A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Friday, February 11, 2011
A Letter From a Fearfully Concerned Muslim
Because of the weight of this article, I offer only a link to it without further comment.
If I had a dollar for evey time I was accused or suspected of having a leftist orientation I'd be a much richer man. Why?
For many years now, I, and many others, have been extremely critical of both sides of the political aisle. The position that I most resonate with was presented back in 1926 by the great late English author GK Chesterton: "The business of "progressives" is to go on making mistakes; the business of "conservatives" is to make certain that those mistakes are never corrected."
In my view, the left/right "split" is an illusory dichotomy. The liberals call themselves "progressive", but I'm not sure what that exactly means. - "Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative." The so-called conservatives, in many cases, are simply the inverted image of the liberals. It appears to me that we are being subverted by a growing tyranny featuring an unholy alliance of big government and big business. This left/right "division" is, perhaps, the classic good cop bad cop routine. The citizen is being duped into thinking that their only salvation is either the market or the state. I believe that only an authentic conservatism which encourages as many citizens as possible to be owners (subsidiary) along with a morality rooted in a transcendent order is what the American repulic is truly about.
Now on to the Muslims. It's here that I am most likely to get branded a Leftist. To me, it's fundamentalism of all stripes that's the real threat, and certainly radical Islam falls under that category. But I contend, right or wrong, that close scrutiny of this contentious subject reveals a very important and subtle distinction in this "Clash of Civilizations" matter. And, I would draw a paralell here to the extensive dialogue on this blog regarding methodology and philosophy. You see, as Stan and others have tirelessly attempted to demonstrate, there is a real difference between science and scientism. In similar fashion, there's a real difference between religion (Muslim or otherwise) and rabid modern fundamentalist political ideology that conveniently exploits the faith traditions.
I suspect such a view may be objectionable to some, but I believe that there's something to it.
it's fundamentalism of all stripes that's the real threat
Bam. Exactly. And I would apply "fundamentalism" to anything, not just religion. As Stan correctly criticizes atheists for a fundamentalist materialism.
I hate American politics, because I feel both sides have sunk deep into fundamentalism. It's now team sports. The only thing that matters is that the other side loses and your side wins. If one side advocates creating a law against eating babies, then the other side opposes it for no other reason that that it would be a political win for the other team.
What's best for the country is now gone, out the window.
Hate, hate, hate it. I think the only thing that would fix it is proportional voting, which would encourage the development of multiple parties and power sharing.
I have to object to the term "fundamentalism" on the grounds that it doesn't adequately describe the characteristics of the beast at hand. First point is that many who believe in fundamental principles do not behave aggressively. The second point is that the actual characteristics are more along these lines: a person becomes convinced of his own ability to discern absolutes, including not only morality but what it is that others should pursue and believe.
From this personal conviction of superiority comes a need to correct everyone not of his persuasion - an arrogance couched in his morality, regardless of whether the morality is objective or personally derived.
The arrogance and its "moral" support structure work in opposition to his humility, and in fact destroy any semblance of it. This shuts off all intellectual honesty and openness, and settles the individual into dogmatic pursuit of his moral imperatives.
Once in this track, self-righteousness becomes the positive feedback that keeps the engine accellerating.
It is not the belief in fundamentals that does this, it is the tendancy toward arrogance and hegemony, with a personal conviction that destroys clarity of thought.
So I suggest that a new term is needed, rather than "fundamentalist": something along the line of "hegemoniac" or "hegemaniac" maybe.
Your contributions for a new term are solicited...
Martin, some follow up thoughts. I would go on to say that resisting fundamentalism should not have us descend into a nihilistic relativism. The doctrine of "tolerance" and "pluralism" is, ironically, just as fundamentalist as the fundamentalism that it opposes.
For me, this represents yet another dichotomy and conundrum that no amount of reason and analysis can resolve. Questions of value, are, after all, not convergent problems, but divergent ones. But the human mind, it would seem, cannot "escape" doctrine. Now this is where paradox sets in. I'm going to contradict myself by agreeing with the relativists that all doctrines must, ultimately, be inadequate. But,only in the sense that they cannot exhaust the Truth. I do not conclude, as most do today, that there is no such thing as absolute Truth .
One could argue that the whole modern experiment has been based on the abolition of all absolutes and a reduction of all quality to quantity. The deformity of science to scientism has, in effect, resulted in the rejection of traditional metaphysics in toto and the debasement of philosophy to sophistry. For me, this is simply the the abandonment of wisdom.
Stan, you're right. We need a new term. After all fundamentals is what Truth is all about.
"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." -GK Chesterton
This gets to the meat of the matter. Stan said "...it is the tendency towards arrogance and hegemony with a personal conviction that destroys clarity of thought." - Bang, spot on. All of the world's wisdom traditions have insisted on the fundamental link between virtue and knowledge.
"To be truly objective, you have to die a little."- Frithjof Schuon.
Authentic paths of knowledge, within the context of traditional religions, or within esoteric wisdom schools (ex. Platonism), all emphasize the necessity of some form of "purgation" in "assimilating" the Truth. The very definition of Orthodoxy is right thinking.
Now, please folks, I am make no claims of attainment when it comes to either right thinking or virtue, but I'm trying.
Chris said "In my view, the left/right "split" is an illusory dichotomy". I couldn't agree more.
One of the (very) few things that bothers me with Stan's articles are his use of the left/right paradigm, to the point where he repeatedly conflates 'atheo-left' - a very imprecise and not very useful title for anti-religious and anti-conservative thought.
While the origin of the terms may be closer to what Stan has in mind (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics), I think the terms are indeed as Chris says: a 'false dichotomy', purposefully employed for some time now by those pulling the strings of progressive, materialistic, atheistic, satanic oligarchy.
I think it incredible that anyone would not see the vast difference between the Leftist approximate totalitarianism and the Right's approximate Libertarianism.
Denying the value of the terminology does not relieve the knowledge that the chasm between the two worldviews exists.
Perhaps the term AtheoLeft is insufficient in the sense that Islam is not Atheist yet it shares characteristics of the Left. But my purpose here - for the most part - is not Islam, it is Atheism. And most Atheists drift first toward elitism and then toward Leftism. Hence, AtheoLeft.
"...most atheists drift toward...Leftism". Generally they do today becasue both tend to be saturated with sentamentalism. But this is not necessarliy an inherent characteristic of atheism. Atheism as a whole simply rejects supra-human authority, but after that anything goes (Communism/Fascim). For all intents and purposes, all modern political systems are under the atheist umbrella, arguably even those that pretend to have religious identity (Israel/Saudi Arabia)
There are still so many problems with this picture though (apart from the gross generalisations - I realise you ackowledge that not everyone falls into a bracket, but rather these indicate 'tendencies' of certain ideologies).
For example: you oppose Left totalitarianism with Right Libertarianism. Most people would oppose it with Right Fascism, which is simply another from of totalitarianism.
We might put Libertarianism somewhere in the middle, but there is perhaps no political label more vague. Although I know what you mean by reading your blog, the term is employed by people right across the political specturm - from left anarchism to right constituitionalism (in US) and beyond.
Anyway, I am getting off topic and nowhere useful. I would just add in conclusion, that Islam under Sharia Law, doesnt just not share characteristics with the Left, they have no common measure whatsoever.
9 comments:
If I had a dollar for evey time I was accused or suspected of having a leftist orientation I'd be a much richer man. Why?
For many years now, I, and many others, have been extremely critical of both sides of the political aisle. The position that I most resonate with was presented back in 1926 by the great late English author GK Chesterton:
"The business of "progressives" is to go on making mistakes; the business of "conservatives" is to make certain that those mistakes are never corrected."
In my view, the left/right "split" is an illusory dichotomy. The liberals call themselves "progressive", but I'm not sure what that exactly means. - "Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative." The so-called conservatives, in many cases, are simply the inverted image of the liberals. It appears to me that we are being subverted by a growing tyranny featuring an unholy alliance of big government and big business. This left/right "division" is, perhaps, the classic good cop bad cop routine. The citizen is being duped into thinking that their only salvation is either the market or the state. I believe that only an authentic conservatism which encourages as many citizens as possible to be owners (subsidiary) along with a morality rooted in a transcendent order is what the American repulic is truly about.
Now on to the Muslims. It's here that I am most likely to get branded a Leftist. To me, it's fundamentalism of all stripes that's the real threat, and certainly radical Islam falls under that category. But I contend, right or wrong, that close scrutiny of this contentious subject reveals a very important and subtle distinction in this "Clash of Civilizations" matter. And, I would draw a paralell here to the extensive dialogue on this blog regarding methodology and philosophy. You see, as Stan and others have tirelessly attempted to demonstrate, there is a real difference between science and scientism. In similar fashion, there's a real difference between religion (Muslim or otherwise) and rabid modern fundamentalist political ideology that conveniently exploits the faith traditions.
I suspect such a view may be objectionable to some, but I believe that there's something to it.
it's fundamentalism of all stripes that's the real threat
Bam. Exactly. And I would apply "fundamentalism" to anything, not just religion. As Stan correctly criticizes atheists for a fundamentalist materialism.
I hate American politics, because I feel both sides have sunk deep into fundamentalism. It's now team sports. The only thing that matters is that the other side loses and your side wins. If one side advocates creating a law against eating babies, then the other side opposes it for no other reason that that it would be a political win for the other team.
What's best for the country is now gone, out the window.
Hate, hate, hate it. I think the only thing that would fix it is proportional voting, which would encourage the development of multiple parties and power sharing.
I have to object to the term "fundamentalism" on the grounds that it doesn't adequately describe the characteristics of the beast at hand. First point is that many who believe in fundamental principles do not behave aggressively. The second point is that the actual characteristics are more along these lines: a person becomes convinced of his own ability to discern absolutes, including not only morality but what it is that others should pursue and believe.
From this personal conviction of superiority comes a need to correct everyone not of his persuasion - an arrogance couched in his morality, regardless of whether the morality is objective or personally derived.
The arrogance and its "moral" support structure work in opposition to his humility, and in fact destroy any semblance of it. This shuts off all intellectual honesty and openness, and settles the individual into dogmatic pursuit of his moral imperatives.
Once in this track, self-righteousness becomes the positive feedback that keeps the engine accellerating.
It is not the belief in fundamentals that does this, it is the tendancy toward arrogance and hegemony, with a personal conviction that destroys clarity of thought.
So I suggest that a new term is needed, rather than "fundamentalist": something along the line of "hegemoniac" or "hegemaniac" maybe.
Your contributions for a new term are solicited...
Martin, some follow up thoughts. I would go on to say that resisting fundamentalism should not have us descend into a nihilistic relativism. The doctrine of "tolerance" and "pluralism" is, ironically, just as fundamentalist as the fundamentalism that it opposes.
For me, this represents yet another dichotomy and conundrum that no amount of reason and analysis can resolve. Questions of value, are, after all, not convergent problems, but divergent ones. But the human mind, it would seem, cannot "escape" doctrine. Now this is where paradox sets in. I'm going to contradict myself by agreeing with the relativists that all doctrines must, ultimately, be inadequate. But,only in the sense that they cannot exhaust the Truth. I do not conclude, as most do today, that there is no such thing as absolute Truth .
One could argue that the whole modern experiment has been based on the abolition of all absolutes and a reduction of all quality to quantity. The deformity of science to scientism has, in effect, resulted in the rejection of traditional metaphysics in toto and the debasement of philosophy to sophistry. For me, this is simply the the abandonment of wisdom.
Stan, you're right. We need a new term. After all fundamentals is what Truth is all about.
"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."
-GK Chesterton
This gets to the meat of the matter.
Stan said "...it is the tendency towards arrogance and hegemony with a personal conviction that destroys
clarity of thought." - Bang, spot on. All of the world's wisdom traditions have insisted on the fundamental link between virtue and knowledge.
"To be truly objective, you have to die a little."- Frithjof Schuon.
Authentic paths of knowledge, within the context of traditional religions, or within esoteric wisdom schools (ex. Platonism), all emphasize the necessity of some form of "purgation" in "assimilating" the Truth. The very definition of Orthodoxy is right thinking.
Now, please folks, I am make no claims of attainment when it comes to either right thinking or virtue, but I'm trying.
"I am make"-? oh yeah, right thinking eh?
Chris said "In my view, the left/right "split" is an illusory dichotomy". I couldn't agree more.
One of the (very) few things that bothers me with Stan's articles are his use of the left/right paradigm, to the point where he repeatedly conflates 'atheo-left' - a very imprecise and not very useful title for anti-religious and anti-conservative thought.
While the origin of the terms may be closer to what Stan has in mind (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics), I think the terms are indeed as Chris says: a 'false dichotomy', purposefully employed for some time now by those pulling the strings of progressive, materialistic, atheistic, satanic oligarchy.
I think it incredible that anyone would not see the vast difference between the Leftist approximate totalitarianism and the Right's approximate Libertarianism.
Denying the value of the terminology does not relieve the knowledge that the chasm between the two worldviews exists.
Perhaps the term AtheoLeft is insufficient in the sense that Islam is not Atheist yet it shares characteristics of the Left. But my purpose here - for the most part - is not Islam, it is Atheism. And most Atheists drift first toward elitism and then toward Leftism. Hence, AtheoLeft.
"...most atheists drift toward...Leftism". Generally they do today becasue both tend to be saturated with sentamentalism. But this is not necessarliy an inherent characteristic of atheism. Atheism as a whole simply rejects supra-human authority, but after that anything goes (Communism/Fascim). For all intents and purposes, all modern political systems are under the atheist umbrella, arguably even those that pretend to have religious identity (Israel/Saudi Arabia)
There are still so many problems with this picture though (apart from the gross generalisations - I realise you ackowledge that not everyone falls into a bracket, but rather these indicate 'tendencies' of certain ideologies).
For example: you oppose Left totalitarianism with Right Libertarianism. Most people would oppose it with Right Fascism, which is simply another from of totalitarianism.
We might put Libertarianism somewhere in the middle, but there is perhaps no political label more vague. Although I know what you mean by reading your blog, the term is employed by people right across the political specturm - from left anarchism to right constituitionalism (in US) and beyond.
Anyway, I am getting off topic and nowhere useful. I would just add in conclusion, that Islam under Sharia Law, doesnt just not share characteristics with the Left, they have no common measure whatsoever.
Post a Comment