I criticize Dennis Prager's Tuesday column in today's National Review Online. Here's the introduction:
The U.S. Constitution is a multiculturalist document. Not in all senses, of course: It tries to forge a common national culture as well as tolerating other cultures. But it is indeed multiculturalist in important ways. We shouldn’t forget that when we’re tempted to categorically condemn supposedly multiculturalist changes to our constitutional practices.
Consider what Dennis Prager — whose work I often much like -— wrote in his most recent column:
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.
He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.
This argument both mistakes the purpose of the oath, and misunderstands the Constitution. In fact, it calls for the violation of some of the Constitution’s multiculturalist provisions....
To read the rest, go here.
Thanks to my UCLA colleague Stephen Bainbridge, who alerted me to Prager's column and who has written more along these lines.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Words from the Becket Fund,
- John Quincy Adams' Oath of Office:
- Dennis Prager and I on the Paula Zahn Show (CNN) Tonight:
- Justice Arthur Goldberg Swore His Oath of Office on the Hebrew Bible:
- What the Koran Says Vs. What an Individual Muslim Is Likely To Do:
- Multiculturalism, Dennis Prager, Keith Ellison, and Me:
Well, according to this site it was Pierce.
And apparently Teddy Rex didn't use a Bible either (warning, wikipedia content)
I'm not so sure what's to like about Prager. His real or feigned ignorance of the Constitution is troubling as is his willingness to believe that only Christianity can save the world from disaster. And his arguments can sometimes sound good until you examine them and discover the are more rhetoric than fact.
(I pretty much know the range of meanings for atheists forced to lay their hands on the bible while swearing. It ranges from "Oh well, whatever.", to "I'm outraged!" )
We should force him to swear it on the Koran because it is the only religious text that he'd feel he must follow.
I'm in total agreement on this one.
Question, though: As "The Great Satan," would our use of the Koran for so base a purpose as an oath of office be considered disrespectful by the not-so-balanced Islamic crowd (I'm assuming that normal Muslims would think it was great)? Our soldiers, after all, were supposed to wear gloves while handling the book.
(Someone explained the "or affirmation" bit as satisfying that line of reasoning for those whose creed felt that way back then; it works for me.)
In any case, Prager is very wrong here as the professors noted and don't need my agreement.
Overall, this is a fascinating exercise in group psychology. The mere suggestion made by third parties that an elected member of Congress might take the oath with a hand on the Koran has the extreme right whipped into quite a frenzy.
Yes, you're right, letting Prof. Volokh take him apart in the NRO. Quite the frenzy. Not all psychology is "group psychology."
Let's not make mountains out of Pragers.
Certain pundits maintain that the Koran REQUIRES Muslims to lie to non-Muslims about their intentions, particularly the intention of imposing sharia law.
Indeed, it has always struck me as odd that so many people swear on a book containing a fairly eloquent prohibition on oaths.
Casuistry, of course -- if I swear on a book that tells me not to swear, then my oath isn't really binding!
This explains the conduct of a great many politicians, witnesses, etc.
In real courtrooms and depositions, I've often seen the witness swear or affirm without the "s.h.y.G" and Bible as a matter of course (it would be something like, "Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"), so no special non-Christian oath would be required. Incidentally, I assume this is a matter of local practice, and the applicable Federal Rule of Evidence (603) only says, "Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so."
The judge I clerk for has the witness raise his hand (no Bible), then says, "Do you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Grant Gould,
Great point--it brings to mind the people who make engraved images of tablets that say not to make engraved images.
I'm pretty sure it goes back futher than that. If it's not a folk-etymology (I'm OED-less at the moment), that's exactly what the word "testfy" means.
See, there really are 3 levels of wingnuttery!
IIRC, it *is* folk etymology. Or perhaps, "reverse etymology" would be more correct. The Latin word "testis" (plural, "testes") means witness. That name was applied to a person's man-bits because they were considered to be "witness" testifying to his virility. At least that's the explanation that was in my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary back when I was in high school.
Too, the Constitution's multicultural tenets and themes reflect a decidedly small "m" multiculturalism, not a large "M," post-modern Multiculturalism, for example in the mode of an EU-styled, institutionalized de facto and de jure, Multiculturalism. This too represents a warranted aspect of a viable and fully warranted suasion. Other issues as well involved, if still under the rubric of suasion, e.g., philosophical issues which have practical and potentially even legal import.
This is a misstep by Prager, but only in the sense that he ventures beyond suasion and is stipulating a practical proscription. Both for better and for worse, the people, we the people ..., have a right to the representatives we elect to office, and that will inevitably and irreducibly have practical import, including import as to the manner in which someone is sworn into office.
"Nixon, also a Quaker, did swear, apparently on two Bibles. This didn’t seem to help."
on an unrelated note: after taking a look at prager's website and finding innumerable posts slandering (to my mind) atheists as being categorically incapable of being "moral," i'm curious as to whether any of the folks here have read through Dawkins' most recent book, and if so, what they think about it.
To my mind, it contains some of the best written arguments against the ridiculous claims of Prager and others...
I, for one, am sick of the 'hands off' policy regarding religion and god - and this Prager ordeal is just one more episode that gets under my skin.
after all, weren't Jefferson and the founding fathers incredibly critical of Christianity and, on my construal of deism, basically atheists themselves?
No they weren't atheists. The key Founders were rationalists and skeptics who firmly believed in God. They were theists but not Christians, however.
And what's truly ironic about the founders and all the attention they get from Christian Nationalists is that while they weren't atheists by any stretch of the imagination (by which I mean Christopher Hitchen's endlessly flexible imagination), the religious right of their day DID accuse them of being infidels and atheists.
like the kind of god that can read our thoughts, intervene in the world, speaks to people etc.?
check out this quote from Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr (from Dawkins' book): "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribual for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
even granting that the founders believed in god (as opposed to invoking the word god in the einsteinian sense to denote the wondrous complexity of the natural world, etc.), wouldn't it follow that they would be appalled at the current religiosity of most Americans? at Prager?
I suggest you check out the conversation on Hitchens, Dawkins, and Jefferson that took place on Positive Liberty and Dispatches From the Culture Wars. It takes a more nuanced middle ground examination of Jefferson's belief in God.
The Founders certainly would be appalled at Prager's policy idea which runs afoul of Article VI of the Constitution, which clause was truly a remarkable achievement in securing religious rights for its time.
Yes. They did believe in a God who intervened in the man's affairs. However, their God was a "rationalistic" God who didn't seem to break the laws of nature or science that He created. Putting the two ideas together I'd describe their God as one who intervenes by manipulating probabilities, or playing dice with the universe.
Their God would, for instance, protect George Washington by having his coat shot full of bullets but Washington "miraculously" escaping harm, but wouldn't part the red sea or walk on water.
I checked out both positive liberty and dispatches - very enjoyable reading. i can't purport any real awareness of the scholarship in this area, suffice to say that the arguments there seem more attenuated than Dawkins, and that I tend to favor nuance over the polemical (read: Dawkins on the founding fathers) any day.
at bottom though, the only reason I brought up Jefferson and the fathers, beyond the relevance to the Prager issue, is that pointing to this country's origins as an entry point into a broader discussion about the significance of religion and the demonization of atheism that's more viable than a head on attack. I read this blog regularly, and it appears to me to a bit right-leaning, and to the naieve mind of a 1L that means that bringing up the constitution's founders is a way of insulating both the empirical and normative questions that arise around the "god hypothesis" as Dawkins calls it.
I'm certainly no scholar of American history, but I do think that a serious discussion/dissection of the role of religion in America today is long overdue - for me, it ranks right up there with global warming, poverty, terrorism etc. I can't discern much difference between different forms of fundamentalism - whether it's the lubavitchers, evangelicals, jihadis or any other group - and the prevalence of these groups scares the hell out of me. Prager IMHO is just one more cog in that wheel.
I would love to see a post on this site touching on these issues - Jon: as someone who appears to be in touch with some of these issues, does it look like Dawkins book is getting any traction? (I mention Dawkins only because it's recent and available - I'm sure (or hope, rather) that there are others out there)
Jon Rowe,
What exactly does it mean for God not to violate the laws of nature? Does this require one to be a realist about laws of nature, i.e., that they exist over and above the regularity they describe? In other words aren't the laws of nature just whatever describes the set of events that actually happened. The founders should have been aware of these sort of issues as they had probably read their Hume so I suspect they must have meant something more subtle. Additionaly at the time I don't think the notion of randomness in physical laws was very popular but I could be mistaken.
Besides, as a practical matter there isn't really much difference. If there are enough random events you can make pretty much everything happen by manipulating random events. I mean there is some probability (according to QM) that the red sea just magically jumps to Jupiter for the next five minutes.
Michael B said:,
Well except for the fact that he isn't being given special treatment at all. He's just being treated the exact same way anyone else would be in that situation, getting to use their own holy book. I suspect he is not the first either. I couldn't find it on Google but maybe someone else know what former congressman Dalip Saund swore his oath on?
I do share your concern that islam is treated with kid gloves and that it isn't acceptable to point out that the Koran is a bunch of gibberish that no one older than 10 should take seriously. I mean if you'd never heard of the Koran and someone showed it to you you'd think they were crazy for believing in that junk.
But it's the Christians who really get the special treatment. It's acceptable to ask whether or not islam is bad for the world, promotes violence or attack it's followers for every random verse in the Koran. At least acceptable enough to happen on network TV news. I mean try making the same points about Christianity. Imagine the outcry if a Muslim cleric got on national TV in the united states and gave the same sort of speech about christianity that we sometimes hear from the religious right about islam (speech in English of course).
I mean c'mon at least we show a little bit of critical thinking when it comes to islam. But when people claim that the new testament, a work that beats Elvis sightings look plausible, really describes what happened we have to treat them like they said something plausible. I mean if someone got on national TV and talked about how they had been abducted by UFOs, have psychic powers or can cast spells they are at least met with skepticism if not outright derision. Yet if we substitute UFOs for the more implausible claim of rising from the dead and replace the testimony of claimed eyewitnesses with a 2000 year old book of uncertain authorship written almost 100 years after the events it describes occurs we not only have to treat these people as if they are reasonable but find ourselves only barely resisting the most extreme elements of this group from pushing ID into our schools.
You tell me who is getting special treatment.
--
pelican,
As you might guess I'm not a big fan of the hands off policy about god either but unfortunately the more you attack religion the stronger it gets. People like to feel righteous in the face of persecution. Why do you think the religious right and the people on fox news spend so much time trying to dream up stories about the ACLU and the godless liberals marginalizing christianity. I'm not suggesting it is a deliberate scheme or anything but people look for evidence that lets them feel like the righteous underdog.
Certainly there don't appear to be too many Bibles or Korans or Necronomicons or copies of The Celestine Prophecy in the members' left hands; this appears to be a complete non-issue.
Oh poop. While it's a daunting task, challenging someone with both certainty and The Founders on their side, it's highly doubtful very many among the founders would find it "appalling" since similar topics were part and parcel of various debates during that era. Perhaps you're confusing the founders with the soixante-huitards or the Chicago Seven, an all too common mistake. Though I open to being persuaded.
And exploring the faith and reason, or fides et ratio, dialectic is not something a Dawkins or a Sam Harris has evidenced much proficiency with, to put it in the kindest of terms. Though they do talk a good game when preaching to their own choir - as long as the choir members additionally refrain from questioning certain underlying philosophical premises, among other aspects of their dogmatically proscribed secularist faith as well.
In general the founders were variously theistic, and many were decidedly Christian, v. Michael Novak's On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding.
logicnazi, you might first exercise a more conscientious and probative doubt concerning your own philosophical faith and assumptions. Though that would require both more philosophical rigor and more conscientiousness, something you're not inclined to exercise as judged by the quality of your comment.
dogmatically proscribed secularist faith? whoa.
as opposed to say, a dogmatically prescribed (not proscribed, i'm assuming) religious faith? It's quite obvious that you've never read a shred of the literature - the whole point is that it's not dogmatic and magical, on the contrary, evolution provides a rational and alternative (and extremely compelling) explanation for how intelligence and indeed morality (shock) can arise without the need for faith in anything.
but that's the problem. exercising philosophical rigor and conscientiousness would typically imply at least reading, if not addressing, the arguments made.
so, more directly: is evolution an "unquestioned philosophical assumption" in your view?
But I do think that you should take Michael B. at his word. He sees people like Dawkins as advocates of a "secularist faith." He describes that faith as "dogmatically proscribed." Michael does, in fact, dogmatically proscribe "secularist faith," whatever that is, so it's a providential typo. A self-fulfilling error, if you will.
Well it's true that some Founders probably supported religious tests, I can marshal quotations from the key Founders on this very issue showing that religious tests appalled them. Indeed, some Founders were so appalled by the positions of other Founders, that they prayed for their deaths. For instance, Patrick Henry's position on religion and government so appalled Jefferson that that prayed for his death in a letter to Madison.
But anyway, the Founders who were "appalled" by religious tests, THEIR VIEW made it into the US Constitution, Art. VI., cl. 3.
Re: The Founders' religion, the key Founders -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and a few others -- were not Christians. In fact I have a review of the Novaks' "Washington's God" in this month's Liberty Magazine, on the stands now, where I argue their book doesn't show Washington was a Christian, that the evidence, on balance, points in the other direction. And Novak's categorizing Madison a "Christian" in "On Two Wings" is absurd. How anyone can call Madison a "Christian" in the orthodox sense after reading his TO FREDERICK BEASLEY on Nov. 20, 1825 is beyond me.
Your miscomprehension is total. I was addressing philosophical issues, for example linking here, not theological issues per se. The fact you don't pick up on that is telling, is revealing of a certain philosophical myopia. Additionally your sweeping statements fail to address anything at all that can conceivably be described as "cogent," rather they are statements which presumably make you feel good, but they are the very antithesis of cogent. I'm not even sure they can be considered cogent when viewed from a purely solipcistic frame since what they evince are pure feeling and sentiment.
pelican,
No. I intended "proscription," since a good deal of what is intended with a secularist faith often has little positive content, beyond proscribing other perfectly valid philosophical positions other than, either implicitly or explicity, a pure materialism. Btw, I've read some of the literature, additionally I said nothing about evolution per se. For you as well, it's the philosophical issues being addressed, not theological. The fact I don't accept a pure materialist philosophical underpinning as the a priori fact is, in large measure, one of the primary issues you don't so much as evidence the least bit of awareness, and that's one reason, in turn, why the reference to dogmatism is perfectly applicable and highly germane.
In other words, in terms of conscientiousness and rigor, you might consider following your own advice before offering it to others.
I'm not sure how many of the founders would have supported religious tests, I more simply indicated the subject per se would not have appalled them and I suspect most of them would have taken arguments, pro and con, more or less seriously. I might say, using language in something of a liberal fashion, that I'm appalled by your own appropriation of "certainty," your certitudes, and am similarly appalled by your equally facile appropriation of the founders and what they more specifically believed, but that would need to be understood contextually.
As to the other, will address it later.
Your sneering contempt is precisely and only that, no more. As you've evidenced in the past (e.g., here), once probative questions are asked of your own position, you demure and resort to snipes and ad hominem inferences. In sum, you too often evidence a foppish self-regard, little more, once probative questions are directed at your own positions.
Boo.
I suggest you take Colin's advice.
Jon Rowe,
Briefly now, more later, on the remainder. Firstly, I'll suggest you may(?) be misinterpreting my own position, you may well be ascribing sentiments or beliefs to me that are not mine. Secondly, and despite my reference to Novak's volume, I don't pretend to positively know what "The Founders" or any individual founder believed. They largely lived and breathed their religious faith (whether specifically Christian, a form of deism, or other), as they also lived and breathed the Enlightenment values and corresponding philosophical positions of that era as well, and they did so in such a manner that they did not see any value, between the two, which was mutually exclusive at deeper philosophical levels. I.e., they were sophisticated, yes, and were not given to any type of simplistic fideism or faith. This, seemingly, is what you're attempting to categorically posit: that a specific Christian belief is tantamount to a simplistically conceived fideism and is also mutually exclusive of a "Theistic Rationalism". Perhaps, as you define the terms (i.e. to your own satisfaction), they are mutually exclusive (if so I'd need to understand how you do, in a positive sense, define the terms), though I would, and can, argue otherwise.
Btw, I notice you've already altered your language. Rather than appropriating "certainty" or "The Founders" with such ready facility, you're now using language which is more tentaive. E.g., when you state "I have a review of the Novaks' "Washington's God" in this month's Liberty Magazine, on the stands now, where I argue their book doesn't show Washington was a Christian, that the evidence, on balance, points in the other direction." (my emphases)
Hence now, rather than positing certainty, you are forwarding a certain argument which, on balance, supports your view. And, by contrast, the Novaks forward a set of arguments which, on balance, supports a different and in large part a contrary position. I'd suggest this dichotomy is reflective of my earlier statement, essentially that a theistic rationalism and Christianity are not in the least mutually exclusive, again, dependent upon how those terms are defined.
If you imagine they are mutually exclusive, once again, assumming you do in fact represent a more serious philosophical position in the first place, you'd need to define your use of the terms. Otherwise a more serious and substantial examination is rendered impossible and it would be better, from your vantage, if you more simply demured from a more probative discussion.
Regardless, I could certainly reference more material, in favor of a contra argument vis-a-vis your own position, in terms of supportive quotes, links, etc. I'm not "certain" in terms of absolute knowledge, but I can forward a substantial and probative argument as pertains to that contra position.
As to this thread, your goofy definition of "secularist faith" doesn't fit the use of the word "proscribed." You may have meant "proscribing," rather than "proscribed." It would be awkward and stilted, which does seem to be your style. Or maybe it was just a typo. You can own up to them, it happens to all of us.
As I've alluded now to Fallaci, the Enlightenment, etc., this comment on Fallaci's "La Rage et l'Orgueil" is, at least in part, germane.
Regarding Jefferson, Adams and Franklin, there is no debate regarding the central tenets of their creed; I am "certain" they believed in a theistic rationalism which, in its central specific tenets, conflicts with orthodox Christianity. Read my blog, where I document this in detail. You can debate, though, some of the finer details. For instance, while we knew that Jefferson thought reason superseded revelation and the Bible was errant, there is some debate as to whether he believed *any* revelation was legitimately given by God, which would make his creed closer to deism than Adams'. Adams too thought the Bible was errant and elevated reason over revelation, but he did believe some revelation was legitimate. Thus, they agreed on the central point: reason superseded revelation and the Bible was errant, but may have disagreed on the "finer" details of what revelation was legitimate, what was error.
Re Washington and Madison, because they were so reticent to discuss their personal beliefs, there is room for *some* doubt as to what they really believed. But, as I argue, the evidence points to their belief in the same system that Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin believed in, not orthodox Christianity.
If you want to argue that this belief system nonetheless is consistent with Christianity, go ahead. Jefferson and Adams called themselves "Christian," Adams specifically termed it "liberal unitarian Christianity." It is not, however, consistent with what is commonly termed "orthodox Christianity."
It is absolutely none of our business whether we agree with or like the contents of the sacred text or not. The Religious Test for Public Office clause makes the contents of the Koran or the Islamic religion simply none of our business so far as its utility for the function of being a guarantor of oaths is concerne. This is basic stuff. The Religious Test for Public Office clause is older than the First Amendment. Even Framers who wanted full-strength established churches were willing to recognize and accept that in our country, dissenters can't be kept from performing the full functions of Federal office just because some people don't like their scriptures. And oath-taking is one of those functions, mandated for federal office-holders by the Constitution.
Too, the reason I used the phrase "ad hominem inferences" is because they have not been more direct or blunt ad hominem attacks, but they are decidedly evasive relative to the philosophical and other questions that have been invoked and their implication in fact carries an ad hominem quality or inference. (And if you're serious - though I'd hope it to be in a manner which is likely to shed more light than heat - feel free to email with your philosophical or any other positions, though again, I was not referring to that single comment.) On the one hand you want to turn up the heat when it suits your evasive or other purposes, on the other hand you don't like the kitchen as soon as it's uncomfortable from your own pov.
Too, you misunderstand the purposes of my rhetoric, which I admit to indulging in for a range of purposes, but will leave it at that. Finally, as you've merely mocked the notion of a dogmatically proscribed secularist faith, I'll ref. another link, which is more specifically directed at a form of fundamentalist atheism, but suffices nonetheless as one example of the former. (And this is tedious, but though I am more typically impressed with your education and writerly talents, I'll stick with "proscribed.")
I will read some of your posts, at your blog. I can appreciate your position, though I would note, again, your language has taken on a more tentative cast, if that's the right term. For example we're now talking about orthodox Christian views. In sum, this too reflects the need to properly or contextually qualify/define our terms.
Too, the set of topics or subtopics we're inherently addressing are numerous: 1) my, your and the Founders views, religious and secular, 2) Enlightenment values and more formal philosophical positions, as conceived in the 18th century vs. as they are conceived, and variously updated, in our era, in the 21st century, 3) theistic rationalism, as conceived both then and now as well, 4) Christianity vs. orthodox Christianity and your and my and the founders views of what constitutes the differences between the two, 5) implied Constitutional issues per se vs. extra-Constitutional issues and themes, 6) our various and variously debateable interpretations of the Founders' beliefs in the context of their intellectual, social, cultural, political, etc. climate - vs. their actual private and public personas and deeply held beliefs, and how they felt those beliefs should be applied legally (Constitutionally and in terms of statutes) vs. how they should be applied only culturally, outside of the law. Those are only a few of the things which more immediately come to mind.
But again, I'll read some of your posts.
How did Jefferson and Adams discriminate between valid and invalid revelations? (I realize that I could probably find the answer in your article, but it's late and I'm about to retire. I hope you don't mind fielding the question.)
Good question. They thought mans' reason could expose the error. Jefferson literally used a razor to cut out the "error" from the Bible and what was left is termed "the Jefferson Bible."
Adams praised Jefferson for this and told him "If I had Eyes and Nerves, I would go through both Testaments and mark all that I understand.” In another letter, Adams elevates man's reason so far over revelation that he tells Jefferson had God Himself revealed the doctrine of the Trinity to Adams on Mt. Sinai with Moses, he still wouldn't have believed it because one is not three, three is not one period.
If your question is whether their methodology was sound, that's a topid for another discussion. From the perspective of an orthodox Christian, one might see an astounding arrogance in their beliefs -- that their reason is so keen, they have the ability to "spot" the error in the Bible and cut it out.
I.w., those espousing various secular faiths have learned to modify and adapt their beliefs, much as those espousing various religious faiths, orthodox and otherwise, have.
An article on the Old Bailey site mentions a 1765 trial where " prosecutor James Morgan, who was born in Bengal, was allowed to swear on the Koran". I'd give you the URL, but your comment thingie won't let me. Look at the article on black people.
Of the Old Bailey, perhaps so, though this is the U.S. we're discussing, not Londonistan.
Colin,
I didn't besmirch Auguste Comte in general or personal terms, I referenced a specific suggestion of Comte's. Too, that idea was in fact reflective of the exaggerated faith Comte placed in Rationalism and science as he conceived those categories; Comte is often regarded as the initiator of a scientifically conceived positivism and progressivism, so no, it wasn't "merely" speculative, it was also indicative of Comte's, and others', broader beliefs and indeed, faith. By the end of Comte's century, the early part of the 19th century and no later than Mach, any scientifically conceived positivism was more or less dead.
Too, I positively value speculative genius, contextually conceived. E.g., Freud's was a particularly prominent speculative genius, even if many of his more definitive and positive conclusions/assertions have been variously found wanting or entirely eclipsed.
And if you don't understand why the term "exaggerated" is applicable, especially so as I additionally alluded to Marx's eschatological vision as conceived along his own rationalist conceptions, also referencing terms such as hyper-rationalism, positivistically conceived science and a mechanistically conceived physics, all of which are outdated, presently, then I'm not sure how we can communicate, given the subject matter, along lines which are mutually meaningful.
Perhaps unconsciously, but you are flim-flamming conceptions of "rationalism" without providing contextual clarifications - at one point using it in a contemporary, 21st century sense (or in its ideal sense), at another using it as construed in an 18th and early 19th century sense.
should have read:
By the end of Comte's century (the 19th century), and no later than Mach, any scientifically conceived positivism was more or less dead.
(Perhaps an exaggeration, I certainly don't claim to be authoritative, but Avenarius was among the last positivist philosophical thinkers that I'm aware of and Mach, iirc, was considered among the first scientists to throw a mechanistically conceived physics into disrepute. And certainly no later than than relativity and subatomic or particle physics, early in the 20th century, any scientific positivism was a dead letter.)
I understand that. I simply don’t see that such wild speculation on his part is very significant, or how it meaningfully connects to his “broader beliefs and indeed, faith.” I don’t dispute that it might be a valid microcosm of “Rationalism,” but I don’t see it, personally. How much can we really glean from a proposal that was utterly impossible, fairly goofy, and not very rational? It doesn’t seem likely that Comte put very much thought into the effects of his proposal, and he certainly didn’t have much astronomical data (by today’s standards). Is it fair to tar the values of reason and rationality with unreasonable and irrational proposals? Please bear in mind that I’m only passingly familiar (at a Wikipedia level) with Comte’s work. This example just doesn’t seem to me to cast much light on the value of reason, rationality, the Enlightenment, or any other broad issues.
And if you don't understand why the term "exaggerated" is applicable, especially so as I additionally alluded to Marx's eschatological vision as conceived along his own rationalist conceptions, also referencing terms such as hyper-rationalism, positivistically conceived science and a mechanistically conceived physics, all of which are outdated, presently, then I'm not sure how we can communicate, given the subject matter, along lines which are mutually meaningful. Perhaps unconsciously, but you are flim-flamming conceptions of "rationalism" without providing contextual clarifications - at one point using it in a contemporary, 21st century sense (or in its ideal sense), at another using it as construed in an 18th and early 19th century sense.
I don’t think that we are communicating very well. In the context of this discussion, I don’t construe ideas (like Comte’s suggestion) or thinkers (like Marx) that only represent themselves as rationalist to actually be so. I consider actual rationalism, again in the context of this discussion of the *application* of the founders' beliefs, to contain more than a facial (and farcical) application of reason. I realize that this is not a rigorous application of the term, but I didn’t understand us to be discussing a particular context. I understood Jon Rowe’s use of the term “rationalistic” to contrast the founders’ personal faith with a dependence on revelation and mysticism, not as an identification of a specific “18th and early 19th century sense.”
Would you not consider Dawkins to be a scientific positivist?
(As an aside, I don’t think that one can “unconsciously” flim-flam. I think that flim-flamming, like bullshitting, snowing, and leg-pulling, requires specific intent.)
Yes, we're not communicating vis-a-vis Comte; you don't seem to comprehend the implications of Comte's positivism within the intellectual and ideological tempers of the times and the fact I'm more simply referencing the elliptical/circular orbit idea to represent that more foundational set of conceptions, his general positivism, and the implications that stem from those conceptual/theoretical origins.
No, I don't consider Dawkins to be a scientific positivist first and foremost. I consider Dawkins, in the role we're here taking note of, to be an advocate and ideologue who decidedly disavows philosophical rigor, whether as a positivist or otherwise. By stark contrast, Avenarius was, in the 19th century, a rigorous, positivist thinker who transparently explicated his terms. Dawkins, in philosophical terms, is an ideologically motivated superfluity in this particular role; hence my earlier link, which helps exemplify that quality. (And yes, he can also be considered a scientist, in his other role, though his prominent role of PR man and promoter and ideologue can cloud the other role.)
(And in ad hoc adopting and qualifying the phrase "unconsciously flim-flamming," I'm simply suggesting I'm describing something without imputing or presuming anything as pertains to motive.)
i think this post is out of control too - but only because for you folks to be talking about positivism (which, with the exception of maybe Badiou - though he has some pretty out there arguments, is dead on my account) is entirely irrelevant to the normative discussion of what the use-value of a belief in god is, as opposed to the use-value of reason (which supplies some pretty hefty arguments against a belief in god).
Mike B: you call Dawkins an 'ideologically motivated superfluity' - what counter-arguments do you propose then?
as you rightly pointed out, i never said anything about being beholden to some dogmatic materialism. if you're looking for the possibility of evolution supplying moral content though, you should check out the panda's thumb website for some pretty compelling arguments, or read some clifford geertz. the notion that without a belief in god you can't supply positive moral content is a ridiculous argument i'd like to hear you try and make.
i think this post is out of control too - but only because for you folks to be talking about positivism (which, with the exception of maybe Badiou - though he has some pretty out there arguments, is dead on my account) is entirely irrelevant to the normative discussion of what the use-value of a belief in god is, as opposed to the use-value of reason (which supplies some pretty hefty arguments against a belief in god).
Mike B: you call Dawkins an 'ideologically motivated superfluity' - what counter-arguments do you propose then?
as you rightly pointed out, i never said anything about being beholden to some dogmatic materialism. if you're looking for the possibility of evolution supplying moral content though, you should check out the panda's thumb website for some pretty compelling arguments, or read some clifford geertz. the notion that without a belief in god you can't supply positive moral content is a ridiculous argument i'd like to hear you try and make.
Confusing on various levels.
You are certainly free to believe, and/or think, metaphysics to be a waste of time, I have no problem with your private beliefs as long as they do not tread, directly or by implication, upon the beliefs and practices, the valid social/political freedoms, of others. On the other hand what you've forwarded is a statement of belief, not an explicated set of thoughts on the matter, unless you simply used the term "think" in a demotic and informal sense when you're actually simply intending to state your beliefs.
Beyond that we likely only have prospects for talking past one another as your underlying premises/assumptions are neither compelling nor are they cogently conveyed - beyond statements of belief. But again, I'm not interested in treading upon your privately held beliefs, I'm only interested in the social/political import of those beliefs.
For example you avow you're a post-modern pragmatist without the least bit of indication as to what that might mean to you, subjectively or objectively, in terms of social/political import for your own life and as it might impinge upon others' lives as well. I can intuitively guess what it might mean to some extent, but that would in fact require a largely intuitive assessment on my part. Further still, it seems, while you're stating you're not a materialist, that the practical implication is you're a materialist for most practical intents and purposes nonetheless since you little more than scoff at the notion others might entertain beliefs which you consider to be below contempt. Or perhaps you don't understand, or appreciate in a full sense, what the idea of a genuine and practically applied tolerance might imply in the social/political sphere. But I can't tell, since you don't explicate anything, you simply state your beliefs as such, as if to say your beliefs should be accorded immediate respect while others' beliefs, to the extent they stray from your own, are to be questioned.
Your example is much too flimsy to bear so much weight. I realize that this thread is too constraining for you to adequately support your point, but "the implications of Comte's positivism within the intellectual and ideological tempers of the time" is a largely emply phrase. Nor does using Comte's proposal as a general representation communicate anything much. You've identified a particular example; if you want to tie it to a broader theme, or give it some significance, you'll have to do more than identify the point and the plane you want to connect. Some connective logic and exposition is necessary. How does his positing an idea that would never have been put into practice, even if he had the means and the opportunity, shed any light on the "implications" of his positivism? Idle speculation doesn't carry much significance.
No, I don't consider Dawkins to be a scientific positivist first and foremost. I consider Dawkins, in the role we're here taking note of, to be an advocate and ideologue who decidedly disavows philosophical rigor, whether as a positivist or otherwise.
That's a bold statement, and poorly supported. Your linked thread is skimpy on logic; I'm sorry, but citing to watchmaker arguments sets my eyes a-rolling. I'm not asserting that you're wrong, because I've never bothered to put much thought into whether Dawkins' arguments are sufficiently rigorous. But he certainly doesn't "disavow philosophical rigor." I think Dawkins has defined his terms sufficiently well, and I don't see where he's overstepped them.
(And in terms of your "poorly supported" comment, that reflects an even more thoroughgoing lack of basic comprehension, a totalized cluelessness that utterly fails to grasp what was presented.)
Yet despite it all, you don't hesitate to reply with empty, deflecting scoffs: a vacuum of cluelessness and incurious self-regard forwarded as a proclamation of not-to-be-questioned superiority. And, all this performed as if in front of a mirror, you've managed to surpassingly convince yourself as well.
Ironies, and more, have been lost. On you.