It’s become commonplace to observe that atheism can display many of the same traits as the religions it criticzes, but British political thinker John Gray is a master of exploring the quasi-religious themes in the myth-making of secular modernity, something he’s done for everything from communism, to global capitalism, to human uniqueness, to the idea of progress itself. Here he takes on the “new atheists” (via The Topmost Apple).
"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal
3 responses to “The progress delusion”
-
I agree an intersting article, but there is a false analogy here. He states “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”
The same could be said for someone that believes in Democracy, or someone that believes in womens rights, or someone that believes.. well anything really.
This is not a question of how religion/Athiesm spread, but a question of how humans share ideas.
The Athiest proposition is that religion unnaturally hinders rational thought by putting forth propositions that while not disprovable, offer no support apart from Oral Tradition. The Athiest position is that any proposition that is seriously considered should be to some degree testable.
Because Athiests talk about Religion, there is a tendency to treat the tactics as a religion, however this is a dead end since the overlap in tactics is one that above religion or athiesm or science. The overlap is due to human nature and a cultural desire to share ideas that you deem important.
Note… No Athiest kills others for that purpose though. Yes.. There have been Athiest Mass murders, but it was not for that reason (at least none that I can think of). Race, politicial ideals, etc. But not just because they believed in a (Any) god.
-
There definitely is a terminology problem in this field. “Atheist” technically just refers to what a person doesn’t believe, leaving open a wide range of possibilities for what they do believe. However, the particular group that Gray is addressing is promoting a generally cohesive (though not without disagreements) view of the universe and human morality, and “atheism” seems to be the name of the brand, at least since “Bright” failed to catch on. It’s become a bit like “liberal” — there’s a classical definition, a popular definition and myriad self-definitions.
-
Right: Gray’s point is that the “new atheists” (not all atheists) do exactly what the accuse “religionists” of doing – putting their trust in ideas that go beyond what is emprically sustainable. I think this can be summed up under a “Whiggish” view of history – that progress toward “rational enlightenment” is the inevitable trajectory of history.
A Thinking Reed 
Leave a reply to Camassia Cancel reply