Thursday, June 30, 2011

reason developed to help us win arguments

Or so say philosophers Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier, who last week had the good fortune of getting buzz from the NY Times (here, here, and here) and other sources (listed here) on an article they wrote for Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Contra the Enlightenment gloss of reasoning, or the Cartesian theory of reasoning, which states, in the words of Mercier, that "the role of reasoning is to critically examine our beliefs so as to discard wrong-headed ones and thus create more reliable beliefs—knowledge," Sperber and Mercier present the "argumentative theory of reasoning," which states that the evolutionary "function of reasoning would be to find and evaluate reasons in dialogic contexts—more plainly, to argue with others." Humans developed reasoning, in other words, to help us make and analyze arguments in rich contexts of talk.

Mercier presents two compelling predictions or outcomes of this theory: (1) Since it has an ostensibly evolutionary basis, (1) the argumentative theory of reasoning supports the conclusion that we reason better in groups, and (2) one of the most observed attributes of reasoning is confirmation bias (i.e., our relentless efforts to support our own conclusions and ignore evidence to the contrary, even when it seems irrefutable). For religion, these two predictions make me think that interfaith dialogue is one of the most important forms of American religious rhetoric we have.

I dig this theory. I like the idea that we evolved internal mechanisms of inference because we anticipate audiences for our convictions. That's the bottom line, right? For good or bad, we are the arguing animal. This is exciting research and it confirms the biases of all those rhetoricians out there who are over the moon about argumentation.


Thursday, June 9, 2011

religious tests for Mormons, loyalty oaths for Muslims

According to the authors of American Grace, the three least-liked religious groups in the United States are Muslims, Mormons, and Buddhists--and I can't remember the order. Perhaps the respondents know these three groups least among religions, but considering the general religious illiteracy of the American population, it's gotta be something else, too (respectively: 9/11, polygamy, and the buzzkill doctrine that wanting stuff causes suffering, maybe?). Whatever the reason, I'm guessing we will hear more and more rhetoric about the first two groups over the next year of endless campaigning.

For example, Herman Cain--by far the most intriguing presidential candidate so far (Sarah P. hasn't "officially" jumped in yet)--just told Glenn Beck that he might appoint a Muslim to his cabinet, even if it made him "uncomfortable," as long as he/she took a loyalty oath to the U.S. Constitution. Would Catholics or Mormons be held to the same standard? asked Beck. "Nope," answered Cain. He actually said the word nope.

Then there's a new survey from Quinnipiac University reported by the WSJ and posted here purporting to discover that though Mitt Romney is the clear frontrunner among possible GOP candidates for 2012, only 60% of voters are "entirely or somewhat comfortable" with a Mormon in the White House, compared to 83% for a Catholic president. African Americans are the least comfortable with the idea of Mitt as president, with 54% being somewhat or entirely uncomfortable.

The WSJ article is about Romney & his Mormon challenge, but not much is made of the other dramatic numbers in the study. For example, 59% of Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of a Muslim president, and 60% would be uncomfortable--44% "entirely uncomfortable"--with an atheist as president. These percentages plummet when respondents are asked about how they feel about women, African Americans, Hispanics, Catholics, or Jews.

What this means is that regardless of what the Constitution says about religious tests for public figures, Americans can't stop themselves from applying them when they "honestly assess themselves," as the language of the Quinnipiac survey puts it.

Friday, June 3, 2011

Ayn Rand & the Christian GOP

A few months ago I wrote this article about how Ayn Rand's bloated opus (almost wrote corpus, because it sounded so good after the word bloated) Atlas Shrugged provides aid and comfort to conservative populists (i.e., Tea Partiers) who may be feeling like sacrificial victims of America's fiscal policies. One of the (like, three!) thoughtful commenters was a fan of Rand & took me to task for conflating Rand's philosophies with conservatism, since she isn't, by any stretch, a post-Fallwell-Reagan conservative. She was an atheist and a classical liberal in the same sense as Milton Friedman was a classical liberal: In being severely suspicious of government interposition of any kind beyond setting the ground rules for making money and living life.

If you read my article carefully, I never call her a conservative--I'm simply pointing out the obvious in saying that her writings (as well as Friedman's) have been embraced by those who are. Alas, the Atlas Society has me on their "perp walk" list, alongside Roger Ebert and Michael Gerson, for perpetuating the myth that she was conservative.

It seems to contradict no known law of physics to say that someone influences conservatives without being conservative.

I'm gonna let that debate float away for now, but the Ayn Rand/conservative discussion has picked up again during the recent political battles over the government budget. Only this time religion has been thrown into the mix. Liberal Christians have made the case that Christian leaders in the GOP have forsaken Jesus for Rand.

The American Values Network, for example, just produced this video for . . . well, it's hard to say who their audience is or what their purpose is:



It's fair to challenge what could be considered ideological inconsistency, but this video is corny.

RNS has reported that 6,000 progressive Christians have signed a petition calling for House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan to put down his Atlas and pick up his Bible. Considering the size of both books, Ryan would get pretty buff picking up one while putting down the other, over and over. (Perhaps that's how consistency is maintained if you want to be both a Christian and a Rand Fan.)

At any rate, the charge is incompatibility: The Christian left-leaners argue here that one cannot identify as Christian and legislate as Christian while at the same time embracing anti-Christian ideology. Continuity of identity is broken in the attempt, and the person loses credibility. Perhaps the GOP leaders like Ryan could counterargue that taking up Rand's opinions about fiscal policy and federal budgets doth not mean taking up her opinions on Jesus. What do you think about these arguments?