[MD] Why the return to literal anti-intellectual religion

[david buchanan]

Ian, DM and y'all:

DM said to dmb:
"I think that failure on the intellectual level has much blame to carry. 
Western thought and science is dominated by an obsession with SQ, order: 
knowledge and power over SQ. Such a view has disenchanted existence and 
people have returned to anti-intellectual forms of religion."

Ian replied:
I very much agree with this statement...   I see that as the central problem 
facing the world - no less. The reason for me to have any interest in 
philosophy at all. ...(And we "enlightened intellectuals" - notice the scare 
quotes - need to very careful not to compound the problem by tarring "all 
people"with any religious beliefs with the generalisation inherent in such a 
succint, but nevertheless true, statement.)

dmb says:
I'd agree that the spiritual emptiness of scientific materialism has quite a 
lot to do with the problem. Reactionary movements of all sorts are provoked 
by SOM's amorality and soullessness, not just fundamentalist religions. 
Fascism is essentially anti-intellectual too, for example. I guess we all 
agree on that point.

Instead, Ian, I want to take issue with your call to be "very careful". I 
appreciate the fact that taking spirituality seriously doesn't necessarily 
entail anti-intellectualism. In fact, at the risk of flattering myself too 
much, I'd count myself as one who takes it seriously without operating on 
blind faith or otherwise being stupid. I'd also remind you that I have 
brought a variety of intelligent voices to this topic and so it seems quite 
incorrect and unfair to suggest that I need to be careful not to tar "all 
people with any religious belief". I appreciate the spirit of your plea, 
Ian. You're just trying to be nice and reasonable to make peace by extending 
sympathy to both sides. But there comes a point where trying to play things 
down the middle and otherwise have it both ways just turns into 
self-contradiction. I mean, if this is "the central problem facing the 
world" and the very reason for your interest in philosophy then offending 
those who pose the problem should rank pretty low on our priority list, 
don't you think? Especially if that worry prevents us from saying things 
that might be true, no? And I'd remind you that this is a philosophical 
discussion forum dedicated to a book in which the author describes religion 
as mostly "clap trap" and other unflattering terms. And if the MOQ is 
opposed to faith and is anti-theistic, then I don't think we have to worry 
about how to accomodate the faithful or the theists. Sorry. Its not 
personal. Its just about the content of the MOQ. I don't think we have to 
try to please SOMers or materialists or Maoists or anyone else who might 
arrive with an opposed agenda.

More broadly, out there in the American culture, the kind of care you call 
for is not practiced by the other side. I heard a lecture by Mark Crispin 
Miller a few days ago. He was talking about one of his latest books (FOOLED 
AGAIN: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next 
One Too) and along the way explained the motivation of the fundamentalist 
Republican base. He was trying to describe the ferocity of their motivation 
as a way to explain why they're apparently so willing to lie, cheat, steal 
and bribe their way to political power, despite the fact that they are 
self-described Christian. He said they're willing to work hard and break the 
rules because they don't just disagree with secularists. They don't think 
liberal intellectuals and humanists are merely wrong or ignorant, they're 
convinced that such people are Satanic, of the devil, opposed to God. 
Seriously, he said. The audience laughed nervously at that. At which point 
he went out of his way to say he was not kidding. He went on to explain, 
much like Sam Harris, that these people are actually looking forward to the 
end of the world. These are the people who control the party that controls 
all three branches of government. Think about it Ian. They control the 
largest military power in the history of the world and they hate you. They 
fantasize about the day that God cleasnes the earth of people like you and 
me. These people bomb gay bars and shoot abortion providers in the head. And 
you're worried about hurting their feelings? Where is your sense of 
proportion, man? Tolerance is a great cause, but tolerating intolerance does 
NOT serve the cause. You know?

In any case, I'm not impressed by your equivocations. In a place like this, 
I think its more important to be clear than it is to be nice. Sure, people 
deserve respect. But that doesn't mean all views and perspectives are 
equally respectable just because its people who have them. Right? You're not 
saying that deeply held beliefs have to be accepted just because they're 
deeply held, are you?

Anyway, if you or anybody else thinks my criticism are too harsh or are 
otherwise mistaken, please feel free to say so. But I gotta say that I'm 
getting really bored with these little scoldings. I also think its a bit 
condescending to act as protector of the offended. Aren't we all grown ups 
here, grown ups with the intelligence to read and enjoy Pirsig's books? 
Don't you suppose the offended are able to speak for themsleves? And if they 
can't or won't speak for themselves, then perhaps their views can't survive 
any criticism and simply don't deserve to be protected.

Like I said, Ian, the sentiment is fine. But I'm afraid your diplomatic 
efforts only tend to obfuscate and confuse matters. Thanks, but no thanks.

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/