Scott,
SCOTT:
The reason for my disagreement is that I think Rorty is being
disingenuous with his "Religion is a conversation-stopper".
...
Rorty, on the other hand, is a secularist, and also thinks there is
sufficient evidence and reason to maintain his faith. But by claiming
that "religion is a conversation-stopper" he is, by fiat, ruling me and
many others out of the conversation, telling us that our sufficient
evidence and reason doesn't count, while his does.
MATT:
Rorty does realize that he is begging the question by favoring secularism.
That actually isn't the problem. The problem is that Rorty seems to be begging
the question in favor of atheism. This problem is, as Rorty sees it, not a
theoretical one, but a practical one: how do we keep a democratic liberal
community running free and equal when the populace's beliefs are diverse and
pluralistic? Like the American Forefathers, Rorty puts his money on
secularism. Stephen L. Carter (who's book Rorty is contrasting) says, "all
these efforts to limit the conversation to premises held in common would
exclude religion from the mix." Carter, and presumably you, Scott, believe
this exclusion to be unjust. To this Rorty says,
"Such exclusion, however, is at the heart of the Jeffersonian compromise, and
it is hard to see what more just arrangement Carter thinks might take the place
of that compromise. Contemporary liberal philosophers think that we shall not
be able to keep a democratic political community going unless the religious
believers remain willing to trade privatization for a guarantee of religious
liberty...."
He goes on: "...it is hard to figure out what he thinks would be an appropriate
response by nonreligious interlocutors to the claim that abortion is required
(or forbidden) by the will of God. He does not think it is good enough to say:
OK, but since I don't think there is such a thing as the will of God, and since
I doubt that we'll get anywhere arguing theism vs. atheism, let's see if we
have some shared premises on the basis of which to continue our argument about
abortion. He thinks such a reply would be condescending and trivializing. But
are we atheist interlocutors supposed to try to keep the conversation going by
saying, 'Gee! I'm impressed. You must have a really deep, sincere faith'?
Suppose we try that. What happens then? What can either party do for an
encore?"
The reason I've quoted so much from Rorty is that I think he's right and he
puts it much better than I. Scott says, "Of course [religion is a
conversation-stopper] if one thinks about trying to argue with a
fundamentalist, but there are many (like me) who have come to religion
rationally, or have subjected their religious beliefs to thorough rational
scrutiny. This does not mean that they think they can prove their religion to
be correct, but that they find there is sufficient evidence and reason to
maintain their faith." That's fine that you believe you have evidence. The
atheist believes he has evidence, too. Hell, the fundamentalist believes he
has evidence. The problem is that none of the other positions acknowledges the
legitimacy of each others' evidence. So what do you do? Rorty and Habermas
and Rawls argue that you need to get to a least common denominator. Cut off
where the premise comes from. Only then will the conversation be allowed to
continue, rather than becoming a self-defeating argument about the existence of
God.
I mean, assuming you are not Catholic, think if you were asked by a priest,
"Have you confessed yet today?" You would answer, "No..." The priest would
then say, "Why not? You'll go to Hell if you don't confess." Where do you go
from there other than, "Well, I didn't confess 'cuz I'm not Catholic and,
because I'm not Catholic, I don't think I'm going to Hell for that particular
reason." That particular line in the conversation is, effectively, stopped.
So, when Rorty seems to beg the question in favor of atheism, he acknowledges
it and accepts it. The reason Rorty's position seems to beg the question is
because, in public, he's a secularist, not an atheist. In public, when
answering the question, "Is there a God?" a theist will say, "Yes." An atheist
will say, "No." A secularist will say, "Hey, did you see the basketball game
last night?" A secularist will simply change the subject because they think
that that question is a bad question to ask. A secularist circumvents the
question. Rorty argues that theists should do the same thing in an effort to
keep the political conversation going.
SCOTT:
The reason for my objecting to your second objection ("(2) He attempts
to hold private obsession and desire for public good in one vision") is
that many, if not all, of our public disagreements have their basis in
our different metaphysical stances. If Pirsig does not make his
"obsession" public, he undercuts his reasons for public stances (like
defense for rights). We all act according to our metaphysical stance,
and we all have one (an agnostic is a de facto secularist). So, if we
are intellectually inclined, it is disingenuous to argue for one
position or another without making our ultimate reasons for it as
clearly as we can.
MATT:
Rorty would undoubtedly concur that many of our public disagreements have their
basis in our different private beliefs. However, Rorty's argument is that,
even though you may describe this as disingenuous, if we sat around all day
debating metaphysics, we'd never get anything done in the way of public
policy. In 1964, if the members of Congress had sat around debating the
incommensurability of the various metaphysical stances that they had, rather
then getting on to the voting in of the Civil Rights Act, then we Americans
might still be living with institutional segregation. Rorty says, "It is one
thing to say that religious [or metaphysical] beliefs, or the lack of them,
will influence political convictions. Of course they will. It is another
thing to say, as Carter says, that the public square should be open to
'religious argument', or that liberalism should 'develop a politics that
accepts whatever form of dialogue a member of the public offers'." If someone
did offer a politics of this sort, I'm sure Rorty would be all ears, though I
think he would skeptical about it working. The problem would still be that
various conversants would have a problem with being forced to accept certain
premises just to argue about public policy. How would we know whose to accept
and for how long? You can imagine the practical problems.
As a side note, Scott said: "You will note that in all his philosophical
argument, he is arguing with other secularists (like John Searle and Thomas
Nagel), while people with a more-or-less religious stance (like Wilber) are
simply ignored. Pirsig can be dismissed because (and I think correctly from
Rorty's point of view), Quality is "merely" a non-explanatory substitute for
God."
Rorty might, as I've agreed before, dismiss Pirsig. I've never argued
otherwise. However, I think this is besides the point. I think we would all
agree that we are free to use whatever ideas we feel fit to use, even if the
creator of those ideas would disagree with their use. For instance, I don't
think it matters that the creator of the hammer only intended it to pound and
pull out nails. If I want to use it to punch holes in my wall, I don't think
most people would argue with me on the basis of original intention. The
creative use of old tools (together with the creation of new ones to replace
the inefficient old ones) is how technological and intellectual history has
moved forward.
And as for Rorty typically only engaging other secularist philosophers, this is
his problem, not mine.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:36 BST