For the 4th -- Mencken's Creed

Has a finer creed been promulgated? Wouldn't we all benefit were this the American Creed?

Henry Louis Mencken offered the following creed for our consideration. <http://www.bizbag.com/mencken/menkcreed.htm>


I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind, that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.

I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.

I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty.

I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.

I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech.

I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.

I believe in the reality of progress.

I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie.
I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave.
And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.



However, to celebrate the Fourth, let us highlight Mencken's thinking in red and offer emendations in blue. Wouldn't that be mighty white of us?

• I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind, that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.

If not for "generally speaking" and Mencken's balancing of the benefits of religion against its costs, I should dissent from his first credendum. I'd substitute "dogma." Dogmatic thinking, whether religious or not, burdens humans and foils their thinking. Hence, I am closer to Jefferson's "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man," except that swearing on the altar of any god seems to me problematic. I'd go with:

• Dogma has damaged thinking humans for transitory certainty and to no lasting profit.

• I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.

To avoid dogmatic phrasing, I'd have to qualify this a bit, but Mencken is close enough. For me the key word is "trumpeting." If one tells grandma she looks lovely even though she looks much like a comicbook cryptkeeper, one is not trumpeting. Spreading misinformation widely increases ignorance and decreases intelligence. That is the danger. Hence:

• Disseminating facts is never wholly useless and disseminating falsehoods is always vicious.

• I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty.

Here again Henry Louis overstates dogmatically. Neither all governments nor any government need "war" upon liberty. Governments often protect liberties. Moreover, calling government evil invokes the quasi-religious Manicheanism that Mencken denounces. Thus, I'd rephrase:

• When governments war on liberty, they harm more than help; when governments protect liberty, they help more than harm.

• I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.

I am with Mencken here. I love the phrasing. If one demands evidence, immortality, witchcraft, and a host of other credenda must slink back into swamps of ignorance out of which muckrakers or romantics or buncombe artists harvested them. With the slightest rephrasing, then:

• Absent good evidence, immortality and witchcraft are roughly equally likely.

• I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech.

If you cannot refute or ignore thought or speech with which you disagree, you must lump it. What cannot be helped must be endured. Still, I'd insinuate what civil libertarians long have taught:

• The remedy for "bad" thought or "bad" speech is more and better thought and more and better speech.

• I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.

I agree with Mencken here but insist that cynics be given their due. Humans can intellectualize their worlds and their fellows, can analyze what makes up the world, and can theorize how the world runs. Humans are, alas, as likely as not to run from what they discover in pursuit of personal gain -- "If global warming is real, it can be real after I am dead and past sacrificing for others" -- or to explain away unwelcome conclusions about structures -- Romanticism or Idealism, for examples -- or to theorize how the world might run better if only certain thems would accede to this or that us. Thus,

• Humans usually master their worlds better than they master themselves.

• I believe in the reality of progress.

Some progress is real and worth the price. However, humans usually cannot assay the reality or the price until long after it is possible to go back. More, every step forward is at the least a step away from alternatives. Hence, progress may be every bit as real as the opportunity costs of the progress. What Europeans call "handy" phones [cell phones] represent at once progress and nuisance. Progress is real because apparent progress pushes us down and makes it ever less likely that humans shall recover, let alone retreat. I'd prefer to put matters this way:

• Some progress is real; some progress is illusory; most progress is both.

I leave unstated that most users of "handy" phones [as Europeans call mobile or cell phones] should shut the f__k up around me.

• I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie.

Here my fellows cynics and I scream, "Say what?" Those who tell the truth in politics and government we call "losers." Morally or spiritually the truth may be preferred, but in politicking, warfare, employment, and relationships, telling the truth will get you defeated, unemployed, and alone. I believe it better to leave this credendum unstated. "Woven man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen," and all that.

• I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave.

Most of us join Mencken on this one. Still, one must recall that emancipated slaves in the United States suffered mightily when they were no longer the property of wealthy whites. Qualify!

• Generally and over the long haul, it is better to be free than to be enslaved.

• And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.

Mencken did not live to hear philosopher Robert Seger opine, "I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then" ["Against the Wind"]. Ignorance often is bliss. Indeed, "Rump Parliament" exists to upset the blissful ignorance that most faculty assiduously pursue. I cannot fault colleagues for eating lotus. They have families to raise, careers to pursue, and illusions and delusions to protect. What I know about the university and its various departments scarcely makes working here better. Thus, I think we'll ignore Mencken's last belief.

Either list strikes me as a creed worthy of Independence Day. Remember: a fifth makes for a happy Fourth.

If more Americans subscribed to Mencken's creed, maybe one would not need a fifth to celebrate.