Authenticity, Intolerance, Faith, and Reason
Glenn Knight has been helping me kick around a couple thoughts on the "religious right", and how the religious right is defined and perceived by others.
Posts and comments are here and here
Glenn brings up the idea of “authenticity”. I think he means by this that if he were to hold a view – say a pro-life view that agrees with mine – I might not consider his view “authentic” since I am a Christian and he is not. When he uses” authenticity” he is using it to mean a Christian will doubt the authenticity of an atheist’s commitment because the atheist’s commitment is not authentically (?) rooted in the correct faith. Fair enough. I don’t think I would do that but not only do I acknowledge the danger, I even remember John Locke suggesting atheists could not be trusted because nothing they swore to would be binding upon them.
(If this is not what Glenn meant, we should see him correcting me here shortly. Please indulge me in the rest of this thought regardless.)
This cuts both ways. I have been in discussions when a correspondent claimed that since I am a Christian I argue from faith rather than reason and therefore my arguments are not trustworthy or intellectually rigorous. That is, because I have faith, my arguments (and my positions) are not authentic. Well if the argument is about whether Jesus Christ was the incarnation of God on Earth, sure. If however the argument is about abortion, for example, or the place of marriage in society, then it is not only Christians that promiscuously throw around the "lack of authenticity" charge.
Both abortion and so-called gay marriage are subjects for which I believe very strong arguments can be made that do not depend upon religion. In both cases I have personally had arguments end when my opponent has (sometimes viciously) ceased engaging the arguments and simply accused me of being a religious fundamentalist.
My point is that we all do ourselves (and our intellectual opponents) a disservice when we resort to “authenticity” in arguments. I don’t know what’s in your heart and you don’t know what’s in mine. The non-religious are as guilty of this as the religious and in either case it is poor argument. Or no argument at all.
Posts and comments are here and here
Glenn brings up the idea of “authenticity”. I think he means by this that if he were to hold a view – say a pro-life view that agrees with mine – I might not consider his view “authentic” since I am a Christian and he is not. When he uses” authenticity” he is using it to mean a Christian will doubt the authenticity of an atheist’s commitment because the atheist’s commitment is not authentically (?) rooted in the correct faith. Fair enough. I don’t think I would do that but not only do I acknowledge the danger, I even remember John Locke suggesting atheists could not be trusted because nothing they swore to would be binding upon them.
(If this is not what Glenn meant, we should see him correcting me here shortly. Please indulge me in the rest of this thought regardless.)
This cuts both ways. I have been in discussions when a correspondent claimed that since I am a Christian I argue from faith rather than reason and therefore my arguments are not trustworthy or intellectually rigorous. That is, because I have faith, my arguments (and my positions) are not authentic. Well if the argument is about whether Jesus Christ was the incarnation of God on Earth, sure. If however the argument is about abortion, for example, or the place of marriage in society, then it is not only Christians that promiscuously throw around the "lack of authenticity" charge.
Both abortion and so-called gay marriage are subjects for which I believe very strong arguments can be made that do not depend upon religion. In both cases I have personally had arguments end when my opponent has (sometimes viciously) ceased engaging the arguments and simply accused me of being a religious fundamentalist.
My point is that we all do ourselves (and our intellectual opponents) a disservice when we resort to “authenticity” in arguments. I don’t know what’s in your heart and you don’t know what’s in mine. The non-religious are as guilty of this as the religious and in either case it is poor argument. Or no argument at all.
posted by Agim Zabeli at 12:33 AM
4 comments
