Chuck Slothower recently articulated (“Forced religion,” ODE, April 14) certain timeless verities including a particular interpretation of the separation of church and state, and heavily rested this on his presumed and over-confident agnosticism. In doing so, he magically disabused all the religious plebeians of their silly beliefs within invoking any good argumentation.
How should we understand the relationship between religion and society? Chuck has answers. The application of the hard-learned ideal of church-state separation when individuals incarnate both is nuanced and complex; the realities of history are equally multifarious. While he may be right, his approach lacks intellectual humility or realism regarding the ambiguities of politics and history.
Chuck continues by taking the complex issue of God’s existence and assuming that agnosticism is clearly true. His political argument rests heavily on this (not a good move). Religious belief is “absurd and foolish … a rather poor attempt to explain where we came from and to comfort us when we cringe at the thought of mortality.” He then presents the naturalist creed: “When we die, our bodies rot in the ground…” You can almost hear the chorus of fundamentalist (not all) naturalists chanting it together, like the Borg.
The majority of thinkers throughout history have found theism to be satisfying and logically persuasive. While this doesn’t establish its truth, Chuck’s hand-waving is far from merited. The largest interest group in the American Philosophical Association is Christian. Many of the best minds in the world accept belief in God as rational (or suggest that demanding this is epistemic imperialism). I don’t suggest you can “prove” (another idea riddled with assumptions) God’s existence, but Chuck’s dismissiveness is presumptuous, not rational.
Chuck suggests that religion is for people with weak moral consciences. Cute, but unrelatable to history or reality (King, Jesus, John Paul II, Wilberforce). This isn’t an argument; it’s name calling. Even if it were true, it wouldn’t bear on God’s existence. This is also true of the comfort regarding mortality “argument” — God’s nonexistence doesn’t follow. I’m also curious what
metaphysic grounds Chuck’s understanding of “the right thing to do.”
What Chuck fails to do is argue about the truth of the matter. Rather he shares his feelings about religion. No analysis of premises and conclusions — just banal rhetoric. I have not shown that he is wrong, just that he failed to argue effectively.
The article contained two paradoxes. One, says “You idiots; you don’t understand the ambiguities of this (I do — I am agnostic)” and then gives grossly oversimplified and unselfconscious metaphysical edicts. Secondly, he mocks “forced religion,” then tries to create “otherness” by hand-waiving at the absurdity of religious belief. He’s simply joined the unreflective forceful chorus. Chuck seems quite certain for someone who says, “I don’t know, and you don’t know either.” (Chuck knows what I know?)
Most thinkers understand that there are a variety of rationally justifiable world views. There are brilliant and interesting arguments all sides of these matters, although Chuck failed to mention any of them. Resting his political philosophy (which has merit) on such a dogmatic agnosticism certainly violates his own vision for the secular state he has imagined the founding fathers to have envisioned.
While I cannot ask someone to lay aside bias, it is unhelpful to argue for a particular constitutional interpretation based on a metaphysical assumption that begs the question.