Dear Dan and 65GS.com "armchair philosophers,"
Quite the topic for this time of year. What is funny is that I can relate to what you are saying as far as education, religion, science?..and stay right away from politics.
. . . .
Thanks for sharing your own experiences. I agree with you that there is an unsavory attempt to instill a kind of mindset to make people willing to live in our modern world. I ran into this issue over and over again while getting my PhD in education.
Pierre Bourdieu has a very interesting essay on the question.
However, your experiences reminded me of quote from
Blaise Pascal which is very dear to my heart:
The heart has reasons that reason cannot understandI hope I haven't told this story here before. My first upper division philosophy class was "Philosophical Methods." It as taught by a very sweet and gentle man by the name of
Hans Sluga. The first day of class he announced in a very gentle and seemingly reassuring voice: "I intend to show you all that the concept of God is incoherent."
Yup, my feathers were seriously ruffled from day-1. However, I was obviously new to this game - I didn't know how to defend my point of view.
The key reading for the class was an elegaic piece writing by Sluga himself concerning the loss of a dear friend of his. Sluga attempted to make a move that was common in the philosophy department then and remains a deep tension today. He dismissed any reality to spirituality but nonetheless insisted that the passing of someone important to us produces some kind of bond that transcends the loss. I thought: "this is my chance!'
My final essay for the class was in two parts. The first part took an extremely harsh and brutal view of what a human being is if science is to be taken as the final assessment of what humans are. I concluded that humans are nothing more than biological machines and society cannot justify any other objective than the genetic optimization of these machines. Competition had created humanity according to the theory of evolution. Only competition (among ourselves) could further this process of improvement - even if this meant racial wars.
Part 2 completely rejected the first part, but with a twist. If we are something more than biological machines - then that something must be
real. We cannot on the one hand embrace science as the only arbiter of truth, only to make exceptions when we find it emotionally hard to swallow. If we need spirituality in order to cope with human life we must accept that spirituality is real and science most be wrong somehow.
It was more poetry than philosophical analysis, but I was writing a lot poetry at the time and was new to philosophical methods. Nonetheless, I got an A in the class!
It was a defining moment in my life. It was possible to take on this establishment of dubious reasoning and force them to concede from time to time. With time, my arguments have become much sharper, and with it, my convictions in spiritual nature of the world have been reassured. Pascal is right:
The heart has reasons that reason cannot understand. Pity those who don't have the heart to understand that.
Edouard