The rejection of tradition and authority as reliable sources of knowledge in favor of observation and ratiocination is typically taken as a basic premise of modern scientific thought. It is closely associated with René Descartes (1596-1650), who sought to build up knowledge of the world on the premise of doubting even the fact of his own existence. But, drawing on the work of the historian of science Thomas Kuhn, M. Anthony Mills argues that such an inherently anti-religious stance is not a necessary precondition for science:

Kuhn’s [argument] is that students learn first by imitation and practice and—assuming they receive a good education—once they strike out on their own, they will have been successfully inculcated into a particular scientific tradition. They will thus be prepared to recognize, pose, and solve scientific problems.

If we take tradition to be antithetical to scientific rationality, Kuhn’s conclusions will appear disquieting. And, indeed, Kuhn’s critics rejected his arguments as “irrationalist.” But if, on the contrary, we take tradition to be essential to rationality, then Kuhn’s conclusions will be not only acceptable but also unsurprising. According to the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, before we can begin to reason at all, we must first acquire the habits necessary to recognize and, ultimately, to replicate rational behavior. To do so, there must first be exemplars that we take to be authoritative—in the moral domain these will be exceptionally virtuous people, in the scientific domain, exceptionally good scientists. To become rational, in other words, one must be educated within a tradition of inquiry.

Science, on this view, is not Cartesian—at least as far as [the rejection of received ideas] is concerned—even if it remains eminently rational.

Where does this leave us? . . . [T]he fact that religious beliefs are not entirely reducible to empirical experience and partly depend upon tradition doesn’t make them irrational or even anti-scientific. Thus a popular way of opposing science and religion starts to look untenable. This hardly means the two become indistinguishable. But it does suggest that science and religion could be conceived of as distinct—but possibly harmonious, even sometimes mutually beneficial—traditions of rational inquiry.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.