ideology

After several months of reading books on evolution, I’d like to say that “I am an ideologue no more.” Whether it’s possible to entirely eliminate a previous ideology remains to be seen. It’s easier to talk and write about, for sure.

What do I mean by ideology? Daniel Dennett in Breaking The Spell identifies ideology as “not just any mistaken thinking, but thinking that is pathological or bad for us in some way.” (p.374--the complete title of this book is Breaking The Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon) In this same book, J.M Balkin is quoted as identifying ideology as “ways of thinking that help maintain unjust social conditions.” (p.374) These definitions will do for now.

Balkin, in his book Cultural Software, identifies something which he calls imperialist universalism: “…the view that there are universal concrete standards of justice and human rights that apply to every society, whether pre- or post-industrial, whether secular or religious, and that it is the duty of right-minded people to change the positive norms and institutions of all societies so that they conform with these universal norms of justice and universal human rights.” (p.150) I don't think that he is saying this as a positive thing. In times past I would have agreed with this idea.

Dennett also notes that many people in the United States hold the belief that the American way is the right way and we should spread it to all the world. Anything less is moral relativism. Tolerance of other cultures’ norms such as polygamy, slavery, and infanticide (to name a few) must not be granted. Imperialist Universalism sees “right” or “wrong” as the only accepted possibilities in any moral decision.

Many Muslims, Christians, and Hindus would seem to fall into this imperialist universalism category. They would agree that moral relativism is unacceptable. Where does this leave the unbeliever? Does it automatically push the unbeliever into the morally relativistic camp? I don’t think so, but the “I’m right and you’re wrong” stance won't work either. There has to be some middle ground. Scientists (many of whom admit to being unbelievers) also should not be granted final say. Science doesn’t possess moral answers to life exclusively. At best, science may provide clarity or confirmation of factual presuppositions of any moral discussion, but not the values that our ethical judgments and arguments are based on. Putting faith in science alone is no different than putting faith in one religion or another exclusively. (paraphrased from Dennett)

“Everybody should consider adopting the stable middle ground: an open mind stance that permit’s a rational dialogue to engage the issues between people, no matter how radically different their cultural backgrounds. We can engage in this conversation with some reasonable hope of resolution that isn‘t simply a matter of one culture overwhelming the other by brute force. We cannot expect, Balkin argues, to persuade others if we leave no room and opportunity for them to persuade us. Success does depend on the participants‘ truth and justice. What this means is only that both parties accept that these values are inescapably presupposed by human projects that we all participate in, simply by being alive: the projects of staying alive, and staying secure. Nothing more parochial need be assumed, and even ‘Martians‘ should be able to agree on this.” (Dennett, p.376, Breaking The Spell)

What am I saying? I think that whether we’re talking about science or religion, neither are benefited by claiming an imperialist universalism stance. Dialogue is necessary when it comes to differences. We all share the need to stay alive and stay secure. Pushing or simply holding an ideology causes separation. It causes us to devalue others. We judge others and develop feelings of entitlement, superiority, and pride. Isn’t this how wars start and continue?

Holding strongly to one ideology over another leads to irrationality. My truth is no truer than your truth and vice versa if we‘ve failed to present our cases in open dialogue with each other. Winning arguments by strong arming the other out of the dialogue is not winning. And if one thinks his ideology should rule, he needs to study his tactics and learn peaceable approaches to dialogue. If we rely on the respect for truth and the tools of truth-finding, “we can work together toward mutually comprehended and accepted visions of what is good and what is just”(Dennett).

For many years my religious views cut me off from ideas that I was taught to ostracize and deem as untruth. I'm no longer in agreement with this ideology. Learning and growing in new ways it what I require of myself today. My need to stay alive and stay secure are more important than any ideology's promise.