Posted by: N.S. Palmer | November 21, 2015

A Calm Look at Muslim Migration


By N.S. Palmer

A friend in Germany emailed me because he was troubled by two things: First, by the tidal wave of Muslim migration into his country; and second, by some of the hateful reactions it causes from Germans. He asked for my opinion. Here’s what I told him.

Extremists Are A Minority

In every population — Christians, Jews, Muslims, right-wingers, left-wingers, etc. — some people are inclined to fear and aggression. They are always a minority, though the size of the minority depends on the population and its culture.

Most people do not hold strong moral convictions either way, and they just want to get on with their lives. They go along with whatever regime is in power — not because they believe in it, but because they don’t want to get in trouble themselves.

I do not know of any sane person who wants to kill people, Muslims or otherwise, though such people do exist.

Islam: Violent or Not?

Whether Islam is violent or non-violent depends on whom you ask.

Just like Judaism, Christianity, and most other religions, Islam’s tradition is sufficiently complicated and ambiguous that people read their own moral ideas into it.

People who are violent and hateful think that Islam justifies violence and hatred. People who are non-violent and loving see it as a peaceful and benevolent religion. There are plenty of passages in the Qur’an and the Islamic Hadiths1 to justify either viewpoint.

The Jewish and Christian scriptures also contain violent and hateful passages. However, influenced by European political ideals, the rule of law, the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment era, our faiths matured into more humanitarian creeds. Islam, based mostly in backward, barbaric countries, lacked that opportunity.2

It’s also relevant that historically, Arab cultures have used war and fighting almost as a form of entertainment. When not attacking us, they’re attacking each other.

Numbers Matter

Assume for a moment that all Muslims are the most delightful, peace-loving, educated people in the world, without a single criminal, terrorist, or layabout among them.

They are still Muslims, from Muslim countries, with their own histories, attitudes, cultures, and moral expectations. They are not Germans. They are not Americans. They are not Western.

If a few of them immigrate, that’s just fine. If hundreds of thousands or millions immigrate, then by sheer weight of numbers they overwhelm your country and your society — even if they have only the most peaceful intentions, which some of them don’t.

Magic Dirt Is A Myth

Does anyone really believe that transplanting Middle Eastern Muslims into European societies will automatically make them good citizens — neither a burden nor a danger to the locals?

Writer John Derbyshire calls it the “magic dirt theory:” Put Arabs or Africans on European soil and the magic dirt transforms them into Europeans. It’s worse than wishful thinking: It’s enormously harmful and destructive wishful thinking.

Even people who try their best to fit into a new culture know how difficult it is. Hostile migrants who don’t want to assimilate and aren’t required to assimilate will never do it. Instead, they will despise the society that was generous enough to accept them.

Most Migrants Are Not Refugees

And if a country’s government — I’m looking at you, Angela Merkel and Barack Hussein Obama — suicidally offers migrants welfare payments, free housing, and free medical care as soon as they crash the borders and get their feet on the “magic dirt,” then the country will be destroyed by the invasion that inevitably follows.

Germany with a mostly non-German population would not be Germany, any more than America with a mostly non-American population will be America. The main difference between Germany and the United States is that the United States is bigger, so it takes longer for people in power to destroy it by subsidizing immigration from barbaric areas.

Most of the so-called “refugees” are not refugees. Instead, they are either economic migrants or outright invaders bent on destroying what they see as evil non-Islamic societies. Even the Obama administration admits that it interviews prospective Muslim immigrants in Jordan and Turkey, where they are in no danger from the war in Syria.

An obvious question presents itself: Why don’t they stay in Jordan and Turkey? If the U.S. government wants to help them, it can contribute to their support (at American taxpayers’ expense) where they already are.

We don’t need to bring them to America unless Jordan and Turkey simply refuse to take them. In that case, we may justifiably ask, “Why won’t you take them? Is there something we should know?”

Islam Does Sometimes Get Unfair Blame

As any informed person will concede, Islam is not monolithic. There are many peace-loving, enlightened, Westernized Muslims. Some practices for which Islam is criticized, such as female genital mutilation, are part of the societies in which Islam developed and are not dictated by Islam itself.

That said, Republican firebrand Ann Coulter made a good point: Most Muslims aren’t terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims. And you can’t always tell the difference until they kill people.

Large Muslim populations give terrorists a way to infiltrate Western societies and to disappear easily after committing their crimes. It makes sense for Western countries to discourage immigration from Muslim countries. The main responsibility of Western governments is to their own citizens, not to the rest of the world. We should help others if we can, but we have no duty to commit national suicide in the process.

“A country is a like body of men …”

Much of the late 20th and early 21st century has consisted of Western elites rejecting human wisdom that has been proven over millennia in societies around the world.

In the 19th century, British writer Walter Bagehot summarized some of that wisdom:

“A nation means a like body of men, because of that likeness capable of acting together, and because of that likeness inclined to obey similar rules … ‘”3

If you invite vast numbers of unlike people into your country, you are inviting trouble. British poet and social critic Matthew Arnold found the cause in human nature:

“The British Constitution, its checks, and its prime virtues, are for Englishmen. We may extend them to others out of love and kindness; but we find no real divine law written on our hearts constraining us so to extend them.”4

Works Cited

Arnold, M. (2001), Culture and Anarchy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Bagehot, W. (2010), Physics and Politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.


  1. In Islam, hadiths are rulings about Islamic law. The collected hadiths are roughly equivalent in function to the Jewish Talmud. 
  2. In the early Middle Ages (“late antiquity”), some Islamic countries were highly civilized, more so than Europe. Since then, civilization has progressed in Europe and regressed in many Islamic countries. 
  3. Bagehot, W. (2010 ), p. 10. 
  4. Arnold, M. (2001), p. 79. 
Posted by: N.S. Palmer | November 15, 2015

European Refugees in Muslim Countries


By N.S. Palmer

Imagine that a terrible war occurred in Europe or America and some people wanted to escape to a Muslim country as refugees. The conversation would go like this:

Refugee: May I immigrate to your country?

Muslim official: Yes, as long as you’re young, healthy, have skills useful to our economy, have a sponsor, and you’re not Jewish.

Refugee: May I speak my own language?

Muslim official: No, you’ll have to learn Arabic.

Refugee: May I practice my own religion?

Muslim official: No, you’ll have to convert to Islam.

Refugee: What if I don’t want to?

Muslim official: You will be beheaded.

Refugee: What if I become unemployed?

Muslim official: You will be beheaded.

Refugee: What if I criticize the government?

Muslim official: You will be beheaded.

Refugee: What if I want to leave?

Muslim official: You will be beheaded.

Refugee: What if I’m gay? Does that get me beheaded?

Muslim official: Don’t be silly. This isn’t the Dark Ages. You will just go stand in line with other gays on top of a tall building. You might have to wait for a couple of hours, because the executioner has a full schedule this morning.

Refugee: Never mind. I’ll take my chances in the war zone.

Copyright 2015 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL ( are included.

Posted by: N.S. Palmer | October 7, 2015

The Idea of the Gentleman


By N.S. Palmer

The idea of the “gentleman” is out of fashion these days, not least because it seems rather sexist. The idea of the “lady” is also out of fashion, because although it has a lot of good in it, people associate it with female subservience to which it has no essential connection.

But must we discard the good along with the bad?

I submit that both of those ideas, ladies and gentlemen, hold important truths about how we should live.

The late Brand Blanshard, who was Sterling Professor of Philosophy at Yale, considered two things important for someone to be a gentleman. His remarks apply equally to being a lady:

“First there is that ancient pair, chivalry and honor … Chivalry still includes helpfulness to the weak and gallantry to the other sex, but it has come to mean much more; it means that generous fairness to others which is so essential a part of honor.” 1

The second main trait of a gentleman or lady proceeds from the first:

“He is alive to the feelings of others, and tempers his words and actions accordingly. This is reflected in his name: he is known for gentleness as well as honor … Not that the gentleman need lack force; he is notoriously exemplified by such persons as Bayard and Sidney, men whose gentleness flowered on a rock of knightly courage.” 2

A gentleman is masculine but not mindless about it:

“The gentleman himself must be something of a hybrid; he must have in addition to his masculine qualities a dash of the feminine in his nature — of compassion and sensitivity.” 3

The same hybrid nature applies, conversely of course, to ladies.

Here Blanshard reveals something about the era in which he wrote (the 1950s), when Yale did not accept female students and nobody outside of a mental institution had any doubts about gender identity:

“This sort of mixture [of masculine and feminine] is viewed with suspicion in this country. We are faced with the paradox that American men have more respect for women than any other men in the world, while at the same time their fear of effeminacy is so acute that they want to put the greatest possible distance between themselves and any trait that is recognizably feminine.” 4

And then, from what we now think of as a “patriarchal” past era, comes an insight that sounds like a feminist critique:

“Many visitors from abroad have noted this; H.G. Wells described it as the ‘square-jawed’ attitude of American men. It is a hypertrophied masculinity, hesitant to admit or avow any delicacies of feeling because that might compromise the stern and rockbound strength of the male animal.” 5

Blanshard was nevertheless hopeful about a more enlightened future:

“We have in our own youth a remarkable combination of fairness to what is novel with eagerness for the best. Secondly, I share a faith as old as Socrates that in truth and goodness there is a gravitational pull on the human mind … 6

In the ideal of the gentleman or lady:

“… are blended the best features of a long and noble ancestry that is still at work in our blood and our ideas, an ancestry that combines the courage of the Gothic forests, the stern Roman ideal of justice, and the compassion of Judea. Of such a lineage we may well be proud.” 7

Works Cited

Blanshard, B. (1973), The Uses of a Liberal Education. Open Court Publishing, LaSalle, IL.


  1. Blanshard, B. (1973), p. 257. The essay is titled “The Idea of the Gentleman” and is based on a commencement speech that he gave sometime during the 1950s. The exact year is not specified. 
  2. Ibid, p. 261. 
  3. Ibid, p. 262. 
  4. Ibid, p. 262. 
  5. Ibid, p. 262. 
  6. Ibid, p. 265. 
  7. Ibid, p. 265. 
Posted by: N.S. Palmer | September 7, 2015

In Praise of Sloppy Thinking

My new blog post for The Times of Israel:

People of faith get a lot of unfair criticism for sloppy thinking.

It’s not that we don’t do it: we do. Everyone engages in sloppy thinking, even scientists, atheists, and Nobel laureates.

It’s not because of laziness or stupidity. It’s because sloppy thinking isn’t always bad. Sometimes, it’s efficient. And that’s a good thing.

Here’s an example that an atheist might call sloppy thinking …

Read the whole thing at The Times of Israel!

Posted by: N.S. Palmer | August 31, 2015

Change, Permanence, and What We Owe

Credit: NASA.

Credit: NASA.

By N.S. Palmer

What do we owe to the past? To the present? To the future?

Taken literally, those questions are nonsense. We have obligations to God and to living creatures, especially humans. But past, present, and future are regions of spacetime. Obligations don’t apply to them.

Moreover, the very concepts of past, present, and future are elusive. The Christian theologian St. Augustine said that he knew what time was until someone asked him what it was, and then he didn’t know what it was anymore. That’s about as good an answer as most of us can give.

The past is a region of spacetime that, from our frame of reference, is fixed and cannot be changed. That is its defining characteristic.

Interestingly, the present has the same defining characteristic as the past: from our frame of reference, it is fixed and cannot be changed.

You might think that you can change the present, but think again: Whatever you do in the present is what you do. If you choose to do something else, then that is what you do. No change in the present is possible. So from our perspective, it might as well be part of the past.

The future is a region of spacetime that, from our frame of reference, is not fixed and can be changed. That is its defining characteristic.

Note that the character of all these regions of spacetime depends on the observer’s frame of reference. The existence of an observer’s frame of reference requires the existence of an observer. Without an observer, spacetime as we know it would not exist. The existence of spacetime depends on the existence of mind: God’s first, and ours second. Other minds are welcome to join the party if they so desire.

It’s also interesting to note that the content of any region of spacetime can in principle be changed as long as it’s viewed from an appropriate frame of reference. However, that kind of thinking is a bit above our pay grade on earth, as it should be. May Heaven protect us from humanity ever getting that kind of knowledge.

Let’s return to our original nonsensical questions: What do we owe to the past, present, and future?

The questions are of course metaphors. What we are really asking is:

  • What do we owe to people who lived in the past and are now dead?
  • What do we owe to people now living, including ourselves?
  • What do we owe to people in generations yet to come?

And perhaps most important:

  • What is the best way for us to fulfill those obligations?

For some suggested answers, check out my latest blog post for The Times of Israel:

What We Owe to Past, Present, and Future

What do we owe to our people who lived in the past and are now dead?

What do we owe to our people now living? What do we owe to our people in generations yet to come? And perhaps most important: What is the best way for us to fulfill those obligations?

We live in a time of rapid change — in technology, society, moral attitudes, government, and religion.

Whether the changes are good or bad, their reality and speed are undeniable. Their speed alone is disorienting: As soon as we get used to one new regime, learn its accepted and forbidden terminology, and start to recover from our shock at its reversals of long-established practice and belief, we find ourselves thrown headlong into yet another iteration in the relentless forced march of “progress.”

The destination of all that progress is a little vague, but there’s a reason: We are not marching toward something, but away from something …

Read the whole thing at The Times of Israel.

Posted by: N.S. Palmer | August 22, 2015

All People Are Equal — Mostly

By N.S. Palmer

All human beings are equal. Let’s agree on that.

But we must add a qualification:

All human beings are equal in the morally relevant sense.

They might or might not be equal in other ways.

Let me tell you about Pete, my best friend in high school. We were both on the rifle team. Every day that the firing range was open, I was there practicing. I got very good, and I qualified at the highest level. But I never got as good as Pete, who never practiced. He was a natural shooter.

Or let me tell you about Bill, a friend in college. He could talk to women — effortlessly, charmingly, and successfully. He wasn’t particularly good-looking, nor was he even particularly smart in the way that I’m smart. But he could do things I couldn’t do.

Or let me tell you about one of my younger brothers. He’s good with money. From the time he was about seven, I borrowed money from him at interest rather than get it interest-free — with a stern lecture — from our father. I can do calculus, number theory, and linear algebra, but I can’t balance a checkbook. I never could. My brother can do things I can’t do.

We are all equal in the morally relevant sense that we have the same human rights and human dignity. But we are unequal in many other ways.

That said, it’s better to avoid talking about unequal abilities. If we can’t avoid it, we should do it very carefully.

The main reason is simple consideration for others. My friend Pete never said that he was a better shooter than I was. We both knew it, but for him to say it might have hurt my feelings. Likewise, my friend Bill never mocked my social ineptitude. My brother gives me financial advice and doesn’t belittle me for needing it.

When we talk about equality, we must do so with respect for two things:

  • We must respect the facts.
  • We must respect the people whom our statements might affect.

In addition, we must avoid doing a very harmful thing:

  • We must not draw unwarranted conclusions based on the facts.

Lots of people are better than I am at lots of things. But that gives them no special rights over me, nor does it diminish my inherent dignity and worth as a person.

Lots of people are worse than I am at lots of things. But that gives me no special rights over them, nor does it diminish their inherent dignity and worth as people.

Here are the ways in which all people are equal:

  • They all have the same basic human rights. Whether they have human rights simply in virtue of human nature, or because they are all children of God, they all have the same human rights.
  • They all have the same basic human dignity. Uniquely among biological creatures we know, human beings are self-aware. They not only have experiences, but at a second level, they are aware of themselves having the experiences. That self-awareness gives them what I call “reflexive self-value.” Whether we value their lives and welfare or not, they still have human value to themselves. Their value and dignity as people are inalienable — as in the U.S. Declaration of Independence‘s phrase “unalienable rights” — because they continue to exist no matter what anyone else thinks or does.
  • There are things we may not morally do to them. Their human rights and human dignity surround them with a “moral force field” that forbids us to cause them avoidable harm or suffering, even if we think it’s to our advantage.
  • There are things we must morally do for them. Because they have reflexive self-value, their lives are important no matter what we think about them. Their welfare matters. We can choose to be good people or bad; but if we choose to be good people, then we accept certain obligations to our fellow human beings. If they need our help, and if we can give it in a reasonable way, then we should.

It’s not always easy to apply these principles. For example, consider the case of “illegal immigrants,” “undocumented workers,” or whichever term you prefer. They came to the United States in violation of the law. Echoing the title of a book by Israel’s Meir Kahane, U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump says “they must go.”

For the sake of argument, assume the worst: illegal immigrants are a social burden. They commit more crime than American citizens. They use tax-supported social services and force cash-strapped institutions to hire interpreters while skimping on other priorities. And they take jobs that Americans definitely would do if they could get them.

Even if all that is true, illegal immigrants are still human beings. They have human rights and human dignity. There are certain things you morally can’t do to them. There are certain things you morally must do for them.

However, you have the same obligations to American citizens, who were here first and whose welfare is hurt by illegal immigrants. What should you do? If you know a clear-cut moral answer, then you’re wiser than I am. (That gives you no special rights over me, except that I have to wash your car once a month.)

Abstract principles are easy. Real life is a lot more challenging.

Thank God we all have human rights. At least we’re all equal in that way.

Copyright 2015 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL ( are included.

Posted by: N.S. Palmer | June 3, 2015

Conservative About Ideas and Compassionate About People

By N.S. Palmer

Most human characteristics are normally distributed.

Psychological masculinity and femininity are normally distributed.

Former Olympic athlete Bruce / Caitlyn Jenner says that he’s “the new normal.”

With respect and compassion for Mr./Ms. Jenner, I must disagree.

Concepts that have been around since the dawn of humanity serve a purpose or they would not still be around. We reject those concepts at our peril.

The philosopher W.V. Quine noted that it’s logically arbitrary whether we consider a cat to be one thing or, instead, consider it to be three things (a head, a body, and a tail).

The reason we consider a cat to be one thing instead of three is that the former works well and the latter works poorly. Similarly, if we start thinking there’s no such thing as a person’s sex (or any other idea that’s unfashionable and politically incorrect), we embrace an unproductive way of looking at reality and reject ideas that work well.

We are perfectly free to decide that we should be able to step off the edge of a tall building and not fall to our deaths, but we are not free to escape the results of doing it.

Likewise, most feminists believe — correctly — that women “should be able to” walk unaccompanied in perfect safety through a bad part of town while wearing sexy clothes. I agree that they should be able to do it. But they can’t. We must not confuse morality with reality. To do so has tragic consequences for actual, real-life women and for society.

Satoshi Kanazawa at the London School of Economics calls it “the intelligence paradox:” smart people, as some politically-correct zealots are, believe that long-established ideas and practices are illegitimate unless the zealots can see a rational explanation for them.

That belief often leads to “oops, we didn’t think of that” situations that are harmful to individuals and to society. The notion that sex is whatever we want it to be is a probable example of the phenomenon. The 2008 U.S. stock market crash was another example, as “free market” ideology led to the dismantling of regulatory safeguards based on real-life experience.

Genuine psychological transsexuals do exist, but they are rare.

All people have a mix of masculine and feminine characteristics, and the mix is normally distributed:

  • Sixty-eight percent of people are close to the average, which is “normal.”
  • Ninety-five percent are fairly close (within two standard deviations  away from the average).
  • Ninety-nine point seven percent are close enough (within three standard deviations away from the average) to fit within the normal concepts.
  • And 0.3 percent (three-tenths of one percent) are more than three standard deviations from the average.

Half of that 0.3 percent — that is, 0.15 percent — are “pure” males and females who have almost no characteristics of the opposite sex. The males are ultra-macho: a lot of them are in prison because they can’t control their physical aggressiveness. The females are ultra-feminine. Those people are not transsexuals by any stretch of the imagination.

The other 0.15 percent might be considered genuine transsexuals because they have very few psychological characteristics of their own sex and are almost entirely like the opposite sex.

Therefore, it is to benefit 0.15 percent of the population that we are now supposed to reject ideas and practices that work best for the other 99.85 percent of people. That does not seem sensible to me.

By all means, let’s show compassion and understanding for people who are different. Let’s not confuse difference with immorality. But let’s also not pretend that the abnormal is normal. And let’s not turn society, concepts, and language upside down in order to accommodate the abnormal at the expense of the 99.7 percent who are normal.

Copyright 2015 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL ( are included.

Posted by: N.S. Palmer | January 29, 2015

Reasonably Unreasonable Beliefs


By N. S. Palmer

Do you need to prove your religious beliefs?

If so, exactly how do you need to prove them? In terms of what?

Those questions animate many heated debates between the devoutly religious and the devoutly secular.

Dr. Solomon Schimmel, one of our professors at Hebrew College, has written an excellent book about some of those issues. Called The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs, it examines how the devoutly orthodox try to justify their religious beliefs.

It’s worth noting that both the devoutly religious and the devoutly secular have beliefs that are true and provable in their own belief systems, but false and unprovable in terms of the other. The secular belief system — materialism, atheism, and uncritical worship of science — has the upper hand in contemporary society. In other times and places, various belief systems of revealed religion have been considered just as unshakable as today’s secularism.

The secular worldview is currently dominant because it works better in dealing with the physical world than the religious view. That is not surprising. The secular worldview focuses on the physical world and its laws. If you want to deal successfully with the physical world, “secular” is the way to go. To design an airplane or investigate the historical causes of a political event, you don’t need to reference God, at least not directly. God might be the ultimate cause of everything, but the proximate cause is more likely to be, for example, a difference in air pressure between the top and bottom surfaces of an airplane’s wings.

Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was a ground-breaking work not merely because of its scholarship (and Gibbon’s beautiful literary style) but because of its approach to history. Previous historical works had often included God, supernatural events, or eschatological assumptions in their narratives of historical events. Gibbon, on the other hand, deliberately looked only at earthly causes.

As a child of the Enlightenment, Gibbon had a very low opinion of revealed religion. He even blamed it for the fall of the Roman Empire. According to him, the stern Roman virtues of courage, logic, and “severitas” (moral seriousness) enabled Rome to become a world-spanning empire. The influence of Christianity, with its emphasis on love, universal brotherhood, and life after death eroded those Roman virtues and weakened the Romans’ ability to maintain their empire. In essence, he argued that you could be Caesar or you could be Jesus, but not both. You had to choose one or the other.

The typical challenge to religious beliefs in our time requires a similarly stark choice. It consists of secular people demanding that religious people justify their beliefs in secular terms. Logically, it’s a mirror image of Biblical creationists demanding that secular scientists justify evolution in terms of the Book of Genesis. However, we don’t notice that parallel because the secular worldview is so dominant. We assume the secular worldview without thinking about it, as being so obviously true that it is beyond doubt by any sane person.

Thus, for most people, the debate is over before it even starts. They accept all the basic assumptions of the secular worldview and all of its basic conclusions. They then want to know if a completely different worldview can justify itself in terms of secular assumptions and conclusions.

It can’t. In the nature of the case, it should be obvious that it never could. The match was fixed. The referees were paid off. You might as well just hand the prize money to the winner and move on to the next event.

That kind of outcome obscures an important point about worldviews and systems of belief.

Whether they are religious or secular, systems of belief are stories about our world that help us get through life. Such stories work well in some situations and poorly in others. How well they work depends on how well they accomplish their purpose. And you can’t know how well they accomplish their purpose unless you know what their purpose is.

The purpose of secular stories is typically to help us understand and control physical reality. The purpose of religious stories is typically to help us guide our conduct and find meaning in our lives. Each accomplishes its purpose in its own way. Neither type of story is very good at accomplishing the purpose of the other type.

Characters in a story, whether religious or secular, need to stay within the terms of the story. If they go beyond those terms, they cease to be characters in the story where they started. They have become characters in someone else’s story. Moreover, if they acknowledge that they are in a story, then they destroy the story. Instead of a place they can live and a way to look at the world, their story becomes just a text that nobody takes very seriously.

That is what secular critics of religious faith want believers to do: Concede that their faith is just a story, step outside the story, and assess the story in terms of someone else’s story — a story that is explicitly hostile to their own. And believers in the secular story accept it with the same level of commitment as believers in a religious story: as being so obviously true that it is beyond doubt by any sane person.

That is why believers in, for example, the literal truth of the Book of Genesis fight tooth and claw against secular attempts to discredit their beliefs. The truth of Genesis is part of their story. Not only does it help them make sense of life, but it’s their story, and someone with an opposing story wants to take it away from them.

Individual beliefs always presuppose the story in which they play a part. For the beliefs to be reasonable means for them to fit into their own story, consistent with the assumptions of the story and the principles of proof that it assumes are legitimate. They might or might not be reasonable in the context of other stories, but that’s irrelevant.

Worldview stories themselves cannot be proven because proof presupposes a world-view and its assumptions. You can’t prove anything based on nothing. You must assume that certain things are true and certain principles of proof are valid. However, proving those assumptions themselves is impossible because there’s nothing prior in terms of which you could prove them. As far as logic goes, you simply have to take them or leave them.

Worldview stories either work for us or they don’t work. Most such stories work well in some contexts but not in others.

To demand that one worldview story justify itself in terms of an opposed story is to demand too much.

Copyright 2015 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL ( are included.

Posted by: N.S. Palmer | December 10, 2014

Beliefs Aren’t Always Beliefs

By N.S. Palmer

Beliefs aren’t always beliefs, even if they look like them.

Suppose that you tell me:

“Abraham Lincoln was a circus performer before he became president.”

I then show you documentary evidence that he was doing something else before he became president. However, you still insist that he was a circus performer.

I ask you for evidence that he was a circus performer.

You show me a short story about Lincoln that was written 75 years after his death by someone who never saw him and who gets a lot of other historical details wrong. The story says he was a circus performer.

I point out that the story is poor evidence on which to base your belief, and that it is contradicted by all other known historical evidence.

You still insist that “Abraham Lincoln was a circus performer before he became president.”

We’ve discovered that no credible historical evidence supports your belief.

We’ve discovered that all known credible historical evidence contradicts it.

But you still insist on your belief. What does that tell us?

Well, what does it mean for something to be a historical belief?

  • It means that the belief asserts something about the past.
  • It implies that there should be at least some supporting evidence in the present.
  • It implies that any contrary evidence should at least be explicable in a way that preserves the belief.

If you make what looks like a historical assertion but it doesn’t satisfy those criteria, then in spite of appearances, you’re not making a historical statement at all. You’re doing something else.

The relevant logical principle is called Modus Tollens (“denying the consequent”). Suppose you know that if A is true, B must be true. Then as a result, if B is not true, it follows logically that A is also not true.

You might be speaking in metaphor. You might be signaling your belief in political principles associated with your belief: for example, that heads of state should come from the common people. You might be trying to encourage yourself in your own aspiration to become a circus performer. But when the plain meaning of a historical belief leads to things that you claim don’t matter, then you’re not making a historical statement.

A current example is the belief that “Officer Darren Wilson unjustifiably shot Michael Brown, who had surrendered.”

Most people who believe that, as well as most people who deny it, neither know nor care much about the evidence. To them, the evidence doesn’t matter because they are not primarily asserting things about Darren Wilson and Michael Brown. Instead, they are signaling their moral and tribal commitments.

One group wants to signal that they are not racists, while the other wants to signal that they support law enforcement. In this case, it’s the implicit rather than the explicit message that’s important. They seem to be contradicting each other, but they’re not. They’re mainly just shouting at each other to prove their various commitments, and to show off their moral goodness to other people who agree with them.

People who think of beliefs exclusively in cognitive terms find that kind of behavior utterly baffling.

The key is to understand that beliefs do a lot of things in addition to making assertions. Sometimes, the apparent assertions are almost irrelevant, and it’s the signaled subtext that really matters.

Copyright 2014 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL ( are included.

Posted by: N.S. Palmer | August 7, 2014

Exceptional You

By N.S. Palmer

You are exceptional. So am I. So is everyone else.

Ironically, however, we ignore the ways that we really are exceptional, and we pretend to be exceptional in ways that we really aren’t.

We really are exceptional in that we all have unique:

  • Life experiences
  • Innate abilities
  • Developed skills
  • Knowledge
  • Loves
  • Hates
  • Fears
  • Loyalties
  • Personal connections

We really aren’t exceptional in that we all:

  • Get an unknown but limited amount of time on earth.
  • Feel as if we’re the center of the universe, even though we know we’re not.
  • Have roughly the same human nature.
  • Are subject to the same moral laws.
  • Make excuses for our sins, shortcomings, and failures.

Every person is good at something. Every person can make a unique contribution to the world that no one else can make. Every person has secret passions and sorrows, virtues and vices.

What’s true of individual people is true of human groups. Every society, religion, ethnicity, and country believes that it is exceptional. Whatever it does is good, simply because it is good. Its motives are always the best. It does what is right; or if not what is right, then what is justified under the circumstances; or if not justified, then what it has no choice but to do.

That’s being exceptional in the same old ordinary way: Narrow-minded, self-centered, excuse-making, and heedless of the good or harm we cause to others.

But there’s a better way to be exceptional:

  • Try to see the good in others and understand their viewpoints.
  • Consider their welfare as well as (but not necessarily in preference to) your own.
  • Conduct a “reality check” on your beliefs. Are they actually true, are they self-serving propaganda, or are they a little of both?
  • Conduct a “morality check” on your actions. What are all the probable results? Who will probably benefit and who might be hurt? Can you live with that?

You are exceptional. Really. But you can do better. You can be the very best exceptional person possible.

It’s your choice. Whatever you choose, that’s the person you will see in the mirror.

Is the person in the mirror someone you can love and respect?

Copyright 2014 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL ( are included.

Older Posts »



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 150 other followers