Prof K Granata, orthopaedic researcher; Prof GV Loganathan, award-winning teacher; Prof L Librescu, Holocaust survivor.
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
Museums, Libraries Asked to Create Prayer Rooms
Mosques, churches asked to provide paintings and books. No that one’s a joke.
-
No Discrimination in Classroom Ban on Niqab
Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council in the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
-
Walter Isaacson, Einstein, and Mileva Marić
In an article in Time magazine in 2006 Walter Isaacson wrote of Albert Einstein: “[In 1905] he had come up with the special theory of relativity… His marriage to Mileva Marić, an intense and brooding Serbian physicist who had helped him with the math of his 1905 paper, had just exploded.”[1]
As I pointed out at the time[2], Einstein would hardly have needed help with the modest level of mathematics he used in the special relativity paper, the knowledge of which he had already acquired in his middle teens. As Jürgen Renn, an editor of the Albert Einstein Collected Papers, has observed, “If he had needed help with that kind of mathematics, he would have ended there.”[3] I could have added that for someone who had twice failed a diploma to teach physics and mathematics in secondary school, and for whom we have no knowledge of any writings (even in letters) containing ideas on physics beyond her diploma dissertation,[4] the appellation “physicist” to Marić is itself rather dubious, but that’s an issue I have dealt with elsewhere.[5]
In his book Einstein: His Life and Universe, Isaacson evidently takes the view that as far as the physics was concerned, Marić made no substantive contributions to Einstein’s theories, and played no part in them beyond that of a being a sounding board for his ideas.[6] He reiterated this view in Time magazine: “Well, she helped with the math… But a careful analysis of all their letters and later statements shows that the concepts involved were all his.”[7]
What I want to deal with in this article is the notion that Marić “helped [Einstein] with the math” in the celebrated 1905 papers. Elsewhere[8] I have refuted the more outlandish claims that Marić “did Einstein’s mathematics”[9], and here I want to focus on the evidence that Isaacson provides for his far more modest contentions.
Now although Isaacson had earlier in the book shown commendable caution in regard to claims or statements for which he could find no documentary evidence,[10] this meticulous concern for accurate scholarship is less in evidence when he comes to the claims about Marić’s alleged involvement with Einstein’s work. At the end of the chapter in which he provides an excellent account of the background to the 1905 special relativity paper, he adds a section with the subheading “His Partner” in the first paragraph of which he writes that “Einstein was so exhausted when he finished a draft in June that ‘his body buckled and he went to bed for two weeks,’ while Marić ‘checked the article again and again’.”[11]
Now Isaacson’s source for the latter contention is Peter Michelmore, whose book Einstein: Profile of the Man (1962), as Alberto Martinez notes in his invaluable article on “Handling evidence in history”,[12] “includes incorrect information”. That it is unreliable as a source of information about the early period of Einstein’s career I have demonstrated in more detail elsewhere.[13] (See also below.)
The next relevant quotation supplied by Isaacson is in the following context (p. 136): “That August [1905], they took a vacation together in Serbia to see her friends and family. While there, Marić was proud and also willing to accept part of the credit. ‘Not long ago we finished a very significant work that will make my husband world famous,’ she told her father, according to stories later recorded there…”
Isaacson then reports: “Einstein happily praised his wife’s help. ‘I need my wife,’ he told her friends in Serbia. ‘She solves all my mathematical problems for me.’”
The citations provided by Isaacson for the Einstein quotation here are Overbye (2000) and Trbuhović-Gjurić (1993). However, since Overbye cites Trbuhović-Gjurić, the latter is the single source in question. But note that Overbye is a little more cautious than Isaacson – as well he might be. He writes that Einstein is “reported to have said” the sentences quoted by Isaacson immediately above.
An examination of the context in which the Einstein quotation is reported by Trbuhović-Gjurić raises strong doubts about its reliability. Her biography of Mileva Marić contains numerous unconfirmable third-hand reports from friends and acquaintances of the Marić family obtained by the author mostly more than half a century after the events they purport to record. (I have demonstrated elsewhere that on issues relevant to this article, Trbuhović-Gjurić’s book is a highly unreliable source of information in general,[14] and it has been described by the Einstein biographer Albrecht Fölsing as a combination of fictional invention and pseudo-documentation.[15]) Trbuhović-Gjurić writes that Einstein made the statement in question to a gathering of friends of Miloš Marić, Mileva’s student brother, at which he was present (presumably in 1905). The information was provided by one Dr Ljubomir-Bata Dumić, who also recalled:
We raised our eyes towards Mileva as to a divinity, such was her knowledge of mathematics and her genius… Straightforward mathematical problems she solved in her head, and those which would have taken specialists several weeks of work she completed in two days… We knew that she had made [Albert], that she was the creator of his glory. She solved for him all his mathematical problems, particularly those concerning the theory of relativity. Her brilliance as a mathematician amazed us.[16]
What is evident from such sentiments (e.g., “we knew she had made Albert, she was the creator of his glory… She solved for him all his mathematical problems”) is that what Trbuhović-Gjurić presents as serious information are actually examples of gossip and rumours from credulous friends and acquaintances of the Marić family obtained many decades later. This is illustrated by a statement made to Michele Zackheim by an elderly relative (resident in the Marić family’s hometown, Novi Sad) of the granddaughter of a friend of Marić’s from their student days. He told Zackheim in relation to Marić:
I remember the stories about her, because he was the most famous man in the world – and of course my family took great pride in her company. We also understood that she helped the professor with his theory. Did you know that Mileva was better in mathematics than her husband? No one can stand to give Mileva her due… Everyone is protecting the great man, the Einstein.[17]
What this illustrates is that among the people from whom Trbuhović-Gjurić obtained her reports (mostly in the 1960s), proud rumour and gossip about ‘their’ Mileva was rife. (It should be said here that it is not inconceivable that, with his self-deprecating sense of humour, Einstein may at some time have said something along the lines of “my wife does my mathematics”, and that this could be one origin of the rumours passed down through the generations at Novi Sad.)
Let’s examine more closely the statement that Marić was better at mathematics than Einstein. Although Marić excelled in mathematics at high school, she fared rather less well on the teaching diploma course at Zurich Polytechnic. She had difficulty mastering descriptive and projective geometry for the intermediate diploma examination,[18] and in her final diploma exam she obtained only grade 5 (on a scale 1-12) for the mathematics component, theory of functions, a topic absolutely fundamental to mathematical physics. None of the other four students in the group scored less than 11 in the same component.[19] When she retook the diploma exam the following year she only slightly improved her grade in theory of functions, and failed the exam for a second time.[20] On the other hand, Einstein was precociously gifted at mathematics from an early age.[21] In the same year as the celebrated papers on which he is supposed to have needed help with the mathematics, a report on his Ph.D. thesis from the Zurich University Institute of Physics by Professor Alfred Kleiner commended his ability at mathematics in the following terms:
The arguments and calculations to be carried out are among the most difficult ones in hydrodynamics, and only a person possessing perspicacity and training in the handling of mathematical and physical problems could dare tackle them.
Kleiner added that since “the main achievement of Einstein’s thesis consists of the handling of differential equations, and hence is mathematical in character and belongs to the domain of analytical mechanics” he had sought the expert opinion of the head of mathematics, Professor Heinrich Burkhardt, who reported on the most important part of Einstein’s calculations as follows:
What I checked I found to be correct without exception, and the manner of treatment demonstrates a thorough command of the mathematical methods involved.[22] (Emphasis in original).
So while we have documented evidence that Einstein was a superb mathematician when he put his mind to it, the only reliable evidence we have about Marić indicates that she did not live up to her early promise in mathematics – the sad fate of many a student who excels at lower levels of the subject.
In the light of the above, it is difficult to give credence to the first part of another quotation provided by Isaacson (p. 137), citing Peter Michelmore’s Profile of Einstein: “Mileva helped him solve certain mathematical problems, but no one could assist with the creative work, the flow of ideas.”[23] However, given their relative abilities at mathematics it is highly unlikely that Einstein would have required help from Marić in solving mathematical problems. Note also that an examination of the context shows that Michelmore actually makes this statement in relation to Einstein’s working on his special relativity theory, the mathematics in relation to which would have given him no difficulties.
In the end what we are left with is Isaacson’s conclusion (p. 136) concerning Einstein’s early achievements:
From all the evidence, Marić was a sounding board, though not as important as [Michele] Besso. She also helped check his math, although there is no evidence that she came up with any of the mathematical concepts.
In fact the extent to which she was a responsive sounding board for Einstein’s constant flow of ideas after their student years is unknown, whereas we have documented information about the considerable role played by Besso. In addition to the intense discussions they held during the time they both worked at the patent office in Bern (Einstein acknowledged his indebtedness to Besso’s “many a valuable suggestion” at the end of the 1905 relativity paper), the correspondence between them testifies to Besso’s lifelong grappling with Einstein’s ideas in physics.[24] On the other hand, looking at all relevant sources such as the considerable correspondence between Einstein and his academic colleagues and scientific friends, and reminiscences of the latter, there is no hint of any corresponding role by Marić. Nor did she ever make any claim of providing any assistance in his work, and there is not the slightest suggestion of such in any of her surviving published letters to her close friend Helen Kaufler. In the period prior to Einstein’s production of the 1905 papers she writes of the household duties which were taking up most of her time, and of her joy in the antics of the infant Hans Albert, but there is no hint of any active involvement with physics. The papers published in this period she unequivocally assigns solely to Einstein, and when in December 1901 she wrote of his first (unsuccessful) Ph.D. thesis, her words do not indicate the role nowadays suggested for her: “I have read this work with great joy and real admiration for my little darling, who has such a clever head.”[25]
John Stachel, founding editor of the Albert Einstein Collected Papers project, has challenged the chief proponents of the Marić “collaboration” thesis to provide reasons why there is a stronger case for Mileva Marić than for Besso:
In her case, we have no published papers; no letters with a serious scientific content, either to Einstein nor to anyone else; nor any other objective evidence of her supposed creative talents. We do not even have hearsay accounts of conversations she had with anyone else that have a specific, scientific content, let alone a content claiming to report her ideas.[26]
Concerning the contention that she checked Einstein’s mathematics there is little in the way of reliable information, and she made no claims herself to this effect. Even such limited contentions are dependent on third-hand reports, the reliability of which cannot be confirmed.[27] More generally, given Marić’s failure to obtain a teaching diploma, and the absence of hard evidence of any original work on her part, there seems little justification for the frequent description of her as a “Serbian physicist”, or “mathematician”.
In the end what really matters is admirably summed up by Isaacson (p. 137):
There is, in fact, no need to exaggerate Marić’s contributions in order to admire, honor, and sympathize with her as a pioneer. To give her credit beyond what she ever claimed, says the science historian Gerald Holton, “only detracts both from her real and significant place in history and from the tragic unfulfillment of her early hopes and promise.”
I would only add the caveat that, in contrast to other central European countries at the time, in relatively progressive Switzerland even in the year before Marić started the four-year teaching diploma course there were 8 female students (out of 32) in the section for training mathematics and science teachers at Zurich Polytechnic, with 3 (out of 10) studying mathematics and physics.[28] But this does not detract from Marić’s exceptional achievement in overcoming both personal difficulties and institutionalised obstacles to acquire a College education in physical science from which women were disbarred in much of Europe at the end of the nineteenth century.
One final point. In this section of his book Isaacson makes the extraordinary claim (p. 136) that, with one exception, the “PBS documentary Einstein’s Wife, in 2003, was generally balanced”. Since the documentary contends that Marić was the joint author of Einstein’s early papers up to at least 1905, this is so completely at odds with his own statement that “none of their many letters, to each other or to friends, mentions a single instance of an idea or creative concept relating to relativity that came from Marić” (or, one might add, on any other topic in physics), and his final summing up that Marić provided no substantive contribution to Einstein’s scientific achievements, that it must be regarded as an aberration on Isaacson’s part. (See my documentation
of the numerous errors and misconceptions that permeate Einstein’s Wife.)NOTES (Citations refer to books and articles listed in the Bibliography)
1. The Intimate Life of A. Einstein. Time, 12 July 2006
2. Who Did Einstein’s Mathematics? A Response to Troemel-Ploetz.
3. Highfield, R. and Carter, P. (1993), pp. 114-115.
4. Stachel, J (2002), p. 36.5. Mileva Marić: Einstein’s Wife
6. Isaacson, W. (2007), pp. 136-137.7. Time Magazine, 5 April 2007.
8. Who Did Einstein’s Mathematics? A Response to Troemel-Ploetz.
9. Troemel-Ploetz, S. (1990), pp. 415-420.
10. Isaacson, W. (2007), pp. 90 [and Note 1, p. 575], 103.
11. Isaacson, W. (2007), p. 135.
13. Who Did Einstein’s Mathematics? A Response to Troemel-Ploetz.
14. Mileva Marić: Einstein’s Wife
Who Did Einstein’s Mathematics? A Response to Troemel-Ploetz.
16. Trbuhović-Gjurić, D. (1983), p. 93; (1991), p. 106 [my translation – A. E.].
17. Zackheim, M. (1999), pp. 185-186.
18. Renn, J & Schulmann, R. (1992), p. 12.
19. Albert Einstein Collected Papers, Volume 1 (ed. Stachel et al), 1987, doc. 67, p. 247.
20. Stachel, J. (2002), p. 29.
21. Who Did Einstein’s Mathematics? A Response to Troemel-Ploetz.
22. Albert Einstein Collected Papers, Volume 5 (English trans. A. Beck), 1995, doc.31, p. 22.
23. Michelmore, P. (1962), p. 45.
24. Besso, M. (1979).
25. Popović, M. (2003), pp. 70, 80, 83, 86.
26. Stachel, J. (2002), p. 36.
27. Who Did Einstein’s Mathematics? A Response to Troemel-Ploetz.
28. Stachel, J. (2002), p. 30.
Bibliography
Besso, M. (1979). Albert Einstein: Correspondance avec Michele Besso 1903-1955. Paris: Hermann.
Einstein, A. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Princeton University Press.
Esterson, A. (2006a). Einstein’s Wife: Mileva Maric 1.
Esterson, A. (2006b). Einstein’s Wife: Mileva Maric 2.
Esterson, A. (2006c). Mileva Maric: Einstein’s Wife
Esterson, A. (2006d). Who Did Einstein’s Mathematics? A Response to Troemel-Ploetz.
Fölsing, A. (1990). Keine ‘Mutter der Relativitätstheorie’, Die Zeit, 16 November 1990.
Fölsing, A. (1997). Albert Einstein. (Trans. by E. Osers.) New York: Penguin Books.
Highfield, R. and Carter, P. (1993). The Private Lives of Albert Einstein. London: Faber and Faber.
Isaacson, W. (2007). Einstein: His Life and Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Martínez, A. A. (2005). Handling Evidence in History: The Case of Einstein’s Wife.
School Science Review, March 2005, 86 (316), pp. 49-56.
Michelmore, P. (1962). Einstein: Profile of the Man. New York: Dodd, Mead.
Overbye, D. (2000). Einstein in Love. New York: Viking.
Popović, M. (ed.) (2003). In Albert’s Shadow The Life and Letters of Mileva Marić, Einstein’s First Wife. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Renn, J. and Schulmann, R. (eds.) (1992). Albert Einstein and Mileva Maric: The Love Letters. Trans. by S. Smith. Princeton University Press.
Reiser, A. (1930). Albert Einstein: A Bibliographical Portrait. New York: Boni.
Stachel, J. (2002). Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’. Boston/Basel/Berlin: Birkhäuser.
Trbuhović-Gjurić, D. (1983). Im Schatten Albert Einsteins: Das tragische Leben der Mileva Einstein-Marić. Bern: Paul Haupt. (The German language edition is an edited version of the book by Trbuhović-Gjurić originally published in Serbo-Croat in Yugoslavia in 1969.)
Trbuhović-Gjurić, D. (1991), Mileva Einstein: Une Vie (French translation of Im Schatten Albert Einsteins: Das tragische Leben der Mileva Einstein-Marić). Paris: Antoinette Fouque.
Troemel-Ploetz, S. (1990). Mileva Einstein-Marić: The Woman Who Did Einstein’s Mathematics. Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 415-432.
Zackheim, M. (1999). Einstein’s Daughter: The Search for Liserl. New York: Riverhead.
April 2007
-
The duty of inquiry
I’ve just re-read W K Clifford’s ‘The Ethics of Belief’. The first paragraph is well known.
A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first…Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections.
He rationalized them away, and was content. In reading that paragraph again, I was struck by a parallel – a very strong parallel. Feynman on the Challenger. The first paragraph there:
It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of agreement? Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could properly ask “What is the cause of management’s fantastic faith in the machinery?”
Fascinating, isn’t it? Clifford’s example is imagined, and Feynman’s is real, and the mechanism is identical. Wishful thinking in action. ‘Oh, it’s okay, it’s fine, it’s done pretty well so far; bye bye.’
Clifford takes an ethical view of the matter.
What shall we say of [the shipowner]? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.
That’s the whole burden of the essay: he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. It’s not a popular view, but I think it has a lot to be said for it.
-
I Beg You, Take Me Away From Here
‘I have nothing here. Why should I live in this prison and be forced to marry a man I do not wish to marry?’
-
Two Men Arrested in Assault on Kadra
She told Norwegian newspaper VG that the Koran’s views on women needed to be reinterpreted.
-
Norwegian-Somalian FGM Critic Assaulted
They kicked her and screamed that she had trampled on the Koran. She has several broken ribs.
-
Group Claims it Has Murdered Alan Johnston
BBC said it could not confirm the claims by the previously unknown ‘Tawhid and Jihad brigades.’
-
Clive James on Wittgenstein
A given line of argument could be outright wrong, especially if it sought obsessively for a unity that could not exist.
-
Allah-o-akbar, thwack, crunch
Honour is a beautiful thing; so is devoutness; right? Seven or eight men knocking a woman down and then kicking her and breaking several of her ribs – what could be more beautiful and holy than that? Few things I can think of, for sure.
Norwegian-Somalian Kadra, who became famous in Norway for exposing imam support of female circumcision, was beaten unconscious on Thursday…”I was terrified. While I lay on the pavement they kicked me and screamed that I had trampled on the Koran. Several shouted Allah-o-akbar (God is great) and also recited from the Koran,” Kadra told VG. Kadra linked the attack to recent remarks in VG where she said that the Koran’s views on women needed to be reinterpreted. Kadra said that the gang of Somali men attacked her around 3 a.m. in downtown Oslo on Thursday. A medical examination found that she had several broken ribs.
Several broken ribs. Broken ribs really hurt, and they can’t be immobilized the way most fractures can. What a charming idea of ‘God’ these men must have, to think it wants them to shout how great it is while breaking the ribs of a small thin woman lying on the street.
-
Nick Cohen on Noxious Fumes
When environmentalists rave and reactionaries cheer, the outlook is grim.
-
US House Majority Leader Meets MB Leader
Steny Hoyer met with the Muslim Brotherhood’s parliamentary leader in Cairo.
-
Ben Goldacre on Blaming Big Pharma
Only 10% of pharmaceutical research is funded outside the pharmaceutical industry; whose fault is that?
-
More Will Mean Worse?
Conflict faced by many lecturers teaching students they regard as ill-equipped for degree-level study.
-
Julian Baggini on the Real Clash of Civilizations
Middle ground between shoulder-shrugging relativism and dogmatic fundamentalism has been vacated.
-
Devout annexation
Quarreling with Martha Nussbaum.
I think that in all religions there are people who want to live a traditional life and people who want to be part of modernity, and we ought to make room for both and show both equal respect.
That depends on what you mean by ‘live a traditional life’ and what you mean by ‘show both equal respect.’ Or to put it another way, that sounds nice, if you don’t pay too much attention; it sounds very kind and caring and generous; but what if ‘live a traditional life’ means ‘raise their children to believe that women are inferior to men’ or ‘coerce their daughters into marrying strangers’ or ‘forbid their wives and daughters to leave the house’? Those are among the things ‘live a traditional life’ can mean, and I have no intention of showing equal respect to any of them, and furthermore, I think we ought not to show them equal respect.
What is Nussbaum doing talking in such sweeping vague terms? She knows better than that, so what’s she doing?
What we see in some nations, then, is not Islam itself, but a politicized version of Islam that is not a necessary interpretation of those religious texts. That point has been made repeatedly by dissidents in the societies in which this politicized version of Islam is influential, such as Shiran Ebadi and Akbar Ganji in Iran. Both are devout Muslims, and both insist, with convincing argument, that there is nothing in their sex-equal democratic proposals that is incompatible with Islam.
That’s good, and I hope they win the argument. I really do – but does it need to be pointed out that they’re not winning it at the moment, and that there are a lot of other ‘devout Muslims’ around who insist very much the opposite?
Perhaps a good democracy is one where people express themselves in their own way, and still live with one another on terms of equal respect. I’m just finishing a book on the USA tradition on the topic of religious liberty, and I think for once that there is something to be said in favour of the traditions of my own nation. Namely, people who are different from the norm not only get scrupulous fairness under law, which even John Locke advocated, they also get what is called rights of “accommodation”, namely, they do not have to observe certain laws that burden their conscience, unless there is a “compelling state interest”. In other words, if you are a Jew and you receive a subpoena to testify in court on a Saturday, you may refuse without legal penalty…I believe that this tradition of “accommodation” expresses a spirit of equal respect for minorities living in a majority world. Writing to the Quakers about why he was not going to require them to perform military service, our first president George Washington says, “The conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with the greatest delicacy and tenderness”. I wish I saw more of this delicacy and tenderness in Europe today.
I think that’s disgusting stuff, because of the implicit endorsement of the idea that conscience is religious, or that ‘conscience’ deserves special, extra (‘tender’) accomodation when it is religious that it does not deserve when it is not religious. Well, why? Notice that she never says why. (If she does, the editor dropped it.) Notice also that she chooses the easier cases (the elided ones are comparatively easy too). Notice that she chooses a Jew refusing to go to court on a Saturday; how often do courts sit on Saturdays? What about people who refuse to go to court on a Friday or a Wednesday, when courts do sit? Why doesn’t she use that as an example? But much more important, why on earth does she choose to perpetuate the idea that ‘conscientious scruples’ are a monopoly of religious people and hence that atheists don’t have them? And where does she get off dressing up that nasty bigoted coercive prejudice in the glow of self-righteous disapproval? Why is she so pleased with herself for wanting to give special privileges to religion and religious believers that atheists don’t get? Why is she so smugly boastful about identifying conscience with religion?
I’ve questioned this talk about delicacy and respect from Nussbaum before. There was this, in Hiding from Humanity:
But to claim that freedom of speech promotes truth in metaphysics and morals would be to show disrespect for the idea of reasonable pluralism, and to venture onto a terrain where one is at high risk of showing disrespect to one’s fellow citizens. Mill is totally oblivious to all such considerations. He has none of the delicate regard for other people’s religious doctrines that characterizes the political liberal…One may sympathize…without feeling that he understands the type of mutual respect that is required in a pluralistic society. I agree with Rawls: such respect requires (in the public sphere at least) not showing up the claims of religion as damaging, and not adopting a public conception of truth and objectivity according to which such claims are false.
Well there’s some classic respect creep (to quote Simon Blackburn again) for you. Here’s an earlier and more carefully argued example from Sex and Social Justice (page 110):
US constitutional law has standardly granted special latitude to religion, by contrast with other forms of commitment and affiliation. Religious reasons for exemption from military service, or for refusing to work on a particular day, are granted a latitude that is not granted to other forms of conscientious commitment, such as the familial or the artistic or even the ethical. This remains controversial for the way it appears to privilege religion over nonreligion…[T]his is not the place to make a normative argument on such a complex and vexed matter. Suffice it to say that such privileges given to religion, though highly contestable, can be strongly supported by pointing to the special importance of the liberty of conscience as a fundamental right and the consequent need to give religious freedom special protection from the incursions that, throughout history, have threatened it.
I couldn’t agree less. That works only if you take ‘conscience’ to mean ‘religious conscience,’ and why would anyone take it to mean that? It doesn’t mean that. I looked it up in the Concise Oxford: the definition doesn’t mention religion. Religion does not get to help itself to the word ‘conscience’ and pretend it has the thing while non-religious people don’t; ‘conscience’ is about morality, not religion, and religion has no, repeat no monopoly on either one. Both conscience and morality are secular terms, secular ideas, secular principles, and religion has no business trying to annex them, and Nussbaum has no business helping them do it.
I used to admire Nussbaum, but I’ve gone right off her now. I’m really allergic to this annexation thing.
-
Ann Coulter’s Brilliant Hoax
A witty parody of attacks on evolution, in the style of the Sokal hoax.