"I have before outlined the sourness and anomie that epitomise the societies where social and economic liberalism are creeds: an inability to express – or even recognise – transcendent good, truth, and beauty in art, culture, and morals;"
You're overstating the situation here. In a liberal society, you are free to express a belief in a transcendent good. You can act as though your morality is based in mysticism. You can paint ceilings dedicated to any number of entities. You can even dedicate one morning a week your entire life to these beliefs. Or more.
That liberty does not mean that your belief in the supernatural is true or above critique. The burden lies on your shoulders to demonstrate the truth of your beliefs.
Yes, you are right about some things here. I don’t believe that my belief (or anyone’s) is above critique.
But a liberal secular society is not neutral. It rests on a series of assumptions that are hardly ever justified and are, in my view, far less convincing than those of almost any religious worldview.
And religious people wouldn’t say that morality is based on “mysticism” but the transcendent nature of the good, which is the basis of reason as well as the source of truth and being.
This isn't a matter of me using unusual terminology. My claim is that liberal secular society is not neutral, and its claims are assumed rather than proved. The same goes for philosophical materialism. You certainly haven't proved any of its main assumptions.
As for my view that isn't held in "special regard," honest atheists like Thomas Nagel admit that there can't be any basis for morality without some sort of teleology. If you want to argue with him, then be my guest.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant in the original quote. As I understand your point now: "Secularism does not provide me with the necessary metaphysics."
My initial reading of that line indicated, "In secular society, one is not permitted to express supernatural views." If this is the case, it would explain how we've talked past each other.
That's getting closer. By pretending to have no commitment to metaphysics, liberal secular society reduces (and almost eliminates) any feelings or expressions of the transcendent.
But your initial reading isn't too far off, either. In a liberal society, one may express supernatural views on the condition that they do not interfere with any of the assumptions of liberalism itself. Notice how liberal governments make use of scientific knowledge when developing policy (as they ought to) but deny that there is such a thing as moral or metaphysical knowledge. You are more than welcome to argue that this is a good thing, but what you can't do is claim that it's a neutral position.
Thanks for this, I found it enjoyable to mull over.
There are two claims here that I found interesting. I tried to think of a supernatural challenge to liberalism, and the first thing to come to mind was a rabbi who, through negligence, was responsible for the deaths of several children. The sect he represented claimed that their internal investigation should be sufficient. The state disagreed. I'm not sure if the state claiming authority over this matter amounts to a metaphysical claim, but I could certainly see how it could be framed that way.
The second claim I think is so burdened by history that it would be difficult to parse. I'll try to respond in the form of a claim of my own:
Secular liberal societies, at their best, don't make the claim that metaphysics don't exist. Rather, they avoid weighing in as much as they can manage, as a matter of principle. (Ignoring the unavoidable, such as whether or not reality exists.) This is akin to the difference between strong and weak atheism, for example. I hope that's enough to chew on.
It wasn't so long ago that the US was jailing and/or preventing people from working for even the barest hint of being a member of a certain political party.
No person today, no matter how free they thought themselves to be, would do something stupid like:
- use Google to search for how to make things that go kaboom
- openly discuss changing the head of state using violence
- give money to to a group designated as extreme
- yell "fire" in a crowded theater
In fact, so many people are so worried of being punished for their beliefs that they self-censor.
Recent events have shown that Western secular societies can and do punish people for espousing a view (which is in line with mainstream transcendental religious beliefs) which it doesn't want to be heard - Popper's ideas on tolerance not withstanding.
Funny that you say "The burden lies on your shoulders to demonstrate the truth of your beliefs." and then suggest Popper to me: who stated that sometimes rather than proving something you merely need to try to disprove it.
There's kind of a distinct order of events here. You can't attempt to disprove something without knowing what it is, first. Unless I don't get the joke.
In the late 19th century the filthy rich in the US believed that democracy had served its purpose. In response they intended a government coup but it failed to eventuate.
"I have before outlined the sourness and anomie that epitomise the societies where social and economic liberalism are creeds: an inability to express – or even recognise – transcendent good, truth, and beauty in art, culture, and morals;"
You're overstating the situation here. In a liberal society, you are free to express a belief in a transcendent good. You can act as though your morality is based in mysticism. You can paint ceilings dedicated to any number of entities. You can even dedicate one morning a week your entire life to these beliefs. Or more.
That liberty does not mean that your belief in the supernatural is true or above critique. The burden lies on your shoulders to demonstrate the truth of your beliefs.
Yes, you are right about some things here. I don’t believe that my belief (or anyone’s) is above critique.
But a liberal secular society is not neutral. It rests on a series of assumptions that are hardly ever justified and are, in my view, far less convincing than those of almost any religious worldview.
And religious people wouldn’t say that morality is based on “mysticism” but the transcendent nature of the good, which is the basis of reason as well as the source of truth and being.
What you call it is up to you. The point is in a secular society you have espoused it, contrary to any claim that your view is somehow unspeakable.
I think it would be more accurate to claim that your view isn't held in special regard, which is the point.
Sir,
This isn't a matter of me using unusual terminology. My claim is that liberal secular society is not neutral, and its claims are assumed rather than proved. The same goes for philosophical materialism. You certainly haven't proved any of its main assumptions.
As for my view that isn't held in "special regard," honest atheists like Thomas Nagel admit that there can't be any basis for morality without some sort of teleology. If you want to argue with him, then be my guest.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant in the original quote. As I understand your point now: "Secularism does not provide me with the necessary metaphysics."
My initial reading of that line indicated, "In secular society, one is not permitted to express supernatural views." If this is the case, it would explain how we've talked past each other.
That's getting closer. By pretending to have no commitment to metaphysics, liberal secular society reduces (and almost eliminates) any feelings or expressions of the transcendent.
But your initial reading isn't too far off, either. In a liberal society, one may express supernatural views on the condition that they do not interfere with any of the assumptions of liberalism itself. Notice how liberal governments make use of scientific knowledge when developing policy (as they ought to) but deny that there is such a thing as moral or metaphysical knowledge. You are more than welcome to argue that this is a good thing, but what you can't do is claim that it's a neutral position.
Thanks for this, I found it enjoyable to mull over.
There are two claims here that I found interesting. I tried to think of a supernatural challenge to liberalism, and the first thing to come to mind was a rabbi who, through negligence, was responsible for the deaths of several children. The sect he represented claimed that their internal investigation should be sufficient. The state disagreed. I'm not sure if the state claiming authority over this matter amounts to a metaphysical claim, but I could certainly see how it could be framed that way.
The second claim I think is so burdened by history that it would be difficult to parse. I'll try to respond in the form of a claim of my own:
Secular liberal societies, at their best, don't make the claim that metaphysics don't exist. Rather, they avoid weighing in as much as they can manage, as a matter of principle. (Ignoring the unavoidable, such as whether or not reality exists.) This is akin to the difference between strong and weak atheism, for example. I hope that's enough to chew on.
It wasn't so long ago that the US was jailing and/or preventing people from working for even the barest hint of being a member of a certain political party.
No person today, no matter how free they thought themselves to be, would do something stupid like:
- use Google to search for how to make things that go kaboom
- openly discuss changing the head of state using violence
- give money to to a group designated as extreme
- yell "fire" in a crowded theater
In fact, so many people are so worried of being punished for their beliefs that they self-censor.
Might I recommend Popper?
The world he lived in no longer exists.
I don't think many would dispute that. The world of Canterbury Tales is also long gone.
Recent events have shown that Western secular societies can and do punish people for espousing a view (which is in line with mainstream transcendental religious beliefs) which it doesn't want to be heard - Popper's ideas on tolerance not withstanding.
Funny that you say "The burden lies on your shoulders to demonstrate the truth of your beliefs." and then suggest Popper to me: who stated that sometimes rather than proving something you merely need to try to disprove it.
There's kind of a distinct order of events here. You can't attempt to disprove something without knowing what it is, first. Unless I don't get the joke.
Much food for thought here.
Thanks for reading, and thanks for saying so.
In the late 19th century the filthy rich in the US believed that democracy had served its purpose. In response they intended a government coup but it failed to eventuate.