Faith and Reason (Part 1)
This is a topic I will come back to, again and again, I suspect, so I thought I would start as I mean to go on.
There has been a spate of books in recent years that have sought to set out a simple division between faith and reason in which faith is understood as being a commitment to Biblical (or Koranic) literalism and reason is a commitment to materialism and the values of the Enlightenment. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and The End of Faith by Sam Harris adopt this central organizing division.
We will have plenty of opportunities to examine this style of thought in the months ahead (Christopher Hitchens and Al Gore both have books coming out that will, I suspect, seek to join a party already in full swing). But right now I just want to ask whether if what Dawkins and Harris say is true - that fundamentalist religion poses a unique and autonomous threat to secular society, even to the survival of mankind - their response is a sensible one. (They are quite wrong of course, let's be clear about that, but like I say, we have plenty of time).
Because faced with this terrible threat to science and reason, both Dawkins and Harris seem to think that a campaign of ridicule makes sense as a response. "My, aren't they all idiots, these religious nuts - they think the world is 6,000 years old! And they are scary too - they want to kill all the witches and the infidels!" That seems to the the sum of their program. Mock them enough and the Christians will finally see the error of their ways.
Wouldn't it make more sense for progressives to recognise the sincerity and decency of many millions of fundamentalist Christians, and stop fantasising about a world where brilliantly enlightened polemic would be enough to make them change their Bible-loving ways? Because if we tried to speak with these Christians in a register they understand, it would be more likely to result in trouble for the religious right, who we can all agree are a trouble to the world.
For example, much has been made in recent years about the unnerving character of the modern, publicly traded corporation. Without wanting to imagine that all the ills of capitalism can be solved by better regulation or reform of corporate law, the corporation is important to the modern system both practically and symbolically. There is no reason why fundamentalist Christians cannot be enlisted in the campaign against corporate power just as secular progressives have. After all, corporations have some very thought-provoking characteristics. Joel Bakan describes them as being psychopathic in his book The Corporation. But we can use another register altogether.
After all, a corporations is immortal and possessed of an inhuman clarity of purpose, to seek profit above all other considerations. An immortal and fictitious person, incapable of any human feeling yet entirely ravenous, a leviathan given form and cover by thousands of human beings: such a monster must surely outrage the faithful. If the evangelicals wish to fight dragons, then let us invite them to join us in a crusade against these demonic concentrations of greed – for what is a thing that does not live and does not age? The overwhelming moral emergency presented by the modern industrial corporation seems more likely to appeal to the evangelical imagination than the managerialist policies of the Democrats and the Labour Party.
It's just a thought. For decades fundamentalists in the United States have been cannon fodder for all kinds of nutty policies. It is high time secular progressives started to speak to them in terms that they will recognise, to show them a way out of the torments of the 'culture wars'. If anyone starts talking about prayer in schools or creationism, you can just point out that Reagan was a warlock and that Bush isn't really born again. Neither of those two factoids are jokes, by the way, they are just stone cold facts that have their basis in the word of the Lord. Hallelujah!
The history of the Labour Party shows that deep religiosity doesn't have to mean hostility to progress. In fact the party was a sight more radical when it was run by born-again Christians than it is now. God knows the left could use a few million people who get up early, do what they say they will do, and who look forward to a better world than this.
There has been a spate of books in recent years that have sought to set out a simple division between faith and reason in which faith is understood as being a commitment to Biblical (or Koranic) literalism and reason is a commitment to materialism and the values of the Enlightenment. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and The End of Faith by Sam Harris adopt this central organizing division.
We will have plenty of opportunities to examine this style of thought in the months ahead (Christopher Hitchens and Al Gore both have books coming out that will, I suspect, seek to join a party already in full swing). But right now I just want to ask whether if what Dawkins and Harris say is true - that fundamentalist religion poses a unique and autonomous threat to secular society, even to the survival of mankind - their response is a sensible one. (They are quite wrong of course, let's be clear about that, but like I say, we have plenty of time).
Because faced with this terrible threat to science and reason, both Dawkins and Harris seem to think that a campaign of ridicule makes sense as a response. "My, aren't they all idiots, these religious nuts - they think the world is 6,000 years old! And they are scary too - they want to kill all the witches and the infidels!" That seems to the the sum of their program. Mock them enough and the Christians will finally see the error of their ways.
Wouldn't it make more sense for progressives to recognise the sincerity and decency of many millions of fundamentalist Christians, and stop fantasising about a world where brilliantly enlightened polemic would be enough to make them change their Bible-loving ways? Because if we tried to speak with these Christians in a register they understand, it would be more likely to result in trouble for the religious right, who we can all agree are a trouble to the world.
For example, much has been made in recent years about the unnerving character of the modern, publicly traded corporation. Without wanting to imagine that all the ills of capitalism can be solved by better regulation or reform of corporate law, the corporation is important to the modern system both practically and symbolically. There is no reason why fundamentalist Christians cannot be enlisted in the campaign against corporate power just as secular progressives have. After all, corporations have some very thought-provoking characteristics. Joel Bakan describes them as being psychopathic in his book The Corporation. But we can use another register altogether.
After all, a corporations is immortal and possessed of an inhuman clarity of purpose, to seek profit above all other considerations. An immortal and fictitious person, incapable of any human feeling yet entirely ravenous, a leviathan given form and cover by thousands of human beings: such a monster must surely outrage the faithful. If the evangelicals wish to fight dragons, then let us invite them to join us in a crusade against these demonic concentrations of greed – for what is a thing that does not live and does not age? The overwhelming moral emergency presented by the modern industrial corporation seems more likely to appeal to the evangelical imagination than the managerialist policies of the Democrats and the Labour Party.
It's just a thought. For decades fundamentalists in the United States have been cannon fodder for all kinds of nutty policies. It is high time secular progressives started to speak to them in terms that they will recognise, to show them a way out of the torments of the 'culture wars'. If anyone starts talking about prayer in schools or creationism, you can just point out that Reagan was a warlock and that Bush isn't really born again. Neither of those two factoids are jokes, by the way, they are just stone cold facts that have their basis in the word of the Lord. Hallelujah!
The history of the Labour Party shows that deep religiosity doesn't have to mean hostility to progress. In fact the party was a sight more radical when it was run by born-again Christians than it is now. God knows the left could use a few million people who get up early, do what they say they will do, and who look forward to a better world than this.
Labels: Enlightenment, Religion, Secularism
posted by Dan Hind at 9:20 PM
6 Comments:
hi Foxlet,
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Threat-Reason-Daniel-Hind/dp/1844671526/ref=sr_11_1/026-4868560-5961252
What on earth does the history of the Labour Party have to do with progress?I don't think you know your history at all.The Labour Party came into power to run capitalism and has done so with the same ruthless purpose as all the others once it discovered as all capitalist politicians do,that capitalism runs it.Capitalism can not be reformed and must tbe replaced,neither by as you seem to favour small shopkeeper capitalism with petit boureois concerns,nor by another statist political elite, but by a politically conscious majority opting to remove capitalism and install a free access,democratic Socialist/Communist society,where wages and prices have been abolished.
There is only one Socialist Party in the UK ,the S.P.G.B. (Formed 1904).
It is tiny,a reflection of the support for capitalist parties,I include all the Leftist so called socialist, parties with their failed state managed capitalist solutions, amongst the capitalist parties such as Labour.the SPGB is a companion party of the World Socialist Movement,link http://www.worldsocialism.org /
Their journal Socialist Standard has been published since 1904 and is available online also,at http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/standardonline/index.html
All the other parties professing to be socialist, are under the same illusion as yourself,that capitalism can be reformed and with some nasty bits taken out, all will be managably well.
The new society will have as its organising tenet,"from each according to their ability to each according to their needs".
It will be self managing with autonmous stock control,as opposed to the statist left solutions of yore and have no need of political or any other elites.
Socialism has never been tried,as it needs a majority who know whay it is first,and the paucity of religious contributions to progress,whether in Labour parties or elsewhere make them anti-thetical to progress,however defined, rather than potential allies.
http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/
When workers of the world stop settling for crumbs, they can take over the whole bakery.
M.C.
Religion makes no contribution to progress, they have over 40 billion invested in the catholic church alone, ask them if they'd like to share it.
To be a good charitable being is to from a amiable of openness to the world, an ability to guardianship aleatory things beyond your own restrain, that can take you to be shattered in hugely extreme circumstances for which you were not to blame. That says something very weighty relating to the get of the righteous autobiography: that it is based on a trustworthiness in the fitful and on a willingness to be exposed; it's based on being more like a weed than like a sparkler, something fairly feeble, but whose mere special handsomeness is inseparable from that fragility.
In every tom's sustenance, at some time, our inner fire goes out. It is then blow up into zeal by an be faced with with another human being. We should all be indebted quest of those people who rekindle the inner transport
坐檯小姐袁非因受邀錄製鄭家純主持的《深夜保健室》造成網路熱議，便決定走向螢幕以及寫書。她說：「大家對這行業酒店上班瞭解的太少，希望把這行業的日常，以比較輕鬆的角度去帶給大家，其實我們也沒有大家想的那麼可怕 。」她也想告訴大家，即使是社會管不到的角落，也不代表所有人都有觀念偏差。酒店經紀分享說道，起先擔任純的按摩妹，不過看著別人1天賺1、2萬，她決定從事半套性服務。在還清負債後，她因不想重蹈覆徹、回到過去擔心錢的生活，相當努力地將賺的錢拿去投資買美金，還曾遇到掃黃導致收入中斷付不出保單，讓同事笑稱：「第一次有妹跟我借錢拿去存。」酒店經紀袁非不僅開粉專公開討論八大行業話題甚至出書，她坦言：「一開始有掙扎過，還設想可能每天都有酒店經紀來粉專洗版。結果發現大家都蠻正面，不太有網友來砸場子。」她也是少數曾從事酒店經紀八大行業卻公開在鏡頭前露面的女生，「因為我不真的不覺得這有什麼不能講的。」「離開了去哪，還回去嗎？我告訴自己，要就做到不能做，不做的時候，就再也不回去。」酒店經紀袁非坦言離開八大行業時已下定決心。她希望透過新書、文章以及在各大節目中，向各位分享「酒店經紀眼中的八大行業」。
Post a Comment
<< Home