still can't be satisfied. I highly doubt I will find the Republican prayer any more acceptable.
4 comments:
Your characterization of republicans as "affair-having, closeted homosexual, money embezzaling" is offensive and unbecoming. You know better David.
I characterized 'many' Republicans as affair-having, closeted homosexual, and money embezzaling. Do you simply disagree that Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Ted Haggard, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, Jack Abramoff, Larry Craig, and Ted Stevens constitute 'many'?
Sass on the way.
Let me first categorize the belief. You, my dear boy, are an instrumentalist, as opposed to a realist. Here’s why you should change your mind. The reason science is important is not merely prediction, but explanation. The theory of relativity isn’t a great theory solely in virtue of the fact that it accurately predicts planetary orbits, but because it explains them in a novel way, i.e., in terms of curved space and time. A theory that consists of 10 formulae that accurately predicts any given observation in the universe would be unsatisfactory if there weren’t some explanation behind it. The goal of science ought to be not just to be able to predict future outcomes, but to explain why those outcomes occur (while others do not).
David Deutsch gave a good example from his book, The Fabric of Reality. Why do we reject theories, generally speaking? Is it because of their ability to make accurate predictions, or provide good explanations? “Consider the theory that eating a kilogram of grass is a cure for the common cold. That theory makes experimentally testable predictions: if people tried the grass cure and found it ineffective, the theory would be proved false. But it has never been tested and probably never will be, because it contain no explanation” e.g., how the cure would work, etc.
Instrumentalism raises further difficulties. If scientific theories don’t correspond to reality, then how do we explain the remarkable success of theories (e.g. quantum mechanics)? Is it some sort of cosmic coincidence? This is known as the cosmic coincidence argument ;)
I'm with Jordan on this one.
"That's a very moral thing to do, and I respect Palin for doing it. She seems to truly believe and practice what she says she does, which is more than I can say for many (affair-having, closeted homosexual, money embezzaling) Republicans."
I think the most natural way to read this quote is that you are pleasantly surprised that Palin is not a hypocrite since so many other Republicans are. By many, I assume you mean a large quantity - obviously a subjective term. However, by any measure, 8 Republicans shouldn't constitute a large quantity. The Republican Party consists of thousands of public servants and millions more who are members of the party.
By the way, is hiding one's homosexuality immoral? I am quite disturbed that you would equivocate this with having an affair or embezzling money, though I know you believe that all sins are equal in the eyes of God.
Post a Comment