In the case of Dover, specifically, you might understand the ruling better by taking a closer look at the “intelligent design” theory that was at issue. You are right that Johnson’s Darwin on Trial was important to its genesis—it was with that book that Johnson became a player in the whole thing to begin with, rather than simply a Stanford University law professor. The trouble was what followed. Under the guise of the Discovery Institute, Johnson and his compatriots carefully and purposefully crafted intelligent design as a new version of creationism that could slip its way past the First Amendment. The evidence for this is most compellingly in The Wedge Strategy, a secret document of theirs that was leaked on the internet. See also Barbara Forrest’s book, Creationism’s Trojan Horse for a fuller explanation of what happened.

Even if evolution as it is currently taught is not the best and fullest explanation possible (certainly it is not), we should not want to replace a functioning scientific theory (however imperfect) with an illegal public relations strategy that has no content except confusion.

Semi-unrelated, have you read Charles Taylor’s VRE Today? Revisits WJames with a Neo-Durkiemian lens — seems up your alley.

My tendency is the middle one, making weak claims. But I am finding that the more criticism I get, the less I feel the need to hold back from making stronger ones.

Yes, I think the comment field is the standard WordPress HTML editor. It is a little arbitrary. It accepts most HTML tags (including em tags for italics) but it also does nice things like converting three dashes to an m-dash.

Alcibiades of both. Socrates’ star pupil who ultimately defeats his own countrymen:
https://joeldietz.com/post/44720929/considering-again-kierkegaards-thesis-on-socrates

“what that canon suggests to me is the urge to suspect one’s own claims to objectivity.”

Sure, this can amount to making no claims, making weak claims, or making strong claims and admitting the possibility they are wrong. I tend towards the third option — but always appreciate criticism!

BTW, how do you italicize something. These fields take HTML tags?

This is a wonderful statement! I would agree that it overlaps with things that have been said in Christian traditions, and I would add that it overlaps with things that have been said in other traditions as well, from secular scientism (particularly the skeptical fringe) to all over Asia. Apophatics are everywhere. They offer good reminders, but often not that much that’s practical.

I’d love to talk more about Rieff sometime. I haven’t read the recent stuff, but I did recently get a lot out of The Triumph of the Therapeutic. It is amazing warning about the tendency of post-religious folks to think they can control the forces beyond our control.

Yes, what I call “distasteful” does come from some canon, and I don’t pretend not to. How can we not? In this case, what that canon suggests to me is the urge to suspect one’s own claims to objectivity.

This has been a delightful exchange.

Do you mean Alcibiades in Symposium? Or in the apocryphal dialogs by his name? Why does it come to mind?

It sounds like you would disagree about the devolution but does not your impression of what is and is not ‘distasteful’ as you put it, amount to a sort of canon claiming some degree of objectivity (or perhaps simply detachment from traditional societal norms) ? If so, I would argue that it to some extent is derivative of what I call the anti-narrative — the promulgation of which has become the new telos for the Dewey-founded ACLU. If this is ultimately what your ‘relativism’ amounts to, I’d have to say I am unconvinced that it is sufficient replacement for the inerrantist bible-derived morality mentioned in previous comments.

I agree about the general dynamic for the passing of cultural-memes, which of course includes morality. However, I’m not sure how it can be rehabilitated in a society which is no longer race-based (although everywhere those than can self-segregate do, the Jewish religion especially combines both aspects). This of course leaves what Dalrymple calls the ‘underclass,’ the plight of whom is usually ignored by social-programmers.

I apologize if I am entirely deconstructive but I believe our ability to find answers is ultimately contingent on our ability to admit that we don’t have them, which may in a sense be Christian. The re-introduction, or at least more precise definition of moral coda, seems especially important in the current era, as the new wave of evangelical atheists claims that morality can be built off evolutionary science — in this respect we may remember the results of the German National Socialist’s stated reliance on race-science in their social programming. Although I have minimal populist inclinations, I can understand well the passions that drove WJ Bryan if this is what he believed would be the outcome of the social-scientists’ deconstruction of social norms.

The whole Socrates-Alcibiades saga also comes to mind.