Pensée 3.2 All human life is "intrinsically" valuable.

Building an uber-outline at the bottom.
_______________________________
1. Human life is valuable. We will debate how and when to define human life, but let us agree that it is universally and intrinsically valuable.

I put intrinsically in quotes because it is not technically true. From a Christian perspective, human life is valuable in a derivative fashion. That is to say, it is valuable because God values it. Genesis 1:27 says that God created humanity -- both male and female -- in his "image" or "likeness." We are a sort of mirror of God. 

Therefore, we are all valuable. In this case, Even if that value derives from God, it is inseparably attached to every human being. We might argue that the image of God in humanity is "marred," but the Bible does not teach that it is ever destroyed. Even the most evil of men is still created in the image of God -- a fundamental dignity remains, however damaged.

2. What shall we say from a non-theist perspective? We might note that Thomas Jefferson, who was a Deist, still penned that humans are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Admittedly, he still believed in a Creator. And he saw human rights as intrinsic to humanity because of how God had created us. The United States was founded on this belief.

Modern constitutional republics and democracies are founded on this principle as well. It is a distinguishing characteristic. It is part of our social contracts. While the United States still allows for capital punishment, most modern representational democracies do not on the principle that all human life is intrinsically valuable and thus cannot be destroyed except in the most extreme of circumstances such as a just war or self-defense.

It is, admittedly, difficult to prove the intrinsic worth of a human apart from either a religious conviction or an agreed social assumption. Yet arguably, societies that make this assumption thrive on a much higher level than those that do not. A disregard for human life characterizes less developed societies that do not thrive. In these, certain individuals may accrue power and experience great pleasure, but as a whole society does not. If, for example, a nation were to devalue the humanity of any group living in its midst, it would diminish its moral stature. In our case, it would betray both the Constitution and, more importantly, our Creator.

It is in the best interest of the masses to live in a society that values the individual. To the extent that the masses have power, therefore, they should insist on universal, individual rights for their own advantage. Mathematically, such a society brings greater pleasure to a greater number. Although I cannot prove it from a non-theistic perspective, there is a certain common sense to the notion that a greater pleasure in a society makes for a better nation than one where a select few have great pleasure. If might makes right in such a context, the masses should use their power to insist this is the case.

But it is a moot point from a Christian perspective. From God's perspective, all human beings not only have inherent value but equal value.

3. All humans have equal intrinsic value. Humans have differing instrumental values. That is to say, the life of the president of a country in most instances will be more useful than the life of a homeless person. However, they both have the same intrinsic value as human beings. This is an important distinction.

In a just war, it may be justified to kill an enemy for instrumental reasons. But the enemy has the same intrinsic value as a human being. We let the enemy bury their dead. There is a certain dignity to a fallen enemy that comes from their humanity regardless of their actions.

If we have to kill a home invader in self-defense, that may be justified. But the home invader still has a certain dignity as a human being. Their family will have a funeral for them and will mourn their death along with their choices -- a life that could have and should have been more.

What about the most evil of humans? What of the worst serial killer or a dictator ordering genocide? I'll admit that I find these instances difficult because such individuals represent an affront to humanity as humanity. That is to say, their disregard for the value of human life may make their consequences a bigger matter than justice to an individual. They bear the weight of collective justice.

Yet to remain true to principles, it seems we must still treat them as humans. Christian principles suggest that they should be afforded a fundamental dignity even if they bear the weight of collective justice. We lament a human life wasted on evil. If God grieves over all rebellion, even that of Satan, how much more does he mourn the destruction of a human soul.

The fallen human mind would take advantage of any allowance that some humans do not deserve dignity. We see this in play in America at the moment. If you are not here legally, some think that gives permission to disregard certain fundamental rights. This of course is a violation of the Constitution and an offense to God. When leaders of nations disregard human life, they degrade their countries.

4. Galatians 3:28 and the New Testament in general present the radical principle that God values all humans the same regardless of whether they are Jewish or not, slave or free, male or female. If these are "woke" values, then the New Testament is woke and to say differently is to oppose God.

"God does not show favoritism" to Jew over Gentile, Peter says in Acts 10:34-35. Yes, he is talking about those who pursue God, but nowhere in Scripture does it say that he plays favorites among non-believing groups either. Note that this principle applies to the fundamental human value of Israelis and Palestinians. Even if there would be some instrumental reason to prefer Israel politically, as human beings, Palestinian life must be treated as having equal value. To say otherwise is to oppose God. 

(As a sidenote, Romans 9-11 considers those on either side in or out of the people of God depending on their confession of faith in Christ. Faith in Christ is the New Testament criterion for membership in the people of God.)

This principle can be extended to the domain of ethnicity in general. While there may be instrumental value in deporting undocumented immigrants, in God's eyes, each individual detained is of equal value to the person detaining them. To say otherwise is to oppose God.

Similarly, in God's eyes there is no greater value to the master than to the slave. Antebellum America thus opposed God when it devalued the slave. The Jim Crow South opposed God when it devalued the ex-slave. In terms of intrinsic value, the slave was just as worthy of dignity as the slaveownder. 

The person without money is of just as much value to God as the person with money. Indeed, from a New Testament perspective, the person with money is less likely to be favored by God as the poor. Yet both have the same intrinsic value.

Paul applies this principle to male and female as well. While the cultural roles of his day peek out here and there in his writings, the Day of Pentecost indicates the equal dignity and worth of women to men. The Spirit is the great equalizer. Sons and daughters both receive words from the Lord (Acts 2:17). 

5. It is cliche to refer to Nazi Germany, but it remains the most useful illustration in our memory for a society that went awry in its devaluing of certain human beings. Certainly this was the case with regard to its treatment of Jews. The mass graves in places like Lithuania reveal villages that turned on nearly half their population because they were Jewish. Such atrocities were an affront to collective humanity.

We are just as fallen as them. We are just as capable of such atrocities as them. We can rationalize evil just as easily as they did. All have sinned. There is none righteous, no not one. We are fooling ourselves if we think we could never become what they became.

There were also the experiments in the camp. They treated the weak or physically challenged as less valuable. "Defects" in a person were seen as devaluing of their worth, making it permissible to treat them with disdain, contempt, violence, and death. Such treatment of fellow human beings is an affront to God and a sin against humanity.

Fallen human nature finds ways to justify dehumanization. "They don't deserve to be treated with respect because..." This is what the abuser does -- you made me abuse you because you were unworthy. 

But the command of God is to love our enemies, as hard as this is (Matt. 5:44). It goes against every bone in our bodies. We want to think it weak. Milquetoast. Feminine.

Then God is weak. Except he isn't. This is the command of God, and those who violate this principle are enemies of God. And the society that endorses the dehumanization of others is an inferior country. And God will have his Day of strength.

_______________________________
Epistemology
1.1 1.1 We can be epistemologically certain of almost nothing.
1.2 The world outside me exists.
1.3 I exist.
1.4 Logic and math seem absolutely reliable.
1.5 Assumptions are inevitable in reasoning.
1.6 Reasoning is inevitable in thinking.
1.7 Our senses give us the "dots" of reality, but our minds draw the pictures.
1.8 Our sense of the "dots" of reality is tremendously skewed.
1.10 A critical realism is an optimal epistemology.
1.11 Paradigms are constantly shifting over time.
1.10 Perception is a reality.
1.11 Our situation requires extreme epistemological pragmatism.
1.12 The scientific method is extremely useful.
1.13 The scientific method has clear limits.
1.14 The meaning of words and symbols is a function of how they are used.
1.15 The meaning of actions and events is constructed.
1.15 Texts by their very nature are polyvalent and "autonomous."
1.16 The Bible is an object of knowledge. 

Philosophy of Religion
2.1 Belief in a Creator is reasonable but not provable.

Philosophy of Personhood
3.1 A human is a biological machine.
3.2 A human is potentially self-conscious in a way no other animal is.
3.3 Humans may have a "spiritual" dimension.
3.4 All human life is "intrinsically" valuable.
3.5 When human personhood begins in part is a social construct.

Ethics
4.1 Good is an adjective, not a noun.
4.2 Good is good because God says so.
4.3 God says that love is good.
4.4 Justice is a function of love.

Social, Political, and Economic Philosophy
5.1 Anarchy and communism are unworkable forms of governance.
5.2 Monarchies and theocracies are unreliable. 
5.3 There are two core principles of governance. 
5.4 Checks and balances are crucial in an ideal government.

Pensée 5.4: Checks and balances are crucial in an ideal government.

Previous posts and prospective posts in this series are linked at the bottom.
__________________________
1. In the lead up to the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and a man named John Jay penned the Federalist Papers. The collection is important to get a sense of the thinking that stood behind the Constitution as it stands. 

A key principle in those papers is the separation of powers among the branches of government. Madison put it this way: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." However, since neither of these are the case, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” [1]

Madison rightly understood human nature. Left without any boundaries, we will plow down others who stand in the way of our selfish ambition. If lying, stealing, killing will advance our own greed or thirst for pleasure, humans will do these things unless some significant boundary stands in the way.

Lord Acton put it this way: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." By "great men," he means those who have the drive, the resources, the intellect, the skill, and the ability to sway the public such that they can gain power. But this drive can easily lead them to overrun, oppress, and eliminate those who stand in their way. History is the story of these men.

2. Madison and others were essentially drawing on the thinking of Montesquieu. As early as 1748 he had written, "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty… Again, there is no liberty if the judicial power be not separated from the legislative and executive." [3]

This "separation of powers" aims to create checks and balances between the ambitions of differing individuals such that a greater good can emerge that is to everyone's advantage. The executive branch is meant to capture the efficiencies of a monarchy and efficient decision making. The legislative branch brings the collective wisdom of the nation to bear in the creation of laws. This brings in the benefits of an aristocracy.

In modern times, a Congress or Parliament is elected by the people, thus bringing in the advantages of a democracy. If one of the core functions of government is to protect the rights of the individual and aim for the greater good, then a system where the people elects its representatives is optimal because they would ideally vote in their best interests.

Finally, the judicial branch of government is meant to protect the principles of the Constitution. If the Constitution is set up properly, it will encase in fundamental law the rights of the individual as well as checks and balances against any one branch of government.

3. The United States system was the first full scale attempt to fully put Montesquieu's insights into practice in a government. Since then, parliamentary systems have played out these principles in slightly different ways. The executive is chosen from within the legislative branch, and he or she can be removed much more easily. Such leaders do not have a fixed term but can be removed at any time by a vote of no confidence.

Perhaps the biggest advantage of parliamentary systems is that the legislative branch usually requires a coalition of several parties. In the United States, the two party system regularly results in leaders that are no one's first choice. Smaller parties tend to work against the general will by dividing the majority sentiment and allowing a less desired candidate to win.

The Electoral College is an artifact of a time in US history when the will of the people was not trusted and a desire for the elite to be able to pre-empt them was kept in place. In recent decades, however, it has effectively undermined the will of the majority with increasing frequency. In one possible future, one might anticipate a constitutional amendment removing it in the next decade.

4. At present, the ideal checks and balances of the US system are dysfunctional, and it is unclear what the long term result will be. One of the first actions of the current administration was to dismantle internal watch dog elements of government -- checks on its ethics. Inspectors General were dismissed. The long-standing tradition since Watergate of the Department of Justice operating independently of the President has seemingly been abandoned. [4] 

The legislative and judicial branches have largely become rubber stamps of executive will. The legislative branch does nothing when its budgets are (illegally) not distributed as passed. Congress passes legislation it knows goes against the will of the people it represents for fear of primary challenges. The Supreme Court reverses decade and century long precedent and largely enables what many would argue is executive overreach. 

If the system holds, these things will no doubt be righted. However, it is a legitimate question as to whether the system will hold. It is at least possible that the US is in transition to another form of government. We will see.

Meanwhile, the Constitution seems now regularly violated. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the military against the civilian population. This is now happening at an increasing rate. Rights relating to arrest warrants, habeas corpus, and probable cause are now regularly being violated. An unsupervised and unregulated military force under the control of the executive branch has been given unprecedented funding by Congress. This should be quite alarming.

Ultimately, all of these things can take place because a sizeable enough portion of the American people knowingly or unknowingly supports them -- or at least are willing to look the other way. Similarly, these blocks of support are distributed in ways that facilitate the isolation of opposition.

A rule or law is only as powerful as the ability to enforce it. Similarly, "might makes right" in a fallen world. We can say that God will dispense justice in the afterlife or coming kingdom. But in the meantime, those who have the power to do what they want will do what they want.

[1] Federalist Paper #51.

[2] In a letter to Mandell Creighton in 1887.

[3] The Spirit of the Laws.

[4] Claims that this is no different from previous administrations do not seem to hold up to scrutiny. 
__________________________

1.1 We can be epistemologically certain of almost nothing.
1.2 The world outside me exists.
1.3 I exist.
1.4 Logic and math seem absolutely reliable.
1.5 Our situation requires some pragmatism.
1.6 Kant's distinction is useful.
1.7 The scientific method is useful.
1.8 The scientific method has clear limits.
1.9 Assumptions are inevitable in reasoning.
1.10 Reasoning is inevitable in thinking.
1.11 Faith can be reasonable and unreasonable.

2.1 Belief in a creator seems reasonable.

5.1 Anarchy and communism are unworkable forms of governance.
5.2 Monarchies and theocracies are unreliable. 
5.3 There are two core principles of governance.

Pensée 5.3: There are two core principles of governance.

Thus far, I have suggested that anarchy and communism are unworkable social forms. Similarly, I have argued that monarchies and supposed theocracies are unreliable. What then are the optimal forms of governance? Before we get there, let's lay down the guide rules.

1. There are two core goals of governance. The primary one is to protect the "rights" of each individual. (I use the word rights loosely because we do not as yet have a basis for assigning them.) We need certain "guidelines" in place for us to live among each other in peace.

The second core goal of governance is to facilitate the greatest good for the greatest number. This is of course utilitarianism. Utilitarianism alone will not lead to maximal thriving, but it is a huge first step. 

For example, it might lead to a greater total happiness to eliminate a particular group of people who are strongly disliked by the majority. But that course of action is disallowed by the guidelines. (In the United States, those guidelines are chiefly found in the Bill of Rights.)

When we put these two principles together as a framework, we have a strong foundation for a society that has the potential to thrive maximally and approach some kind of maximal happiness (eudaimonia) in terms of its structures.  

2. How can we support these two core principles? It is difficult in the absence of some grounding assumptions. For example, as a Christian, I can invoke the theological claim that all humans are created in the image of God and are thus intrinsically valuable. Every human being -- no matter how vile -- has a fundamental dignity that must be maintained even in judgment. "Rights" are thus "endowed by their Creator," as the Declaration of Independence states.

So, from a Christian standpoint, the fundamental value of each human being is something to protect. And if the fundamental ethic is to love one another, then a society that maximizes good for everyone is simply the love principle played out on a societal level.

Is there a grounding principle that might be used in the absence of religious assumptions? Probably the most likely one is the notion of a social contract. A group of people come to an agreement on the basis of mutual advantage. In terms of "rights," I recognize that it is to my advantage to agree not to kill you if you will agree not to kill me. In some specific situation, it might be to your advantage to eliminate me. But before that situation can arise, we both agree not to kill each other.

We thus grant each other rights. They are assigned for our mutual advantage. Then this mutual advantage is extrapolated to the whole system on a societal level.

Certainly, we'll need some way to guarantee this agreement. We create a police force of some sort to make sure we both keep the rules. We create consequences for violation of the contract.

On a societal level, I stand a better chance of thriving if the rules are set up to maximize the thriving of the whole society. True, there will always be those who have a particular set of skills and circumstances that would allow them to succeed on the backs of others. But since I do not know if I will be one of those individuals, I commit to rules that aim at the thriving of as many as possible and rules that keep the conniving from exploiting others.

When I am healthy, when I am prospering, it is easy for me to vote against resources being used for those who are not. But I do not know when I will get sick. I do not know when the tide may turn against me in some way. So, I commit to rules that have a safety net of some kind for those who, for whatever reason, fall off the majority path. It could happen to me.

3. Let me note that selfish human nature will constantly balk at this system. The ideal system aims at the greatest good for the greatest number. But we are wired to seek the greatest pleasure for me (egoism). In any one situation, it may be to my personal advantage to break the rules of society in general.

That is why we have rules enforced by a justice system -- to keep you (and me) from breaking the rules such that the rest of us are harmed.

Humanity is also a herd animal. When we are not trying to break the rules to our individual advantage, we will try to skew the rules to advantage our group, whatever it might be. Again, that is why we have a justice system, to keep individuals and groups from breaking the rules.

4. The rules are kept in two places. First, there is the Constitution. This is the core set of principles that lay down the social contract. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution sets out our social contract in its simplest terms:

We the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

What follows thereafter is a framework that was intended to accomplish the ideals of the American founding. Key to the passage of the Constitution was a Bill of Rights, without which it would not have been ratified.

If the full embodiment of the two core values was not fully in place with the initial version of the Constitution, it would be worked out in the years that followed. In particular, the Civil War resulted in some core modifications to the vision of America. This more complete version was less skewed toward the privileged but was "of the people, by the people, for the people," as Lincoln put it. 

A great society is not one in which a select few prosper but one in which as many people as possible prosper. Building on the core principles, it is better for a large number of people to prosper to some degree than for a small number to prosper fantastically. But it is not a zero sum game. One person's prosperity does not automatically imply that someone else is not prospering. We can all prosper together. More on this concept when we get to economic philosophy.

The details of the Constitution have long been a work in progress. "Strict constructionists" often portray themselves as noble and slander others as "legislating from the bench." However, historically, this has usually been a struggle between judges who are trying to play out the fundamental principles of the social contract versus those who want to restrict the rights of some group against its spirit. 

In other words, strict constructionism is almost always used in order to constrain some group from its potentially assigned "rights" under the social contract. Historically, we are speaking of slaves, freed blacks, women, gay individuals, etc. The letter of the law has often allowed the majority to restrict such individuals from full participation in society. More often than not, those who are called "judicial activists," have actually been trying to extend the fundamental rights of the Constitution in a more thoroughgoing way. Certainly, we can debate the details.

5. If the Constitution sets the large guidelines for the social contract, the varied laws of the land are meant to play out that contract into the local and daily lives of its participants, which is everyone who lives here. As John Locke put it, if you stay here, you are giving "tacit consent" to the laws of the land.

I personally think that maximal happiness generally correlates to maximum freedom, as long as my freedom does not unreasonably impinge on your freedoms and "rights." As Jefferson put it, "That government governs best that governs least." However, the modern world is a complex place, and there are very different people and countless factors here. What that means is that government will inevitably be large and complex. 

Nevertheless, the goal of maximal libertarian freedom remains. 

Pensée 5.2: Monarchies and theocracies aren't reliable.

1. Plato (ca. 428-347) believed that the ideal government was rule under a king. For Plato, this should be a "philosopher king," someone who ruled according to wisdom and virtue. [1] For him, these individuals in theory could be men or women. The key was that their minds were able to contemplate the "forms" behind all the reality we see. Of course, when he tried to put his ideas into practice by mentoring the king's son in Syracuse, he utterly failed. When the heir became king, he did whatever he wanted. 

It's good to be the king.

Aristotle also thought that a benevolent monarchy might be the best form of government in theory. A king has the authority to get done what needs to be done. There is an efficiency to that much power. People generally do what you tell them to when you're the king. If a king is wise and good, a monarchy would be the ideal. [2]

The problem is that you can't count on a king being wise or good. Accordingly, from a practical perspective, Aristotle thought the best form of government would more likely be a "polity," a mixture of ordinary people and the wealthy ruling under a Constitution. Aristotle also had an opportunity to mentor a future king. His student, Alexander the Great, turned out much better than Plato's.

2. As I said in the previous pensée, few of us get to choose what sort of a government we have. Nevertheless, Aristotle captures the situation well. In theory, a benevolent monarchy under the rule of a wise and good king (or queen) might be ideal. [3] But you can't count on a king being either wise or good. 

More often than not, the role of a king is passed down from parent to child. History is full of bloodshed in the moment between rulers. If there is more than one child, they may vie for the throne -- despite rules that have been set up. Any moment of weakness tends to be seized by the most powerful forces that see their chance to step in and take over the throne.

Even if the transition is peaceful, the one who takes over the throne may not be as virtuous as their parent. They may not be as intelligent or gifted as their parent. And you are stuck with them for life.

The Bible is full of examples of these dynamics. After Solomon, Israel has two kingdoms, a northern kingdom and a southern one. The northern kingdom is the story of one bad king after another with repeated coups and overthrows of the sitting dynasty. Similarly, from the perspective of 1 and 2 Kings, few of the kings in the South are truly virtuous, although the Davidic dynasty at least manages to stay intact.

The bottom line is that while the idea of a monarchy has some strong aspects to commend it, in practice it is unreliable over the long haul. And the fact that a kingship is for life means you may be stuck with a buffoon or tyrant for decades. For this reason, less power invested in an executive is advisable, with clear checks and balances on a leader's power.

3. A theocracy aims to be direct rule by a god. When Moses and Joshua led Israel, that in theory was a period of theocracy. God met Moses regularly at the Tent of Meeting and gave him instruction, and Moses consistently obeyed. Similarly, we see Joshua consistently leading Israel in the conquest in obedience to God.

However, that's it. The period of the judges is hardly a period when Israel did what was right. Quite to the contrary, the period is described as a time when everyone did what was right in their own eyes (Judg. 21:25). Most Old Testament scholars similarly would suggest that even the portrayal of theocratic rule in the Pentateuch and Joshua is somewhat idealized.

In general, the problem with a theocracy is that the will of the god has to be moderated and interpreted by someone. In reality, a theocracy ends up being less the rule of a god as the rule of a country by priests or a single prophetic figure. It is a monarchy in disguise or an aristocracy in disguise, where an aristocracy is allegedly rule by the "best."

Take Iran, whose highest authority is the Supreme Leader. Although there is an elected president as well, this most powerful role is held by an Islamic cleric -- a religious leader. In theory, this Ayatollah runs the country as Allah wants it to be run. But in reality, who is running the show? It is the Ayatollah, the one who tells the people what Allah thinks. In many ways, this gives him far more authority than a king, because he allegedly is representing god.

4. When John Calvin (1509-1564) ran Geneva or the Puritans ran the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1600s, those leaders certainly thought they were running the city or state the way that God wanted it to be run. But in the end, it was their interpretation of the Bible. Such "theocracies" typically turn out to be oppressive to someone with a different interpretation.

This is the great blind spot of so much Protestantism. The Bible has to be interpreted. Therefore, a theocracy will never fully be rule by God. It will inevitably be rule by the one who gets to interpret the Bible for everyone else.

As I write this pensée, a particular segment of evangelical Christianity has unprecedented influence in the United States. No doubt the greatest of these influencers think they are simply trying to make America's laws and practices mirror the Bible. What many don't realize is that it is their interpretation of the Bible that they are trying to impose on the nation. And few if any of them are actually legitimate experts on the Bible. It seems quite likely that they will bring a similar oppression that has almost always accompanied attempts to impose a particular religious understanding on a people (think sharia law in Muslim countries).

Theocracies are thus smoke and mirror monarchies and oligarchies. They are unreliable forms of government because their true basis isn't even what they claim it is.

[1] Plato, Republic 472a-474b.

[2] Aristotle, Politics 1279a–1288b.

[3] Aristotle did not think a woman could be a wise and good ruler. He thought women were "uncooked men," in effect. Unfortunately, his ideas on the structures of the household were in the cultural water, resulting in the social structures that the household codes of the New Testament try to redeem (e.g., compare Ephesians 5:21-6:9 with Aristotle, Politics 1253b–1255b. 

Pensée 5.1 Anarchy and communism are unworkable as forms of governance.

Thursday is usually my philosophy day, so here is a pensée from a little further down the line. Here was the first.
_______________________
1 The first question I want to address in the area of social and political philosophy has to do with the ideal form of government. What is it? Most of us do not have much say in the form of government under which we live. Perhaps we could migrate from one place to another. Occasionally, someone lives during a time of revolution and can either participate or resist. But almost none of us will be a Benjamin Franklin or an Oliver Cromwell or a Fidel Castro.

As a sidenote, I believe the United States is currently in a somewhat precarious position, and I have written as much in The United States versus Whatever This Is. There are forces that want to change the U.S. Constitution to make it more into their vision of a Christian nation. This is misguided for several reasons, not least a fundamental lack of biblical depth. But I will hold off my thoughts on theocracies until the next pensée.

In this pensée, I wish rather to address two forms of "government" that I strongly do not recommend and consider to be highly impractical. These are anarchy (rule by no one) and communism, which alleges that all property might be shared in common by a community with no one actually owning anything.

2. There were voices in the 1700s that thought a human in a primitive state would be pure. Thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) believed that society was often a corrupting influence on the good in humanity. [1] The purest human would be something like a "noble savage" that was not entangled by politics or social entanglements. Tarzan, if you would.

He was wrong. Human nature is human nature. A solitary human is a far more vulnerable human. A solitary human is unable to thrive as much as in a positive community. 

This is true, by the way, on a national scale. A country that tries to go it alone is a vulnerable country. I think of the villages along the coasts of the North Sea that were delighted to go about their own business until the Vikings came and took their stuff and burned their villages. Think of the way the English treated the Scots, who just wanted to be left alone. Even today, peaceful countries like Finland and Norway are in danger from agression from Russia and need allies.

As the African proverb goes, "If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together."

3. Not dissimilar to anarchy is the naive view of freedom that sometimes manifests itself in democratic countries like the United States. "It's a free country," someone might say. 

The problem of course is that no freedom is absolute, without exception. When freedoms come into conflict, they cannot equally be expressed. I am not free to kill you, for example. I am not free to steal your things. I have freedom of religion, but not if my religion involves child sacrifice. I have freedom of speech, but there is a line where my speech might directly lead someone to kill you. It is a very hard line to identify, but it exists and I am not free to cross it. I have the right to bear arms, but presumably not if I am a convicted serial killer.

It is quite amazing to me that some Americans seem quite irrational about such things. I am free as long as my freedoms do not substantially interfere with the freedoms of others. Anarchy is impractical because it allows my freedoms to harm you, which does not lead to a thriving society.

4. Of course, this naive view of freedom also is unbiblical. As Paul says, "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity to gratify the flesh" (Gal. 5:13). I am free to serve the Lord. I am free to love others, the verse goes on to say. 

The Corinthians were a good example of the naive view of freedom some Christians have. Paul tells them that everything may be lawful for them, but not everything is beneficial (1 Cor. 10:23). They boast in their freedom -- "I have knowledge" (1 Cor. 8:1). They think that because they know there are no other gods, they should be free to eat at pagan temples. "Nobody's home."

Paul corrects them. It's not about their rights, freedoms, and knowledge. It's about looking out for others. It's no coincidence that the love chapter is sandwiched in this sequence. Following Christ is not about me, me, me. It's about loving God and others.

5. Let me use the lock downs during COVID as an example. I recognize that there are those who question the effectiveness of quarantining and vaccines. Most experts continue to maintain that these were best practices and that, indeed, the slowness of the Trump administration to quarantine made the epidemic worse than it would have been. Those claims can of course be debated. For the sake of argument, however, let us assume that these protocols were legitimate.

If in fact they were legitimate, then arguments that the government was oppressing Christians or violating the freedom of religion are clearly misguided. Assuming legitimacy, the government was protecting the populace as its job is and those churches that insisted on meeting potentially were harming others -- even if unintentionally. 

Our freedom of religion does not allow us to harm others. And of course, churches were allowed to meet online -- there was no singling out of churches for oppression. Such claims seem to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of freedom in America. At worst, they strike one as rather selfish. Me, me, me. My rights and everyone else be damned.

I am not free to harm others.

6. Let me here assert two key axioms of the ideal society. First, it is a place that aims to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number possible. This is the utilitarian principle. Second, it aims to do so without violating the core rights of every individual. This is the principle behind the Bill of Rights and is technically called "universal ethical egoism." We set up a system that brings about the greatest good for everyone as much as possible. Within this framework, we aim for maximal human freedom.

More on these principles in a later pensée.

7. A second impractical way of structuring society is communistically. Communism is the notion that a society would not have private property but all property would be shared in common. Under the vision of Karl Marx, each person would work according to his or her ability but would receive back only in accordance with his or her need. [2] Marx naively imagined that all this would happen rather automatically if we could get private property out of the way.

We can imagine a situation where one person is sickly and is able to work very little. However, they require great resources. Someone else is extremely able bodied and is able to work incredibly effectively. However, they may need very little. Marx would say, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Although it is no doubt accentuated by our culture, it feels like there is something unfair, perhaps unjust about this set up. The workers in the Parable of the Day Laborers feel it in Matthew 20:1-16. It seems unfair that those who worked one hour should be paid the same as those who worked all day. (Note of course that Jesus is on the "wrong" side of this one.)

8. In the end, communism doesn't work because of human nature. On the one hand, I will argue that society should take care of the person who cannot take care of him or herself. A great society would.

But a society that does not reward work and effort is not a society that thrives. We are made to strive. We are made to try to excel. From a biblical perspective, we were made to "subdue the earth," not in terms of trashing it but in terms of striving to become the best we can be.

The twentieth century attempts to create a thriving society through communism were all failures. They never even achieved a communist society but were able to get no further than a kind of authoritarian socialism. They ended up debasing humanity rather than elevating it. Eastern Europe was a failure. The Soviet Union was a failure. Cuba and North Korea have been failures when it comes to elevating everyone.

We will have time later to talk about economic philosophy. For the moment, let us simply note that true communal experiments have not lasted for long. The Shakers, Oneida, New York did not last. Usually, the most assertive voices simply run the show unofficially. The Metropolitan Church Association tried to live communally in Chicago and then Waukesha, Wisconsin. But in its latter days, it could only survive off the bequests of individuals joining the community. Eventually it had to close.

Neither anarchy nor communism are effective ways to structure society.

[1] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men (1755).

[2] Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (1848).

Pensée 1: We can be epistemologically certain of almost nothing.

Descartes did the thought experiment for us. Almost everything we claim to be true can be doubted. 

1. Certainly anything having to do with my senses. We may say, "Seeing is believing." Sure. But that only means we find it most convincing. Our senses can be fooled. We could be dreaming. We could be in a matrix, a holodeck, or a computer simulation.

Is it likely? Probably not. I'm going to assume not -- reasonable people do. 

But I can't prove it. In fact, I can't disprove the claim that God created the world ten seconds ago with all our memories intact and the universe having apparent age. 

Do I think so? No. But I can't disprove it. And neither can you.

2. What about the things of my mind? Certainly my reasoning can be faulty without me realizing it. The human brain overwrites old memories, making even my memories of the past fallible. Drugs will do the trick to mutate my thoughts. So many, many people are mentally unstable. Maybe there's a little bit of insanity in all of us.

What about logic? Since I know of no instances of it ever being wrong, let's say it is reasonable to assume it is certain and reliable. Of course, we don't always have the right premises or follow valid logic. But if the premises are true and the logic is valid, then the proper inference must follow.

Let's throw a good deal of mathematics in here. It would seem to be certain beyond reasonable doubt. If done properly, most math seems reliable without exception.

3. What about the existence of God or God's dependability? Absolutely certain?

Faith comes in here, so the epistemological answer is no. Faith by its very nature implies epistemological uncertainty. This is as far as you and I am concerned. God no doubt has no doubts about his own existence.

I have extreme confidence that a vast number of things are ontologically certain. Their existence is quite likely certain. The problem is not with their certainty, but with mine. I believe them by faith, not by certainty on my part.

I am stuck in my head, apparently. I am finite. I am extremely convinced that I see only the smallest infinitesimal of reality. Further, the way my mind puts together the pieces of the small portion I see is often riddled with fallacy. 

Yes, likely countless things are certain. But very few things are certain to me, whether I am convinced or not. They require some degree of faith on my part -- some more, some less. God may wield the ontological argument for his own existence with perfection. Epistemologically, it is a matter of faith -- and thus uncertainty -- for me and you.

4. "I think; therefore, I am." cogito ergo sum. Descartes came close, but failed because he assumed that the "I" exists, which is a matter of faith. The proper formation is cogito ergo esse. "I think; therefore, something exists."

Everything else requires faith on some level. Logic requires very little faith, for it never seems to fail. The fundamentals of math are apparently related and never seem to fail. The notion of cause and effect seems consistently reliable, although scientists continue to seek the most useful ways to express it. The idea of space and time is incredibly useful, although our perceptions of it turn out to be rather complicated.

Suffice it to say, almost everything we believe, we believe on the basis of faith to some degree or another. Things of which we are incredibly sure, are usually still ultimately a matter of faith. Much of which we are certain is also incorrect, although we usually do not know it.

God knows all the data. God knows all the data in its proper relation to all the other data. God knows it all certainly, for God either created it or its possibility.

But for us, these are matters of faith. 

References: René Descartes, Discourse on Method (1637), Meditations on First Philosophy (1641)

Pensees I may write later (these are mostly in a section, "A Basis for Knowledge")
2. The world outside me exists.
3. I exist.
4. Logic and math seem absolutely reliable.
5. Our situation requires some pragmatism.
6. Kant's distinction is useful.
7. The scientific method is useful.
8. The scientific method has clear limits.
9. Assumptions are inevitable in reasoning.
10. Reasoning is inevitable in thinking.
11. Faith can be reasonable and unreasonable.

12. Belief in a Creator seems reasonable.