Some<\/em> even indulge in very personal attacks<\/p>\nDawkins is a “supercilious old fart”; Harris is “shamelessly intellectually dishonest”; displaying “all the elegance of a drunken orangutan”; Onfray has a “superlative atheist talent for assholery”; and Hitchens is “snide, petty, self-righteous, and superficial” (Beale 2008, 68, 115, 98, 198, 178).<\/p>\n
3.2 Aside: Agnostics<\/h3>\n
Now, we all like to be inclusive. In preparing this talk, I was worried that at this point the agnostics in the audience would be feeling excluded. I searched and searched, and all I could come up with was:<\/p>\n
“The robust Muscular Christian haranguing us from the pulpit of my old school chapel admitted a sneaking regard for atheists. They at least had the courage of their misguided convictions. What this preacher couldn’t stand was agnostics: namby-pamby, mushy pap, weak-tea, weedy, pallid fence-sitters” (Dawkins 2006, 46).<\/p>\n
3.2.1 Comparison with multiculturalism debate<\/h4>\n
The statements you’ve just read generally come from relatively mainstream authors<\/p>\n
Clearly, debates around belief reach a pitch rarely seen in debates concerning diversity and multiculturalism, except perhaps in far-right circles.<\/p>\n
3.3 Hence no debate<\/h3>\n
We see an atmosphere of mutual demonization<\/p>\n
With a few honourable exceptions, there is almost no real debate going on.<\/p>\n
In general, we find authors writing for those who already share their beliefs<\/p>\n
3.4 Undertone of violence<\/h3>\n
There is even a worrisome undertone of violence to the debate:<\/p>\n
“Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them” (Harris 2004, 52).<\/p>\n
We are in the midst of “a war over religion, and it has been declared by leading Western atheists who have commenced hostilities” (D\u2019Souza 2007, xv).<\/p>\n
The “secularist” creed is “a clear and present danger to the stability of any society” (Feser 2008, xi).<\/p>\n
<\/h3>\n3.5 Unifying assumption<\/h3>\n
During my research, however, I began to notice that the New Atheists and the defenders are divided, paradoxically, by a very problematic assumption that both camps share:<\/p>\n
We do what we do because we believe what we believe<\/em>.<\/p>\n3.5.1 New Atheists<\/h4>\n
Various New Atheists, for example, argue that if you want to explain the Twin Towers, all you have to do is read the Quran.<\/p>\n
There is, in this view, a simple transmission belt running from text to beliefs, then from beliefs to action.<\/p>\n
3.5.2 Defenders<\/h4>\n
For their part, there is a curious unanimity among the defenders concerning one key point: we<\/em> have a foundation for our morality, they<\/em> don’t<\/p>\n“the atheist denies objective morality. He may say that he prefers to educate his children rather than to torture them, but he cannot say that he has a duty to do the one and to avoid the other” (Crean 2007, 156).<\/p>\n
“An atheist or naturalist can believe in morality \u2014 that is a psychological fact \u2014 but he cannot have a rational justification for his belief \u2014 that is a philosophical fact” (Feser 2008, 221).<\/p>\n
Strikingly, this position is held even by liberal theologians such as John Haught:<\/p>\n
“how can the atheist find a solid justification of ethical values?…
\n“If there is any truth to a theological understanding of reality, on the other hand, it can elegantly justify both the trust we have in our minds and the sense of rightness that stands behind our moral protest…
\n“Faith is what gives reason a future, and morality a meaning” (Haught 2008, 73-75).<\/p>\n
3.5.3 Effect of the shared assumption<\/h4>\n
Both the New Atheist assumption of a transmission belt from text to action, and the claim that faith gives believers a solid ethical foundation not available to others, obscure just how complex are the steps by which all of us must move from personal faith and religious doctrine to actual ethical judgments<\/p>\n
And how complex, in general, are the relations between beliefs and actions<\/p>\n
This obscures just how much of our culture and context we bring to the task of applying beliefs, whether we want to or not<\/em>.<\/p>\n4 Facts and values<\/h2>\n4.1 An Affinity<\/h3>\n
Now, in writing my critique of the New Atheist debate, I was struck by a curious affinity.<\/p>\n
Recall some previous quotes:<\/p>\n
“the atheist denies objective morality. He may say that he prefers to educate his children rather than to torture them, but he cannot say that he has a duty to do the one and to avoid the other” (Crean 2007, 156).<\/p>\n
“An atheist or naturalist can believe in morality \u2014 that is a psychological fact \u2014 but he cannot have a rational justification for his belief \u2014 that is a philosophical fact” (Feser 2008, 221).<\/p>\n
These claims have a close relation to the “positivist” or “emotivist” belief that all norms and values are merely subjective preferences:<\/p>\n
“in every case in which one would commonly be said to be making an ethical judgement, the function of the relevant ethical word is purely ’emotive.’ It is used to express feeling about certain objects, but not to make any assertion about them” (A.J. Ayer 1946, 108).<\/p>\n
“if two men differ about values, there is not a disagreement as to any kind of truth, but a difference of taste. If one man says ‘oysters are good’ and another says ‘I think they are bad,’ we recognize that there is nothing to argue about. The theory in question holds that all differences as to values are of this sort” (Bertrand Russell rpt. 1997, 237-38).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
That is, those who claim that only believers have an ethical foundation in effect embrace the emotivist claim, but grant themselves a special exemption from it.<\/p>\n
They claim that the values of believers are grounded, while everyone else’s are just personal preferences.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
4.2 Influence<\/h3>\n
Now we may be inclined to view the emotivist belief as silliness, and thus ignore it.<\/p>\n
This is a mistake.<\/p>\n
We must recognize that, even if it is intellectually indefensible, it is culturally influential: it is part, for example, of the standard training of many social science students today.<\/p>\n
It’s also woven deep into our modern culture, though I don’t have the time today to demonstrate this.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
4.3 Foundational pessimism<\/h3>\n
Now the emotivist view, and the modified emotivist view held by the defenders, support what I call “foundational pessimism”:<\/p>\n
We are ultimately divided by “fundamental differences in basic values, differences about which men can ultimately only fight” (Milton Friedman 1953, 5).<\/p>\n
“argument fails us when we come to deal with pure questions of value”; hence “we finally resort to mere abuse” (Ayer 1946, 111).<\/p>\n
The belief, clearly, is hostile to serious ethical dialogue, which can in this view serve only to sharpen conflict.<\/p>\n
Why embark on an attempt at mutual understanding that can never result in understanding?<\/p>\n
The best we can do is clarify certain matters of fact that divide us, and tactfully bypass everything else.<\/p>\n
5 Roots of the mistake?<\/h2>\n
Now, to weave together these current areas of research:<\/p>\n
There is a certain spontaneous mistake that I believe presents one of the obstacles to dialogue and understanding in the New Atheist debate, and<\/em> prevents our culture as a whole from treating ethical dialogue with the seriousness is deserves.<\/p>\nThis spontaneous error concerns the nature of both factual and normative knowledge.<\/p>\n
\n- It is easy for us to believe that these things bottom out somewhere: That our factual knowledge is grounded in something like sense observation,<\/li>\n
- Or that our normative knowledge, if it has any validity at all, must be grounded in some axioms that we must dogmatically accept, such as scriptural commands or something like the utilitarians\u2019 greatest happiness principle.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
When I say this is a spontaneous belief, I mean that while it can easily be demonstrated that matters are not so simple, we will often revert back to these notions,<\/p>\n
Using them as implicit premises for many of our actions and judgments<\/p>\n
6 Implications for dialogue<\/h2>\n
To bring this back to the theme of this workshop:<\/p>\n
There is a form of interreligious dialogue that follows the sort of tactic recommended by what I have termed foundational pessimism: Avoid areas of contention, and focus on the practical question: “How do we coexist without getting in each other’s way?”<\/p>\n
When interreligious dialogue gets beyond this, when it moves into a more demanding territory,<\/p>\n
\n- talking about the shared<\/em> norms by which a modern society should be guided, and, even more demanding,<\/li>\n
- talking about the ways in which those shared norms need to nudge our own religious beliefs,<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
When interreligious dialogue attempts this, it is doing something that the world desperately needs, but the world doesn’t know it needs.<\/p>\n
Something that the world, one might even say, hates<\/em>.<\/p>\nAnd to do something that the world needs yet fears, that takes courage.<\/p>\n
Thank you.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Address to the workshop on “Interfaith Dialogue in a Plural Society,” Simon Fraser University Centre for the Comparative Study of Muslim Societies and Cultures, Vancouver, November 27, 2013. 1 Intro: some personal history Fifty years ago this fall, my Newfoundlander parents managed to get me into the \u00c9cole St- Joachim, in Pointe-Claire Quebec. Once I […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":"","_mi_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"yoast_head":"\n
"Could you really persuade, if we don't listen?": Dialogue in a world that hates dialogue - Phil Ryan<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Address to the workshop on "Interfaith Dialogue in a Plural Society," Simon Fraser University Centre for the Comparative Study of Muslim Societies and\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/could-you-really-persuade-if-we-dont-listen-dialogue-in-a-world-that-hates-dialogue\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/could-you-really-persuade-if-we-dont-listen-dialogue-in-a-world-that-hates-dialogue\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/could-you-really-persuade-if-we-dont-listen-dialogue-in-a-world-that-hates-dialogue\/\",\"name\":\"\\\"Could you really persuade, if we don't listen?\\\": Dialogue in a world that hates dialogue - Phil Ryan\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-06-14T15:48:56+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-21T13:58:06+00:00\",\"description\":\"Address to the workshop on \\\"Interfaith Dialogue in a Plural Society,\\\" Simon Fraser University Centre for the Comparative Study of Muslim Societies and\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/could-you-really-persuade-if-we-dont-listen-dialogue-in-a-world-that-hates-dialogue\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/could-you-really-persuade-if-we-dont-listen-dialogue-in-a-world-that-hates-dialogue\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/could-you-really-persuade-if-we-dont-listen-dialogue-in-a-world-that-hates-dialogue\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"“Could you really persuade, if we don’t listen?”: Dialogue in a world that hates dialogue\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/\",\"name\":\"Phil Ryan\",\"description\":\"Carleton University\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"\"Could you really persuade, if we don't listen?\": Dialogue in a world that hates dialogue - Phil Ryan","description":"Address to the workshop on \"Interfaith Dialogue in a Plural Society,\" Simon Fraser University Centre for the Comparative Study of Muslim Societies and","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/could-you-really-persuade-if-we-dont-listen-dialogue-in-a-world-that-hates-dialogue\/","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/could-you-really-persuade-if-we-dont-listen-dialogue-in-a-world-that-hates-dialogue\/","url":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/could-you-really-persuade-if-we-dont-listen-dialogue-in-a-world-that-hates-dialogue\/","name":"\"Could you really persuade, if we don't listen?\": Dialogue in a world that hates dialogue - Phil Ryan","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-06-14T15:48:56+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-21T13:58:06+00:00","description":"Address to the workshop on \"Interfaith Dialogue in a Plural Society,\" Simon Fraser University Centre for the Comparative Study of Muslim Societies and","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/could-you-really-persuade-if-we-dont-listen-dialogue-in-a-world-that-hates-dialogue\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/could-you-really-persuade-if-we-dont-listen-dialogue-in-a-world-that-hates-dialogue\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/could-you-really-persuade-if-we-dont-listen-dialogue-in-a-world-that-hates-dialogue\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"“Could you really persuade, if we don’t listen?”: Dialogue in a world that hates dialogue"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/#website","url":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/","name":"Phil Ryan","description":"Carleton University","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"acf":{"banner_image_type":"upload","banner_uploaded_image":{"ID":291,"id":291,"title":"Fort Hope.1977","filename":"Fort-Hope.1977.jpg","filesize":518498,"url":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fort-Hope.1977.jpg","link":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/?attachment_id=291","alt":"","author":"6","description":"","caption":"","name":"fort-hope-1977","status":"inherit","uploaded_to":324,"date":"2017-10-09 15:25:31","modified":"2017-10-14 16:50:21","menu_order":0,"mime_type":"image\/jpeg","type":"image","subtype":"jpeg","icon":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp\/wp-includes\/images\/media\/default.png","width":1600,"height":700,"sizes":{"thumbnail":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fort-Hope.1977-160x70.jpg","thumbnail-width":160,"thumbnail-height":70,"medium":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fort-Hope.1977-240x105.jpg","medium-width":240,"medium-height":105,"medium_large":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fort-Hope.1977-768x336.jpg","medium_large-width":768,"medium_large-height":336,"large":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fort-Hope.1977-400x175.jpg","large-width":400,"large-height":175,"gallery-thumb":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fort-Hope.1977-300x230.jpg","gallery-thumb-width":300,"gallery-thumb-height":230,"1536x1536":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fort-Hope.1977.jpg","1536x1536-width":1536,"1536x1536-height":672,"2048x2048":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fort-Hope.1977.jpg","2048x2048-width":1600,"2048x2048-height":700,"banner":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fort-Hope.1977.jpg","banner-width":1600,"banner-height":700,"people":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fort-Hope.1977-200x200.jpg","people-width":200,"people-height":200,"post-thumb":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fort-Hope.1977-300x230.jpg","post-thumb-width":300,"post-thumb-height":230,"rotator-image":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fort-Hope.1977-800x600.jpg","rotator-image-width":800,"rotator-image-height":600,"video-thumb":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fort-Hope.1977-360x158.jpg","video-thumb-width":360,"video-thumb-height":158}},"banner_opacity":"default","banner_button":"no"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/180"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=180"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/180\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":341,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/180\/revisions\/341"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}