habituation, or impulse, rather than reason in such cases? IV. Ideology and systematic distortion practical consciousness"usually inarticulate beliefs, ideas, values, plus"patterns of actions"and"ways of doing things (53) explicit ideology": an articulation of a group's practical consciousness(53), e.g, philosophy, religion, morals, common sense Might be merely"one sided"(54, 55-6), or"imposed"(55-6) Example: Religion. It is"an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. It is also"the opium of the 57) literary ideology the written account of a group's explicit ideology, constructed by intellectuals. It might be"vulgar (simply capturing the commonly held beliefs, without a critique of their distortion), or"political"(an effort to debunk the explicit ideology to reveal their distortion) Examples: (vulgar: Traditional theology, (political: Liberation theology, Marxism Questions 1. Is explicit ideology inevitably "distorted"? Is there always an"imposed"ideology? Is such imposition"intentional"? 2. Is it possible for individuals to"see through"the distortions of their group's ideology? 3. What determines the shape and content of a group's ideology? How do we change existing ideologies? 4. Is science ideological, or is it a route to undistorted understanding? REVIEW OF POSITIONS Mackie: Theism is irrational(because belief in God is inconsistent with the recognition of evil) Clifford: Theism is not warranted by the Wager(because belief must be based on sufficient evidence s) Pascal: Theism is(pragmatically) rationally required(because the EV of theism swamps the alternative James: Theism is rationally permissible but not required ( because it is a genuine option Marx: Theism is ideological (a form of "explicit ideology" )and serves the best interests of those in power. [It may be epistemically permissible, but is not practically wise for those in subordinate positionshabituation, or impulse, rather than reason in such cases? IV. Ideology and Systematic distortion "practical consciousness": usually inarticulate beliefs, ideas, values, plus "patterns of actions" and "ways of doing things" (53) "explicit ideology": an articulation of a group's practical consciousness (53), e.g., philosophy, religion, morals, common sense. Might be merely "one sided" (54, 55-6), or "imposed" (55-6). Example: Religion. It is "an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering." It is also "the opium of the people". (53) (M: 157) "literary ideology": the written account of a group's explicit ideology, constructed by intellectuals. It might be "vulgar" (simply capturing the commonly held beliefs, without a critique of their distortion), or "political" (an effort to debunk the explicit ideology to reveal their distortion). Examples: (vulgar:) Traditional theology, (political:) Liberation theology, Marxism. Questions: 1. Is explicit ideology inevitably "distorted"? Is there always an "imposed" ideology? Is such imposition "intentional"? 2. Is it possible for individuals to "see through" the distortions of their group's ideology? 3. What determines the shape and content of a group's ideology? How do we change existing ideologies? 4. Is science ideological, or is it a route to undistorted understanding? REVIEW OF POSITIONS: Mackie: Theism is irrational (because belief in God is inconsistent with the recognition of evil). Pascal: Theism is (pragmatically) rationally required (because the EV of theism swamps the alternatives). Clifford: Theism is not warranted by the Wager (because belief must be based on sufficient evidence). James: Theism is rationally permissible but not required (because it is a genuine option). Marx: Theism is ideological (a form of "explicit ideology") and serves the best interests of those in power. [It may be epistemically permissible, but is not practically wise for those in subordinate positions.]