Specter of Reason

Knowledge, it is said, is the most valued commodity. Indeed, “knowledge is power” is not simply a metaphor; it is a pragmatic truism. In practical terms, we define something in terms of its effects. Knowledge is measured by what can be achieved with it, and so can be defined in terms of those achievements. Consider how teachers test their students' knowledge: they give them tests, thus equating the knowledge itself with the ability to pass a test. Knowledge is not some ethereal set of thoughts or ideas; it is the skill set that gets us from point A to point B. Power, in the most abstract sense, is the ability to achieve. And so knowledge is, by definition, power. Knowledge is also information, and can be defined in terms of what information can do. Ours is the Age of Information. The ability to manipulate information is the ultimate quest of the day. But this is not an historical oddity. It’s not like people in the past cared less about information. Not a...

It's easy to get lost in the "new atheist" debates without having a clear idea about what is at stake. What is the whole point, after all? Are atheists simply out to prove that they're right, and that God really doesn't exist? Is their goal to wipe religion, in all its guises, off the face of the earth? Or are they simply trying to educate and raise awareness? I don't think there's one answer that covers the motives of all atheists today. However, I think we can close the net a little bit. For two of the biggest and most important names in the "new atheist" movement (and by "most important," I mean that they have, unlike Sam Harris, established themselves as major contemporary intellects outside of this movement), Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, the primary goal is to raise awareness and understanding of religion. Dawkin's explicit goal, as stated in The God Delusion, is to raise consciousness about what he sees as an un...

A friend just pointed me in the direction of Jay Michaelson's recent essay, " A BuJu Responds to Sam Harris ." Here's my response. Michaelson begins, 'When people used to say "I believe in God," they meant it in the way one might mean "I believe in you." It was a statement of trust, not ontology -- it's not that I believe you exist (or don't), but rather that I believe you'll come through for me. Emotion, not reason. Things are going badly, one might say, but I believe in God. It was a disposition of the heart toward faith.' Michaelson is painting a pretty picture here, but it isn't wholly accurate, neither as an historical picture of what religion has been, nor as a psychological interpretation of what religious statements of faith have tended to be. What did people mean during the Spanish Inquisition, when they said, "I believe in God?" Was it a usually a statement of trust? Probably not, though it wasn't pur...

What I want to get into here are the political underpinnings and consequences of atheism. The challenge I will attempt to overcome is that of the "philosophically sophisticated" moral relativism expounded by many, perhaps even most, liberals. But first, a little background. It all began when I went to college and took some courses in cultural studies. I entered my university as something between a liberal and a libertarian pursuing a dual-degree in mathematics and philosophy. Surprisingly, I found the cultural theory professors far more stimulating and intriguing. They helped me understand that everything is political. There is a politics of meat, a politics of sex, a politics of gender, a queer politics, a politics of . . . well, anything you could possible want. It might be fair to say that the point of a cultural studies education is to think about how everything we do is subject to the principles of influence and power. "Culture", one of my professors wrote...

What follows is a review and somewhat heated criticism of the essay, "Moral Psychology and the Misunderstanding of Religion ", by Jonathan Haidt, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia. Those accused of the "misunderstanding" mentioned in its title are the "new atheists" (though this fact does not become clear until about two-thirds of the way through Haidt's rather lengthy exposition.) The basic idea is that the new atheists are too morally motivated (i.e., too emotional) to adhere to the scientific principles they exhalt. Interestingly, Haidt isn't out to criticize atheism. He is a self-professed atheist. What he is after is a more tolorant view of religion. His main point (which he doesn't state until the very end of the essay) is that we should regard "every longstanding ideology and way of life" as having some "moral wisdom" to impart. Bizarrely, everything written up until the explicit st...