Cynicism - Enemy of Civilization

Kenneth Clarke in his 1966 BBC television series on Civilization said that lack of confidence, more than anything else, is what kills a civilisation. We can destroy ourselves by cynicism and disillusion, just as effectively as by bombs he warned.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines cynics as those showing "a disposition to disbelieve in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions" and a tendency "to express this by sneers and sarcasms".

It is often very hard to see what might be the legitimate positive motivations for religious extremists, but to conclude there is none is to be a cynic and an enemy of civilization. Its one of those catch 22s - you need faith in the goodness of humankind in order to persevere and eventually rationally understand the legitimate humane motivations of the religiously fanatic. This is because the religious fanatic is not a true believer but is really just a cynic himself. Anyone who oppresses voices of reason fears his religion cannot stand up to the scrutiny of reason and is therefore not a true believer.

For those who prefer a scholarly explanation Clark also pointed out that Western civilization is a series of rebirths, which means that history has shown that we should never lose hope when things look bad.

All fail but all are necessary

Philosophy has been barren so long, says Bacon, because she needed a new method to make her fertile. The great mistake of the Greek philosophers was that they spent so much time in theory, so little in observation. But thought should be the aide of observation, not its substitute. Will Durant - The Story of Philosophy.

We are victims today much like the Greeks 2400 years ago. Our dogmatic adherence to worshipping freedom and liberty in an age in gross excess suggests that our theories on human nature need some refinement. Rousseau promoted human instincts as the purest, most reliable form of truth and hence liberalism - because he convinced the revolutionaries that without the confines of aristocratic society, man was naturally moderate. I don't advocate a return to aristocracy but perhaps a revision on our idea of human nature or moderation is in order.

Lets look at the evidence - has the Internet - the great enemy of culture - made us more moderate? Has the deregulation of gambling made us more moderate gamblers? Have 24 hour drive thrus made us more moderate eaters?

The only thing that I know of that reliably makes man more moderate is education. Rousseau anticipating my response and helpfully provided a retort "Education does not make a man good; it only makes him clever - usually for mischief. "It was even a saying among the philosophers themselves that since learned men had appeared, honest men were nowhere to be found."

He has a point - there is ample evidence to support this allegation too. Did the lawyers deliver justice in the OJ trial with their commitment to truth? Why is so little of the medical profession devoted to the prevention of cancer instead of the cure? Is it their higher allegiance to truth? What about the accountants and their ability to identify and report on fraudulent books?

Self governing professions need to be held accountable to their communities that they serve. Can we call the medical, legal and accounting professions to be pillars of our communities - shielding the lay people from disease, injustice and corruption? Reason without allegiance to some higher standard than oneself - God, King or country - or just plain old fashioned truth. It is not that doctors, lawyers and accountants intend to mislead - its that they get so good at considering all perspectives and they become equal valid. The result in a capitalist system that rewards research grants, winning cases and satisfying customers means that the small voice of the public interest is seldom heard until tragedy falls. Calls for the end of predatory lending were made in the US for many years and were still not negotiated with the handing out of the corporate bailouts.

Unfortunately, religion provides not much hope for being the champion of truth either. All Christian churches have been ridiculously recalcitrant in admitting to the reality of the sexual abuse occurring under their steeples for centuries, never mind contemplating how they may be inadvertently contributing to such colossal failures in the spiritual well-being of their employees.

From all this pessimism you likely think I believe that humans are naturally evil but I don't. I conclude that we need a new philosophical paradigm - the trinity of truth - trump to none!

Remembering all Veterans November 11, 2008

Today I wish to pay respect to our war heroes who fought against tyrants. Trinity of Truth is a political philosophy that claims that truth can only be found by balancing the different truths offered by religion, reason and personal experience and anyone who discredits one of the three ways of knowing truth is dogmatic at best, a tyrant at worst.

I have come to see religious faith, reason and my own personal experiences, as three different sources of knowledge that reliably contribute to what is true and right (an adolescence properly lived eliminates parental authority). The three sources interact much like the game of rock, paper, scissors. Experience, faith and reason can go on endlessly trumping each other because each offers a different, but reliable version of truth.

While many can point to the horrors of religion and therefore want to throw the baby out with the bathwater - it is wise to remember that when one overreacts a counter-reaction is guaranteed.

Political philosophy is the study of how each of these three ways of knowing truth is given different priority. In liberal, freedom loving societies like America, experience is trump, reason is strong and religion is relegated to private sphere; in China reason is trump, but religion and personal freedoms are crushed; and in Taliban countries religion trumps, crushing personal experiences and reason.

As a wise Chilean refugee once told me at a cold bus stop in Edmonton in January 1982-beware of the politician with the simple message. In memory of all of those who have died fighting tyrants remember the trinity and try to fight your own moments of dogmatic indignation.

Separation of Church and State

Do we really want a permanent separation of reason and faith as different means of knowing truth? Is it not more in line with notions of progress to see the separation as a necessary step in which reason had the opportunity to catch with the wisdom of our religions and reason? And do religions not require a rational accounting for the violent acts they inspire?

What if it is possible to find a permanent way to address the conflicts between believers of different faiths or between believers and rationalists? Should we not intellectually pursue that possibility given the obvious stress the current model is causing?

As only Jack Nicholson can deliver with just the right combination of contempt and disappointment– Is this as good as it gets? The biggest problem with the concept of separating church and state is that we have assumed that there is no way to bridge the two worlds and it is time to discuss this assumption. We need to consider what we gain and what we lose by adhering to this constitutional ideal outside of any contentious issue.

New Political Choices

It is time for a new constitutional ideal in the US. Something that looks beyond truth as a battle between faith and reason. The Wall between church and state has become a wall between states.

Constitutional change is not an easy topic but it is time to start discussing some of the limitations that come with such a divisive view of the future. What if secularization is not possible as has been assumed since the enlightenment.

Harvey Cox after all predicted the demise of religion as the private fetishes in the 1960s. Clearly not the case. Reason must have missed something. Maybe reason is unable to know certain truths, maybe reason needs more time to catch up to the wisdom buried in our religious inheritance. Do we want to be limited to the truths that we can only know by reason? I think we should be but only so that it creates social pressure on those who know truth by another means to find the hard proof that their view of truth is right. They need to have more faith in their religions - that they can stand up to tests of reason.

It is time to consider the costs of the American constitutional ideal, not as a means of going backwards to the days of justifying patriarchal privilege but to consider if the neat separation of ourselves into public material beings and private spiritual beings is helpful. Are there not public spiritual issues? How do they get a place in American society?

It is a time of hope that I hope translates into some creative, progressive thinking as the world tackles a daunting set of problems. We need the faithful, the rational and the poet to unite their energies to tackle the political issues facing the US and the rest of the world.