blatham wrote:Hume's time and political circumstances, like Descartes, are not much comparable to the present American situation.
I think it is. David Hume (and Adam Smith) believed that when the production of religion is left to a free market of ideas, that would produce very vibrant and very virulent religions. By contrast, when religion is a government-granted monopoly, they thought the managers of the established religion would become lazy, boring, and moderate. Adam Smith, a non-zealot believer in god, opposed government-established religions on those grounds. Hume, being an atheist, sympathised with government establishments for the same reason.
Blatham wrote: You figure he'd join up with the evangelical right or with the ACLU?
I know too little biographic information about David Hume to be certain. But judging by his work, I guess he would abhor organized politics. If forced at gunpoint to choose between the ACLU and the Religious Right, I'm sure he would rather join the ACLU. But his obvious preference of reasoning over bullying seems so intense to me that he wouldn't have joined either organization unless forced at gunpoint. I guess he'd rather have an Op-Ed column in the New York times. I can see him blog, too. I am fairly certain he would have preferred turning people around by persuading them rather than through political pressure.
Blatham wrote:You inquire 'what's your problem?'. This is a rhetorical move you make quite often. How about, rather than challenging a thesis (which is fine), you advance your own (which is rare).
The "What's your problem" part was meant as a joke. I thought about adding a twinky face, but I mistakenly thought it was obvious enough. The thesis behind the paragraph you attacked is that political movements and institutions often have very different consequences than their proponents intend, and their opponents fear. In particular, I think the intensity of religious zeal in America probably is a direct consequence of the non-establishment clause, which American liberals defend and the Religious Right tries to erode. By contrast, the relative religious apathy in Europe probably is a direct consequence of past and present religious establishments, formal and informal, which American liberals would oppose and the Religious Right would support if somebody tried it in America.
In my humble opinion, that's an interesting point which Hume made, and Smith bought, on theoretical grounds, and which I think the current reality in Europe and America supports. It is also a non-obvious point, judging by the fact that I was unable to communicate it to you on my first try.
Blatham wrote: What do you see being potentially destructive as regards the functioning of the religious right in present America? In other words, why would Hume align himself as I've suggested above?
I don't believe that Hume would align himself as you have suggested above. I believe he would align himself as I suggested above, for the reasons I have given. As to the functioning of the Religious Right, I think it
intends to transform Europe in its image, but I don't think it's going to. For better or worse -- mostly for worse -- I expect the Religious Right's influence to prove similarly limited as the Anti-nuke-movement's influence on American defense politics during the Cold War, or disruptive campus politics by socialist Students in the sixties, or apocalyptic environmentalism in the seventies and eighties, and other comparable movements.
