Hi Matt, I've defended Stout as well as I can, but I find your arguments pretty convincing. I also reread Religion as a Conversation Stopper and have a hard time finding much wrong with his arguments. I'll work on rethinking the issue and get back to you.
Best, Steve On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Matt Kundert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Steve, > > Steve said: > While Rorty has responded to Stout's anti-essentialist critique of Rorty > as opposing religion as _essentially_ a conversation stopper, he has > fallen back into arguing something similar, that ecclesiastical > organizations are _essentially_ disposed to fuel bigotry rather than to > promote freedom and justice. > > Matt: > Yeah, I'm not so sure Rorty should have conceded the issue to Stout in > "Reconsideration." To my mind, Stout's use of "antiessentialism" as a > critical trope was a red herring: Rorty never said, and has no need to > say, that religion is essentially anything, nor that ecclesiastical > institutions are in essence anything: all he needs is to make a "I've > read some history and come to a reflective, on-balance generalization" > argument. My memory of rereading "Conversation-stopper" after > Stout's intervention, and Rorty's reconsideration, was that Stout was > off-kilter in his criticism, and that religion--or farts--can still function > as conversation-stoppers even if they aren't essentially so. > > Have all monarchs been bad? Did not Queen Elizabeth do wonders > for England in the 16th C., and particularly for humanist culture and > literature? And yet, I'd still like to reserve the right to say that, on > balance, I think it'd be a good idea for humanity to wean itself off > monarchys and turn into democracys. I think the same kind of > argument can be made for centralized ecclesiastical institutions, > whatever the benevolence of those currently in charge. It's not > what you'd call a conclusive argument, but we've already decided > that the terrain here is muddy and subject to ground-truth > reappraisals. > > Steve said: > Why does everyone need to use the same reasoning? We don't all > hold the positions we do for the same reasons. Reasons don't have > to be relevant to all of us for them to be worthy of giving. They just > have to have some hope of convincing some people who are still > unconvinced. > > Matt: > We don't all need the same reasoning, and perhaps what has been > confusing is that both of us have a different idea in our mind's-eye > when we think of the "public square." By and large, what I'm thinking > of is the conversation between politicians, people directly involved in > the sausage-machine known as government. This is (ideally) a > _public_ conversation: the reasoning politicians tell their constituents > for why they voted, or wrote a bill, a certain way. Of course, there is > a lot done behind closed doors, and there is a lot of publically aired > material that I would dub "private": like Dawkins diatribes against > religion. Those are his private will made manifest to others, but that > doesn't make them "public" in the sense I want to reserve for the > public/private distinction in politics. > > There's a short-term/long-term distinction working in the background > for me, too. Short-term advances might mean taking advantage of > ecclesiastical institutions, but we shouldn't abdicate looking at the > long-term. "Religion ain't goin' anywhere any time soon" is a > recurring theme in your argument, but that's a short-term > consideration. Sometimes people aren't looking, and _writing for_ > the short-term, but looking long into the future, and placing bets > about how we should compose ourselves. I think Rorty strikes a > good balance between trying not to needlessly provoke potential > religious leftist allies and writing for this far-off future. Nothing he's > written strikes me as "militant." > > What strikes me about his liberalism is just this: we should promote > a culture of public discussion about the aims and uses of > governmental apparatus in which religious reasoning is left to the > side. That doesn't mean that religion is essentially bad, or a > conversation-stopper, or anything else. It just strikes me as the kind > of reasoning that people 300 years ago had reached after the > Religious Wars, and that end-of-the-century American politics has > pressingly made present to us again. Promoting a culture in the > future doesn't mean going out and militantly being a dick to people: > it just means, say, constantly moving a conversation with your > peers, should it stray into religious reasons for political positions, > back to ground in which you, the atheist, are able to ask for, and > receive, reasons that you might find plausible. I see no reason for > thinking that while, on the one hand, I cannot continue a > conversation about why believing in Jesus should mean believing X > (or Y) about abortion that, on the other hand, I cannot stand by the > Rortyan injunction to find a way to continue the present > conversation: that just sometimes means shifting or changing the > topic. I see nothing antidemocratic about trying to promote a > culture you'd like to see in the future, and I see nothing inconsistent > (though perhaps a sometimes delicate needle to thread) about > promoting a culture that doesn't exist and dealing well with current > realities, and treating people you disagree with in the long-term > with decency and respect in the short-term to eliminate the > pressing, current difficulties surrounding us (and punting the > long-term junk down the line). > > Steve said: > So how can we say that religious reasons are inherently not as good > as other reasons? Don't we need to clarify more specifically what it > is about religious reasons that is problematic? If we can identify the > issue perhaps not _all_ religious reasons have this issue. And > perhaps some of our nonreligious reasons are infected by this issue. > Their eradication ought to be part of this utopian vision as well. > > Matt: > I don't think what I'm suggesting implies that religious reasons are > not as inherently good as others, which is partly why I've had > recourse to farts: we are talking about case by case situations of > general classes. That's a difficult needle, talking about particular > generalities, but I can't see that it can't be done well and usefully. > And what it is _specifically_ about religious reasons is that we have > a _specific_ outlined freedom about them. This freedom was > instituted for the specific reality that faced Europe in those days, the > recent past of wars motivated by differences in religious affiliation. > Rawls, I think, when he talks about the secular leaving-at-the-door > of religious reasoning typically mentions the historical reality that > produces this attitude. We cannot understand freedom of religion > divorced from history. The only difference, so far as I can see, > between "religious reasoning" and "philosophical reasoning" is the > real practical difference in terms of how people live out those > reasonings: Kantians and Hegelians have never taken up arms over > their differences, or joined together to suicide-bomb Platonists. > > It's not that religious reasons aren't "good," it's that they should be > thought of as illegitimate in the "public square" for the purposes of > promoting a public square in which everyone only forwards reasons > that other people _could_, even if they do not, use in their own > reasoning. You emphasize how we need to keep the conversation > going, but I think your emphasis begins to lose sight of the fact that > it does matter _what_ we are talking about. (Think of your own > recent comments about SOL.) Maybe we can go a little ways with > people fielding religious reasons, but as I indicated in a post before, > how far do you really expect us to go? These will all be case by > case determinations, but I can only imagine a lot of my participation > in these conversations being polite noddings of the head. You don't > need to "essentialize" a thing to think it is irrelevant. And you also, > without being a dick (which I would think is the behavioral side of > militant), can't be constantly inducing existential crises in your > religious friends when talking to them (because doing that is a > good way to get them away from using Leviticus to hide their > homophobia). > > Steve said: > I think you make a good case that if a law can only be argued on > religious grounds that ought not be a law. But that doesn't mean that > religious reasoning cannot be used in addition to other reasoning. I'm > thinking of Pierce's cable. One particular weakest link argument is not > what we should desire. > > Matt: > I demur: if you accept the idea that what a law is is its explication (in > lines of reasoning, etc.), then yes, that does mean that religious > reasoning cannot be used. Are you suggesting that it would be okay > for Scalia to cite Leviticus when he overturns the ruling against Prop > 10? > > Steve said: > Harris complains that bad religious beliefs are held in large part > because they are not allowed to be held to such scrutiny. > > Matt: > You mentioned this a time or two, about getting people to be more > out in the open with their religious reasoning. It reminds me of the > close of Fish's The Trouble with Principle when he opines (ironically?) > for the days when people wore racism on their sleeve. At least you > knew, then. But this creates trouble for judging what possible > progress we've been making morally all these years. And with > Harris' complaint, I wonder what he's thinking of. Does he want a > more adversarial culture than we already have? What kind of > scrutiny are we talking about? Because if we are talking about > atheists pretending to be theologians again (even if their reasoning > about the meanings of texts are sound), then I can't really imagine > that's a good idea. If we are talking about atheists popping magical > bubbles, when did that stop? If we are talking about constantly > interrogating everyone we know for every belief they hold, then > that's silly practically, though the idea of promoting a Socratic > culture of self-examination is of course the right thing. > > Steve said: > While Rorty is right that some people quoting Leviticus are > homophobes who are merely "hiding sadistic grins behind > sanctimonious masks," others are making a sincere effort to take the > Bible seriously and to understand what the Bible teaches about > homosexuality. > > Matt: > Yeah, I know. But people who are sincere about understanding > difficult texts are not people thump things (Bibles or otherwise). > People who are making a sincere effort to understand the Bible are > conversable, not the sanctimonious, and isn't the difficult to change > the conversation to what's _really_ motivating an "ewww, gross" > feeling toward gay people with the sincere because of all the other > things they don't do from the Bible. > > The trouble is actually finding sincere people, finding people who live > with uncertainty. Our adversaries in the arena of public discourse > (and I mean this, now, in the general way, on TV, newpaper editorial > pages, blogs, etc.) are generally _not_ sincere about discovering > something about themselves. When we fight for keeps, we fight with > weapons that do not change during the fight. Sincere people ready > to have a searching conversation are rarer. > > Steve said: > Like anyone who we hope to convince of anything, we will have to > meet them where they now stand and accept at least some of their > premises for the sake of argument. But if we don't allow religious > premises to ever be expressed, then we never get to challenge them. > > Matt: > Yeah, but if I can win on the ground that everyone can participate > on, then I can just wait for them to die, and they'll take their > unexpressed "real" reasons to the grave. Most cultural change > happens not with changing minds, but the old guard dying off. > Perhaps you like arguing with everyone about everything more than > I do, but I'd rather isolate sections of the conversation of humankind > from each other for the purposes of establishing, if only slightly > artificially, ranges of relevancy to _get things done_: we can't hash > out _every_ conversational position that somebody thinks of on the > Senate floor, because we need to get shit done. There's got to be > practical constraints. And because of the charged and contentious > nature of religion in the world today (as it has been since the dawn > of humanity, in most cultures), it still strikes me as a good idea to > keep it out of the way. Do we really want politicians hashing out > theological controversies? They can hardly handle the secular stuff. > Have you heard the bullshit that gets said about religion on TV? Of > course you have, but I do not see how _more_ of it is going to help > (not so long as the rich are at the reigns of control). > > Steve said: > What is anti-democratic is to try to stop the conversation. Trying to > enforce limits on what sorts of reasons can be given (if they are > reasons and not just appeals to authority) is to do just that. > > Matt: > All I can imagine "enforcing limits" could mean is pointing out, and > arguing for, irrelevancy of certain kinds of reasons. Intimations that > it is illegitimate to do this conversationally is why I've been smelling > so much bad gas in the air. > > Is it not legimitate to think that some things, no matter how reasoned > out, are beyond the pale? > > Matt > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
