The threat to reason: ISBN 143: 978-1-84467-253-0, argues that Dawkins and co are being duped into the state/corporate, ruse of blaming fundamentalists for the current threat to rationalism. In reality, it is posited that, the real enemy is state/corporate propaganda, and that the only true freedom relies on using the internet to develop corporation/state free evolution of thought!
Science is presently a tool used by corporations and states to advance their agenda rather than an independent evidence based activity.
I suspect this is just conspiracy theory under a different guise, any alternate thoughts?
False dichotomy? We don't have to choose just one (or two) from religion, bad government or greedy business as the enemies of reason. Any or all of them could be partly to blame, as could other things not listed here.
Why do people pushing their own ideas for the causes of a problem feel the need to discredit other possible causes? Do they think everything they didn't personally think of must be wrong? It starts to sound like the Judean Peoples' Front versus the Peoples' Front of Judea.
Fair point. To say that his argument is not well developed would be an understatement, however, there is something in this - perhaps only a tiny seed. He is I suspect a partly grown up ex member of an anti-globalisation movement, remarkably little information about him (as opposed to his own propaganda) on the internet, that I have found.Originally Posted by Trinoc
The notion that the governments of the UK & US have pushed the anti-islamic agenda behind the scenes, while befriending the mullahs publicly has a certain appeal. Certainly when it comes to large corporations, they do regard it as part of their remit to create the right environment for maximum sales, and are more than happy to identify opinion leaders they regard as on message and to significantly promote those individuals careers. I just am not sure that there is anything wrong with that, religious groups and states have tried to manipulate public opinion for centuries, where is the surprise that corporations should get in on the act?
He has specifically claimed that IMF intervention has lead to a drop in GDP in Russia and other developing countries, while countries like China that have ignored the IMF have expanded consistently. Does anyone know the real data, or its source, rather that this I presume selective offereing?
hi, it's Dan Hind, not Dave.
I agree in my book that religious fundamentalism can be dangerous and I argue that we should resist various kinds of irrationalism. I wanted to argue, though, for a rationally defensible order of priorities in the way that we address threats to a reasonable public sphere.
Modern power does not, for the most part, rest on theological claims, so much as on scientific ones. These claims are often highly dubious, and should be challenged by anyone who aspires to be skeptical. Consider the relative weight of claims about what 'human nature' implies for social organization and claims about 'God's will'. How much influence has conventional religion, with its deep distrust of usury, had on economic policy, compared with the set of assumptions about man's competitive nature that derive from evolutionary biology?
(A good place to go for background on the impact of IMF policies on developing countries is Joseph Stiglitz's Globalization and its Discontents, by the way.)
Apologies Dan, a little too much beverage yesterday.
Thanks for the Reference, will digest.
I suppose it is inevitable that as statistics were abused roundly in the 70's and 80's leading to the requirement for independent offices of stats for government the same is becoming true of its use of science. Happy to agree that as rationalism spreads, govts will utilise science rather than religion to manipulate public opinion. However, the notion that the misuse of knowledge is replacing religion as the greater threat to existence, is a big leap. Accepted that we have more destructive power as a consequence of science, I still think that when famine and poverty become the dominant destabilising forces, religion and other irrational beliefs will provide the necessary galvanising force leading to mass mobilisation.
So while we are in a relatively stable political and economic climate, the misuse of science may come to the fore, when the situation changes, I am less inclined to believe that the misuse of science will really dominate. The main fault with this approach is that it relies on complete control of all information sources. Religion by contrast is simply a matter of belief, thus the reality created can become irrefutable, whatever access to information the populace or intelligentsia have.
Here is the nub of the challenge, so I should address this directly.
First, I would suggest that all organisations are homeostatic organisms, in essence self preservation is one of the chief goals of all organisations. It is unreasonable to expect that in any meaningful way they will destroy themselves for the greater good. Hence a society that relies on large functioning organisations must take the down side with the benefits.
Second, I would argue that most political decisions are taken in the absence of adequate information, and while dressed up as rational informed decisions are in reality, best guesses, justified post hoc. One could take the global warming debate as an example, it is only in the past couple of years that the evidence for a significant human contribution has become irrefutable, hence those who were laggards could readily justify not committing because there were greater proven threats, so why waste effort on something that was only after all a theory promoted by many but with respectable detractors - based on holes in the data or assumptions.
Given therefore the natural tendency to self preservation and the huge assumptions that must be made by governments on a daily basis, how would you prioritise?
Gone a bit quiet Dan.
Havn't found Stiglitz yet.
However, in the interim I offer Robert Reich: Supercapitalism: ISBN 978-184831007-0.
Who argues reasonably cogently, that the issue is corporate influence on law making, recommending that the solution is to legislate to prevent any direct interference with the legislative process by corporations. Not dissimilar to your arguments, but I would suggest probably more practical.
Sorry, since when?Modern power does not, for the most part, rest on theological claims
The argument according to Reich, is that corporations have been driven away from behaving in any socially responsible fashion by competition, now they must reflect the needs of consumers and investors or perish. We as consumers and investors are feeding the beast that destroys our quality of life as citizens.
The corporations being pretty vast, generate so much wealth, that it is worth investing vast amounts to maintain or gain any competitive advantage. Thus hiring experts to perform research or report on available studies that will create doubt about the down side or trumpet the upside of any argument you need to make. Added to this they can buy access to politicians on every available committee at each stage in the decision making process. This explains why the political process has become a part of the corporate game. Not willfully controlled by corporations, but buffeted about in the storm of competition by forces greater than itself.
Much of this chimes with me, but need to do some more work. I think it is clear that no particular church can wield enough power, consistently enough to pour over every detail of legislation at every stage in its development to ensure their interests mould the final outcome, except when it comes to abortion, and gay rights. Their limited field of vision prevents them from having real influence in the US. In the UK with Bishops in the Lords that may be different.
Last edited by Pebble; 28th December 2008 at 08:36 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks