A few decades ago, now, Rorty penned an essay, "Is Religion a Conversation-Stopper?" I think his instinct was correct, but his execution uncharacteristically abominable. Instead of answering the question, he complained of the oppression of the agnostics in American life, and there's no way to do that, especially with his profile, and hot come off whiny.
The point -- and it's one that Compositionists would do well to learn -- is that conversation in the public square is not a matter of marshaling one's evidence. and especially not of announcing ad nauseam one's identity, but if finding a language common to the collective, which in the US case happens to be extremely diverse. Here, I think Rorty's intellectual father William James is useful for teaching how to avoid distinctions that do not mane any significant difference.
Richard Rorty was the most intellectually dishonest philosopher of my experience. He called himself a "pragmatist," but his Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature was a manifesto for postmodernism.
Religion is often used as a "conversation stopper," but it could be a conversation starter. For instance, many of those who shout the loudest about the "invasion" at our southern border, and the need for rigorous measures against the "invaders," will often tout their supposed Christian devotion. Has anyone seriously attempted to engage them about what their own scriptures say about charity towards the "sojourner" (e.g. Exodus 23:9)?
A few decades ago, now, Rorty penned an essay, "Is Religion a Conversation-Stopper?" I think his instinct was correct, but his execution uncharacteristically abominable. Instead of answering the question, he complained of the oppression of the agnostics in American life, and there's no way to do that, especially with his profile, and hot come off whiny.
The point -- and it's one that Compositionists would do well to learn -- is that conversation in the public square is not a matter of marshaling one's evidence. and especially not of announcing ad nauseam one's identity, but if finding a language common to the collective, which in the US case happens to be extremely diverse. Here, I think Rorty's intellectual father William James is useful for teaching how to avoid distinctions that do not mane any significant difference.
Richard Rorty was the most intellectually dishonest philosopher of my experience. He called himself a "pragmatist," but his Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature was a manifesto for postmodernism.
Religion is often used as a "conversation stopper," but it could be a conversation starter. For instance, many of those who shout the loudest about the "invasion" at our southern border, and the need for rigorous measures against the "invaders," will often tout their supposed Christian devotion. Has anyone seriously attempted to engage them about what their own scriptures say about charity towards the "sojourner" (e.g. Exodus 23:9)?