Atheism, in its various forms, has a very old and in some quarters a cherished history. It’s a history that many modern-day atheists seem to be ignorant of, something I discussed a while ago. As you may have gathered, I am not an atheist. But I’m interested in the views of folk who are. I admit that this is partly out of curiosity. As the views and ideas of most atheists (at least the ones who have thought about it) are different to my way of thinking, it’s hardly surprising that they evoke curiosity. There’s also the possibility that there is something fundamental they’ve noticed that I’ve missed. And I suppose the writer of Ecclesiastes could have been wrong; something “new under the sun” could crop up that finally demonstrates, once and for all, that there can be no God. This seems unlikely (although I would say that), but for the sake of friendly interaction I’m prepared to accept this as a logical possibility.
It was in this spirit that I was interested to read an atheist writing about atheism. John Gray’s “Seven Types of Atheism” is readable, entertaining and short (only 150-odd pages in my 2019 Penguin paperback). I don’t suppose all atheists will agree with either his classification or his analysis, but neither do I think anyone will accuse him of rampant misrepresentation. In particular, he in no way writes as a theist critic. He remains quite content with his own atheist position, which he identifies as being closest to a couple of the categories he describes. It is worth noting a the outset that there is a close resemblance between what Grey writes and the thrust of Tom Holland’s “Dominion” (discussed briefly here). It is terrifically hard to drive out the intellectual and cultural effects of 2000 years of Christian monotheism (and before that Jewish monotheism) and start thinking from (or to) a genuinely different position. It is a big task to find new concepts not dependant on the same foundations as the repudiated system, even if such a thing is possible. This was something that Nietzsche cottoned on to, but apparently not so many others before or since. In his early chapters Grey insists that this leads to a sort of lazy atheism that essentially maintains categories that actually need God, but simply swapping Him for someone or something else. Gray accuses secular humanists of doing this, swapping God for humanity, and then not noticing that the resulting system doesn’t work. Apart from anything else, Gray thinks that this is doomed to fail because humanity doesn’t exist as a single, functional entity; it is a myth inherited from monotheism: “’Humanity’ is not going to turn itself into God, because ‘humanity’ does not exist”. His point is that all we really see is lots of individual human beings with “intractable enmities and divisions”, not a single organism capable of fulfilling God’s role.
But time and again Gray also throws up interesting little insights into the sayings and doings of important atheist thinkers. Many of them seem to be stark examples of what is alluded to in a quotation often attributed to G.K. Chesterton: “ When men chose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing. They then become capable of believing in anything.” For example, Grey calls Henry Sidgwick “one of the greatest 19th century minds”. But having lost his faith, he hoped science would supply him with the meaning he now felt he lacked. Bizarrely, he eventually turned to psychical research, and Grey quotes him as telling a friend later in life “As I look back …. I see little but wasted hours”. Nietzsche was prepared to put his faith in a few exception human beings, “supermen” who could “will into being the meaning God had once secured”. Grey’s main point is that even arguing that the redemption of humanity by such “supermen” was required or could be accomplished, demonstrated that Nietzsche continued to be held captive by Christian concepts he so deeply despised and had declared dead. But it’s been a while now since Nietzsche’s scheme. No sign of his “supermen”.
Grey is
also fairly severe on the idea of the inevitable human progress so beloved of many
scientifically minded atheists over the last couple of centuries. This appears
to be one of their supreme acts of faith. But as he points out, no-one can
really agree what constitutes progress or what it might mean in the future. And
there is precious little evidence of overall net progress for the mass of humanity.
You might think that this surely goes too far. After all, in technology hasn’t
the invention and growth of the internet brought tremendous benefits? I can sit
on my sofa and book my next holiday or order my dinner. I can find the answer (or
at least an answer) to almost any question using my smartphone. But then
this same technology has brought new problems and crises not conceived of
previously, like the rise of social
media persecution (which has already cost lives) and the cyber world as a new venue
for crime and warfare. But in medicine, haven’t we eradicated some of humanity’s
most serious disease? The obvious retort is yes, but oh the irony. Here was are
in a global pandemic in which the old scourges have been replaced by a new one,
with more around the corner aided and abetted by modern human behaviour. Faith
in the progress of humanity (even if you think “it” exists) is touching, but hardly
evidenced based!
Grey
assembles a bewildering cast of characters with no interest in the God of the
Bible, and often resolutely dedicated to denigrating and disproving Christianity
as anything more than a fable, and quite possibly a dangerous fable at that.
Some were aggressive in their denunciations, some more muted and less evangelical.
Many I suspect would be bemused by Christianity’s continuing ability to attract
adherents, and its continuing ability to play any a role in thought and intellectual
discourse.
Grey quotes
Schopenhauer as writing in 1851: “A religion which has at its foundation a
single event …. has so feeble a foundation that it cannot possibly survive.” Such
faith. Touching. But sorry Arthur, misplaced.
No comments:
Post a Comment