The Creation Museum in Kentucky

On my recent road trip around the USA I visited the Creation Musuem and here are my thoughts.

Firstly it is technically impressive. The animatronic exhibits are excellent and the feel of the entire place is one of quality; they’ve clearly spent a lot of money on the place. They also have many audio visual exhibits which cuts down on the amount of reading required; I really dislike museums that have walls and walls of text to read. The videos they play are normally rather short so you are constantly moving rather than stuck watching a video for half an hour. As an aside the more explicitly sciencey short videos were the most interesting item there. They also had some lovely gardens and a zoo but we didn’t see much of them due to time constraints.

The aim, as I understood it, was to show that everyone looks at the world with a particular lense which is non-neutral- the examples used were atheism and Christian theism- but with a greater emphasis on the Biblical narrative making sense of the universe particularly 6 Day Creation, Fall, the Flood, Babel and finally Christ. Consequently the amount of science content was proportional low; most of it was focused around geology which was quite informative.

It did not though succeed even on its own terms: the worldview analysis was rather shallow and misleading at times- it was hardly assumption quaking; the Biblical narrative exposition was good although it felt as it was focused towards Christians rather convincing others of it i.e. far too little of actual creation evolution debate (and anthropology). It took me a while to figure out the purpose of the museum.

If you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist of any stripe it doesn’t provide enough science to get your teeth into. If you are a non-Christian it won’t convince you of the Biblical narrative since it doesn’t adequately engage with non-Christian narratives.

All in all, a missed opportunity and an expensive one at that- not cheap especially if you took a family (it’s deliberately kid friendly but there are clearly adult exhibits). So if you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist I’d say go to some botanic gardens and read some books on the subjects.

Libertarianism and the Arts

The arts are one area in which I think libertarians need to engage in more. Firstly we need to appreciate there importance, especially narrative art (stories in any form) which I will be focusing on.

When we look at book sales it is clear that fiction far out sells non-fiction, but why? My contention is that stories are far more akin to real life human experience than non-fiction: they have a real sequential element. All humans exist and act in time and thus a story being a condensed version of human life is far more appealing than non-fiction which in essence is timeless: empirical science, economics, philosophy et al; history would be an exception but a lot of that is done rather impersonally and you really need a pre-existing interest in the period itself to read it. One of the great strengths of narrative is that you can create emotions and realistic characters which you can’t do timelessly. Herein lies the appeal and the power of narrative.

With stories you can create ideals to aspire for and systems to denigrate. This can be powerfully demonstrated by human cost or achievement to a character you already have an emotionally investment. We therefore need a libertarian saga, or meta-narrative, which libertarian novelists and filmmakers can feed from. A saga which shows the world before the state to the descent to it and finally its obliteration, whilst demonstrating the dignity of the individual person and the virtue of liberty. So essentially we need our own version of the Marxist theory of history. Now one of the main obstacles to this raises its ugly head which is due to libertarianism being such a broad church (here a libertarian is defined as one who adheres to the NAP): we all agree on the pre and post statist world but disagree on how the state came into being and how it will collapse. For example I see the state as the ultimate rejection of God since becoming a state is the closest thing to God you can get. Thus it fits in well with my Christian meta-narrative of creation, fall and redemption. Others would see it as the outworking of an authority based life view and that a non-statist world would be rather egalitarian. I do not intend to discuss the validity of these competing views here but to illustrate their existence.

Consequently more work needs to be done on the origin and rise of the state. Even though some sides are unlikely to come to agreement this it will help to articulate more precisely different libertarians sagas. From this framework the evils of statism can be exposed and the virtue of freedom lauded. However it needs to be understood however that stories do not convince people of certain ideologies: they merely sensitise people towards them. To use stories as propaganda is hokey and makes for bad stories. At present statist films sensitise people to the idea that business is sleazy and evil so they want to here logical arguments as to why it is and the state is better (having said that a lot of films essentially are propaganda but we shouldn’t stoop that low). This is why we always get the question: what should the government do? One of the main tasks for the libertarian story teller is to sensitise people to the goodness of liberty. Today most people want a cushy life without responsibility. We need to change that.

So the task for the libertarian story teller is to create stories with real characters, we should not do the opposite of the socialists and make every government official a bogeyman, and compelling plots within a libertarian meta-narrative.

As an addendum can any body recommend any decent libertarian films or literature? I obviously know of Rand but I get the impression her work tends towards propaganda. I’ve read the first of the Sword of Truth series, the Wizard’s First Rule, by the Objectivist Terry Goodkind which was actually very good but I hear the rest of the books get worse. As for my own recommendations I can go no further than recommend the TV series the Prisoner starring Patrick McGoohan. I’m not sure the show is a show case for libertarianism as Chris Tame argued but for a show championing the individual it’s brilliant.

Why isn't the Truth More Mainstream

Following the Why isn't Austrian School of Economics more mainstream? thread it got me thinking why are the most widely held doctrines fly in the face of reality: from economics, to climate change and as far as literary theory the accepted "truth" is as far from itself as east is from west.

The question is why? All of you who have read Hayek may blame the intellectuals which of course are a major factor though isn't fundamental. I believe the two major factors are the formal education system and societal nihilism.

The current formal education system has no compass. Nobody knows what its purpose is. Is it to cultivate virtue? Is it to aid the examined life? We have the deafening sound of silence (I'm going through a Simon and Garfunkel phase). To hear this, just listen to political debates and inane public contributions. All it boils down to is we can do it better than the other party and the public saying the old days never aged. What one means by better is never discussed. Now you may argue that may be what the comprehensive (public for you over the pond) schools are like but in the hallowed cloisters of the university truth seeking is the sole quest. In fact universities are some of the most debauched institutions around. Both in my economics degree and my brother's Theoretical Physics masters the sole aim was to churn you through the mill to receive a piece of paper. And this was at a true red brick university. But why? The unuttered, though sometimes occasionally, ad hoc justification is the Marxian idea that education is to develop men for industry: otherwise known as to get a job.

The state funding of the educational institutions fosters this mentality. The incentive for the schools is to get as many children through their books as possible to learn and regurgitate the state's curriculum since that's what they call the piper’s successful "knowledge economy" tune; in fact it’s one of the few tune’s he can call with such a centralised system and an incredibly qualitative area. Attempting cultivation of the person for the examined life is neither possible nor desirable as it would lead to the State’s delegitimisation; similar problems exist with the universities. Further the free at the point of incarceration nature of schools, parents are encouraged to abandon their natural nurture and care of their children and leave it to the professionals. With children abandoned to the state their minds are rendered indolent; the exception being the children of the ruling class who enrol in elite private academies.

In the more academic environment it encourages scientism of the highest order since nothing else will get that grant money. The state can only be a pragmatic institution otherwise it would have died a death long ago. The success in the 19th/20th advances in the empirical sciences all disciplines attempted to ape this by making their studies "scientific" one because it was fashionable but also since it produces “results” which is the only thing the state deals in. This led to emasculation of the social sciences and the arts. Why fund some one to read when you can do on experiment which produces numbers?! It also harmed the hard sciences as well: not once was the nature or appropriate method discussed in the Theoretical Physics masters. All they were concerned with was throwing maths at everything so they could test it irrespective of whether the maths actually makes any sense in reality.

This is not to say that in a purely private formal educational system that pragmatism would be the name of the game however I think it would be tempered. With the hard sciences research would either be directed towards developing useful technologies which could involve arbitrary reasoning or could follow the Baconian idea that technological advancement comes as an offshoot of pure science. The current statist system and the prevailing scientism conflate the two resulting in today’s system.

The more fundamental reason though is the prevailing societal view is nihilistic. There is no truth, no laws and no God. We came from nothing and are going to nothing (I’m not saying no God implies nihilism but you can see why most nihilists are atheists since if there’s an overarching designer it would mean presence rather than absence) A slightly more nuanced view is that truth could exist but it is unknowable however it makes little practical difference. Consequently society as a whole is underpinned by the intensity over profundity principle (Don’t think I’m so profound as to come up with that- I stole it from this clever chap’s lecture- The Self at the End of the 20th Century Part 3 ) Since there is no telos to discover the only way to feel truly alive is through intense physical experience. Now since the same level of thrill has diminishing returns the incentive is to turn things up to 11.

This can be seen in many elements in modern society. The increase in drug use and self harming are most immediate examples of this phenomenon. A less direct effect but nonetheless evident is the representation of acts of violence and sex in the arts; they are realised to create an intense experience rather than left to the imagination. The area with which I’m most familiar in this regard is film. Take the film The Shawshank Redemption and compare the level of graphic violence with say No Country for Old Men: both were rated 15 in the UK (second only to an 18) yet the latter is light years ahead in the violence stakes. If No Country had have been made when Shawshank had been, 15 years or so ago, it certainly would have received 18 certificate. No Country may be actually making point with the violence and may not be entirely artless but it shows the intensity progression. Maybe the best (sic) example of brainless violence are the so called “torture porn” genre exemplified by the Saw (the 1st could be an exception) and Hostel franchise which are just sadistic because they can- the violence is the entertainment.

Interestingly one of the most nihilistic blockbusters of modern times, the Dark Knight actually eschewed realisation in favour of imagination and was far more affecting for it, although the main reason was probably so they could do the deal with Burger King. For an in depth review of the Dark Knight see here but the main points are man is depraved and “Chance is the only reality in this cruel world. Unprejudiced. Unbiased. Fair.” Two Face.

The increase in graphic nudity and sex for pure titillation value is also pervasive in films. For no logical reason scenes are shot in pole dancing clubs or female “characters” will walk across their bedroom topless. In the Lars von Trier film Antichrist the actors actually have sex on screen to further the realisation process. Further most of life is becoming fetishised, even food- the Marks and Spencer food adverts are more erotic than Channel 5’s straight to video sleazefests. This is unsurprising when sex is viewed purely in materialistic terms and is no different than slugs copulating; since there is only the hormonal kick, why not get it anywhere, anytime?

Now I’m not decrying the use of nudity/sex and violence on screen but just how and why it is used. The sex scene in Nicholas Roag’s Don’t Look Now is graphic but is an incredibly intimate and tasteful scene. Further Shakespeare and the Bible have quite a bit of it in too. Obviously there has always been a tendency to put the intense before the profound: Aristotle said that man is most often closer to the beasts than the spirit. And yes we don’t have Gladiators yet. The point stands however we are certainly heading further into the pit of intensity and the prevailing worldview encourages it.

In conclusion the formal education system isn’t set up to search for the truth but merely in producing compliant AI (Artificial Ignorance); and society thinks only sexy needles “exist”.

Toy Story 3: An Anti-Communist Film (warning spoilers)

(Penned a while ago)

After being stuck in horrendous traffic last night we missed Inception, although will catch it next week, so my wife and I watched Toy Story 3 in 2D (because 3D is overated and more expensive). It is a really great film and possibly even better than the first although I haven't seen it for a while. Funny, poignant and exciting: this is far more than a kid's film.

The premise is that Andy ages to become 17 and will leave for college on Friday, and the question arises what will he do with his old toys- we learn that a lot of his toys have been sold or donated. He decides to take Woody with him to college and to put the rest in the attic. His mum mistakes them for the rubbish and puts them outside. Thinking they were to be thrown away they jump into Andy's mum's car to be donated to Sunnyside day care centre along with some of Molly's toys. And then the story really begins.

At Sunnyside we learn that after an initial glorious preview that it is run by a tyrannical bear called Lotso who assigns the room with the older, gentler children, to those who have proved their loyalty to him and puts the rest of the toys with the toddlers who abuse the toys. Of particular note he attempts to break up Andy's family of toys to re-allign their allegience to him. Further he utters the line, no owners means no heart break. His paradise is seemingly a psudeo communist one at day care where the children come and go but the toys remains forever, albeit under his control.

This is contrasted with a new family of toys owned by a girl from the day centre (I can't remember her name) who have a wonderful life in her bedroom where they are loved and cared for by her owner. To reinforce this point at the end Andy decides, with a little help from Woody, to donate them not to daycare but to the girl.

So it seems clear that one of the main points is that ownership is better than non-ownership; the toddlers display the tragedy of the commons. Further that ownership is related to being a family which is seen as natural rather than the imposed communist regime. Also if you see the child toy owners as God you could view the film in a sort of feudalist film as whenever the toys deviate from God's appointed king Woody's orders they stray from their masters will and are thus not where they will flourish. Now since there are many child owners it's a sort of polytheistic feudalism.

There are a few points that could be made against this reading. The first arises from the original in which Sid could be seen as a devil vs god (Andy) and as such not all child owners are benevolent. Having said that it could just be an attack on the abuse of power. Secondly and more pertinently, Barbie, in the latest film, spouts that power only derives from the consent of the governed. Now it supposed to be an amusing line but it's backed up later when the Aliens from Pizza Planet eventually control the claw at the end and become co-equals; throughout they reverence the claw- "the claw is our master, he decides who will go and who will stay". And finally in the credits we see Sunnyside as a paradise run by Barbie and Ken showing that if you get the right leader daycare can be really great.

However the main thrust of the film is that ownership is superior to none ownership even if neo-fedualist elements are balanced out by democratic arguments.