Faiths and Worldviews
Items on religions, ideologies, philosophies, and other ways people interpret the world
Mansfield on Brann, or, Why read the classics
Mon 27 Jun 2005 by Peter Edman
Harvard prof Harvey Mansfield has an article in The Weekly Standard on the work and latest book of Eva Brann of St. John’s College, Annapolis.
The piece is entitled “Greek Books, American Life,” (20 June 2005). It’s an interesting appreciation and critique, implying that her devotion to deep study in the Greek and other classics may be undermined by an American tendency to skim over the stuff that’s hard or irritating.
Of course, that’s not always a bad way to read people like Nietzsche, says Brann, in Open Secrets/Inward Prospects: Reflections on Word and Soul. Worth noting for a good assessment of Jefferson vs. Madison, and for the following quote.
Vox Populi, Vox Stupidity?
Fri 17 Jun 2005 by Peter Edman
Spiked Magazine features an article by University of Kent sociologist Frank Furedi on populism and elites in light of recent events in the U.S. and EU.
A well written and historically aware article covering the bases from the EU constitutional referendum to the 2004 U.S. elections (and some Australian commentary) and the parallel response of many elites.
Fascinating and more than a bit scary in light of the insights raised by the Foucault/Ayatollah essay and my recent reading in Postman’s Technopoly. Technopoly as fundamentalist secularism? Political and even NGO elites openly desire a move from democracy to technocracy, or rule by bureaucracy. It is a quintessentially illiberal notion.
The Philosopher and the Ayatollah
Thu 16 Jun 2005 by Peter Edman
Amazing and surprisingly nuanced article in the Boston Globe (hat-tip—ALD) on Michel Foucault’s initial infatuation with the Islamist revolution in Iran of Ayatollah Khomeini.
The article, by Wesley Yang, is titled “The philosopher and the ayatollah: In 1978, Michel Foucault went to Iran as a novice journalist to report on the unfolding revolution. His dispatches — now fully available in translation — shed some light on the illusions of intellectuals in our own time.”
The article is inspired by the publication of Kevin Anderson and Janet Afary’s Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islamism
Yang offers an interesting balance of appreciation for Foucault’s courageous insights and his ideologically driven blindness, and definitely helps us appreciate the way worldviews or ideologies shape actions. Two quotes from the article follow:
A collection on spirituality vs. religion vs. atheism
Mon 13 Jun 2005 by Peter Edman
I’ve noticed a small wave of articles on faith, religion, and spirituality—which are not synonymous. Several appear to be driven by a recent AP survey on religion.
Items:
Dave Shiflett has an article from 7 June 2005 on National Review Online, “God-Lite Doesn’t Cut It: Americans like a stouter brand.” He discusses findings from his new book, Exodus: Why Americans are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity.- Ironically, the same day US News & World Report, 7 June 2005, posts an article on a trend that could be seen as confirming or countering Shiflett’s thesis: “Religion in America: Pumping life into mainline Protestantism” (Hat Tip: Relapsed Catholic -> Church Marketing Sucks -> CT Weblog) discusses how moderate-to-liberal congregations in otherwise-declining denominations are thriving by getting serious about their faith and their tradition.
- And just the day before, Giles Fraser posted a pleasantly insightful editorial in London’s Guardian on a new UK “reality” show focused on the spiritual smorgasbord: “God’s been mugged: Spirituality, the latest subject of reality TV, is religion minus the difficult bits for feckless consumers”
- On the other hand, we have UPI reporter Uwe Siemon-Netto and a March 2005 wire story, “Science, ‘frauds’ trigger a decline in atheism” discussing former atheist Anthony Flew’s defection to theism.
- In line with this last, in light of the TV show mentioned in Dr. Fraser’s commentary, it’s almost refreshing to see Salman Rushdie’s wisful desire to “Just give me that old-time atheism!” (The Toronto Star, May 23 2005).
Edgar on the Blues
Wed 08 Jun 2005 by TTF Staff
Senior Fellow William Edgar has an article in the January/February 2005 issue of Modern Reformation on blues music.
The article is titled “Aint It Hard: Suffering & Hope in the Blues.” A quote:
It would be easy to conclude that this type of music is without hope or redemption. But this is far from the case. The realism of the blues does not stand opposed to hopefulness, but to sentimentality. So often the music of white people responds to troubled times with escapism. The blues is stark and realistic, but not hopeless. The blues tells us how to live on earth in order to prepare for heaven. Living down here makes no sense unless there is a heaven to give it meaning.
Guptara on the Gods of Business
Wed 01 Jun 2005 by TTF Staff
Senior Fellow Prabhu Guptara was featured on American Public Media’s Speaking of Faith program in late January 2005.
In addition to the radio program itself, the program site includes PDF and Web versions of his presentation slides, a transcript of a related speech, and several other interesting items.
Professor Guptara takes a fascinating cross-cultural view of contemporary business, discussing the major world religions (secularism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Islam, Judaism, and the Christian Faith) and their ethical implications in the age of Enron. He suggests that from an ethical point of view the world now exists in a multiple tension between traditional Judeo-Christian values; thorough pragmatism/ unethical materialism; and reviving fundamentalist values among Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and other communities belonging to New and Fringe Religions.
European, Not Christian
Wed 01 Jun 2005 by Peter Edman
Jay Tolson at U.S. News & World Report has written an article on the spiritual climate of Europe.
“European, Not Christian: An aggressive secularism sweeps the Continent” (30 May 2005). It looks generally well balanced, including discussion of causes and consequences and alternative spiritualities that are arising in the wake of the decline of organized religion. Jumping off from the Buttiglione debacle and a similar case experienced in Britain by Ruth Kelly, the article’s thesis is expressed here:
While Kelly survived the mini-tempest, her experience captures what many say is the prevailing attitude of European elites toward religion, particularly traditional religion and particularly in the public sphere. From the ban on the wearing of visible religious symbols in French public schools to the refusal of the EU to include specific mention of Christianity’s influence on Europe’s distinctive civilization in its first constitution, a mountain of anecdotal evidence suggests that an aggressive form of secularism--what the British religion writer Karen Armstrong calls “secular fundamentalism” --is afoot in Europe.
“Secular fundamentalism”? I’m a harsh critic of the misuse and recent overuse of the term “fundamentalist,” but Armstrong’s term seems fitting. Perhaps the rejection of the EU constitution by France and the Netherlands will be an opportunity to revisit the issue of the historic contributions of the Christian faith to Europe and moderate some unfortunate excesses.
Social Research: Science or Story?
Fri 27 May 2005 by Peter Edman
In preparing for our new curriculum on technology, I’ve been reading Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology by the late Neil Postman. Am particularly struck by his (hopefully famous by now) discussion of “scientism” in chapter 9, which talks about the way current Western societies tend toward the presumption that the only legitimate knowledge is scientific knowledge.
The effect of this presumption is to deny the possibility of meaningful knowledge resulting from such human activities as literature, religion, and myth— “scientific hubris” is the term he uses. Postman particularly notes this effect in the rise of the “social sciences”, which he suggests are less science than storytelling. They never produce falsifiable findings. At best their studies rediscover “facts” that were obvious to traditional human wisdom (James Taranto, please call your office). Worse, their stories are packaged in a manner that is frequently boring and generally self-deceptive.
