Ben Selznick '07 needlessly reminded us that there are two realms of discourse " the public and the private ("On Religion," Sept. 28). He then went on to discuss how religion relates to these two realms, presenting two different views on that issue. He gave a charming (but inaccurate) description of the first camp and drew an unfair (and inaccurate) caricature of the second.
For the sake of argument, let me agree with Selznick that the sphere of public discourse should function as "a forum for rational, scientific argument in which the not provable is not acceptable." Then allow me to suggest the following. Firstly, we should cease to talk about peace and justice. They are concepts that we like to promote and uphold. We believe in their importance. We are really passionate about them. But they can't stand the scrutiny of pure logic.
Secondly, we should not say that life has originated from inorganic substances. Under delicate laboratory conditions, we may be able to reproduce organic compounds from inorganic substances. But that does not mean that life has originated in the same way. The origin of life is strictly not provable.
Thirdly, we should stop talking about human rights. They exist because of our Constitution and social convention. We think human rights are really important. We are passionate about protecting them. But again, human rights cannot withstand the scrutiny of pure logic, especially if evolution continues to tell us that human beings have as much dignity as a piece of rock. We can't "prove" that human rights are inviolable.
Selznick will probably disagree and insist that these issues belong to the public forum. Can we not debate these issues with reason and logic? Then he must make up his mind: either we allow into the public forum only issues that are provable or we allow into the public forum all issues that can discussed rationally. The distinction between these two options may not be obvious, but it is crucial: that which is provable is rational, but that which is rational may not be provable.
I believe Selznick knows that the first option is untenable. The reason logical positivism is no longer popular is that at the foundation of our knowledge are unprovable assumptions. So the only choice left is the second option, which means that there will be issues in the public forum that can be rationally discussed but that are ultimately not provable. Then I don't see why religion is deemed inappropriate for public discourse. I can accept that people dislike to hear or talk about religion. But please don't suggest that religion is irrational. The existence of God may not be provable, but belief in the existence of God is not irrational.
