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

[ian glendinning]

DMB, also said,

"Tolerance is a great cause, but tolerating intolerance does NOT serve
the cause. You know?"

I do know and I agree with you, for many of the lessons of history you
cite. One think I keep saying is that there is a fine line between
enlightened understanding of someone you disagree with and being
branded a liberal wimp. Being mach and decisive is no alternative to
enlightenment for either side in an argument.

I'm a meta-liberal :-)

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/
>
>