Many of the neo-cons are in the curious position of supporting the Intelligent Design silliness while not signing up for belief in a god, for reasons that Ron Bailey explained very well in a classic essay in Reason magazine a few years ago. So it’s heartening to see an outbreak of good sense at NRO on the part of John Derbyshire, especially since NR founder Bill Buckley is soft on creationism himself. Now if somebody can just talk some sense into Hugh Hewitt we might make some real progress. (H/t Instapundit.)
Evolution isn’t a hard issue to understand, and even the Pope is on the right side of the question (he accepts natural selection as “more than an hypothesis”). So how can you trust the political analysis of people who can’t get it right?
True, evolution isn’t hard to understand, but the radical right has a long history of being soft on creationism.
Weird how someone as brainy as Bill Buckley was too, & also apparently some of the neo-con theorists. Is it a case of intellectual dishonesty or a stance taken in order to help secure loyalty the support of middle America?
I’m always a little suspicious when politicians wrap themselves in the flag & stand on the Bible. Just glanced at Newt’s new book for example…
Uh, yeah. I was surprised to see something like that Reason article quoted by you.
I first became aware of this relationship when I was reading existentialists at the early phases of the Reagan era.
It was clear to me that this whole “reaction to the Enlightment part deux” was really an intellectual thin-skinned reaction akin to Nietzche’s “what are we going to do now that God is dead?”
It’s more whistling past the graveyard of the ID proponent’s own doubt than it is a positive assertion of anything. And yes- it doesn’t add to the cred of neocons, to have their psychological foibles so well displayed.
Great quote, John.
Darwin indeed part of 20th century materialism (Marx, Freud) that must be struck down so America can return to its “pure”, religious roots! Or so it goes…
I heard someone at work the other day say that it was strange how the right denies evolution while seeming to embrace Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” notion. Whatever works, I guess.
It’s been my experience that your Eastern Mystics are down on Darwin too.
Who among Eastern mystics?
I wish we had a President who spoke clearly.
In a recent meeting with reporters from the sympathetic Washington Times, he said “I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you’re not equally as patriotic if you’re not a religious person. I’ve never said that. I’ve never acted like that. I think that’s just the way it is”
kim,
That was my question- but maybe Richard is thinking about Hindu mystics, of which he knows better than I do. I can’t speak for them, but I can speak for Buddhists…
OTOH, existentialism, post-modernism, etc. has been influenced by Buddhist thought, and a direct line can be made in fact, to Shopenhauer, Heidegger, et al. Which would mean that Buddhists, in particular, who don’t have a notion of an eternal self to begin with, don’t really have a problem with evolution.
Thanks, John.
German philosophers were also influenced by Vedanta, the philosophical/mystical aspect of Hinduism.
I know Richard is well-read in both Hindu & Buddhist thought, so I look forward to hearing more from him on how Eastern mystics are “down on Darwin”.
Speaking of philosophy, I’m seeing refernces to an American philosopher/educator named Leo Strauss (if I remember correctly) being a big influence on the neo-con world view. Do you guys know anything about him or his influence?
The belief in reincarnation is antithetical to evolution, and the particular Eastern mystics with whom I’ve had conversation scoffed at the notion of man descending from an animal. In the Vedanta line the concept of the guru is all important, and this notion demands that each guru inherit his guru-hood from a previous guru. Therefore there can be no “first guru” which you would need if evolution is admitted.
Speaking of Strauss, my sister studied with him and we’ve talked about him a lot. What do you want to know?
I should point out that there’s a variety of stances on “reincarnation,” most of which really don’t seem to be at odds with a viewpoint of evolution.
Those who’d scoff at the notion of “man being descended from an animal” seem a bit full of themselves…
Thanks Richard, I’ve never asked or really thought about reincarnation in light of evolution. Or vice versa.
Concerning Strauss: what did he teach, what was his world view that many say greatly influenced the neo-cons, & thus much of our current national policy/vision?
I keep running across references to him.
PS: Yes, I can imagine some Hindus scoffing at the idea of man being descended from an animal, particualarly a monkey.
There seems to be an idea of “evolution of the soul” as it were in Eastern metaphysics–through continual rebirth. I say this in a general way. It’s not exactly anithetical to the scientific theory of evolution, but not exactly in harmony with it either.
Of course there are those who say that because of bad deeds a man can be reborn as a dog. A kind of reverse evolution as punishment? Many questions come up here. For instance, is the “law” of karma “ethical” in a human sense?
Apparently Strauss taught Plato, sometimes devoting an entire semester to a single dialog, analyzing in minute detail. One of his controversial ideas is that texts have an “exoteric” meaning for the common people and an “esoteric” meaning for the elite.
He taught that the elite had to trick the commoners into doing what’s good for them, just as we trick children into good behavior with stories of Santa. Many of these notions are actually more conventional in certain schools of Marxism (Gramsci) than in neocon-ism.
A Google for Leo Strauss will turn up lots of hits.
Back to evolution and reincarnation, the latter says that your rebirth is determined by your deeds in the prior life, hence higher forms of life would have to appear somehow just as they’re needed to reward good behavior, and they’d have to disappear according to the absence of such needs. Hence, there would need to be a link between reproductive success of each species and the karmic and moral status is all others.
I don’t think life works that way.
You’re right in saying “higher” forms would have to appear “as needed” to reward “good” behavior. Indeed, life doesn’t work that way.
Also, proponents of renincarnation/karma probably stumble when trying to explain things like earthquakes, tsunamis.
I was always bothered by notions of karmic “rewards” & “punishments” (& the idea that astrology-based “remedies” can alter the effects of “bad” karma); “good” or “bad” behavior isn’t going to be “judged” by what quasi-scientific minded Hindus call the “law” of karma, because that concept itself presented as a kind of natural force. A “natural” force, would be impersonal. Something impersonal doesn’t dole out rewards or punishments, especailly not the kinds that human societies envision (reward: wealth, good looks, high position, etc.; punishment: ugliness, poverty, low status, etc.).
The way Hindus (Buddhists too, to some degree, though I’ve had less exposure to them) mix up religion & science can be bizarre.
PS: I will Google Leo Strauss, see what I find.
Richard Bennett ? 1/13/2005 @ 1:06 pm
Ah, that’s the difference.
In the Vedanta line the concept of the guru is all important, and this notion demands that each guru inherit his guru-hood from a previous guru. Therefore there can be no ?first guru? which you would need if evolution is admitted.
While the notion of a guru figures in Tibetan Buddhism, in most other forms of Buddhism there is pretty much none of this status; in the Zen traditions the ethic of a guru is nonexistent, actually.
There are notions of lineages and ancestries, but the idea that new lineages and ancestries can appear spontaneously is also present – in fact, the reality is it is the norm.
And “advanced” lineages (such as that of Yunmen) die out, too.
And, as I pointed out, in Buddhism, there’s “no self,” so there is fundamentally “nothing” to be “reborn.” And among the notions of rebirth, there is one notion that holds that rebirth takes places continuously, from picosecond to picosecond, as conciousness goes from one thing to another. But this comment has already gone on far too long.
Kim:
Life is suffering. To be born is to die. The idea that a tsunami is a “bad” thing, when you’re going to die anyway is simply a labelling that “death” is bad.
Once you realize that death and suffering are just the fee we pay to go through this life, you’re free to make a tsunami something that is used for good or ill.
And that’s the karma of it all.
John,
Many thanks for your comments.
In reading Zen literature (my only personal exposure to the Zen tradition has been through reading; I’ve never practiced Zen or had a close relationship with anyone who has/does) I’ve found many references to “masters”–whether biographies, loving dedications, anecdotes, collected sayings or aphorisms, writings about lineages–that indicate their guru-like status. I say “guru-like” because in Zen the word “guru” is not used. Nor did the Greek followers of Socrates use that word, though indeed he had what one might call a guru-like position. This kind of relationship (guru-disciple) can be found in many cultures, many eras. It may differ in outform form & intensity, but the basic formula is there, indicating it must be intrinsic to human experience. I am making no judgement here on the “necessity”,”worth”, or meaning of this relationship, merely an observation.
It was illuminating to read your comments about Buddhist ideas on rebirth.
Your last comments about the “labeling” of a tsunami were very clear. But I didn’t get the thrust of your last, seemingly tagged on, comment:
“And that’s the karma of it all.”
All questions of evolution aside, reincarnation cannot be proven or disproven empirically.
This Buddhist crap sounds like an Irishman on a bender: “life is suffering” my ass. Tell me it’s wrong to label death a bad thing after your dog dies.
In this life there is tragedy, there is joy, there is pleasure and there is pain, and they’re all distinct no matter what the booze tells you.
Richard, you were right, I Googled Leo Strauss & a ton of stuff came up. I’ve beenw weeding through about 5 sites so far, a lot concerning a book titled “Loe Strauss and the American Right” by Dury. It seems Strauss has influenced several White House neo-cons with such ideas as “the right of the superior to rule over the inferior” (an idea shared with Winston Churchill), the use of deception in politics (people should be told “what they need to know & no more”),
that religion is important because the masses need to be given a “sense of absolute moral truth” because a purely secular society is not united in its ability to face external threats.
An interesting comment Dury makes is that Strauss & his followers have no use for liberalism & democracy, yet they seek to conquer the world in the name of liberalism & democracy.
Then I found, & have started reading, some sites that praise Strauss & say he was a great proponent of liberalism & democracy.
That he may have been an elitist, but was concerned for the common man.
Anyway, I’m reading about him, trying to figure out what he & the neocons are all about.
D