Here’s some follow-up reading on the resurgence of atheist literary output in recent months. The commentator is NY Times editorialist Richard Shweder and the title is ‘Atheists Agonistes‘ (’agonistes’ is a term that refers to ‘the struggler’ or ‘the combatant’), a thoughtful musing on the some potential root causes of the revival. Here are two quotes I found interesting:
“The popularity of the current counterattack on religion cloaks a renewed and intense anxiety within secular society that it is not the story of religion but rather the story of the Enlightenment that may be more illusory than real.”
“A shared conception of the soul, the sacred and transcendental values may be a prerequisite for any viable society.”
Gil, thanks for your facilitation of this ongoing discussion. Your respect for the various views is admirable, especially as we try to understand the intense disagreement that is so apparant from the various views, both on the links you have provided and the comments individuals are making.
I think Shweder’s comment about trying to understand why both groups “continue to gaze at each other in such a state of mutual misunderstanding” can be a beacon for both sides of the argument. The discussion begins at such polar opposites, that it is obvious such clashing conclusions are made… Somehow there needs to be listening on both sides.
Easier said than done, I know. But necessary nonetheless…
Dave,
The goal you point toward is a good one yet I think that it is in some ways intractable. Shweder puts his finger on the basic point that I think could provide a starting point: we are dealing with rival stories, rival systems of belief.
This particular debate is rarely regarded as a discussion of beliefs. Instead it’s usually presented as one group stubbornly clinging to superstitious dogma and other trying to shine the pure light of reason. As long as the issue it is cast in these terms it’s difficult to see how any real progress could be made.
In a recent discussion about the issue of philosophical/theological disagreements someone suggested that while we all have beliefs or opinions about specific topics, we often don’t have a philosophy or theology for the actual discussion process. Is there such a thing as a “theology of dialogue” when it comes to these often heated debates? People are so quick to jump into the issue being debated that they run the danger of damaging the actual process of discussion.
Yes, I agree that when the beliefs being discussed are so far apart it is hard to even have a constructive conversation, but I don’t think this can let us off the hook to continue in the current mode of misunderstanding.
I guess I just want everyone to get along!!!
A theology (or philosophy) of dialogue is an intriguing concept. Could we agree on how to disagree? Any suggestions on what that might look like? This is definitely a concept worth pursuing; it’s easy to forget process (and people) in the process of arguing for an idea. Thanks for the reminder.
“Instead it’s usually presented as one group stubbornly clinging to superstitious dogma and other trying to shine the pure light of reason. As long as the issue it is cast in these terms it’s difficult to see how any real progress could be made.”
obviously you don’t think faith is superstitious dogma what would you say this one side is actually clinging to if it isn’t this? is it revelation?
I don’t mind it if you call it ‘clinging to dogma’. I freely admit that I take many first principles or assumptions on faith. What I don’t like is the false distinction between this and some kind of mythical objectivity that is claimed for the other side of the argument. It’s simply an unnecessary dichotomy.
Both sides have their dogmas and confessions. It seems to me that an unavoidable first step in any discussion is for people to get their prior commitments on the table. That seems very difficult to do in this kind of conversation.
I believe that all ‘knowing’ involves some kind of mixture between belief and reason. I don’t believe that faith is inherently irrational - as if I only start to believe something when it becomes obvious that I can’t ‘know’ it.
So you could say that ‘cling’ to dogma or revelation. But I ‘cling’ in a way that is, I hope, aware of the element of ‘faith’ or ‘clinging’ that is simply part of all human knowledge.
Gil, I think this is an important point to keep underlining.
When we peel everything back to the root or origin we all have to admit that we are starting with assumptions that we hold in what amounts to faith (even if we don’t want to call it that). Once we can agree that this actually the case we can begin a more productive discussion how those base assumptions inform and dictate the rest of our conclusions about life.
I would say that it is easy for me to see how some of the base assumptions of an atheist are inconsistent and irrational. I’m not sure I am as open to seeing where my own assumptions might be distorted. This natural closedness to our own errors has been what secular positions have held against us for a long time. And of course we have held the same contention against the ‘other side’. Too bad really. I bet we could learn a thing or two from each other.