Navin ([info]mrsgollum) wrote,
@ 2008-03-17 14:23:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current location:home
Current mood: amused
Current music:Sweet Home Alabama - Lynryd Skynryd
Entry tags:john gray, progress, utopia, zealous atheism

John Gray on delusions.
One reads something and considers it an interesting perspective on a balance between theism and atheism.

Two days later, I read this absolute stunner of an excerpt from a book by John Gray. I don't know what to say. At an intuitive level, much of what he says makes immense sense.

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....

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.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of religion in terms of the theory of memes...He recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage, but today, he argues, it is perpetuated mainly through bad education....Human biology has not changed greatly over recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this. Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory...

The problem with the secular narrative is not that it assumes progress is inevitable (in many versions, it does not). It is the belief that the sort of advance that has been achieved in science can be reproduced in ethics and politics. In fact, while scientific knowledge increases cumulatively, nothing of the kind happens in society....

Belief in progress is a relic of the Christian view of history as a universal narrative, and an intellectually rigorous atheism would start by questioning it.


Powerful and I suspect that Gray may well love anything that has nothing to do with 'hope' or 'progress'. Essentially, a Cthulhu worshippper minus the zealous fanaticism. Gray shall now be sought out and consumed.




(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]davenchit
2008-03-17 09:26 am UTC (link)
Errr...I'd love to know what he bases this view on:

"Belief in progress is a relic of the Christian view of history"

I've also heard people say that belief in progress is a function of the "linear" view of history of the Greeks(i.e., pagans). Either way, it basically means you are making a huge implicit assumption about 2/3rds of the world's population- that their belief in progress is basically because they came in contact with Christianity.

I did skim through that first link when you posted it. Looks interesting. Will comment on it, time willing.

>He recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage

Not necessarily. It could be a relic of something that is no longer useful, like our appendix.

You may want to read this

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mrsgollum
2008-03-17 10:13 am UTC (link)
I hope you read the excerpt linked to. The answers are provided by the author.

My understanding of what his view is:
Christianity originally introduced the ideal of progress in terms of spiritual upliftment. The carrot at the end of the stick notion by proposing salvation as a goal of existence. With industrialization of the early 1900s and later, rational schemes of thought challenged this notion and espoused progress (in the material sense) minus the soul,spiritual part. The author believes that the idea of progress as an end - politically, ethically and socially - can be traced back to the notion that Christian doctrines originally proposed.

that their belief in progress is basically because they came in contact with Christianity.

They need not have come into contact with Christianity personally to believe in progress. What he seems to be saying is that belief in progress as an end is itself questionable. And since different groups tend to view progress differently on social and ethical lines (check the article for examples), he reasons that a group's fixed notion of progress will eventually lead to suppression of opposing ideas and notions.

Okay, much of this does not make a case for allowing fanatic religion a free reign, but one may get deluded in thinking strong atheism is doing anything different. Nazi and communist crimes exuded a strong sense of belief in doctrines devoid of religious overtones and were even anti-religious to a good extent. My sense of agreement with the author is where he says that different categories of thought are guilty of constructing their own utopian visions of the world. And for this, he blames attaching oneself to the notion of progress. I suppose I need to read more of him, but this is what I could get.


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]davenchit
2008-03-17 05:35 pm UTC (link)
Hmmm. Fair enough. My response was probably hasty. Will follow link when I have some time. Until then, consider my response withdrawn.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

too lazy to read this at work
[info]halfbrain
2008-03-18 05:25 am UTC (link)
counter argument here?? http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/the_delusions_of_john_gray.php#more

will read both & comment later today

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: too lazy to read this at work
[info]mrsgollum
2008-03-20 04:06 am UTC (link)
took a while for me to get to reading this link.

First impression is that the author is flogging the wrong horse. I don't think Gray is an apologist for religion. Gray's point is about identifying pitfalls similar to religion on the atheist,rational side and relate them to notions of progress that end up making control freaks out of groups irrespective of their belief in religion or lack of it.

Science, no doubt, is a powerful tool and rational thought helps. But Gray's point is that science gaining credence in the world at the expense of religious irrationality has nothing to do with the notion that the world is becoming a better place - socially and ethically. If anything people still die and wars are going on - not just in the name of religion, if you ask me. He's questioning the very edifice of progress on which such assumptions are based. I find his scheme of thought intriguing, would definitely like to read up more. Maybe I'll write when I've read enough of him. Writing him off as a rambling apologist is too extreme, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…