Evolving Faith

I missed this op/ed from Garry Wills when it was published last week by the New York Times (reg. req.) The Day the Enlightenment Went Out. Here are a couple chestnuts of wisdom from our good friend Garry:

This election confirms the brilliance of Karl Rove as a political strategist. He calculated that the religious conservatives, if they could be turned out, would be the deciding factor. The success of the plan was registered not only in the presidential results but also in all 11 of the state votes to ban same-sex marriage. Mr. Rove understands what surveys have shown, that many more Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution.

Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?

America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.

Wills is identified at the end of the piece as an adjunct professor of History at Northwestern University. Given the shocking ignorance displayed in the article one might assume that Northwestern is breathing a sigh of relief that Mr. Wills isn't employed full time there. For example, there is no way to parse the phrase "America, the first real democracy in history" and make it true. Many ancient greek city states practised a form of government much closer to democracy than our own. Other nations had representative government before the United States did. Other nations expanded the voting franchise before the US did. The truth of the matter is that the form of government put into effect by the founders was a much more elitest affair than Wills lets on. To participate in it at all you needed to be a propertied male. It seems Wills definition of "democracy" rests somewhere else. Democracy, for Wills, is that regime populated by "Enlightened" individuals. Presumably, in 1800, women and blacks could have been assumed to be "unenlightened" so the "democracy" of the time could safely ignore them. Today Wills sees many more people who are not worthy of "democracy," specifically 75 percent of the electorate. Wills tells us that they don't heed evidence, a pre-requisite from the "Enlightened" individual(and isn't it fortunate that Wills himself is an infallible judge of that evidence!), so an "Enlightened" nation must cast them aside, right?

I'll admit, I have larger problems with Mr. Wills. A couple of days ago I mentioned his screed Papal Sins, a book so lacking in intellectual rigor or honesty I am amazed it was considered publishable. In the book, amongst Wills' myriad of ad hominem attacks, he protests that he himself is a Catholic who is only saying these things to bring about a better church, blah, blah, blah and blah. This leaves me with a single question for Mr. Wills, "Can a person who writes the sentence 'Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?' still be called a Catholic." I know my own answer to that question, and if I were a Catholic priest I certainly wouldn't be giving Mr. Wills communion.

I also wonder how, if the founding fathers really believed as Mr. Wills says they believed, they could have gone to such trouble to specifically protect religion and not science. The only time anything like science is mentioned by the Constitution, in the Patent clauses, it is mentioned as something that serves the people, not the other way around. I'm not certain what kind of brave new world Mr. Wills has in mind for us, but I am certainly glad that our Constitution offers religiously minded Americans protection from him and his kind.