Newton wouldn't get a post because he believed that somewhere out there was an absolute fixed point that was the one true reference frame.

Kirchick is in for a mighty big surprise someday.

Let's continue the silliness...

...And Jesus would get kicked out of the Republican party because he associated himself with known prostitutes... wait... Maybe that wasn't the best example...

Not a big deal, Newton wouldn't have gotten a job in Jacoby's Paleolithic society either.

Jacoby and his fellow cavemen would have fallen over themselves laughing about Newton's smooth chin and lack of a prominent brow ridge.

Not in the academic community. Inverse relationship between religious beliefs/creationism and education, you know:)

Anybody ever hear of a an actual, not hypothetical, physicist or mathematician that was denied a professorship because they were religious? Didn't think so. Next straw man.

It's also fair to note that a modern, skeptical atheist wouldn't have gotten a university job in the 17th century. Newton was a man of his time.

What I think Kirchick means--what I hope he means--is that today's scientists don't envision the universe being ruled through the immediate, deliberate, personal actions of, well, some guy.

Yes, it's still a widespread belief in our society--but one hopes that today's equals of Sir Isaac are looking a little deeper than that.

Newton had heretical beliefs by the standard of the day, and it didn't stop him from becoming an MP, and later master of the Mint. What the article really proves is that private religious beliefs should be kept exactly that.

Especially silly because Isaac Newton is thought to have disbelieved in the Trinity. Which was heretical and could have gotten him fired if made public.

Anybody ever hear of a an actual, not hypothetical, physicist or mathematician that was denied a professorship because they were religious? Didn't think so. Next straw man.
Posted by: alex on July 23, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Exactly.

"It's a widespread belief" and "it's silly" are not mutually exclusive. And in this case they are both true.

Hm, pwned.

Ah, Kevin.

Yes, you must have missed (or conveniantly forget?) the liberal memo stating that belief in G_d was anathema, and that only dogmatic belief in dry, multicultural science and socialist economics was only exceptable. Methinks you merely want to cover that INCONVENIANT TRUTH up.

"...belief in the "domination of an intelligent and powerful Being" over the universe is, um, still pretty widespread."

You mean Rupert Murdoch? It's one of those 'self-perpetuating' beliefs.

Sure Newton would find a job today. Even without looking deeply at all at the question it is a no brainer.

The modern equivalent of a newton would be something like a phd student with 20 publications in Nature, Science, and other top field specific journals covering several different fields. That person would get any job they wanted no matter what other ideas they might have. They would also get one of those big money long term grants to do their research.

Anyone saying otherwise is merely broadcasting their own ignorance of how academic science works.

Of course it doesn't seem possible for a person to be a newton anymore, science is just advanced to the point where one person cannot advance it nearly as much as people like newton did back when we knew very little.

Kirchik has never heard of Dick Cheney?

""domination of an intelligent and powerful Being" over the universe"

ahem, that is Inkblot isn't it?

I think the stifling intellectual environment might be the greater encumbrance. I would like to believe his genius would flourish and be recognized, but it is also true he may have distracted himself on political blogs and D and D.

Nice to have you back and engaged Kevin!

Alex wrote: Anybody ever hear of a an actual, not hypothetical, physicist or mathematician that was denied a professorship because they were religious?

Well, I have heard of one:

A scientist who believes the theory of intelligent design helps explain life's origins is appealing to state officials to save his job at Iowa State University, where his tenure was rejected because of his "personal religious and ideological beliefs."

Guillermo Gonzalez is appealing his case to the Iowa State Board of Regents after university officials turned away his request for reconsideration.

A story in World Magazine quoted professor Eli Rosenberg, chairman of the physics and astronomy department at the school, insisting intelligent design "was not an overriding factor" in the decision but that it "played into" the process. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56638

jeffff is correct on all counts.
as were the posters who noted that Newton, although deeply religious, was rather heretical by the orthodoxies of his time.

indeed, one of Gould's paleontology grad students at Harvard (and, yes, they gave him his Ph.D.) was an avowed creationist. but his work was considered of sufficient quality to gain him both admission to the program and the degree. (I'll note that this is the only contemporary example I'm aware of of a trained paleontologist who is also a creationist)

He didn't say it wasn't widespread, just that the Newtons of today weren't likely to believe it.

In Newton's time, belief in God was a viable hypothesis that you could accept provisionally without being ill-informed or credulous.

Today, not so much.

Many of the most important things that "God" was invoked to explain four centuries ago have now been explained by other means.

The ignorami can still believe whatever they want in spite of the evidence, but scientists -- especially Newton-caliber scientists -- tend to be a bit more rational than that.

Um, egbert, what the hell is "multicultural science"? I thought science was a universal method, by definition multicultural, but I suspect you mean something else.

James Kirchick might be getting at the lack of religious belief among "today's Newtons". A survey from a few years back showed that something like 50% of scientists were atheists or agnostics, and that number rose to 90% or so if you were in the National Academy of Sciences. I'm guessing the National Academy of Sciences is close enough to "today's Newtons" to get the point across that the best scientists are lacking in religious belief.

Actually, I agree that Isaac Newton might have trouble getting a University job today, at least in Physics. But that has nothing to do with his religious beliefs, which were those of most 17th century men. The problem is Newtonian physics. Hasn't physics advanced in the last 300 years?

You'd never see him fired for sexual harassment.

Really, who gives a fig about Newton?

Every time someone makes this argument, rebuts it in an equally ahistorical fashion, or links to the rebuttal, or so forth, a historian of science gets an ulcer. Today it was me.

A hundred years from now, in the New Restored Trans-Pacific Reich, a newspaper columnist will sit down and write the following words. "Could you imagine Führer University (formerly the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule of Zurich) admitting to its physics program an atheist Jew who never even heard of hyperfreemulation and believed in the existence of electrons? But that's exactly what happened in 1898..." and go on to conclude that maybe once in a while we should admit Jews to universities, or at least let them learn to read. In neither that case, nor this one, will history have served as anything more than window dressing for either side of the "debate."

Any time anyone, especially someone who's never really studied the period or people they're invoking, says "History teaches us that we should _________," all they're saying is "I assert that we should _________." What they assert might be fascinating or valuable, but the purpose of history is to understand the past on its own terms and, ultimately, to produce someone wise and knowledgeable enough to make suggestions about contemporary reality that are grounded in contemporary reality.

"In Newton's time, belief in God was a viable hypothesis that you could accept provisionally without being ill-informed or credulous.

Today, not so much.

Many of the most important things that "God" was invoked to explain four centuries ago have now been explained by other means.

The ignorami can still believe whatever they want in spite of the evidence, but scientists -- especially Newton-caliber scientists -- tend to be a bit more rational than that."

-Moron

Moron should be grateful for the generosity his parents displayed when they named him.

So what exactly is the problem if a physicist who believes in God does not get a job in the acedemia?

Am I missing something here?

Would Jacoby's Church give a job to an atheist or even to a theist who believes in, say, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva?

Might be wide spread, but it sure is silly. (Mutually exclusive.)

Yes, alchemy is dead while theism is alive. Yes Newton, fresh from the time machine, would adapt quickly. Jacoby's question is whether a physics department would hire a guy who spends an enormous amount of time drawing natural laws based on literal readings of the Bible.

I'd guess not, but probably because specialists are more useful than generalists. Physics profs have only (barely) enough time to teach and do physics research. Maybe after getting tenure, but that's not Jacoby's question.

It's not in academic vogue to use the specifics of Biblical text to make claims about "the date of the Apocalypse: no earlier than 2060" (Jacoby's words). Jacoby seems to think that's a shame, though I can't really figure out why from his article. He concludes flatly that "[n]either faith nor reason can answer every question." But he forgets to tell us why physics per se is at all amenable to the former.

My attempt to choke a newborn baby its crib...

How about we ashcan this catchphrase right now:

Did I miss a memo?

Or...

I didn't get that memo.

That one is so trite that it is pre-trite.

Well, I think his point is pretty straight-forward. Belief in a diety, while still common, is no less silly than alchemy. Most people todayregard Roman, Greek or Norse religions as mythology, or curious, but back then they were religions. In 1000 years, people will look back at the modern monotheist religion with the same kind og quaintness.

Well, I think his point is pretty straight-forward. Belief in a diety, while still common, is no less silly than alchemy. Most people todayregard Roman, Greek or Norse religions as mythology, or curious, but back then they were religions. In 1000 years, people will look back at the modern monotheist religion with the same kind of quaintness.

Religion has as much to do with science as astrology has to do with astronomy.

By the way, the so-called "egbert" who posted upthread is obviously a fake. "Exceptable", indeed. Give it up, pal. You have been outed.

Everyone in that age was religious. Newton & his family were not of wingnut Puritan sect, however: Newton's birthday was officially Dec. 25th, even though it was an open secret that he had been born in the summer. The Puritans had banned Christmas and went around on Dec. 25th trying to arrest everyone who was celebrating, so people would explain that they were merely celebrating their child's birthday. (Of course, this was before the state started issuing birth certificates).

Newton was a freethinker and no Puritan. Nonsense like this just shows how much Jacoby would have liked to have been one of the Puritans arresting people for celebrating Christmas, or burning witches, or what have you.

Diana is both unfamiliar with Newton's biography and with the Puritans.

egsquirt: "Yes, you must have missed (or conveniantly forget?) the liberal memo stating that belief in G_d was anathema..."

Yes, it's so easy to miss a memo when it doesn't exist. And even easier for you to miss one when it does. How's basic training going? Have you gone AWOL already?

...Newton didn't 'believe' in alchemy...

...He just was fascinated by it. Guys who do magic tricks and stage make-up aren't evicted from science because of their hobbies.

Wouldn't you be fascinated by something like alchemy when you knew there were some rules, but didn't know what they were?

He didn't have advanced metallurgy, the periodic table, or chemistry to tell him what the rules to his alchemical experiments were - so he spent months trying all the basics and figuring them out. Just because he failed to, doesn't mean that given a couple hundred years, we haven't.

There's thousands of 'alchemists' with great jobs exploring the far reaches of metallic glasses and making clear ceramics or simplifying methods to break down or build up chemicals!

Belief in a personal god is pretty widespread, escpecially in the US, but this misses Kirchick's point. The fact of the matter is that "the Newtons of today" (i.e., the scientific elite) don't believe in the "domination of an intelligent and powerful Being."

"...belief in the "domination of an intelligent and powerful Being" over the universe is, um, still pretty widespread, isn't it?"

The more intelligent one is, the less likely one is to carry that belief. There are still highly intelligent people who believe in a personal god, but the belief is more likely to be held by ignorant and/or stupid people. Newton was neither.

Only a conservative like Jeff Jacoby-- someone willfully and angrily ignorant about academia -- could say something like that. Anyone who's spent anytime in academia could name a few believers off the top of their heads-- but only because they knew them intimately. Ignoramuses like Jacoby merely say, "ah, I don't know any reputable biologists who jump up and down proclaiming their Christianity. Also, universities are hotbeds of evangelical atheists. There must not be any believers in academia."

What an idiot. This is why there are no right-wingers in academia-- because no matter how non-political your job, ultimately you can't help the fact that Republicans hate you and hate everything you stand for and won't give up until they've cut off your funding. Right-wingers in academia either leave because they can't handle the hypocrisy of their position or they become liberal after the relentless attacks and lies directed at them by their own side.

...Newton didn't 'believe' in alchemy...

...He just was fascinated by it. Guys who do magic tricks and stage make-up aren't evicted from science because of their hobbies.

Wouldn't you be fascinated by something like alchemy when you knew there were some rules, but didn't know what they were?

He didn't have advanced metallurgy, the periodic table, or chemistry to tell him what the rules to his alchemical experiments were - so he spent months trying all the basics and figuring them out. Just because he failed to, doesn't mean that given a couple hundred years, we haven't.

There's thousands of 'alchemists' with great jobs exploring the far reaches of metallic glasses and making clear ceramics or simplifying methods to break down or build up chemicals!

…any candidate who answers YES, should be scratched....mhr at 3:57 PM

I'd just note that at the time Newton first attended Cambridge they were expelling professors for being Congregationalists, Baptists, Presbyterians and other flavors of religious non-conformity.

Another day, another new low for egbert.

- - - - -

A few months ago the CBC did a feature interview with a bigshot American geneticist, a leader in the field. No, I don't remember his name, his university or the program he was on but I do remember he was quite religious, even wrote a book about it. Contrary to Kirchick's assertions, he was well-regarded, secure in his position and popular with his students.

Anybody know who this guy is?

Gonzalez? 44 year old astronomers with declining research & poor teaching records aren't likely to get tenure - even if they don't embarrass their schools.

and Gonzalez seems to be 2/3 of the way to the nuthouse -

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/intro_to_id_by.html

Right on, Crissa!!

Newton's work in Alchemy may have been totally mis-understood up until the last few years. The work he did divining the metallurgical recipes buried within ancient mythological allegories are being proven right. There are research scientists who HAVE jobs today and are spending their research time trying to duplicate what Newton was doing. So, it's fair to assume that Newton himself would not have had much problem being hired to further this research effort.

ex-liberal: Aside from your incorrect facts, how about this guy?
http://www.styleweekly.com/article.asp?idarticle=14590
Fired for speaking out against a creationist biology books at VCU.

Maybe, in the Real World, Guillermo Gonzalez wasn't granted tenure because he brought in only $22,661 of grant money while the average for his peers at time of tenure grant was $1,300,000.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070601/NEWS02/706010392

That's 1.3 instead of 0.022 ...million dollars.

See the difference?

A silly belief ca nbe widespread. Would Kevin argue that the notion that white people are genetically superior to black ones wasn't silly in 1923? It was a widespread belief at that time, and under Drum's principle it would be considered completely acceptable.

Newton would know that if a god does exist it is not the one presented in any of the ambiguous, contradictory, bipolar texts ascribed to it. A god, by defintion, would not communicate with us in such a feeble, confusing way. Also he would know that god does not intervene in human life. The history of humanity is too cluttered with injustice and atrocity. God could not be an inconsistent dabbler and still be god.

I'm sure "ex-liberal" got a special sick glee about posting a link to WorldNutDaily that as almost equal to his chortling dishonesty in conflating the un-scientific scam of "intelligent design" with "religious views."

Given that it's WorldNutDaily and "ex-liberal", bottom basement in the credibility department both, it goes without saying that the provenance of the selective quotes is far from definitive.

"ex-liberal" is certainly aware that attempting to pass off one's religious views as science certainly disqualifies one from teaching science, but then he posts here in bad faith, so his dishonesty is hardly surprising.

Speaking of which, it's always amusing to see the oft-discredited serial liar and Republican water carrier Nathan pretending he has any credibility left.

"Today's Newtons?" There are exactly 2 other people in the last 500 years whose original contributions to science and mathematics even remotely compare to Newton's--Galileo Galilei and Albert Einstein. There are no "today's Newtons." Given how complex science is these days there will probably never be another Newton, Galileo or Einstein. I am not taking anything away from a whole lot of really successful scientists I could name.

cj -You're right that nobody in the last century has come close to the Einstein level, but Gauss did in the century before. In both math & physics, Gauss turns up in just about everything.

God will get him for that, Kevin. I've learned through my personal relationship with the Almighty that whatever God wants always coincides with whatever I want. That's why I love Him.

I mean, really what's the point of worshipping a diety if you can't always get what you want? I know, I know -- if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need. But suppose you want it all, and want it now? Then what?

You left-wing liberal jihadist-lovin' gay atheists don't have an answer for that, do you? DO YOU ??!!?

You just think about that, while I make my altar boys and girls polish my collection plates with their t-shirts.

You did miss a memo, or a poll, Kevin.

I think about 90 percent of PhD physicists in the U.S. today are either atheist or "leaning" agnostics.

Friedrich Gauss was a genius of the first order, but I am not sure he changed the world like the other three. My point is Newton, Gauss, Einstein, Galileo would all easily adapt to the current state of science and mathematics, and would all be making original contributions to mathematics and science. I wouldn't worry about any of them finding work regardless of their religious beliefs.

You could also throw in Michael Faraday. Faraday wasn't even remotely capable of the mathematics the other Gauss found to be child's play, but he wouldn't have any trouble finding work. On second thought maybe Faraday would. I don't think he went to college. I am not even sure he went to secondary school. Totally self taught, in some ways he might have been the most curious of he bunch.

"Today's Newtons?" There are exactly 2 other people in the last 500 years whose original contributions to science and mathematics even remotely compare to Newton's--Galileo Galilei and Albert Einstein. There are no "today's Newtons." Given how complex science is these days there will probably never be another Newton, Galileo or Einstein. I am not taking anything away from a whole lot of really successful scientists I could name.

I second the Gauss nomination. John von Neumann did some pretty great formative stuff across a number of fields.

N.B. to Kevin,

"Widespread" and "silly" are not mutually exclusive categories.

nick,

just curious. what is your source for your statement that believers are more likely to be either ignorant or stupid than nonbelievers? i'd really like to know, since i'm apparently ignorant or stupid.

Results of a survey published in "Nature"
Belief in personal God_1914____1933__1998
Personal belief________27.7______15.0___7.0
Personal disbelief______52.7______68.0__72.2
Doubt or agnosticism___20.9______17.0__20.8

Belief in human immortality__1914____1933___1998
Personal belief________________35.2____18.0_____7.9
Personal disbelief______________25.4____53.0____76.7
Doubt or agnosticism___________43.7____29.0____23.3
_____
The survey was conducted among elite scientists. It shows the percentage who were believers, unbelievers or agnostic about the belief at the top of each column on the left in 1914, 1933 and 1998.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

I suspect that effective scientists simply don't tend be satisfied with a hypothesis in any area of their lives that can't be supported by evidence or called into question by evidence. They do not believe because of lack of evidence. That doesn't mean that they think they can disprove the existence of God. They just haven't seen evidence that tends to support it.

mudwall, I am sure nick will tell you that he doesn't need any evidence. He doesn't believe and he is smart and informed, so ipso facto, or is it hocus pocus, believers must be ignorant and/or uninformed.

Cowalker: "I suspect that effective scientists simply don't tend be satisfied with a hypothesis in any area of their lives that can't be supported by evidence or called into question by evidence. "

Yes, I think that's right. The habits of mind of a trained scientist aren't especially congenial to taking things on faith.

Nice try, ex-liberal, but Guillermo Gonzalez isn't being denied a job because he believes in god. He is being denied tenure because he is attempting to teach non-science.

His personal religious beliefs, as I'm confident the courts will rule, are not the issue. He can believe in as many gods as he wants. It's the content of his teaching that's at issue. He's being denied tenure for passing off personal beliefs as hypothesis-tested, verifiable science, in short, for doing a lousy job. Only corporate CEOs get to stay on in those situations.

A few months ago the CBC did a feature interview with a bigshot American geneticist, a leader in the field. No, I don't remember his name, his university or the program he was on but I do remember he was quite religious, even wrote a book about it. Contrary to Kirchick's assertions, he was well-regarded, secure in his position and popular with his students.

Anybody know who this guy is?

I'm willing to bet that it is Francis Collins, the head of the government's Human Genome Project. He's actually a fascinating person, who believes strongly in his work and is a Christian. He's interviewed frequently about both genetic research and a balance between science and faith. He won't, however, support the creationist line, which puts him firmly in the camp with the vast majority of real Christians. He also did well on Colbert earlier this year, no small feat.

I read Collin's book "The Language of God" and was impressed by the man and his beliefs. And, yes, he was the "government" geneticist (an MD, actually)....where "government" includes several major research Universities...in charge of the human genome project. I doubt he'd have a lot of
trouble finding a University gig.

jrw: He's being denied tenure for passing off personal beliefs as hypothesis-tested, verifiable science, in short, for doing a lousy job. Only corporate CEOs get to stay on in those situations.

Corporate CEOs aren't the only ones who keep their jobs despite teaching their personal beliefs as if they were valid. Other who fall in this category are modernist college professors who teach silly deconstructionist theories or who claim a bizarre sexual bases for history or who promote racist black studies courses also fall in this category.

By the way, I must admit that I agree with those who didn't think much of Jacoby's article.

"domination of an intelligent and powerful Being" over the universe is, um, still pretty widespread, isn't it?"

Well yes it is unfortunately. So is belief in flying saucers, the prophylactic power of prayer and Vitamin C, and American Exceptionalism. These are but a few remnants of the Greater Ignorance that we collectively inherited from the medievals and the 18thC imperialists which we have not yet shaken off. Maybe another couple of hundred years of public education will do the job... or perhaps not.

The macro-cosmic tales of God are easily dismissed. But the micro-cosmic thing that moves in our heart of hearts, that's another story.

Well yes it is unfortunately. So is belief in...American Exceptionalism...

He says while using the internet that we invented. Damn straight, without us this planet would be a thousand times worse off. We believe our way is better, and that belief serves as an engine that has generated vastly more good than harm.

I get the strong impression that the big majority of today's scientists do not beleive in a God who is actively involved in our lives, answers prayers or intervenes in any way.

Well yes it is unfortunately. So is belief in...American Exceptionalism...

He says while using the internet that we invented. Damn straight, without us this planet would be a thousand times worse off. We believe our way is better, and that belief serves as an engine that has generated vastly more good than harm.

Posted by: RSM on July 23, 2007 at 7:21 PM
-----------------
What metrics did you use to determine we have done more good than harm?

Did you do a body count? Dead American Indians plus dead slaves plus dead Philipinos (and others in the Spanish-American War) plus whatever portion of the Jews who died because we didn't intervene in a timely manner plus 6 million or so dead in Southeast Asia plus a couple million dead in Iraq plus about a million dead in our proxy war between Iraq and Iran plus however many dead in our various other proxy/resource wars--

Minus--

What is this great good that would not have happened but for the USA?

And please keep the canard about hating America in your pocket and reach instead for an answer based on reason.

Other[s who teach their personal beliefs as if they were valid] are modernist college professors who teach silly deconstructionist theories or who claim a bizarre sexual bases for history or who promote racist black studies courses [. . .]

I'm not familiar with "racist black studies courses," and I'm not sure how wide-spread this sort of thing really is in the sort of history class a non-history major is likely to take, but add a "post" in front of modernist up there and ex-liberal actually has a point. In the humanities and liberal studies departments of universities, a lot of foolishness is taught and a lot of dumb papers are written. But the harm is minimal, other than time wasted, perhaps. So long as the point is to provoke critical thinking among students, some good can actually come of it.

Things are different in the world of science, though. The humanities are more or less free to explore whatever fashionable philosophies are out there. Not so of the sciences. It's reasonable to expect scientists to adhere to scientific standards. The fields of philosophy and literary theory have been an academic (forgive me) circle jerk for so long that really, nothing more is expected.

Contrary to Kirchick's assertions...

I should have said "Contrary to Jacoby's assertions". My apologies.

In order to be smart, like me, you have to believe what smart people believe.

Take me for example, I believe the things that the majority of officially intelligent people (scientists, academics) believe, such as the absence of a Deity. That makes me smart; and being smart feels good, especially when there are so many ignorant rubes out there who are now officially dumber than I, since they don't share these beliefs. This is very comforting to me.

And, of course, if a minority of officially smart people actually do disagree with academic trends, that's even better, cause I get to be smarter than smart people! All this, and I haven't had to think once!

What metrics did you use to determine we have done more good than harm?

The number of people voting with their feet and immigrating to America.

The science and technology we've brought to the world.

Beating fascism and whatever it was the the Japanese did in WWII and following it up with the Marshall Plan and Macarthur in Japan.

The stability our alliances created all over the world.

The fact that although the we have the power to be imperial, we're not.

Our idealistic beliefs such as democracy being the right government for everyone.

Our Declaration of Independence, one of the finest pieces of thought ever written.

Etc., etc., etc.

So I'd like to hear from the "locals" here at WashMon...has America done more good than harm, or do liberals generally feel America has been a negativc on the planet? I'll assume silence is agreement with Nick.

nick,

it's filipinos, not philipinos. and they died in the philippine-american war. there's a nice marker to the war on corregidor, by the way. quite a bloody war. atrocities on both sides, tho the filipinos by far got the worst of it. america is so hated over there that in metro manila (makati) you'll find taft and mckinley avenues. english is one of the official languages, their government is modeled after ours and the americans who died there during ww ii are still remembered. no monument to dewey, however. in the end, i think the u.s. did something right.

it's filipinos, not philipinos. and they died in the philippine-american war. there's a nice marker to the war on corregidor, by the way. quite a bloody war. atrocities on both sides, tho the filipinos by far got the worst of it.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on July 23, 2007 at 10:03 PM |
------

First battle of the Spanish American war was fought in the Manila Bay, and it was the catalyst for the imperialism that came after.

What metrics did you use to determine we have done more good than harm?

The number of people voting with their feet and immigrating to America.

The science and technology we've brought to the world.

Beating fascism and whatever it was the the Japanese did in WWII and following it up with the Marshall Plan and Macarthur in Japan.

The stability our alliances created all over the world.

The fact that although the we have the power to be imperial, we're not.

Our idealistic beliefs such as democracy being the right government for everyone.

Our Declaration of Independence, one of the finest pieces of thought ever written.

Etc., etc., etc.

So I'd like to hear from the "locals" here at WashMon...has America done more good than harm, or do liberals generally feel America has been a negativc on the planet? I'll assume silence is agreement with Nick.

Posted by: RSM on July 23, 2007 at 9:12 PM
-----------------

Doing good (morally) and being a good place to live are two different things. You're equivocating American domestic conditions with the morality of our foreign policy.

Science and technology comes from all cultures. If we didn't bring it, someone else would. Liebniz developed calculus contemporaneously with Newton, etc.

The Marshall Plan was good. As I recall it was done under a liberal administration. It involved rebuilding rather than invading.

Stability? At the price of various dictators, despots, apartheid societies and genocidal civil wars (not all our fault)?

We're good because we're NOT imperial? Aside from that being a dubious assertion, how about defining us in positive terms instead of what we are not. The original claim was that we do more good than harm. Not much weight of evidence in merely asserting something we supposedly are not (while our troops have a presence all over the world).

As for idealistic beliefs and the Declaration of Independence--the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Our problem is that we are still trying to apply the notion that all men are created equal to all people--with consistent opposition from conservatives. It was after all a radically liberal idea in the first place, and one in which the propertied class has no interest.

A Newton (metric unit of force) is approximately equal to the weight of a small apple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication
As of 2007, only the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar have not adopted the International System of Units as their primary or sole system of measurement...

We're in good company, what?

Religion in the United States and throughout the world has become a negative influence on the good.

So I'd like to hear from the "locals" here at WashMon...has America done more good than harm, or do liberals generally feel America has been a negativc on the planet?

Well, Nick has made his feelings known. US of A is historically a negative. Anybody disagree other than me and Mudwall? Gregory, Blue Girl, Scotian, PaulB, Matt, Mike, Conservative Deflator, PT in Wherever You Are Today...what be your opinions?

So I'd like to hear from the "locals" here at WashMon...has America done more good than harm, or do liberals generally feel America has been a negativc on the planet?

Well, Nick has made his feelings known. US of A is historically a negative. Anybody disagree other than me and Mudwall? Gregory, Blue Girl, Scotian, PaulB, Matt, Mike, Conservative Deflator, PT in Wherever You Are Today...what be your opinions?

Posted by: RSM on July 23, 2007 at 11:35 PM
-------------

You can't make your case and you're asking the liberals to bail you out on one of your core beliefs--that on balance the US is a positive force in the world.

And you're out there alone; Mudwall didn't help you any on your claim. Other than a bit of spell checking, he agreed that 'the Filipinos got the worst of it.'

The fact is that your cherished claim is practically impossible to prove or disprove. It's a typical nationalist position--whether the nationalist is American, German, French, British--whatever.

And unable to make a strong argument supporting your claim, the best you can do is try to bait liberals into making it for you.

It's time to reexamine your beliefs if you can do so little to support them yourself.

I reject the first premise-- that alchemy is a foolish impossibility. Its like the preacher who asks the man if he believed in baptism by immersion, who answered, "Believe in it, hell, I've seen it done".

I haven't seen it, but I've read that Glenn Seaborg turned lead into gold (albeit via a nuclear and not chemical process) in 1980. To quote from his NY Times obituary:

"His laboratory even achieved the dream of medieval alchemists: transmuting lead into gold, although such a tiny amount that the method could never be used to create riches."
http://www.mishalov.com/Seaborg.html

A chill goes down my spine as I wade in here, but what the hell? I'm not the timid sort, so here goes...

Well, Nick has made his feelings known. US of A is historically a negative. Anybody disagree other than me and Mudwall? Gregory, Blue Girl, Scotian, PaulB, Matt, Mike, Conservative Deflator, PT in Wherever You Are Today...what be your opinions?

I know that there are two sides to every equation, and when the damned thing doesn't balance balance, the experiment will fail.

I am humiliated by the very concept ofAmerican Exceptionalism, if for no other reason than exceptional people don't run around calling themselves exceptional. The very notion has become an odious myth, and a petticoat to hide behind. If there ever was any such thing, it departed our shores in a snit and a huff on 16 October 2006, when the MCA and DAB were signed.

The laws of thermodynamics govern physics, but the social sciences really need a parallel principle. We tamed a wild continent and became rich beyond measure by the largess of the resources the land held; but we balanced that equation by slaughtering the indigenous people and sequestering the survivors on reservations. A lot of that continent-taming was done with slave labor, too.

Japanese immigrants were integral to the prosperity of the west coast in the first decades of the last century, but when a war broke out, they were rounded up and imprisoned by virtue of lineage.

I think we do ourselves - and the world in general - a grave disservice if we only look at the parts of our history that support our personal point of view. We saved the world from smallpox and polio under the banner of human rights - but we dispense healthcare to our own citizens under an archaic and medieval distribution system.

The fact of the matter is, when one cultures etic crashes into another cultures emic, there are going to be at least three different takes on the situation - the perspective of the participants and at least one from outsiders - and until that salient fact is accepted as a starting place, we will forever remain at loggerheads.

Well speaking of Harry Potter..., if you want to read a really good book of fiction that deals with the scientists of the day, who believed in alchemy and other nonsense, try An Instance of the Fingerpost by Iain Pears. Excellent, excellent read!

There are exactly 2 other people in the last 500 years whose original contributions to science and mathematics even remotely compare to Newton's--Galileo Galilei and Albert Einstein.

Galileo? What on earth? He didn't even invent the heliocentric model! You mean Copernicus.

Anyway, what about Darwin?

ajay:

Darwin did some of his most important work in mechanics, and set up experiments to disprove some of Aristotle's assertions... as well as his work in astronomy (which included a lot more than confirmations of heliocentrism). That's the basis for including him in the discussion.

If we're going to add Gauss, why not Leibnitz? Or maybe we should just limit the discussion of raw brilliance and overall impact to the big two: Newton and Einstein.

BGRS:

Most of the native inhabitants of the Americas died due to epidemic disease, not because they were "slaughtered" by European invaders. In fact, the same thing happened in the Pacific, when the Spanish landed in Guam, when the British and Americans landed in Hawaii, etc.

There's plenty of blood from a century or so of imperial expansion (Nick, the massacre of Filipinos wasn't so much a direct effect of the Spanish-American war as of the U.S. government's decision -- in the face of widespread public opposition -- to carry out a neo-colonial administration of the Philippines) (mudwall, the U.S. supported the local elites, so it's no surprise that they'd continue to have strong pro-American sentiments), but I'd guess that for at least the first century the inspiration provided by the American adoption and promotion of enlightenment values was much greater than any negative influence on "the world at large."

arrgh, that should have read "Galileo did some of his most important work in mechanics..."

Corporate CEOs aren't the only ones who keep their jobs despite teaching their personal beliefs as if they were valid. Other who fall in this category are modernist college professors who teach silly deconstructionist theories or who claim a bizarre sexual bases for history or who promote racist black studies courses also fall in this category.

And thus "ex-liberal" admits that his claim of religious persecution was bogus.

And speaking of bogus, note how that "silly deconstructionist theories," "a bizarre sexual bases for history," and "racist black studies courses" -- even assuming they actually exist, and given "ex-liberal"'s lengthy, and here admitted, record of disonesty, simply accepting "ex-liberal"'s assertion that they do would be folly -- aren't presented as science.

So "ex-liberal"'s false equivalence fails yet again. You really do get a sick thrill out of posting bad faith, disingenuous arguments, don't you, "ex-liberal"? Why do you bother?

So I'd like to hear from the "locals" here at WashMon...has America done more good than harm, or do liberals generally feel America has been a negativc on the planet? I'll assume silence is agreement with Nick. [emphasis added]

That's because you're a dishonest toad, Mike. Silence is simply refusal to engage your bullshit, justify your misguided belief in American exceptionalism, and accept your presumption that any of the "locals" here need to pass some sort of loyalty oath to validate their opinions.

That's because you're a dishonest toad, Mike. Silence is simply refusal to engage your bullshit, justify your misguided belief in American exceptionalism, and accept your presumption that any of the "locals" here need to pass some sort of loyalty oath to validate their opinions.

Hmmm, I'll take that as a "no", thus putting you in with Nick and BGRS.

Wow, you really are a dishonest toad RSM.

First you set-up a default anwser for somebody else claiming that people should engage your drivel otherwise it's true, and when they do you claim that they've just validated your drivle instead of washing there hand off on it.

RSM, I hereby claim that you said that you are a traitor to the USA. Silence would mean you agree and only people with something to hide would try to object to that label.

Hmmm, I'll take that as a "no", thus putting you in with Nick and BGRS.

Here's a hint, Mike: your taking that as a "no" is exactly why I'm refusing to play your dishonest little game. Let the record show that I didn't give you any basis for "taking that as a no", and you're just seeking to validate your own bullshit opinion regardless of what anyone actually says.

And yet for all your flag-waving, you're supporting neocons and authoritarians. Funny, that. If it helps you sleep at night to twist your opponents' views to chatracterize them as unpatriotic, well, no one can stop you -- but it doesn't make you any less dishonest.

Oh, and Mike? Claiming BGRS -- whose patriotism exceeds yours by a country mile, and probably exceeds even my own -- is lumped in somehow with your fantasy notion of America-haters just shows how deranged and dishonest you really are.

But then, apologists for authoritarians like you really do depend on the myth of American exceptionalism, because your cognitive dissonance can't accept that anyone won't accept your deluded notions of patriotism -- or "I was only following orders" -- as an excuse for blinding yourself to the possibility, if not the fact, that the United States can do wrong.

Here's another free clue, Mike -- the founders knew full well that any nation of men could do evil. If you pretend that this nation can't, then you're only making it more likely that it can, and indeed will. Your blind faith precludes the vigilance that is an essential component of democracy. Only by recognizing that we sometimes can not and do not live up to our ideals -- as BGRS and I do -- can we ensure that we do live up to them.

You support the party of Abu Ghraib, torture, unprovoked invasions, subverting the political process and a host of other crimes against democracy. And you demonize those who oppose those loathsome and thoroughly un-American practices.

Ironic, isn't it, Mike? You sought to show yourself as the patriot and your opponents as America haters. Instead you've proven just the opposite.

Gregory, you're the WashMon version of a hockey goon. You bring no skills to the game, just brutishness.

I see we have more "admirers of the problem" but no one with the courage of their convictions to simply state their position. Since I asked the question, obviously the question does not deserve an answer, right?

I really thought this would be a no-brainer for liberals. Of COURSE we are a positive force. Geez.

I guess either one of two effects are ongoing here. Either the "disagree with RSM at all costs no matter how it conflicts with my own personal beliefs" effect (RSM says Earth is round? It's flat, dammit!) Or you actually agree with Nick. Which is sad.

Are these the words of a cultural hand-wringer (42nd President's inaugural)?

But our greatest strength is the power of our ideas, which are still new in many lands. Across the world, we see them embraced—and we rejoice. Our hopes, our hearts, our hands, are with those on every continent who are building democracy and freedom. Their cause is America's cause.

Gregory
...America-haters...

You an Nick have both used the phrase "America-haters", not me. Put away your strawman.

the founders knew full well that any nation of men could do evil.

What is it about the phrase "net good...more good than harm" that confuses you Gregory? Put away that strawman too. Embarrassing.

I see we have more "admirers of the problem" but no one with the courage of their convictions to simply state their position. Since I asked the question, obviously the question does not deserve an answer, right?

I really thought this would be a no-brainer for liberals. Of COURSE we are a positive force. Geez.

Yes, Mike, but since the entire premise of your question was dishonest -- as you continue to prove -- I'm simply not playing your game.

Here's another free clue, Mike: As I said already, no one here is obligated to pass your bullshit loyalty oaths.

That you continue, despite having been corrected, to presume opinions that are not at all in evidence just proves how dishonest your premise, your question, and yourself are.

And whining about "brutishness" hardly mitigates your own lack of a cogent response to the cognitive dissonance of your support of the Republican Party's anti-Democratic practices. You continue to subvert your own aim of elevating your patriotism above the others here.

Your credibility, well, that's beyond help.

...and finally, Mike, anyone who would type the phrase

I really thought this would be a no-brainer for liberals. Of COURSE we are a positive force. Geez.

has no standing to complain

You an Nick have both used the phrase "America-haters", not me. Put away your strawman.

It's no straw man to see the game you're playing, and refuse to play. Perhaps things might be different if you had a reputation as an honest, good-faith commentor, but, well, instead it's you, Mike. Reputation's a bitch, isn't it, especially when it's as piss-poor as yours?

And, of course, anyone who so foolishly blows his own straw man call has even less standing to whine

You bring no skills to the game

Do you ever tire of revealing yourself as a fool and a scoundrel in the service of neocons and authoritarians? Because that isn't my definition of patriotism, Mike, ol' buddy.

Some more words from our 42nd President. He appears to not be as conflicted as some.

The promise of America was born in the 18th century out of the bold conviction that we are all created equal. It was extended and preserved in the 19th century, when our nation spread across the continent, saved the union, and abolished the awful scourge of slavery.

Then, in turmoil and triumph, that promise exploded onto the world stage to make this the American Century.

And what a century it has been. America became the world’s mightiest industrial power; saved the world from tyranny in two world wars and a long cold war; and time and again, reached out across the globe to millions who, like us, longed for the blessings of liberty.

Here's some words from Barack Obama's website.

So I reject the notion that the American moment has passed. I dismiss the cynics who say that this new century cannot be another when, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good.

I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so. This President may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open. And it’s time to fill that role once more.

He appears to not be as conflicted as some.

I see that you're continuing with your dishoensty even though you've been called on it. You gave away the game, Mike ol' buddy, when you wrote I'll assume silence is agreement. Oh, well, no one expects you to be anythong other than a scoundrel. If pretending, even dishonestly, that your opponsents lack patriotism is what it takes to quell the cognitive dissonance of your own anti-American support of autoritarians and neocons, we can only leave you to wallow in it.

I do sometimes wonder, though, why you and your ilk seem to presume that liberals treat Bill Clinton as the object of the same cult of personality than you do the feeble tyrant George W. Bush?

Gregory
I see that you're continuing with your dishoensty even though you've been called on it.

I see you continue with your goonery even though you've been called on it.

I've given three examples of leading liberals who demonstrate through their words American Exceptionalism. You've used ad hominem attacks and non sequitors to avoid addressing the question.

Coward.

You've used ad hominem attacks and non sequitors to avoid addressing the question.

No, Mike. I've simply accurately described your dishonesty and declared that I'm not playing your bullshit loyalty oath game. Learn to use the terms "ad hominem" and "non sequitor" before throwing out "bring no skills to the game" next time, jackass.

Furthermore, Mike, once again, someone who supports -- enthusiastically -- the mendacity, incompetence, corruption and tyrannical mindset of the current Administration -- shall we just call it "evil" for short? -- has no standing to point to the good America does to justify it.

American exceptionalism doesn't justify your embrace of the Republican Party and the evil it does, Mike, and all your dishonesty fools no one.

And to top it off, mike, whining about "goonery" when you're called on your dishonesty doesn't make your posts honest, either. Quite the contrary. Anyone is perfectly justified in pointing out your dishonesty; as I said, claiming that you'd assign your own biased opinion to those who didn't comment was ample evidence of your bad faith from the get-go.

Obviously, the irony about slinging the word "coward" when you're too morally bereft to confront your own dishonesty in support of this Administration's evil deeds is too rich. Shame on you, Mike.

I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so. [Obama, in part quoting Abraham Lincoln]

Posted by: RSM on July 24, 2007 at 9:56 AM
---------------------------------

A hope is an unrealized dream, as is clear from the second sentence.

The ideal of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal, has not been fully realized either in this nation or by this nation regarding those outside our borders. That's in large part because of conservatives who oppose the actual practice of equality in measures from womens rights to gay rights to freedom from repressive governments from Saudi Arabia to Israel.

You have failed to prove your claim that on balance America IS (not was, but CURRENTLY IS) a force for good in the world.

shorter Gregory
I'll talk about anything but the question at hand because I am a coward.

Liberals have a long history in American Exceptionalism. I've given examples to prove my point. You've given nothing, and I'm not even sure what your point is, other than to confirm to the 6th decimal point level of confidence that you're nothing but a comment section goon with zero intellectual capacity.

Shame on you, Mike

Oh no! Not the dreaded patented Gregory "Shame on you"! Heh.

I'll wait until the adults show up for further debate. Your vacuity is amusing but ultimately boring.

Nick
You have failed to prove your claim that on balance America IS (not was, but CURRENTLY IS) a force for good in the world.

Nick, my own quote from the 9:12 PM post was "HAS America done more good than harm, or do liberals generally feel America has been a negative on the planet?"

Here's why America is currently a net force for evil in the world:

1. We have a government which committed a series of war crimes in Iraq, from invasion to Abu Ghraib to the failure to secure the nation (a violation of the Geneva Conventions).

2. We support torture, thus providing justification for torture.

3. We support an apartheid government in Israel, a nation which provides differential rights based on religion.

4. We are selfish and set self interest in place of the common good, by refusing to support environmental measures concerning global warming

5. We selfishly support right wing regimes like Saudi Arabia because we demand the resources, thus acquiring resources from the suffering of others.

Our invasion of Iraq has made us a criminal nation, not a heroic one.

shorter Gregory
I'll talk about anything but the question at hand because I am a coward.

No, Mike, there is no "question at hand" because it's a dishonest question based on a dishonest premise, posed in bad faith by a commentator reputed for his own dishonest water carrying for the Republicans. Why is that so difficult for you to comptehend?

Shorter Red State Mike: If you refuse to play my loyalty oath game and instead point out my dishonesty, you're a goon! Goon! Goon!

Whatever, Mike. The irony of you, of all people, posting "I'll wait until the adults show up for further debate. Your vacuity is amusing but ultimately boring" obviously lost on you.

Next time you're going to play such a dishoenst game, though, you might try not to tip your hand by declare you're going to assign your own biased opinion to those who don't respond, as if a dishonest jackass like you is entitled to having his biases validated. No sale, Mike.

Out of 9 million people incarcerated worldwide, over 2 million of them are incarcerated here in the U.S.--a nation with 5% of the global population.

If we're such a great society, why do we incarcerate larger numbers of our population than any nation on earth? How can we be a great nation if our people (not just Bush) are so criminal?

Nick, I agree with Barack Obama.

I take your failure to provide a substantial argument about my assertion that America on net is currently a force for evil to be your agreement with that assertion.

Nick, I agree with Barack Obama.

Posted by: RSM on July 24, 2007 at 11:57 AM
----------------

As I pointed out, the clear inference of the Obama statement which you quoted is that the last best hope which Lincoln asserted has still not been realized.

America the good remains a hope, not a reality. I appreciate your coming to agreement on this position.

I take your failure to provide a substantial argument about my assertion that America on net is currently a force for evil to be your agreement with that assertion.
Posted by: Nick

That would be correct.

has America done more good than harm….RSM at 9:12 PM

As Americans, we realize that it is necessary to take an objective view in order to understand the complaints of others and how to deal them in a way that leads to the betterment of our position and their concerns. Leadership, real leadership, depends on understanding the needs of others, not taking an position that only we have the truth, that might is right, or that we know best for everyone else.

The peoples of every nation all regard themselves as exceptional, and rightly so, because they all are, in their own ways. To tout American exceptionalism is unexceptional but should it not be the excuse for America to stomp through the world trampling the rights, expectations and destiny of other peoples.

As I pointed out, the clear inference of the Obama statement which you quoted is that the last best hope which Lincoln asserted has still not been realized.

You read Obama's words incorrectly and drew the wrong inference. We are a hope for the rest of the world, that is the unrealized part.

We are a hope for the rest of the world, that is the unrealized part.

And as long as you continue to support the evil of the Republican Party, it'll remain unrealized. So you can take your loyalty oaths and shove 'em, my friend.

"I suspect that effective scientists simply don't tend be satisfied with a hypothesis in any area of their lives that can't be supported by evidence or called into question by evidence. "

That would certainly seem reasonable, and doubtless is a factor, butit's been my experience that people rarely act from reason. Peoples' actions or beliefs usually result from more visceral, less cerebral causes. Things like reason tend to be afterthoughts with which to dress things up and make them more respectable. I would be surprised if a very large component of the growing agnosticism of scientific elites didn't have a lot to do with social dynamics in academia.

That would certainly seem reasonable, and doubtless is a factor, butit's been my experience that people rarely act from reason. Peoples' actions or beliefs usually result from more visceral, less cerebral causes. Things like reason tend to be afterthoughts with which to dress things up and make them more respectable.

Ah yes, rationalizations indeed.

But really, that is the way it should be it appears to me. To be completely 100% rational is to be an automaton, always choosing the computed path of optimality. A computer could do it. Calculate all the probabilities and payoffs and act to maximize payoff. It's the emotions and beliefs and more visceral causes that make us human.

Here's an answer, my friend:

The idea of America is a tremendous good in the world. The dream of America is a good thing.

Americans have done many wonderful things for the world--but many others haven't. Many have done terible evil. Net good? Very hard to say.

The Government of the United States has committed heinous crimes against humanity, oppressed people all over the world, and betrayed America's ideals with horrifying regularity. a net evil.

Ultumately, the words of the Declaration of Independence may mean more for the fate of the world than George W Bush's horror show. I think that might be true.

Butt as a great Republican once said, the question is not whether God is on our side, it's whether we are on God's side.

I put it to you, my trollish friend, that America might be a net good in the world because there are more of us than there are of you.

I put it to you, my trollish friend...

There's a saying that "we're all tourists somewhere." In the internet age you could replace the word tourist with troll and it would still hold true. If you haven't been in the position of "trolling", i.e. disagreeing with the majority opinion, then you aren't getting out enough and don't understand that there are reasonable people out there who think differently from you.

...that America might be a net good in the world because there are more of us than there are of you.

Classy to the finish. I understand, got to keep your WashMon credibility.

...but thanks for answering the question.