A long essay by Edward T. Oakes, "Atheism and Violence," discusses and refutes the recent books of Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchen, et. al., that if all humanity would only renounce religious belief, then violence would cease and permanent peace would result. Curiously enough, the rant-filled Friedrich Nietzsche, who claimed that "God is dead" and originated the germanic idea of the Superman, offers the best argument against these arguments, claims Oakes.
The point, rather, is that Nietzsche saw. However much he (usually) advocated what ought to be most abhorred, he at least recognized that true morality and Christian belief are siblings. Moreover, in tones redolent of Jeremiah he saw the consequences to civilization as a whole when its citizens lose their faith in God. For what will take the place of God will be only a passionate—and largely empty—politics:
For when truth enters the lists against the lies of millennia, we shall have convulsions, a spasm of earthquakes . . . the likes of which have never been dreamed. Then the concept of politics will be completely dissolved in a war between spirits, all authority structures of the old order will be blown into the air—one and all, they rest upon a lie; there will be wars the likes of which have never existed on earth. From my time forward earth will see Great Politics.Such are the contradictions of atheism. With hope in progress gone, with the lessons of the twentieth century still unlearned in the twenty-first, with technology progressing, in Adorno’s words, from the slingshot to the atom bomb (a remark cited in Spe Salvi), with a resurgence of religiously motivated violence filling the headlines, all that the new atheists can manage is to hearken back to an Enlightenment-based critique of religion. But they find their way blocked, not so much by Nietzsche (whom, as we saw, they largely ignore) but by the ineluctable realities he so ruthlessly exposed. Not Nietzsche, but the history of the twentieth century has shown that godless culture is incapable of making men happier. All Nietzsche did was to point out that no civilization, however “progressive,” can dispel the terrifying character of nature; and once progress is called into question, the human condition appears in all its forsaken nakedness.
6 comments:
Samuel Skinner
Religion- it's true because it makes us feel good. That really is a bad defense, especially with happy atheists. You can say they aren't true atheists, but that is a rather bizarre use of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
If, as you say, "true morality and Christian belief are siblings" history has proven they don't get along. In this world there are good people and there are bad people but in order to get a good person to do a terrible thing you must first introduce religion.
Ah, yes, like those famous devout religionists, Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-tung.
Yep, if they had not been devout worshipers, they'd not have killed 100 million between them.
Oh, wait, they were all atheists. Sorry for the mistake.
@ Donald.
did i heard you right? Hitler, Lenin Stalin and Tse-tung did not kill FOR atheism. and the fact is that they advocated religion. they have their own religious background.
Theology provides the foundation of ethics. Without theology, we only have a sort of social contract theory whereby we agree to live by certain social standards in order to guarantee our own self-interest. Apart from theology "good" and "Bad" mean nothing. We are only left with law abiding or law breaking. Truth is not only empirical, not mostly empirical, except for math and some science. Ultimately, all we can do is compare narratives. Which makes the most sense? Which is most appealing? Which is the most beautiful? You may not like it, but that's where we are. That's not to say that we embrace anything we want, but given the all systems face severe limitations, we have to transcend limitations in order to hold a worldview. We can't do without worldview, even if we try.
Please read the article again. It refers to mankind not individuals; Man not a man here and there who may be happy atheists. The article repeatedly refers to man, society and its' overall projected response to the "shattering of the myths", not a few individuals.
Post a Comment