Your home for intelligent conversation on the web
Library General An interview about "In Defense of Religious Moderation"
THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself.     Continue >
An interview about "In Defense of Religious Moderation"
Q: What are everyday fundamentalisms?

Physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have recently used the term "model-dependent realism" to talk about the extent to which humans can approximate knowledge of the world as it really is, independent of our senses and the media we use to grasp it. The idea is basically that different conditions require different models of reality, and there is no sense at all in talking about a model-free reality. What I call everyday fundamentalisms are those ways we have of talking or thinking about the world that presuppose access to just such a model-free reality. Since I refer to such models as "codes"—the way that linguists speak use the term code-switching to refer to our ability to adopt speech and behavior to different social circumstances—I argue that such a belief is akin to positing an all-encompassing master-code, or "code of codes." Belief in the code of codes, then, is a belief that the world as it really is in itself already exists as a kind of knowledge, independent of the ways we may come to know it. This is the basic ingredient of all fundamentalisms, religious or otherwise.

Q: How has fundamentalism infiltrated contemporary secular society?

We are fundamentalists whenever we treat our knowledge not as a model or version of reality, but as reality itself. While today we tend to associate this sort of impulse with religion, one of the primary tendencies the theological traditions that accompanied the development of western culture was to undermine human claims to immediate knowledge of the world. As many scholars have noted, religious fundamentalism is really a modern phenomenon, the term itself dating to the early 20th century. But in some ways a more general fundamentalism defined as adherence to the code of codes is itself coterminous with the modern age, that is, with western culture since the dawn of the scientific revolution. The idea here is that the relative success of one particular model of reality—in which reality is pictured as an independent objective realm gradually revealed by human observation and experimentation—created the expectation that this model should apply equally in all domains of knowledge. It is for this reason that the sort of biblical literalism consistent with what we now call Christian fundamentalism could only take hold in a thoroughly modern society like our own.

Q: What is religious moderation, and how will it defend against  

Religious moderation is a kind of religious belief that refuses the logic of the code of codes. Moderate believers find comfort, solace, community, and pleasure in their belief systems and the practices that accompany them, without ever assuming that these beliefs represent a direct, unfettered, or in some way absolutely knowledge of the world. Moderate believers are thus perfectly capable of reciting the tenets of their own faiths without ever feeling that they are in irresolvable contradiction with other, perhaps more practical ways of understanding the world. For this very reason, not only are such forms of belief entirely compatible with scientific knowledge, they are also inherently tolerant, since moderate believers make a constant practice of reconciling apparently incompatible versions of reality. This implicit commitment to tolerance along with its suspicion of claims to ultimate knowledge make religious moderation one of the best possible defenses against fundamentalisms of all kinds, in particular the religious fundamentalisms that are so openly threatening the modern, democratic world view.

Q: What is your position on the current debates about the  
neuroscientific view of faith?

Many secular polemicists have cited recent work in the neuroscience of religion as the final evidence undermining the tenability of any religious belief whatsoever. If the phenomena of different beliefs can be shown to have distinct correlates in the electrochemistry of the brain, the argument goes, then so much for God. In fact what recent research has demonstrated is how untenable anything but a model-dependent realism is for understanding how humans interact with the world. The dependence of the brain on narrative reconstructions, values, and emotional responses for even the most neutral description and perception of reality utterly undermines the pretensions of either secularist absolutists or religious fundamentalists to having the ultimate take on what reality is. Even neuroscientific claims to undermine the human experience of freedom can be shown to be based on faulty and unexamined prejudices about the nature of free will.

Q: How do you practice religious moderation in your daily life?

For the most part I do not. Unlike many interventions on the side of religion in the current debate, mine quite intentionally does not presume any religious commitments. As a scholar I am mostly interested in how both religious and antireligious positions emerged from specific histories and bring with them unexamined prejudices, and my defense of moderate beliefs and practices stems from a philosophical inquiry, as opposed to the other way around. That said, as I relate in the last chapter, I am a Catholic, just not a particularly observant one.

Q: How has literature informed your work?

The author who is most influential for this work is the Argentine poet Jorge Luis Borges. As I discuss in several passages in the book, I have found in his writings a consistent cautionary tale about the excesses of certainty, and an uncanny ability to undermine the pretensions or even hopes of perfect knowledge. What I've learned from Borges, to put it in the simplest way possible, is that human knowledge is essentially, rather than accidentally, imperfect. What this means is that while our desire to know orients itself toward ever-greater accuracy, the goal of perfect or ultimate knowledge is self-contradictory. The fact that our brains and sensory apparatuses must synthesize impressions across space and over time, for instance, implies the necessity of a minimal difference from our objects of cognition as a condition of possibility for knowing them. But what Borges also stresses in his stories is how the very imperfectability of our knowledge endows us with a kind of will to believe. Like it or not, Borges seems to tell us, this will finds expression, and if we seek to deny it outlets in the imagination, it will find its way into our social and political life, and often at great cost.

Q: In your book you discuss different facets of fundamentalism from, "a religious zealot ready to kill those who do not adhere to his doctrine, [to] a scientist who believes that the totality of being can  theoretically be known, although it is not in fact known today?" What other ways does fundamentalism interact with society and knowledge, and are there ever any benefits?

I am of the opinion that fundamentalism is seldom beneficial, no matter what form it takes. While a religious fanatic can channel his fervor into good works (and many certainly have) I do not believe that fundamentalist thinking is necessary or even directly linked with such passion and commitment. As I discuss in relation to the neuroscience of belief, the way of believing that makes one a fundamentalist has more to do with those brain functions that seek closure and resist uncertainty than with the kind of passion and creativity that leads to positive change or great discoveries. Likewise, scientific progress is far more profoundly linked to creativity than to belief in the ultimate nature of the reality one is busy discovering.

Q: What is the role of faith in religious moderation?

Today's atheist critics ridicule faith as "belief without evidence." For a religious moderate, on the contrary, faith is more like "belief where there can be no evidence." Religious moderates recognize that we often stake claims to knowledge where what we in fact have are more or less justified beliefs. Faith for religious moderates is a constant reminder that human knowledge is always capable of improvement, of progress, that there is always something more, something other to know.

Q: How do you envision a future in which religious moderation is practiced?

Will religious moderation be practiced more or less in the future? In many ways the survival of societies committed to the values of tolerance, progress, and the peaceful exchange of ideas depends on the answer to that question. What I am convinced of—and this is the primary reason why I wrote this book—is that the outrage that drives my secularist colleagues to decry all religious expression as equally noxious to politics and scientific progress will ultimately do nothing to reduce the sway of fundamentalist thinking and, at worst, will do much to bolster it. Nothing has provided religious fundamentalism more fuel, more of a raison d'être, than the impression of a world war between faith and reason—a war that the current crop of atheists is intent on inciting and profiting from.
Thanks William!

It's an important subject.  I'll read it more attentively later today. 
William, your ideas have a lot to recommend them.  But there may be somewhat of a stumbling block in there someplace, though I may need to be educated about codes to resolve my confusions, I’m just a hobbyist here.

How do we know that there exist codes, or a “code of codes” in the first place?  By thinking.  They’re unavailable to the senses, not apparent in the real world.  But once we suspend the thinking process, as we periodically must to become healthy actors in the objective world, thought-things begin loosing substance, including the thought objects we call codes.

It would be only partially accurate to say that the real world can conform to only one code at a time.  Strictly, there can be no code at all.  The very notion of codes, multiple or not, implies an arbitrariness that would keep the real world from activating itself.  A subject turning inward that would prevent turning outward.  The world can appear in a schizoid or multi-part code, but only marginally; it has to have enough integrity for decisive action.  Moreover, there must be absolute faith in a single code, or at least ability to bracket out any contradictions it contains.

Skill at moving from a selection of multiple codes to a singular, and onward through the single code to a codeless state is promoted by our great religions, in their mystical elements.  They claim that when we are without codes, then reality will appear, or at least the closest approximation to a situational appropriate reality that we can hope for.  I know of nothing to make me doubt that possibility, or doubt the proposition’s merit.

So, I just wonder how sustainable it is to keep in the mind more than one code at once.  The ability to think and weigh varying codes is certainly necessary for tolerance, but they all have to shuffle into a single code eventually.  If the codes existing for thought have been acted upon by thought in a certain way, then the traces of the multiple codes will result in a newly tolerant, encompassing code, and tolerant in the specific ways thought has previously acted upon them.

And then, perhaps, automatic tolerant conduct, but only a single tollerant code, or eventually none.

It seems that a theory of codes would have to account for the flexibility we have in accepting, deleting, or consolidating them.
Join the Community
Full Name:
Your Email:
New Password:
I Am:
By registering at, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Discussion info
Latest Post: November 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM
Number of posts: 3
Spans 2 days
People participating

No results found.