Red Carpet for Religion
Thursday, March 03, 2005
One of the things I was reminded of recently when I watched Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life was how Ayn Rand's grasp of even the most abstract concepts had an immediacy that was very rare in the least. In particular, I recall how she explained her emotional reaction to Immanuel Kant's attack upon the validity the conceptual faculty (which underlies the rest of his philosophy): it was as good as smashing everything she valued. We see this across the cultural landscape today, and the religionists are trying to cash in on the confusion.
A phenomenon I've blogged about off and on here for some time, and which the General at Benjo's Blog puts well in a title to a post is this: The [nihilistic] left is paving the road to theocracy. This is being done in a surprising number of ways. Yesterday, I discussed this from a purely political angle: the Democrats' attempts to woo hard-line religionists. Before that, I discussed how the morality of sacrifice, shared by nihilists and religionists alike, is threatening capitalism with renewed vigor. In both of these cases, the left shares something in common with the religionists. But the full extent of this symbiotic relationship cannot be appreciated without also noting how religion, with its claims to certainty, cashes in on the war against reason.
Other Objectivists have written about this before. For example, in "Walker Lindh: From Marin County to Mazar-I-Sharif," Clinton Beenfeldt discusses why John Walker Lindh "evolved" from a hippie to a Moslem fundamentalist.
Relativism holds that all values are equally good, which means that any value you choose is merely an expression of your arbitrary preference, not to be evaluated in any way. This is the point of view that the Walker family exemplified, with their nonjudgmental attitude towards Walker's early affinity for nasty rap music, his later conversion to radical Islam and his decision to move to Yemen, a hotbed of international terrorism. How does a relativist decide what to do? Since every theory of what to do is as good as any other, he just does what he feels like doing.
Mysticism holds that some values are absolutely good and others absolutely bad, but proceeds to defend its values by appeals to authority or revelations, both to be accepted on faith. This makes their values as arbitrary as the ones of the relativists, since they cannot be established by reference to facts.... How do you decide which faith to have, which revelations to follow and which authority to obey? In short, you feel it. ....
Subjectivism and mysticism share an arbitrary ethics. The "improvement" religion offers is that at least the convert gets to pretend he knows something. There are good and evil, after all. (And of course, there are good and evil, but these are not arbitrary concepts....)
Walker himself exemplified the mystic view, with his rebellion against the "freedom" of his upbringing, and his subsequent unquestioning acceptance of the precepts of the Koran, dictating every aspect of his life.
On how cultural relativism provides an opening for the advance of fundamentalism despite the weakness of the latter as a cultural force:
Christian fundamentalism is a small part of the problem. It is far weaker than many fear.
And this pseudoscience can take advantage of multiculturalism in the following way:
Enough quoting. Go. Read it all. This is an excellent post-mortem on the teaching of science in America today. In fact, it should be required reading for anyone teaching science today.
-- CAV
No comments:
Post a Comment