Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Mark's avatar

    Everything you say is true, but what is the alternative? I don’t think people are advocating a return to in-class…

  2. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  3. Keith Douglas's avatar

    Cyber security professional here -reliably determining when a computational artifact (file, etc.) was created is *hard*. This is sorta why…

  4. sahpa's avatar

    Agreed with the other commentator. It is extremely unlikely that Pangram’s success is due to its cheating by reading metadata.

  5. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  6. Mark's avatar
  7. Mark Robert Taylor's avatar

    At the risk of self-advertising:… You claim “AI is unusual in degree, not in kind” and “It is not clear…

The Religious Right and Secular Liberals

Brian Leiter

This posting in late July on an article by one Dave Belden contesting the depth of a divide between the religious right and the secular left produced an interesting comment from reader Tyler Whitmer that I wanted to highlight; Mr. Whitmer wrote:

“First…as a young agnostic liberal raised Southern Baptist in Texas, I find that this comment, though perhaps generally true, does not represent the reilgion that scares me (or the one I grew up in):

‘After all, the popular churches all now stress love over doctrine, sin, or blame.’

“Show me how the religion of Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, et. al. is about love rather than doctrine, sin or blame.

“Second…to casually reference the ‘Left Behind’ [book] series as some popular fantasy pulp series is to fundamentally misunderstand the method through which fundamentalism operates in this country. The narrative of the end times is a cultural centerpiece, but it is also a call to arms. The series is billed as fiction, but can be read as a socio-political manifesto. If you want to read good fiction about fundamentalism, may I suggest Tom Robbins’ ‘Skinny Legs and All.’ Robbins lambasts from the outside what the ‘Left Behind’ books are to the core…religious fanaticism alive and well, working tirelessly to bring about the end of the world. I have a problem with that not as a liberal, but as a breathing person.

“That may sound like I’m just buying into the liberal nightmare to the Nth degree, but when my AG and my President both believe that if the world ends they will live eternally in paradise and I will burn forever in misery, I can’t help but feel they don’t have my best interests at heart.

“I can only hope the leaders are frauds, using the faith of the masses as a leash to lead them against their financial best interest. That is a sad thing for a young man to hope for from his leaders.

“Third…our author acts as though it is ‘christians generally’ who hold political power in the modern American right wing. He is wrong. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Ashcroft, and gang are not ‘christians generally’ who are cool with switching churches and the female orgasm. They are modern fundamentalists who have a distinct ideology that embraces none of what Belden sees as moderating forces in modern American Christianity.

“My verdict? Our author here hasn’t had much contact with real, American fundamentalism. Sounds to me like he’s an Englishman living in the north who is a moderate Christian. Let’s see:

“‘Dave Belden, an Englishman living in New York State, is a corporate business writer. He has worked as a religious volunteer in India and Ethiopia, as a carpenter in England and America and is an active member, and past President, of a small congregation in Catskills, New York.’

“Hmmmm….”

Comments are open. No anonymous postings, as always.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 responses to “The Religious Right and Secular Liberals”

  1. jon kvanvig

    There is plenty in the behavior of those on the religious right to complain about and criticize, but comments such as the above tend to be more damaging to the body politic than helpful. First, one would be hardpressed to find people on the religious right that think there is anything they can do to hasten the end of the world, and remarking that those with religious views having an eschatological dimension can't be trusted to take the interests of those they disagree with seriously is unwarranted. Such remarks ignore the ethical monotheism of religions in the Abrahamic tradition, at least, and the ethical dimension of the major religious traditions of the world as well.

    What's objectionable about some parts of the religious right is the appearance of interest in creating theocracies, and it is important that political discourse portray that point as the central issue without degenerating into comments that attack religion as such, whether fundamentalist or not. Both sides of the issue need to learn from the history of religious wars (I mean real wars, not the outlandish extension of the concept to whatever we oppose) the dangers of hyperbolic discourse. Those who oppose the theocratic tendencies of the Religious Right need to expose these tendencies and make clear the difference between opposing these tendencies and hostility toward religion. Those on the Religious Right who either implicitly or explicitly support theocracies have stolen the moral high ground rhetorically, when the fact of the matter is that theocracies are dismal failures when it comes to honoring basic human rights such as freedom of conscience, religion, association, and the like. Hyperbolic discourse that when taken literally is anti-religion only exascerbates the problem, since it is itself morally offensive and thus solidifies the claim of the theocrats to the moral high ground.

    Reply
  2. C Schuyler

    This discussion is likely to degenerate quickly into a war of anecdotes, but what the heck. As a one-time Evangelical and present-day unbeliever, I share much of Mr. Whitmer's anxiety, in part because, as decent personally as many Christian fundamentalists are, more than one of their core beliefs are just plain crazy, and I've seen some of that craziness in practice. You cannot consistently and wholeheartedly support tolerance for differing opinions if you really believe that some opinions (for example, all or nearly all manifestations of non-Christian religiosity) are examples of demon worship. After all, if Buddhism and Islam really are demon worship, why would one tolerate them?

    This anecdote may be amusing (if a little troubling on reflection): during my Evangelical excursion from reason (when I was in college), a member of the Charismatic church I attended gave a slide show about her trip to the Holy Land. One picture was of a Roman era nude male statue. She let us know that the Holy Land was littered with these things, like a bunch of pornography. Another anecdote: I have heard at least one fundamentalist envision (with pleasure) the end-time destruction of the Dome of the Rock, a gem of early Islamic architecture. It will have to go, of course, because it's an abomination covering (and polluting) the site of Solomon's Temple.

    American fundamentalists, of course, do not spend a lot of time squelching other people's religious worship, or vandalizing artwork inspired by creeds with which they disagree. But is that self-restraint merely conformity to norms that they regard as alien and imposed from without? Left to their own devices, what would they ultimately do? That, for me, is a disquieting question.

    Reply
  3. Strange Doctrines

    Jon Kvanvig says:remarking that those with religious views having an eschatological dimension can't be trusted to take the interests of those they disagree with seriously is unwarranted.But Whitmer didn't object to those religious views that have an eschatological dimension generally. (Don't all religions have an eschatological dimension?) He objected to the Christian embrace of a certain strain of Manichaeanism–an ugly synthesis that casts nonbelievers as evil and therefore doomed to an eternity in the Lake of Fire. Arguably, at least, people who believe this sort of thing won't have a very powerful a motivation to "keep our best interests at heart."

    Moreover, it seems to me that it is completely legitimate (I would say it's an epistemological duty) to be "anti-religion," in the very same way it is legitimate to be anti-Republican or anti-Democrat. I agree that as a pragmatic political matter one wants to avoid gratuitous criticism of the deeply held beliefs of the vast majority of the electorate. But I see nothing morally offensive in vigorously criticizing religious beliefs as one might any other kind of belief.

    Reply
  4. Tyler Whitmer

    In response to Mr. Kvanvig, who writes:

    "What's objectionable about some parts of the religious right is the appearance of interest in creating theocracies, and it is important that political discourse portray that point as the central issue without degenerating into comments that attack religion as such, whether fundamentalist or not."

    I understand the politically moderate, pragmatic tendency that gives rise to arguments like this one. It is, as the reference to "political discourse" demonstrates, a political argument. The fact that the rest of his reaction is couched in philosophical language does not change that.

    I did not attack religion at large, only Fundementalist Christianity. This sect manifests itself religiously in organizations like the Southern Baptist Convention (now purged completely of anyone resembling a liberal), socially in activist organizations like the Christian Coalition, and — most alarmingly — politically as the grassroots strength of the Republican Party. I hope that is a clear enough explanation of who it is I am attacking.

    I agree with Mr. Kvanvig that (politically) we must not devolve into attacking all religion. But we should never…NEVER…shy away from attacking (or rather defending decent society against) fundamentalism. Whether that fundamentalism is the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Taliban here. And that is precisely what this movement is.

    C. Shcuyler adds: "American fundamentalists, of course, do not spend a lot of time squelching other people's religious worship, or vandalizing artwork inspired by creeds with which they disagree. But is that self-restraint merely conformity to norms that they regard as alien and imposed from without?"

    It is not self-restraint. Thankfully, the liberal framework of our nation has prevented the ugliest manifestations of reactionary fundamentalism from taking hold and dictating our society. But dictate it they would, as even Mr. Kvanvig is willing to concede to a certain point in his argument that it is theocracy, not religion, that we should be confronting. My response is that fundamentalism is theocracy in the making and to be anti-theocracy, one must be anti-fundamentalist (of any stripe, not just Christians).

    The core of the problem that I intended to expose with my first post (with the bit about not having my interest at heart) is belief in the afterlife. It is not political, it is philosophical. This is the keystone that separates the thought (and therefore the action) of the religious from that of agnostics/athiests/secular people of all kinds. I know it is an oversimplification to equate belief in the afterlife with religion, which is what I am doing. But call it what you will, that is the true point of conflict. I do not disparage religion at large because I adhere to the liberal ideal of respecting the freedom of others to believe as they wish and to act on those beliefs within reason. I do not accept fundamentalism because fundamentalism disavows that liberal ideal.

    So, politically, I agree with Mr. Kvanvig that we must fight theocracy, but I maintain that fighting fundamentalism and fighting theocracy are one and the same, the only choice presented is whether you plan on waiting too long to start fighting. Philosophically, however, we must recognize where it is that secular people and religious people truly depart from one another. The obvious answer is belief in some deity or another, but this does not isolate that element of religiosity that truly affects policy, society, and the "real world." Put crudely, nobody who believes in life after death takes this life seriously enough to fully reprsesent the interests of those of us who believe that this life is the only one we have.

    Reply
  5. C Schuyler

    I suspect there may not be much of a substantive difference between Mr. Whitmer and me regarding the motives of fundamentalists (though he doesn't like my choice of "self-restraint"). We differ, I think, in how sure we are of an actual threat to the liberties of others; that's why I spoke of disquiet rather than certainty.

    I would have to disagree pretty emphatically with Mr. Whitmer on the importance of belief in an afterlife. Such a belief is one of those doctrines I've come to see as wildly implausible. I know, however, 1) that most Americans disagree with me and 2) that the belief in an afterlife seems to have little or no detectable influence on the behavior of most of the same people. How many Americans, after all, are joining monasteries, or giving all they have to the poor, or flogging themselves through the streets, or what have you, because they think they're going to survive death? I think, rather, that belief in a particular kind of afterlife, as opposed to other kinds, MAY have some of the importance Mr. Whitmer ascribes to it. By way of illustration, another personal note: my wife, a devout Baha'i, seems to me to love this life and such particular manifestations of it as our daughter about as much as anyone can. Mr. Whitmer's liberties would be quite safe with her. But she, of course, doesn't think Mr. Whitmer is going to a well-deserved berth in Hell for disagreeing with her.

    Reply
  6. Tyler Whitmer

    That'll teach me to ever put things crudely…

    I think Mr. Shuyler's more nuanced view of those who believe in the afterlife is more practically applicable than my heavy-handed approach.

    The difference between the positions of Mr. Shuyler and myself is that he recognizes different categories of "belief in the afterlife" as having entirely different effects on socio-political thought and action. I am arguing off-the-cuff that the effects are different more in degree than in nature, but I am illequipped to defend that position (if it is, indeed, defensible).

    Reply
  7. John Casey

    Well, there's the afterlife and then there's the afterlife. As I understand it looking from the outside, the liberal/moderate Protestant and all Catholic view is that in the fullness of time at the end of days (but, emotionally, not anytime soon) there will be judgment and a sorting and punishment and reward all based on one's conduct during life on earth.

    But a significant segment of fundamentalist Protestentism sees us as in the EndTimes _right now_, with the last Trump just over the horizon. This leads to political and environmental policies, for example, that see no need for long term conservation or concern for climactic change, because, what the hey, we aren't going to be around that long anyway. I find this deeply scary, as well as plainly idiotic.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress