I have an idea: Christopher Caldwell of the FT. Yes, he’s an old friend, but his conservatism is empirical, his spirit is free, his intellectual honesty wide and deep. A reader suggested him – and it all seemed extremely obvious at once. I hope my enthusiasm doesn’t harm him. But Bill Keller and Andy Rosenthal should check out his FT column and his brilliant reporting for the Weekly Standard. Then there’s Dish fave, Tyler Cowen.
Month: January 2009
A Word Of Advice
Stay away from the grilled blowfish testicles.
In Defense Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster
A reader writes:
The essential difference between atheism and a strong theism such as Christianity is that one makes specific, positive claims about the material universe that are untestable and for which there is no good evidence, and the other does not. It’s quite true that a hypothetical atheist who was absolutely certain that "there’s nothing out there" would be holding an indefensible position; but in practice, virtually no atheist–not even Dawkins or PZ Myers–feels that way. As a nonbeliever, I don’t ever "feel a twinge of doubt" that I might be wrong; I’m pretty sure that I’m wrong, about many things.
And like you, I doubt that what is "right" on this subject is intellectually comprehensible by the human mind. The difference is that, given these limitations and the absence of evidence, I am unwilling to hold a positive, specific belief on poor evidence. Remember: atheism as it is normally found in the real world says, "There is no evidence to support (for example) the Christian God, so until such evidence is presented, I maintain no belief in such a god and live under the assumption that he is not there." The doubt that Douthat is talking about is not only built into atheism, it essentially is atheism.
Douthat doesn’t seem to get this, so he leaps from his fictitious 100%-certain atheist to a false comparison between the Christian God and the FSM. Of course the two are not "equally ridiculous hypotheses." That’s the whole point. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a deliberately ridiculous idea; so was Bertrand Russell’s teapot. The point of these examples is that, however ridiculous they are, they are just as non-disprovable as the Christian God. The idea is to put the burden of proof on the one making a specific, positive claim. "The universe is mysterious, and you can’t disprove X completely, so you can’t argue if I say that X is true" is a bad, content-free argument. Substituting the FSM for X instead of God or Jesus is just a way of making this point.
Another reader adds:
Having now read Ross‘ post, he makes several good points. I think most atheists I know would admit to having had doubts at some time. My dad always said, "If everyone else is telling you you’re drunk, you should at least consider sitting down."
But he sidestepped the central point of Russell’s Teapot, which is that there is exactly as much empirical evidence for the existence of God as there is for the Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now certainly there’s more to the world than just empirical evidence. But even if one accepts that religious beliefs developed out of (forgive the pun) good faith rather than malice, that still says more about the human need to believe than it does about the actual existence of god. The fact that lots of people believe a thing doesn’t make it any more likely to be true.
And again, the closing quote that "the atheist who perceives the Christian God and the flying spaghetti monster as equally ridiculous hypotheses really needs to get out more often" also completely misses the point. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is INTENDED to be ridiculous – aggressively absurd, even. That’s the whole idea. The more interesting question, to me, is why people who find the Hindu or Buddhist or even Islamic version of God to be so ridiculous and improbable view the Christian version as not only True, but self-evidently so. Mark Twain put it best: “The easy confidence with which I know another man’s religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.”
The Limits Of Mickey
Yglesias vents:
…one thing that drives me crazy is the idea that “x drives liberals crazy” is a form of praise for a conservative writer. If that’s what you’re looking for, you really can’t do better than Mickey Kaus. He’s not a genuine conservative, and he’s not that dedicated or reality-grounded but he is smart and precisely because he’s neither genuinely conservative nor dedicated he has both the skills and inclination to spend a lot of time pressing liberals’ buttons.
But the goal in finding a conservative writer should be to find a writer who’s not a liberal but who liberals enjoy reading. That doesn’t need to be columns that make liberals feel good about themselves (e.g., conservatives writing about how brain-dead the GOP is, etc.) but it needs to be columns that liberals find not maddening but challenging. When I read Tyler Cowen’s skeptical notes on the stimulus, for example, I don’t become infuriated, I become better-informed about the issue. At his best, this is what David Brooks contributes on that page—he’s raised issues about public choice and so forth that liberals tend to neglect but that are genuinely important.
Yglesias Award Nominee
“President Bush, along with a sloppy and incontinent Republican majority in Congress, managed the feat of discrediting free market economics without ever practicing it. It was the Republicans who passed the Medicare prescription drug bill, and the bloated farm bill, and the transportation pork. This disqualifies most Republicans from challenging the gigantic new trough feeding that is about to begin under the Democrats,” – Mona Charen.
McCain’s Media Strategy
Goldfarb explains:
[The McCain campaign] assured me that they were looking for someone to attack the press… I was a cudgel. I pissed off the media. They were furious about it. That was the effect the campaign was looking for.
Goldberg unpacks:
if The New Yorker is to Sarah Palin what Jane Goodall is to ape-fucking, then The New Yorker obviously did a fine job covering the campaign.
Did Israel Commit War Crimes?
Thomas Darnstädt and Christoph Schult report:
Officially, Israel vehemently denies such accusations, but its leadership is getting nervous. The office of the prosecutor general in Jerusalem is gearing up for a wave of lawsuits from around the world. The military is currently compiling a set of documentation for each complaint. Internal investigations have begun, and soldiers have been instructed not to comment on specific allegations.
War crimes happen, even when political leaders send the right signals. What distinguishes civilization is a capacity to investigate them and hold the war criminals accountable. Israel, unlike Hamas, is part of that civilization.
The Change
Goldberg speaks with Hisham Melhem, the reporter who interviewed Obama for al-Arabiya. Melhem:
…in the long run, [Obama] is telling the Muslim world that it’s going to have a difficult time demonizing him. He’s saying, "I’m willing to disagree with the people of the Muslim world respectfully." He was miffed and angry by Zawahiri and Bin Laden, the way they speak of him. And he jumped on it and dealt with it. There’s a subtle shift here on how he looks at the war on al-Qaeda and the groups that collaborate with it. He doesn’t put Hamas and Hezbollah in the same category as al-Qaeda. Is there going to be disappointment later? We’re bound to have disappointments, but the main message is that a new wind is blowing. He’s closing down Guantanamo, sending Mitchell, pulling out of Iraq, and maybe I’m dreaming but I hope he would show Palestinians and Israelis tough love, both of them. Do you want to tell me that Bin Laden and all these nuts are not going to be nervous about him?
Nervous is good. How nervous is Netanyahu?
The Way Forward In Israel
Jeffrey Goldberg interviews Martin Indyk. It’s hard to disagree with this:
Hamas enjoys popular support in the West Bank as well as Gaza because it has been seen to be more effective and less corrupt than Fatah and the Palestinian Authority. Under its current leadership Fatah is incapable of reforming itself and as long as that is the case Hamas will enjoy an advantage. However, the Palestinian Authority under non- Fatah PM Salam Fayyad is showing that it can establish order and promote economic development in the West Bank. This has improved its credibility and is one reason that Hamas decided to break the ceasefire in Gaza (because they felt they were losing ground politically). In the wake of the Gaza war, a real West Bank settlements freeze and the dismantlement of unauthorized outposts would do more than anything else to enhance the PA’s credibility because it would show in a tangible way that moderation pays where violence only brings devastating destruction.
Cue The Music From “Jaws”
Cindy Adams says Palin is gearing up for a presidential run:
[Palin is] launching her national political action committee. Registered in Virginia, patterned after Hillary’s HillPac, Sarahpac.com is to support ideas and candidates who share the Palin vision that energy independence is this country’s future.
Next month she addresses a Washington gathering of prominent conservatives. She’s going ahead with a book. Her Facebook page has 410,000 friends.
Whatever happened with the alleged People magazine Tripp photo spread?
The Dish 