Do not believe

Damon Linker, writing in the TNR, says that the New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens) are themselves intolerant:

"Yet the fact remains that the atheism of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens is a brutally intolerant, proselytizing faith, out to rack up conversions."

Yes, the New Atheists are proselytizing—they are trying to argue their case. In the sense that they are out to convert people to their point of view, then yes they are out for conversions. And yes, they are intolerant of faith, that is, the willingness to believe things without evidence. If faith merely resulted in silly beliefs with no other effect on society, we might be more tolerant of it, but in fact faith plays a major role in terrible tragedies, like 9/11, violence in the Middle East, and deadly riots over Muhammad cartoons.

Of course many people of faith do not engage in such moral atrocities, so there is an important distinction to be made between virulent and benign faith. Dennett, in particular, does a good job of distinguishing between the two. Dennett and Harris are less kind to religious moderates. In my view, we may be tolerant of virulent faith legally, but we should not tolerate it morally. As for benign faith, though I see no reason to believe in its claims, I don’t think it is so very harmful to society. So I don’t see such an urgent need to crusade against them. But I do think we ought to remember that virulent faith and benign faith share some things in common (i.e., the willingness to accept propositions without evidence) and we religious moderates owe it to themselves to remember this fact.

More importantly, what I think we ought to crusade for is the inclusive treatment of atheists in society (they are the single group, besides criminals, who are most discriminated against in seeking public office). Linker says:

"The United States remains a very religious nation. While there are small communities of atheists, agnostics, and skeptics in every state, and substantial ones in a few--Washington state leads the country with 25 percent of its residents claiming to worship no God; North Dakota comes in last with 3 percent--there aren't nearly enough unbelievers to leave a significant mark on the nation's culture or politics as a whole."

He exposes how poorly organized atheists are. Atheists are the second-largest “denomination” in America (after Catholicism), but have no effective unity. And there is only one openly atheist member of Congress (Pete Stark, from CA)—though surely many members of Congress are closet atheists. Certainly atheism needs a better PR campaign, but you have to give the New Atheists credit for bringing attention to the discrimination against their people.

Numb to the World

Dawkins coins a great term for why we so often take our lives for granted: “the Anaesthetic of Familiarity.” With monotony and repetition in our lives, we so quickly forget how incredible it is that we are alive. How vastly rare we are: lumps of matter that are awake rather than lifeless, which is what the vast majority of the universe is.

And how vastly improbable it is that we are here, given how many different ways our DNA could have been arranged. It’s probably the strongest case for enjoying every moment of life, for appreciating how extraordinary it is to be awake, and for fighting against the sedative of the routine.

Zeitgeist the movie

Turns out there is a movie named after my blog. I guess they thought my blog was so cool that they just had to make a movie about it. Now I'm not going to endorse this film, but you can judge for yourself:

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Truth unveiled?

Kausar Khan, a junior at Northeaster Illinois University has an article, "Veiled Feminism" in the winter 2007 issue of Current magazine (unfortunately, I don't think they have a website--we get copies of it on campus here at Stanford). She defends her decision to weir a veil, which she calls "a mark of a woman's honor, not her inferiority."

This is certainly not feminism, and it's not a case where I can stomach moral relativism. The practice of women wearing veils is one of the most oppressive customs widely endorsed around the world today. The fact is that for normal human interactions, whether social or professional, we depend on seeing a person's face--their entire face, in order to read their emotions. Without the capacity for others to see a woman's face, her status is demoted to the level of a second-class citizen. There is simply no way she can earn the same level of trust. So I don't see how we should stand for such misogyny.

I think most people in mainstream society would agree that the practice of wearing veils is oppressive to women--even if they willingly agree to the practice. The question is what to do about it. I don't think there is any legal justification for putting a restriction into law--I certainly think that free adults have the right to wear whatever they please. But we can speak out against the practice as something that we do not thing a justice-seeking society ought to endorse. We should stand up especially for children being pressured to wear a veil. Khan's younger sister is 14 and has already begun to wear a veil. Imposing backward beliefs on children is one of the most morally repugnant practices, and we should all stand against such oppression.

The West don't know best

My brother John passed on this interesting Times article about how fertilizer subsidies in Malawi have turned that country from a net food importer to a net food exporter:

Ending Famine, Simply by Ignoring the Experts

We should be cautious to embrace a policy simply from a single case. What works in one place at one time may not be easily replicated in other settings. Still, it’s an interesting story that African leaders as well as Western aid bureaucrats should pay attention to.

I think the key lesson from Malawi is that policy must ultimately be decided at a local level. Letting leaders who are held accountable by their own people shape their nation’s policy is the most trustworthy long-term strategy for growth and development. Poor leadership should be evaluated by an informed citizenry, not by Western bureaucrats. World Bank economists sometimes just don’t know what is really needed in a community.

So what then should be the role of the international aid community? They ought to make resources and economic advice but ultimately trust that democratically-elected leaders will act in the best interests of their people.

Why America needs Obama

The arguments for Obama’s candidacy have been made by many before, by people such as:

Andrew Sullivan

Tom Friedman

Frank Rich

Let me offer my distill own distillation of the reasons down to two core issues:

1) Obama is the candidate (from either party) best capable of telling the American people not just what they want to hear but what they need to hear. This is one of the most important qualities of a great leader—they need to be willing stand up and speak out for ideas that may not always be popular. On policy, Obama is nearly indistinguishable from Clinton. The differences between the two are hardly substantial. But in terms of their capacity to lead our country in a new direction, there is a canyon between them. Clinton in the White House will have to confront nearly half of the electorate who are deeply opposed to her ideas simply because she is the one speaking them. I don’t think Clinton deserves all of the animosity held against her. But some of it has been caused by her attitude toward the press, which is defensive and controlling—even by the standards of most campaigns. Personally, I harbor no resentment toward her, but the fact of the matter is that much of this country loathes Hillary Clinton, and their attitudes are unlikely to change in the coming year. Putting Clinton in the White House will perpetuate the partisan head-butting between right and left in our government. The political dialogue will continue to be framed as an us-versus-them combat.

Obama, by contrast, has what Sullivan calls, “a transcendent ability to rise above Washington’s partisan bickering.” Republicans have a hard time disliking him, because the guy is…likable. He has the charisma of a JFK combined with the visionary view of history of Lincoln. He has a sense of humor. People like being around him. All this will be a powerful asset when the time comes to put into place new controversial policy ideas. More than any other candidate, Obama will be able to explain and persuade the American people (all the people—not just the Dems) why we need new policies. If he can explain these ideas to the people, he can explain it to Congress. And that means results, not just partisan stonewalling.

2) The second reason we need Obama is to repair America’s tarnished reputation in the world. Friedman was one of the first to articulate Obama’s unique capability to restore America as a country the rest of the world respects. Partly that is his skin color—which is much closer to the color of most of the rest of the world than any other candidate. Partly it is his history, having grown up in Indonesia, which makes him one of the few candidates who has lived for any significant time abroad.

And finally, Obama’s capacity to work with countries around the world springs from his exceptional propensity to empathize. Obama is an incredible storyteller, as demonstrated in the two books he’s written, Dreams of my Father, and The Audacity of Hope—both of which I’ve read and highly recommend (I couldn’t make it through It Takes a Village—it’s painfully trite). In his writing, Obama shows that he thinks about a problem from many different angles. He understands why different people see an issue in different ways. This is critical in any sphere of politics, but especially in foreign relations. The first thing a president needs to do to establish relations with other countries is to show that he understands their needs, their hungers. I yearn for the day when America is admired around the world as a beacon of hope, as a pillar of human rights and democracy. Obama can move us in that direction better than anyone else.

So, now comes the ultimate question: can he do it? Well, Stanford beat 2^nd-ranked USC this football season, so I don’t see any reason why the underdog can’t topple the powerhouse in this case.