Over the 20th century, atheist political regimes racked up an appalling (and unmatched) record for violence. Atheist humanism hasn't generated a compelling popular narrative and ethic of what it is to be human and our place in the cosmos; where religion has retreated, the gap has been filled with consumerism, football, Strictly Come Dancing and a mindless absorption in passing desires. Not knowing how to answer the big questions of life, we shelve them - we certainly don't develop the awe towards and reverence for the natural world that Dawkins would want. So the atheist humanists have been betrayed by the irrational, credulous nature of human beings; a misanthropy is increasingly evident in Dawkins's anti-religious polemic and among his many admirers
It comes down to secular humanism being the kind of philosophy that wants to save its cake and also to eat it. John Gray in Straw Dogs makes essentially the same point from an atheist point of view, that much of secular humanism is actually parasitic on Christian values...
Filed in: atheism, religion, secularism, Dawkins, critiqueGuardian Unlimited | Special reports | No wonder atheists are angry: they seem ready to believe anything:
5 comments:
You claim that secular humanism is a parasite on christian values. The whole point of naturalism, rational atheism, or whatever you call the morals of atheism is that they are derived from utility in the natural world and not based on authority of arbitrary dieties.
The authority of religion is only needed to control the unthinking followers. In so far as atheists agree in practice with christians it is because the values are of real societal benefit, it is not because we could not conceive anything different.
I think that you might do well to read the John Gray book I recommend in my post. The problem that, in practice, many atheists have with ethics is that they ultimately cannot derive 'oughts' from 'is' and when they do it is frought with difficulties -the notion of 'utility' is a case on point.
I don't mean that atheists couldn't conceive of something different; Gray does,for example. What I am saying is that in practice, the logics of atheism have not in western cultures been driven to their termini and have rested in values that are in the final analysis more compatible with a Christian heritage than with a thorough going Naturalist take.
Gray deals with the ethics of doing without God, but the vision that emerges, when 'cleansed' of a kind of culturally formed nostalgia for Judeo-Christian values, is rather different from the kind of thing a lot of secular humanism has tried to stand for in the last 2 or 3 hundred years.
As a postscript, you might like to realise also that an anonymous post on such a subject [ie one that is likely to generate a lot of heat if not handled carefully] can seem a little lacking in, let's say, 'conviction', and that I [for one] am unlikely to debate much with an anonymous poster on the basis that real debate implies some relationship and respect, and anonymity seems a little disrespectful in debate.
cause-effect relationships are the basis of utility.
civilizations existed for millenia and gave birth to (not the other way around) organized religion. living in society, men realized (via reason), would require not "oughts" and "moral/ethical absolutes", but simple trade-offs:
if i want to own property, i must respect the right of others to their property
if i want to speak freely, i must respect the right of other to speak freely...ad nauseum
how is it so hard to explain? kin altruism, seen in chimps and other social animals, picks up where utilitarian "love" leaves off.
have you read js mill? kant?
Daniel, I'm assuming that you are the erstwhile anonymous poster on the basis of similar style and context. If so, thank you for taking note of my rather frosty PS.
At this moment I'm producing some work to a deadline so I won't be writing much for a few days on this. But if you are looking for some dialogue, I'd find it helpful for some comeback on the following.
I have read some Mill and Kant, and also later critiques of both. And is your asking about them important to what you would want to say?. In return, have you come across John Gray [ref'd above], who is himself an atheist philosopher?
I had assumed that maybe your use of the term "utility" was in the semantic region of its use in economics [derived from discourse involving Mill etc., I think]. However, I'm not sure that you are using it in that kind of way, could you clarify?
What you call "cause-effect relationships" seems to be like game-theory stuff, is that so?
Maybe that will help clear some space for further exchanging.
The 'parasite' remark, I can see, is provocative. I think it is defensible [and to be fair, the audience in my mind was unlikely to be overworried about it] but I would be happy to tone it down for the purposes of eirenic relating. Perhaps 'in practice, secular humanist values have seemed tied to the Christian cultural context in a way that does not make sense to those who approach the issues from a non-western context.' Or something along those lines.
Some potentially helpful further reading
http://www.stnews.org/altruism.htm
http://www.stnews.org/altruism-2569.htm
http://www.stnews.org/altruism-2570.htm
http://www.stnews.org/Altruism-2567.htm
Post a Comment