« Test your "brain sex" | Main | Four Stone Hearth is up »
Friday, December 29, 2006
"How then is conversation between us possible?"
As 2006 comes to a close, I can only hope that we survive 12 more months as a society. I'm not a pessimist, however, because I believe in dialogue, like Elie Wiesel (see below). Upon entering 2007 I am optimistic that America and other parts of the world will experience the beginnings of what may one day be progress. The key is talking and keeping open lines of communication between all sides of whatever the issue is, whether it be as contentious as religion and politics or as infinitely critical as America's Middle East policies. It is even more important to recognize one's own ignorance; to admit proudly when you don't know something. It's ironically rewarding to proclaim, without a hint of timidity, "I don't know" when debating religion, politics, or science. It gives pause to your debate opponent because the dogmatic nature of opinion forming in American society is so pervasive that people are often bewildered that you so readily admit you don't something that they think you should. Accordingly, my New Year's resolution is to embrace my ignorance and strive to eliminate it as much as possible, constantly reminding myself that there will always be someone out there smarter than I am. Almost invariably, dogmatism breeds arrogance and this is no more true than with the current debate in America about the intersection between religion, politics, and culture.
The Washington Post and Newsweek have teamed up to assemble a rather impressive panel of observers and critics to discuss the current "state of religion", if you will, in American politics, culture, and society. The series is called "On Faith" and every week the two moderators ask post a question, elicit responses from a rather impressive panel, and open the topic to discussion. There are perspectives from all sides of the debate. The panel list reads partly like a who's who of my favorite authors: Sam Harris, Susan Jacoby, Karen Armstrong, and Daniel Dennett are among the panelists and provide a voice of reason. Richard Dawkins is listed but doesn't seem to have posted a response yet. There are scholars, musicians, politicians, and writers. The questions are thought-provoking and the answers equally so. The website is a good way to explore the current debates on religion in America and the rest of the world so you can form your own opinion. To give you a sample, I quote a few of my favorite responses below:
Karen Armstrong on how no one can have the last word on God:
The reality that we call God, Brahman, Nirvana or the sacred is transcendent. That is, it goes beyond our mundane experience. Nobody can have the last word on God. That should be the principle that underlies religious dialogue. Throughout history, Jews, Christians and Muslims have all insisted that the ideas we have about the divine can never measure up to the reality itself. The Greek Orthodox believed that every statement about the divine should have two qualities. It should be paradoxical, reminding us that the idea of God cannot fit neatly into a human system of thought; and it should be apophatic ~ it should reduce us to silence, in the same way as a great poem or piece of music. Sometimes at the end of a symphony, there is a beat of silence in the concert hall before applause starts. That is what every theological statement should do. In the modern West, we have lost sight of this apophatic vision, and imagine that our statements about God and the ultimate are accurate expressions of this transcendence, whereas in reality, they must point beyond the limitations of our human minds.
Daniel Dennett on a no-longer-silent minority:
In the meantime, can we public atheists have productive conversations with believers? Certainly. We can discuss every issue under the sun, and particularly the great questions of ethics and public policy, respecting each other as citizens with honest disagreements about fundamental matters that can be subjected to reasonable, open inquiry and mutual persuasion. As I said in my first posting to On Faith, we all need to agree to live by the principles of rational discourse. That, and common courtesy, is the only rule we need–-just as in science.
Susan Jacoby on America as a "Christian nation":
One of the most repellent examples of this kind of thinking appears in Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion in one of the so-called "Ten Commandments" cases. The Court was wrong to order the removal of Ten Commandments plaques from courthouses, Scalia wrote, because the nation's historical practices clearly indicate that the Constitution permits "disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists."
That is precisely what the Constitution does not allow. It has nothing to say about God, gods, or any form of belief or nonbelief--apart from its prohibition, in Article 6, against any religious test for public office, and the First Amendment's declaration that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
If the founders had wanted to establish a "Christian nation"--as opposed to a nation in which everyone possessed the freedom to believe or not to believe in any type of religion--they would have ended the First Amendment with "free exercise thereof--as long as the faithful worship one Christian God."
Sam Harris on dialogue:
As to whether atheists and believers can have “a productive conversation,” I am quite sure that the answer is “yes.” But I am uncertain whether this conversation can bear fruit quickly enough to keep civilization from becoming fully engorged by Iron Age stupidity and horror. Our capacity for self-destruction is now spreading with 21st century efficiency, and yet our beliefs about how we should pass our days and nights on this earth still spring from ancient literature. This marriage of modern technology and preliterate superstition is a bad one, for reasons that I should not have to specify, much less argue for—and yet, arguing for them has taken up most of my time since September 11th, 2001, the day that nineteen pious men showed our pious nation just how beneficial religious certainty can be.
And finally, from Elie Wiesel (a Holocaust survivor and author of "Night"), an eloquently brief post that almost completely encapsulates the debate between faith and reason. This is destined to become my favorite quote in a long time:
The fanatic does not believe in dialogue; I do. How then is conversation between us possible?
Posted by Will at December 29, 2006 12:42 PM in Philosophy and Religion