I've been getting The Guardian for the last few days because of their series on modern poets but then discovered that today's edition had the added incentive of an article by John Gray on religion. Gray's article is a stunning attack on the evangelical atheism of Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett including such gems as these:
"... The mass political movements of the 20th century were vehicles for myths inherited from religion, and it is no accident that religion is reviving now that these movements have collapsed. The current hostility to religion is a reaction against this turnabout. Secularisation is in retreat, and the result is the appearance of an evangelical type of atheism not seen since Victorian times.
As in the past, this is a type of atheism that mirrors the faith it rejects. Philip Pullman's Northern Lights - a subtly allusive, multilayered allegory, recently adapted into a Hollywood blockbuster, The Golden Compass - is a good example. Pullman's parable concerns far more than the dangers of authoritarianism. The issues it raises are essentially religious, and it is deeply indebted to the faith it attacks. Pullman has stated that his atheism was formed in the Anglican tradition, and there are many echoes of Milton and Blake in his work. His largest debt to this tradition is the notion of free will. The central thread of the story is the assertion of free will against faith. The young heroine Lyra Belacqua sets out to thwart the Magisterium - Pullman's metaphor for Christianity - because it aims to deprive humans of their ability to choose their own course in life, which she believes would destroy what is most human in them. But the idea of free will that informs liberal notions of personal autonomy is biblical in origin (think of the Genesis story). The belief that exercising free will is part of being human is a legacy of faith, and like most varieties of atheism today, Pullman's is a derivative of Christianity.
Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion."
"Science is the best tool we have for forming reliable beliefs about the world, but it does not differ from religion by revealing a bare truth that religions veil in dreams. Both science and religion are systems of symbols that serve human needs - in the case of science, for prediction and control. Religions have served many purposes, but at bottom they answer to a need for meaning that is met by myth rather than explanation. A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into pseudo-science."
"Dawkins makes much of the oppression perpetrated by religion, which is real enough. He gives less attention to the fact that some of the worst atrocities of modern times were committed by regimes that claimed scientific sanction for their crimes. Nazi "scientific racism" and Soviet "dialectical materialism" reduced the unfathomable complexity of human lives to the deadly simplicity of a scientific formula. In each case, the science was bogus, but it was accepted as genuine at the time, and not only in the regimes in question. Science is as liable to be used for inhumane purposes as any other human institution. Indeed, given the enormous authority science enjoys, the risk of it being used in this way is greater."
"Victorian poet Matthew Arnold wrote of believers being left bereft as the tide of faith ebbs away. Today secular faith is ebbing, and it is the apostles of unbelief who are left stranded on the beach."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
T Bone Burnett - Earlier Baghdad (The Bounce).
6 comments:
Thanks for this blog Jonathan. I read the same article in the Guardian and it summed up a good deal of my thinking on this subject. Why are the secular humanists shouting so loudly? Probably because they sense they are loosing the argument and so the position they now put forward is that faith should not be allowed a place in public discourse. Raging against the dying of the light comes to mind.
Pullman is an interesting example. I am just finishing The Amber Spyglass and it is the most strident of the three books regarding faith and religion. (The Subtle Knife has little by comparison).Yet it is difficult to follow what Pullman is trying to say as at times those attacking The Magesterium seem just as morally ambiguous. I think I share Rowan Williams unease in that the Christianity under attack is a faith and church without Jesus and the cross. The nearest Pullman comes to it is in the characters of Lyra and Will who are prepared to risk their own daemons/souls in order to rescue others by journeying to the land of the dead. It will be interesting to see how the film makers handle The Amber Spylass as it is so clearly attacking faith and religion in a way that can't be avoided like it was in The Golden Compass.
By the way the release date has just been announced for the second Narnia flim - Prince Caspian, June 2008.
I wonder if it is not so much that they are losing the argument but more that they cannot engage with the argument. The argument of many atheists is that scientific language and measurement disproves or explains religion. The logical expectation from this position has been that this will lead to a widespread abandonment of religion. That has not happened to the extent expected and, from the perspective of people only prepared to think within the parameters of scientific language and measurement, that is illogical and irrational. One cannot debate with the illogical and irrational, the next logical step (although it violates all liberal principles of free speech) is to try to exclude religious language and debate from the public arena.
I wonder if this is not the underlying reason for the vehemance of the Dawkins' and Toynbee's of the world. Religion is irrational but resurgent. One cannot debate with the irrational therefore the only thing that can be done is to seek to censor and exclude it. To do that, it is necessary to show that religion is not solely irrational but also dangerous and so the thesis is developed and defended that religions are inherently violent. Again, the double standards of this argument are immediately apparent in the ignoring of all that is peaceful and positive in religious texts and practice and the refusal to acknowledge or ascribe to either science or humanism the use of violence by those who are secularists and/or atheists.
Pullman is fascinating because he clearly loves aspects of Christianity (Milton, Blake etc.) while being repelled by organised religion. I think he tries to secularise religious narrative retaining as much as possible of his Christian heritage while denying the existence of God. He is a little like Dennis Potter in this, although Potter retained a greater sense of God at work in the creative assembling of the fragments of humanity.
I think that there is a sense of Christ in 'His Dark Materials' particularly in Lyra's journey to bring those who have died from the land of the dead. Pullman works with a Blakean spirituality where God the Father represents oppression and God the Son freedom, within this there is a sense that Lyra et al are Christ-like figures within that polarity.
It's good to see from the point of view of Big Picture 2 that 'Prince Caspian' will be with us soon.
I agree there is a certain amount of frustration amongst the secular humanists that the debate is not being held on their terms. I also think there is something more.
Toynbee is not just attacking the irrationality of religion, she goes further and argues that even if God did exist she would reject him because of the experience of suffering and evil. It is the 'protest atheism' argument of The Borthers Karamazov. She gets quite personal about this when talking about her husband and close friends who have experienced prolonged suffering and death. One of the assignments Readers in training in Chelmsford used to do on Theodicy was based on a Toynbee interview in Third Way where she puts this argument forward. This goes beyond the parameters of a rational logical framework for debate. Toynbee makes an emotional and personal response to the question which should not be overlooked. What drives the anger must be more than simply a frustration that people cannot see the logic of her argument.
I think the same applies to Dawkins. One of the most significant criticisms against him is that he steps outside the rational/scientific framework in order to launch his attack on religion. He does the very thing he is attacking religion for and substitutes assertion and sweeping generalisations for reasoned substantiated factual argument. Again there seems to be something very emotional and personal about this as evidenced by the vitriolic language he slips into.
In both cases there is a fundamental commitment to a faith position which is that all religion is a dangerous mistake. However, they cannot defend this position simply in scientific and rational terms. My question is what has driven them to this position? It must be something more than the logical outworking of an intellectual position - the language employed and the emotions laid bare at times point to something more.
I agree with you about Pullman and his love/hate relationship with Christianity. I do think that Lyra and Will act as Christ like figures at times and particularly in book three. However, I still feel that in Christian terms he is attacking a false God. The God presented in the books is not the God of incarnation, kenosis, self sacrifice, grace, mercy and love. I can understand his attack on institutionalised and organised religion but he clearly goes beyond that with his decsription for example of The Ancient of Days. The problem is that the average reader is not going to make the distinction between his Blakean respresentation of God and the God revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.
I have been reading "Life Conquers Death" by the Very Revd John Arnold, former Dean of Durham. It is published by Zondervan (US). The first chapter is a reflection on the Graden of Eden and the fall and it is fascinating reading this alongside the end of The Amber Spyglass. Arnold argues that the prohibition on the tree of knowledge is placed by God as a temporary safeguard until Adam and Eve have reached maturity and are ready to eat. There are interesting resonances with Lyra and Will's journey to maturity.
By the way, do you know whether Pullman is influenced by Buddhism? I was struck by what happens to the dead when, having been freed by Will and Lyra, they return to the land of the living and are subsumed into the natural world in a state of bliss.
Thanks for the Arnold reference. I've argued something similar in a post about God's intentions for the Law which can be found at: http://joninbetween.blogspot.com/2008/01/divine-dialogues-part-7.html .
No idea I'm afraid on whether there are buddhist influences on Pullman's work but I fully agree that Dawkins and Toynbee's reactions to Christianity exhibit violent emotion that take them well outside of reasoned and evidence-based debate.
Terry Eagleton pointed out in his review of the God delusion that Dawkins has read minimal theology. Your example of the parallel between Arnold's understanding of the prohibition on the tree of knowledge and Lyra and Will's journey to maturity is just one example of the way in which many of the concepts valued and defended by evangelical atheists can be found in (and in some cases derive from) theology, when read broadly.
Some atheists think that science will be able to provide an answer for everything ..
I think science is fascinating (and useful ..) but it's achievements - as I see it - have been pretty much in the realm of materalism. And there is a world of difference between discovering how to make one substance out of another, how to manipulate one substance to drive another, and so on .. to answering questions such as: 'how can something come out of nothing?'!
And now scientists are talking about things such as string theory. String theory (which involves dimensions beyond the three dimensions that we are able to experience).
Made me think. If we were two-dimensional beings - all we would be able to perceive would be things on our own two-dimensional plain. If someone suggested the possibility of a three-dimensional world, I don't believe we would be able to begin to imagine what that would be like (remember, if your own experience of life was moving around and experiencing a two-dimensional world).
There are some things that are easier to understand in the Bible than other things - none of us understand everything about faith - but what I don't get is the way that some atheists can be so absolutist and black and white (almost manichean) about religion.
Jesus says - and his own words - that the two most important things in life are to love God and neighbour. And He gives some very clear examples of what Christian love is: The Good Samaratin, The Prodigal Son (and of course, the way He led His life). And St Paul says - very cleary - you can have faith to move mountains but if you have no love then your faith is useless. And Paul gives very good examples, too, of what love is.
Love (no-one has a monopoly on understanding what that is) is at the core of Christianity. And, yet, some atheists can only focus on the negatives that believers have done in history without focusing on the positives (and what the gospels say - very clearly - about love - and that love is the core of our faith).
Also. They focus on the historical events or things that get recorded. But they forget to consider that Christianity is, also, about humility, i.e if you demonstrate charity / love to someone, you are not meant to brad about it. Think of all the millions and millions of Christian peasants, over the ages for example, who have lived decent lives - their lives and acts of charities don't get recorded and remebered - but instead they get lumped together with a small group of people who did wicked things in the name of religion, i.e buring people for being witches or heretics - that kind of thing.
I just wish that atheists would be more positive, open-minded and balanced about religon, instead of just focusing on the negatives (of the negative things that believers have done in history).
Sam Norton has been doing a really interesting series of posts on atheism which deal with precisely the issue you are raising. Sam calls those atheists that are solely negative about religion, humourless atheists, while those who are more nuanced and acknowledge benefits to religion, he calls sophiscated atheists. You can find his series of posts at http://elizaphanian.blogspot.com/search/label/atheism .
Post a Comment