Liberal, Pro-Choice Amy Sullivan Explains Mourdock

By -
This is a very good piece.

But I heard Sullivan on the radio this morning and she said something curious. (It was the radio, so I quote from memory, but I think I have the essence of her remarks correct.) After explaining Mourdock's theodicy and theology, she said, "Now I think this theology is wrong. But I understand why some people hold it. I don't even think they shouldn't hold it."

Does that last sentence strike you as odd? It looks to me like our modern penchant for tolerance got the best of her there. It's one thing to not condemn someone for believing a bad idea, to still be friends with the person, to not want them vilified... but if we think an idea is bad, doesn't that imply we should think it would be best if people dropped it and moved towards the truth? If you think the square root of 17 is surely less than 4, I won't hate you, or persecute you, and we can still be friends, but I still think it would be better if you stopped believing that. Perhaps Sullivan holds Mourdock's theology is a sort of noble lie?

Comments

  1. Daniel12:38 PM

    "Noble lie" has an elitist tinge to it.

    "Useful fiction" may be better. But then again, pretty much everything we believe is useful fiction. I think in this case the utility is strained, but I guess Sullivan might think it's still there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:05 PM

      "But then again, pretty much everything we believe is useful fiction."

      Well, if it is a useful fiction to you to think that is true, who am I to interfere?

      Delete
  2. Ken B12:48 PM

    It is a bit odd but maybe she means she doesn't see a moral bar to holding it. Especially if you see it as largely an unfalsifiable trigger to responses rather than a logical proposition to be debated. Like "I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the kind of judgement this engenders." Like "Ken is quick to laugh at ... and I'm not saying he shouldn't be."

    ReplyDelete
  3. PH3:17 PM

    "If you think the square root of 17 is surely less than 4..."

    Psst... -4.12 is a square root of 17.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gabe Ruth10:24 PM

    I think she means that she believes the theology as a whole is wrong, but if someone holds it they should reject the exception for rape and incest, if they believe life begins at conception.

    If she thought noble lies were something that should continue to hold sway she'd be a little quieter about them.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more