![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
♠
“There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work.”
-- Irving Kristol
"Origin of the Specious: Why Do Neoconservatives Doubt Darwin?" by Ronald Bailey is a 1997 article, but I understand why it was recently linked at a political site, as it is about the movement undermining evolution in American education, and given how front and center this has been in recent months, it took Monk a while to realize that this was a dated piece.
The proposition advanced is whether American conservative intellectuals have been abetting the religious mythology of the Christian fundamentalists in what can come across as a conspiratorial scheme, in their narrow political interests but also for the grander and noble object of preserving a meaningful sense of moral and social order. A flavor of this thinking may be tasted in this Kristol quote:
“If God does not exist, and if religion is an illusion that the majority of men cannot live without...let men believe in the lies of religion since they cannot do without them, and let then a handful of sages, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves. Men are then divided into the wise and the foolish, the philosophers and the common men, and atheism becomes a guarded, esoteric doctrine--for if the illusions of religion were to be discredited, there is no telling with what madness men would be seized, with what uncontrollable anguish.”
One can read the article, which is a little lengthy but worth the time, and the only note I will bring is the unfortunate development that has occurred since publication. Mr. Bailey liked to play off this neoconservtive 'conspiracy' against the way the Catholic Church with Pope John Paul II was embracing evolution at that time and hence evincing a greater faith in people's moral possibilities. Lately, the Church has backtracked to support this current anti-evolution movement, perhaps opportunistically in light of the success that the Intelligent Design movement has been enjoying, though there has been some wobbling in the ensuing controversy.
Since a personal disclaimer might be wise, I do not subscribe to the notion that religious believers are simple people, understanding that some of the most brilliant people are believers. And I also know that a good many young people like to boast of their atheism as thoughtlessly and frivolously as you please. As you might imagine, Monk sits on the fence, merely fascinated over the play of ideas and passions.
___ ___ ___
I want to get one more passage from Mr. Bailey's article, pertaining to Leo Strauss, who seems to be the father of neo-conservatism, in regard to using the classic philosophic texts as the basis of one's thought:
'In crude terms, some critics of Strauss argue that he interpreted the ancient philosophers as offering two different teachings, an esoteric one which is available only to those who read the ancient texts closely, and an exoteric one accessible to naive readers. The exoteric interpretations were aimed at the mass of people, the vulgar, while the esoteric teachings--the hidden meanings--were vouchsafed to the few, the philosophers. Philosophers know the truth, but must keep it hidden from the vulgar, lest it upset them. What is the hidden truth known to philosophers? That there is no God and there is no ultimate foundation for morality. As Kristol suggests, it is necessary to keep this truth from the vulgar because such knowledge would only engender despair in them and lead to social breakdown. In his book, On Tyranny: An Interpretation of Xenophon's Hiero, Strauss asserts with unusual clarity that Socratic dialogues are "based on the premise that there is a disproportion between the intransigent quest for truth and the requirements of society, or that not all truths are always harmless."
'Political scientist Shadia Drury, a passionate critic of Strauss, puts it this way: "For Strauss, the ills of modernity have their source in the foolish belief that there are no harmless truths, and that belief in God and in rewards and punishments is not necessary for political order....[H]e is convinced that religion is necessary for the well-being of society. But to state publicly that religion is a necessary fiction would destroy any salutary effect it might have. The latter depends on its being believed to be true....If the vulgar discovered, as the philosophers have always known, that God is dead, they might behave as if all is permitted."
'Thus, to preserve society, wise people must publicly support the traditions and myths that sustain the political order and that encourage ordinary people to obey the laws and live justly. People will do so only if they believe that moral rules are divinely decreed or were set up by men who were inspired by the Divine.'
xXx
“There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work.”
-- Irving Kristol
"Origin of the Specious: Why Do Neoconservatives Doubt Darwin?" by Ronald Bailey is a 1997 article, but I understand why it was recently linked at a political site, as it is about the movement undermining evolution in American education, and given how front and center this has been in recent months, it took Monk a while to realize that this was a dated piece.
The proposition advanced is whether American conservative intellectuals have been abetting the religious mythology of the Christian fundamentalists in what can come across as a conspiratorial scheme, in their narrow political interests but also for the grander and noble object of preserving a meaningful sense of moral and social order. A flavor of this thinking may be tasted in this Kristol quote:
“If God does not exist, and if religion is an illusion that the majority of men cannot live without...let men believe in the lies of religion since they cannot do without them, and let then a handful of sages, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves. Men are then divided into the wise and the foolish, the philosophers and the common men, and atheism becomes a guarded, esoteric doctrine--for if the illusions of religion were to be discredited, there is no telling with what madness men would be seized, with what uncontrollable anguish.”
One can read the article, which is a little lengthy but worth the time, and the only note I will bring is the unfortunate development that has occurred since publication. Mr. Bailey liked to play off this neoconservtive 'conspiracy' against the way the Catholic Church with Pope John Paul II was embracing evolution at that time and hence evincing a greater faith in people's moral possibilities. Lately, the Church has backtracked to support this current anti-evolution movement, perhaps opportunistically in light of the success that the Intelligent Design movement has been enjoying, though there has been some wobbling in the ensuing controversy.
Since a personal disclaimer might be wise, I do not subscribe to the notion that religious believers are simple people, understanding that some of the most brilliant people are believers. And I also know that a good many young people like to boast of their atheism as thoughtlessly and frivolously as you please. As you might imagine, Monk sits on the fence, merely fascinated over the play of ideas and passions.
___ ___ ___
I want to get one more passage from Mr. Bailey's article, pertaining to Leo Strauss, who seems to be the father of neo-conservatism, in regard to using the classic philosophic texts as the basis of one's thought:
'In crude terms, some critics of Strauss argue that he interpreted the ancient philosophers as offering two different teachings, an esoteric one which is available only to those who read the ancient texts closely, and an exoteric one accessible to naive readers. The exoteric interpretations were aimed at the mass of people, the vulgar, while the esoteric teachings--the hidden meanings--were vouchsafed to the few, the philosophers. Philosophers know the truth, but must keep it hidden from the vulgar, lest it upset them. What is the hidden truth known to philosophers? That there is no God and there is no ultimate foundation for morality. As Kristol suggests, it is necessary to keep this truth from the vulgar because such knowledge would only engender despair in them and lead to social breakdown. In his book, On Tyranny: An Interpretation of Xenophon's Hiero, Strauss asserts with unusual clarity that Socratic dialogues are "based on the premise that there is a disproportion between the intransigent quest for truth and the requirements of society, or that not all truths are always harmless."
'Political scientist Shadia Drury, a passionate critic of Strauss, puts it this way: "For Strauss, the ills of modernity have their source in the foolish belief that there are no harmless truths, and that belief in God and in rewards and punishments is not necessary for political order....[H]e is convinced that religion is necessary for the well-being of society. But to state publicly that religion is a necessary fiction would destroy any salutary effect it might have. The latter depends on its being believed to be true....If the vulgar discovered, as the philosophers have always known, that God is dead, they might behave as if all is permitted."
'Thus, to preserve society, wise people must publicly support the traditions and myths that sustain the political order and that encourage ordinary people to obey the laws and live justly. People will do so only if they believe that moral rules are divinely decreed or were set up by men who were inspired by the Divine.'
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-10 04:16 pm (UTC)From:Aside from the fact that I doubt this is that conspiratorial. And aside from my past statements that "conservative intellectual" is an oxymoron. Philosophically, I find the idea that atheism is somehow esoteric a little snicker-worthy. One doesn't usually think of "that mystical atheism." As is often pointed out theologically, atheism is odd in that it still defines itself by what it doesn't believe. It is still a religious belief.
As I've been sort of addressing it in my ID discussions, I don't know if the backlash against evolution is even just political opportunity. More, I think religious types are aware that their traditional views are under attack...that's not just being paranoid. If you ask me, the real question is in the middle though of what needs to be tossed aside and what needs to be kept w/ regard to human spirituality. Because it is a little of each. But it's the same on the other side with evolution. There's some good stuff and some stuff that needs remodeling.
That last part is sort of interesting--"for if the illusions of religion were to be discredited, there is no telling with what madness men would be seized, with what uncontrollable anguish." I actually agree with it to some degree. If religion were to be discredited, humanity would face a rather dark and meaningless future.
From the existential point of view, I find some atheism a little sad though that there are those who are just as blinded by that God obsession that they can be just as bad as a fundamentalist of a different sort.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-10 08:47 pm (UTC)From:Remember, this is about neocon intellectuals such as Kristol and Strauss, who ostensibly do not believe in God and the literalist account in Genesis but who work to support those beliefs. This also gets at the tinge of conspiracy, though I agree that term is meant to be more suggestive than literal.
From the existential point of view, I find some atheism a little sad
Going back to some of our old discussion, I still find your use of the term 'existentialism' awkward, as I take it to be the philosophical background of atheism. You said that atheism defines itself by what it's against, but I understand existentialism to be the fuller philosophy, though I suppose atheists also take other philosophical tracks as well.
For kicks, I checked what the basic Yahoo dictionary definition looks like, finding that it also accords with this. I know this is not the last word, and I don't doubt your usage is workable, but I don't think it is the primary use.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/existentialism
no subject
Date: 2005-12-11 09:15 am (UTC)From:Anyway, existentialism. I actually don't hate the Yahoo definition. But...
I'll illustrate with a post from over on Convert Me the other day (the only time I've ever felt moved to respond to soemthing over there). Someone asked, "is existentialism the necessary view of an weak atheist?"
My response was that beyond diversity among atheists there is diversity among existentialists with multiple schools of thought. I dont' think existentialism is necessary for either theism or atheism...but I think a lot of people end up there "because of the emphasis existentialism puts on freedom and choice and relating to others as how we find meaning in life."
It just is attractive as a moral/philosophical position, period, that can adapt to fit other worldviews as well.
So I wouldn't say existentialism is any more the intellectual background to atheism than African tribal music mixes with other things to produce jazz. Early existentialism, like Kierkegaard for instance, were writing in the context of the Christian tradition, too. Fear and Trembling is all about the binding of Isaac.
I don't know that I could articulate here the splits in existentialism, but I would say the heart of it generally deals with the necessity to find our own meaning and make choices in life as a response to the nature of the universe (be it simply not understandable or lacking meaning totally). The result is that our relation to others takes primary importance as we have to face the responsibility of a community of choice.
Rather than existentialism being a shorthand for atheism, you might do better to think of it as shorthand for humanity's response to suffering, fear, and the disorder of death with a shaky order and purpose that is...maybe absurd, and I like the word "provisional." Though there are existentialists on both sides, one perhaps is better off thinking of it like Buddhism that takes no position on God and is adaptable while dealing more with suffering and our response to it. Make sense?
When I speak of existentialism, I'm often speaking of the concepts of angst and the need to make a response via existential choice. Tillich called it the Courage To Be (book of same name). Basically, every morning we have the choice to live or die before we get out of bed. What is it that motivates us to to the former rather than the latter?
no subject
Date: 2005-12-11 02:40 pm (UTC)From:The reason why the issue sticks with me is that it seems to me a person who thinks of himself as an existentialist while believing in god and afterlives is practicing existentialism with a net. Existentialism strikes me as being at it most pure and austerely principled when you have only yourself and this world-as-one-knows-it with which to find life's meaning. To believe in god and afterlives strikes me a little like having the hope of winning the big lottery as you struggle with the meanness of your daily life with your tight budget. Of course, this refers to the more commonly held conception of god in the conventional religions, as opposed to some god of a more abstract and non-anthropomorphic nature with no notion of a substantive afterlife.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 07:06 am (UTC)From:I take your point. Though my response would be that the more profound understandings of God in most major faiths look more like ineffable clouds of humanity's inability to grasp our situation rather than know-it-all moralism or dogmatic, rigid stances on things. It is the former I find interesting when it comes to religion, not the latter.
Which is why, to some degree, I'm more of the 3rd camp of existentialism that would say whether there is a God or not the result is the same. My way of phrasing it would actually be that God is so beyond the scope of human knowledge that even assuming God exists we're still faced with the same problems of existence. Which perhaps gets as your saftey net example.
As a side but very-related note, this is probably why the commonly held doctrine of God is so common. It is more comforting isn't it? Less work. Fundamentalism included, that version of God makes everything less scary. But, that misses the point if you ask me. The real meat of the issue from the religious and philosophical realm is the more difficult road. From the existential point of view, life is supposed to be scary. Because we're faced with "the teleological problem" and have no "manual" so to speak. I saw a great little catchphrase this weekend about how it isn't about "finding yourself" but about "creating yourself." I think that captures existentialism nicely.
What we're really talking about when we speak of the divine is the nature of creation in the universe and how that creation-ability manifests itself in human beings. Which brings to mind another little quote I heard about the opposite of war not being peace but creation. Sorta made me think at least. We call these things "good" and "evil" but that is way to simplistic.
People often note that in its darker forms existentialism takes on a kind of nihilistic tone (not to be confused with embracing absurdity). It is interesting that the dictionary lists "refusal" as a synonym for nihilism, I think. Because really we're talking two sides of the same coin. When it comes to existence there are two choices--affirmation or refusal. Which is a whole other branch of the tree I'll leave be for now.... Anyway, good topic.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 05:46 pm (UTC)From:I think existentialism is probably incompatible with a belief in a very controling or involved God--a God who closely supervises all or most of the day-to-day happenings in the world. Because existentialism relies on the notion that we're constantly faced with choices and that each individual is solely responsible for every choice he or she makes, theistic existentialism would necessitate a belief that divine intervention and control are not constant.
Of course, if you hold a traditional Christian view of God, it's very easy to deny the absurdity of the universe, to discount human choice and responsibility, and to swallow a ready-made theocentric meaning of life (perhaps one focused on preparation for the afterlife, using up energy that could have been spent bettering this world). That could be a motivating factor for the general existentialist distaste for religion--not that I blame them. :P
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 06:32 pm (UTC)From:Now, you see, that answer seems like cheating to me, even understanding that such faith seems absurd - as it strikes me as evading the full weight of the existential problem (unless, of course, there is a god).
I love the tight logical-turnings of your mind, Sheepy. GRADUATE SCHOOL!!