Steve said to Ham:
You are conflating the notion of religion as a whole with specific religions.
My point is that there is no particular way to practice religion. Specific
religions on the other hand are often thought of as having essences. People
frequently claim that so-and-so who says he is a Christian is not REALLY a
Christian because of X or Y or Z.
dmb says:
Hmmm. Don't you think it's fair to say that "religion" is just an abstraction?
Wouldn't an anti-essentialist say that the only meaningful subject matter here
are particular religious people, specific institutions and actual religious
practices? I mean, it works as an abstract concept that refers to a whole class
or family of particulars but on the ground there is no such thing as religion
in general. There are only specific religions and their practical effects,
right? And if these specific religions are usually thought of as having an
essence that determines who is and is not a member, and you are suggesting they
be exempt for the demands for evidence for anti-essentialist reasons, then
aren't you basically using anti-essentialism to defend essentialism? That would
be a bit incoherent, wouldn't it?
Steve to Ham:
I thought I was defending certain beliefs from the obligation for evidence.
dmb says:
That's pretty much what I got out of it. I would replace "defending" with
"exempting" but that's not a huge difference. More or less amounts to the same
thing, I guess. Anyway, that is what we disagree about.
Steve to Ham:
I must not have read my own essay carefully enough.
dmb says:
In that case, I'd suggest you look it over one more time and then ask the
author what he meant. Kinda like this...
The author of Steve's essay said:
.."the point of holding beliefs is not to seek Truth but to gratify particular
desires," that "we need to try to get our beliefs to cohere with [others']
beliefs."
dmb says:
Gratify desires? Is that as crass as it sounds? Please elaborate because, as I
understand it, "the idea that satisfaction alone is the test of anything is
very dangerous, according to the MOQ. There are different kinds of satisfaction
and some of them are moral nightmares. The Holocaust produced a satisfaction
among the Nazis." I realize that Nazism is just about the last thing that you
or Rorty would desire. But you're just messengers of this neo-pragmatic view of
the nature of beliefs. It's the message that concerns me. The idea that it's
just about gratifying desires can be taken up by somebody else who is looking
to gratify very different desires. This is likely to strike you as more chicken
littleism, I suppose. But there is a strange simpatico between fundamentalist
and fascists, as "The Family" so creepily demonstrates. I really don't think
this concern should be dismissed as hyperbole. It's just too well documented,
you know?
During the war there was a Catholic priest who had a radio show out of Royal
Oak, Michigan. He sympathized with Hitler and admired him greatly. His radio
show was broadcast all across the country and he had millions of devoted
listeners who felt the same way about German fascism. I really don't know what
to call them except American fascists. You think Pat Robertson of James Dobson
is saying anything substantially different today? Trust me, they're not very
different at all. They know better than to invoke Adolf's name, of course, and
would not describe themselves as fascists but the attitudes and positions
remain the same, sometimes word for word. That's what so stunned me about Coe,
the head of "The Family". His open admiration for Hitler's management style was
truly shocking and yet I wasn't really surprised either.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/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/
