A world without religion would mean a distressing loss of kitsch for atheists to collect and manipulate in amusing ways.
The discussion below and posts like this and this have gotten me back to thinking about the problem of religion and politics again. I’ve always been a big proponent of strict secularism, a division between the church and state that’s firmly maintained. And I’ve felt religious people were well-advised to be secularists—religion is best protected by a separate spheres philosophy.
But thinking about it, I guess I’ve decided that to a large degree, this is Pollyannaish thinking. Religion is a political institution, and pretending otherwise is pissing in the wind. When someone accuses a church of being political, they usually mean, “Holding political views different than my own and my church’s,” in my experience. I recently heard an otherwise astute commenter on a talk program say that the Catholic Church of her youth was about social and economic justice, and now it’s become a sexist, reactionary organization, and then she described the process as becoming “politicized”. Which made me flinch, because even though I too prefer the idea of a Catholic Church that mobilizes its substantial power for justice rather than injustice, both maneuvers are inherently political.
People choose their religions based on finding those religions reflecting their identities and values back at them. And politics is all about identities and values.
I just wish people could find another way to define identity and values.
See, the problem I have with religion is that it exploits the gray area in people’s thinking between metaphor and the thing that metaphor describes. For no doubt complex cognitive reasons, at various times every human being has moments of being too literal, though I have no doubt that some people have problems distinguishing between the literal and metaphorical more than others. Metaphors are extremely useful things; human communication would come to a grinding halt if we couldn’t use metaphors and instead had to describe everything in straightforward, literal terms. I couldn’t have even written that prior sentence.
Religion trades in metaphors that speak to deeper values and ideas. In and of itself, that’s no big deal. The same thing is accomplished in art, literature, bullshitting around the campfire, etc. But what I think helps create chaos is the sense that religion then asks the participants to take some of the metaphors not as stories about something else, but as literal truths. And then reality and fantasy start getting all mixed up, standards on how to speak on certain subjects get all goofed up, and critical thinking goes out the window. What becomes a matter of private belief that’s not reality-based and therefore not really a matter for the world of secular politics (was Mary really a virgin?) and what is just a metaphor expressing a value that does have political dimensions that are appropriate for criticism become confused. Whether or not someone is bringing a value or a superstition to the table when she brings a religious belief gets all confuddled. What the believers themselves believe and what is just metaphors for what they believe is hard to separate, even for them.
It adds a layer of unnecessary confusion to the already confusing world of politics. Think about how confusing it is that in American politics, there’s a de facto irrationality test to run for most major offices—you don’t get to do it, unless you believe the literal truth that Jesus died for your sins and there’s a heaven you get to go to and everything. And then we start squabbling over whose church is teaching ridiculous, untrustworthy ideas, while everyone ignores the elephant in the room, which is that all of them are built on an idea whose literal truth is taken as well, gospel, but that couldn’t actually have happened. All other minor squabbles seem quite minor compared to that glaring issue.
Indefensible beliefs that have to be respected in politics is a serious problem in a political system built on the idea of deliberative democracy. But of course, we can’t be tyrants the other way and demand that people refrain from turning to religion instead of grounding themselves in more rational avenues to discovering community and values, avenues where the distinction between metaphors and the things they are describing is firmly defined. The good news, as we all know, is that slowly but surely, the population of atheists and other non-affiliated people is growing and that parameters of what kind of religious woo has to stay far the fuck out of government are being better defined through debate. On this progress continuing, I hang my hopes. In a non-literal sort of way, of course.
182 Responses to “The problem of ever separating religion and politics completely”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I used to think that the only way to cure the religion-politic disease is to ban religion religion permanently. (yeah like that ever happens)
But now, the best way is to create “comparative religion” Curriculum early on. So basically, a person will be equipped to have mature view of religion early on. (religion is a social process, have history, actors, and contains fluid interpretations.)
At the very least this will prevent people thinking that their stuff is the real deal, and it’s genuinely the only one falling from the sky by divine grace.
But as you notice, it’s enormously complex task politically. (we can’t even clean up evolutionary theory or global warming as accepted natural reality, let alone teaching people that religion is nothing more than literary interpretation exercise.) People like to have that nice and simple core of dogma.
oh, btw. I think I stole that idea from Julia Kristeva lecture.
Yeah, especially to the bolded part.
And yet, pointing out that glaring issue gets elided over with, “You just don’t understand theology” or some other such stuff, and “God” gets consistently redefined in more nonsensical ways (but–and this seems to be the key–outside of any kind of rational, empirical inquiry).
There was a comment over at kos that was like, “God is the universe trying to know itself.” What the fuck is that nonsense? We have a term for the universe–the universe–and it’s not a sentient entity.
Well, actually, most people don’t choose their religions - they’re born into them and either become indoctrinated or just retain a loose acknowledgment as being whatever religion they were told they were. That is why so many people who don’t much about Christianity but do celebrate Christmas (you know, the tree, the lights, the gifts, cookies and maybe a few carols) will say they are Christian when asked and why so many Jews intermarry, celebrate Christmas and cling to a misguided belief that Judaism is an ethnicity not a religion (of course that let’s them call thier children “half Jewish:). I’d be willing to be that a great majority of these people couldn’t ascribe a truly religious meaning to those self identifications.
Most people don’t choose their religion. They are born in it. and think other religion is wicked.
Most people don’t even know, what is the known oldest printed holy books of their religion let alone what is the basic history of other religion.
Most people simply “hear” what the guy next to him talk. That’s the extent of religious experience. (hence the bullshit talk about ‘value’
Most people can’t even say what exactly is the basic set of dogma of their own religion, let alone other religion. Religion is more “social activities” then mouthing what they want to believe because that’s what like to hear.
Ol Cranky:
There is a difference between Judaism as a religion and Jewishness as an ethnicity. I am Jewish in heritage. I am atheist in belief. Please do not conflate the two and claim that because I do not worship a deity, I therefore have no ethnic background.
I think it goes even deeper than that, even more basic.
What is God?
The common, civil definition of “God” takes the form of an intelligent entity with an active interest in the world, capable of making decisions, with emotions, etc.
However, my experience is very few religious folks, or at least theists actually believe in this definition. The term “God” itself is nothing short of gibberish. (Not that it makes their belief gibberish. Just their communication of it)
The problem is that there’s absolutely no conversation going on right now about this. None at all. No conversation about these basic conversational building blocks that oh so much seems to depend on.
However, my experience is very few religious folks, or at least theists actually believe in this definition
Let me introduce you to my relatives. Or pretty much any Southern Baptist or other Calvinist. My guess is that there’s a bit of self-selection in your experience. A lot, if not most, people consider “God” to be a being interested in their life specifically (no narcissists among them, noooooo).
The term “God” itself is nothing short of gibberish. (Not that it makes their belief gibberish. Just their communication of it)
Usually the beliefs are as well. I mean we get treated to things like “that beyond all comprehension” or “the great mystery” or, as I mentioned, “The universe and everything in it attempting to come to an understanding of itself.” All utter nonsense.
However, my experience is very few religious folks, or at least theists actually believe in this definition.
I wish that were the case. I am completely non-”religious” now because I can’t find any religion that doesn’t have a patriarchal all-knowing deity at its center. Except Wicca, and we all know that’s a BAD religion and not really a religion, only practiced by kooky crazy wimmens.
I guess Buddhism doesn’t consider the Buddha to be all-knowing, but “enlightened.” But he’s still a guy.
You people give me a headache. I say two simple things (love God and your neighbor) and as usual, you turn it into something to fight over. And don’t ask who I support in the election either, it’s a secret…Ok, it’s Nader, how do you like that! Thought it would be Obama, huh? That’ll teach you not to make assumptions about God and politics.
Watching American politics, its seems that it must be easy to reach the kind of conclusions you have. Its true that in many cases churches are inherently political actors- the catholic church is pretty much everywhere.
I know though from my political involvment in the UK though that ministers and churchgoers can really support the principle that religious views shouldn’t drive government policy. Your constiutional system makes things rather different over there, but without that its through broad coalitions that change
Well, actually, most people don’t choose their religions - they’re born into them and either become indoctrinated or just retain a loose acknowledgment as being whatever religion they were told they were.
True, but only reinforces the idea that religion is about identity, which is why so many white Christians are going apeshit at the idea of a black church.
Tinter, that might be because their cultural dominance is unquestioned. The U.S. is seeing a lot of religious upheaval, I think in part because we’re seeing the country go rapidly from a very dominant white majority to a much more multi-cultural landscape. Now that the dominant ethno-cultural group can’t throw its weight around like it used to, they’re getting panicky and upping the Jesus stuff.
the buddha is not a a deity, but a prophet, and anyone can become enlightened and thus a buddha. that’s the goal.
I know quite a few atheists who will cop to being sort of hyphenated unbelievers. There’s a difference between a Jewish atheist and a Mormon atheist, albeit at the margins. I’m a Baptist atheist, in particular a King James Bible Baptist atheist, as that is the church I grew up in, and the Baptist approach to theology is the one within which I’m most comfortable discussing my atheism. Another way of looking at it is that the rituals and ceremonies of the church retain an emotional hold on us even after we have left behind any association of those things with the supernatural. Amazing Grace still brings me to the edge of tears despite the fact that it references things I believe to be total bullshit. The Catholic catechism has no such hold on me. If I was less of a humanist I might well cling to Baptists as my community, as part of my identity, in the way that so many atheists and agnostics do. Karl Rove springs to mind as someone who is a de facto atheist but who retains strong ties to a Christian identity (and yes, the implications of that phrase are intentional).
Keep in mind that if you had a magical wand that could turn frothing fundamentalists into atheists, you’d still have a shitload of Christopher Hitchens clones. =/
I think a more important aspect than eliminating religeon is spreading the personal values we have. Personally, I’d consider it to be much better if a right-wing Christian changed to a more liberal wing of the church, than for that same Christian to abandon god, but retain the bigotry, hatred and delusions of entitlement.
Bashing the dodos can be fun, but I think it’s more productive if we also show examples of our ideals in action: show people how the ideals we have for the world can transform people’s lives for the better.
That anyone could interpret a book of metaphor as literal truth speaks very poorly to the literary training of our populace. Of course, the gullible have always been easily led.
I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this issue. I’m not saying that there are people who do think it’s an ethnicity, I just think that in using the term Jewish in that matter does lead to confusion and incorrectly implies an less than correct homogeneity among Jewish people. Despite the borscht belt bias, all Jews are not Ashkenazi and even among those, there are differences between the Eastern European (predominantly, though not exclusively, Russian and Polish) and German Jews. To make the assumption that being Jewish is an ethnicity or that one can be “half Jewish” implies some sort of biologically heritability that doesn’t exist. I say this despite the fact the Orthodox do not accept the child of a gentile woman and Jewish man to be Jewish, have a requirement that children adopted by Jewish parents be converted to be “Jewish” and that those who use the term Jewish as an ethnic identification seem to [unintentionally] disregard the Sephardim as well as the aforementioned differences among Ashkenazi. I find this is where the conflation occurs. I also, personally (and granted, this is my personal opinion), think that relegating a religious ideology (Judaism) and the term that generally implies subscription to that religion to an ethnicity undermines it as it doesn’t differentiate the two when they are mutually exclusive. Mind you, I’m still wrapping my little head around the Reform movement not including a belief in G-d as inherent to the religion.
For the record, had I met you in person and you described yourself as Jewish and an atheist, I wouldn’t have thought twice about it. As it is, I’ve had non-Jewish people tell me that “I’m not really Jewish” because I’m not “religious enough” (whatever that means) and I’ve had people (educated ones) really not understand that I don’t celebrate Xmas at home because I’m Jewish.
This being said, I think our disagreement on how we label ourselves and how we and others view the same descriptor pretty much proves Amanda’s point.
-PS I really don’t mean to be as pompous as I probably sound. I find the more I chose my words in an attempt not to offend, the more assholey I come across, so please read this post as something a dork would say when she’s thinking out loud
Ol, I think the problem is the idea that ethnicity is fundamentally biological. No reason to think that—doubt you could prove someone is Italian from their genes or something. No, ethnicity is a cultural construct, and there are enough atheist Jews running around to suggest that it’s far from a made-up identity.
The truly devout will never WANT to fully separate their politics from their faith; they don’t see it as an issue at all. That’s why they demand its inclusion in the schooling our their youth, be it in a home schooling setting or via “intelligent design” vs evolution, or what have you. The idea that it’s possible to parse out these issues is laughable at best and inflammatory at worst for them.
Says a gal raised in a very lax/ pseudo Christian home and saw it as utterly ridiculous by the age of 9.
Amanda, you are exactly correct. About 90% of what we see as “religion” is really just tribal identity. The proof of this is that about the same percentage of aggressive “Christians” become visibly upset when you suggest putting the real principles of the gospels into effect. Suggesting that wealth be redistributed to help the poor and sick and that militarism be abandoned in favor of peacemaking is a good way to make Southern Baptists explode.
About 90% of what we see as “Christianity” is really “dominance by wealthy male elders of white Western European descent”. Now that it’s got to the point where a majority of people become very upset when that group throws its weight around overtly, they identify more and more as “Christians” because it’s considered rude to hold people’s religious beliefs up to rational scrutiny. Read about the evolution of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” for the details of how this worked, if you haven’t already.
Amanda@19 - As an example, consider the triracial isolates like the We-Sorts, Lumbee, and Melungeons, who derive their genetic heritage from Native Americans, Africans, and Europeans. They have an unambiguous common ethnicity, but are biologically quite diverse.
Pretty much what Togolosh said.
i am a non believer, but I identify culturally as catholic, with a strong background in the southern evangelical/fundamentalist tradition. I was raised catholic (mom’s family are very catholic), but most of my dad’s family is either southern/freewill baptist or pentecostal. I also love Amazing Grace and older Appalachian gospel music and I still have a soft spot for a good mass.
You see, I’ve always been at peace with the idea of religion and identity being closely intertwined, and I say that as a believer. Judaism just happens to be rather explicit about this, but just because other faiths aren’t explicit about it or deny its reality doesn’t mean that it’s not the same for them. No one criticizes someone who goes to a “Southern” Baptist church for having “inappropriate loyalties to his southern identity.” Thus, when people said that Obama belongs to a church that describes itself as “unapologetically Christian and unapologetically black“, my reaction was, “And?”ol cranky -
As one of those “half-Jewish” offspring who is an unapologetic atheist, I think my Jewish family would be fairly insulted by the idea that one cannot be ethnically Jewish. The conflation with Ashkenazi Jews is unfortunate, and as Amanda says, like any ethnicity, it’s a cultural construct, not a biological mandate, but the fact is that Jews are often (physically) noticeable in the U.S. and possibly moreso elsewhere, despite being considered essentially white in the U.S. (though, I guess, not 100% by some). This, to me, seems to make it as “real” as any other ethnicity.
Furthermore, I think a lot of people who were raised by Jewish parents or who have Jewish family have a lot of holdover from grandparents or other relatives who were persecuted for being Jewish, which was more about perceived ethnicity than religion. To say that the idea of Jew as an ethnicity is an utter fiction is baffling to me and frankly a little insulting to my family’s history.
I might be in the minority, but being raised in a vaguely xtian household, I tend to be just pure atheist (rather than methodist atheist or jewish atheist) and disrespect all religions equally. I had assumed that most atheists felt this way, but my assumptions usually get me in trouble
.
Bashing the dodos can be fun, but I think it’s more productive if we also show examples of our ideals in action: show people how the ideals we have for the world can transform people’s lives for the better.
The history of the twentieth century is littered with tens of millions of corpses produced by the utopian atheists Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin.
I don’t really think there’s a meaningful difference between the process by which religion is turned to nefarious or mixed-up ends, or distilled down to an inaccurate and valueless parody of itself, is really much different from how the same process occurs to political movements, local communities, nationalities, or any other group identity that humans peg themselves to. Our mental processes, advanced as they are, are susceptible to category errors, over-generalizations, cognitive dissonance, and other problems; generating all of those is easy and educating people to overcome them is hard.
What often frustrates me in trying to discuss religion is when it gets defined, essentially, as “a supernatural explanation of matters of fact.” Extremist religious groups (like the fundamentalist-evangelical movements in the US) basically use this equivalence to usurp power, to dictate nonsense ideas to believers, under the assumption that religion is a legitimate provider of factual answers about how the world works. For most more moderate religious types, though, the whole idea is kind of silly: religion obviously isn’t suited to explain factual questions, in much the same way that scientific study is ill-equipped to deal with ethical quandaries.
Spiritual practice and community essentially exists to satisfy a deep-seated human need that’s a bit too big to quite call “emotional.” And like art, music, sex-for-pleasure, personal exercise routines, and many other human behaviors that have evolved to satisfy similar needs, it’s not for everyone and shouldn’t be pushed on people who don’t need or want it. But people aren’t going to “see the light” (heh) on it and move to rational atheism any more than people will wake up and realize they don’t need to dance or take their morning run or buy dildos — the practices that satisfy the need are “rational” because they satisfy that need.
I do generally agree that the myopic focus on religion is poisonous in essentially the same way that inequalities in gender and race are on the public stage — the very act of affirming Christianity as a political candidate has the same effect that a parade of white male figures has. I’d love to live in a country where a Muslim, a Jew, a pagan, and a committed atheist could all be viable presidential candidates. But I do think that a shift of public consciousness towards considering pluralistic and progressive religions the norm would likely be a necessary step in achieving that.
Amanda: Just to clarify, you were saying it is in the US that their dominance is unquestioned? I think thats what you meant, but I’m not certain.
I think a lot of the discussion around identity is on the mark, and thats why advancing a degree of multiculturalism goes hand in hand with secularism- accepting different cultures is a big step towards not attempting to enforce your value systems.
I’m still not sure what “spiritual” is.
It’s a floating signifier; there’s no content to it (maybe better, it’s so overflowing with multiple meanings as to be useless). It usually means something like, “Incredibly emotional but it has to be way more special then merely emotional so I’m gonna call it something else,” and moves into the nonsensical like crystals and angels and feng shui…..
I think a lot of the discussion around identity is on the mark, and thats why advancing a degree of multiculturalism goes hand in hand with secularism- accepting different cultures is a big step towards not attempting to enforce your value systems.
Cultures, as systems of belief, will always come into some kind of conflict with each other. The usual Kumbaya-can’t-we-get-along approach to multiculturalism is more feel-good nonsense that refuses to treat very important and central dfferences between cultural systems as important, much less as existing.
accepting different cultures is a big step towards not attempting to enforce your value systems.
Heaven forbid we enforce value systems. After all, the notion that women are property is equally as valid as the notion that they are autonomous human beings.
“The history of the twentieth century is littered with tens of millions of corpses produced by the utopian atheists Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin.”
Bismarck, you are so right!
That’s why we MUST elect John McCain!
We’re Americans, goddammit!
And we’re CHRISTIANS, as all good Americans are.
And if we put our minds to it, we can kill as many or more people than those godless atheist poseurs!
Vote McCain in ‘08! We must not allow the Death Gap to continue!!!…
Culturally, one can certainly identify with a quasi-tribe while finding the literal truth of its religious “teachings” bullshit. I suspect that much of the public circle-jerking about the American brand of ostentatious patriotic piety - does Obama have a flag pin on his jacket today, for example - derives from the same tribal bullshit.
Again, so well said, Amanda.
Adolf Hitler
Atheist?
Not so much.
Attributing the rest of those issues to atheism? “Slight” problem in terms of intellectual honesty. Somebody wants a cameo in EXPELLED! *jazz hands*
On the kitsch-collecting issue, I think Islam was wise, for its own sake, to remain largely kitsch-free. Not selling little porcelain statues of your iconic founder probably go far in convincing people that you are Not To Be Toyed With.
ol cranky,
I’m not sure from where you got the impression that Reform Judaism doesn’t consider G-d central to the tenets of the movement, but as Reform Judaism is articulated today, G-d is very much a part. There may have been a time when a belief in G-d wasn’t emphasized (The Pittsburgh Platform might be a good place to look to check into it), but this is on the URJ’s website now:
Reform Judaism affirms the central tenets of Judaism - God, Torah and Israel - even as it acknowledges the diversity of Reform Jewish beliefs and practices.
Perhaps you are confusing the Reform and Reconstructionist movements?
In terms of the religion/politics quandry, I think that the fundamental problem is that we frame both politics and religion in terms of morals and values, rather than an ethics. What if, instead of approaching political and religious questions from a moral perspective, in which we struggle to determine some sort of universal right and wrong, we work to articulate an ethical framework which posits as ‘good’ that which cultivates affirmative, productive, and creative modes of relation, rather than a moralist implementation of established rules and regulations? There are a number of feminist and post-structuralist theorists today who are exploring these ideas of ethics and postsecularism: Deleuze, Braidotti, Butler, hooks, Glissant, and Mahmood are the first that come to mind, but there are definitely more.
I think there’s really something there, though, in an ethics of affirmation and creation, an ethics that can be postsecular without being specifically religious, that can allow for a proliferation of situated micro-universalist value-systems. I haven’t quite worked out how to translate it to the political landscape, but it’s the only framework that’s been making much sense to me, lately.
“Adolf Hitler
Atheist?
Not so much.”
But, but, but, J*nah G*ldberg told us that Hitler was a liberal! And therefore he MUST have been an atheist, since everybody knows only conservatives can be christians.
Jeff, you are doing harm to my world view…
Jeff, you are doing harm to my world view…
Oh, well.
Its worth noting Jews were not really considered ethnically “white” in the US until after World War II.
I get tired of overgeneralization and suspect other feminists are tired of it too. It’s no less a problem regarding religion. It’s too easy to say religion is this or that when what you really mean is “the religions I know about, especially evangelical or Catholic Christianity, is this way or that.”
For many Buddhists, including me, Buddhism is a nontheistic religion that doesn’t dip into the supernatural. Yes, it has its stories that do, but they are understood as just that, stories and metaphors. Not all Buddhists will agree with that, but many do. The same is true for many Christians and Muslims. It’s worth minding our words. Speaking accurately is the be-all and end-all of good science and discourse, isn’t it?
I’ve addressed this in a couple of short essays: religious atheism and neither religion or atheism.
I get tired of overgeneralization and suspect other feminists are tired of it too. It’s no less a problem regarding religion. It’s too easy to say religion is this or that when what you really mean is “the religions I know about, especially evangelical or Catholic Christianity, is this way or that.”
For many Buddhists, including me, Buddhism is a nontheistic religion that doesn’t dip into the supernatural. Yes, it has its stories that do, but they are understood as just that, stories and metaphors. Not all Buddhists will agree with that, but many do. The same is true for many Christians and Muslims. It’s worth minding our words.
I’ve addressed this in a couple of short essays: religious atheism and neither religion or atheism.
I get tired of overgeneralization and suspect other feminists are tired of it too. It’s no less a problem regarding religion. It’s too easy to say religion is this or that when what you really mean is “the religions I know about, especially evangelical or Catholic Christianity, is this way or that.”
For many Buddhists, including me, Buddhism is a nontheistic religion that doesn’t dip into the supernatural. Yes, it has its stories that do, but they are understood as just that, stories and metaphors. Not all Buddhists will agree with that, but many do. The same is true for many Christians and Muslims. It’s worth minding our words.
I’ve addressed this in a couple of short essays: religious atheism and neither religion or atheism.
Test. Wondering if I can post a comment.
I get tired of overgeneralization and suspect other feminists are tired of it too. It’s no less a problem regarding religion. It’s too easy to say religion is this or that when what you really mean is “the religions I know about, especially evangelical or Catholic Christianity, is this way or that.”
For many Buddhists, including me, Buddhism is a nontheistic religion that doesn’t dip into the supernatural. Yes, it has its stories that do, but they are understood as just that, stories and metaphors. Not all Buddhists will agree with that, but many do. The same is true for many Christians and Muslims. It’s worth minding our words.
I’ve addressed this in a couple of short essays: religious atheism and neither religion or atheism.
I get tired of overgeneralization and suspect other feminists are tired of it too. It’s no less a problem regarding religion. It’s too easy to say religion is this or that when what you really mean is “the religions I know about, especially evangelical or Catholic Christianity, is this way or that.”
For many Buddhists, including me, Buddhism is a nontheistic religion that doesn’t dip into the supernatural. Yes, it has its stories that do, but they are understood as just that, stories and metaphors. Not all Buddhists will agree with that, but many do. The same is true for many Christians and Muslims. It’s worth minding our words.
I’ve addressed this here:neither religion or atheism.
Trinifar @ #41: Why do you call yourselves “Buddhists”? Why not “Way-ists” (OK, arguably taken by Taoists) or, well, something other than some guy’s name? Hero-worship is still worship, and I myself have more problems with that than the “supernatural.” (I read “supernatural” as “nonexistent” though.)
…the Catholic Church of her youth was about social and economic justice, and now it’s become a sexist, reactionary organization
What the fuck space-time continuum did she grow up in? Or is she just really, really, really, really (channelling Mel Brooks here) old?
Gee,if only my original comment about the dangers of official atheism linked to a totalitarian philosophy hadn’t got eaten, I wouldn’t have been able to enjoy Bismark’s drivel. How… fortunate?
By values, I meant the political values of equality, multiculturalism, inclusion, charity and the like. The ones that translate into Love thy neighbour, do unto others, easier for a rich man to get a camel through the eye of a needle sort of thought as opposed to the leviticus style curse of doom shit.
Amanda: You may enjoy John Rawls’ writing on public reason. Especially later in his life, he saw the central problem of pluralistic democracies to be how religion could be compatible with that pluralism. Much of what seems to concern you about religion in this post also concerned him.
Why do you call yourselves “Buddhists” or, well, something other than some guy’s name? Hero-worship is still worship
There is no “guy” whose name was Buddha who we worship. I think it is common for people not familiar with Buddhism to think of the historical Buddha, Shakyamuni Buddha, as “THE Buddha” but that’s a more narrow view than any Buddhist would hold. Shakyamuni Buddha was a teacher who, through his own effort (meditation), came to understand both the cause of suffering and the way to extinguish suffering and then went on to teach this to others. But he’s not the only buddha. Buddhas are innumerable.
Perhaps the “worship” statement is about Buddha statues. These are about paying respect to the teacher and the teaching.
What ties the many Buddhist traditions together is the understanding that our own work to follow the teachings in our own lives is what leads to liberation, both for us as individuals and for all beings. My teacher phrases this as “orthopraxy, not orthodoxy” and I think the distinction is important.
Actually, the Communists made a big deal out of trying this; in the Soviet Union, it was illegal to teach religion to anyone under 18. It didn’t take.
On an unrelated note, my big problem with many religious worldviews comes down to these two objections:
1) There is no afterlife.
1a) Any attempt to trade off welfare on Earth for the sake of improving a person’s afterlife is misguided at best. This includes, say, preaching that using condoms will send you to Hell, claiming that a a soul comes into existence every time a human egg is fertilized, or crashing airplanes into buildings. This life is all we get, and working on solving imaginary problems, such as how to keep people out of Hell, tends to result in real suffering right here on Earth.
2) There are no miracles.
2a) The Big Beard In The Sky doesn’t intervene to cause anything that happens on Earth. Hurricane Katrina didn’t flood New Orleans because God was angry. Divine favor does not determine the outcome of a war. Far too many religious doctrines call for people to do the equivalent of sinking our boats and trying to walk on water in the middle of the ocean. We’re on our own; we have to find real solutions to real problems, and not imaginary solutions to real problems.
2b) That holy book was written by people, not The Big Beard In The Sky. If it’s one of the books I’m thinking about, those people were wrong about a lot of things. If that book disagrees with well established scientific theories, chances are, it’s the book that’s wrong, not the scientists. Saying otherwise tends to get in the way of those real solutions to real problems I mentioned earlier.
“Keep in mind that if you had a magical wand that could turn frothing fundamentalists into atheists, you’d still have a shitload of Christopher Hitchens clones. =/”
‘WIth my army of Christopher Hitchens clones, I will soon rule the world! Ha haha ha - Hitch-clones, ATTACK!
- Oh, crud, they just keep drunkenly stumbling into each other and failing over . . .’
MAjeff: By enforcing value systems I mean attempting to enact them as law. We see substantially less efforts over here to end abortion, reduce gay rights and so forth. There is not the same expectation from religious groups can do whatsoever they please with regards to advocating for laws.
Situations such as that create a system with, for example, equal regard for women. Now, there will of course be discrimination by those within some communities- but its naive to think the will respond to our efforts to “enforce” our values, and difficult to see how it could be done in the courts. Of course we can advocate, but the real drivers for change have been and will continue to be women and others within those communities themselves.
“- Oh, crud, they just keep drunkenly stumbling into each other and failing over . . .”
…as anyone could imagine. However, they’d be very sophisticated, erudite, and witty while doing so…
Mr Ess wrote:
Good to have you on board!
David Hume got it right. As did Nitezsche before the syphillis kicked in: Faith and Reason are twin evils, two sides of the same coin. Equally flawed and infected by hubris and, for want of a better term, by human exceptionalism.
Hitchens and Richard Dawson neatly illustrate this, to anyone perceptive. They’re insufferable. And Hitchens, for his part, is an overrated writer and physically repugnant in a way that seems to reflect his personal moral failings. Yuck. Preposterously enough, he comes across as a very vain man.
Nietzsche.
I don’t pretend that it will work in practice, but the answer has always seemed to me to be civility, in several senses of the word.
A problem in the separation of Church and State discussion for most people (on both sides) is a sense that they are supposed to leave their own beliefs at the door when it enters the public realm. Christians, for example, feel urged to pretend that they don’t believe the supernatural parts of their faith, while atheists feel urged to pretend they do.
What is missing (and I despair of having it happen) is a collective agreement that the answer is “So what?”
It doesn’t matter if it is humanist, non-theist principles or a belief in God’s will that bring people to the table to discuss, say, welfare, or regulation of pharmaceuticals, or traffic laws. What’s missing is the ability to say “What I believe got me here. Now, while those beliefs can inform things, from this point, it is time to follow the rules of the game.”
Laws should never be based on morality. Ever. They should be based purely on creating an orderly and regulated system that lets people do their own thing as much as possible, balanced with doing the least harm possible to others or society.
Murder may be morally wrong, but it should be illegal only because it is socially disruptive to allow it, and harms unconsenting people.
We allow too much overlap between Church and State because we allow too much overlap between morality and legality.
That’s the real distinction I think we need, but I meet so few people who don’t knee-jerk equate moral with legal and immoral with illegal, and there is way too much benefit to too many people to be able to manipulate opinon that way for that to change.
“Good to have you on board!
”
If McCain is elected, the apocalypse begins November 5th, 2008…
“If McCain is elected, the apocalypse begins November 5th, 2008″
For public record, in the event of the Rapture, I get first dibs on their stuff.
But what I think helps create chaos is the sense that religion then asks the participants to take some of the metaphors not as stories about something else, but as literal truths.
The difficulty here is the word “truth.” I think its at the heart of our (atheists/agnostics) fundamental misunderstanding of religion.
People need to believe (1) that there is such a thing as “Truth” (with a capital T) and (2) that they know what that Truth is. It’s a psychological need to sort the chaos - label, categorize, analyze. Its a human function we can’t seem to stop engaging in.
Our belief that humans evolved from single-celled organisms is not fundamentally different from a Christians belief that some sky god made us out of earth. Psychologically they are ways in which we explain the universe so that we don’t feel so lost and neither is necessarily the “Truth.”
The problem is when two people with completely divergent views both try to assert their truth as the Truth. The result…ugly, pointless fighting. Neither side will convince the other. Neither side will ever give up. Their (Our) truth is far to important to their (our) sense of themselves and their place in the universe to ever surrender.
The only solution to this problem is to stop talking about Truth and start talking about useful truths. The scientific method may or may not lead us to the Truth, but it certainly is useful if you want to cure cancer.
But to reframe the discussion, we (atheists/agnostics) have to acknowledge that our Truth may not be the only truth…and let people believe whatever nonsense they need to believe.
Amanda Marcotte March 16, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Ol, I think the problem is the idea that ethnicity is fundamentally biological.”
True, biology is an important element but there are cases proving it’s a social construct. (I think primarily it’s about distinguishing a group of people somehow in relation to power structure. Naturally biology is the easiest feature.)
Extreme case: Tutsi vs Hutu in Rwanda is primary example. They are exact same people, except from colonial legal construct)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutsi
Typical ethnicity construct in the US is another.
eg. Jamaican or Haitian are not considered african american. Simply because of language and recent nationality, albeit biologically many can be rooted to same tribal area.
Or the idea of latinos or asian. (purely bureaucratic simplification.)
Our belief that humans evolved from single-celled organisms is not fundamentally different from a Christians belief that some sky god made us out of earth.
Other than that, you know, evidence and stuff.
Can we stop bending over to pretend that flat-out bullshit like the 6-day creation story has any validity? Or, must we become so open-minded that our brains fall out?
Godmonkey: I would totally watch Family Feud if Richard Dawkins hosted it.
“Can we stop bending over to pretend that flat-out bullshit like the 6-day creation story has any validity? Or, must we become so open-minded that our brains fall out?”
Jeff, you have the freedom not to believe. All the fundies are asking for is the freedom to punish you (and all the other godless non-believing scum) for heresy. Quite simple actually…
And your intolerance of their intolerance makes you a bigot…just as I am, Amanda is, and many of the other intolerant Pandagonians…
Other than that, you know, evidence and stuff.
Evolution is a theory. Is not proven fact. Its a way of explaining certain observations. We may agree that it is the best way of explaining certain observations, but that does not make it True. It just makes it useful.
Sadly, for all our scientific education we seem to forget from time to time that science does not prove any specific fact but rather provides theories that have yet to be disproven.
Besides which…what VALUE does arguing over Creationism provide? What the hell do we care if some people want to believe in a sky god?
Mr Ess wrote:
OK, if that’s the case, whom will you blame: Senator McCain, because he won the election, or President Bush, because he’ll still be in office?
Peter wrote:
But since them guys is all poor deluded people, robbed blind by televangelists, just what of their stuff will you find worth taking?
Evolution is a theory
I expected better than this level of idiocy at Pandagon.
Educating the crazies would be a lot easier if they had to suffer the consequences of their willful ignorance.
Want to pick and choose when to accept the scientific method? For example, acknowledging the science behing nuclear weapons but ignoring the science behind evolution? Great. Next time you need life-saving antibiotics or a flu shot, not gonna happen. Need a new kidney? Nope, doc’s busy helping people who accept the last 150 years of study of evolutionary biology is what makes their kidney transplant possible. Coastal home destroyed by uncharacteristic flooding and erosion? Need government relief because your ski resort in the mountains isn’t reliably getting snow anymore? Sorry. Bizzaay with people who accept global climate change is real.
Fundies get organ transplants, blood transfusions, special education and medical treatment for genetic disorders, government aid for recovery from natural disasters (that clearly God intended, so shouldn’t they be joyous in the destruction of their home? It’s a message, right?) and a host of other services they absurdly deny are possible because of the very same reliable, universal scientific method they worship when it manifests as something they can use to kill brown people. Or gays. Or abortion doctors.
And if you want to know why Evolution vs. Creationism matters, I’ll give you three letters: ERV….look ‘em up.
“…whom will you blame: Senator McCain, because he won the election, or President Bush, because he’ll still be in office?”
I guess when we’re on our knees, it won’t really matter much. I’m not actually convinced there will be any difference anyway…
Evolution is a theory. Is not proven fact….
Sadly, for all our scientific education we seem to forget from time to time that science does not prove any specific fact but rather provides theories that have yet to be disproven.
Ah, apparently my scientific education was better than yours.
“Evolution is a theory. Is not proven fact.”
…which puts it on the same level as gravity, the atom, mathematics, and every other scientific description of reality…
What the hell do we care if some people want to believe in a sky god?
Please find any historical pandagon post on religion to find the answer to your absurd question.
“I expected better than this level of idiocy at Pandagon.”
So evolution isn’t a theory?
Besides which…you’re missing the point. The point is arguing over it does no good. It adds no value other than to piss people off. And pissing people off doesn’t accomplish anything.
Religious beliefs are a crutch for achieve personally desired results. People don’t believe that climate change isn’t happening because of their “religion” they just don’t want to give up their Lincoln Navigator.
Fundies don’t believe in “creation” because their religion tells them so…they do it because it is a flash point on which to indoctrinate and maintain control over people.
Get it? So arguing over religion is POINTLESS. You want to convince people to do something about climate change you have to find reasons that fit within their belief structure that would get them to do it…i.e., shift the conversation.
Evolution is a theory, but you’re just parrotting the creationist “only a theory” nonsense.
But hey, if you want school children taught lies, if you want us to not tackle problems like antibiotic resistance or the evolution of diseases like HIV, just keep giving in.
Kristen March 17, 2008 at 11:25 am
Besides which…what VALUE does arguing over Creationism provide? What the hell do we care if some people want to believe in a sky god?”
Some requirements of meta ideology, like religion, are internally coherent and able to explain the universe.
Hence why there is God creates so and so, in how many days, etc. It seeks to explain.
Why do we care if some people believe? Because They don’t leave the rest of people alone, religion is not inclusive. Almost all religion is about spreading/dominating the rest of ideas. Coherency is one important justification sustain the spread.
evolution of diseases like HIV,
er virsuses like HIV.
The debates matter. It’s not only about what happened millions of years ago, it’s about human bodies today and their interactions with the world. Evolution matters, but let’s just stop fighting over it so that we don’t have to challenge people’s fairy tales.
Kristen March 17, 2008 at 11:38 am
Besides which…you’re missing the point. The point is arguing over it does no good. It adds no value other than to piss people off. And pissing people off doesn’t accomplish anything.”
The main issue of evolution for religion is this: It takes out God from the creation loop. Human can emerge from series of natural force, it doesn’t need divine intervention to becomes human.
Therefore, religion raison d’être is bunk.
But hey, if you want school children taught lies, if you want us to not tackle problems like antibiotic resistance or the evolution of diseases like HIV, just keep giving in.
When did I say any of that nonsense? You’re projecting what others have said onto my arguments. I haven’t said anything about what children should or shouldn’t be taught or about tackling problems.
I said…lets deal with what is useful rather than what is True. It is useful to teach children about evolution as a scientific theory. It is useful to develop drugs. It is useful to find cures for diseases. It is useful to develop pollution controls.
It is not useful to sit around arguing about the philosophical principles. It distracts us from doing useful things.
Evolution is a theory. Is not proven fact.
Oh for crying out loud, anyone that says this is just proving that they don’t understand what a scientific theory is.
EVERYTHING is science is a theory, but not how you are using the word. Theory in science is a testable explanation that has been tested over and over again based on evidence and refinement. Nothing is ever proven in science, because to do so would be the opposite of the point of science.
You seem to think theory = opinion. Maybe in colloquial use it does. But in the scientific world it means something highly different.
Equating a scientific theory with irrational faith and belief (ie that without evidence) just undermines any argument you may make.
Like Jeff, I would expect more intelligent commentary from Pandagon readers.
Yes, Kristen, evolution is a theory. But in science-speak theory means it is a hypothesis that has passed the rigors of the scientific method and is accepted by the scientific community OVERWHELMINGLY, such that no more accurate theory exists to question or contradict it. It’s not a theory like you prefer to imply, as if we’re talking about Miss Scarlett in the library with the candlestick.
Arguing about maintaining a separation between empiricism and dogma is fundamental to preventing a collapse of world order. If pissing people off means I get to keep living in a society where (most) people use the faculty of reason to make decisions, rather than blind faith in the idiosyncracies of any number of competing deities and their subjects’ belief systems, then I will gladly piss off everyone in the world.
You want to talk tactics? Please start with some common sense.
Equating a scientific theory with irrational faith and belief (ie that without evidence) just undermines any argument you may make.
Please read what I said in its context.
Last and final…
All beliefs whether scientific or not are “fairy tales.” There is no knowable Truth. We may have scientific theories that say gravity is a force caused by mass, but do not know whether the Truth is that it is little Lepricons pulling things together. Gravity is useful, it’s the best answer we have to why things do what they do…but it is not TRUTH (or at least if it is, we have know way of knowing it or not).
Being dogmatic about science is no different than being dogmatic about any other belief system. But here we are again arguing about science versus religion based on Truth value rather than based on usefulness.
Its useless and pointless and I’d rather do something else.
Being dogmatic about science is no different than being dogmatic about any other belief system
Inject yourself with HIV and then pray for a cure. See how effective it is.
Inject yourself with HIV and then pray for a cure. See how effective it is.
What the hell? Did I say we shouldn’t find a cure for HIV? Did I say anything about “giving in” to the religious right?
No. I said shift the conversation. But that means I’m a faith based quack who wants people to die. Sure. Because getting into a pissing match has worked so goddamn well with the fundies? Who is president again?
Well, HIV is just a story, just a fairy tale. So, since it isn’t there, you should be able to narrativize it away. Right?
MAJeff,
You’re projecting. Listen carefully to my words not what others have used this argument to accomplish. I’m saying lets concentrate on what is useful: what we can see, touch and feel.
People are suffering. I only care about the Truth value of “why” people are suffering to the extent that the why allows us to alleviate the suffering. If some evil bastard wants to believe its punishment…his belief is useless. If a scientists believes its a virus…that’s useful.
Its useless and pointless and I’d rather do something else.
Good that you’re here to tell us what is important and what isn’t, otherwise, you know, we’d TOTALLY be wasting our time thinking about things that you’ve so wisely told us don’t matter!
*phew*
/sarcasm
Yes, we agree there is no big T ‘Truth’, but just because there are multiple small t ‘truths’ does not mean they are, or even should be, argued to be equitable.
Trying to pretend, again, just completely undermines your argument.
Yes, we agree there is no big T ‘Truth’, but just because there are multiple small t ‘truths’ does not mean they are, or even should be, argued to be equitable.
Good thing I didn’t do that then.
Since they’re all fairy tales, how do we choose between the eternal punisher and the scientist. We have no way of knowing what’s useful. You have reduced science, and it’s entire process of testing and the like, to the equivalent status of scientology. Even “useful” is a perspectival issue (useful for whom? for what?)
Science, the pursuit of knowledge, is a valuable enterprise. It may be that you see no value in searching for the origins of the universe or for the biological mechanisms that led to our being. So be it. I prefer not to wallow in ignorance.
Even “useful” is a perspectival issue (useful for whom? for what?)
Ummm….helping others…reducing suffering. The general purpose of most people. I assumed every one knew I was discussing things from the pov of utilitarian ethics.
But I see the fundamental problem. You disagree about your ability to find the Truth. You believe that science will alleviate your “ignorance.”
Good thing I didn’t do that then.
Then what the hell is your point then? Because everything you’ve been arguing appears to imply that this is the case.
If they’re not equitable, then there is most CERTAINLY a point of discussing things here, especially given the HUGE amounts of inhuman actions religion perpetrates.
Kristen March 17, 2008 at 11:59 am
Being dogmatic about science is no different than being dogmatic about any other belief system. But here we are again arguing about science versus religion based on Truth value rather than based on usefulness. ”
Because there is physical reality you have to deal with.
You may think people who believe in “gravity” are just bunch of dogmatic idiots. But I dare you say “I don’t believe in gravity” and jump off a building. You have to deal with existence of gravity or you’ll die.
Science is a model, not a perfect one, explaining natural reality. It is not some literary exercise or poetry. If you know better, you can refute, fix or enhance current model/theory. But you won’t be the first on or the last one. Everything is being challenge and tested everyday. (that’s what scientists do)
Does theory of evolution has any use? sure, it explains mutation of various microorganism for eg. It helps us cure disease. Or it also being used as method to produce various chemical compounds or test electronic designs. (nevermind monkey-human talk. they are so old)
The problem with fundamentalist they can’t separate religion’s moral function from general purpose idea to explain everything in the universe. They fall into trap that, if religion fails to explain natural reality, who knows what else in it is wrong. The whole thing could be no good. The comfortable feeling of “perfect guide book” disappear. It’s like a 6 yrs old kids finding out their mom and dad are wrong for first time.
Well, time to grow up I guess.
Wow, Kristen’s read so much pomo nonsense her brain done fell out.
And yes, I am ignorant. But, prefer not to wallow in it.
That’s why I read physics and biology and mathematics and literature in addition to the material in my own field of sociology.
Wow, Kristen’s read so much pomo nonsense her brain done fell out.
Hey, don’t knock pomo! I like pomo! THIS is not pomo!
If they’re not equitable, then there is most CERTAINLY a point of discussing things here, especially given the HUGE amounts of inhuman actions religion perpetrates.
My point was that we have to stop arguing over what is “True” and talk about what’s useful. Discussions about religion inevitably center around the issue of what is True. Its not a useful discussion (since no one will be convinced) and it ends up with both sides more entrenched.
So let’s shift the discussion. It won’t always be possible to find another avenue to pursue our goals (some will be incomplete conflict) but where it is possible we should do so. One way of doing that is by talking about what truths are “useful” (in a maximizing happiness/minimizing pain sense). Science is (generally speaking) extremely useful. We don’t have convince religious nuts that science is True - and we couldn’t. We just have to convince them that the things science can produce are useful and the truths science produces are useful - which is completely duh.
If we want to progress past these arguments and deal with issues like climate change, medical research, etc we have to find other paths than “yes it is”, “no it isn’t” politics.
You may think people who believe in “gravity” are just bunch of dogmatic idiots. But I dare you say “I don’t believe in gravity” and jump off a building. You have to deal with existence of gravity or you’ll die.
Are you even reading what I wrote? My whole point was that we should deal in the physical reality. Gravity is useful. Gravity explains something. It also fails to explain things when those things get really, really tiny or really, really huge - so is it True? Its true, to the extent that it keeps me attached to the planet. Why is the distinction between True and true so damned difficult to accept?
Utter, complete bullshit. Don’t use philosophical notions of perception of reality to discuss the scientific method. Apples and oranges. And humans discuss “beliefs” in all sorts of ways; your statement is too general and thus wholly wrong.
1) I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.
2) I believe I love my S.O.
3) I believe God is real.
4) I believe in the theory of evolution.
These are all different uses of the term “believe”. The first is based on astronomy and physics and is considered a “truth” of science. The second is a statement of personal belief, unprovable beyond generally concordant terms (i.e. do I take care of my SO’s basic needs, do I listen to my SO, etc.). The third is, again, a statement of personal belief, but based on no evidence whatsoever; this differs from the second because while the second asserts an emotion (which are wholly subjective interpretations of chemical reactions) the latter asserts an actual being with agency exists in the universe, which, again, there is no testable evidence for. The fourth is a statement which indicates an idea or system of ideas the speaker accepts as true, though there is an objectivity and rationalism behind the acceptance of this idea. Thus, these are not equal beliefs, and certainly not all “fairy tales”.
The reason why we can ascribe the words “fact” and “truth” to science, is because, unlike religion and dogma, their assertions are constantly tested and retested. Their principles do not live in a vaccuum of self-reference. If evidence arises to question a presumed belief considered “fact” (i.e. force /= mass*acceleration) then that evidence can be reviewed in equal measure by anyone, anywhere, regardless of religion, culture, sex or language - so long as the principles of the scientific method are used. That’s why science is great and worth fighting for: it actually does give us a glimpse into universal truths, with far more certainty and naturalism than any dogmatic belief system ever could.
By trying to put the utility of scientific beliefs on par with the utility of religious beliefs, you miss the boat. Religion is useful, as is science. Shall we be judging whether the sun will come up tomorrow based on whether that’s useful???
Kristen March 17, 2008 at 12:45 pm
My point was that we have to stop arguing over what is “True” and talk about what’s useful. ”
Then religion is certainly useless. (you can close your eyes, say “God does not exist”, then open your eyes again, things will still functions like before)
You can’t do that with various natural realities, scientific facts. You can say, global warming doesn’t exist, but sooner or later climate change will get you. You can argue gravity doesn’t exist, but you can’t jump off a building without suffering some consequences.
Now a lot of scientific theory are rather far off and doesn’t really affect daily life. I mean who cares if you believe in electricity or not, your toaster will still works, as long as you don’t stick a fork into the wire and electrocute yourself.
Probably evolution is the same. It’s so grand and not easily perceptible, one doesn’t need to actually know it very well to operate in daily life.
Great, so according to Kristen we now have to teach fundie kids that 2+2 sometimes equals 3, if it’s more useful than believing 2+2 = 4 because having any standards whatsoever for discussion of reality (which can’t be discerned because nothing is ever “True”) might spark argument from people whose belief systems encourage ignorance.
Cool. Sure.
Kristen March 17, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Are you even reading what I wrote? My whole point was that we should deal in the physical reality.
Evolution is a physical reality. It is observable, has consequence, some aspect can be tested and predicted.
Just because you don’t particularly care about it doesn’t mean it’s not “useful”
I understand the difference perfectly.
One is an adjective applied to people, places, things or ideas that people accept as part of their reality. The other is a meaningless term Kristen pulled out of her ass.
“Kristen” is what happens when :
a) scientific education is scanted;
b) woo-woo blather is substituted for rigorous logic.
“There is no knowable Truth.” It’s this kinda Evil bullshit that gets people killed, and it’s the Kristens of the world doing the killing more often than not.
Deep6,
Um…as a scientist surely you know…math is a language. There is no Truth value to language. Why do you assume I’m arguing that we shouldn’t teach science?
Squashed,
Precisely my point. Religion’s use is psychological. It makes people feel better. It fulfills a psychological need for certainty. We should stick to what we can observe and effect not because it is True…but because its useful. And I didn’t say evolution wasn’t useful. I said it may or may not be True and an argument over its Truth value is pointless.
I didn’t say we shouldn’t teach evolution, or science, or math, or economics, or psychology, etc. I said we shouldn’t be dogmatic about the TRUTH VALUE of our beliefs.
Later:
What. The. Fuck?
Alright…I’m done. You guys have just gone from debating to being assholes. But then that’s the point of being dogmatic isn’t it? Unable to contemplate that your view of reality may not be perfectly correct.
Out.
Amanda said:
I think this is a problem that cuts two ways. On one hand, I absolutely agree that that leap to literalness is exactly my problem with the patriarchial religions, notably Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. (All of these traditions have forms that mitigate or sidestep the problem, but I think it is clear these are not the forms that tend to dominate societies). It is of the essence of Christianity, at any rate as I was raised to understand it, that its claims are literal; even though most mainstream Christians long ago conceded that much of scripture and tradition could not be taken literally (as some nun taught me, “the Bible teaches us how to go to Heaven and not how the Heavens go”) still certain ground cannot be conceded without, in the view of believers, making the whole faith tradition pointless.
FWIW, I think that the culprit is not religiousity/spirituality as such, but the imperatives of patriarchial, dominator societies. It is these societies which require a top-down paradigm and abhor ambiguity. If all meaning amounts to obedience to the imperatives of a hierarchy, it is an existential nightmare to contemplate confusion and error–being wrong means playing for the Wrong Team and being a Loser, the ultimate horror.
Thus the spiritual traditions that dominate the scene today are characteristic of the societies that do; corrupted by the demand for Perfection.
But on the other hand, Amanda, I think what grates on me coming from Meanie Atheists is actually yet another emanation of this same Dominator Paradigm imperative, in anti-spiritual guise.
To wit, we cannot fully get the benefits of metaphorical thinking without from time to time abandoning our lifeline to what we call “rational thinking”–which, if you think about it, makes precisely the kind of demand of absolute faith in the literal and absolute final truth of some fixed set of propositions and facts as the loony literalist religions do. The thing about metaphorical thought is, sometimes you have to let go and subjectively go with believing stuff you know, at other moments, is not true.
The thing is, we never have that absolute possession of any facts or knowledge whatsoever. What we have are theories, models of reality, that work pretty well at solving our problems. And indulging contrafactual thoughts can be a way of testing and refining and expanding those models of reality we routinely use and trust, so they work better for us.
I don’t think we suffer, just as human beings, from ambiguity and confusion in our mental models. We suffer as members of dominator societies, who have hammered into us fear of being caught coloring outside the lines. In spheres where we learn not to fear Big Brother looming over our shoulders, we don’t worry about literalism. In matters where there is pragmatic reason to achieve focus, we do it without nonsense–unless, as is often the case, such matters are entangled with social hierarchy. Then we get anxious.
And I submit, a lot of what is dismissed and “bah-humbuged” as sloppy or even treacherous spiritual mummery does in fact serve us well, if we can learn to avoid being too hung up on the question of “but is it really true?”
To me, the myth of Inanna’s journey to the underworld and confrontation with her dark sister Erishkigal is in an important sense real, even though I disbelieve that any of the Sumerian deities ever existed save as imaginary characters in made-up stories. The thing is, the structure of the stories–the nature of the characters and how they evolve, interacting with each other–is a powerful metaphor, and dissecting them into simple cause-and-effect mechanisms loses something essential.
In Catholic school those nuns taught me that a “Mystery” was something no human being can ever understand. In Mythology classes I got the alternative notion that perhaps the ancient Pagan Mysteries were not things that their initiates did not understand, but merely could not express in words.
I don’t know whether Christianity can survive a shift in social paradigm away from a dominator society to one based on universal human mutual respect. But I think spirituality existed before the dominator paradigm and will exist as long as there are humans. Whereas I fear that the attitude that all that is just a sign of mental immaturity, weakness, or illness is itself an emanation of the dominator paradigm itself, developing yet another incarnation for an atheistic age.
Back to the hookah and Kant she goes.
Mysteries are to be solved, not worshipped.
May I interject that evolutionary theory is a useful and much-substantiated model, whereas Creationism is age-old folk superstition codified by power-hungry thugs and presently perpetuated by fraudulent hicks? Oh, I mayn’t? Um, sorry then.
A more salient (and valid) comparison between the religious and he scientific worldviews is that rampant Utopianism corrupts each, although not necessarily in equal measure. Science provides a useful framework for performing important tasks, but it is no more sweeping mankind toward some glorious future than religion is. Science is to be believed, with die skepticism, of course, but it is not to be believed in. And if you think it demands no such fealty, you’re either callow, myopic or misguided.
Institutional religion is naught but greedy hucksters peddling wive’s tales to the stupid and desperate. That, in itself, provides convincing proof for neither a godly nor a godless universe.
How so?
MAJeff,
Problems are to be solved. By definition, mysteries cannot. The nature of existence is unknowable to us. Our brains are limited and our tools are fundamentally flawed.
Ultimately, the scientific method is a far less flawed tool than organized religion. But that is precisely because it has a far more limited scope.
So are the Days of Our Lives.
Anybody who uses the phrase “evolution is only a theory” in a political context should be required to go to the nearest tall building and demonstrate how “gravity is only a theory.”
The majority of Southern Baptist are not Calvinist. Presbyterians are Calvinist, but not Baptist in general. With exception of Al Mohler any “leader” you could name in the SBC is not a Calvinist. It kinda helps when you mock people for their ignorance if you don’t acttually show your ignorance regarding what they think or believe.
Inject yourself with HIV? That’s pretty harsh. I thought Kristen seemed like kind of a dum-dum, but wowza, that was pretty mean.
Bullshit.
Mysteries are merely problems we haven’t solved, or worked out how to solve, yet.
I’m really tired of this argument being trotted out. Because, you know, if there’s anything we have figured out so far in our existence on this planet is that our brains and minds are pretty damn awesome things.
WHY do such people NEED there to be ‘unknowable’ things out there? Why is this so crucial for them? You know what is amazing to me? The physical processes that go on in a star, which we have a good grasp on. The beauty of the formation of ice, which we know. The evolution of life from single-cell organisms to today’s complex beings.
The moment we start thinking again that we can’t know something, is the moment we as a civilisation start destroying ourselves.
That’s patent bullshit, Sarah — unless you hold scientific endeavor to be somehow elevated from artistic endeavor. I hold them in equal regard, but as a matter of preference would much rather probe the “mysteries” of Beethoven’s Ninth than read a scientific treatise on any subject from any era.
In all events, cultures seem to be known and remembered by their artistic contributions more so than their scientific/technological prowess. And artists are by and large great believers in the “unknowable,” endowed as they are with the gall to operate independently of your scorn. Rather than being agents of civilizations’ respective self-destructions, they’re generally regarded as their signal personages.
But your mind encompasses all, Sarah. Don’t stop believin’.
Oops, there’s that word again.
What mystery in Beethoven 9?
I have a music degree, and it’s a wonderful piece, but mysterious? No.
I have the same objection to both these statements. Why should we choose affirmative, productive and creative modes of relation, and/or liberty and least harm, or any other ethos?
There are several good answers, but they all involve moral philosophy, don’t they? Take that as a challenge or an opportunity to educate me.
“Don’t stop believin’”
Quoting from a Journey song isn’t going to win you any fans…
I’m with Jeff on this one, what’s so mysterious about Beethoven’s 9th? I mean, I adore it as a piece of music, but really, THAT’S your argument? Really, please tell us that you didn’t rest all your powers of debate on Beethoven’s 9th as an argument?
Why do you need something to be unknowable for it to be worth something to you?
zzz…. What? There IS gonna be a ‘Sopranos’ movie? God heard my prayers!!
So saith the late MacDonald Carey.
Man, I like being very simple in nature. Keeps things alot less complicated.
The problem with the word “theory” is that the popular understanding of it is far from the scientific understanding. A theory is an explanatory model, and that’s all. Some theories are robust and well tested, and some are bullshit. Science is the method for sorting out which ones have explanatory utility and which don’t, along with the limitations on the utility of theories with only a limited range of validity.
“WHY do such people NEED there to be ‘unknowable’ things out there? Why is this so crucial for them? You know what is amazing to me? The physical processes that go on in a star, which we have a good grasp on.”
I think it depends a lot on what the people you are objecting to actually mean, rather than what you choose to think they mean.
And yes, there are a lot of religious wingnuts out there who really DO mean stupid things. But there are also clueless atheists.
There is a lot of integrity in saying that there are unknowable things out there - especially if you include in that the idea that just what is and is not knowable is one of them.
I think you are overreacting. Essentially, what this language expresses is the same thing that the scientific vocabulary uses the idea of “theory” for.
It is the recognition that there are unexplained areas in the cosmology, but that simply because some aspect is unexplained or not fully explained, it doesn’t invalidate all of it, nor does it close the door to further inquiry.
Personally, I don’t use the phrase myself, because I think that scientifically, eventually we’ll get around to far more than we won’t.
But the insides of stars are pretty well known? Please. Hardly. We have some pretty solid ideas about stellar fusion but so far next to none about the actual mechanism of (as opposed to the measurable reality of) gravity, which stars are a big part of. What we know is amazing, yes. What we don’t know is far more vast.
I think the biggest problem is trying to use science for philosophy and philosopy or religion for science. The two have a tad bit of overlap, but not a lot. Give to Caesar what is Ceasar’s, and to God what is God’s - and let’s add to Einstein what is Einstein’s (insert favorite scientist here.)
And get the followers of all three to stop making claims that their discipline has no rights to.
MAJeff:
It’s kind of like or “new wave” or “gourmet cuisine” or “the first flush of puppy love.” I can try to give a a description in words; if that description is good enough, you can probably line my description up with the actual experience, but for the most part it’s just a signifier: I talk to someone else and use the word because I hope they’ve had a comparable experience and we can both represent that experience with a convenient label.
If I were going to try to explain it: it’s the feeling of inexplicable and ineluctable beauty that exists in everything, the way someone you used to hate looks to you when you fully and without reservation forgive them, or the way you realize you care deeply and without boundary for someone you’ve never met just because they’re another unique living being. It’s a sublime experience in the same sense as the appreciation of art is: it’s an entirely sub-rational reaction that you seek out because it enriches your life, broadens your instinctual understanding of the world, or encourages you in your efforts to be a better person to your fellow human beings and the world you live in.
I know plenty of happy, moral atheists who don’t experience or need it; they have a personal philosophy derived from reason and live their life well because they know it’s all they’ll get. Awesome; the world can always use more people who do good things, seek for justice, and are comfortable in their identity.
People who need spirituality in their lives are just different from that; none of them are really going to change to not needing that, any more than someone can really give up music or enjoying hikes in nature because someone tells them their affection for those things is irrational.
Trinifar:
I am very much in agreement. Religion and spirituality get a huge amount of blowback from being closely associated with the active-patriarchy-supporters that make up the extremist religious right; I find it deeply frustrating that it’s generally considered “safe” among many progressive communities to use slurs and forms of attack that would (rightly) be considered vile and hateful about gender, orientation or ethnicity.
Peter etc.:
I agree with this wholeheartedly too. We also don’t have enough distinction between morality and… good judgment, I guess you could call it? Lots of behaviors that are dangerous or unwise (unprotected sex with numerous strangers, use of some addictive illegal substances) are pegged as “immoral” by conservative thinkers, which totally misrepresents why those things are a problem in the first place.
That’s unfair, Eric. Kristen has not advocated anything that should be presumed to lead to violence. She’s echoing Karl Popper, in significant measure.
Just grabbed Beethoven out of my ass, perhaps ill-advidedly — Beethoven’s opinions were complex and sometimes self-contradicting. But the numbers of artists who have given credence to unknown forces and regarded their art as a probity of them are legion. In fact, an inordinate number of them have been quite “out there” with their metaphysical beliefs (Yeats comes to mind).
I don’t necessarily share their romantic worldview — I’m not religious at all — but the idea that Yeats represented the downfall of Irish civilization is preposterous at best.
My “argument” isn’t in the existence of God or other unknown forces. My “argument” is that coming off as if other people’s belief systems require your endorsement — under pains of the demise of civilization, no less — is remarkably fundamentalist in character. Your use of the word “yet” is also telling. Perfection is just around the corner, if we only follow the One True Way!
This is where I point out I have a degree in astrophysics (and please, don’t accuse me of degree-dropping, I tend to think it’s relevant).
And I didn’t say we know all about it, or that we have worked out even a majority. I said “we have a good grasp” because we do, and of what we have figured out, it’s amazing and awesome and beautiful.
I personally don’t buy the ‘god of the gaps’ theory, which is what is being proposed here, because it just seems … petty …. to be honest. I stand by my question of why such people need things to be unknowable.
Trying to move toward Truth (while mumbling acknowledgment of ultimate agnosticism) is what has blessed humanity with all the truths that have improved our lives. There’s the utilitarian argument for Truth.
Not everybody shares your utilitarian ethics and it’s difficult to turn people into utilitarians if they don’t feel inclined to it. I don’t know why that is. Has Peter Singer convinced you to become vegan yet?
When you talk about people being dogmatic about science, it would help if you give specific quotes, and maybe an estimate of frequency.
Those are two separate questions, as evidenced by believers in theistic evolution. I won’t answer the second right now. Creationists want their stuff taught with my tax money. They don’t provide an alternative theory that can explain the evidence that evolution explains, so their stuff doesn’t belong in the science classroom. But they say it does. And ignoring them doesn’t make them go away. Silly question, really.
Long-winded reply to MA Jeff @ 112, and by implication to others, here:
http://ratracebypass.blogspot.com/2008/03/from-microcosms-to-cosmos.html
Shorter version:
Everything is unknowable and a Mystery; loosening our grip on the notion that we Know More than other people is the key to being reasonable and secular.
Beethoven’s opinions were complex and sometimes self-contradicting.
Well, he was a human after all. That’s to be expected.
Bach may have been a better example because he explicily said his music was to glorify god. I sing it (well sang it) because it was part of the Western concert music tradition, and because it’s a hell of a lot of fun. I don’t need the woo to make it fun or beautiful. And I can analyze the shit out of it, in terms of harmonies, intertwining voices in the fugues, instrumentation, etc., etc.
I know the shit technically. As a voice major, I also had to take acoustics and stuff, (and having started in engineering) I also understand chunks of the physics of sound (it’s been a while, though). None of that takes away from my enjoyment of the music (shit, I was just about bawling at a cello piece at Kennedy Center the other night). But I don’t need any sense of some “Great unknown” or “Great Mystery” (now there’s a nonsensical phrase–if it’s unknown or mysterious how can we know if it’s great?) to be emotionally moved.
I was emotionally moved. That’s enough. Why need there be more?
Ah, here’s the problem. You’ve got a minor case of nihilism. They have pills for that. Dan Barker and other ex-fundies would disagree with you. A lot of people do end up being persuaded by evidence. I can think of several times in my life that I have been, and I used to have a malignant case of woo. Offering evidence and giving a fair argument for it is a kind thing to do for anyone.
I’ve found it to be a useful discussion several times, for myself and others. Does my anecdata count?
Everything is unknowable and a Mystery; loosening our grip on the notion that we Know More than other people is the key to being reasonable and secular.
If the idea that we know more than others is ridiculous, I should just quit my teaching job now.
You’re supposed to be revolted and fearful of your physical, base, vulnerable, animal self. Don’t you want some gold on that lily?
Don’t you want some gold on that lily?
Nope, I want to sit in the concert hall and cry. And that’s enough.
Mark Foxwell:
Oh my God (haha), yes! This is it.
Metaphorical, slippery thought is one of the most awesome (in both the classical and TMNT senses) things that humanity’s evolution has provided it with. It’s what lets us intuit solutions before we see all the evidence; it’s what lets us come to grips with and work around
MAJeff:
Not everything has a logical solution. Some philosophical questions of “human nature” are open questions that can’t ever be factually established, only explored again and again; some areas unearthed through scientific exploration are paradoxical or are logically unresolvable. Just look at the behavior of particles at a quantum level, or think about how no system of predicate logic can ever be complete, with a proof by Godel to show us why.
No matter how much people talk about it there will never be a universal consensus about whether Back to the Future or Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure is a better movie about time travel.
Godmonkey:
Again, full agreement. I’d prefer not to be associated with efforts by religion to usurp (very, very badly) the role that science properly plays in understanding our factual existence, any more than I’d really respect a scientific experiment on whether you should love your neighbor or not.
I’m more or less with you, MAJeff. I only point out that I would never impugn Yeats’ motivation for his wonderful poems.
Because his inspiration ran afoul of Sarah’s prescriptions for an enlightened populace, I am sometimes moved to run afoul of Laura Ingraham’s prescriptions for virile manhood. That’s enough for me, too, but I’m not ruling anything out. I’ve seen too many unusual occurrences in the desert.
erk, cutoff sentence. “It’s what lets us intuit solutions before we see all the evidence; it’s what lets us come to grips with and work around the problems we encounter; it’s how we can identify problems like patriarchy and conceive of how to attack them, even when the scientific method proves difficult to apply.”
Mark Foxwell, you should check out http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/17/1892
Would you respect a scientific study that concluded you should love your neighbor? Would you say the NIH should not fund a further study on loving one’s enemies?
I don’t see Jeff disagreeing with this. I don’t disagree with this. Moving on.
Way to put words in someone’s mouth. When you want to treat seriously the notion that naturalism need not lead to nihilism, ring the bell at the front desk.
Economist loves that sort of experiment. Didn’t somebody won noble prize for that do goodie theory? Tho’ you know…economy. (I think it’s numerology of some sort.
)
I don’t usually get involved with this sort of thing online, but I figure I’ll give it a brief go.
I have this memory of talking about politics to my grandfather about politics: after a couple of minutes, he just pointed his finger at me and chanted “liberal” over and over again with this vaguely malicious look in his eyes. This was especially irritating because I don’t identify as a liberal (I prefer the separate but (likely) equally problematic term “progressive”).
Now, I’m going to put my cards on the table, as it were. I’m a Philosophy and Women’s Studies major, and my own feelings and theories about truth are probably more subjective than most people would feel comfortable adopting themselves. I think that there are a number of reasons for that (and I wouldn’t deny for a second that a good deal of privilege plays a part). Nonetheless, I’m not interested in arguing for those beliefs right now, because such talks are often delicate and take a great deal of time and nuance if they’re not going to just be statements of belief. There is one can of worms that I’m willing to open, however. Just because philosophy and science serve different ends, that does not mean that you cannot have philosophy of science, which often seems to be the reason that fact is raised.
What irritates me is the reaction from many people to people who espouse views like mine. There are a couple of examples from this thread, but in general talk about “fashionable nonsense” abounds. I don’t see much difference between that and what my grandfather did in that conversation. In both cases, the other person saw a political/theoretical movement that challenged more dominant beliefs, and they saw it as a threat to those dominant beliefs. As a result, they were able to fall back on name-calling, questioning the other person’s character, and misrepresenting their point of view. Much the same way, Kristen’s objections were lumped in with postmodernism and Kantian theory (neither of which would support Kristen’s assertions), and all of those philosophical stances were dismissed as nonsense. (By the way, her objections sounded more like pragmatic ones. The culprits there are American philosophers such as Pierce, Dewey, James, and arguably people like Rorty and Dennett.) They were not, however, dismissed as nonsense in the face of scientific claims, as people tried to assert. Rather, they were dismissed because they conflicted with the philosophical stances of the people objecting. I’m not going to make assumptions about what those stances were, but I would not be surprised if some folks were analytically trained philosophers or just drawing on a general framework such as scientific realism.
My question is, is this the way we want to comport ourselves in conversations with each other? Is it okay because you’re right, as compared to my grandfather? Or is it okay because your philosophy science is unquestionable, as compared to politics? I understand that tempers raise quickly when people start talking about truth claims, but hopefully, Pandagon is not a place where those sorts of insults are the best way to make a point.
On art…from my own last two days:
A trip to the Kennedy Center and the Prokofiev
But a bit more: Not all “knowledge systems” are equally adequate for investigating reality.
What I see is a lot of people saying that such a statement is, in and of itself, without merit.
Well, what other knowledge system has managed to figure out how send human beings to the moon and bring them back…AND TO DO IT? If you don’t think that is a big deal, and if you think that accomplishment has no relation to reality, we don’t have much to talk about.
Evan March 17, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Or is it okay because your philosophy science is unquestionable, as compared to politics?
okay then…
what do you think of this statement and how do you evaluate that?
Kristen March 17, 2008 at 11:23 am
Evolution is a theory. Is not proven fact. Its a way of explaining certain observations. We may agree that it is the best way of explaining certain observations, but that does not make it True. It just makes it useful.
Let’s say “truth” in this case is fairly simple common understanding, ability to explain a system behavior over time and predict how the system behave in the future.
What’s your alternative “theory” to a biological phenomena such as speciation, if you know different “theory”/explanation.
“God created it in sixth day” ain’t it.
I hope it’s just moderated, because I had a couple links—to my trip to Kennedy Center and to the Prokofiev Symphonia Concertate for cello and orchestra (which the NSO played).
Jo:
I actually heard it at one of those seminar type thingy’s put on by the Federation of Phila. The person who made the comment was from a local folkshul and they said that the Reform movement didn’t have a belief in a single G-d as a central tenet. I have to admit, I’ve never heard that at any Reform shul I’ve attended or from people who were members of a Reform congregation and I thought it sounded odd but I pretty much have a “whatever gives you comfort” attitude towards people’s religious (or areligious) beliefs and just figured they knew what they were talking about. I know they said Reform and not Reconstructionist because I was actually trying to figure out what the differences are between some of the denominations. I certainly hope you didn’t think I was making any sort of value judgment in making my, apparently incorrect, comment (more importantly, I hope nobody thinks I was making some sort of negative value judgment for a lack of belief in G-d, especially since I actually understand why people are atheists more than I understand why people believe in a G-d or gods).
Would you respect a scientific study that concluded you should love your neighbor? Would you say the NIH should not fund a further study on loving one’s enemies?
Shit, I had a comment basically saying, “What about a scientific study showing the effects of ‘loving one’s neighbor’” but I deleted it.
i know that in this isn’t popular to say, but not all knowledge systems are equal in: 1) their description of physical reality; and 2) their moral values.
The first is far more open to scientific inquiry than the second. But, a culture which treats women as property (and enforces it through local legal mechanisms) is not equivalent to a system that holds women to be autonomous actors.
The problem with a lot of forms of multiculturalism is that they’re about the “aren’t all cultures interesting and beautiful–and equal” and they fail to recognize that some cultural meaning systems will come into direct conflict with each other and that not all cultural systems provide equally accurate descriptions of physical reality, and multiculturalism is itself a value that not all cultural groups share.
Kumbaya-can’t-we-all-get-along may be a good song and feeling, but it’s pretty ridiculous as a belief system in that it has no relation to the world. Indeed, it’s intellectually vacuous and meaningless to say “all cultures are equal,” and I’m hearing a fair amount of that.
Yeah, science is a culture. What other culture has the same kind of accomplishments with regard to the natural world? Anyone else cure smallpox? Polio? Send someone to the moon and bring them back? Spit the atom?
all culture can spit the atom.
*spit, spit*. See?
typo–I know
Here’s what a couple of weird nerdy atheist types had to say on on ‘truth’ and ‘usefulness’:
Indeed, it’s intellectually vacuous and meaningless to say “all cultures are equal,”
I’m not so sure I agree with this idea as a whole, namely because I don’t agree the argument is “all cultures are equal in all respects“. As a principle, I find cultural relativism, at its ethical core, flawed in that it inherently states that “all cultures are equal in all respects“, which you are, of course, correct in saying is bullshit. I think a better statement is “all cultures are equally valid, but ‘validity’ is what is worthless in ethical reasoning.” It was “valid” that Nazi Germany carried out everything they did legally, but ethically, this is both absurd and maliciously stupid. I don’t think calling it “intellectually vacuous” is enough. I think “intellectually malicious” is a better statement. There is intellect behind it, and it is malicious in its propagation.
Evan: I’m similarly frustrated at the philosophical ignorance on display, but I’d have more sympathy for Kristen if she had made even a passing attempt to explain the basis of her objections rather than reasserting her conclusions again and again while making liberal use of technical jargon that was clearly going to be conflated with colloquialisms. Accusing every non-pragmatist of dogmatism didn’t help her case, either, especially when one of the flashpoints was her apparent equation of science and religion.
In the end, she did more to further the frustratingly common misperceptions among scientists and science-oriented people of what philosophy is and does than she did anything else.
Suffice to say, Kristen’s argument was not at all the postmodernism that people took it for nor was it incompatible with the scientific method (to the contrary, it is heavily influenced by the success of the scientific method). I strongly disagree with her proposal of shifting the conversation–I’m not at all optimistic that people who believe pernicious and false facts about the inferiority of women will suddenly stop if asked to consider what such beliefs are good for–but it is not crazy.
JackGoff:
That view of cultural relativism is as much a straw man as the notion that feminism means women take over the world. The Wikipedia entry is a good introduction to how the analytical tool differs from the stance you describe. The cliff’s notes version is that cultural relativism is explicitly concerned with how to avoid the very real problem of ethnocentrism. It is distinct from the claim that there are no moral absolutes and the claim that moral absolutes exist only within the boundary of a culture.
That view of cultural relativism is as much a straw man as the notion that feminism means women take over the world.
But is this not the view that is purported to be necessary by religious politicos like Huckabee? You act like the actual ethical idea of “cultural relativism” is the one that society as a whole understands and utilizes, which is a naive assertion at best and an ignorant one at worst.
To put into better perspective, how many people act like calling Huckabee and his ideological allies “bigots” act like this is bigotry in return, simply because we preach, as a general principle, “tolerance of other people”.
As an ethical standard, I have no idea of cultural relativism as long it doesn’t ask me to act like human rights violations are a necessary aspect of any culture. I understand the traditional challenge to this assertion is the infanticide practiced in certain Inuit cultures in previous times, but I don’t think that this a practical argument in favor of cultural relativism, because most human rights violations do not stem from environmental aspects as well as lack of resources, but from cultural bigotry of other people who are deemed as “less-than” those with power in everyday society.
Cultural bigotry enshrined in law is unethical, and it is detrimental to humanity. I’m not exactly saying that cultural relativism says that it is ethical, but some people have attempted to use it, as a system of ethical understanding, to posit that bigotry is an ethical system of understanding. To say otherwise is to ignore vast amounts of evidence to the contrary.
I have no idea of
SHit, should read “I have no problem with”.
I’m not so sure I agree with this idea as a whole, namely because I don’t agree the argument is “all cultures are equal in all respects“. As a principle, I find cultural relativism, at its ethical core, flawed in that it inherently states that “all cultures are equal in all respects“, which you are, of course, correct in saying is bullshit. I think a better statement is “all cultures are equally valid, but ‘validity’ is what is worthless in ethical reasoning.”
Of course, we’re not disagreeing, but there is a very simplistic multiculturalism, which, based on my experience with Student Affairs professionals and some academic fields (anecdata I know) and multi-culti-politico-types, is the dominant form. There’s a feel-goodism that dominates above any kind of intellectual inquiry or critique.
I’m no longer PoMo or multi-culti because of such nonsensical positions that value “feelgoodism” over inquiry or critique. My students receive not only an approach to treating different belief systems as differing approaches to the world, but also as systems that will often come into conflict with each other and between which we may often have to make choices.
Not every belief is equal, whatever your definition of equal.
Thom:
First of all, thanks for bringing up the connection of pragmatism to the scientific method. I was debating whether or not to include that in my post. Also, I agree with your criticisms of Kristen’s approach, as well as your suspicion of the actual “utility” of a traditionally pragmatic approach. I didn’t mean to stand up for her so much as stand against the reception to her ideas, much of which was not so attentive and critical as yours.
In response to your other points, I’m not especially concerned with “philosophical ignorance” for two reasons. The first is that I think that people engage in what I would call complicated philosophical reasoning more often than they think (and usually not when they think they are). The second is that knowledge of traditional philosophy is not necessary for everyone who wants to engage in scientific or political debate.
Finally, as a friendly aside, I think that the term “relativism” may need to rest for a while; it’s a little too loaded to be effective these days. I prefer talking about things that are subjective and historical, myself, but your mileage may vary.
squashed (and others, I imagine, as it’s not clear who’s responding to me):
At no point did I say that all viewpoints are equal in predictive capability, truthfulness, or general worth (neither did Kristen, for that matter, but that’s beside the point). In fact, I made it pretty clear that I wasn’t trying to engage in a debate about truth so much as raise a concern about the way that this debate was happening. I asked those questions at the end because I wanted to ask if insults and strawmen are ever appropriate (especially during these sorts of strategy sessions amongst feminists and feminist allies). I don’t think that they are (even though I am guilty of deploying the same tactics more often than I’d care to admit).
Jackgoff:
No, you’re thinking of moral relativism, which is entirely different from cultural relativism, the latter needing to say nothing about the status of universal moral absolutes.
Still, To the extent that you then argue cultural relativism has been used to defend or excuse wicked acts, I agree entirely. Similarly, purported universal moral absolutes have been used to defend or excuse wicked acts–anthropology’s nasty history in propping up white supremacy and imperialism is the very thing that gave rise to cultural relativism in the first place. From the perspective of a moral non-skeptic, the problem in both instances is a failure to be adequately self-critical and other-regarding, not an inability or overzealousness to identify some act as right or wrong.
The point is, your criticisms of cultural relativism are criticisms of something else entirely. Cultural relativism is most certainly not “feelgoodism” or, as Ratzinger calls it “anything goes” or as Bush et al call it, “if it feels good, do it.” When aimed at this strawconcept, your criticisms miss their mark as surely as they do when conservatives makes them.
Evan:
I’m in complete agreement with you, particularly on the point that everyone engages in complex philosophical reasoning frequently and often without recognizing it as such. That’s often not a problem, save in cases where people are poo-pooing philosophical questions while doing so or making arguments that presuppose (but do not explain) traditional philosophical backgrounds. That’s what got my goat here, and confess that I was harsher on Kristen than such a pet peeve will justify.
No, you’re thinking of moral relativism, which is entirely different from cultural relativism, the latter needing to say nothing about the status of universal moral absolutes.
I’m not sure how this is absolutely true, but I take your point that what Huckabee disguises as cultural relativism is, in fact, a bastardization of moral relativism. Ethically, I cannot agree that “cultural relativism” has not been used to justify unethical behavior, nor can I accept that everyone has the same idea of what “cultural relativism” is as do you. And they may be wrong to a point according to you, but that hardly is a relevant critique of my point.
And recall that I said nothing about “feelgoodism”. I think your idea what this means is misguided, and you should attempt to reread MAJeff’s comments on the idea.
Indefensible beliefs that have to be respected in politics is a serious problem in a political system built on the idea of deliberative democracy.
ok. I’ll try to remember some obvious recent cases:
- Terry Schiavo
- fight over school curriculum (evolutionary theory)
- stem cell research
- Supreme court justice selection
- school voucher
- women’s health and reproductive right
- abstinence only
- Faith base
surprisingly, this campaign season, democrats are all silence, instead of taking inventory of Bush failure and hit it back hard until the chimpie cries mommy.
(man, we should raise money so pandagon can have it’s own wiki.)
what good is a blog if not creating repository of high quality argument?
JackGoff:
I know you said nothing about feelgoodism. What you and Huckabee et al criticize as cultural relativism and moral relativism (as the mood suits them–Huckabee tends to use moral and Ratzinger tends to use cultural) is also what MAJeff criticizes as feelgoodism. This confusion of what cultural relativism means is what draws my complaint.
To reiterate, I *agree* with you that cultural relativism has been used to excuse wicked behavior. Similarly, I agree that not everyone has the same idea of what cultural relativism is as I do.
And yet, to the extent they make the criticisms of cultural relativism that you and Huckabee make, they are as wrong as when MRAs attack strawfeminists. Certainly, the MRAs have a different idea of what feminism means than, say, Amanda, but that is a fault of the MRAs, not a defense.
Simply put, when you say that cultural relativism means
you are not talking about something that advocates of cultural relativism would recognize as cultural relativism.It is that lack of recognition of the concept by its advocates rather than the general acceptance in society that makes the confusion problematic. It is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to talk about cultural relativism substantively with someone who advocates it, effectively silencing their view.
MAJeff:
How are you going to create a falsifiable, double-blind study to test for the presence of love? And after you do it, what are you going to do with the millions you’ll make on the associated patents?
I wouldn’t disagree. The scientific method is the best mechanism for determining the factual qualities of physical forces and processes in the Universe. (It’s also at least theoretically the best mechanism for determining the factual nature of many social processes, but humanity hasn’t really hashed out a great framework to avoid selection bias and other POV problems in studying human interaction via science yet.)
Look up oxytocin. (Un)fortunately patenting it is not really an option.
Fascinating discussions. Let’s toss religion out for a moment, so there is no appeal to a higher authority
for purposes of moral objectivity. No Beard-In-The-Sky is telling us anything.
What is the basis for moral objectivity in a secular society? Is moral relativism actually nihilism after all?
Isopluvial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Nietzschean_nihilism
I think that Nietzsche’s examination of nihilism and his rejection of it is a pretty good place to start if you want to answer that question. Even though the Wikipedia article bungles some of it, it’s surprisingly good for a philosophy article on that site.
The brief summation that I would give is that nihilism is only a problem if you’re still dependent on God to provide your values and you think that all other sources of value are worthless. If God’s dead then, nothing’s of value to you. However, if you understand that all sorts of things are valuable, even if they were denigrated by traditions that depend on God-like sources of value, then nihilism isn’t a problem. In fact, one could even argue that making up a spiritual being that is essentially unknowable in order to provide those values is a deep nihilism, as it assumes that nothing in your life is worth enough to provide value in the first place.
To All,
Some of you here like to throw the word tolerance around and in the same breath, or key stroke, bash anyone with religious belief. You even go so far as to tell a Jewish person they’re not really ethnically Jewish because they don’t practise the faith.
I guess my question would be, what is it about religion that scares you? I mean really, why do you ridicule those who believe in a higher power. The Big Bang Theory is well, just a theory; it can’t be proven. Should we accuse the scientific community of being nut jobs for defending something they can’t prove. If science could prove it then it would be called The Big Bang Law. Maybe we should add an Amendment to the Constitution that states the seperation of Science and State.
Jason
Evidence to suggest that Jesus a.k.a. Christ existed:
Some doubt has been cast as to whether or not Pontius Pilate was an actual person; if he was not then the Jesus of Christian faith in all likely hood did not exist. So, how do we decide if Pilate was an actual person or just some guy invented by early Christians to give credence to their religion.
Well there would seem to be some reliable evidence to this, the “Pilate Stone”. What was Pilate’s title? Pilate was the “Prefect of Judea“, or more accurately the “Prefect of ludaea”. During the time of the New Testament, “Prefect” was a title given to the Governors of the area we currently refer to as Israel and the Palestinian territories. In 1961 the Pilate Stone was discovered in the ruins of an amphitheater at Caesarea Maritima, an inscription on this stone refers to Pilate as “Prefect” or Governor. Most historians consider this, among other things, as proof of the existence of the man Pilate referred to in the New Testament writings.
What about historical sources outside of the Bible? The 1st Century Jewish historian Josephus, (Titus Flavius Josephus), gives us some compelling evidence in his writings. You may think that because he was a Jewish historian that this would some how taint his reliability; here are some facts about him to at least marginalize this train of thought.
In short, Josephus was a general in the Jewish army during the 1st Jewish-Roman war. He suffered a terrible defeat and became an informant for Rome. He was also associated with, and some speculate a member of, the Pharisees. If you know anything about the Pharisees you’ll know that they were not friendly to Jesus. This in itself would give proof that it would in no way benefit Josephus to write about Jesus.
Josephus wrote a work known as the Antiquities of the Jews which is a history of the world from a Jewish perspective. In Antiquities 20.9.1 Josephus writes:
“But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such disposition, he thought he had now the opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”
So what does this prove you may ask? Well it proves the existence of a guy named Jesus. It doesn’t refer to him in a friendly manner either…“Jesus the so-called Christ“. In this work James, Jesus’ brother, was handed over to the Sadducees to be judged and stoned. According to the Bible, Jesus had a brother named James.
Josephus was also credited with writing the Testimonium Flavianum. Due to the way Jesus is referred in this work it is highly likely that early Christian translators took some poetic license and it is therefore not considered a reliable source as insight to whom Jesus was. It is very friendly in it’s reference unlike what is written in Antiquities 20.9.1.
Does this prove that Jesus was “The Christ”? Not at all; what it does prove though is that he existed.
Jason
Maybe we should add an Amendment to the Constitution that states the seperation of Science and State.
Oh yes, Jason. Because Science (ooo, scary! you capitalized it!) conforms to the same intellectual rigor as “Let there be light”. *eyeroll*
“Some of you here like to throw the word tolerance around and in the same breath, or key stroke, bash anyone with religious belief.”
Jason, religious belief is the ultimate in intolerance.
I could be white, from western european roots, a christian, a protestant, I could believe in full immersion baptism, I could believe in the bible as sole source for god’s instruction to mankind, but if I handle snakes, or if I worship on Saturday instead of Sunday, or believe in any of another several-dozen-to-hundreds of other doctrinal differences, I will be condemned to hell in many other christian’s eyes.
And let’s not get started on actually different religions. I mean, did you know there are people who don’t believe in Jesus at all?. Can you imagine?!?!?
But in your mind, if I think all religious people are misguided, but respect their right to be misguided, and don’t actually take action to prevent them from practicing their beliefs, I’m the one who’s intolerant. Interesting…
It’s important to be clear about what should and should not be tolerated. Do you propose that people should not be held accountable for their beliefs, i.e. racists should not have to answer for their racism?
That’s a fucking lie, Jason. Quotes, or it didn’t happen. Recantations and apologies are also acceptable. Otherwise, you’re just another Liar For Jesus.
Thanks for asking. Is that just the rhetorical question that it appears to be, or was it a real, honest question that you’d like an answer to? Answers are in this comment, and this one, and watch this video.
Nothing can be proven except mathematics. You can’t prove that you aren’t a “brain in a vat”, and that there really are walls and a roof around you. Since you can’t prove those walls exist, will you try walking through them? No? You say you nevertheless find utility in the “walls hypothesis”, even though it can’t be proven? Okay. Then your attack upon the Big Bang theory is just special pleading.
Again, nothing can be proven except math. And in science, theories don’t ever become laws. I don’t know if you are an honest debater who would care about the differences, but if you are, you can start to get at the concept here.
Just what would be the point of that? Do you believe that lawmakers should not take scientific discoveries into account when they draft legislation? No more government funding for health research, I guess. What a bunch of good ideas you have, Jason.
And the passage in Antiquities 20.9.1 is not at all uncontroversial. Don’t pretend that its authenticity is not disputed.
“I guess my question would be, what is it about religion that scares you?”
It’s not religion, per se, it’s (some) religious people, many of whom are not content to follow their own rituals and beliefs, but feel the need to make sure everybody else does too. Your right to be religious is fine right up until it infringes on my rights.
Pretty simple I would think for people whose ancestors in many cases escaped to America specifically so they wouldn’t have some other religious tradition unwillingly imposed on them.
“I mean really, why do you ridicule those who believe in a higher power.”
I have never made a banner and hung it from my car expressing my thoughts on the silliness of religious belief. I’ve never tried to take over my city council to ensure that atheism is imposed on others. I’ve never considered the citizens I live with to the the raw material for future religious conversion. There really aren’t other atheists who do that either.
So why can’t I come to Pandagon, knowing there is a large percentage of non-believers here, and say what I want about religion? How does that infringe on your rights?
“The Big Bang Theory is well, just a theory; it can’t be proven. Should we accuse the scientific community of being nut jobs for defending something they can’t prove.”
Let’s say sometime in the future scientists determine that instead of a Big Bang, there was a Big Whimper.
Would that change the reality of moths changing color in reaction to their environment? Would that stop bacteria from developing immunity to antibiotics? Would gravity stop, the planets stop orbiting, or would life cease on Earth?
I would much rather understand the universe through the research and testing of scientists, who correct themselves when errors are discovered.
In contrast to basing my life on trusting that every word in an ancient text was correct and literal - an ancient text written by anonymous people, based on questionable sources, translated to and from several different languages over the centuries. And a text whose “truths” cannot be questioned on possible pain of death.
Science has proven to be more correct over the long run than religion has. Our entire (modern) world is based on the correctness of science. If science was THAT wrong, literally there would be airplanes falling from the sky, buildings collapsing all around, etc.
All religion does is comfort some with fairy tales, afflict many with pangs of guilt, and compel others to kill in the name of “god”…
Grammar RWA,
ol cranky said:
For the record, had I met you in person and you described yourself as Jewish and an atheist, I wouldn’t have thought twice about it. As it is, I’ve had non-Jewish people tell me that “I’m not really Jewish” because I’m not “religious enough” (whatever that means) and I’ve had people (educated ones) really not understand that I don’t celebrate Xmas at home because I’m Jewish.
I went back and re-read this passage and you are correct. I thought it was someone here who was telling him he wasn’t Jewish because he didn’t practice the faith. Thanks for pointing that out.
You said:
And the passage in Antiquities 20.9.1 is not at all uncontroversial. Don’t pretend that its authenticity is not disputed.
I didn’t say there wasn’t. If you look to those with an axe to grind whether they be believers or not, you will find some conflict as to the authenticity. What I should have said then was that to historians with no bias either way this appears to be authentic and reliable. We can argue authenticity of many works from history whether they be religious in origin or not; you will find many opinions for works such as these. What we have to rely on ,unfortunately, is the experts in the middle, (non bias). To give my post at least some credibility I offered a very conflicted work of his (Josephus), the “Testimonium Flavianum”, and made sure to note it’s unreliability and why.
Notice the title of my post, Evidence to suggest that Jesus a.k.a. Christ existed:
“Evidence to suggest”…I did this for a purpose which was to say, this isn’t proof that he was who Christians say he was but rather proof that he was an actual person.
Jason
Grammar RWA,
No, I really do want to know what it is about religion that scares people who don’t identify themselves as religious.
Radical religion can be and in some cases is very dangerous, look at radical Islam. Those of the Muslim faith as I understand it do not believe as the radicals do yet we seem to lump them into the same catagory. Is it not fair to say the same about the Christian faith then.
If a Christian were to say all Gay people are giong to Hell I would call that a radical belief. Christianity as I understand it says that inorder to get to Heaven one must accept Christ as their savior and ask for the forgiveness of their sins; from that point it is up to God to judge them not man. God is the one who decides who goes to Hell and who doesn’t not the Pope. I however, am no expert in religion.
Education can be a two way street. If you have something to teach I’ll listen, but don’t turn around and tell me I’m full of crap, which you didn’t, when I’m trying to teach you something. I’m interested, that’s why I post here.
The intent of my first post was to say you can’t yell tolerance and then not be tolerant. What tolerance has one shown to the Christian if he turns around and doesn’t respect that persons right to his or her belief.
I will in the future try to be less argumentative and attempt to add more substance as I did with the “Evidence to suggest post” post.
Thanks,
Jason
“If a Christian were to say all Gay people are giong to Hell I would call that a radical belief.”
How about if you went on TV and told everybody that 9/11 and Katrina were god’s punishment for allowing the gay “lifestyle”?
(Of course, what both Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the other “loving” Christian leaders REALLY meant was that we allowed LGBT people to live, rather than stoning them or some such. But saying that would be a little TOO radical even for them.)
And BTW, the word “radical” might have value in certain contexts, but religion isn’t one of them.
One person’s “radical” is another’s mainstream, and another’s staid conservative belief. Protestants were radical when Luther nailed his tract on the door. Islam was radical beginning with Mohamed. The Buddha was radical, Jesus was radical, Jains were radical, etc. Judaism was supposed to be radical (”One god? Are you nuts?”). “Radical” as used in religious discussions is utterly without useful meaning…
MikeESS,
Good point about the word “radical”. So what do we do, remove the word from our vocabulary? That would of course be absurd. How we define the word is what is important. If we go by the moral compass in all of us then we can better frame the ussage of the word.
By this I mean there are certain things that virtually everyone can agree; for instance, I believe it is wrong to rape children, I’m willing to bet that most if not all here in Pandagon world would agree. Kind of extreme but do you see where I’m going with this?
If we can agree to a certain set of humanistic moralities then I think we can talk more productively.
Sorry, I have to go. I’ll try to come back to this later.
Jason
“So what do we do, remove the word from our vocabulary?”
Of course not. It just gets used so often, and so loosely when it comes to religion, it’s meaningless. And that’s not the only place it’s useless either. For example, what’s the difference between a radical feminist and a feminist?
“Liberal” is another word that when applied to politics has almost no useful meaning. Anybody who is despised by somebody on the “right”, no matter who they are or what they believe is a “liberal”. The word has other perfectly valid uses, just no longer in the sphere of politics.
“If we can agree to a certain set of humanistic moralities then I think we can talk more productively.”
As long as those moralities do not require (in your mind) a religious basis to be legitimate, yes we could have some interesting conversations…