I enjoy reading Peter's exposees, and his way of making a simple statement. I wonder, if here he realised when writing the last paragraph about Moorehouse, that he not only exposed Realism as a fraud but also Religion / Christianity, which has not had a better record in preventing wars than realism.

Dear Peter, I think your comment “Evil is indelible in human nature”, sums it all up really.

Since the formation of the very first human societies this has been the case. The more complex our societies have become, the more rules we have implemented to mitigate our evil.

If we were to count the rules they would probably run into the tens of millions. We have social rules, political rules, economic rules, ecological rules, scientific rules. Many of these are legally enforceable. In addition, in the last two thousand years we have developed 34,000 registered religions and their associated rules.

This leaves us with inherent human evil versus tens of millions of human rules and the winner is?

Do you seek to insert “rationality” as probable cause of this human condition? Or is there a case that the “socialization” of rationality and subsequent rules, has become an inhibitor to human progress?

The Moorhouse conclusions related to the “deficits of rationalism” are a malicious misrepresentation. They are not deficits of rationalism at all, they are the consequences of socializing or inhibiting rationalism.

Some good meat in the middle but this all gets a bit obtuse and lacks a case or a conclusion.

Good to have you back, Mr Selleck. It's been a while.

But I see that nothing has changed. The hammer of your religion has discovered a nail of rationality in a work of fiction by an Australian author, and you have duly beaten it into the woodwork.

At least you have the courtesy to signal your intentions from the outset:

"This is more than novelised history, Moorhouse spent immense time researching the characters in his novels, almost every person is drawn from history"

With this, you have tried to prise the character of Edith Campbell Berry out of her fictional home, and give her the appearance of real life. Having achieved this, you allow yourself to treat her as a living person, and her foibles as issues that may be addressed by your condescending arm-around-the-shoulder.

"This idealism led her to cling to the League of Nations even after multiple failures in arms talks and attempts to prevent war. There is a naiveté here that is common to rationalists who believe that the world is transparent to human reason and thus changeable"

We are talking about a figment of Mr Moorhouse's imagination, Mr Selleck. A carefully constructed bundle of fictitious characteristics that the novelist uses to generate a story arc. By pretending that she was real, you allow yourself to judge her as a person...

"Edith seems to be a woman who has lost contact with human reality and replaced it with rationality. She has not understood that ideas need not refer to a reality in the world. But despite all her set backs, she clings to the rationalist faith that all is possible"

Ah, there it is - the "rationalist faith".

"In their refusal of Christian faith in the name of reason they refuse also the witness of their own hearts"

Christian faith good; rationalist faith bad. All based on the antics of a colourfully-drawn character in a work of fiction.

Could it be that you have overlooked the essential nature of novel-writing?

Altogether, an argument built on sand, with the tide due in any minute.

Pericles has beaten me to it, but my point is the same: so what? If a Catholic writes fiction that depicts rationalists in a bad light, what is this supposed to prove, exactly?

You're way past clutching at straws, Peter: now you're simply clutching at nothing and pretending there's a straw there.

PS: Any novel which depicts a 'torrid one night stand with a Canberra bureaucrat' is plainly a work of fantasy anyway.

Rationalism alone must inexorably lead to despair and chaos.

It is beginning to dawn on more and more people that if it is true that this universe has simply spontaneously come into existence without any intention or purpose then rationally assessed, ultimately there really are no rules, there is no better (or worse), and nothing really matters.

Meanwhile of course every war that has ever been fought by Christian nations against each other including both world wars, by the many Christian factions within each country, via the process of brutal colonial expansion, and more recently via the invasion of Iraq and the now never ending "war on terror", has always been supported by the ecclesiastical establishments of their time and place.

Right-wing or "conservative" Christians have always beaten the drums of war very loudly. They still do so. One such war drum beater was featured on yesterdays forum.

It's interesting that it was the UN through it's inspectors that acted as an impediment to the U.S.'s push for the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
George W. Bush, however, cited his messages from "God" as a powerful impulse to override the rational conclusions of the inspectors and invade anyway.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

*ultimately there really are no rules, there is no better (or worse), and nothing really matters.*

The problem JP, is that this also creates a wonderful feeding
ground for religious snake oil salesmen, to then claim only they
know what matters. I think I'll stick to the rational.

The mind has some terrible limitations. As in, it cannot. Necessary as rationalism is for survival, reason isn’t everything. In the big picture, it is a small ingredient. Merely an asset, a monkey tool.

Had you considered, Jon J, that the article merely had a typo and should have read "a horrid one night stand with a Canberra bureaucrat"?

I hesitate to suggest a correction to Pericles' comments... But after, "Christian faith good; rationalist faith bad" wouldn't "Both based on the antics of colourfully-drawn characters in works of fiction" have been more accurate?

Maybe I'm doing Mr Sellick a disservice in imagining he yearns for a return to the irrationalist days which must have been 'adequate to the challenges of transforming the world' of, say, Oliver Cromwell?

Maybe not?

It also just occurred to me that Frank Moorhouse is (or was) sexually active and openly bisexual, so presumably by Peter's standards he's a miserable sinner and can't possibly have anything useful or important to say about anything. You should be out stoning him to death, Peter, not praising his fiction.

But if nothing really matters Yabby, why do you bother with participating in these forums?

But frittering away your time doing this until you die and go into oblivion is as "good" as doing anything else, I guess.

Hi JP, we haven’t met before or a least crossed swords so, Hi, I’m pleased to meet you. Well, when I say “met” of course I’m speaking metaphorically.

So, having pointed to some tens of millions of human created rules across seven human domains, created over the last eight millennia your response is, “ultimately there really are no rules”.

This really is excellent analysis however, for the benefit of those on OLO that are not doing banned substances, could you please explain?

If you feel the need to keep speaking in “fradgedongle” don’t worry; a few OLOer’s here still keep our “Babel fish” handy.

For further assistance you can call me on……. You know, nudge, nudge, eh!

If you are obsessive compulsive – Press “1” repeatedly

If you are co-dependent - ask someone to press “2” for you

If you have multiple personalities – Press 3, 4, 5 and 6

If paranoid – we know where you are and what you want, stay on the line and we will trace your call.

If you are delusional – press “7” and you will be transferred to the “Mother Ship”

If you are schizophrenic – listen very carefully and a small voice will tell you what number to press.

If you are depressive – It doesn’t matter what key you press, no one will answer you.

If you are dyslexic – press 69,69,69,69.

If you have a nervous disorder – please fidget with the “#” key until you hear the “Beep”, after the “Beep” please wait for the “Beep”

If you have short term memory loss – please try again later.

If you have low self esteem – please hang up now because all our operators are too busy to take your call.

Many thanks.

*But if nothing really matters Yabby, why do you bother with participating in these forums?*

Ah JP, but that is up to me to decide what matters and why.
Far better then falling for the snakeoil, as millions do.

As it happens I am in the fortunate position of being able to
spend some time doing the things I want to do, rather then
the things that I have to do. Time on OLO is something I enjoy.

I also have a great deal of empathy for those who suffer from
poverty, hunger and misery, inflicted on them by the dogma
of the snakeoil salesmen. So I mention it here, when the
topic comes up for discussion.

Yes Spindoc, of course people have made up plenty of rules, but ultimately none of them are of any consequence. If a person has the inclination and is clever enough they can largely ignore these rules and die untouched by any penalty of the law. (see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7544 If you can get away with it, just do it)

Yabby, without wanting to appear rude, I have to ask, if nothing really matters, why should anyone care what you think about anything?

An interesting article, though raising more questions than answers, but its being drawn from a work of fiction should not dissuade serious attention - after all, part of the purpose of better fiction and drama is to provoke review and introspection, an evaluation of possibilities. Rejection on the basis of a perceived 'religious' interest is also a convenient cop-out, an avoidance of reasoned evaluation.

In so many ways the 'ideal' human condition appears to defy prescription, and to defy attainment - although it is the ultimate quest, or should be, and without which the chronicle of human savagery appears set to continue unabated millennium beyond millennium. And what is this ideal, if not the attainment of peaceful and harmonious coexistence, cooperation and collaboration in a truly sustainable world?

Although the author finds fault with rationalism as a means for attaining perfection in humanity, perhaps this derives from too narrow a view of rationalism, and of its potentials. As the human animal operates as a collaboration of intellect, emotion, tradition, culture and assimilated beliefs, surely attainment of the ideal must encompass a balancing of all of these facets, rather than any attempt to banish or regulate out of existence any facets which prove difficult or contrary. Rather than banishing history, perhaps the world must fully embrace history, accept its messages of failure, and learn from past mistakes in forging a new and sustainable future.

The greatest fault of humanity is competitiveness, and it is this which is most difficult to overcome or redirect - ingrained as it were in the innate survival mechanism, the need to procreate, to attain immortality, and to attain advantage in that interest. The prime question is whether this drive can be directed towards the interests of humanity as a whole, rather than the individual interest. And surely this is the key?

God is not likely to save humankind, but reason - and reason or rationalism in a vacuum will be equally unsuccessful.

Ah JP, you are not rude at all, its a valid question. As I pointed out, what
matters is in the eye of the beholder. Nobody needs to read
a single post of mine, so be it.

As it happens, I think that my posts are quite rational, I also feel empathy without
the potential reward of a ticket to heaven, so its
clearly a part of my genetic makeup. I express what I think and feel,
others are free to make of it what they will.

I also love the gems on OLO that appear now and then, from posters
like Pericles, Divergence, Poirot and Houllie. As I am not bogged down by dogma,
my mind is open to any new ideas and thoughts, especially if based on
the rational rather then the supernatural. I tend to learn something new,
nearly every single day, which is for me, part of what it is
all about for me. I've come along way in terms of understanding the
world, in comparison to the wide eyed 5 year old who actually believed
the nonsense that those Catholic nuns tried to brainwash me
with.Thank Allah for that :)

Welcome back Peter, nice to see you writing here again

But, I agree with many of the posters here, a fictional character is not a good basis to demonstrate the shortcomings of a particular worldview.

And just occasionally, a well-meaning and committed individual does change the world for the better. Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, Ghandi ...

By all means let’s have a realistic anthropology, but humanity is capable of great good as well as great evil. An overly pessimistic anthropology can lead to quietism and despair in the face of evil

All good points, Saltpetre.

>>...its being drawn from a work of fiction should not dissuade serious attention - after all, part of the purpose of better fiction and drama is to provoke review and introspection, an evaluation of possibilities. Rejection on the basis of a perceived 'religious' interest is also a convenient cop-out, an avoidance of reasoned evaluation.<<

Although, I'm not sure that anyone here has "rejected" the text, have they?

>>Although the author finds fault with rationalism as a means for attaining perfection in humanity...<<

"The author finds fault"? Does he?

What we have is Mr Selleck's opinion that the book is illustrative of the pitfalls and weaknesses of rationalism. Mr Moorehouse's view may be entirely different. In fact, it is difficult to discern any of his views on rationalism from the various interviews with him on the topic of Edith.

http://blog.booktopia.com.au/2011/10/05/

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/interview-frank-moorhouse-20111110-1n7w4.html

The author has written about a rationalist character. Readers are then free to apply their own judgement on the description of that rationalism. Big difference.

"[Interviewer]. What do you hope people take away with them after reading your work?

[Moorehouse] I like to think that my books entertain the reader by working with the world of ideas and at the same time give all the aesthetic pleasures of good story telling."

Yabby – you attribute your empathetic character to your “genetic makeup.” In a materialistic universe isn’t everything we do and think a consequence of our genetic make-up? Other people may influence us but they in turn are simply acting out of their genetic make-up. And “genetic make-up” is just another way of saying that we are the product of molecules interacting according to the laws of physics.

So I take it you are determinist, and if you are right and determinism is true, then all discussion is pointless. (Not that we could stop ourselves doing so though, if that is how the molecules of the universe happen to be arranged at this point.)

JP, I think that genes are all about our potential, they then
interact with our environment, to make us whom we are.

JP might have it in his genetic potential to be a great brain
surgeon, or maybe not. Without him doing the course, we'll never
know. Perhaps JP simply hasn't got the hand-eye coordination skills
required, to ever be so.

As to empathy, we can show that it exists in various primates, for
its evolution makes perfect sense in social species. It assists
the species as a whole to survive. So I think its quite reasonable
to assume that its a genetic characteristic, with some variation
within the population in terms of its expression.

Rhian,
I agree with most of your comment and also with another that says the my article raises more questions than answers. In under a thousand words I just wanted to point out an aspect of rationalism that is hopelessly pollyannaish. I do not think that we should lapse into quietism but we should, if we want to do good things, have an understanding of what we are up against.
Peter

JP, more and more curious.

Whether it be nobler in the mind to address the question and appear informed, or to ignore the question and be confirmed as a dipstick?

So, as you say, “of course people have made up plenty of rules”, which was in response to ““ultimately there really are no rules”. The contradiction is of course, still in the box?

It is difficult to avoid the Gillard Defense of “alas you dysfunctional cretins have misunderstood the meaning of what I actually said or have utterly failed to use your intellect to accurately interpret the “meaning” of what was said”

We on OLO can be eternally grateful for the wisdom that directs us to a new understanding of pseudo-truth. Without your direction we would be eternally consigned to a world of reality. A future laced with sixth form, student debate level, and inconsequential drivel.

Thank you so much for your analysis, I’ve waited some 66 years for someone, anyone, who can offer an explanation of the universe. Well done JP.

Yes, JP, ultimately - when the universe suffers a heat death or collapses back in on its self or whatever happens tens or hundreds of billions years down the track - none of this will have mattered at all.

But so what?

It at least matters to us now and either way, none of this says anything about whether or not a God actually exists, so I don’t know why you bother continuing down this track unless this is some sort of a “My worldview’s better than yours” thing.

Do you think that this means your religious worldview is somehow more deep or meaningful or has more value? The fact that the ultimate meaning and purpose in your religious worldview is unsubstantiated actually makes it less so - not to mention dangerous, ironically. Yet it seems, according to your philosophy, that if Gods and an afterlife don’t exist, then we’d be wise to invent them and convince ourselves of the truth of them regardless.

What a dishonest and shallow philosophy to have on life.

Thanks for your musings, Peter Sellick, but rather than making your Calvinist anti-rationalism look like a genuine alternative, by fleshing out the doctrine of Messianism you seem to favour, you summarily demonise rationalism. Without depth, your position looks like defeatism; resignation to a purgatorial human condition, rather than faith in hermeneutical destiny; that is, "a protological-eschatological perspective of meaning-disclosure" that guides but also transcends foundationless-rationalism. The trouble with rationalism, after all, is it's indifferent. Yet rather than being objective, it adapts to and serves any ideology that comes along. Liberal-rationalism, for instance, rationalises the free market--but anything can be rationalised. So, follow-up articles that argue the flaws and even futility in Enlightenment though, and the benefits of following a pre-ordained destiny, are in order.
For myself, I'm persuaded that humanism is the way to go, but that we need to devote rationalism to a revised and reflexive ethical agenda. Would you have it that we'd ignored the plague, and all the other ills that flesh is heir to? Beseeched God rather than sought a cure? It seems to me our bridges were burned when we were necessarily ejected from the garden of Eden, and all the evidence since then suggests God's grace won't help us on Earth. We have to help ourselves, to use those great brains God gave us??

In any case, unless you go into some theological depth, you've just propping-up a straw-man for your opponents to knock down.

rationality alone is inadequate to the challenges of transforming the world.

We need to stop the transformation that is the challenge.

Sells, a welcome contribution by you again.

Reason without revelation delivers coldhearted rationalism that seeks to fill human deficiency with rationalist groupspeak and associated laws and tribunals. Dangerous stuff.

In my view the Prologue of St John's Gospel is one of the finest pieces of literature written. It places reason, Logos, as a unifying presence through the created universe. It means the universe is understandable and underpins the hope in discovery by man. What is true is good and bound with beauty.

Our story over time displays man has taken up this task of discovery well. However when it is disconnected from the Logos and man places himself at the centre of all, we engage again in the Babel exercise with cold hearted rationalism driving man apart - all for good reason of course!!

In the beginning was the Word (Logos)
The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things came to be;
not one thing had its being but through him.
All that came to be had life in him,
and that life was the light of men.
A light that shines in the dark,
A light that darkness could not overcome .....
... the Word was made flesh, he lived among us.

To believe that a man, Jesus of Nazareth, can be God is a position solely of faith. It is a proposition that can of course be open to a charge of absurdity. Fair enough. It is mystery, but not irrational as He is the Logos, the very reality of reason. Belief in the proposition without the balance of reason, which it contains, can be troublesome as it reflects dogmatic behaviour.

Christians engage in a world that is explainable with reason. That reason is "of God". When reason is cut off from God it is as dangerous and mad as the sectarian / fundamentalist religious behaviour railed against by secular rationalists . They need to move the log from their eye to reflect on Matt 7:3 about their own practice of narrow judgement.

Don't get your hopes up, boxgum -- I suspect that Peter is just as much of a rationalist as the rest of us at heart. I'm sure if he thought he could convince others that his faith was logically defensible, he would be exhorting us to examine the evidence and rationally infer the conclusions it led to. The only problem for him is that it's not.

So how do you manage to spread a belief when you can't convince anyone else that there are reasons to hold it? Why, slander the whole idea of holding rational beliefs, of course. And the fact that nobody has ever accurately explained, predicted, created or designed ANYTHING other than on rational principles gets swept under Peter's increasingly lumpy carpet.

One of the things I find objectionable about the likes of Mr Sellick is the notion that because humanity is fallible, it cannot be improved. While he is busy demonising the work of the various commissions that seek to uphold minimum standards of human behaviour, he seems to forget that this has been, precisely, the role of religion. Theft, murder, adultery, etc all seem to be evolutionary advantages for the strongest of the species; yet religion everywhere has imposed sanctions against these practices with an ultimate arbiter in a vaguely defined yet immensely powerful deity or deities. Why should religions enact such sanctions if there is not, ultimately, some possibility of improving humanity?

If there is one trait that the religious and the rationalist share, it is the belief in the absolute degeneracy of the species. We are equally condemned by past practice and future hopes until we dwell in this middle place, bereft of heroes to inspire us to do better; wallowing in a pathetic resignation of rampant consumerism and political and social apathy, convinced that we can do nothing ourselves to change the world around us.

In addition, one might suggest that the Edith's clinging to the wreckage of the League of Nations may not be as pathetic as it seems- it is the vision of hindsight that presupposes that the failure of the League ultimately gave rise to the UN. Had the League not shown a vision of what could be, the UN would never have happened. If it did nothing else, it at least gave us that. It was people like Edith, who continued working and believing that the League still had something to offer, that kept that dream alive. How sad that people like her can now only be remembered as delusional and pathetic.

That's why I like the Christian Churches. Over 2000 years they have struggled with made an uneasy peace beteween our rational and emotional believs and desires.

They are not so much 'reconcilled', as given harmless avenues to expend their energy.

The irrational parts of man are harnesed to prevent them doing bad, mysticism of the mass and eucharist is far less destructive than the dogma of green or communist orthodoxy.

Meanwhile the rational is given energy and direction by the meaphors of Jesus and etc.

Given the choice between christian dogma and greenie dogma, or worst of all, feminist dogma, I know my children would live safer and more paecefull lives in a world ruled by Christian beliefs!

Jon J,

<So how do you manage to spread a belief when you can't convince anyone else that there are reasons to hold it?>

You pose an interesting question, Jon J, and I am tempted to offer an outlandish response. Coincidentally, I am no theologian, and not very spiritual, so my approach to this is plain, and may or may not be rational, but at least is honest.

Of all the masses of humanity I would venture that the vast majority currently hold a belief in some sort of deity, to whom or to which they have occasion to pray for guidance or for aid or support. Some more regularly and rigorously than others; some only in times of deep distress. (Much prayer may of course be through an antecedent, a Saint or a passed relative - but all such would be meaningless unless founded on a belief in 'something' beyond this mortal coil, something either of soul, of reincarnation, of life eternal, or of God(s); and hence founded on 'something' beyond the mere physical universe.)

Some of course hold such beliefs and activities to be irrational and inconsequential, or as having been 'manufactured' to appease the poor and hopeless masses, the 'workers'. It remains nonetheless that the naysayers are vastly in the minority.

Here surely is an opportunity (potentially) to unite humanity to a common purpose, of the common good, through the forging of a set of universal tenets based on acceptance of a benevolent universal presence (a life-force) embodied in the very spirit and essence of Humankind. The problem of course is the current systemic diversity, the apparent lack of common ground, and the antagonisms of 'special place' or of one God above all others, of sect against sect, movement against movement - but based on rationality, or irrationality?

Atheists and agnostics will never sway the masses, but a cooperative 'reformation' of world belief systems could possibly illuminate a universal path to true enlightenment and the fulfillment of a benevolent, sustainable and enriched human destiny.

The author's argument is sound, but his language is horrid. For every instance of the word "rationality" substitute liberalism, one-worldism, amoralism, nihilism, etc. Then it would make more sense.

Rationality is concerned with the accuracy of knowledge/facts/beliefs. It is value neutral.

Atheists/rationalists/naturalists can have ANY set of values: liberal, conservative, anarchist, whatever.

I happen to agree that liberalism is a sure way to ruin a country, but it doesn't make sense to attack "rationality" when liberalism is the target.

Bren122 : You have missed the point of Sells. Edith worked for good, and such goodness is never lost in the human project. It is more that rationalists put their faith in process. A process to fix man. Man's nastiness is due to either him being a nasty creature driven by self interest ( liberalism) or being good but corrupted by capitalist constructs (socialist).

With a goal of changing such nasty behaviour both apply education (re-education?) and mechanisms of the law made up of a hole new stratum of commissions, tribunals and rights charter overseers. These are new age additions that go beyond the general course of law that pursues justice for crime and antisocial behaviour generally covered by the Decalogue. They cover, in the main, ignorant, fearful and unloving behaviour. Such behaviour is best addressed by the Christian faith that firstly provides a creation story that incorporates a cause of it, and secondly, a salvation story that remedies it. As Chesterton said "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.".

Progressive politics has failed us. The hope of the secularization process has dimmed to a dark night of the soul, with no hope of revealed light for it. Despair is all that is waiting, with the Market having become the prevailing influence on us with its delights addressing our materialist values.

In the meantime we people of God will get on with our service to mankind in our loving way of truth and beauty. Our story gives us understanding and the unfolding truth in the Risen Lord enlightens the path ahead with love and reason.