Dutch elections

I have not commented yet on the recent Dutch elections and we have had our first constitutional quasi-crisis already. The results of the elections are baffling. It looks as if the electorate is becoming more and more polarized. To abuse a term of the French political philosoher, Claude Lefort, 'the middle is empty'. (NB: before somebody accuses me of using an oxymoron by putting together in one sentence the words 'French' and 'philosopher' -- I never claimed he was a good philosopher!)

So this leads me to the following wager. We will have long, long negotiations to form a new coalition government. In the end, it will not be possible to have a government that can rule with a decent majority in parliament. As a result we will have a 'zakenkabinet' -- a government consisting of non-political ministers who will rule for a while and then call for new elections. I predict that these new elections will follow by the end of 2008, early 2009 the latest. I wager a good bottle of Australian shiraz (no wait, I will drink that before that time), ok, a good bottle of German Riesling or Sylvaner (yes it exists!). Any takers?

Evolution and Religion

Several books have been published lately taking an evolutionary look at religion. Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins, each in their own way, have argued that religion merits scientific study. Their basic question seems to be the following. Human societies are characterised by religious beliefs and practices which often cost an awful lot in terms of energy (e.g., all those cathedrals that took several generations and lots of mortar, stone and lives to construct) and survival (think of the various religious wars, saints sacrificing themselves, etc.). What is it that motivates people to do these things? Both authors are atheists -- as am I, incidentally -- and are keen defenders of a naturalism that has its roots in evolutionary theory. Both authors favor a meme-selection theory of cultural change and consequently are looking for the gene that makes possible the meme of religion. So far so good, I would say. But both authors also take a dim view of religion. Dennett considers it a parasite that does more damage than good to mankind. Dawkins is not friendlier.

This attitude annoys me. Both Dennett and Dawkins have no interest in finding out what adherents see in religion. What is it that attracts otherwise intelligent people to religion? D & D argue quickly, much too quickly, that religion is irrational and stupid. While that may be true in the end, proper philosophical method requires that you first seek to understand the point of view of the opponent with an open mind as to what is attractive and plausible about it. D & D don't -- a missed opportunity.

Is evolution dangerous for religion? I am not sure, but I am sure about this: too much, far too much is attributed to evolution. Too much, far too much is labelled as 'evoution'. Perhaps I will give some examples of this in the coming days...

Death of Milton Friedman

For some reason, an earlier post on this theme did not get through. Still, I want to commemorate the death of Milton Friedman, prophet of the free market, inspirer of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Pinochet. In spite of all of this, the man was a great economist (and part-time philosopher).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2457181_1,00.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061117.COMILTON17/TPStory/Business/columnists