onegoodmove

Sam Harris was brilliant to start off with, but kinda let atheists down by avoiding a very easily refutable argument that may at the very least have given his opponent pause: the mythology of the providence of the Christian West, the mythology of the American university, and the mythology of secular Europe and all its inherent difficiencies.

Let's start with the last: Communist parties were quite active in Europe until about the 1970s, but these were by no means Stalinist in nature, and rarely had contacts with the Soviets. More to the point, however: the intellecuals who practiced "Western Marxism", so often lumped in with communists and Stalinists and the like, was merely using Marx's critiques of society and its structures as means of advancing critical theory: how society works, what's wrong with it, and ideas about how to rectify this. Anyone who seriously reads the works of Raymond Williams, Sartre, Foucault, Bordieu, etc. (all of whom started off with Western Marxism and moved on from there), could not possibly confuse them with the Soviets, and could not possibly say their writings are bereft of morality. Atheists they may have been, though such notions rarely seeped into their works at all, and they are VERY moral in their critiques. Further, Prager refers to the birth rates in Europe that have dipped below replacement levels--a situation he finds repugnant. Interestingly, were it not for immigrants and their birth rates (and the occasional upticks among the disenfranchised urban poor), the U.S. birth rate would likewise be below this threshold. Low birth rate is not a sign of moral failure--it's a sign of affluence and women's rights (although possibly in Prager's mind these are the same). Wherever women achieve equal or nearly equal rates of literacy and employment, the birth rate goes down (Saudi Arabia and Nigeria lead the world in birth rates, and they are highly religious societies). Prager may take issue with women who choose careers and certain other freedoms over child rearing, but this is a function of late capitalism and of the values that he so readily ascribes to Judeo-Christian religion, not of atheism.

Which brings us to point two. Dennis Prager continues to push the historically suspect notion in this debate that Judeo-Christian beliefs are responsible for all of the good things he mentions for which the West is responsible (or takes credit). First of all, he fails to make this link explicit: why is it the superiority of the religion(s) of the Jews and Christians that is responsible, and not the explanation offered by Jared Diamond: mainly the accident of geography. How can he claim credit for religion abolishing slavery when it was also used to justify slavery (then again, so was science). If he's so prideful of all the West has done in the name of religion, will he defend the "white man's burden" of imposed imperialism? Etc., etc.

Finally, Prager clearly has never actually been to university for any length of time, or he would understand some plain truths about the way postgraduate studies works. In the physical, natural and social sciences, there is never direct refutation of God or the pronouncement of atheism. In the process of trying to understand the world, these folks operate AS IF God does not explain away all of the phenomena we see in the world. The expertise one cultivates here may or may not lead one to atheism, but the pursuit of such knowledge in the first place is a pursuit of cogent explanations of our world--otherwise why bother? We can just say that it's "God's will" and our curiosity would be sated. The existence of these disciplines, indeed of science itself, AT ALL, leaves out the question of the existence of God altogether. If this is what Prager means by postgraduate studies leaving out "wisdom", then he is right.

And here is precisely where Harris should have pressed the point: Prager, do tell, what is the "wisdom" of which you speak? We can avoid for now the easy points scoring of talking about the "wisdom" of the Pope's condemnation of both condoms and the lives of millions of Third World catholics to AIDS, or the wisdom of depth or character that would explain the actions of a "true believer" like George Bush. Let's take the idea of faith-based "wisdom" seriously for a moment. Is he saying that scientists should spend their already busy days also contemplating the great moral questions of our time? Most do not, and for that they are no more or less wise than "average" citizens. However, if Prager were the least bit intellectually rigorous in his understanding of those who pursue knowledge, he would understand that in fact the best do indeed spend time becoming "wise" in such ways. Which brings us back to the point above: whether or not Prager would agree with the conclusions of the Western Marxists, poststructuralists, etc., these folks have devised powerful explanations for understanding our society and individuals in it, and all the moral and ethical implications thereof. The whole POINT of the social sciences in particular, arguably, is to not merely understand society but to improve upon it. Prager may choose to disagree with such explanations and solutions, but he can hardly dismiss them as lacking "wisdom" and cannot claim, as he ignorantly and spuriously does, that experts in academia pursue only "facts".

One thing that would behoove Prager in his "sophisiticated" beliefs is to develop some wisdom about alternate explanations of history, society, and the practical reality of academia, rather than rely on the usual rightwing pat explanations of elistists and defeatists.

Wow. I read Prager's responses to Harris, with all the vitriol, irrelevance, cheap shots and straw men, and I really have to wonder who's the angry one here.

after seeing all the arguments against "religion" at ogm, which are really, for the most part, arguments against christianity, and fundamentalist christianity at that, i was excited to see a debate with a representative of the jewish position. what a dissappointment! prager, claiming to be an orthodox rabbi, is actually arguing for something that is much more demonstrably non-existent than god himself-"judeo-christian tradition". and even worse, "judeo-christian civilization". what is this horseshit about how the "judeo-christian tradition" led to the abolition of slavery and the painting of guernica (sorry, getting carried away here). i am embarrassed for my people by the ridiculous and desperate antics of this media-mutant, this kisser of christian ass. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying i could do any better in an argument about the existence of god. personally i think that anyone who would get involved in such an argument is a fool-unless its just for kicks. but the questions of the usefulness of such a belief, and the merits of specific approaches to such a belief, which are really what a lot of this brouhaha is about, are ill served by someone as steeped in the american media as prager. a warning to my atheist friends, by the way: i can see the same thing happening to dawkins by and by, as he sucks up to the star maker machinery. i thought harris aquitted himself well-pretty much "by the book", and ain't nothin' wrong with that. wish that prager had stuck by his. and if this doesn't make very much sense, its the honey pepper vodka from the ukraine-it stirs up my irish blood.

great billy bragg article. used to be a big fan in the early eighties. "when you wake up to the fact that your paper is tory just remember there are two sides to EVERY story". dem were da daze.... and thats all from me for now. (i like to imagine sighs of relief all around but that would imply somebody cares, which is dangerously close to a caring universe, which is dangerously close to...)