There is an entire industry in the US that attempts to use ‘reason’ to ‘prove’ the stories in the Bible. In my view - and as you have alluded to above - this is an industry that attempts to mould people’s thinking to the will of the existing power structures (consider the use of imlicit and sometimes explicit religious arguments in the invasion of Iraq, for example).

Are we talking about the endless excursions to Mr. Ararat looking for Noahs’ Ark and the rest of the bonkers Christian based archaeology? Or just the disinformation factories like the Discovery Institute? IMHO they are two completely different things - one relatively skeptically looking for evidence of biblical happenings, the other a politically motivated campaign rather than a genuine attempt at furthering knowledge.

…. I suspect his (Dawkin’s) understanding of what constitutes reason is very ethnocentric

is not the same as

The philosophical position that underlies this model and its terms of trade (ie “knowledge claims”) is actually a subset of Western rationality - vis. British analytical philosophy (or a rather old fashioned kind thereof).

I agree with your implicit statement that political and economic power groups are the basis of the Christian Right in America. Furthermore, appeals to ‘reason’ are sometimes used to further the aims of these groups, and co-opt the disadvantaged at their own expense. I also agree with you that “the boundaries between irrationality and rationality are somewhat arbitrary”. This doesn’t mean, however, that there is no such thing as a ‘rational’ conclusion - a conclusion that most people (anywhere) would consider reasonable, or an irrational conclusion - a conclusion that most people would see as not reasonable.

Now I know I assume a priveleged position here - the role of ‘most reasonbable people’ and who might or might not sit in such a group. But this is not a positivist, objectivist or an empiricist argument - I can hold any of these positions but still make the statement above.

But the essential thing here is actually about addressing the mis-use of reason to, effectively, capture and enslave people to a cause. In my view, it is this that Dawkins is trying to do, which is why I have tried to come to his rescue.

There is an entire industry in the US that attempts to use ‘reason’ to ‘prove’ the stories in the Bible. In my view - and as you have alluded to above - this is an industry that attempts to mould people’s thinking to the will of the existing power structures (consider the use of imlicit and sometimes explicit religious arguments in the invasion of Iraq, for example).

In my opinion, Dawkins is asking people to see through religiously and politically inspired arguments to ask people to genuinely seek ‘evidence’. Again, I know it appears that I assume a privileged position for certain types of ‘evidence’ - this also need not be the case, and arguments based on a range of ‘evidence’ including spiritual and emotional can become part of the mix - so long as they are stated as such.

I have not read Morrow, and I think I should. I enjoyed your post, and would like to discuss it some more, but they are making me do some work here ….

He does, however, demand that if you make knowledge claims (eg. pinning a needle here will help relieve pain there) then the burden is on you to provide evidence in support.

The philosophical position that underlies this model and its terms of trade (ie “knowledge claims”) is actually a subset of Western rationality - vis. British analytical philosophy (or a rather old fashioned kind thereof). Even within analytical philosophy these days, “justifiable true belief” and “knowledge claims” have been unpacked and called into question. I don’t know whether Dawkins knows this. There are many other - and in my view more valid - ways of understanding what constitutes knowledge, efficacy and reason.

However, although I anticipated that dissing dear old Dawkins would prove controversial, he’s actually not my main focus for the post. So I’m going to decline to discuss him further, because to elucidate what I’m getting at in the paragraph above would steer it a long way from what I’m actually interested in discussing here. Others are free to take it up, because it’s legitimate to discuss him on this thread, but I’m just saying he’s not really my main interest in what I was writing.

It should be noted that Mark has a poor understanding of Dawkin’s work and his underlying motivation. For example, Dawkins does not apriori dismiss tarot card reading or chinese medicine as outside the bounds of reason. He certainly does *not* limit “reason” to a subset of Western thought. He does, however, demand that if you make knowledge claims (eg. pinning a needle here will help relieve pain there) then the burden is on you to provide evidence in support.

If you cannot provide evidence then your claims are not reasonable and we have every right to ignore them. If you *can* provide - and continue to provide - evidence (ie. the needle *did* relieve pain) then your claims are provisionally accepted until such time as counter-evidence presents itself.

The question is a good one. I don’t know the answer!

As a piece of didacticism, and a work which illustrates some deep fractures in American culture and also the inability of the current intellectual framework adopted to shift them much, if at all - it’s worth reading.

Is it actually possible for these fractures to be cured (or even ameliorated) in our lifetime?

Well I quite enjoyed Morrow’s Towing Jehovah and Only Begotten Daughter - maybe he’s slipped a bit since those two.

Gummo, it’s the first of Morrow’s books I’ve read. I should say, as with all book reviews, I’d stand by what I perceive to be my analysis of the conflicts and tensions in the text, and of the work the text is trying to do, but aesthetic judgement of his characterisation, plotting and style is going to be a large bit personal to me! So I’m not saying that others won’t enjoy it - as fiction - even if I didn’t. As a piece of didacticism, and a work which illustrates some deep fractures in American culture and also the inability of the current intellectual framework adopted to shift them much, if at all - it’s worth reading. There’s also one big ethical dilemma in the book which is more real than a lot of the moral casuistry Ambrose poses to Londa - how does one react without violence when reason fails to convince and violence is being done?

(1) As I said in the post, Morrow accurately captures the real threat irrationality and reaction pose in America - however much of this has nothing to do with religion per se but just manifests itself as such. A lot of it is actually about the use and manipulation of these themes by political and corporate power structures to further their own interests. Thus to convince people that they should be rational has little effect, because the stronger force is actually the entrenched manipulation of the media and the electorate by what FDR called - accurately - “malefactors of great wealth”. America is also not the rest of the world, and is not in fact Dawkins’ culture.

(2) Combating irrationalism by demanding people be rational doesn’t work, just as appealing for moderation in an arena of value incommensurability doesn’t work.

(3) Dawkins himself has no awareness of the degree that the borders between irrationality and rationality are somewhat arbitrary, whether at the level of the constructedness of rationality or whether even within the scientific method much of the intellectual work is non-cognitive, affective, subconscious and/or relational.

(4) The story of “progress” is not just one told by the Neocons - it’s a broader worldview which has very pathological outcomes.

(5) Dawkins, in his popular writing and broadcasting, is functioning as a polemicist rather than as a scientist. There’s nothing wrong with being a polemicist, but one should admit that’s what one is doing, rather than disingenously adopting a mantle of disinterested expertise.

(6) It is possible to disagree with Dawkins, and even to regard him as a poor writer and a sloppy arguer, and still be concerned with the things he’s concerned with. In fact, I’d argue that nature of his critique leads to misdirected action which is never going to solve or ameliorate the problems he is concerned with. That’s something Morrow understands, as I also said in the post.

Next thing you know there is going to be an outbreak of penis theft in Idaho.

Kevin: Whilst I can appreciate that context, it seems obvious from others’ reactions that he wasn’t explicit about that context, which seems like an easy enough request. Being overly insular is only a long-term problem if you fail to recognise or acknowledge it.

Dawkins work “The Blind Watchmaker” directly attacked this type of unscientific thinking, “The God Delusion” is an attempt to critique the politics of it.

The work is definitely ethno-centric, but I think it needs to be read in the context of the culture that has driven him to write it.

Now, that’s the same kind of logic that the neo-cons use to justify invading other countries to institute democracy - not that you’d catch him agreeing with that crowd.

Yep, the West is teh Best. It’s also the same sort of logic that enabled colonialism in the first place - those Others need to be saved from themselves and lifted into Enlightened reason. So hear we come with our guns, opium trafficking and forced trade concessions. Etc.