{"id":8436,"date":"2013-10-12T14:50:18","date_gmt":"2013-10-12T14:50:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/10\/12\/in-fairness-to-dworkin\/"},"modified":"2013-10-12T14:50:18","modified_gmt":"2013-10-12T14:50:18","slug":"in-fairness-to-dworkin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/10\/12\/in-fairness-to-dworkin\/","title":{"rendered":"In Fairness to Dworkin"},"content":{"rendered":"

In an earlier post<\/a> I commented with some trenchancy on Ronald Dworkin's views about religion in Religion Without God<\/em> as these views were represented by Peter Berkowitz in a recent article.  Although I was careful to point out that my remarks presupposed the accuracy of Berkowitz's representation, I was a bit uneasy about my comments, not having consulted Dworkin's book.  I am therefore happy to reproduce the  following missive from a Columbia University graduate student, Luke MacInnis,   to balance out the picture.<\/span><\/p>\n

………….<\/span><\/p>\n

I enjoy your blog, and especially your excellent running commentary on Tom Nagel.  I wanted to comment on your recent post on Peter Berkowitz's review of Ronald Dworkin's Religion Without God<\/em>.  Berkowitz's comments center exclusively on, and misrepresent, a very short passage toward the start of the book, which you suggest amounts to a "miserable leftist substitute for religion" that  "leaves out what is absolutely central to religion, namely, the conviction that there is a transcendent dimension, an "unseen order."  But in fact Dworkin does not say that religion "consists in" those two central judgments. Immediately (the next page) after describing these judgments, he adds "For many people religion includes much more than those two values", approvingly quotes William James' view that religion "adds to life an enchantment which is not rationally or logically deducible from anything else", and then himself adds that this "enchantment is the discovery of transcendental value in what seems otherwise transient or dead."  He provides important, though brief, discussions of Rudolph Otto's views on religion's numinous character, and emphasizes his own rejection of naturalist metaphysics (a long-running theme in all of Dworkin's work, but most explicit and developed in Justice for Hedgehogs<\/em>).  <\/span><\/p>\n

So he does not deny religion's transcendent, unseen dimension.   Nor does he offer any definitions that offend ordinary language (he provides many examples to make this point. Berkowitz mentions none of them).  Dworkin describes the "two judgments" as a manifestation of a particular kind of religious attitude (or temperament, to use Nagel's term) that some (though not all) atheists might be said to have, and which does not include a belief in a supreme, intelligent creator. Dworkin's general account of religion is broad because he aims at ecumenism.  That hardly makes it a "miserable leftist substitute".  It is an attempt to find common ground between atheists and theists in a more basic reverence toward the "unseen" both share but cash out in inconsistent metaphysics.<\/span><\/p>\n

Regarding your final question ("if it is wrong for the State to impose religion on its citizens, why isn't it also wrong for the State to impose leftist ideology on its citizens as it is now doing here in the USA?), you might be interested in Dworkin's answer in Chapter 3 of RWG, where he concedes the symmetry between theistic and scientific explanations of the origin of conscious life ("if relying on one judgment to mandate a curriculum is an unconstitutional establishment of religious belief, then so is relying on the other." (128)), recognizes that liberalism to this point has no adequate response to this problem, and offers what is indeed a "radical" argument that involves eliminating specific rights to religious freedom altogether.  <\/span><\/div>\n

<\/span><\/div>\n
Berkowitz ignores all of this, and I wish others would not comment so decisively on the book based on such an inadequate review (notwithstanding your brief "if this is what Dworkin maintains" qualification).  I find this is particularly common with Dworkin's work, and it is unfortunate because it usually obscures the complexity and value of his contribution.<\/span><\/div>\n

<\/span><\/div>\n
Thanks, and keep up the great work with the blog!<\/span> <\/div>\n
\nRelated articles<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>Progressivism as Religion: Peter Berkowitz on Ronald Dworkin<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Religion Without God<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Featured Article: Wrong in the right way<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In an earlier post I commented with some trenchancy on Ronald Dworkin's views about religion in Religion Without God as these views were represented by Peter Berkowitz in a recent article.  Although I was careful to point out that my remarks presupposed the accuracy of Berkowitz's representation, I was a bit uneasy about my comments, … Continue reading “In Fairness to Dworkin”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[139],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-religion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8436","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8436"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8436\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}