When Diversity Is Wrong
Forcing more religion on philosophy doesn’t make it more diverse
We take religion too seriously. If all religions are false (if one
is true, which one?), then they should all be excluded from public life,
especially our truth-seeking public life in the sciences (including
engineering), in mathematics, and in philosophy. Therefore calls that we be forced to include more
religion are calls for less truth and hence for more disaster, more
tragedy, and more heart ache. Just as would be calls that we include
more astrology in our public lives.
Philosophy is the search for truth. Let’s begin with this. Of course, philosophy being the weird discipline that it is, many will deny that philosophy is the search for truth. Some will deny that there is any truth to be found! But in this blog, that philosophy is such a search is explicitly stated upfront, as an assumption. And it is a reasonable assumption. Nevertheless, it takes us to a place most don’t want to inhabit. Here’s how.
1. Why do I say philosophy is weird? It has made no progress whatsoever from the beginning. Humans were likely doing philosophy 100,000 years ago — perhaps as early as 200,000 years ago. And we’ve made no progress since then. For proof and amplification, see Dietrich, 2011 (listed below).
Quick version of the proof: All philosophy departments teach courses on the works of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, etc. Such courses are not history courses. The students in those courses engage, e.g., Plato’s works directly; they do not study them as one might study the works of Archimedes, Euclid, Cardano, Galileo, Newton, Gauss, etc. (long dead famous mathematicians). Plato & co. are everyone’s contemporaries. Compare, e.g., physics, which does make progress. Einstein’s 1916 paper on General Relativity is of interest only to science historians. General Relativity is a vitally important scientific theory. But when physics students today are taught GR, mathematical methods unknown to Einstein are used instead of Einstein’s cumbersome tensors. Also, GR is now taught in the context of the many experiments that support it. No one reads Einstein’s 1916 paper to learn GR. Einstein is not our contemporary precisely because physics advances; but Plato is our contemporary.
So what we have now is that philosophy is a search for truth that has made no progress in the last 100 millennia or so. (What this means for philosophy is a complicated topic for some other day.)
Given this, frustration runs high. After such a long time of repeated failures — “Here at last is the Truth! . . . Oh drat, no, we were wrong, again!” — it is no wonder some philosophers have given up and deny that there is any truth to find.
But philosophy is the search for truth.
2. Humans are great denialists: we aren’t African apes, there’s no global warming, smoking is perfectly healthy, guns are required for safety, vaccines are bad, . . . And the one large denialist claim funding much misery and which is under scrutiny here: All religions must be taken seriously because they are all true.
Philosophers are human (by and large). So, the cause of philosophers’ frustration (no progress) is denied (often vociferously: my 2011 paper generated a lot of sharp and unhappy email). Instead, the cause is located elsewhere. This has given us Logical Empiricism, Critical Theory, Deconstructionism, Quietism (the view that philosophy has no positive thesis to contribute), disquotational or see-through truth, and now, an article in the New York Times by Jay Garfield and Bryan Van Norden. Garfield and Van Norden argue that diversity is the new key, finally, to solving the problems of philosophy (“If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call What It Really Is.” The Stone, NYT, May 11, 2016.) In their article, Garfield and Van Norden conclude: “We therefore suggest that any department that regularly offers courses only on Western philosophy should rename itself ‘Department of European and American Philosophy.’ ”
Garfield and Van Norden also say “. . . but philosophy has always become richer as it becomes increasingly diverse and pluralistic.” Why does philosophy have to be richer? Because it doesn’t make any progress, though Garfield and Van Norden would deny this. (Note, too, that "richer" simply means “more diverse” so this statement of theirs doesn't say much.)
In a key passage, they state:
3. How do Garfield and Van Norden propose to increase diversity? By requiring (forcing, they actually say!) the offering of non-European and non-American “philosophy” courses. But specifically, Garfield and Van Norden would require including more religion. For example, reading the Bhagavad Gita (an important Hindu religious text) as often as Plato’s Republic, and offering more courses in Islamic, Jewish, and Buddhist, and Native American Religious thinking.
How does infusing philosophy with more religion make philosophy more diverse? It doesn’t. All religions are false — every one of them. They are an African ape’s evolutionary adaptation for imposing order and structure on a very difficult and dangerous world. And this adaptation is part of our DNA. Imagine an article in the New York Times suggesting that astronomy become more inclusive by including astrology. Or that biology become more diverse by including creationism. Such a suggestion would be roundly ignored.
But not when it comes to religion. Here, regarding this most dangerous of human beliefs, many insist that all minds must be wide open to receiving religion in its many guises. Truth, to the extent that there is any, is thrown to the wolves: it can try to eke out an existence on the scraps such rampant relativism would leave behind.
Do religions have “philosophies”? Of course. But so do astrology, creationism, UFO-ism, and global-warming-denialism. Does this mean that we should include in the philosophical canon the “philosophies” of astrology, creationism, etc.? No, of course not. Why? Because philosophy is the search for truth. And no religion is true. And so, no religion is likely to supply any deep truths. And if one did, this would be purely by accident.
It is acknowledged among scientists studying religion that religion partly results from magical thinking: seeing agents and intention behind certain significant events in our lives that are due to chance or the mechanics of our world. Do we want magical thinking forced to be a part of our philosophy? No. Why? Because philosophy is the search for truth.
Does philosophy need more diversity? Yes. We need a diverse collection of logically and scientifically knowledgeable people doing philosophy. Philosophy needs to establish stronger bonds with science and math (few serious scientific researchers take philosophy – real philosophy – seriously, unfortunately). But do we need more religion? Philosophy needs more religion in the exact amount that astronomy needs more astrology.
Philosophy is the search for truth. Let’s begin with this. Of course, philosophy being the weird discipline that it is, many will deny that philosophy is the search for truth. Some will deny that there is any truth to be found! But in this blog, that philosophy is such a search is explicitly stated upfront, as an assumption. And it is a reasonable assumption. Nevertheless, it takes us to a place most don’t want to inhabit. Here’s how.
1. Why do I say philosophy is weird? It has made no progress whatsoever from the beginning. Humans were likely doing philosophy 100,000 years ago — perhaps as early as 200,000 years ago. And we’ve made no progress since then. For proof and amplification, see Dietrich, 2011 (listed below).
Quick version of the proof: All philosophy departments teach courses on the works of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, etc. Such courses are not history courses. The students in those courses engage, e.g., Plato’s works directly; they do not study them as one might study the works of Archimedes, Euclid, Cardano, Galileo, Newton, Gauss, etc. (long dead famous mathematicians). Plato & co. are everyone’s contemporaries. Compare, e.g., physics, which does make progress. Einstein’s 1916 paper on General Relativity is of interest only to science historians. General Relativity is a vitally important scientific theory. But when physics students today are taught GR, mathematical methods unknown to Einstein are used instead of Einstein’s cumbersome tensors. Also, GR is now taught in the context of the many experiments that support it. No one reads Einstein’s 1916 paper to learn GR. Einstein is not our contemporary precisely because physics advances; but Plato is our contemporary.
So what we have now is that philosophy is a search for truth that has made no progress in the last 100 millennia or so. (What this means for philosophy is a complicated topic for some other day.)
Given this, frustration runs high. After such a long time of repeated failures — “Here at last is the Truth! . . . Oh drat, no, we were wrong, again!” — it is no wonder some philosophers have given up and deny that there is any truth to find.
But philosophy is the search for truth.
2. Humans are great denialists: we aren’t African apes, there’s no global warming, smoking is perfectly healthy, guns are required for safety, vaccines are bad, . . . And the one large denialist claim funding much misery and which is under scrutiny here: All religions must be taken seriously because they are all true.
Philosophers are human (by and large). So, the cause of philosophers’ frustration (no progress) is denied (often vociferously: my 2011 paper generated a lot of sharp and unhappy email). Instead, the cause is located elsewhere. This has given us Logical Empiricism, Critical Theory, Deconstructionism, Quietism (the view that philosophy has no positive thesis to contribute), disquotational or see-through truth, and now, an article in the New York Times by Jay Garfield and Bryan Van Norden. Garfield and Van Norden argue that diversity is the new key, finally, to solving the problems of philosophy (“If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call What It Really Is.” The Stone, NYT, May 11, 2016.) In their article, Garfield and Van Norden conclude: “We therefore suggest that any department that regularly offers courses only on Western philosophy should rename itself ‘Department of European and American Philosophy.’ ”
Garfield and Van Norden also say “. . . but philosophy has always become richer as it becomes increasingly diverse and pluralistic.” Why does philosophy have to be richer? Because it doesn’t make any progress, though Garfield and Van Norden would deny this. (Note, too, that "richer" simply means “more diverse” so this statement of theirs doesn't say much.)
In a key passage, they state:
“Others might argue against renaming on the
grounds that it is unfair to single out philosophy: We do not have
departments of Euro-American Mathematics or Physics. This is nothing but
shabby sophistry. Non-European philosophical traditions offer
distinctive solutions to problems discussed within European and American
philosophy, raise or frame problems not addressed in the American and
European tradition, or emphasize and discuss more deeply philosophical
problems that are marginalized in Anglo-European philosophy. There are
no comparable differences in how mathematics or physics are practiced in
other contemporary cultures.”
Garfield and Van Norden do not offer any reason why there are no
comparable differences in how mathematics or physics are practiced. But
we know the reason. The reason that there are no comparable
differences in math and the rest of science is that math and science make progress. The difference is NOT
that math and science are truth-seeking disciplines. Philosophy is a
truth-seeking discipline. But philosophy doesn’t make progress. Hence,
its problems don’t get solved, hence frustration mounts, hence
proposals for, among other things, increased diversity.3. How do Garfield and Van Norden propose to increase diversity? By requiring (forcing, they actually say!) the offering of non-European and non-American “philosophy” courses. But specifically, Garfield and Van Norden would require including more religion. For example, reading the Bhagavad Gita (an important Hindu religious text) as often as Plato’s Republic, and offering more courses in Islamic, Jewish, and Buddhist, and Native American Religious thinking.
How does infusing philosophy with more religion make philosophy more diverse? It doesn’t. All religions are false — every one of them. They are an African ape’s evolutionary adaptation for imposing order and structure on a very difficult and dangerous world. And this adaptation is part of our DNA. Imagine an article in the New York Times suggesting that astronomy become more inclusive by including astrology. Or that biology become more diverse by including creationism. Such a suggestion would be roundly ignored.
But not when it comes to religion. Here, regarding this most dangerous of human beliefs, many insist that all minds must be wide open to receiving religion in its many guises. Truth, to the extent that there is any, is thrown to the wolves: it can try to eke out an existence on the scraps such rampant relativism would leave behind.
Do religions have “philosophies”? Of course. But so do astrology, creationism, UFO-ism, and global-warming-denialism. Does this mean that we should include in the philosophical canon the “philosophies” of astrology, creationism, etc.? No, of course not. Why? Because philosophy is the search for truth. And no religion is true. And so, no religion is likely to supply any deep truths. And if one did, this would be purely by accident.
It is acknowledged among scientists studying religion that religion partly results from magical thinking: seeing agents and intention behind certain significant events in our lives that are due to chance or the mechanics of our world. Do we want magical thinking forced to be a part of our philosophy? No. Why? Because philosophy is the search for truth.
Does philosophy need more diversity? Yes. We need a diverse collection of logically and scientifically knowledgeable people doing philosophy. Philosophy needs to establish stronger bonds with science and math (few serious scientific researchers take philosophy – real philosophy – seriously, unfortunately). But do we need more religion? Philosophy needs more religion in the exact amount that astronomy needs more astrology.
