[Apologies if I do not respond to any responses -- I will be out of town from tomorrow, with limited access to the Internet, unless I take an EV-DO card with me.]
Responses to Alex, LT, Dennis:
On 9 Oct, 2007, at 18:43 PM, Alex wrote:
> --- ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, because both secularism (and atheism) and leftism are built on
>> individualistic and reductionist notions of truth, reason and action.
>> From what I can tell, whether in the Soviet Union or in the
>> Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu, atheism arose as a part of a
>> collective struggle/revolt against authority as much as a form of
>> rationalist intellectual programme. To add to my previous rant, even
>> among the scientists who have come to represent secularism/atheism/
>> etc (which in itself is telling) it is Dawkins (a liberal(*)) who
>> figures prominently, not Lewontin (a materialist/Marxist). So,
>> leftism cannot provide an antidote or alternative because, IMO, its
>> connection to the common good remains tenuous and contingent (at
>> least until the arrival of the mathematical science that can
>> demonstrate the legitimacy of the 'ought' in contrast to the 'is'),
>> especially in light of the stronger version offered by religious
>> communities.
>
> Isn't the secular liberal position on this about tolerance rather
> than truth?
Depends on which liberals we are talking about, yes?
> If I understand you correctly, you think atheists need to argue not
> that
> religion is false but rather that people would be happier without it?
No, I fear I was not speaking clearly. I think people are happier with religion because (inter alia) it addresses certain collective needs and goals that [can be found to] have evolutionary success. If the left (at least some of which professes to collectivism) desires to provide an alternative (or antidote) it has to either exponentially accelerate its deductive exercise or consider the legitimacy of a holistic attitude (within which 'tolerance' would fall). In other words: assuming a goal of peaceful and fruitful co- existence, there are human activities and arrangements that work today for [significantly] achieving such a goal. Despite the stuff about sin, fate, afterlives, etc, etc, religion is able to incorporate these activities and arrangements into the centre of its affairs, whereas modern leftism/atheism is unable (or unwilling?) to do so.
Now that I have written that, I am not sure it is any clearer....
> OK, fine,
> but the truth of religious claims is still an important issue.
> Perhaps your
> preference would make a more convincing argument, but it's strange
> that that in
> religious debates false or unjustified beliefs are defended on the
> grounds that
> they are for the common good, feel better, etc.
When you say "your preference" what do you read as my preference? That "we the left" not argue religion is false but that people would be happier without it? If so, as explained that is not the case I wish to make. A quick way to restate my point about truth, reason and action is this: the commitment it seems to me, is to an idea that goes something like this: truth is what a computer spits out, reason is the activity that leads to this spitting out, and action is what is a natural consequence of this result. "The truth will set you free" ;-).
On 10/9/07, Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> That's a pretty pedestrian take on the meaning of subtext. You keep
> personalizing things. The subtext can be there, whether Yoshie
> intends it or not, or whether she agrees with it or not. It's one of
> those always-already things. To point that out is not the same as
> accusing her of being implicitly homophobic.
I don't buy it, Dennis. This sort of thing ("this is Yoshie's subtext", "This is what she is trying to do", etc -- we recognise it easily enough in the trick words the right uses: "victim mentality", etc) is motive-mongering and almost always denotes an inability of the employer to offer legitimate reasoning. I would rather that we stuck to what a computer would spit out, if our only option is to make these sort of arguments.
> On 9 Oct, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Lenin's Tomb wrote:
>> On 10/9/07, ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> leftism cannot provide an antidote or alternative because, IMO, its
>>> connection to the common good remains tenuous and contingent (at
>>> least until the arrival of the mathematical science that can
>>> demonstrate the legitimacy of the 'ought' in contrast to the 'is'),
>>> especially in light of the stronger version offered by religious
>>> communities.
>>
>> Well, anticommunists have always had the contrary criticism of the
>> Left,
>> which is that it borrows the forms of religion without the
>> appropriate moral
>> mythos (Mark Gerson's account of the 'neoconservative vision' even
>> manages
>> to repeat this charge several times, even while blithering on
>> about - in
>> Niebuhr's terms - 'children of light' and 'children of
>> darkness'). I say we
>> embrace this criticism as a badge of honour: we are militants,
>> messianics,
>> worshippers at the Temple of Bronstein, Manifesto-thumping fanatics,
>> worshipping the pantheon of saints and vilifying the devils who
>> tempt the
>> people with 'reform' this and 'tax break' that. The *only* deal we
>> should
>> accept is total salvation.
>>
Yes, sure, why not! ;-)
--ravi