Man At The Crossroads II: The Modern Crisis
Our modern, practical atheism, can be understood if we see it as the end of a long line of theological, philosophical, and social development. The debate between actual atheism and theism has, for the time being, ended in a stalemate. Society does not feel that the God question has any relevance. While people may believe in God, that belief hardly changes the way they live or act. Others don’t believe in God, but that also seems to make little difference in how they act. There are good and bad people, heroes and villains, in both camps. That has made it seem that the question of God just does not matter. Christians, of course, are partly to blame for this, because they have failed to live out the Gospel and its dictates of love. They have failed to let God live in and through them. But this is not the whole picture. Actual atheism has held significant sway on the world, and it has often taken a warlike stand against all kinds of religion, theistic or non-theistic alike (thus, communism in Russia attacked Christians while communism in China attacked the Buddhists). Militant atheism has provided a significant hermeneutical lens by which many not so militant in their atheism live out their life. It reaches down, to be sure, to the practical atheists, even if they are nominal theists. This lens, as we shall see, comes as the end product of a theological construct, found both in Protestantism and in Catholicism, which established a two-tier cosmology, separating the natural world from the supernatural, allowing a complete divorce between the two.[1] Philosophical atheism is the logical end of this construct, while practical atheism can only be seen as its typical result.
To be sure, there has always been an atheistic element in society since the beginning of time. The Psalms could not say, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good,” (Ps. 14:1) if no one questioned the existence of God until modern times.[2] But there is something significant in modern atheism which makes it quite different in quality from all previous forms of atheism. For the Christian, the explanation is simple: it is because God has revealed himself to us as man, giving to us the ability for an absolute affirmation or absolute denial of God. “Only after God has uttered his absolute Yes to man can man utter his absolute No to God: genuine atheism is a post-Christian phenomenon.“[3] But this cannot be used to explain all kinds of atheism; not even all kinds of post-Christian atheism are actually absolute, hate-filled denials of God. Only in its most extreme form is this true.
There seems to be three major streams of thought, connected to one another to be sure, from which we can find most kinds of actual atheism emerging in individuals. The first comes from the fact that our notions of God are, ultimately, unsound. This allows for someone to come around, challenge our idea of God, and confound us when we have no answer to them. Instead of seeing how this could help us purify our ideas about God and grasp God better, many of us end up denying God once our thoughts about God are shown to be faulty.[4] This can explain why so many deists became atheists.[5] A second reason many people use to abandon God is because of the evil done in God’s name. We should all agree with them that such a corruption of religion needs purification. The sad fact, however, is that such corruption often goes unnoticed and is too ingrained to be rooted out easily. But even when this is the case, people should not give up faith in God. It’s ultimately an ad hominem. Truth is truth, whether the followers of truth do evil or not. But doubters, following this line of thought, should see it for what it is: another reason to question humanity, not God.[6] Indeed, it is ironically saying that, because people have done evil, I can’t believe in God, so I will believe in myself (despite the fact that I am also human). Finally, even when God’s followers are not actively promoting evil, that does not mean evil itself has been dealt with. The existence of evil in itself is the third, and probably most significant, challenge to the world and to any believer, as Walter Kasper points out, “From an existential point of view wickedness and evil are far more decisive for many people than are theoretical and ideological denials of God.“[7] Yet even here, a partial solution can be found (beyond the sleight of hand which reminds us that, properly speaking, evil does not exist). It goes back to the fact that our notions of God need purification. We try to create a God who is not God. We want God to be some sort of magic trick who will save the day for us whenever we desire him to do so. We don’t really want to see God as having free will and engaging us with our free will. Moreover, we don’t really want to see God as imposing himself upon us. Yet, God commands things for us for our own good. When we fail to follow his dictates, it is clear something bad will happen, not because God causes the bad, but because it is the direct result of what has been done. The law of karma, to that extent, is a universal law which no one should deny.[8] Suffering in the world, evil in the world, is the result of our failing to follow God’s guidance. It is not because God fails to follow ours.
Footnotes
[1] We shall explore this in Part III
[2] The kinds of questions put to the divinity reflect the cultural situations in which the questions come from. Greek atheism denied the Homeric gods, but often allowed for a first principle, such as “the One” of Neo-Platonism, which is why Christianity was often confused with atheism by the Romans. Yet, there is much truth in what Alexander Men would suggest, that is, atheism in any form is a symptom of a greater problem, of a spiritual crisis that had been left unattended and let to fester. “Apologists of atheism attempt to represent their ideology as the result of intellectual progress, as the most ‘modern’ of ideologies. In reality, atheism existed long before the emergence of the major world religions and has always been a symptom of spiritual crisis, impoverishment and decay,” Alexander Men. Christianity For the Twenty First Century. Ed. Elizabeth Roberts and Ann Shukman (New York: Continuum, 1996), 59.
[3] Hans Urs von Balthasar. Theo-Drama II: Dramatis Personae: Man in God. Trans. Graham Harrison (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1990), 123
[4] It is quite easy to misconstrue our concepts for God as for God himself. At best they must be seen as imperfect pointers to the truth of God. They must never be seen as statements of absolute truth in themselves; they are merely about absolute truth. While they provide a way for us to understand something about that truth, they are never going to comprehend that truth. When that is forgotten, it is easy to see how many people try to reject God, not from what God is, but from false concepts of God which they can easily refute. To refute God in this way is not to refute God, but something which is not God. It’s a rejection of an abstraction, not a concrete reality. “Every concept involves those who think and what is thought, subject and object. But God is neither of those who think nor of what is thought for he is beyond them. Otherwise he would be limited if as a thinker he stood in need of the relationship to what was thought or as an object of thought he would naturally lapse to the level of the subject thinking through a relationship. Thus there remains only the rejoinder that God can neither conceive nor be conceived but is beyond conception and being conceived. To conceive and be conceived pertain by nature to those things which are secondary to him,” St. Maximus the Confessor. Selected Writings. Trans. George C. Berthold (New York: Paulist Press, 1985), 148 (Chapters on Knowledge II-2). In this way, Paul Evdokimov reminds us that the big problem with atheism is that it must define God in order to reject him, but in doing so, it creates a God which is not God, and so they are not refuting God despite their attempts to do so. “How does atheism define the complex ‘God’ before denying him? The whole question lies here. At most it is the negation of a certain type of theology, of an anthropomorphic and human conception of God. This in no way goes beyond the human and in no way does it touch God in himself,” Paul Evdokimov. Ages of the Spiritual Life. Trans. Sister Gertrude. Revised by Michael Plekon and Alexis Vinogradov (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002), 24.
[5] “We have witnessed, during the last few centuries, ‘the rationalistic evaporation of God.’ But it was the rationalist God. A single puff will disperse the vapor. We shall not be disturbed. We shall even breathe more comfortably. The true God, the God we continue to adore, is elsewhere. He is everywhere you think to find him. He is everywhere, even when you do not find him,” Henry de Lubac. The Discovery of God. Trans. Alexander Dru (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1996), 179.
[6] “To reject God because man has corrupted the idea of God, and religion because of the abuse of it, is the effect of a sort of clear-sightedness which is yet blind. For surely the holiest things are inevitably destined to be the victims of the worst abuses. Religion, which is its own source and origin, must continue to purify itself. Moreover, under one form or another man always turns back to adoration. It is not merely his first duty but his deepest need. It is something he cannot extirpate; he can only corrupt it. God is the plow that draws him, and even those who deny him in spite of feeling that attraction, bear witness to him,” ibid., 154.
[7] Walter Kasper. The God of Jesus Christ. Trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (New York: Crossroad, 2003), 19.
[8] Of course, how one interprets that law is significant. It must be a relative, not an absolute, norm, because God is capable of transcending it.
Bertrand Russell was correct in calling Communism a religion. It’s not just what one believes but ‘how’. The more fervent belief is, the more likely the Communist, the Christian, the Muslim etc. is to kill those who disagree – the ‘class enemy’, the ‘heretic’, the ‘infidel’. It is because of this ‘unattractive quality’ of the highly ideological/religious that the majority of Westerners, with the exception of the USA (parts of it, at least) wants nothing to do with organized religion. Rejecting a particular god concept and its ground crew is however not synonymous with an absence of spirituality. As such it is more an anti-theism than atheism. Theists, too are atheists with respect to all gods save one.
The problem with the various god concepts is that they reflect people’s antipathies and sympathies. The god is a projection of whatever the particular society deems desirable. It certainly is no coincidence that a patriarchal society came up with a god who’s male, who had/is a son, who put males in charge. He also happens to ordain a submissive role for women and created the male first. Convenient, no ?
Nothing furthers irreligiosity more than a religious education. Europeans have seen it all up close and that is exactly why they’ve had it. Sure, Nietzsche said ‘God is dead’, but he also said, ‘we shall see him again beyond good and evil’. A god as super-natural ressentiment certainly isn’t that appealing anymore. Too much blood, entirely.
Gerald
Many people, long before Russell, saw the religious significance of communism. Indeed, much of it can be, and must be, read as a Judeo-Christian heresy, taking an extreme position from within the tradition, taking it out of context, and reworking it to be atheistic (though it does not need to be). And the Russian form, of course, merges it with the Byzantine political tradition, while the Chinese form adapts elements of classical Chinese thought into the mix.
However, the more one looks into Europe, the more one realizes that “Europe is for/against organized religion” is a cyclical thing. Hegel would have a field day with what sociology of religion has discovered. Constantly, the “intelligentsia” has said organized religion is dying, only to find the public return to it, time and again. There has, to be true, been no golden age for organized religion — or for disbelief.
Indeed, many in the 1960s said the same thing then as you are saying now; they, however, have found out their very thesis is wrong (in part because of what I just said above). It’s no longer believed that it is going to die out; it will aways be there as a part of the human condition, in one form or another, but there will always be the action/reaction between the communal and individual sides of religon, causing the cycle which we can now discern throughout history. Of course, at each turn of the cycle, there are changes going on in society, often paradigm shifts, and that is why when there is an overall shift, it is an important time to assert or reassert oneself without that new paradigm. And this means that there is, of course, an element of stability and and an element of change in religion as well.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_3_60/ai_57533381 (Secularization RIP) by Stark is a good place to start if you are interested in this, btw.
This does not undermine my general thesis that society, today, is engaging a practical atheism. But it does point out that we have not seen the last word from religion, either. And there are factors for why we are at this age of practical atheism, just as there were factors for when religion was the central hermeneutic for society. And as time moves on, what we see now will change and create the situation for one or the other to emerge for the next “era” until yet another paradigm shift comes about. This is possible, of course, not because of some Hegelian thesis/antithesis/synthesis as much as the fact that humanity is both limited and yet ever-growing in knowledge. The adaptation of that knowledge to make it meaningful is a constant process, and various lenses are capable of being used to do so. As we tire of one lens, another is brought back to the surface. There will always be those who don’t follow the current societal hermeneutic; their voice often helps provide for elements of the new one when it develops.
True, Communism just saw a god figure as competition to Lenin, Stalin & co.
Not belonging to a denomination is of course not synonymous with atheism. The last Catholic country in Europe, Poland, is also one of the most extreme countries. Welcome back, antisemitism.
Westerners, Americans included, are syncretists. Whether you are for the Red Sox or Yankees or Cardinals, you still like baseball. Truth being present everywhere, but fully nowhere. It is a rather healthy impulse, prone to maintain social peace. “No, we’re the only ones who have it all !!” has become gauche.
The discussion about the practical atheism of the modern world, in how society acts and reacts, has nothing to do with denominational basis either. As will be said in the next section, both Protestantism and Catholicism have helped shape this current social climate.
What I am bringing out is that there is a practical atheism which is far more significant than philosophical atheism which has entered society at large. We can trace its developments and see that philosophical atheism and theology both have contributed to it. It is the fact that God is regulated to the private function of the individual, giving a sense of individual meaning and worth, but having no real significance in one’s daily life. Or, as this is furthered, one ends up not giving any thought to God (or against God); this is a far more significant kind of atheism than one finds in philosophical debates. For, in a sense, as one acts, that is what they are.
Mind precedes phenomena ;)
I do see many positive aspects in what you describe – tribalism, be it religious, ethnic, nationalist etc is something that won’t be missed. Neither will readiness to kill others. The danger is being vulnerable to tribalist people, ie radical Islam.
I don’t see the Catholic church making any gains in the West, the chances after Vatican II were squandered, and now the reactionaries are back in power, and the ‘new blood’ is fighting the battles of 1890. Now, a mensch like Cardinal Martini, that’d be someone, but his kind is a dying breed. Hardliners are en vogue. Yes, I know. What can I tell you, this is my brain on drugs :)
Btw, Henry, Doubleday just sent me the new book by Michael Novak, about the ‘dark night of atheists and believers’.
Kristy4u – I actually have been hoping you’d write – I have 16,000,000 dollars that my attorney needs to put in your bank account for safekeeping. He merely needs your checking account number…
Henry,
I’m enjoying this series. It is something which has abstractly been on my mind for some time. i believe Eric Voegelin has some good things to about this. He was a Christian philosopher in Germany who witnessed the practical atheism of his Christian colleagues in German universities during the rise of Naziism.
Gerald,
The more fervent belief is, the more likely the Communist, the Christian, the Muslim etc. is to kill those who disagree – the ‘class enemy’, the ‘heretic’, the ‘infidel’.
This is only true is fervent belief is divorced from humility of love of the other while been fed with pride. The most fervet believers die for their cause rather than kill for it. You can find strong Christian, and non-Christian examples of this, although I’m sure you know that.
Sure, JB, but those are the exceptions, the common policy is to kill the others. In addition, valuing life not all that much is a common thing – it was viewed as better to kill the heretic than let him ‘lead astray’ others. This is why relativism, indifference and syncretism have resulted in European peace. In addition, those are direct results of the wars of religion and ideology.
JB
Thanks — Part III will either go up late afternoon/early evening today or on Thursday. I wrote everything in one fell swoop, but as I parse it out, I edit and add to the text, and I need to get a few things done this morning before I work on Part III.
I’ve a mixed reaction to Eric Voegelin myself.
A number of points, in no particular order:
Firstly, one should be a little careful in getting too excited about the “revival” of religion over the last thirty years. Leaving aside the issue of the quality of the religion that has revived, and as Catholics we should be the last to cheer on the mushrooming of Pentecostal type sects in Latin America which have so ravaged the Church, or the highly irrational character of a lot of booming African religion with its obsession with “things that go bump in the night” rather than higher things, there is the more pertinent question that for much of the Third World, life has got both poorer and more insecure over this same period.
From a Marxist point of view a revival of religion and “pie in the sky when you die” is of course entirely what one would expect in such a situation. Liberal sociologists of religion miss this because they often take an idealist rather than a materialist approach, and ignore socio-economic factors. The same goes for the revival of religion in the US over the same period: the US had the smallest welfare state to start with, and it was destroyed fastest and soonest. (Even Britain still has the National Health Service, although for how long remains to be seen). For most people religion provides them with community in a cold, anomie-ridden turbo-capitalist world, where all that is solid melts into air with ever more dizzying frequency.
The absence of religion in much of Europe has much to do with the existence of a massive welfare state, and the much slower pace of the dismantling of that welfare state (although full-blown Reaganism/Thatcherism is underway in Germany with “Agenda 2010″ and in France under Sarkozy for example), thus providing less of a wellspring for the sort of religion-thriving-on-despair-and-offering-bogus-causation that, sadly, has often been what has historically got “bums on seats”, and from which religion always needs to be purified. If the US became, over night, some sort of greater Sweden, church attendance etc would crash. I’m prepared to put money on that.
Secondly, Gerald, if and when the prosperity experienced by all your syncretist, relativist, etc heroes ever crumbles, I’m sure they will turn violent as they scrabble up the retreating rescue ladder, kicking and punching with the best of them. When their pleasure religion is threatened, then you’ll see them defend it tooth and nail. When Europe has had peace, it has been caused by prosperity, not a belief in relativism. (Once again, the liberal idealist approach shows its inferiority to the Marxist materialist approach!) Wars in Europe did not stop in 1648.
Thirdly, I agree with you Henry about being ambivalent about Voegelin. My main reservation stems from his somewhat indiscriminate use of the word “Gnostic”, which he tended to use as something of a swearword, rather in the manner that Joe McCarthy used “Communist”. Plus, and as you yourself have pointed out in an earlier piece he and his later acolytes were disastrously wrong (and, ironically, quasi-Gnostic themselves!) with their slogan “Don’t immanentise the eschaton!”, since it is Christianity that does precisely that. Our priests immanentise the eschaton at Mass every day!
Stuart
Right about Voegelin. The only positive thing I can say is that, at the end of his life, from what I can tell, he began to understand the problematic way he ued the label “Gnostic.” But his followers did not.
I’ve mentioned it vaguely before, but I feel I owe it to you all to actually give you all the title of the essay that alerted me to Voegelin’s end of life reorientations! It is thus:
Stephen A. McKnight
Eric Voegelin and the Changing Perspective On the Gnostic Featurees of Modernity
It’s in a collection of essays on Gnosticism whose title I have forgotten (sorry again!!!!).
I strongly recommend it as an entree into this whole thorny issue. As Henry says, V’s acolytes did not heed their masters last words (and where have we heard this before!), and given the massive influence of V in surprisingly politically influenetial circles in the US in the late C20th it is something we should all pay attention to.
It is, also, one of the few reasons I hold completely back from completely from endorsing the truly brilliant work of Cyril O’Regan on Hegel 9and the associated work of Kevin Mongrian on von Balthasar), as I fear that a certain proportion of their base may be flawed. Whatever one wishes to make of Marxism, not least in its pure Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist strand, it’s certainly not Gnosticism!
Stuart
It’s because of V’s ability to change and see some of the mistakes of his past that I am capable of appreciating him as a thinking person who struggled with difficult issues. I don’t agree with him on many things, but I can appreciate what he was trying to do. I think much of his understanding was, in part, influenced by his readings of 19th and early 20th century occultism (Theosophy) which messed things up, too.
However, saying that, I’ve also thought he was too quickly accepted as an authority, and I’ve never understood how or why. Even Balthasar, who should have known better, seemed to have been mixed up with V a bit.