The secular conscience
Austin Dacey, in The Secular Conscience.
“In the United States, secular and liberal have become dirty words…Best sellers allege that liberalism is a dogmatic faith, a critique popularized by evangelical leaders in the 1980s…When a rare few secularists push back against religious belief in print, they are branded – often by fellow seculars and liberal religionists – ‘dogmatic,’ ‘evangelical,’ ‘militant’ and ‘fundamentalist’ atheists. [examples in an endnote] Their scandalous premise is that religion is an urgent topic of conversation and therefore subject to the intellectual and moral standards of all serious conversation.” [p 11]
One thing that’s interesting about this is that Austin Dacey was one participant in something called ScienceDebate2008. Lawrence Krauss was another. Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum were two others, and the experience was, they say, ‘the central inspiration’ for their book [UA p x]. It’s interesting that Austin Dacey says things – many things – that are just the kind of thing that Mooney and Kirshenbaum consider The Enemy and attack in every mass media outlet that will have them, which is most of them. He could be describing M&K themselves in that passage above.
Or there’s this, in which Dacey quotes Nicholas Kristof talking about the ‘dismal consequences’ of religious influence and then rebuking ‘a sneering tone about religious Christianity itself.’ Dacey says
“Secular liberals are being asked to perform an act of cognitive contortionism, to object to the ‘consequences’ of conservative religion without objecting to the moral precepts that cause them.” [p 13]
Or this:
“Secular liberals must lift the gag order on ethics, values, and religion in public debate. We can no longer insist on precluding controversial moral and religious claims from public conversation…This means understanding and avoiding the Liberty Fallacy. Susceptibility to public criticism is the price of admission to public debate. Religious conscience does not get in free. Many secular liberals have convinced themselves that freedom of belief entails respect for all religions, and that respect means refraining from criticism. But that is not respect; it’s just blanket acceptance, even disregard.” [p 18]
Mooney and Kirshenbaum please note.
Dacey makes the “double-standard” character of this sort of debate particularly clear. You can always tell who is on the wrong side of an issue by the speed and vigor with which they adopt double standards: “When I say something outrageous, provocative, and/or outright false, that’s just part of the rough-and-tumble of public debate on matters of importance in an open society. When you commit the slightest exaggeration or even just come up with a particularly successful bit of rhetoric in support of a legitimate point, it’s fascist propaganda and satanic lies. When you stoop to adding any sort of insult or invective or harsh language to your cogent, rigorous arguments, your tone is unconscionable and harmful to this serious debate. Why must you engage in personal attacks? When I egregiously misrepresent your position, fail to address the substance of your arguments, assault your character and question your motives, of course I am not making any sort of personal attack on you. And if you respond as if I am making a personal attack, why are you being so defensive? Now you’re the one making this personal when I’m just engaging in objective argument.”
Those on the losing side of an argument always try to change the rules of argument. In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Dan Dennett likened it to someone playing tennis who wanted to take the net down for their serves but put it back up for yours – at which point, the game is no longer tennis. The correct response is ALWAYS to point out how your opponent is trying to change the rules, and not to let them get away with it. How? I find that humor helps. Just today I read this wonderfully barbed parody of how AGW denialists see the rules of scientific debate.
This is something that has been making me wish that Dacey had a blog, but I guess he’s a bit above the fray. And really, it’s not like he could add anything to the current M&K discourse. I’d just like to see them demolished yet again by a superior intellect.
He does have a blog – The Secular Conscience. He doesn’t post very often, but I’ve been meaning to look it up to see if he’s had anything to say about M&K…
Yeah, nothing new since March.
http://secularconscience.blogspot.com/