Gramsci wrote:I honestly doubt that even most educated Christians really believe what they claim they believe. For example, I doubt very much that the Pope really believes what he claims he believes... I mean, after a decent education how anyone could believe such ridiculous fairy tale... it's just highly impossible.
Quite literally the answer to your question is
faith. That's the difference in believing and not believing the fantastic stories of revealed religion. Underestimating it is one of modernity's biggest problems understanding politics and humanity, which are the same damned thing when you realize humans are political creatures.
The question of this thread is something that's been rolling around in my mind a lot these past few months. I'm not sure how to approach it for you people. I am not Matthew, nor am I Gramsci. But I'd be lying if I didn't admit that sometimes I think that Matthew's point gets dismissed out of hand because of his presentation. I don't care for the latter, but I'm not prepared to dismiss the former.
If I understand her correctly, I am quite of the Bumble cast on this issue. I myself was raised nominally Lutheran and mostly absent from any sort of ubiquitous, unavoidable catechism in my home or school. I heard probably heard more about Edgar Cayce than Job growing up. I see this as, in some ways, a blessing and a curse: I'm more unfettered than many of my fellow Texans who were raised in the Bible Belt and literal readings of the Bible and who couldn't begin to concieve of asking questions about the seeming incoherences of the Bible. On the other hand, I would really love to have faith alone get me through shit times. I'd like a plan. This reminds me of The New Year's "Simple Life" where it's sung "I don't mean it like it sounds, if it sounds like I want it easy. I want it simple for my head, not simple for my hands." We are unfortunately not born with owner's manuals and human life doesn't really make a lick of sense--if it did, why'd we have philosophy in the first place? I've reasoned for myself with the help of some very great books and excellent teachers why it's better for myself--dare I say, everyone?--to live by something like the golden rule. If religions enforce or explain that for people who do not have the patience, access, leisure, or whatever to them, then all the better. If it enriches their lives, even better.
But what I've found to be problematic is a sort of contempt of anyone with faith and a close-mindedness toward it. Open-mindedness does not necessarily mean belief. Nor does it mean so open-minded one's brain falls out. For example, Gramsci--rightly--makes the distinction that Christianity isn't necessarily the only whipping boy here. Marsupialized does not make this distinction, and often enough, I get the feeling that Christianity is getting more than its fair share of contempt on these pages.
Now, my problem with what I've read on this board and what's been sticking in my craw is something of a lack of probity. Or maybe I'm missing the point and if someone could sum up the consensus opinion on these pages, then I'd be grateful. I think it comes down to a certain philosophic skepticism that's lacking. Plenty of skepticism. Not a lot of philosophy. I see the atheism on here as just another damned form of faith. But it doesn't regard itself as such, and in that way, I just don't see how it's any different than an intolerant take of any religion that otherwise takes flack on here.
Take for example Steve's South Park thread of a month or so ago. The episode of SP that I think was at issue was the one where Richard Dawkins comes in and revolutionizes humanity--as well as otter civilization--and basically replaces revealed religion with the religion of science. Once replaced, sectarian violence sublimated into violence over different interpretations of scientific, rational knowledge. E.g., the otters thought it was more rational to eat off their bellies than dinner tables. This was Stone and Parker's point: You're replacing one faith with another. "Tweedle Dee, meet Tweedle Dumb. Tweedle Dumb, Tweedle Dee." The subtext for me was in the Socratic spirit of I know that I know nothing--which is to say that you do know something--but such a position would provide the tolerance that anti-religious folks demand. It would allow for the aware knowledge of a great many things. I don't know that that knowledge would be authoritative on the existence or nature of God though. This was an astute observation on Stone and Parker's part, but you don't have to really read great books to figure it out.
This faith in science gets to the heart of modernity. Question science in front of a philosophy class of undergrads, and I assure you their reaction would be about as disgusted and full of contempt as if you walked into an AME on Sunday and suggested that God was dead. Just read Vannevar Bush's "Science, the Endless Frontier" pp. 5 where he starts off talking about "war against [insert human suffering here]" necessitating science to allieviate man's condition. Compare it with Ch. 25 of Machiavelli's
The Prince, where NM declares a war against both God and nature in his recommendation to 'knock down fortune and rape her.' BTW, he conflates the Roman goddess Fortuna with natural phenomena like floods and stuff thus indicating he has both God and nature in mind when he enlists us to have our way with fortune. 277 years later you get "Nature's God" in the Declaration.
With the war against nature and God and science being unleashed to that end in mind, then go read Descartes'
Method part I.3 where he says "I dare to
believe my way [i.e., science] is the best form of knowledge, etc." Those are my italics. His explanation is that only mathematical knowledge is sure knowledge. However, there is no mathematical proof--nor really a philosophic one--that science is any better than revealed religion, philosophy, natural philosophy, tea leaves, or what have you. Then go check V.4 where he says nature can be conquered with an "infinity of artifices." Descartes was a sharp man, and he knew infinity cannot be reached, so he's essentially telling you that the war against nature's an unwinnable one. He's trying to accomplish this turn to science with rhetoric because reason can't do it. That's not to say that our gear isn't breath-taking. It's effectively replaced God on earth--and that's good enough for NM, Descartes, and most people now--but does any of it provide answers as to why the orderly things in the universe are orderly or seemingly orderly, and the disorderly ones are chaotic or seemingly chaotic?
It does not. It cannot address metaphysical questions like that, and as such, those questions have been partly ignored and partly made to seem simple-minded, superstitious, daft, and secondary. That people believe in these 'silly superstitions' is one of the reasons the left has been running behind in this country: The left fails to understand this, take it seriously, and address it. Instead, they write off the religious right as a bunch of yahoos instead of trying to provide a workable and enticing alternative to them.
This is a long-winded and high on percodan way--I am not above my bodily needs to allieviate my human condition; my knee hurts like fuck--of saying that if you really want to have some intellectual probity you'd have to admit that you don't know either way what the hell's out there.
Salut.