Religion and Denial

The first draft of this started as a bit of a rant about how the fervently religious nutcases like to run about and claim that they have a monopoly on knowing what's right and wrong - usually by means of some kind of argument by assertion (I (or scripture) say it's true, therefore it must be).

Then I ran across this piece of utter drivel by Joseph Farah, and I thought it was such a lovely exposition of argument by assertion that I had to highlight it.

Mr. Farah's busy ranting on about how evil "moral relativism" is, especially when applied to foreign affairs. (Of course, we don't need to look too far afield to figure out how wonderfully absolutism works in foreign affairs - say Iraq?)

It's an example of what can only be described as a mental illness spreading through the world – international moral relativism.

Oh my, we are going to start off by categorizing relativism as a "mental illness". Wow - let me see if the DSM-IV actually lists it...ummm...nope, not there. Welcome to your first assertion - anyone who might consider an adversary's position for even a moment must be mentally ill.

As I have pointed out more than once, Israel has proven it would only use nuclear weapons in a last-resort defense of its population. Yet, Israel's enemies, personified by the suicide bombers who attack it relentlessly, would likely not even hesitate to use nuclear weapons if they ever had the chance.

Ummm...wow. That's quite a collection of assertions:

1. Israel can do no wrong. (As this past summer's invasion of Lebanon demonstrates, that's very much a matter of opinion)

2. Israel's enemies keep doing suicide bombs, therefore, they wouldn't hesitate to use nuclear weapons. (That's quite a leap - from improvised bombs to the use of nukes - wow!)

I don't expect a single moral relativist reading this column to agree with me about this. It's almost a litmus test. If you can't tell the difference between Israel and Iran, you are a moral relativist. If you can't see that Israel, with all its faults, represents a basic sort of decency and civility in the world, while Iran represents the opposite, then congratulations, you're a moral relativist. Or, maybe you're just plain evil – like the leaders of Iran.

Ah, so not only is it essential that one must see that Israel is "ever perfect" and will do no wrong, but that Iran's leadership is evil.

He then asserts that if you do not, you are either a "relativist" (and therefore mentally ill), or evil.

The problems with this kind of argument are obvious enough. The real problem is that these arguments make the supposition that there are two kinds of reasoning - that of the person making the argument, and all the wrong ones. It discards the possibility that there might be multiple viewpoints with varying degrees of validity. Like the university professor who insists that students simply regurgitate whatever ideas they spew in lecture, there is no room to present alternative positions and argue them.

The denial of reality is obvious enough, but it colours every debate in our political landscape where religious groups attempt to inject themselves. They stick themselves into the debate, and then complain loudly that their "viewpoint" isn't being respected. The reality is that their viewpoint often is based on assertions, not facts.