Cosmological Argument

I have just read the most powerful defense of the cosmological arguments that I've ever read in John E. Smith's Experience and God. Parts of this book are simply amazing!

The crux of Smith's argument is that if you want an ultimately intelligible worldview, with ultimate explanations, you must allow that (1) the contingent world doesn't contain within itself the ground of its own being, and (2) it requires for this ground a necessary being outside itself.

Smith fully admits that if you don't believe you need a principle of sufficient reason or principle of intelligibility, i.e., if you can do without ultimate explanations, then you need not be persuaded by the force of the cosmological argument.

There is a God. The failure to see this is due to having a clouded mind.

I don't think anyone finds God, or however you might conceive the ultimate divinity of the world, through reason alone. But God touches every life, whether recognized or not. If we seek God, we find God both in our experience and in the use of reason. Having had the experience of God, it makes supreme sense to look for ultimate explanations in the world. And once you allow that there are, or should be, ultimate explanations, there is no denying God.

I am very impressed with John Smith's work. He emphasizes that we begin in a world of tradition and experience. He believes in the power and the necessity of revelation. Given these, however, we seek the intelligibility of our experience. And we find it in a combination of arguments for the existence of God. I think he has it just right.

(In the history of Philosophy, the cosmological argument has been forcefully argued for by, among others, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, and Leibniz.)

The Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner

I just watched the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner, and came away believing that we are pretty well represented, and that whoever wins the nomination would be a decent president.

Positives and negatives as I observed them at this presentation alone:

John Edwards: (Pros) cares about the common man; stands up against big money players (Cons) looks worn down by this campaign; comes across like the polished attorney he is (December 28: I have to say that Edwards is a much more favorable candidate to me now.)

Bill Richardson: (Pros) passionate critic of illegal practices of the Bush Administration; experienced in diplomatic solutions to international problems; (Cons) appearance and presentation skills less than desired; looks hardened, unfriendly

Chris Dodd: (Pros) experienced legislator acting on behalf of the underprivileged; ability to build consensus in legislature (Cons) appearance and presentation skills less than desired; looks hardened, unfriendly

Joe Biden: (Pros) very presidential looking; very experienced on foreign policy; very intelligent; great speaker; ability to build consensus in legislature (Cons) a little too cocky; patronizing, even when he's trying not to be

Hillary Clinton: (Pros) better presentation than I expected; experienced on domestic policy; ready to take on the Republicans; cares about minority rights; cares about suffering Americans; will work for better health care; (Cons) too willing to make political compromises; presentation is sometimes harsh and shrill

Barack Obama: (Pros) gives us hope for a better tomorrow;very presidential looking; very intelligent; outstanding speaker; genuinely cares about average people; working against politics as usual; against Iraq War from beginning; wants to bring troops home quickly; wants to build consensus with Republicans; working against divisive politics; will work for better health care; will work for interests of workers (Cons) inexperienced on national and international scene

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was the mistress of ceremonies for the event. I don't remember her using the words "the next President of the United States of America" except with Obama at the end. I could be wrong. Struck me as an odd sort of endorsement, though if it was, I was welcome it.

Obama strikes me as the man of the hour. He's right for so many reasons. Beyond the list I've made here, it simply fits that he represents a new America that isn't simply 'lily white'. Nonetheless, I am more comfortable with Clinton than I was before. And Biden continues to impress me. Edwards seems like a good man who isn't right for this job. Richardson and Dodd are good public servants whom I can't envision as the type of charismatic leader I'd want.

Senator Clinton is the frontrunner at this point. She's very capable. She's a fighter. As a fighter, she's a bit abrasive. If that's what America wants, I can live with it. If she is what America wants, I can live with it.

Obama will suffer from prejudice. I suspect that he is already suffering from this in the polls. A man at a bus stop recently told me he suspected Obama isn't very bright. Unfortunately many voters aren't very bright. I informed this man that Obama had been President of the Harvard Law Review, and was a Law Professor at the University of Chicago. You don't get to be President of the Harvard Law Review without being one of the brightest minds in our country. But because his skin is black, this prejudice will be hard to overcome. It is a shame. But it is real.

Does Our Vote Count?

I went to lunch with a friend and colleague this week. We discussed, amongst other things, his belief that our vote, in America, is meaningless. His view may best be summed up, I think, as the view that 1 vote, given the number of total ballots cast, will not change an election whether you cast it or not.

That's true, of course, except in an extraordinary election that is either tied or won by just 1 vote. In fact, it's a truism if considered only from this angle. But that's not what a vote is. And it's not what an election is. An election is an expression of the will of the people.

I didn't realize how much of a Kantian I was until I heard my friend argue this case. (Kant argued that one should always act as if by your act you were establishing a general rule of behavior.) But isn't it true that the surest way of ensuring that there will be no democracy in this country is to act as if our votes didn't count, and refrain from voting? I believe that elections have swung in one direction or another by citizens deciding that their vote doesn't count, and staying home from the polls.

We have a duty, as Kant would say, to do what ought to be done, regardless of the circumstances. And what ought to be done is to express your choice on election day, even if you believe, due to the media and polling, that your candidate is going to lose. And you should vote with confidence and celebration if you believe your candidate is going to win. People staying home, in large numbers, can swing the vote one way or another. We as a people elect candidates. We as individuals do not. But we as individuals must encourage our neighbors by example to vote so that we end up with leaders that truly express the will of the people.

The civil rights movement has included the demand that people of all races and of both genders be allowed to vote. If our votes are meaningless, then this aspect of the civil rights movement was meaningless. Tell that to anyone who was ever truly disenfranchised.

That said, whenever two sincere people disagree on anything, there is a truth to be found in both viewpoints. So, what is my friend really getting at? I think it's this: He himself feels that his vote does not count, because his views are out of step with the mainstream. In such a case, I have to admit that one could easily feel that one has a choice between the lesser of two evils, rather than being able to truly express one's will with a vote.

Even so, the choice between the lesser of two evils is precisely our choice when it comes to compromise. And democracies are driven by compromise. To participate in a democratic republic is to help sway the compromise in one direction or another. Sometimes you have to help move people in the direction of your views step-by-step. We all have a role to play in the vote.

Our President, the Torturer?

I haven't had time to post much lately, but when I read that our President is definitely a torturer, I have to take note.

Dan Froomkin wrote in his column today:

"President Bush yesterday asserted that he would never nominate anyone for attorney general who would be willing to state that waterboarding is torture -- so, if the Senate doesn't approve Michael Mukasey, "that would guarantee that America would have no attorney general during this time of war."

If you read on, you see that the President, a man of faith--but what faith I have no idea anymore--is definitely...there's no speculating about this anymore...comfortable with waterboarding. Donna Leinwand, of USA TODAY, wrote of the small press conference the President gave: "He criticized Democrats for making Mukasey's confirmation contingent on his declaring illegal 'waterboarding,' a controversial interrogation technique that simulates drowning. Interrogation methods used by the CIA 'are safe, they are lawful, and they are necessary,' Bush said."

Froomkin's reaction: "There is, of course, no attorney general right now because Bush's last choice spectacularly self-destructed. And many members of Bush's own party are quite comfortable stating that waterboarding is torture. It's not exactly a controversial position, seeing as waterboarding has been an iconic form of torture since the Spanish Inquisition.

"But it's not Bush's style to back down, especially when a key element of his radical and unprecedented expansion of executive power is at stake.

"Instead, Bush has learned that the higher he ratchets up the rhetoric, especially if he can accuse his critics of being weak on terror, the more likely Congressional Democrats are to fold. He's simply counting on that happening again."

There's a link to the full text of Bush's comments in Froomkin's column.

I'm ashamed of our President and everyone who supports him.