The Myth of Equality of "Belief"
 

All beliefs are not created equal.

Yet our culture strives to present disparate beliefs as existing on equal footing. This contributes to the polarity of our nation by virtue of providing bonafides to what are essentially marginalized belief systems.

Case in point: Intelligent Design.

Wired recently had a cover article on the debate between those who believe in Intelligent Design (the alternative theory of how we came to be) vs. the science of Evolution. In essence, the Wired article describes a situation where some very specific aspects of evolution are being questioned (on the micro-biological level) and the believers in Intelligent Design hold these aspects up as "evidence" that evolution is invalid and some type of higher intelligence "designed" us to be as we are (they do not attempt to define this higher intelligence, instead claiming it could be Aliens just as much as it could be God). Wired demonstrates that, while it is accurate that there are some specific flaws in the current theory of evolution, the Intelligent Design community, instead of attempting to analyze these flaws to further understand the principles of evolution, uses these flaws to actively promote an entirely different theory which dismisses evolution completely.

And this concept of equality of belief is being pursued by the Ohio State Education Board. They have provided a medium for public debate - one in which 2 representatives of the Intelligent Design community discuss the issues with 2 representatives of the scientific community. The Ohio State Education Board has equalized the debate between a small community of people with non-scientific suppositions and the large, scientific community with years and years of research and evidence.

The goal, of course, is to ensure that the children of Ohio are able to experience "the other view" of how we came to be. The result is that fringe elements of our society are provided a platform of equality of "belief".

The Wired article is long, but well worth the read: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...ion&topic_set=

Personally, I see this active equalization of belief in other areas, such as the methods used by the media to present information without attempting to investigate the matter. For the decade and more that the "liberal" media accusation has been levied, the media has becomes more and more compliant to the goals of the conservative. In order to avoid the appearance of liberal bias, they are compelled, by virtue of being derided, to present "both sides" of the debate in equality, regardless of actual merit on either side. That this favors the goals of the conservative is beside the point that it is a problem of arbitrary equalization of beliefs.

the use relativism as a device to force access for the whole range of indefenable beliefs that constitute the core of conservative ideology is a pretty basic tactic of the right.
i see it as an attempt to reduce how people understand what is at stake in politics to matters of opinion, all of which are arbitrary--to muddy the grounds for rational debate---in a domain where there are no criteria accepted to ground validity claims, anything goes: so factual material can have no greater sway than religious opinion--say--in discussion.

this is about opinion management.
this is also the basis for conservative arguments that they are being somehow persecuted because, outside their ideological world, their arguments are not taken seriously.

it is about solidifying support for a politics of based on distraction, on fake "cultural" issues--like the wholly absurd question of whether gay folk should be allowed to marry. of course they should. it is ridiculous to think otherwise.

while the shabby and unpleasant nondebate about this kind of matter goes on and on, behind the scenes, real power is excersized by folk who oocupy a position that is not at all identical with what you would imagine from the content organized by the right's ideology machinery--and these people do as they like.

Interesting defense of absolutism there, roachboy.

We must be up against the ideological limits of relativism.

Relativism does not automatically include equality.

Simply because there is nothing that can be defined as an absolute does not mean that all things are therefore equal.

IMHO intelligent design is a back door way of bringing creation theory into the classroom by mostly religeous groups. Most, not all, intelligent design proponents I've talked with are Christians. Interestingly, most Christians I know believe in evolution theory. They just believe their god started the ball rolling.

The problem as I see it is that evolution is complicated and there are missing links etc... These groups use these complications to theorize that life is too complex to have evolved naturally so there must be an intelligent designer behind life's diversity. So they are pushing the schools to teach it along side evolution (or equalization of belief in your words).

I believe the evolutionists are trying to understand how life has evolved on our planet and the intelligent designers are really trying to foster a belief in their higher being (God).

Manx, you are correct but I do not follow any particular implication that may lead from there.

The way I see it, "all things" - including how "all things" are defined - are matters of power relations and the various ways in which power is distributed, mediated, negotiated, and exercised.

actually, art, i was going for a different notion--that relativism can and is being deployed in a cynical manner to further ends that have more to do with flattening debate internally and shifting the center of it away from the exercize of power.

for myself, i do not think that all arguments are equal simply because they are arguments. but it does not follow from that that there needs to be anything absolute about any particular argument. but what i do think is that criteria for evaluating arguments are a good thing--that they can and should be debated in themselves.

the kind of cheap relativism i see working at the core of conservative ideology (the machinery of which is pretty obvious--i am referring to that, not to particular positions that might be held by anyone who thinks themselves conservative) is about something else...disabling meaningful debate...in the interest of enabling a kind of impunity in the exercize of material power--one which would obtain only for conservatives themselves, of course.

Art, I agree, in that power relations impacts an individuals belief system by virtue of the degree of exposure to the various belief systems. But empirical evidence has the greater ability to impact power relations than does faith - or so it should, but society seems to be moving away from that logic.

what i was trying to say would not require any prior agreement about either the nature of "empirical evidence"---which is always subject ot methodological considerations that embed political assumptions within them--or how to evaluate that evidence--because both operations presuppose the availability of criteria for evaluating arguments, evaluating evidence---what is really remarkable about bushworld is that the abundant information about, say iraq and the fiasco the war is (at the level of its origin, at the level of its unfolding) was at once obvious to anyone who looked and somehow irrelevant in the face of the different kind of arguments elaborated within bushworld about their boy etc.

this is only possible if there has been either a demolition or radical refiguring of the standards for evaluating arguments.

this can have happened and not itself be a porblem internally for the right because at one level, the right relies on "differends" as lyotard put it---on a mode of argumentation with the outside that more or less assures the parties will talk past each other. that way nothing logically central to conservative positions gets introduced on grounds they do not control. it works really well. try talking to some of these folk and you'll see it straight away.

on the other, the cheap, facile relativism to wedge their arguments into a space of debate.
which they would then work to disable.

passivity can take any number of shapes. it can result from busy busy busy talking in totally irrelevant areas.

btw--this is not a position that requires you assume anything about individuals who operate within the space of this politics--rather it is a series of statements that you can derive from the nature of the discourse itself. it simply turns out that almost everyone who adopts the discourse performs these features.

Empirical evidence, however it is viewed, is the foundation of a debate. I used it to contrast the form of debate which lacks empirical evidence: that of faith.

To bring these concepts into the Bushworld views of the war - it is faith to believe everything is going or will go well. It is empirically evident that many things have gone poorly (unless you are of the opinion that what we have now is and was the entire goal - an everlasting U.S. vs. Insurgent battle). When the former is used to offset the latter, the reality of the latter can no longer be used to debate the merits/status of the war.

If someone views specific empirical evidence and then states that they believe it is a sign of the impending positive outcome, that is a quality contribution to debate. Even more so based on the strength of the rationalization used to define it. When all things are viewed as a sign of impending positive outcome (both the current positives and the current negatives), such as the claim that more schools is a sign of success and more attacks from insurgents is a sign of their weakening, then the debate becomes useless as it is now simply an argument of faith.

As a single example of how political speech is about power and not about truth, the statement that "things are going well" is a smart tactical political statement. When one is engaged in a life-and-death struggle it is not prudent to act from positions of declared weakness.

All this philosophy. It's really quite irrelevant.

The way I see it, if the tree falls on you in the forest you die, belief and power relations be what they may.

Which is to say, some things are real and have direct, testable implications. I privilege such "beliefs" over metaphysical and untestable ones. This is not to say that the spiritual is unimportant, or that untestable ideas do not have significance. But I believe ideas that can be tested and which survive said tests are more important.

Of course, that postulate is not a testable idea. :lol: But it's useful, because it's a drag when trees fall on you.

Having a tree fall on one's head demonstrates the more powerful position of the tree in relation to the weaker position of the target. Ignorance of the conditions obtaining in situations is an indicator of a weak position.

This isn't a philosophical discussion. It is an attempt to demonstrate that those who believe in the correctness of their views are distributed among every position on the political spectrum. No one will be demonstrating otherwise. Putting the argument on a philosophical plane is simply another way of saying one is correct and one's opposition is not. Hence, a power struggle - pure and simple. Call it that and move on toward furthering the strength of your position by effective power management.

It's a fine line of tactical value - it is also not prudent to act or entice action from positions of unreality.

Here we go again with the philosophy. You won't be getting agreement on the nature of "reality" any time soon.

This is a philosophical discussion. It is an attempt to draw attention to the direction society is heading which promotes equality of beliefs above the strengths of foundation of beliefs.

You, yourself, refered to the "truth". If you prefer, I will rephrase:

It's a fine line of tactical value - it is also not prudent to act or entice action from positions of untruth.

Or even better:

It's a fine line of tactical value - it is also not prudent to act or entice action from positions of the irrelevancy of truth.

I never refer to truth except to deny it.

And I strive for perfection as well.

I'm not sure if any of you are familiar with the show "Bullshit" that airs on showtime and is done by Penn and Teller(sp?) I definately recommend buying the season 1 dvd. They do a good episode on this topic.

I always thought it was the left that espoused relatvism, not the right. For example, a liberal professor is more likely to say that there is no absolute truth than a conservative Christian.

But I do agree that many beliefs are portrayed as being equally legitimate when they're clearly not. This becomes a bigger problem when there are a bunch of crackpot ideas thrwn around.

roachboy, I'm with you all the way. Personally, I don't see the two concepts as mutually exclusive - why can't evolution be the process "God" created to create us? Most mainstream Christians I know agree with that, and, given that natural selection has been proven over ands over again countless times in laboratory settings, it seems a reasonable idea.

Quick one and out: The fact that there are people who will argue for intelligent design seems to me to be proof that there is no intelligent design.

Seriously though, I just finished having this argument in my college buddies' listserve, and it boiled down to this:

There is no one who need be taken seriously who argues that there is not change over time. However, evolution does not preclude some degree of intelligent design, and intelligent design does not necessarily preclude results indistinguishable from evolution. The summation I gave was this: