Well, he seems to see the problem with relativism at least, which is a step forward. But he seems to confuse “dogmatic certainty” with any kind of religion or belief at all.
Not all certainties are equally harmful. And not all of them are philosophically irrational.
It seems clear that Communism and Islam are more threatening than the Southern Baptist Convention, to give one hypothetical example.
I’d also take exception to his bashing of Rumsfeld: “This idea is now so mainstream that even a conservative like Donald Rumsfeld could complain about those who lived in the ‘reality-based community’ arguing ‘that’s not the way the world really works anymore ... when we act, we create our own reality’.”
Hey, dude, Rumsfeld is not a crazy postmodernist academic. He’s talking about changing reality the real way, by going out and doing something about it—in response to the so-called political “realists” who were arguing that it’s better to sit back and do nothing.
“Not all certainties are equally harmful. And not all of them are philosophically irrational.”
I am dogmatic in my belief that 2+2=4. Others are dogmatic in their belief that 2+2=5 (my three year old niece)
I am dogmatic in my belief that blowing up innocent women and children in the marketplace with Chlorine bombs is wrong. Others are dogmatic in their belief that killing kafir by any means possible is the way to God. (Muslims in general)
Why is simple logic so difficult to explain to the left?
All that the author has noticed in regard to “relativism” is the old axiom that if you stand for nothing that you will fall for anything.
That’s why liberals dabble in so many fads (e.g. crystals, new agism, global warming, wicca, athiesm, etc.).
Well said.