Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 17, 2009 15:00:53 GMT
Here's an interesting discussion with John Gray (Former Professor of European Thought at the LSE).
He then goes on to identify different types of atheism (he himself is an admirer of Schopenhauer, is a sort of anti-humanist, and in category 2)
I think we do see all these different themes , in particular in the recent discussion on James's article. For example the idea of toleration is actively despised. Although lip service is given to people 'being allowed to think what they want as long as they keep it to themselves', toleration is really seen as an unnecessary burden. Mostly we see type one, hence the insistence that science and religion are incompatible (methodological naturalism being conflated with philosophical naturalism)
New Atheism, in Gray's view, is a cruder version of 19th-century Positivism, the philosophical position holding that the only real knowledge is knowledge acquired through the senses. It's hard materialism, in other words, one that regards metaphysical discussion as simply a matter of subjective preference. In the 19th century, intellectuals generally believed that religion was a phenomenon emerging out of primitive ignorance, a way of knowing that should be discarded in light of science and rationality. This is the basic position of Dawkins et alia, according to Gray
Here's a big problem, though: Liberals in the media take this positivist stance as a normative description of reality, and don't inquire about the connection between atheism, values and politics. And here we get into some very interesting territory, where it is understandable why the New Atheists suppress, consciously or not, the way atheism in power actually acted out its values. The key point, which I get into after the jump: There is no logical connection between atheism and liberalism -- in the sense that all of us in the modern West are liberals -- and in fact, the bedrock institutions of liberalism come out of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Gray says the Positivists were anti-liberal. Some were fiercely intolerant, because they believed that all knowledge could and should become scientific. Science seeks absolute, clear and logical truth, so once social truth is rationally arrived at, why should we tolerate error? (Compare this, by the way, to the anti-liberal Leo XIII's assertion that "error has no rights" -- a formulation that the Second Vatican Council elegantly reinterpreted to mean that error may have no rights, but human beings do). Gray said the original Positivists hated individualism and critical thinking, and believed that a universal convergence of scientific truth would also mean a convergence of values.
Today, the New Atheists believe that science and materialism will bring us to liberal values of the sort endorsed by Western journalists and academics. But there is no reason to believe this. Correlation is not causation. That New Atheists among us tend to be political and cultural liberals is interesting, but there is no causal link to their atheism. In fact -- and I found this quite interesting -- the atheism we have today is remarkable in how it mimics monotheism in its pattern of thinking -- especially in its view that history is a narrative process of unfolding enlightenment. Anybody who persists in remaining endarkened have to be marginalized and silenced.
Here's a big problem, though: Liberals in the media take this positivist stance as a normative description of reality, and don't inquire about the connection between atheism, values and politics. And here we get into some very interesting territory, where it is understandable why the New Atheists suppress, consciously or not, the way atheism in power actually acted out its values. The key point, which I get into after the jump: There is no logical connection between atheism and liberalism -- in the sense that all of us in the modern West are liberals -- and in fact, the bedrock institutions of liberalism come out of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Gray says the Positivists were anti-liberal. Some were fiercely intolerant, because they believed that all knowledge could and should become scientific. Science seeks absolute, clear and logical truth, so once social truth is rationally arrived at, why should we tolerate error? (Compare this, by the way, to the anti-liberal Leo XIII's assertion that "error has no rights" -- a formulation that the Second Vatican Council elegantly reinterpreted to mean that error may have no rights, but human beings do). Gray said the original Positivists hated individualism and critical thinking, and believed that a universal convergence of scientific truth would also mean a convergence of values.
Today, the New Atheists believe that science and materialism will bring us to liberal values of the sort endorsed by Western journalists and academics. But there is no reason to believe this. Correlation is not causation. That New Atheists among us tend to be political and cultural liberals is interesting, but there is no causal link to their atheism. In fact -- and I found this quite interesting -- the atheism we have today is remarkable in how it mimics monotheism in its pattern of thinking -- especially in its view that history is a narrative process of unfolding enlightenment. Anybody who persists in remaining endarkened have to be marginalized and silenced.
He then goes on to identify different types of atheism (he himself is an admirer of Schopenhauer, is a sort of anti-humanist, and in category 2)
1. Science-Oriented Atheism. An atheism that grounds itself in scientific modes of understanding, and the discourse of science. My notes are unclear on this point, so I won't say anything more.
2. Ultra-Protestant Atheism. This kind of atheism rests strongly on the idea of individual autonomy, and holds that one shouldn't take anything on authority. Gray thinks this is rooted in Protestantism.
3. Non-Humanist Atheism. Arthur Schopenhauer, Gray says, is a good example of this orientation. Schopenhauer didn't like Christianity or the churches, but he also believed that atheism is its own thing, and owes nothing to science. Science and atheism are, to use Stephen Jay Gould's phrase, "non-overlapping magisteria." One doesn't have anything to do with the other. (It's my sense from reading Gray's work that this would describe his own position -- this, combined with Naturalistic Atheism, see below.)
4. Anti-Liberal Atheism. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example. It as actively anti-liberal, and contemptuous of liberal values. In Gray's view, this is completely logical. Liberal values - ideals of toleration - come straight out of Judaism and Christianity, says Gray. Nietzsche viciously attacked liberalism precisely because of its Christian values (it pitied the weak, for example, and was a slave religion that honored what was contemptible in man, in Nietzsche's view).
5. Naturalistic Atheism. The idea that religion is a normal part of life, that if you try to eliminate the religious sense from life, you're going to get repression of natural instincts. It's a benign or favorable attitude toward religion as a natural expression of what it means to be human. It's interesting to reflect, says Gray, on how atheist regimes -- Revolutionary France, Soviet Russia, the Third Reich -- have quickly adapted a secular sacerdotal gloss, becoming political religions with their own pantheons of saints and sacraments, to speak to the religious sense within man. This sort of atheist isn't threatened by religion, and in fact sees religion as satisfying an important instinct within human beings -- but it must be kept in its place.
2. Ultra-Protestant Atheism. This kind of atheism rests strongly on the idea of individual autonomy, and holds that one shouldn't take anything on authority. Gray thinks this is rooted in Protestantism.
3. Non-Humanist Atheism. Arthur Schopenhauer, Gray says, is a good example of this orientation. Schopenhauer didn't like Christianity or the churches, but he also believed that atheism is its own thing, and owes nothing to science. Science and atheism are, to use Stephen Jay Gould's phrase, "non-overlapping magisteria." One doesn't have anything to do with the other. (It's my sense from reading Gray's work that this would describe his own position -- this, combined with Naturalistic Atheism, see below.)
4. Anti-Liberal Atheism. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example. It as actively anti-liberal, and contemptuous of liberal values. In Gray's view, this is completely logical. Liberal values - ideals of toleration - come straight out of Judaism and Christianity, says Gray. Nietzsche viciously attacked liberalism precisely because of its Christian values (it pitied the weak, for example, and was a slave religion that honored what was contemptible in man, in Nietzsche's view).
5. Naturalistic Atheism. The idea that religion is a normal part of life, that if you try to eliminate the religious sense from life, you're going to get repression of natural instincts. It's a benign or favorable attitude toward religion as a natural expression of what it means to be human. It's interesting to reflect, says Gray, on how atheist regimes -- Revolutionary France, Soviet Russia, the Third Reich -- have quickly adapted a secular sacerdotal gloss, becoming political religions with their own pantheons of saints and sacraments, to speak to the religious sense within man. This sort of atheist isn't threatened by religion, and in fact sees religion as satisfying an important instinct within human beings -- but it must be kept in its place.
I think we do see all these different themes , in particular in the recent discussion on James's article. For example the idea of toleration is actively despised. Although lip service is given to people 'being allowed to think what they want as long as they keep it to themselves', toleration is really seen as an unnecessary burden. Mostly we see type one, hence the insistence that science and religion are incompatible (methodological naturalism being conflated with philosophical naturalism)
