Answering the Blind Vision
A reader with the remote and ocular name of Vision from Afar has a few questions for me. I refer to him as ‘her’ and ‘she’ because I assume she is a young lady, and I am too lazy to ask him his sex.
This is part of an ongoing conversation. Let me see if I can sum up what has gone before:
My comment
Using the word in the broad sense, no one has ‘non-religious beliefs’ as his foundation.
The Left, and those who use a secular philosophy to decide all the fundamental issues of their lives, use it as an ersatz religion. Leftism is an pseudoreligion, and it is no less based on faith, far more willing to impose its beliefs, sacraments and rites on us, and immensely far more prone to violence, than any Western faith. (Abortion is a sacrament of theirs; recycling is a rite)
Her answer
That, I’m afraid, is a matter of opinion. While several similarities may exist with codified religious mandates, a person certainly can have a non-religious worldview as a basis for behavior. The problem so often lies not in legislation for allowing the expression of religious viewpoints, but rather for legislation restricting the expression of others via a different religious viewpoint. Same-sex marriage being the best example of this. No sane person is advocating for forcing a clergy of any stripe to perform the rites against their will, but due to an over-abundance of existing mandates/laws/policies, using any word other than marriage to create an equal legal, secular footing would result in a horrible and unnecessary level of expenditure at every level of government. So why continue to attempt legislating against it, except as a religious expression attempting to subvert the will of others?
My rebuttal
“While several similarities may exist with codified religious mandates, a person certainly can have a non-religious worldview as a basis for behavior.”
That is not in dispute. What I said what that a non-religious worldview that serves as a basis for behavior, is taken on faith, and, in the case of the Left, is more violent and more intolerant than any Western denomination in modern history. My reason for so saying is that foundational beliefs, whether admittedly or not, are metaphysical, and in the modern age where metaphysics is not represented by disciplined and rigorous thought, it is emotional. The reaction of the modern to emotional challenges to foundational and fundamental beliefs is to interpret them as an attack on one’s ego, one’s self, one’s soul, and react with vehement hostility.
Moderns cannot imagine honest opposition to their fundamental beliefs, and cannot permit themselves to admit principled opposition exist. The motive of the opposition is always assumed, as a matter of faith, to be insincere. No modern with whom I have ever exchanged words, no, not one, has ever been able, even as a matter of hypothetical to imagine an honest reason for disagreement.
” So why continue to attempt legislating against it, except as a religious expression attempting to subvert the will of others?”
Hm. Case in point. Rather odd that you would just so happen to display the mental blind spot I was just describing.
Back when I was a firm and vehement and unswerving atheist, I was opposed to calling gay unions marriage, and opposed to covering them under our current family law as having the rights and immunities as marriage.
My reasons were a matter of logic and of law. I have outlined them extensively elsewhere, and will not trouble you by repeating them now. The curious may follow the link: http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/06/on-the-sexual-nature-of-man/
I wish not to discuss the merits of the case, but only to draw attention to the nature of your question and unquestioning faith that stands behind it. It is the kind of question only someone unable to imagine an honest reason behind opposition to changing the law would ask a second personal also unable to imagine an honest reason.
Your faith states that there is no reason, aside from a religious expression [sic] to subvert the will of others, is not based on experience — I myself am an example of someone who opposed such a radical change to family law for legal and logical reasons. I have met many people with nonreligious reasons, or with religious reasons who have a scruple other than a desire to impose their will on others. You take it as an article of faith that I and they do not exist.
Her counterrebuttal
To what do you credit the assumption that non-religious worldviews rely on faith, rather than logic and reason? I concede the vitriol and language of the Left has been often colored with anger and violence, but given full weight and measure, I believe their actions hardly match those found in many Western worldviews within the last century (the KKK and IRA spring to mind, both deeply couched in (wrongly interpreted or not) religious dogma).
I do not claim to know whether I would fall under your definition of a modern, but I have often and readily encountered truly honest opposition to my fundamental worldview. You certainly fall into that category, though I bear you no ill will for it.
I worry we diverge on our definitions of honesty, however. I rarely doubt the sincerity of those who hold opposing views, for without their sincerity, why else would they so vigorously defend themselves and their views? By honest, do you perhaps mean rooted in a logical or reasoned truth, rather than an article of faith firmly held? It seems to me such a definition limits the ability of faith to argue, but I could be wrong.
To be perfectly honest, I have never encountered an argument as logically rigid or eloquent as your own. Perhaps that’s a failing of my own discussion circles, but often the discussion simply boils down to the opposition pointing a finger at a religious authority (be it a book or person), and claiming that authority simply knows better and I should just accept that argument, despite my rejection of the inherent authority granted by their (but not my) religion.
Having spent the better part of an afternoon reading that admittedly well written argument, I have several issues with it, but I applaud your well-reasoned steps and logic.
My faith informs several reasons to subvert the will of others, the desire for money, power, etc. are all obvious examples. Again, it has simply been a product of my (apparently limited) experience in debating that particular issue. I’m afraid I was only arguing for “religious oppression” in the case of homosexual marriage.
I’m also curious as to what, exactly, do you believe my religion to be? I’m certainly not an atheist, but I do have very Libertine views, I admit. That was what lead one of my issues with your argument’s core assumptions. The Libertine view argues for freedom provided a lack of harm (to grossly simplify), as you correctly stated, but you neglected to acknowledge that proper application of that view includes emotional harm as well. Thus, Bill’s cheating should be chastised, due to his lack of communication all but ensuring Hillary’s emotional pain, while Rand’s informed consent was perfectly reasonable, despite the fallout. The emotional harm of “kicking her to the curb for a trophy wife” in your nebulous example must absolutely be accounted for and called to task by social criticism. We could go down the rabbit hole of your original post, but I felt the drive to at least demonstrate some measure of my appreciation for your reasoned argument by voicing my own counter-points.
The thoughts here wander and meander farther afield then my rigid and rigorous Vulcan logic is able to follow. The connective tissue between one paragraph and the next is, in places, invisible to me.
I assume Vision-from-Afar is a young lady with a fluid modern education, only because young ladies with fluid modern educations tend to express emotional reactions to thoughts rather than express thoughts, leaving a gentleman of traditional and rigorous liberal education only able to guess at the shape of the missing thought by what is not said. It leads to an insurmountable difficulty in communication.
To minimize the difficulty, let us break this word salad down seriatem:
Q: To what do you credit the assumption that non-religious worldviews rely on faith, rather than logic and reason?
A: It is not an assumption, but a conclusion. I credit it to the reason I already gave. To repeat: My reason for so saying is that foundational beliefs, whether admittedly or not, are metaphysical, and in the modern age where metaphysics is not represented by disciplined and rigorous thought, it is emotional.
I would be happy to explain this thought if it is unclear, but I am not sure what part of the sentence you do not understand. More on this below.
Q: concede the vitriol and language of the Left has been often colored with anger and violence, but given full weight and measure, I believe their actions hardly match those found in many Western worldviews within the last century (the KKK and IRA spring to mind, both deeply couched in (wrongly interpreted or not) religious dogma).
A: This is merely a nonsense statement, based on a risible ignorance of history. The sum total of all men killed by the KKK and IRA put together are less than five thousand all told. The number of people killed by Mao alone is 65 million.
This is a difference of four orders of magnitude, like comparing a meter stick to a kilometer.
The absurd and contemptible lie that the murders performed by the militant arm of the Democrat Party, known as the KKK, were condoned, rather than condemned, by the Christian religion is one that occupies the same place in an honest discussion as the theory of a flat-earth. It is pure crackpottery.
On the other hand, what cannot be denied is that the mass murders done by Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Che and so on was done as part of the core program of the political faith of these Glorious Leaders, because of, and not in spite of, their most sincerely held principles of their Leftwing beliefs.
Q: I do not claim to know whether I would fall under your definition of a modern….
A: You could always ask. Not being a mindreader, I do not presume to know your political and philosophical beliefs unless you tell them to me.
Q: … but I have often and readily encountered truly honest opposition to my fundamental worldview. You certainly fall into that category, though I bear you no ill will for it. I worry we diverge on our definitions of honesty, however. I rarely doubt the sincerity of those who hold opposing views, for without their sincerity, why else would they so vigorously defend themselves and their views?
A: I cannot follow the thought here. Perhaps you are attempting to distinguish between the sincerity of the opposition as opposed to the honesty, and is perhaps you are making some assumption about my definition of the terms, which you have not asked.
You have not made clear either what you are imagining is the difference between my definition of honesty versus yours, nor what the difference is between honesty and sincerity, if there is one.
The pretense here is that you are unaware of the habit of the Left to attack the motives of any opposition. Since it is their one and only rebuttal to all criticism, I am not sure how it is possible for you or anyone to be unaware of their habit in his regard.
Q: By honest, do you perhaps mean rooted in a logical or reasoned truth, rather than an article of faith firmly held? It seems to me such a definition limits the ability of faith to argue, but I could be wrong.
A: I cannot follow the thought here. It seems to be on a different topic than the one under discussion. It seems like a tentative attempt to put words in my mouth, but the attempt is so hesitant and awkward that it seems pointless.
Be that as it may: the word honest means free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere. That is the sense in which I was using the word.
Q: To be perfectly honest, I have never encountered an argument as logically rigid or eloquent as your own. Perhaps that’s a failing of my own discussion circles, but often the discussion simply boils down to the opposition pointing a finger at a religious authority (be it a book or person), and claiming that authority simply knows better and I should just accept that argument, despite my rejection of the inherent authority granted by their (but not my) religion.
A: To be perfectly honest in return, I simply do not believe you. If you have never encountered rigorous religious thought, it is because you have not looked. No educated person is utterly unaware of the last thirteen hundred years of the history of his civilization, its thought and precepts.
This book has been around for a while. Didn’t you read it in school? http://www.newadvent.org/summa/
I was an atheist for forty years, and not a single Christian with whom I argued, — and I argued with as many as I possibly could — assumed I took their Bible on faith, or attempting to halt an argument with an appeal to an authority they knew I did not accept.
Q: My faith informs several reasons to subvert the will of others, the desire for money, power, etc. are all obvious examples.
A: I am unable to decipher this sentence. Is there a word missing? Are you using the word ‘informs’ as a transitive or as an intransitive? Perhaps you mean ‘includes’ or ‘explains’ in this spot.
The way the sentence reads, assuming ‘informs’ is being used in its traditional meaning as ‘influence’ or ‘inspires’, this sentence says you are encouraged by your faith to subvert (I assume you mean ‘suborn’) the will of others because of your desire for their money and to gain power over them.
But in the context of the argument in which this sentence appears, the sentence should be saying that your faith warns you that wicked men will attempt to gain money and power, and that these are a root of sin.
Neither interpretation, so far as I can see, springs from the previous paragraph nor leads into the next paragraph. I cannot guess what the point is supposed to be.
I do not wish to guess nor to put words in your mouth. Please clarify.
Q: Again, it has simply been a product of my (apparently limited) experience in debating that particular issue. I’m afraid I was only arguing for “religious oppression” in the case of homosexual marriage.
A: I am unable to decipher this paragraph. You seem to be trying to draw a distinction between subverting the will of others and debating homosexual unions. You are putting religious oppression in quotes, as if to invite doubt as to whether homosexual unions cause or create religious oppression or the oppression creates the marriage? I cannot tell what your point is, nor what topic this paragraph addresses. My guess is that you are supporting the claim in a prior paragraph that you have never before spoken with a logical religious person. Please clarify.
Q: I’m also curious as to what, exactly, do you believe my religion to be?
A: I answered this previously, but for the sake of completeness will repeat the answer here: I have no opinion nor guess as to your religious beliefs except that you are not a practicing and faithful Catholic, since your expressed belief supporting the desecration of the marriage sacrament is alien to the Catholic understanding of the sacraments. It is one of the points that is grounds for excommunication. Aside from that, I am not familiar enough with the various beliefs of the Protestants and heathens to venture a guess.
Nor do I recall saying anything that could lead you to believe I had an opinion about your religion.
Q: I’m certainly not an atheist, but I do have very Libertine views, I admit. That was what lead one of my issues with your argument’s core assumptions. The Libertine view argues for freedom provided a lack of harm (to grossly simplify), as you correctly stated, but you neglected to acknowledge that proper application of that view includes emotional harm as well. Thus, Bill’s cheating should be chastised, due to his lack of communication all but ensuring Hillary’s emotional pain, while Rand’s informed consent was perfectly reasonable, despite the fallout. The emotional harm of “kicking her to the curb for a trophy wife” in your nebulous example must absolutely be accounted for and called to task by social criticism. We could go down the rabbit hole of your original post, but I felt the drive to at least demonstrate some measure of my appreciation for your reasoned argument by voicing my own counter-points.
A: This comment is irrelevant. You are offering a counter argument to the post where I said I wished not presently to discuss, allegedly for the purpose of displaying your respect by offering a counterargument.
I appreciate the compliment.
Libertarians who include emotional harm are not libertarians properly so called, since any behavior can be claimed to cause grievous emotional disquiet in everyone and anyone, including such absurdities as a rocket scientist allegedly offending women by wearing his lucky shirt, decorated with cartoon images of space-babes. If the definition of harm is expanded to include emotional harm, then the narrow libertarian limit saying that whatever causes no harm is licit would in practical fact forbid much more than the conservative and traditional laws and customs libertarianism was and is attempting to expand: it would create a type of puritanism far more restrictive than anything the Puritans or Victorians imposed.
Putting all that to one side for the moment, let us return to the point in contention:
I submit that every philosophical system rests on assumptions that philosophy cannot address, just in the same way that every theory of physics (the heliocentric versus the geocentric model, or Newtonian mechanics versus Einstein’s relativity) rests on metaphysical assumptions (such as that the laws of nature are consistent throughout the cosmos, regular and repeatable, and do not depend on the state of mind of the observer; or such as that sense impressions convey truth about the cosmos to the human mind) which themselves are not open to empirical or scientific proof or disproof.
The belief that you are now awake, and that the men in your environment are people rather than cunning automatons is not something an experiment could check, for any experiment to prove yourself awake, such as wiping your face in dream snow, could itself be a dream, and the result be part of the dream. Likewise, any answer from your fellow man to prove him not an automaton could be a cunning response recorded into the automaton which just so happens to act like it is the intelligent reply of a self aware being. The belief that reality is real and the people around you are people are both examples of metaphysical beliefs.
The foundational metaphysical belief of the Left is a belief that the evils in life spring not from the unchanging human nature, nor from the economic limitations of unchanging reality, but from institutions, laws and customs open to change. A corollary of this is the belief that revolutionary and radical change to those laws and customs is a moral necessity. Marxists hold the revolution to be swift and violent; Fabians hold the revolution to be slow and subversive. In order to disqualify any opposing argument without answering it, both Marxists and Fabians hold that the only persons defending the current institutions, laws and customs (which are the source of all human evils) are either hypocrites who benefit from these evils, knowing them to be evil and supporting them anyway because the crooked laws support their class privileges and justify their ruthless conquests and crimes, or deluded fools possessed by false consciousness, who are harmed by these evil institutions and support them nonetheless, in a pitiable ignorance of their own best interests, perhaps due to an irrational ‘reaction’ or fear of change. Hence, for the Leftist, all within one’s own camp are enlightened and fearless by definition, and all in the opposing camp are benighted, fearful, ignorant or malign, again, by definitions.
These are not the conclusions of observations about human nature, but rather are foundational or metaphysical assumptions, the lens put over the eye before the eye looks at the evidence. They serve the same role in Leftism that a dogma serves in a Church: it is a belief not open to question that establishes membership in the body.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
