Do YOU Believe in Reason?
by bipodIn his article, The God Genome, Leon Wieseltier takes Daniel Dennett to task for preferring therapy to rational analysis. The following quote applies equally well to ID critics like Barbara Forrest who have decided to replace rational discussion with the genetic fallacy:
You cannot disprove a belief unless you disprove its content. If you believe that you can disprove it any other way, by describing its origins or by describing its consequences, then you do not believe in reason.
February 20th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
bipod,
having read the whole article by Leon Wieseltier, I can certainly and totally agree with you that the author "takes Daniel Dennett to task". In fact I would call yours the understatement of the year: it would be far more appropriate to say that Leon Wieseltier thoroughly thrashes Daniel Dennett.
But I gave more than a cursory look at the article. So, besides the rebuttal of crass "determinism" and "reductionism", I noticed a passage, not in the 9th paragraph, as the one you quote, but very early, in the 2nd paragraph, which, unless it is an incongruous and involuntary slip on the part of the author, Leon Wieseltier, many here at Telic Thoughts might find rather disconcerting, for its applications to (and implications for) Intelligent Design.
I believe my use of regular bold and of script bold make it evident enough, without need for further synoptic evidence, that there is a certain structure and symmetry in the above passage (again, "unless it is an incongruous and involuntary slip on the part of the author"), such that, according to Leon Wieseltier, while, on the one hand:
naturalistic understanding of religion ranges with grossest biologism and the white man with a long beard in 19th-century England.
On the other hand:
intelligent design ranges with grossest theism and the white man with a long beard in the sky.
What? Anti-deterministic, anti- reductionist Leon Wieseltier thinks Intelligent Design is in the same league as Crude Creationism?
Hard to believe: especially at Telic Thoughts, especially for bipod.
Well, maybe that's not what he thinks, but, at face value, that is what he says.
Comment by Servetus — February 20, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
February 20th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Why should I find this disconcerting? Could you elaborate cuz I just don't understand.
I'm perfectly able to read articles and index the meaning of the words to the context. Wieseltier's usage of the term "intelligent design" here does not surprise me in the least. Why do you find that hard to believe, especially at Telic Thoughts, especially for bipod?
Comment by bipod — February 20, 2006 @ 9:53 pm
February 20th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
bipod (February 20th, 2006 at 9:53 pm) says:
You do not make any objections to the conclusions I have drawn from Wieseltier's passage that I have quoted:
Right?
And that is perfectly acceptable, in an article quoted mainly because it "applies equally well to ID critics like Barbara Forrest"? Especially at Telic Thoughts?
There's nothing I could "elaborate", cuz I just am speechless.
Comment by Servetus — February 20, 2006 @ 10:45 pm
February 21st, 2006 at 9:24 am
Like I said, it comes as no surprise, given the cultural and social landscape in which Wieseltier makes his comments, that he lumps intelligent design with Crude Creationism.
Of course, concepts have numerous meanings, and I'm just taking him to mean "the intelligent design shit pushed by people on innocent school boards." That's the meaning of intelligent design that everyone in the educated society is working with today, right?
He seems like a reasonable enough person that I don't take him to be painting a broad brush so as to include Mike Gene's intelligent design in the category of Crude Creationism. I give him the benefit of the doubt and figure that if we were to sit down for some coffee, and he were willing to hear me out, that he'd grant a substantial difference. Otherwise, he'd be another raving hypocrite among the Intelligentsia.
Comment by bipod — February 21, 2006 @ 9:24 am
February 21st, 2006 at 10:13 am
Hi Bipod,
"That's the meaning of intelligent design that everyone in the educated society is working with today, right?"
Why don't you do a poll and find out?
Comment by Krauze — February 21, 2006 @ 10:13 am
February 21st, 2006 at 11:53 am
Oh, and I should have said that if Wieseltier means by intelligent design the following:
"the intelligent design shit pushed by people on innocent school boards."
Then I fully agree with him. The stuff being pushed as "intelligent design" in schools is totally consistent with culture war Creationism.
Comment by bipod — February 21, 2006 @ 11:53 am
February 21st, 2006 at 2:23 pm
bipod,
maybe it would be more productive to contact him, either at the NYT or at TNR, and ask him to clarify his true thought about ID, and whether he sees any difference, or just lumps it all in "one big s*it".
Comment by Servetus — February 21, 2006 @ 2:23 pm