I have some thoughts about this piece by Michael Gerson.
Background (disclosure): I'm not American, I live in the US, I'm a Christian, and as an academic, I have lots of non-religious friends.
My perspective on this is as an insider-outsider 1/ washingtonpost.com/opinions/promi…
So, as is generally known Christianity in the US has been declining at a rapid pace. See this Pew forum report (from Oct 2019). Note, the decline is now also notable among Evangelicals. But 2 factors have further accelerated the decline 2/
1. The pandemic. It will have huge effects due to permanent closure of churches, but also solidifying decline in attendance, see e.g., here churchanswers.com/blog/five-type… 3/
2. The link between politics and Christianity in the US. This is a very complex issue, but in brief: there is a kind of package-deal white Evangelical Christianity that ties right wing politics with traditional gender roles, rugged masculinity to Christian beliefs 4/
For an overview see this excellent book.
Kobes Du Mez patiently analyzes the link between rugged masculinity and Evangelicalism, but she also shows the political links and how white Evangelicals have been a very influential voting bloc. 5/
White Evangelical Christians now account for about 18% of registered US voters - baptistnews.com/article/this-y…
Note this: “Republicans are reliant on the group’s support and mobilization in order to accumulate 270 Electoral College votes.” 6/
And as this article and Du Mez' book indicates, this reliance of Republicans on white Evangelicals as a faithful voting bloc looong predates Trump. In that respect, their support for Trump is not so strange/unprecedented 7/
Now, @MJGerson writes "If we should encounter someone who believes — honestly and adamantly believes — in both the existence of the Easter Bunny and in the resurrection of Christ, it would naturally raise questions about the quality of his or her believing faculties." 8/
And he similarly worries that unwavering support for Trump will "make the critical intelligence of Christians seem limited. And what these leaders say about religion loses in credibility." Worries along those lines make me think of Augustine ... 9/
Augustine worried that if Christian spout ignorant claims about, say, biology astronomy "and talking such nonsense" then non-Christians would "scarcely contain their laughter when they see them to be toto caelo, as the saying goes, wide of the mark." 10/
But anyway, Augustine's worries apply to Christians very much today. Think of Young Earth creationism, the Creation museum, wrong views about climate change, etc etc. So, already, Christians are signaling to non-Christians "We are scientifically illiterate". 11/
The problem, then, runs deeper. It's a huge epistemic rift where Christians are moving further and further away from accepted science and from commonsensical beliefs. But because of their disproportionate political influence, they get away with spouting this nonsense 12/
And then you lose all credibility. The problems run far deeper than @mjgerson
indicates. I also worry that attempts to salvage Evangelical Christianity from (I think well-founded) criticisms by sophisticated philosophical argument (think WL Craig etc) don't really work 13/
Such philosophy-apologetics stuff (a la Plantinga) only preaches to the converted. It does not establish credibility of Christian beliefs among non-Christians. I think we need to do a lot to try to re-establish some semblance of intellectual credibility 14/
That means being honest, clear-eyed, at least (for God's sake) accepting uncontroversial scientific views, not tying one's religious beliefs to a political party, attempt to engage in good-faith debates with people with different beliefs 15/
Also: When people consider what religious views to adhere to, epistemic considerations are only one part of the story. A lot of research on conversion, religious reaffiliation points to the importance of friends network, of the pragmatic aspects of religion 16/
Of the perceived moral aspects, etc. And also here, quite frankly my non-Christian friends think that Christians are just obsessing the whole time over abortion, birth control, and gay marriage. I'm not saying this doesn't matter, but this is not the core of Christianity! 17/
And there is quite some variability among Christians.
Did you know that a majority of American Catholics think abortion should be legal in most or all cases? See here pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020… 18/
While I appreciate the end of @mjgerson's piece, on Advent and hope "The most reassuring message of the season is that the existence of hope does not depend on us", the very existence of Christianity in the US does depend on us! 19/
And right now, it's not looking like an attractive package deal. So, I think this requires some sober self-reflection among Christians not to think of quick political gains, but a long-term vision for the future. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Been thinking again of the no-deal threat about Brexit. One problem is lack of democratic oversight--something already hinted at by Rousseau. Rousseau thought representative democracy is a layer too many, and favored direct democracy 1/
Now I know many people have been drawing the opposite conclusion re Brexit, namely: referendums don't work, people don't know what they vote for etc. But I'm not sure that's right. Maybe direct democracy does work provided people get input all the way, whereas now ... 2/
You basically had one vote in June 2016, then elected representatives clearly failed to do their work. Then people, frustrated, voted again in 2017 and then again in 2019, but in none of those votes could they directly influence the Brexit process 3/
Am thinking of Queen's Gambit, Ep 5 where Harry Beltik offers to help Beth Harmon with chess. He admits freely he is not as good as she is, yet still thinks she can learn from him, and she does. This often happens: we learn from our epistemic inferiors. But how? Short thread 1/
A lot of the debate on disagreement focuses on your epistemic peers - people who are in an equally good epistemic position (e.g., in terms of evidence or skill) as you are and you disagree with. Such disagreement counts as higher-order evidence 2/
But what with people who know more than you? Should you always listen to your epistemic superiors? L Zagzebski has an argument to this effect: if A is your epistemic superior in domain D, you should just always defer to A because you're more likely to get it right then 3/
Fascinated by Kropotkin's ethical naturalism. K. argues that we have 2 drives that are at odds (a "double tendency")
* a tendency to community, mutual aid
* a tendency to individual self-realization, freedom
K's key idea is to achieve a synthesis between these 2 in society 1/
Kropotkin did not think that one should give up individuality, personal initiative or freedom to achieve good societal ends. Rather, societies should strive to preserve these while also striving for the welfare of all. 2/
I'm really fascinated by his contributions to evolutionary ethics. Some things he anticipates: a kind of moral foundations theory, with evolved roots of morality being:
* sociality (sympathy)
* justice (wanting equality and justice)
* magnanimity (self-sacrifice) 3/
I heard this morning a really wonderful talk by Havi Carel on pandemic phenomenology. Carel uses the phenomenological approach by Heidegger in particular to help us think about how our being in the world, our being around others has changed so drastically.
Some thoughts 1/
Carel uses LA Paul's concept of transformative experience (TE) to argue that the pandemic has collectively changed us, both who we are and what we know. We've become different people. Also this TE is involuntary, we didn't choose to be in a pandemic 2/
In that respect, being in a pandemic is more akin to the transformative effects of illness (which Carel wrote about e.g., here: google.com/books/edition/…
and less like e.g., choosing to have a child, where you can decide to have that particular TE 3/
Here is my promised thread on the political philosophy of Watership Down (1972), the timeless novel by Richard Adams.
Short summary: to me, this work is a defense of liberalism, bottom-up democracy by consensus where everyone can flourish (cf Dewey), and political authority 1/
Why do we need political authority? One popular answer, defended in this book, is that political authority is needed for collective action. When Fiver foresees the destruction of the warren, a leader is needed to leave the warren and to found a new one, to channel decisions 2/
The best decisions are the decisions that are in the best interest of the group. This is Rousseau's "general will" and with that I do not mean a kind of demagogic "will of the people" where a group imposes its will on everyone, but what's best for everyone 3/
Thinking of William James' critique of Herbert Spencer's theory of psychology and what it can mean for us, especially today. 1/
Paper by James here unav.es/gep/RemarksOnS…
Herbert Spencer (1820 – 1903) was a proponent of social Darwinism and he's noted for the phrase "survival of the fittest". His book The Principles of Psychology (published 1855, before Darwin) aimed to put psychology on the footing of biology, with laws that we could discover 2/
Though the first edition of Spencer's Principles of Psychology was published before Origin of Species (1859), i.e., Darwinian, he was wanted to apply evolutionary principles to psychology - notably Lamarck, and he tried to understand animal psychology as adaptation. 3/