Last night I was looking on the bookshelf in my dining room for something to read at bedtime, and saw a blank spine in a far corner. I pulled it out, and it was a galley copy of "The Soul and Barbed Wire: An Introduction to Solzhenitsyn," recently published by ISI. The chapter on Solzh's beliefs is quite good and informative. Fortunately, Taki's Mag has published a short adaptation, which makes for rewarding reading. What a fortunate coincidence that I discovered this book last night! Excerpt:
Solzhenitzyn's way of talking about the relationship between man and the world seems to many heirs of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment to be primitive and outmoded--just the kind of thing to cause a critic to wave off Solzhenitsyn's thinking as "medieval rubbish." In the late twentieth century, however, a rebellion against the Enlightenment project surfaced, drawing in a wide range of secular and religious thinkers, Solzhenitsyn among them. This is not to say that Solzhenitsyn and other traditionalists see nothing of merit among the effects of the Enlightenment. In the political sphere, for example, they can laud the Enlightenment for advancing human liberty by promoting the rule of law rather than men, for establishing democratic procedures and representative institutions, for recognizing individuals' rights. But at its deepest level--the metaphysical level--the Enlightenment rejected traditional beliefs about the nature of the universe and human beings. Enlightenment thought abandons the conviction that God is necessary. And if God is dispensable, so is a whole array of concomitant principles governing human life--indeed, the very principles that constitute the moral universe.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I know this is going to come as a shock, but there are some people who might disagree with that definition.
I don't want to sound flippant, but all I can say in response to that is "okay, so what?"
"Are you saying that a stable society is self-evident as a good, or that " the good" itself is self-evident?"
A stable society balanced with individual freedom is a self evident good.
"'Good' is that which leads to the survival of humanity concomitant with the greatest amount of freedom for individual humans, balanced with the need for a stable society."
And there you have it, folks. Perhaps the first thing John has said that is somewhat close to intellectual honesty in this discussion. He comes closer to the edge of acknowledging the utter emptiness and nihilism of the atheistic world view than I have seen.
Under this definition of "good" there are a whole host of horrors that are allowed. And John, I'm not sure upon what grounds you decide freedom is somehow necessary in your definition. It isn't at all necessary to humanity's survival. Neither, frankly, is a stable society.
Under the atheist paradigm, humans have no intrinsic value. We are just animated meat, an accidental lump of something no different from a pile of cattle dung.
"I will counter that physical struggle for power is, in practice, how religiously - based societies stop bad behavior."
It is interesting that the struggle between good and evil that was the realistic frame of WWII was seen in theistic terms. For example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt prayed openly in the face of a clear
and present danger, an existential threat to our nation's security,
"Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith
in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be
dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters
of but fleeting moment -- let not these deter us in our unconquerable
purpose. With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of
our enemy."
It is likely such exhortations would now be met by a tattooed,
Hummer-driving, Wal-Mart shopping spree nation with derision, and the
American Left would cry "fascism!" or "Christianist!" or "theocrat!"
were such phrases to fall from our leaders' lips today.
Under the atheistic world view (perhaps your world view?) WWII - the struggle between evil fascism and good democracy - was nothing more than the struggle between two ant hills. It matters little in the materialist universe whether the red ants win or the black ants win.
Flip a coin. There's no other way for you to make any qualitative judgment on the "good" side in that conflict or any other.
Houghton, you are making up a straw man, calling it 'the atheistic world view' and knocking it around.
I hope it is good exercise for you, but I don't think you are accomplishing anything very productive.
With respect, John, your attempt to claim I am creating a straw man simply sounds like an exercise in trying to avoid the natural end point of atheism. Atheism is indeed a world view. Each of us, whether we like it or not, has a viewpoint on reality. Atheism sees the world in a certain way. That's a world view.
Don't mistake, however, my relentless pursuit of the truth of what the natural end point of atheism is as being somehow reflective of a disdain for you as an individual. Far from it. You sound like a thoughtful individual who has perhaps embraced ideas from the "virtuous pagans." I don't know for sure, obviously, but the tagline of "agnostic stoic" would seem to indicate that.
Your last entry here also sounds like a concession of all of the major points I have made, but trust me when I say that hasn't been the point - and it's not an exercise. I believe it's crucial that we all face up to the truth of what our world views really do constitute. Assertions were made here that simply don't hold up to scrutiny, and I thought it vital to challenge those assertions.
In my estimation, you do sound like a traveler, someone who, in other words, says to himself, "I don't know if there is a God, but I'm open to being shown otherwise." I would say that's a great approach. Stay on the road as a traveler, don't be tempted to stand on the sidelines (someone who says "I don't want there to be a God, and I'll be hostile to any arguments made for His existence").
As someone who also used to be an atheist, then an agnostic stoic (a great admirer of Marcus Aurelius), then later a theist, I know you'll find Truth, because you're already on the road toward it. Keep on that road.
You sound like a thoughtful individual who has perhaps embraced ideas from the "virtuous pagans." I don't know for sure, obviously, but the tagline of "agnostic stoic" would seem to indicate that.
Well, yes, I like to think so.
Here is what I find frustrating about your arguments - a disinclination to acknowledge that a person or society can be disinclined to believe in an ultimate, external source of morality, but yet can hold axiomatic beliefs that lead, by reason, to behavior that is functionally identical to that based on 'revealed morality.
Here is an example:
And John, I'm not sure upon what grounds you decide freedom is somehow necessary in your definition. It isn't at all necessary to humanity's survival. Neither, frankly, is a stable society.
It is my axiom that freedom is better than non-freedom and stability is better than instability.
I use reason to argue that people live longer and have healthier lives in stable societies (acknowledging that I've implied another axiom - that long, healthy lives are to be preferred over short, unhealthy lives).
I also use reason to argue that in a free society, people have a vested interest in society's stability and society does not have to expend resources that would be required to control an un-free populace.
Under the atheist paradigm, humans have no intrinsic value. We are just animated meat, an accidental lump of something no different from a pile of cattle dung.
Here is another reason why I suggest that you are making straw-man arguments about the atheistic world view. There is only one thing you can say for certain about an atheistic world view - that there is a belief that there is no Deity. These these other statements you've made are simply your claims about what you believe must necessarily derive from an unbelief in Deity.
One can choose axioms, such as a secular humanistic world view, that is compatible with atheism, but still gives intrinsic value to humans.
Under the atheistic world view (perhaps your world view?) WWII - the struggle between evil fascism and good democracy - was nothing more than the struggle between two ant hills. It matters little in the materialist universe whether the red ants win or the black ants win.
Again, another example of your assertions about atheism that are not inherent in the definition of atheism. One can disbelieve in a Deity, but still prefer that the Allies defeat the Axis Powers. One could make that decision based on national chauvinism or a preference for democratic government.
As someone who also used to be an atheist, then an agnostic stoic (a great admirer of Marcus Aurelius), then later a theist, I know you'll find Truth, because you're already on the road toward it. Keep on that road.
Posted by: Houghton | August 10, 2008 12:18 AM
Thank you.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.