Is God Still Dead?
This is an interesting and informative article on the history and the future of Atheism.
By proclaiming that atheism is on its last legs, McGrath turns one of the most burning questions in American culture on its head. When everyone is asking about the growing strength of religion and its political ramifications, we might instead ask, Why is disbelief on the wane? Today's commonsense answer is that atheists, agnostics, and secularists are less and less relevant to the needs of Americans (and, McGrath adds, the rest of the world). Whether true or not, this is an amazing commentary on the self-confidence that once made atheism the modern creed, which McGrath summarizes as "the religion of the autonomous and rational human being, who believes that reason is able to uncover and express the deepest truths of the universe, from the mechanics of the rising of the sun to the nature and final destiny of humanity."
I have read only one of the books discussed in the article, Atheism: A Very Short Introduction by Julian Baggini, which is a wonderful short book. It is a great defence of atheism as a positive and a complete philosophical world-view rather than just being a negative anti-religious doctrine. The book also made a good case against militant atheism, with which I didn't agree personally. Baggini discusses the philosophical ideas of Plato (specially his Euthyphro's Dilemma), Hume, Kant and Kierkegaard (his analysis of the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac) in very accessible terms and lays out a very good foundation for both budding and grown-up atheists.
He also defends atheism against critics who cite the examples of avowedly atheist regimes like those in communist countries and claim that atheism sanctions worst forms of torture and authoritarianism. As any reader of Marx would know (Baggini also explains this), Marx's ideas were just secularized version of Christianity, although he was a great critic of society structured according to the tenets of Christianity. His philosophy of history is the same as the christian philosophy of history with just the names of the principals changed. Baggini also makes a good case against what he calls the "sacralization of politics", which he says afflicts even secular countries. Anyone, who has seen how nationalism works in "secular" countries like India, will have no trouble understanding what sacralization means.
There are some other very interesting books under review. I will definitely be on a lookout for them.
Here is the link to the article.
4 comments:
This book by McGrath (as depicted in the review essay by Aronson) on the decline of atheism seems to be far too much an expression of his own early-life disillusionment than it is an indication atheism has all but died out. This author seems unable to distinguish the great number of religiously bored (or distracted) from atheists. Hence he seems willing to attribute the upsurge of interest in religion today as a decline in atheism.
It seems more accurate to suggest that religions -- and this is largely Christianity and Islam -- have become significant political players in culture today. Their current prominence increases interest by the whole populace regarding religious ideas and stimulates those many torpid religionists into reviewing their beliefs and religious ideas. McGrath mistakens these reawakened sleepers as atheists who have turned (as he apparently has) into believers.
My impression is quite the opposite of McGrath's. It seems the sciences continue to make inroads into many of the domains religions have ruled for centuries. This process has been going on for a while now. The evolution/creationist issue is but one focus. Another involves our getting closer to having scientific explanations for our subjective natures, even including how, why and to what extent individuals have religious feelings and attitudes. I suspect this will provide a much greater "threat" to traditional religions than have those issues we hear about today -- evolution and genetics, what life is and how life begins (or can).
McGrath's main mistake then -- and in a way he cannot be faulted much for this, given the political climate of his teen years -- was his understanding that Marxism is a comprehensive expression of atheism. This mistake continues to be made today.
It seems more precise to regard Marxism as a political viewpoint justifying its premises upon atheism. Asserting this may seem like splitting hairs, but I do so to point out Marx's ideas do not particularly value individual subjectivity. For him people's subjective nature is only an economic energy or force. I find too Marx's alleged comment that capitalism will ultimately lead to atheism often gets little acknowledgement whenever condemnation of atheism is expressed.
"Karl Marx held that capitalism, the pursuit of wealth, led inexorably to atheism. Now, he also thought it would inexorably lead to communism, but that was primarily because he misunderstood one aspect of human nature. He agreed with Rousseau that mankind does not suffer from original sin [the manifestation of which includes greed], thus, he thought everyone would eventually learn to share everything in common."
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=16877 A Catholic apologist
Now McGrath catalogs the increasing expression of "spiritual longing" in the form of religious practice throughout the world. Whether this is true or not, it certainly is true many people do have "spiritual longings". But what are they? And are they really articulated accurately?
The problem with religion is that it is really a nexus of forces -- personal, social, political. We have an interest in all of these and religion has funneled these into a form of human interaction which returns benefits on many levels, and burdens too. Truth, however defined, must get in line with these concerns.
We do have "spiritual longings" -- wondering who exactly we are, what this place is that we occupy, and where we are going. Often people also include "why" -- why we are, why this place is as it is, and why we are going where we think we are going. McGrath seems to suggest the "old answers" to these questions are not deterred or deflected by the advances in human understanding in the last century. This seems naive if not simple denial. And his impression that religion is in ascendance may simply be short-sighted.
It seems recent developments in human understanding are involved in the current stir of fundamentalism and religious interest. These developments are like sharp thorns in the balloon of traditional religious concepts. It seems these thorns are provoking a reaction akin to what a thorn in the foot does -- both inflammation and a large callus. Society is responding comparably, and the greater prominence of religious ideas in recent years are reactionary, not creative or developmental (maturational). These reactions show that man's current explorations are affecting the very fabric of our society. In response, society will change; it will be reshaped. But neither the science that is provoking these reactions nor the reactions themselves have stabilized into some new configuration.
Eventually, science and religion will have to make peace, or at least declare an armistice. It seems this will occur only after at least a few generations of turmoil. Just what form that melding will take remains obscure, at least to me. That we have not started to discuss this process dispassionately and publicly only delays the social transformation now underway.
McGrath's work will certainly fuel some currently burning fires, but may -- perhaps contrary to his intentions -- facilitate the transformation of traditions and science's engagement with man's subjective side. The new atheists Aronson presents seem to be scouts in this process.
ravid'sa, thanks for that really enlightening comment.
Well, i have been browsing thru ur blog for a week or so and it had been a really good experience as i have come to know quite a lot abt Proust, Nabokov and few other European and Russian writers whom till now i had only heard abt(and also few i hadn't known) and also the stuff abt Cinema and all.
am too an Atheist and understanding and knowing more(or in other words one's self evolvement and enlightenment) are enuf motivations that can keep one going in this absurd world.*
and now abt the post..I guess the fact that after defunting the concept of God one is automatically thrust on existential way, so varied opinions and beliefs(i.e ways of thinking)are bound to arise thereby making one have the feeling that atheists are loosing their collective appeal.
anyhow the article is not available now.
*more in ref to ur post on Happy Atheists.
link fixed. thanks for visiting. I hope what you find here is interesting. I didn't pay much attention to what I was writing initially, specially when i started the blog. I am embarassed about many of those posts now!
I agree with you about religion. There are so many non-religious ways to find motivation and purpose in life. Belief in some divinely ordered plan needn't be necessary for a meaningful life I think.
Post a Comment