Stop the Nazi Comparisons

Comparing by The Department

Mike Godwin, perhaps in despair of the reductive reasoning becoming so common in the Internet's newsgroup arguments, coined "Godwin's Law," which reads:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

The Nazi comparison was evoked, usually in heated debate, on almost any subject, but especially in political discussions. It may be less so now, but only because Godwin's Law has been a successful counter-argument.

The Nazi comparison is the doomsday device in a debate. It is powerful and immediate. It is the apex of human horror. It is meant to swiftly and completely annihilate an opponent's arguments and rebuttals.

I thought about this last night while listening to NPR's Fresh Air. The September 4, 2007 show had two guests discussing with show host Terry Gross the influence the Israel lobby has on the American government. First, author Steven Walt asserted some of the arguments of his new book, The Israel Lobby, which is basically that a loose confederation of Jewish and non-Jewish groups in this country skews this country's Israel policy toward a particularly right-wing, hawkish view of the Middle East that runs counter to U.S. interests--and even Israel's interests. During the interview, he clearly denounced antisemitism and stressed a distinction between the broad range of views held by Jewish people, both here and abroad, and the narrow focus of the Israel lobby.

Walt was followed by Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham Foxman who did everything he could to muddy the debate, including, yes, invoking the Nazis. He also tried to conflate the Israel Lobby with all Jewish people everywhere.

Even though it wasn't a head-to-head debate, Walt was a lot more convincing than Foxman.

Why We Believe in God

Buddha said he wanted to have a word with me by Stuck in Customs

The March 4 New York Times Magazine had an article about the debate among evolutionary biologists regarding why humans believe in God. Religion is so persistent in human history, scientists can't help but see it as a trait that has evolved in us, like opposable thumbs or hairless skin. But because it exists in the mind, the debate resolves around whether religious belief is an adaptation or the perhaps useless side-product of other adaptations.

The adaptationists say that religion helps bind us to other people, where we get advantages of the group--others to look after us when we're sick or with whom we can share resources. Also, being ostensibly religious may help us build our reputation, which would provide access to better mates.

The "useless side product" camp tells us that we are primed to a belief in God by specifically three mind "modules." The first, called "agent detection," makes us able to quickly identify threats, such as a bear in the brush or a car pulling out of a drive way, and engages other mechanisms that will preserve our welfare. Sometimes, though, agent detection makes us perceive things that aren't there--like a better-safe-than-sorry reflex. "Casual reasoning" is our ability to construct narratives, even counterfactual ones, to explain phenomena in our lives. Lastly, "theory of mind" is the ability in humans to recognize--and simulate in their own minds--the thoughts of others. Playing chess and anticipating your opponent's next move is a good example of this ability, as is the act of persuading others. These three traits, they assert, make it natural for us to believe in an omnipotent, disembodied presence; the ultimate predator, the ultimate parent.

Interesting as these arguments are, they bother me because both presuppose that God does not exist. That idea seems as off-balance as the creationist "intelligent design" view of the world.

To me, a "universal belief" is one most likely to be true. There are all sorts of wacky, local beliefs that are easy to dismiss chiefly because they are local.

We can't all agree on God's gender, appearance, origin, special powers, commandments or even whether there's one or many gods, but every collection of people throughout history has believed in a creative force superior to our own.

What really makes it easy for us to believe in God is the constant reinforcement of cause and effect in our life. The tree falls down because the wind blows. The prey dies because our arrow pierces it.

I had a conversation about God with a guy in a bar once. He said something very profound. "If you ask any religious person what the one constant in life is, he'll say 'God.' If you ask any secular person the same question, he'll say 'change.' Now, one person can be stupid, but not vast groups of people. All these people are correct if God is change."

Just those three words, God is change makes a lot of sense to me. It answers many of my questions.

You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)

Mackinac Island (1814) by William Dashwood

My first name is Porter, as was my father's and grandfather's. My great grandfather, though, was named George. As a kid, I used to ask my dad how grandpa got to be named Porter. What I remember of the story is that he was named after a hero in the War of 1812, Porter Hanks, to whom we were somehow related. Also, there was something about him being shot in the chest once, but the bullet lodged in his pocket watch. Hanks later disassembled the watch and had a ring made from it. This lucky ring would somehow, someday come to me.

I was thinking about this today and decided to put "Porter Hanks" into a Google search box. I learned a lot about the man.

Some count Porter Hanks as the first British prisoner of the war. He was a lieutenant in the American army and commander of Fort Mackinac, on Mackinac island in Lake Huron. He was in charge of 60 poorly trained and out-of-shape artillarymen at what was then America's most distant outpost.

News had not yet arrived to him that America had declared war. In the early morning of July 17, 1812, the fort was surprised by an overwhelming force of British soldiers, Canadian fur traders, and Indians. Commander Hanks surrendered without firing a shot.

On August 16, while being court-martialed at a fort in Detroit for cowardice, the British attacked. He was "cut in two" by a canon ball.