Another Guardian Angel
Now you knew I would have to pitch a fit about this. So here, have a fit.
Western liberal democracy owes much to the Christian view that all have equal worth before God, which in our political system reads as democracy and equality before the law; and those ideals have often been applied because of religious faith, not in spite of it.
No it doesn’t. Or at least no one knows if it does or not. That’s just that confusion of correlation with causation again. The ‘Christian’ (and not exclusively Christian, and not thoroughly Christian either, given how many exceptions Xianity always managed to find to its supposed ‘view’ over the years) view that all have equal worth before God, and the idea of democracy and equality, just happened to be around in the same part of the world now and then. That doesn’t mean Xianity caused it. And really, is it likely? Has Xianity really been all that egalitarian all this time? Hardly.
The anti-slavery movement had religious motivations of the evangelical persuasion that Buruma fears.
We’re always hearing that – but slavery was justified by Christians in good standing for centuries before the abolitionists even existed, let alone got a foothold. So how much is that supposed to count for? Not all that much, I would say.
Simply bemoaning the fanatics and mourning the demise of liberal democracy gets us nowhere…Faith is important to many.
Yes it does get us somewhere. And anyway what are we supposed to do, applaud the fanatics and cheer the partial retreat (not demise) of secular liberal democracy? And faith is important to many – really?! Who knew? That changes everything.
But Buruma is wrong to regard evangelicals as fundamentalists, because he equates that term with fanaticism and intolerance rather than with trying to apply orthodox Biblical doctrine to today’s world.
Well there’s a distinction without a difference. Trying to apply ‘orthodox Biblical doctrine’ to today’s world is fanaticism and intolerance. What else would it be? Has this guy ever read the dang Bible?
Christianity and Islam – the two faiths Buruma mentions – motivate believers to share their world-views with others. That means they will always want to be in the public square, engaging in the debates of the day.
Yes, we know. Like Iqbal Sacranie, flailing around in his search for a rationalization for his dislike of gays, and falling back on the fact that it is what he learns from his ‘faith’ – as if that makes his nasty nonsense better instead of worse. It’s this wanting to be in the public square arguing for political views that have no justification whatever except the arguers’ ‘faith’ that is so damn dangerous. That, oddly enough, is why secularists oppose religion in the public square.
Yet another to add to the Guardian’s list of slobbering-on-religion articles. And just as lame and vacuous and stale as all the others. I’m beginning to think that people of ‘faith’ just really don’t have anything of value to say on the subject.
“It’s this wanting to be in the public square arguing for political views that have no justification whatever except the arguers’ ‘faith’ that is so damn dangerous. That, oddly enough, is why secularists oppose religion in the public square.”
Presumably you mean by ‘the public square’ state institutions. I want religion in the public square in the literal sense, but shorn of its protected status. I don’t want religion in the council chamber or the school, the courtroom or the tax office, but in the public square, such as Radio 4’s PM programme, we can all see how idiotic are many religious pronouncements.
Voltaire’s dictum about freedom of expression still seems good to me.
“Faith” MEANS belief without evidence. – G. Tingey.
If Faith (captial F always implied even if lower case f written down)is meant fair enough. Would that those of Faith be open enough to admit it, but faith means both belief with or without evidence and there are too many people either not aware of this or perfectly aware of this and confute the two.
I have faith in OB to fearlessly attack nonsense wherever she finds it and base this on evidence. She has done it in the past and will do it in the future (barring nervous breakdown or religious conversion – same thing really).
Also, I have faith in reason and science, where the evidence of its utility or its uncovering the truth of Life, the Universe and Everything is readily available.
A religious faith is one where G. Tingey’s definition applies, or where the evidence is shakey. The Bible is evidence of God’s acts. How do we know? Just have to take on faith.
But Mike, all that you’ve got there is a linguistic slippage, from ‘faith’ as religious ‘fides’ to faith-as-confidence. When we say ‘faith’ in that everyday sense we’re just using a figure of speech — change it to ‘confidence’ and the meaning is identical. ‘Faith’ only has a specific meaning in a religious context [or analogous locales where belief is founded on authority, not evidence]. The slippage merely reflects how much of the everyday remains infused with religious notions, god damn, for christ’s sake. Or as OB said in the previous post, Holy jumping Jesus!
Look! A dead horse! And me holding this old club in my hand…
OB said: “It’s this wanting to be in the public square arguing for political views that have no justification whatever except the arguers’ ‘faith’ that is so damn dangerous. That, oddly enough, is why secularists oppose religion in the public square.”
Sacranie’s hateful ramblings are exactly the sorts of thing that count as ‘unreasonable’ views that ought to be kept out of public discourse according to Nussbaum and other political liberalism advocates. But let’s look at the other side. Would some nice Episcopelian priest saying something warm and fuzzy and consistent with secular liberal values – “We are all God’s children” and such – also be objectionable? After all, ultimately it is no more rational, being a faith position. It just happens, accidentally as it were, to be consistent with a rationally defensible position.
So here’s the issue: Would you be tempted to say to that nice, non-toxic priest, “Yes, that’s very nice. We are all of equal value. But please, just leave God out of it. God is irrelevant, what with the being non-existent and all.” I’m not saying whether you should or shouldn’t be tempted to say such a thing. Frankly, I can see reasons to come down on either side.
On the one hand, it is true: God is irrelevant to the universal and equal basic value of humans as such. God is always irrelevant, being non-existent. On the other hand, it does seem like borrowing trouble to fuss over it when that sort of religious position, however unfounded, is harmless. Better than harmless: Those who hold such values can be valued and productive contributors to a pluralistic society.
i know i’ll probably get flamed and/or jumped on for this, but I’m going to say it anyway: religion is not the same things as fanaticism or fundamentalism.
The fact that an individual is religious does not mean that he wants to force his beliefs on everyone, make slaves of women, and replace science with crackpot dogmas. I somewhat resent that, according to some liberals, my beliefs *by definition* exclude me from liberalism, regardless of what my beliefs actually are, and despite the fact that i don’t try to force them on anyone.
I’m all for a secular state, and i’m all for secular morality. I think the real problem is fantaticism, not religion generally.
‘Would you be tempted to say to that nice, non-toxic priest, “Yes, that’s very nice. We are all of equal value. But please, just leave God out of it. God is irrelevant, what with the being non-existent and all.”‘
Speaking for myself, yes, very much so. More than tempted, as I have done something very similar. And now that I think about it, at least once to a priest. But then, I tend to have one on hand.
I can think of at least two excellent reasons for critiquing bad arguments that happen to come to conclusions you like. These are (i) it’s just honest, and (ii) it’s strategically much better to take them out yourself than leave them waiting for an opponent to make hay with.
Incidentally, I’ve done the same with atheists arguing the basic ‘problem of evil’ stance for nonbelief in gods. I know certain folk do find it persuasive, but I don’t, personally. I also think it’s a bit manipulative–and, more importantly, far too easily dodged by pleading about mysterious ways et al. And there’s a much simpler, much better reason for not believing. The lack of positive evidence and coherent argument leading to any such conclusion.
So, again, short answer: sure. You want to argue for doing good things, please come up with some good reasons. Those involving mystical hand-waving aren’t much help, really, thanks.
“religion is not the same things as fanaticism or fundamentalism”
Nope, but you have to understand that we atheist types (a la Dawkins’ documentary) worry about the sort of reasoning that allows someone to believe in (what we regard to be) blatant falsehoods.
But in this case I think that OB is annoyed with the (oft repeated) claim that religion (or specifically Christianity) is responsible for all these lovely liberal values when you can make the rather obvious point that most of the time Christianity did not promote these values, and that really you ought to be looking beyond the religion of those Christians that promoted these liberal values. I.e. it wasn’t Christianity per se that gave rise to these values, and quite probably was the result of wider secular thought, even though you cannot deny that these people were Christians who integrated these values into their religious belief.
“Nope, but you have to understand that we atheist types (a la Dawkins’ documentary) worry about the sort of reasoning that allows someone to believe in (what we regard to be) blatant falsehoods.”
Not all beliefs are blatant falsehoods, unless you’re including belief in a deity or deities as a blatant falsehood.
“it wasn’t Christianity per se that gave rise to these values, and quite probably was the result of wider secular thought, even though you cannot deny that these people were Christians who integrated these values into their religious belief.”
exactly. and the inverse is also true: ie, i don’t think it’s religion per se that gives rise to misogyny; rather that misogynists have integrated the opression of women into their system of belief.
I completely agree that it is highly irritating and highly inaccurate to claim that cuddly lovely liberalism is the product of as system of religious morality/belief.
“Not all beliefs are blatant falsehoods, unless you’re including belief in a deity or deities as a blatant falsehood.”
Yep, hence the whole atheism malarkey.
“exactly. and the inverse is also true: ie, i don’t think it’s religion per se that gives rise to misogyny; rather that misogynists have integrated the opression of women into their system of belief.”
Well that is a slightly more difficult question because the core tenets of the belief were set down in a time when misogyny was widespread, and so could easily be incorporated into those tenets. One St. Paul comes to mind.
Would you be tempted to say to that nice, non-toxic priest, “Yes, that’s very nice. We are all of equal value. But please, just leave God out of it…”
Absolutely. (Mind you, in real life, if we’re talking face to face, I would also be tempted to shut up, simply because of the usual inhibitions about such things in social situations as opposed to political or discourse situations.) Because I do think it’s time (and long past time) to get clear about the fact (or the thought, if you prefer) that we don’t actually believe that; that we think we’re all of equal value because we think that, and that if God appeared out of a cloud and said ‘All [whoevers] are inferior and you are to treat them like dirt and hurt them whenever you feel like it’ we would promptly do a Huck Finn. We don’t think the good is good because God says so, we think God says the good is good because we think it’s good. So it would be useful to get clear about that; so yes, I would say that to the nice priest.
There’s also the fact that priests are generally assumed (even by people like Steve Gould) to have expertise in this area, so another reason to point out that their deity doesn’t add anything is to throw into question this assumed expertise.
‘orthodox Biblical doctrine to today’s world.’
With 10,000 sects good luck finding out what orthodox really is.
I come down on your side of that question as well, Ophelia. But I can see that the other view has something to recommend it. That is, the very idea of starting from and always keeping in mind the brute fact of pluralism does recommend itself for purely pragmatic reasons: It is difficult to imagine what significant progress can be made to create a citizenry that is on the whole less inclined to adhering to and living by unsupportable irrational beliefs.
Unlike the political liberal, though, I believe that if we give up on the goal entirely, we are surely lost. So I’m with you. When people spout nonsense, call them on it – any and every time, in any and every context.
Which, come to think of it, is why I like B&W so much.
:-)
Mike Rogers – that’s a nice distinction. Useful under the circs.
OK: I’m intrigued, now, to hear you justify your laudable liberal and egalitarian views without recourse to natural law and external norms of morality.
Tell me, for instance, without using any terms that appeal to external morality (in other words, in purely utilitarian language) why I shouldn’t choose somebody unpleasant and shoot them today.
I’m honestly not trolling, I’m just intrigued to see if you can. Although I must admit that I’m also a touch interested in whether your ever-so-slightly intolerant posting is typical of how you behave towards all those who disagree with you.
Endie: “Tell me, for instance, without using any terms that appeal to external morality (in other words, in purely utilitarian language) why I shouldn’t choose somebody unpleasant and shoot them today.”
Seems simple to me. I’d not care to live in a society where one could be wacked for no good reason other than that someone felt like it, so it’s an act of pure, utilitarian self protection to endorse rules against that sort of thing. Treating others as you’d wish to be treated seems like one valid utilitarian starting point on which a society can base its rules of conduct, with no need to reference some supernatural authority figure. And it seems more moral, somehow, than doing the “right” thing not because it creates a more civilized, more tolerable-to-live-in society, but purely out of fear of punishment in some afterlife.
Beer wrote something similar for Tribune a few years ago. I was asked to write a response, which I duly did, pointing out that most advances in equality and democracy had been made in spite of the church, not because of it. I got fan mail for that one.
Which was nice.