[lbo-talk] Appeal to Ignorance: Religion and Conspiracy Theory

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Thu Jun 16 14:05:29 PDT 2005



>[lbo-talk] Appeal to Ignorance
>Jeffrey Fisher jeff.jfisher at gmail.com
>Thu Jun 16 13:14:05 PDT 2005
<snip>
>but yoshie, precisely my point has been that religion is so
>variously conceptualized, understood, and practiced -- both
>temporally and geographically -- that it precludes any easy
>definition, and maybe any useful *universal* definition AT ALL (see
>my post in response to wojtek and the references to geertz and talal
>asad) . . . NOT that one cannot be either religious or irreligious
>without a "satisfactory definition". this is also not saying "we all
>have our own definitions". it's that religion is a culturally
>located phenomenon with a long long long history (or, really, set of
>histories) and we get reductionist on it at our peril.
>
>that's what i've been trying to say all along (and carrol gets this,
>i think) and it's why i have trouble less with a scientist saying "i
>reject religion" than with a scientist saying "scientists reject
>religion" or with people on a mailing list deploying either of the
>latter in an argument about how nonsensical "religion" is because
>scientists reject it. that's all. it's about the kinds of claims we
>can make.

Would you have trouble with a scientist saying "scientists reject conspiracy theory," though? In my view, conspiracy theory (as well as many other social facts besides religion and conspiracy theory) is also "so variously conceptualized, understood, and practiced -- both temporally and geographically -- that it precludes any easy definition, and maybe any useful *universal* definition AT ALL." Indeed, it may be even harder to conceptualize and criticize conspiracy theory than religion. In the case of religion, at least there are numerous theologians, clerics, and lay leaders who intelligently discuss what they think their particular religion is and what religion in general means to them. In the case of conspiracy theory, in contrast, those who are regarded as conspiracy theorists by others do not think that what they believe and propagate constitutes a conspiracy theory and, more often than not, hotly denies that it is one (and sometimes even that there can be one). It seems to me that there is no reason why religion should enjoy a more privileged status (in terms of various truth claims that believers and non-believers make about it) than conspiracy theory. -- Yoshie

* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Monthly Review: <http://monthlyreview.org/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list