4 of 4
4
Austin Dacey - The Secular Conscience
Posted: 07 April 2008 07:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  113
Joined  2008-01-11

I always liked Carl Sagan’s appreciation, summed up in the sub-title of “Demon-Haunted World”, of “Science as a Candle in the Dark”.

“Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us - then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.”

To Gato’s point above (about the odds against which the Enlightenment rationalists squeeked through with the notion of a secular state in the U.S. constitution) should be added the howling disproportion of forces against which the scientific materialist worldview ever gained as much ground as it did!  In light of the developments even over the few years since Sagan’s death, one must certainly part company with the social democratic school of Marxism, or vulgarized Darwinism, which presented, human progress as some inevitable and unstoppable force of history.

Sagan’s paragraph above is amazingly prescient about the whole current period. I can’t imagine a Sagan or a Stephen J. Gould (how sorely their voices are missed!) discussing skepticism and secularism, as Dacey does, as though the criminal U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t happening, let alone advocating tearing down the wall of separation.

Nothing is more foreign to a truly scientific approach, in my view, than the kind of effete intellectualism that ‘plays with concepts’ as if they had no relationship with the real world…

(A ps to Gato: Your posts are interesting, but they would be easier to read if you threw in the odd paragraph break!)

[ Edited: 07 April 2008 08:19 PM by Balak ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2008 09:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2008-04-05
Balak - 07 April 2008 07:29 PM

Nothing is more foreign to a truly scientific approach, in my view, than the kind of effete intellectualism that ‘plays with concepts’ as if they had no relationship with the real world…

(A ps to Gato: Your posts are interesting, but they would be easier to read if you threw in the odd paragraph break!)

Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking.  I think Dacey and Harris would try to argue that their ‘playing with concepts’ is not as abstract as religious arguments are, because they are empirically based arguments, but it still does seem to me like they’re playing a grand game of Rhetorical Risk, doesn’t it?  At the end of the day, they will allow any and all religious ethical concepts with non-empirical parameters to have a seat at the table.  It’s analogous to the scientists inviting all the ghost hunters, astrologers, flat-earthers, etc. to the table and expecting them to all give up.  It’s not realistic.  What will happen is, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” idea will go into play even more than it has already (remember Romney’s dreadful speech courting the Fundies?) and when the dark side of social Darwinism goes into play, all the theists get together to vote naturalism off of Survivor island… legally.  There’s too much bias against materialism to cede any moral victories- as Dacey himself said, they have appropriated it all, the language, etc.  Theists are stubborn folk.  Look at Madeline Neumann’s parents after she died… they STILL BELIEVE IN GOD AND THAT SHE DIED BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T HAVE ENOUGH FAITH!!!

Yeah, it seems to me that these hypotheses, when proposed in that kind of ‘effete intellectualism’ you mentioned, just don’t get the same support that they get when issues like the Dover trial are happening in real time with specific tangible results either.  We must be patient and chug along and work hard and fight for each bite.  Secularism is on the rise.  Someday, our stats might look like England and Europe, which are fantastic.  Focusing on those short burst real time events and their practical naturalistic benefits (e.g. medicine, agriculture, etc.) is something that we can all agree on in the short term anyway, without having to open the apologist’s box of rhetorical plutonium.  It’s not that their arguments are any good, it’s that the public is undereducated.

Sorry about the run-on paragraphs- I’m horrible with that…

[ Edited: 07 April 2008 09:53 PM by gatogreensleeves ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2008 05:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  523
Joined  2007-09-03
Jackson - 25 March 2008 04:30 AM

Thomas Donnelly - 21 March 2008 05:46 PM
His new book is The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org

Thanks for a great interview and an introduction to an interesting book.

Here is a 2006 article about Dacey exploring what atheists “believe in”
[NY Times Opinion piece 2/3/2006]

Here is the Neuhaus review D.J. refers to in the interview (a Catholic critique):
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=989

Here is Dacey’s thesis: “Secularists have the moral high ground, if they will only claim it, and in so doing break the religious monopoly on the language of ethics and values. . . . 

First Chapter of the book is on-line at richarddawkins.net:

http://richarddawkins.net/firstChapter,40

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4