Friday, September 28, 2007
Down and Dirty
Tonight being the big mud wrestling match between the "framers" (Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet) versus the "anti-framers" (Greg Laden and PZ Myers), it is only fit and right to bring up this article in the Daily Princetonian by philosophy major and columnist, Matt Hoberg.Hoberg begins by discussing the informal ban in Saudi Arabia of women driving. He then discusses "the difference between the West and Saudi Arabia on human rights [where the] West thinks that all universal frameworks are secular, and Saudi Arabia thinks that all secular frameworks are incompatible with conservative interpretations of Sharia." While that is, itself, an important discussion, what may bear on the framing debate is this:
How do we escape this impasse and reach a universally accepted framework of human rights?Once we identify irreconcilable differences though, that then?
There is no easy answer. Taking the ban on women driving as an example, there are two ways that a westerner like me can come to agree with a conservative cleric on this issue: Either the cleric has to let my secular arguments trump his religious conception of rights, or I have to let his religious arguments trump my secular conception of rights. But for either of those things to happen, one of us is going to have to adopt what William James calls a dead hypothesis — we'd have to believe something that "refuses to scintillate with any credibility at all" and give up beliefs that we see as central to our identity and our place in the world. No matter how hard we try, we may never be able to agree.
This is a sobering situation, but it is by no means unique to the question of human rights; it is precisely the same situation with advocates of intelligent design and evolution, or abortion and choice or you and the firebrand in your precept. This is the fundamental quandary of the public square — the possibility of irreconcilable differences that no amount of dialogue can solve. Dialogue can, however, identify which differences are irreconcilable.
When we reach the limits of conversation, the only way to press beyond those limits is to engage more moderate voices in the discussion. Therefore, while we should genuinely hope that the West and the most radical conservatives in Saudi Arabia come to agree on fundamental questions of human rights, we need to realize that agreement may be impossible so long as radicals have power.But that begs the question of how, and if, the radicals are best gotten out of power.
.
Comments:
<< Home
Surely, Saudi Arabia must have some weapons of mass destruction stashed around the place somewere.
If not, maybe we could sell them some...?
If not, maybe we could sell them some...?
# posted by 
: 6:08 AM
: 6:08 AM 
I've come to the conclusion that Osama is an al-Qaeda Max Headroom - just a figurehead for ranting to camera. Bit like Muyhearse and the atheists really, except the jihadists seem to be having continuity problems, what with changing beard length and colour...
# posted by : 10:28 AM
: 10:28 AM
I don't know about the "engage more moderate voices" bit. Sure, we'd like to bring in some moderate Muslim voices, but I suppose those radicals think we are the immoderate ones. They might be happy if they could bring in some more moderate non-Muslim voices. They could replace us with folks who are moderate in these sense of only slightly opposed to total cover-up of women's bodies (let 'em show their noses), only slightly opposed to keeping women out of public activity (let them be kindergarten teachers), only slightly opposed to a total acceptance of the literal truth of the Koran (it is one truth among many), only slightly opposed to restrictions on freedom of speech (Rushdie went too far, of course), etc.
They could probably reach a "sensible" compromise with such people.
Isn't there a better way around the problem than this?
They could probably reach a "sensible" compromise with such people.
Isn't there a better way around the problem than this?
Isn't there a better way around the problem than this?
Well, it'd be nice if there was. Do you have one?
Until we do, trying to cobble together coalitions of people who come the closest to sharing our own values seems like the best course.
But as the article indicates, there is a possibility that we won't be able to do that. If so, the ugliness we've seen so far is only the beginning.
Well, it'd be nice if there was. Do you have one?
Until we do, trying to cobble together coalitions of people who come the closest to sharing our own values seems like the best course.
But as the article indicates, there is a possibility that we won't be able to do that. If so, the ugliness we've seen so far is only the beginning.
I'd like to kick this around with you, because I have a lot of respect for what I've seen of your opinions, even when disagree.
I think there will be situations where we can't form workable or acceptable coalitions, for a range of reasons. One might be that even those "more moderate voices" are saying things that are totally unacceptable from our viewpoint.
I do think you're right that we'll be able to form coalitions in some of our social struggles. I'll come back to that.
It's not quite what your post is talking about, but I'm often troubled lately when I read some of the atheist blogs and sites. There's a level of intolerance from some commenters that suggests they would never be able to work with anyone, or give any respect to anyone, who is even moderately religious - not even if they are genuinely liberal in their views and opposed to theocratic ideas (as opposed to people such as the present Catholic leadership, whom I do not consider moderate at all, let alone liberal).
As I've been saying in various places, I'd be happy to join a coalition with deists, agnostics, pantheists, genuinely moderate religionists, and anyone else who is broadly on the side of reason, science, and freedom from theocratic laws. I wince every time I see reasonable religionists automatically being considered beyond the pale for all purposes.
I must also say, since we're discussing this elsewhere, that I don't think people like Richard Dawkins are anything like atheist fundamentalists. But I'm starting to think that that term does have some application to some of the individuals who hang around at ScienceBlogs and similar places.
A time may have to come when, however painful it is for them, Dawkins and company may have to disown some of their more extreme and pig-headed fans. I was appalled this morning to see even Udo Schuklenk, a very eminent secularist academic, had been attacked when he turned up and made some thoughful comments on Pharyngula in the last day or so. To those of us who know who Schuklenk is, the person who did this looked like an idiot, but what have things come to if someone like Schuklenk - or even someone like Sam Harris - gets attacked without restraint if caught expressing anything short of the most hardline and dogmatic possible atheistic and anti-religious positions?
That said, I seriously doubt that there's a reasonable prospect of such a coalition doing much in Saudi Arabia in the foreseeable future. What we can realistically hope for, I like to think, is a coalition of interests that can at least oppose the more theocratic tendencies in Western societies.
I think there will be situations where we can't form workable or acceptable coalitions, for a range of reasons. One might be that even those "more moderate voices" are saying things that are totally unacceptable from our viewpoint.
I do think you're right that we'll be able to form coalitions in some of our social struggles. I'll come back to that.
It's not quite what your post is talking about, but I'm often troubled lately when I read some of the atheist blogs and sites. There's a level of intolerance from some commenters that suggests they would never be able to work with anyone, or give any respect to anyone, who is even moderately religious - not even if they are genuinely liberal in their views and opposed to theocratic ideas (as opposed to people such as the present Catholic leadership, whom I do not consider moderate at all, let alone liberal).
As I've been saying in various places, I'd be happy to join a coalition with deists, agnostics, pantheists, genuinely moderate religionists, and anyone else who is broadly on the side of reason, science, and freedom from theocratic laws. I wince every time I see reasonable religionists automatically being considered beyond the pale for all purposes.
I must also say, since we're discussing this elsewhere, that I don't think people like Richard Dawkins are anything like atheist fundamentalists. But I'm starting to think that that term does have some application to some of the individuals who hang around at ScienceBlogs and similar places.
A time may have to come when, however painful it is for them, Dawkins and company may have to disown some of their more extreme and pig-headed fans. I was appalled this morning to see even Udo Schuklenk, a very eminent secularist academic, had been attacked when he turned up and made some thoughful comments on Pharyngula in the last day or so. To those of us who know who Schuklenk is, the person who did this looked like an idiot, but what have things come to if someone like Schuklenk - or even someone like Sam Harris - gets attacked without restraint if caught expressing anything short of the most hardline and dogmatic possible atheistic and anti-religious positions?
That said, I seriously doubt that there's a reasonable prospect of such a coalition doing much in Saudi Arabia in the foreseeable future. What we can realistically hope for, I like to think, is a coalition of interests that can at least oppose the more theocratic tendencies in Western societies.
I must also say, since we're discussing this elsewhere, that I don't think people like Richard Dawkins are anything like atheist fundamentalists. But I'm starting to think that that term does have some application to some of the individuals who hang around at ScienceBlogs and similar places.
I don't like Dawkins use of the term "child abuse" because I think he fails to distinguish the kind of moderate, indirect and much qualified discussions of damnation I was exposed to as a child (which never came close to frightening me) with the physical abuse some cults, such as the Branch Davidians, might engage in. That kind of confusion can only wind up hurting the attempts to prevent and prosecute the latter by muddying the waters. But I understand that others may disagree.
I don't think there is any question that there are small "f" "fundamentalists" among atheists, in the sense the term has come to mean: those who strongly hold a relatively narrow set of beliefs on some subject and are willing to attack even those who share most of the same beliefs if they are insufficiently "pure." I have avoided using the term of late because it automatically turns any discussion into an argument (not that I'm above that, it just doesn't match my aims in such discussions of late).
There's a level of intolerance from some commenters that suggests they would never be able to work with anyone, or give any respect to anyone, who is even moderately religious - not even if they are genuinely liberal in their views and opposed to theocratic ideas ...
There is no god but No God!
I was appalled this morning to see even Udo Schuklenk, a very eminent secularist academic, had been attacked when he turned up and made some thoughful comments on Pharyngula in the last day or so. To those of us who know who Schuklenk is, the person who did this looked like an idiot, but what have things come to if someone like Schuklenk - or even someone like Sam Harris - gets attacked without restraint if caught expressing anything short of the most hardline and dogmatic possible atheistic and anti-religious positions?
I didn't see that but I am hardly surprised. I'll go try to find the example when I have a chance.
I suppose PZ is at least somewhat correct that, given the utter lack of understanding, if not outright contempt, atheists have faced throughout American society and media, that a certain raucousness on their part, as they have gained notoriety, is understandable and even prophylactic. But it is evidently a short step from solidarity to smug superiority and demands for a new orthodoxy.
That said, I seriously doubt that there's a reasonable prospect of such a coalition doing much in Saudi Arabia in the foreseeable future. What we can realistically hope for, I like to think, is a coalition of interests that can at least oppose the more theocratic tendencies in Western societies.
I agree about Saudi Arabria and much of the rest of Islam. I was signaling my doubts that we should be in the business of getting radicals out of power, given our record in that field of endeavor around the world. My best suggestion is to encourage enough money to percolate down throughout Muslim societies that everyone can sample the benefits of the modern world. Instead of killing them or lecturing them, I say seduce 'em!
But in the short run all that will be easier if we aren't laboring under a de facto semi-theocracy of our own, as we have been for the last 8 years. If we want to end that, we on the side of liberal secular democracy had better all get together whatever disagreements on details may remain.
Post a Comment
I don't like Dawkins use of the term "child abuse" because I think he fails to distinguish the kind of moderate, indirect and much qualified discussions of damnation I was exposed to as a child (which never came close to frightening me) with the physical abuse some cults, such as the Branch Davidians, might engage in. That kind of confusion can only wind up hurting the attempts to prevent and prosecute the latter by muddying the waters. But I understand that others may disagree.
I don't think there is any question that there are small "f" "fundamentalists" among atheists, in the sense the term has come to mean: those who strongly hold a relatively narrow set of beliefs on some subject and are willing to attack even those who share most of the same beliefs if they are insufficiently "pure." I have avoided using the term of late because it automatically turns any discussion into an argument (not that I'm above that, it just doesn't match my aims in such discussions of late).
There's a level of intolerance from some commenters that suggests they would never be able to work with anyone, or give any respect to anyone, who is even moderately religious - not even if they are genuinely liberal in their views and opposed to theocratic ideas ...
There is no god but No God!
I was appalled this morning to see even Udo Schuklenk, a very eminent secularist academic, had been attacked when he turned up and made some thoughful comments on Pharyngula in the last day or so. To those of us who know who Schuklenk is, the person who did this looked like an idiot, but what have things come to if someone like Schuklenk - or even someone like Sam Harris - gets attacked without restraint if caught expressing anything short of the most hardline and dogmatic possible atheistic and anti-religious positions?
I didn't see that but I am hardly surprised. I'll go try to find the example when I have a chance.
I suppose PZ is at least somewhat correct that, given the utter lack of understanding, if not outright contempt, atheists have faced throughout American society and media, that a certain raucousness on their part, as they have gained notoriety, is understandable and even prophylactic. But it is evidently a short step from solidarity to smug superiority and demands for a new orthodoxy.
That said, I seriously doubt that there's a reasonable prospect of such a coalition doing much in Saudi Arabia in the foreseeable future. What we can realistically hope for, I like to think, is a coalition of interests that can at least oppose the more theocratic tendencies in Western societies.
I agree about Saudi Arabria and much of the rest of Islam. I was signaling my doubts that we should be in the business of getting radicals out of power, given our record in that field of endeavor around the world. My best suggestion is to encourage enough money to percolate down throughout Muslim societies that everyone can sample the benefits of the modern world. Instead of killing them or lecturing them, I say seduce 'em!
But in the short run all that will be easier if we aren't laboring under a de facto semi-theocracy of our own, as we have been for the last 8 years. If we want to end that, we on the side of liberal secular democracy had better all get together whatever disagreements on details may remain.
<< Home
