|
|
Post by sandwiches on Jun 17, 2013 17:52:17 GMT
Amusing for the reaction it provokes: www.spectator.co.uk/features/8932301/atheism-has-failed-only-religion-can-fight-the-barbarians/Chief Rabbi: atheism has failed.
Only religion can defeat the new barbarians
The West is suffering for its loss of faith. Unless we rediscover religion, our civilisation is in peril
Whatever happened to the intellectual depth of the serious atheists, the forcefulness of Hobbes, the passion of Spinoza, the wit of Voltaire, the world-shattering profundity of Nietzsche? Where is there the remotest sense that they have grappled with the real issues, which have nothing to do with science and the literal meaning of scripture and everything to do with the meaningfulness or otherwise of human life, the existence or non-existence of an objective moral order, the truth or falsity of the idea of human freedom, and the ability or inability of society to survive without the rituals, narratives and shared practices that create and sustain the social bond? |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jun 19, 2013 9:23:37 GMT
Amusing for the reaction it provokes: www.spectator.co.uk/features/8932301/atheism-has-failed-only-religion-can-fight-the-barbarians/Chief Rabbi: atheism has failed.
Only religion can defeat the new barbarians
The West is suffering for its loss of faith. Unless we rediscover religion, our civilisation is in peril
Whatever happened to the intellectual depth of the serious atheists, the forcefulness of Hobbes, the passion of Spinoza, the wit of Voltaire, the world-shattering profundity of Nietzsche? Where is there the remotest sense that they have grappled with the real issues, which have nothing to do with science and the literal meaning of scripture and everything to do with the meaningfulness or otherwise of human life, the existence or non-existence of an objective moral order, the truth or falsity of the idea of human freedom, and the ability or inability of society to survive without the rituals, narratives and shared practices that create and sustain the social bond?The responses were the usual grab-bag. Many of them were more coherent than the Rabbi's article though. I have to say I agree with most of what this response says in critique: iheu.org/story/were-not-terrifying-response-atheism-has-failed |
|
mt
Clerk
Posts: 26
|
Post by mt on Jun 19, 2013 12:26:37 GMT
the wit of Voltaire, the world-shattering profundity of Nietzsche? Meh, I've seen Christian apologists dismiss Voltaire as a shallow unsophisticated satirist and Nietzsche as just a hater of Christianity whose only value is in pointing out how hateful atheism is. |
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Jun 20, 2013 10:11:14 GMT
Amusing for the reaction it provokes: www.spectator.co.uk/features/8932301/atheism-has-failed-only-religion-can-fight-the-barbarians/Chief Rabbi: atheism has failed.
Only religion can defeat the new barbarians
The West is suffering for its loss of faith. Unless we rediscover religion, our civilisation is in peril
Whatever happened to the intellectual depth of the serious atheists, the forcefulness of Hobbes, the passion of Spinoza, the wit of Voltaire, the world-shattering profundity of Nietzsche? Where is there the remotest sense that they have grappled with the real issues, which have nothing to do with science and the literal meaning of scripture and everything to do with the meaningfulness or otherwise of human life, the existence or non-existence of an objective moral order, the truth or falsity of the idea of human freedom, and the ability or inability of society to survive without the rituals, narratives and shared practices that create and sustain the social bond?The responses were the usual grab-bag. Many of them were more coherent than the Rabbi's article though. I have to say I agree with most of what this response says in critique: iheu.org/story/were-not-terrifying-response-atheism-has-failed Lee's excellent response shows Sacks tired rehash of discredited arguments to be the unfounded fears of a man representing a group that is unwilling or unable to adapt to the world in the 21st century where it's influence will inevitably decline,which one can posit is the real source of his anxieties. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 20, 2013 13:01:22 GMT
Sacks tired rehash of discredited arguments to be the unfounded fears of a man representing a group that is unwilling or unable to adapt to the world in the 21st century where it's influence will inevitably decline,which one can posit is the real source of his anxieties. Rather than guess the Rabbi's hidden motives, I think I would prefer to say he wrote that stuff because that's what he believed. We may each decide to agree or disagree with him, and with your prediction of the future. It will be no surprise to you that I found a lot to agree with in his analysis, though certainly not all - in the end, he seemed to treat religious belief as a sociological phenomenon in which it didn't matter whether the belief was actually true, and hence it would all "work" in the way he said regardless of whether the belief was Judaism, or christianity, or something else. That might be a proposition that you would be more likely to believe than I would, so perhaps you have some agreement with him? |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jun 20, 2013 14:33:33 GMT
I read this recently. It was very interesting, but I'm not convinced that Sacks' argument is entirely persuasive.
He does raise some good points though. The New Atheism seems to have lost a bit of steam since Hitchens died.
Dawkins has the intellectual power to carry it forward, but he lacks the palpable dynamism of Hitchens and is starting to look rather dull now that it's obvious he has no intention of engaging the more sophisticated Christian rebuttals.
|
|
|
|
Post by ulyssesrex on Jun 21, 2013 1:14:57 GMT
After reading Jonathan Sacks' article and the rebuttal by Adam Lee, I feel as though I've experienced two conversations about a threatening other rather than a dialogue between two people with differing beliefs. The chief rabbi suggests that all morality comes from religion, Lee's response is that only the bad bits do. No, the only moral principles that can't stand without a religious justification are the bad ones: slavery, absolute monarchy, the oppression of women, laws commanding the execution of dissenters and blasphemers, theocracies that treat religious minorities as second-class citizens, the racist mythology of a "chosen people" or a "promised land" deeded by a god to a particular subgroup of humanity, who are therefore entitled to evict all others by force. All these evils, and the horrors of history they've spawned, have no grounding in reason and can only be defended by claiming, "Thus sayeth the Lord." Slavery, absolute monarchy, the oppression of women or ideological dissidents, and racism have all been defended upon naturalistic grounds (Hobbes was the first name that came on mind on the subject of absolute monarchy without divine sanction). Lee also assumes that the good bits are just natural human features obscured by the nasty old religions. Puritan opposition to absolute monarchy/divine right of Kings during the Civil War, the Evangelical opposition to slavery, the religious resistance against Communist totalitarianism, and reaching back somewhat further, the initial appeal of Christianity and Islam to women as belief systems that enhanced their dignity and spiritual worth are all ignored in favour of something that seems closer to deism than atheism- natural goodness without superstition. Sacks is equally one dimensional. Acknowledging the extent to which contemporary values grew out of Judaeo-Christianity (although not without plenty of influence from Classical philosophy) is not an endorsement of these religions anymore than a Medieval theologian acknowledging the influence of Plato was an endorsement of the neo Platonic conception of God. Maybe rather than Nietzsche Sacks should have discussed Feuerbach and the worship of God as an alienated form of humanism. This seems to be a fairly common atheist position even if it is obscured by the anti intellectualism of Dawkins et al with their 'virus of the mind' reductionism. Perhaps Sacks himself simply finds Dawkins easier to argue against. While Nietzsche, with his hostility to Christianity, democracy, liberalism, socialism, feminism, utilitarianism etc becomes a curious ally, the atheist who argues contra Feuerbach, that without Judaeo-Christianity all of the above will wither and die. As for Voltaire and Spinoza (although the former is indeed a lightweight compared to the latter) Sacks should have discussed them both in greater detail rather than relying so much upon Nietzsche, one of the greatest writers and philosophers of all time undoubtedly but also a man with a personal vendetta against Christianity. For one thing there is more than a touch of 'belief in belief' about both of the others. Voltaire proclaimed 'If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him' and Spinoza was an advocate of a socially progressive deism that he himself didn't believe in. But another of their greatest values is that they genuinely advocated freedom of belief- Dawkins' attempt to assume the mantle of Joseph McCarthy when attacking Mehdi Hasan would have been completely alien to both...... Or to our friend, Neil Godfrey, whom I have developed considerable respect for after reading his blogs on Islam and the work of Scott Atran. Dialogue between believers of different types is what is needed right now, not conversations that automatically exclude the other. But I'm going to be cynical here and say that perpetuating these divides is good business for both religious leaders and proselytizing atheists..... although it may just come down to mutual incomprehension. |
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Jun 21, 2013 6:20:10 GMT
Sacks tired rehash of discredited arguments to be the unfounded fears of a man representing a group that is unwilling or unable to adapt to the world in the 21st century where it's influence will inevitably decline,which one can posit is the real source of his anxieties. Rather than guess the Rabbi's hidden motives, I think I would prefer to say he wrote that stuff because that's what he believed. We may each decide to agree or disagree with him, and with your prediction of the future. It will be no surprise to you that I found a lot to agree with in his analysis, though certainly not all - in the end, he seemed to treat religious belief as a sociological phenomenon in which it didn't matter whether the belief was actually true, and hence it would all "work" in the way he said regardless of whether the belief was Judaism, or christianity, or something else. That might be a proposition that you would be more likely to believe than I would, so perhaps you have some agreement with him? A nebulous 'belief in belief',anything but atheism.I couldn't help feeling a little bit sorry for Sacks,like you I think he is sincere,but his analysis seems melodramatic to me.The modern world often appears bewildering and uncertain,we have traded some stability for increased individual freedom.But it was ever thus,change is the only constant,only the rate varies.Humankind will muddle thru with or without Sacks' prescription for societal health. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 21, 2013 23:16:45 GMT
A nebulous 'belief in belief',anything but atheism. We clearly won't and don't agree on this, so I'm not trying to convince you or provoke an argument. But this is a legitimate view, even if you think it a wrong one. Some atheists say that christianity (or religion more generally) leads to bad behaviour - e.g. Adam Lee's comments quoted by ulyssesrex, or Stephen Weinberg's famous comment that to get good people to do bad things takes religion. I think both comments misrepresent the facts, but I recognise there is some truth in them. I think the same with Sacks. There is some objective justification for what he says, both in history and in observation of modern (or postmodern) culture, but you would feel he misrepresents the facts. I don't think that is reason to misrepresent or denigrate what he says. A journalistic opinion piece is a notoriously difficult place to present serious argument, and I have seen many thoughtful people (e.g. James Hannam, Bart Ehrman) unfairly pilloried for not stating a complete argument in a short piece aimed at a mass market. I thought he shared his concerns quite effectively within the limits of space and audience. While not fully agreeing with him, I don't think what he writes is based on imaginings either. A couple of examples: Leaving aside the suggestion that the development of Nazism, Fascism and Communism were attempts to find alternatives to God (which I presume you would disagree with), surely we'd all agree that the totalitarian and murderous regimes of the 20th century were somehow different from what had come before, and require some sort of explanation? Again surely there is truth in this which requires some explanation. (Surely there is also another side of improved medicine, greater concerns to fight social injustice and racism, etc, so his statements are only part of the picture.) I attended a seminar this week on the sexualisation of young girls (and young meant very young) and both a doctor and psychologist reported significant increases in body image problems, eating disorders and depression in young teenage girls in the last 5 years, a result they said in part caused by this sexualisation. There is a problem here, and it is reasonable to look for underlying causes. So I feel that rather than dismiss suggestions, it is wise to consider them all. There may be error in what he says, but what if there is some truth? Atheism isn't perfect any more than the church is, and improvements are always possible. |
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Jun 23, 2013 19:28:28 GMT
"Atheism isn't perfect any more than the church is, and improvements are always possible."
This doesn't make any sense to me. Atheism is lack of belief in God. In what way is it not perfect or require improvement? It may be right or wrong, but that is about it. The CR seems to think that atheism is more than it is too. Starting on the New Atheists he then brings in other isms. He seems to think that atheism leads to secularism and relativism, but there is no logical link that I can see. From my own reading of philosophy, atheism is compatible with moral objectivism. The CR follows many apologists in making Nietzsche atheism's pin up boy. Yes he was an atheist, but his perspectivism does not logically follow from that.
I fail to see the point of this article to be honest. Is the CR suggesting that we would be a better society if everyone believed in God? I have yet to see a convincing argument for the latter hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jun 23, 2013 21:28:49 GMT
"Atheism isn't perfect any more than the church is, and improvements are always possible." This doesn't make any sense to me. Atheism is lack of belief in God. In what way is it not perfect or require improvement? It may be right or wrong, but that is about it. The CR seems to think that atheism is more than it is too. Starting on the New Atheists he then brings in other isms. He seems to think that atheism leads to secularism and relativism, but there is no logical link that I can see. From my own reading of philosophy, atheism is compatible with moral objectivism. The CR follows many apologists in making Nietzsche atheism's pin up boy. Yes he was an atheist, but his perspectivism does not logically follow from that. I fail to see the point of this article to be honest. Is the CR suggesting that we would be a better society if everyone believed in God? I have yet to see a convincing argument for the latter hypothesis. First, I agree with the people who are disappointed both articles. Both had their leaps in logic, though I'm more baffled by Lee's article, for example when he says the New Testament supports blood libel (he means Matt. 27: 25). Yes, Lee, in the days gMatthew was written (predominantly Jewish) Christians were already looking forward to accusing Jews of blood libel and killing them for it. On atheism being compatible with moral objectivism, we are agreed. But there are plenty of atheists that are metaphysical naturalists, with their metaphysical naturalism being the reason for their atheism, though I don't have any figures. If physical energy in this universe or multiple universes is then all there is, it is hard to see how there could be any objective morality. Are those moral facts a hidden property of energy? I think it's fair to be as sceptical about that under metaphysical naturalism as it is to be about any ole spooky stuff. Another issue, that is also relevant to atheists who are not metaphysical naturalists, is the justification of belief in moral objectivism. After all, our moral beliefs are part product of our evolved moral instincts and we can't claim our current ones are the only possible outcome. Scott Atran is one of several social scientists suggesting that the tendency of children to prefer intentional explanations predisposes them towards religious beliefs. How would I know my evolved moral instincts are any bit more reliable than my childhood religious predispositions, when both are just the result of evolutionary development with a fair measure of chance? Why should I prefer one evolved mental aspect over another, why reason or ethics over religion? Especially as there is no guarantee for the approximate truthfulness of the beliefs that are the result of evolution. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 23, 2013 22:25:11 GMT
"Atheism isn't perfect any more than the church is, and improvements are always possible." This doesn't make any sense to me. Atheism is lack of belief in God. In what way is it not perfect or require improvement? It may be right or wrong, but that is about it. I wasn't very clear, was I? Sorry. I wasn't referring to the viewpoint or belief (in the philosophical sense of what goes on in our minds) of atheism, as can be seen from the fact that I contrasted it with "the church", not with "theism". What I meant was that the behaviour of atheists, and the outworking in culture of a naturalistic worldview could be better than it sometimes is, just as christian behaviour could sometimes be better. It would be very surprising (to me at least) if what we believed didn't have some impacts on social behaviour, and so if it is possible that increasing non-belief is having some bad effects, surely that is worth considering? As a christian, I am certainly concerned at anything christians are doing that I find unhelpful or nasty. |
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Jun 26, 2013 16:36:16 GMT
"Atheism isn't perfect any more than the church is, and improvements are always possible." This doesn't make any sense to me. Atheism is lack of belief in God. In what way is it not perfect or require improvement? It may be right or wrong, but that is about it. I wasn't very clear, was I? Sorry. I wasn't referring to the viewpoint or belief (in the philosophical sense of what goes on in our minds) of atheism, as can be seen from the fact that I contrasted it with "the church", not with "theism". What I meant was that the behaviour of atheists, and the outworking in culture of a naturalistic worldview could be better than it sometimes is, just as christian behaviour could sometimes be better. It would be very surprising (to me at least) if what we believed didn't have some impacts on social behaviour, and so if it is possible that increasing non-belief is having some bad effects, surely that is worth considering? As a christian, I am certainly concerned at anything christians are doing that I find unhelpful or nasty. You may be correct but surely any alleged bad,or good effects would be mostly unquantifiable and contentious. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 27, 2013 0:13:49 GMT
You may be correct but surely any alleged bad,or good effects would be mostly unquantifiable and contentious. That doesn't stop each of us having an opinion, does it?  But I think these things can be quantified, to some degree at least. I don't know if you are aware of an excellent blog, Science on Religion, which reports on medical and sociological studies into religion. It has reported over the years many, many studies into the effects of religion, and non-belief, on physical and health, attitudes, etc. Generally, the studies show very positive results for religious belief, which I guess one would expect from an evolutionary viewpoint (religion must arguably be advantageous to have survived), and hence by implication less positive results for non-belief. The data isn't totally consistent, so there are some studies showing the opposite, but the results are pretty consistent. So when the studies show that religious or spiritual people have better mental health, contribute more altruistically to society, are less likely to engage in destructive behaviour, etc, it tells us something not too far away from what we are discussing here. Of course there are social drawbacks to religious belief as well - it can help crims justify their criminal behaviour, can help the rich keep the poor in place, etc - but overall the outcomes of belief are socially positive. This of course is some way short of what the Rabbi was arguing, but I think a good case could be made for some of his points. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 23:08:20 GMT
Whatever happened to the intellectual depth of the serious atheists, the forcefulness of Hobbes, the passion of Spinoza, the wit of Voltaire, the world-shattering profundity of Nietzsche? Beside Nietzsche, none of these people are atheists. But yes, he's correct in saying that the quality of irreligious thinkers has been deteriorating for the past sixty years. New Atheism is a joke everyone taking seriously. |
|
