From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2003 - 07:43:16 GMT
Hi David,
> DMB says:
> The highest values? The ultimate values? Equivalent to a theology? I just
> don't see it that way. The idea behind separation of church and state is
> that ultimate values, or the gods if you will, are not to be imposed by
> political authority, but by the conscience of each person, by the various
> theological systems that people might choose. The idea is to stay out of
the
> business of determining these values for others. This principle is not a
> theology itself, but provides a framework in which all theological systems
> can be accomodated.
Are you claiming that this principle is value-free? That it doesn't express
a particular choice about what has value and what doesn't have value (or
what has more or less value)?
> Sure, its easy to see that some people might accept this
> principle as if it were an article of faith, but that doesn't transform
> freedom or political principles into a religion, it only tells us about
the
> personality of that particular believer. So it might, in some certain
cases,
> be the psychological equivalent to a theology. But the phrase
> "philosophically equivalent to a theology" strikes me as non-sense. I
don't
> mean that as an insult, I mean it literally makes no sense. To me it seems
> as absurd as saying "mathematically equivalent to a poem". To quote Jon
> Stewart, "Whaaaa?"
Perhaps your understanding of theology needs broadening ;-)
> DMB says:
> John Locke pretty much invented liberalism. Jefferson was practically
> impersonating him when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Good
> choice, Sam.
Thanks for the patronising commendation. (grin)
> But I think its more accurate to say that religious beliefs
> were fenced off rather than subordinated. Sure, religion took a big hit
> because of the Enlightenment and they certainly lost a great deal of
> political power. A perfectly good baby was thrown out with the bathwater
for
> reasons I won't go into here, but I think the motivation was valid. People
> had been killing each other over "ultimate values" at an alarming rate for
> hundreds of years.
Have they stopped? If so, I hadn't noticed.
> It seems that the choices were few; endless wars, the
> dominance of one theology at the expense of all the others, or religious
> tolerance and pluralism. Are you saying tolerance and pluralism was a bad
> choice? Are you saying that continued death and destruction is a better
> choice? Are you saying that some kind of new Christiandom, some kind of
> theological empire is a better choice? Please tell me you're not.
Not at all. The fact that you think I am is merely the latest example of you
fighting your 'grim shades' - you keep slipping into DMB vs Rush Limbaugh
when you should be talking to me!
> DMB says:
> Again, I reject the notion that any judgement of value is theocratic.
Do you have a word that could be used to describe the intellectual
evaluation of systems of value? That's what I think theology is, you see.
> SOM
> says that rationality is "value-free" and outside of morality, but the MOQ
> says that science was only unconcerned with church morals. The MOQ says
that
> the intellectual level is a distinctly different set of values, one that
is
> supposed to BOTH include and transcend social values. This distinction is
> what leads me to reject the idea that rationality or political principles
is
> equivalent to theology. As I see it these are as distinctly different from
> each other as organisms are different from cities.
So for you theology is about social values?
OK, we have social values and we have intellectual values, let's agree on
that. Intellectual values are derived from the social level, through
reflection and consideration of them etc etc. In other words, they are
abstracted, they are conceptual, they are 'the manipulation of symbols'. Now
it seems to me quite plain that you can abstract the values that are
embedded in the Church/State separation and say that these values are being
enforced by that separation, moreover that the Chuch/State separation is a
consciously chosen (intellectually driven) manipulation of the social
level - let us make society in THIS way (for reasons of avoiding war,
enthusiasm, etc etc). Embedded in that evaluation is a view of 1. Reason, 2.
Religion, 3. Church, 4. State - and probably much else besides. It's a
theology - or whatever word you choose in answer to my earlier question.
> DMB says:
> I think religion is irrevocably tied in to the social level? No, not
really.
> Sorry if it comes across that way. I think religion is PRIMARILY social,
but
> not exclusively. It can be raised to the intellectual level as in
philosophy
> of religion or comparative religious studies.
Theology?
> We can use the intellect to
> examine our assumptions about religion or just about anything else. What I
> object to, and this is really what were talking about, is when sectarian
> unexamined social level religion tries to usurp or subordinate higher
level
> values. The separation of church and state prevents this by depriving
> theologians of the political authority they'd need in order to do that.
By giving authority to an alternative theological conception. Ever heard the
phrase 'render unto Caesar what is Caesars'? That was an alternative
theological conception too.
> DMB says:
> Governing values behind the separation clause? As I understand it, the MOQ
> says that it is right and proper for the higher level the control the
> excesses of the lower level.
Yup.
> Just as social values tame and channel our
> biological desires, so too does intellect tame the excesses of social
level
> values. Or so it should.
Yup again.
> It is only when biology trumps social values or
> when social values trump intellectual values that we get into trouble.
Splendid, lots of agreement.
> In the MOQ morality is defined in this way, in a set a relationships
between
> levels. And this is no red herring. This kind of immorality is serious
> business here in the US. There are Universities in Kentucky where it is
> forbidden to use the word "evolution". This is a case of social level
> religious values trying to trump science, which the faithful creationists
> view as just another belief system, as "just a theory". (Apparently
> oblivious to the scientific meaning of the word "theory" and the mountian
of
> evidence that supports it.) The 9th circuit court recently ruled that the
> phrase "under god" in the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because
> it violates the separation of church and state. The President and most
> conservatives condemned this ruling. They'll very likely bring it to the
> supreme court, the highest and final court, where your buddy Scalia will
> probably lead the charge to overturn the ruling. Here in the US, this
battle
> is quite real. I view these would-be theocrats as reactionary and
degenerate
> and fear a great thing will be lost if they win this struggle.
I agree with all of that. Doesn't alter my point one bit. Makes the case
against the fundamentalists weaker in fact.
> I think I really do understand what you're saying. You say it better than
> most, but I've heard it many times before.
Rush Limbaugh again?
> I guess we'll just have to agree
> to disagee.
Plus ça change.
> This issue is huge here.
Yes it is. It's one of the things that most animated Pirsig in ZMM.
> Religion is at the heart of the most
> important differences between liberals and conservatives, between secular
> humanists and the faithful, between Democrats and Republicans.
Only on a particular construal of 'religion', (ie Modernist)
> The struggle
> between the two is what Pat Buchanan has called "the culture wars". We can
> see the same sort of thing being played out on a global scale too. The
> West's relationship with Islam and other traditional cultures is a
different
> version of these "culture wars" on a grand scale. I think Pirsig is saying
> that this same struggle, between social and intellectual values, is behind
> the horrors of the 20th century. Its no small thing.
How do you evaluate the fact that the most prominent intellectual systems
(eg maths, physics) were able to flourish under totalitarian regimes with no
diminution of quality?
BTW I've just received my copy of the Kingsley book. I'll let you know how I
get on with it.
Sam
"A good objection helps one forward, a shallow objection, even if it is
valid, is wearisome." Wittgenstein
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 03 2003 - 07:47:12 GMT