John Gray's latest "Point of View" would seem to be entirely his own delusion.
If Gray actually took the time to speak to more atheists, I think he'd find that there was less disagreement between his own "religion friendly" version of atheism and their beliefs. The falsehood here is his own personal belief that modern atheism is all Dawkins and Harris: combative, offensive, provocative, disrespectful and rude; somehow inferior to that of the previous, considerate intellectual giants he reveres from his ivory tower. His confusion stems from the belief that so many current atheists follow so closely in the footsteps of said New Atheism; Gray is inventing a host of enemies where few actually exist.
Whilst there is undoubtedly merit in looking back at the lives of these atheists from bygone years, and indeed these case studies are the most interesting parts of Gray's article; the usefulness of his point of view ends when he starts taking his own personal vendetta with a small number of radical anti-theists to a larger stage, just to try and prove a point. One might argue that these people he describes need to exist, as they are just one end of the spectrum of beliefs - and you can't right a ship by jumping up and down in the middle - regardless, there is no particular reason to consider them "mainstream". And even these "atheist extremists" who I might add do not really represent the views of most atheists, tend to be wordsmiths or activists-lite. There are very few if any who actually resort to violence because of their unbelief. The same cannot be said of religious zealots.
"An atheist, we tend to assume, is someone who thinks science should be the basis of our beliefs and tries to convert others to this view of things"
No. YOU tend to assume, Prof. Gray, thus it's in your interests to paint this myopic viewpoint as fact. There is no need to convert others to a scientific view of things, as its benefits are self evident. One of the biggest factors leading to the fall in religiosity the world has seen in recent years has been that scientific and technological advancements actually work; and belief in Gods, seemingly, does not. And even if anyone wanted to convert someone - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, as the saying goes.
Atheists these days possess a huge range of beliefs and attitudes. If you put ten together in a room, none of them may agree exactly on anything. Embracing science and philosophy, which more and more atheists do, allows for nuances and perspectives that enhance our individuality. Far from being monolithic, modern atheists have some of the most diverse opinions you could hope to come across.
"But for both of them (Leopardi and Powys), religion was much more than an outdated theory. If Leopardi believed religion of one sort or another was beneficial for human happiness, Powys valued religion as a kind of poetry, which fortified the human spirit in the face of death."
Religion isn't a theory at all, it's a hypothesis. It's "outdated" only in the sense that it was devised a long time ago and in many cases hasn't changed much - plenty of people still believe it and this number will increase as the world population rises and parents continue to indoctrinate their children. So in fact it is very much still "here and now". And you can still believe that "religion of one sort or another" is beneficial to human happiness and be an atheist today. We just don't necessarily need the supernatural parts. The benefits of engaging in ceremony, ritual and being part of a large friendly group has been studied to death. And it's well known that kidding yourself (and having to believe it) is one way to increase performance or overcome hardship and psychological barriers. Again, there are ways of doing this that depart from what would be considered "religion" as well. For all his aggrandising of religion, Gray's reductionist views of the scope, range and variety of modern atheism are what's really short-sighted here.
His last paragraph just rehashes the same arguments from earlier in his article. What evidence does Gray have that most atheists even behave like this? I'd sure like to know. Until then I consider it to be his own personal delusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment