Refusing To Take Debate

A really weird piece by Carlos Alberto Montaner about Darwin. He starts claiming there's some sort of debate among the intelligentsia about evolution versus creationism. Not in the world of science, there isn't. Evolution won that battle a long time ago. The real battle is can evolution and religion live together in peace? I have no strong opinion here, though most people on both sides think the answer is yes.

Back to the "debate." Montaner is on the side of creatonism, but his argument (as it must) avoids discussing the evidence. Instead of explaining any science, he goes over the history of philosophy, religion and natural rights.

Without getting into particulars, Montaner maintains you can't have natural rights and believe in evolution at the same time. (Wrong, but we'll move on.) He asserts a theory of natural rights is what protects us against slavery, torture and discrimination. (Wrong, but we'll move on.)

Alas, the one thing Montaner never does is explain why these natural rights (and thus, somehow, a belief in a supernatural force behind life) must exist. In other words, he's not even bothering to make an argument. All he's got is the claim "do it my way or you'll have anarchy."

Some people believe in the "noble lie." Tell the unwashed public things you (the smart people) don't necessarily believe to keep them in line. But if that's the best you can do, why bother? Even if you're a total cynic, you can't keep people ignorant--sooner or later someone's going to tell them the truth. They may even figure it out themselves if you give them enough freedom. And then you're worse off than before, since no one will believe anything you say.

Columbus Guy says: I suppose I have to admit I'm likely to agree with your views on the noble lie. In my case, though, I think it's driven by iconoclasm (how's that for an irony? The iconoclastic populist). Regardless, I do have one question about this "sooner or later" idea of yours. What if you're wrong? What if keeping people ignorant really works (that seems to the the Times' business model)? That knowledge isn't a continual climb upward, but rather the mere occasional leap into sufficiency, followed by the inevitable drag of ignorance? What if it's like ballet, the mere illusion of flight, not flight itself?

Happy Holidays.

(BTW, A2Guy, you owe us here, work and child be damned. Natural law seems like your field.)

LAGuy replies: I'd rather not turn this post into a debate about the "noble lie." (By the way, I'd guess AnnArborGuy is the only one here who is sure to be against it, officially.) I recognized even as I wrote the last paragraph that it wasn't the best ending, because 1) it's not really the main point I'm trying to make and 2) perhaps the noble lie could work--there's a long history of philosophers, from Plato to the Straussians, who think so, and it's sure tried by most leaders.

My main point is actually about a debating technique one sees quite often, especially regarding religion, which, when analysed, is wholly insufficient. I don't know if there's a technical term for it, but it's the argument from bad consequences. It's the argument that doesn't even bother to prove its side, or disprove the opposing side, but simply says "if we do it your way, bad things will happen."