Evolving Thoughts

Related Posts

Comments (15)

  1. May I say how much I enjoyed the essay on secularism. It says everything I might have said but with greater learning, a broader historical perspective and more footnotes. This one is definitely motto-worthy:

    What can be done when people are unable to see things other than in absolute terms, and so decide that their religion, being True, is entitled to do anything it can to bring about the Proper Society? All I can say is that we should all stand against such absolutism, with arms if necessary, to protect freedoms, ours and others’, and the Open Society. No principle or reasoning can prevent this.

  2. John – I’ve just read your Species-Essences-Generation paper, and I think some of our differences are “merely” terminological. If I may, I’ll suggest that you look into efforts by “process philosophers” to develop ontological categories that incorporate change as a fundamental property.

    1. I am aware of process philosophy, having read a considerable amount of Whitehead back in the day, but I have to address this from within the philosophy of biology tradition and nobody has really been able to apply it there successfully, and I am unsure how I would, either.

      1. I sympathize with your predicament, that is, having to address philosophers of biology in their terms. But I think it likely that without something like an ontology of processes to “ground” it, a generative theory of species/types/sorts… will not manage to actually avoid precisely the sorts of problems that plague more familiar accounts. Of course, I should also note that I’ve never been able to persuade myself that ‘process’ _could_ be ontologically fundamental. As usual, _all_ the philosophical theories on offer seem to fall short of the mark.

        1. Which is why there is still philosophical disputation. The relevant ontology here is “event/process”, I believe, but I think that whatever is true of everything is true of biology and historical processes, so special metaphysics for these are not required.

      2. Right; _special_ metaphysics are not required. But an explicit event/process ontology might well be required to make a generative theory interestingly different from other sorts of theories of species/types/kinds. Otherwise, you’ll have to defend yourself against the charge that you are simply proposing a different sort of property, “being part of tradition/lineage x”, as a necessary (or quasi-necessary) property in the relevant context. Obviously, that’s not how you interpret your proposal, but others surely would. And it’s not clear how such an interpretation could be ruled out of bounds.

        1. Such a proposal has been indeed made, by Paul Griffiths, for species. Again, I think that kind of essentialism is harmless.

  3. Hi John! I liked the secularism essay also. A few comments though:

    1. “separation of powers” — did you mean separation of church and state? Typically in the U.S. “separation of powers” refers to e.g. congress has the power to declare war and the president doesn’t (allegedly).

    2. More could be said about how the movement that labels itself “secular humanism” has confused things at least in the U.S. It was basically an atheist movement, but for some reason they and many people on both sides equate secular with atheism.

    3. Isn’t there some great quote from someone like John Stuart Mill that lays out very clearly what “secular” means and doesn’t mean, along the lines you lay out? I can’t find it, it was on some blog, maybe yours, a few years back.

    1. Elsewhere in the world, and in particular in Australia, where this essay will be published, the term “separation of powers” means the separation of the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive. A premier of a corrupt Australian state was eventually ejected when it became clear that he simply did not know this.

      This essay is an attempt to undercut the view that secularism means atheism; I think that parlaying that line is both incoherent (attempting to make society something by fiat) and a very bad strategic move, given that the majority of people are religious and will be for the foreseeable future.

      Mill said everything. The bastard.

    2. Were you thinking of this?

      In the debates of the Conference there was a good deal of misunderstanding, some of it I fear rather wilful on the part of Mr. Cobden and his supporters respecting the import of the word secular. There is no uncertainty about it. There is not a better defined word in the English language. Secular is whatever has reference to this life. Secular instruction is instruction respecting the concerns of this life. Secular subjects therefore are all subjects except religion. All the arts and sciences are secular knowledge. To say that secular means irreligious implies that all the arts and sciences are irreligious, and is very like saying that all professions except that of the law are illegal. There is a difference between irreligious and not religious, however it may suit the purposes of many persons to confound it.

      –Speech on secular education (written 1849; not delivered)

  4. Re: separation of powers: I agree with what you just said about separation of powers being separation of legislative, executive, and judicial branches. That’s the standard meaning. Which is why this sentence in your essay was confusing:

    “In fact, the government was prohibited, under the doctrine of what is now called the ‘separation of powers’, from instituting or legislating in favour of any religion or church”

    Nothing about separation of powers specifically bars the government from favoring a particular religion…what bars that is separation of church & state. Cheers! Nick

    1. You are right! It was a brain fart that was overlooked by the editor – I meant “wall of separation”. I’ll correct it in proof.

      1. I have notified the editor, and the correction will be made. Also, I modified the manuscript at the link above. Many thanks, Nick.

  5. PS: I remembered where I saw the Mill quote:

    http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2009/02/secular-thought.html

    =======
    [T]here was a good deal of misunderstanding … respecting the import of the word secular. There is no uncertainty about it. There is not a better defined word in the English language. Secular is whatever has reference to this life. Secular instruction is instruction respecting the concerns of this life. Secular subjects therefore are all subjects except religion. All the arts and sciences are secular knowledge. To say that secular means irreligious implies that all the arts and sciences are irreligious, and is very like saying that all professions except that of the law are illegal. There is a difference between irreligious and not religious, however it may suit the purposes of many persons to confound it. Now on the principles of religious freedom which we were led to believe that it was the purpose of this Association to accept, instruction on subjects not religious is as much the right of those who will not accept religious instruction as of those who will. To know the laws of the physical world, the properties of their own bodies and minds, the past history of their species, is as much a benefit to the Jew, the Mussulman, the Deist, the Atheist, as to the orthodox churchman ; and it is as iniquitous to withhold it from them. Education provided by the public must be education for all, and to be education for all it must be purely secular education.

    -John Stuart Mill, “Speech on Secular Education,” 1849
    =======

  6. “Secular instruction is instruction respecting the concerns of this life. Secular subjects therefore are all subjects except religion.”

    This is only true if religion has no concerns of this life — sounds like very few religions I have heard of and is also inconsistent with the NOMA view which at a minimum trys to draw a distinction between is and ought in this life (even if not giving all of the “ought” space to religion), IMO.

Comments are closed.