The Centre for Inquiry Ontario is sponsoring a talk by Austin Dacey (photo below) on Friday night March 7th at the Beverley St. location [THE SECULAR CONSCIENCE: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life]. The talk starts at 7:30 pm and there's a reception for Friends of the Centre at 6pm.I don't like the sound of this. It could be an interesting night.
Austin Dacey, Center for Inquiry's representative to the United Nations will speak in Toronto as one of the first stops on his book release tour.
Secularism has lost its soul. From Washington to the Vatican to Tehran, religion is a public matter as never before, and secular values-personal autonomy, toleration, separation of religion and state, and freedom of conscience-are attacked on all sides and defended by few. The godly claim a monopoly on the language of morality in public debate, while secular liberals stand accused of standing for nothing. Secular liberals have undone themselves. For generations, too many have insisted that questions of conscience-religion, ethics, and values-are "private matters" that have no place in public debate. Ironically, this ideology prevents them from subjecting religion to due scrutiny when it encroaches on individual rights, and from unabashedly advocating their own moral vision in politics for fear of "imposing" their beliefs on others.
In this incisive book, philosopher Austin Dacey calls for a bold rethinking of the nature of conscience and its role in public life. Inspired by an earlier liberal tradition he traces to Spinoza and John Stuart Mill, Dacey urges liberals to lift their self-imposed gag order and
defend a renewed secularism based on the objective moral value of conscience. He likens conscience to the free press in an open society: it is protected from coercion and control, not because it is private, but because it has a vital role in the public sphere. Conscience is free, but not liberated from shared standards of truth and right.
The Secular Conscience will be published by Prometheus Books in March 2008. In spring 2008, the author will bring his timely message directly to secularists, humanists, and skeptics. One of his first stops will be at the Centre for Inquiry Ontario in Toronto.
Austin Dacey, Ph.D., is a philosopher with the Center for Inquiry in New York City, where he serves as United Nations representative and a contributing editor at Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry magazines. He teaches philosophy, ethics, and science education at Polytechnic University and State University of New York. He is the author of articles in numerous publications including the New York Times. His website is www.austindacey.com.
[Photo Credit: austindacey.com]
3 comments :
For generations, too many have insisted that questions of conscience-religion, ethics, and values-are "private matters" that have no place in public debate.
...
Dacey urges liberals to lift their self-imposed gag order and defend a renewed secularism based on the objective moral value of conscience.
Huh? I am all for the discussion of objective moral values when relevant to public issues. I was not aware that there was ever any gag order in place. The problem as I see it is that many religious people cannot distinguish between "objective" values and those they hold due to religious dogma. They think if it is written in the Bible, that is all the justification they need to supply. Have I misunderstood Dacey's position?
For generations, too many have insisted that questions of conscience-religion, ethics, and values-are "private matters" that have no place in public debate.
So Dacey has noted the complaints and successes of Dawkins et al. And now, philosophy to the rescue!
Dacey urges liberals to lift their self-imposed gag order and
defend a renewed secularism based on the objective moral value of conscience. He likens conscience to the free press in an open society:
Well, at least he has an independent idea, instead of "framing" the issue. But for the rest, see Bayesian Bouffant; "conscience" as discussed by a philosopher is too close to ethics instead of morals, and "con science" instead of (say Dawkins) science, to lure me. :-P
I was at the talk last night, and I thought it was very good.
yes, we have heard some of the arguments before, and it was obvious most of the people may have been in agreement about Dacey's statements before they stepped in.
Perhaps the synopsis doesn't do the talk justice; I felt a large portion of Dacey's talk was given to understanding that the moral-relativist-liberal-left is the segment of society with the self-imposed gag order.
Private worship and private beliefs become translated all too often into silence out of "respect" when someone in the public square declares their beliefs. Secularists of all stripes need to be able to critique religious beliefs without worrying of being branded 'intolerant'.
Yes, Dawkins has said it too, and Dacey is right to repeat it.
Post a Comment