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

[ian glendinning]

DMB You asked,

"Right? You're not saying that deeply held beliefs have to be accepted
just because they're deeply held, are you?"

Absolutely not. ie I'm not saying they should be accepted. I am saying
that they should not be dismissed and they should only be rejected on
the basis of understanding why they are strongly held, and what they
represent. They should not be accepted, but they should be taken
seriously.

I didn't think I was disagreeing with anything you had said here ?
Just reinforcing one point - the one about the backlash against
"hollow" materialism, etc.

Ian

On 4/15/06, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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/
>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>