more on enlightenment, a response to joe
I very much want to get back to the discussion on the Enlightenment and ideology taking place between Thomas and Joe.
Quite awhile back, Joe asked me the following questions: "isn't the anguish that accompanies not knowing, and the associated awareness of one's ignorance, a drive to knowledge? [ . . .] Aren't religious fabrications - with their illegitimate status of truth - a hindrance to knowledge? Will they not lead people to avoid questions and anticipate unfounded answers?"
In a comment prior to this, Joe described religion as "a factor of irrationality which tends to shun rational objections" and I asked whether the source of this dynamic is "really religious belief per se [or rather] a kind of primordial coercion".
First, I do agree that the anguish that accompanies not knowing can be a drive to knowledge. But I can also imagine religious forms of not knowing that drive a spiritual quest. The quest that I'm picturing, however, doesn't concern immediately empirical knowledge but rather questions about, say, the "meaning of being". (E.g., my anguish of not knowing what it means to "love my neighbor" drives me to devote my life or a part of my life to helping the poor).
Second, part of what I meant by a more primordial subjugation underlying religious subjugation is that "a factor of irrationality which tends to shun rational objections" doesn't operate solely within religious contexts. It seems to me every ideology, religious or not, forces discourse to adhere certain irrational and allegedly unobjectionable assertion (i.e., "we're right, even if the facts say otherwise"), and that the Enlightenment is about more than freeing our thought from superstition -- it's about freeing our thought from any kind of ideological subjugation whatsoever.

