There is quite an interesting little battle going on among the folks at the National Review. It began when John Derbyshire posted this item on The Corner about the views of Gertrude Himmelfarb on evolution. If you don't know who Gertrude Himmelfarb is, she is surely among the greatest American intellectuals of the last 100 years (and I say that as someone who disagrees with many, perhaps most, of her views). She is the wife of Irving Kristol, the godfather and founding intellectual of what we today call the neo-conservatives, and she is an historian by training. Despite her brilliance and erudition, she has long despised and disparaged evolution and has fallen for a staggering number of inane anti-evolution arguments. Derbyshire critiques something she wrote recently on the subject and is immediately gang tackled by his fellow conservatives on the blog (start with the post linked to above and scroll up to see their responses and counter-responses to one another in order of appearance).
Things really began to heat up when Derbyshire cites this article by Ronald Bailey, which I've cited before as well, about the Straussian roots of anti-evolution activity at least for some. Kristol was a student of Leo Strauss, as were Allan Bloom, Harry Jaffa and many other prominent conservative intellectuals. And Kristol is on the record as supporting the notion of an "esoteric truth" open to the initiate but that must be hidden from the masses lest they lose all reason to follow societal rules. Many Straussians, and apparently Strauss himself, believed that the existence of God and of divine justice is the nobel lie that must be maintained even though it is false. Without it, goes their reasoning, the social order would collapse as the rabble would realize that there are no rules that need be followed. Bailey quotes Kristol:
Kristol has acknowledged his intellectual debt to Strauss in a recent autobiographical essay. "What made him so controversial within the academic community was his disbelief in the Enlightenment dogma that `the truth will make men free.'" Kristol adds that "Strauss was an intellectual aristocrat who thought that the truth could make some [emphasis Kristol's] minds free, but he was convinced that there was an inherent conflict between philosophic truth and political order, and that the popularization and vulgarization of these truths might import unease, turmoil and the release of popular passions hitherto held in check by tradition and religion with utterly unpredictable, but mostly negative, consequences."Kristol agrees with this view. "There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people," he says in an interview. "There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."
Kristol is not alone in this regard, of course. Allan Bloom believed the same thing and wrote in support of a whole range of social conservative policy proposals to shore up our national piety and support our national morality. This despite being, himself, an atheist and a hedonist. All of this led Derbyshire to strongly condemn his fellow conservatives for pushing this "noble lie" and for dishonestly attacking evolution on the basis of that lie, which only heated things up more. Derbyshire then printed excerpts from an email he had received that really examined Himmelfarb's views on evolution and found them seriously lacking. Somehow or another, PZ Myers managed to track down the anonymous author of that email and get permission to publish the entire thing on the Panda's Thumb. It's well worth reading. It's a very thorough and accurate debunking of her nonsensical views on the subject.
The whole thing does make me wonder how many folks who advocate ID do so because they really believe it and how many do so because they think, like Strauss and Kristol, that it is necessary to keep the public in ignorance in order to keep them well behaved. I don't think any of the prominent IDers, like Behe or Wells or Nelson, come from the latter position. Dembski? Maybe. It would perhaps explain his dishonesty and inconsistency - if the ultimate truth doesn't matter, only what you can make people accept as truth, then his behavior is easily explained. But I suspect that among conservative intellectuals who are not directly involved in the ID movement, this may be a fairly popular reason for their advocacy of ID. And clearly, there are some voices on the right who, despite their Straussian background, reject the noble lie entirely. George Will trained under Strauss disciple Harry Jaffa and has come out strongly against ID; likewise, Charles Krauthammer. I'll be curious to hear the views of my fellow Positive Liberty writers, at least one of whom studied with the Jaffa contingent but is not a Straussian himself.
- Log in to post comments
Strauss and the Kristols have always reminded me a bit of Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan." I had a Poli Sci professor who preferred to view the American political system not as a struggle between "conservative" and "liberal" or "small government" and "big government," but as being between Hobbes and Locke. All other "controversies" flow from the clash of these two philosophies. Either the government is an entity necessary to preserve order, or the government exists as a committee which draws from the consent of the public. The abortion debate is actually a wonderful example of this dichotomy, but you can see it in virtually every political hot-button issue.
"... and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."
That is the singularly most inane statement I've ever seen proferred.
If a thing is true, then everyone - Everyone - can see it for their self. An individual (or group of them) may not fully grasp such a truth, but what each person does with an actual truth can and indeed does throw a metaphorical monkey wrench in the best laid plans.
True Leaders are those who can deal with this fact and adjust their governance to still, and always, work for the species good.
And so do we evolve.
"There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy."
So how soon until we start separating into Alphas, Betas, Deltas and Gammas?
Here is the Straight Dope on Strauss:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031212.html
And the people who believe this use the phrase"liberal intellectual elites" as a club to batter any reasoned argument against them.
Gertrude Himmelfarb lebt noch? Ich bin ueberrascht.
Kristol has acknowledged his intellectual debt to Strauss in a recent autobiographical essay. "What made him so controversial within the academic community was his disbelief in the Enlightenment dogma that `the truth will make men free.'
Categorically false. The "truth shall make you free" has nothing to do with the Enlightenment. It is directly from the Gospels:
It is a nice sentiment, and I agree with it 100%. But it does not stem from the Enlightenment. I might make some rude remarks about what the Christian religion has become--which has nothing to do with Jesus--but I'll refrain.
The Baily article is fine, but, now Baily sticks his foot in it, attempting to show that evolution is dis-proveable:
"Also, biologists agree that a general principle of evolutionary biology rules out the possibility that there are organisms that will sacrifice their own reproductive success in order to enhance the reproductive success of some other species."
- Dianne Fossey an example? I wouldnt bet on neo-Darwinism blocking any odd human behaviour.. Altruism as a pathology? but seriously folks, humans run on an idea of the "sort of person they would like to be" - thus trancending neo-Dawinism, and enabling all kinds of weird charity.
Of course the 'idea' in most peoples heads is to score big with chicks by means of a huge car & house with air-con, so charity is a fringe affair.
_______________________________
I wouldn´t trace an anti evolutive position from neocons on straussian philosophy, but more on their alliance with the religious right since the 80´s. Aknowledging the failure of creatinism, ID offered them a more subtuble way of attacking evolution, that was more sophisticated and involved philosophy, an area that was closer to science. You would not read much complains against evolution on Kristol essays during the cold war. That came later when they united with the religious right and started to adopt most of its rethoric (rethoric they made more sophisticated, but that is essentially the same).
Disgusting. Truth is for the people, and it should be offered to all the people, even if they might not understand it. God may choose to hold some truths from us, but Humanity does not have the right.
It saddens me to think that there are politicians who effectively say "You can't handle the truth" and can live free from the fear of being tarred and feathered.
Filthy #!$!#%$!ing Straussians. The appropriate responce to a drowning Straussian is to throw them an anvil. Not just to tolerate, but celebrate deciet and dishonesty... *spit* *goes to find an anvil*