Thursday, 25 June 2009

Secularism: a creed of mere negations

Regular blog commenter Brenda has taken umbrage with me quoting stupid Christians on the blog. She sends in a more balanced view from the Wall Street Journal (below). Thanks Brenda; I never would have seen this otherwise.

"Have you ever heard the one about the Christian who started to study calculus and ended up losing his faith? Of course you have. Such "conversion" to atheism is supposed to be the story of all modern, thinking people. But imagine it happening the other way around. Moreover, imagine the convert being a well-informed, public intellectual who had long made it his business to argue that faith is irrational?

Just such a conversion has happened to A.N. Wilson, the 58-year-old British biographer, novelist and man of letters. He was once an observant Anglican and, later, a Roman Catholic, but in the 1980s he lost his faith and began skewering the supposed delusions of the faithful. His antifaith stance was expressed in books such as "God's Funeral" (1999) and "Jesus: A Life" (1992). A few weeks ago, however, Mr. Wilson confessed that Christ had risen indeed. He attributed this to "the confidence I have gained with age." He now says he believes that atheists are like "people who have no ear for music or who have never been in love."

Mr. Wilson's story matches that of other skeptical authors who became convinced by Christianity, not least in Victorian Britain, when Darwin and various modern ideas shook the foundations of faith among the educated classes. Among the notable examples from Victorian Britain are Thomas Cooper, the most popular free-thinking lecturer in London in the 1850s; George Sexton, the most academically accomplished secularist intellectual of the time; and Joseph Barker, a well-respected leader of the mid-19th-century free-thinking movement. The 20th century also had its share of writers and intellectuals who rediscovered Christianity as mature thinkers, including T.S. Eliot, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, C.S. Lewis, Graham Greene, Evelyn Waugh and W.H. Auden.

Our modern assumption that thought and faith are incompatible can be traced to the Victorian atheists. As one of them snidely remarked when a fellow secularist came to faith: "I find it hard to believe that someone could progress backwards."

Secularist leaders were usually raised religious. As clever youths, they would begin to handle the Bible critically. They prided themselves in being "rational" and would decide that Christian beliefs did not meet this standard. They would then go on to find intellectual satisfaction in picking apart the beliefs of others. Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason," a book beloved by free-thinkers in the 19th century, systematically went through the Bible, gleefully mocking each book in turn.

Those who later recanted their atheism went on from this common start to begin to doubt their doubts. They gradually decided that their rationalistic method was too narrow: It could pick holes not only in Christianity but in any attempt to distinguish between right and wrong or to articulate the meaning of life. They came to realize that they could only tear down and thus were left intellectually with no habitable place to live. John Henry Gordon, who held the only full-time, salaried secularist lecturer position in England, came to believe that secularism was a creed of "mere negations.""

To read the entire article, go here

Mr. Larsen is the author of "Crisis of Doubt: Honest Faith in Nineteenth-Century England" (Oxford University Press, 2008).

17 comments:

Elizabeth said...

I enjoyed AN Wilson's book on the Victorians but he can be a figure of fun to others in the British press for his pomposity.

Lisa said...

This is a balanced view of religion? It's irrationality masquerading as something relating to thought rather than belief, which is the same as the previous posts, but with broader vocabulary.

Notice how they spend a whole paragraph trying to bolster this person's arguments with credentials and his personal journey instead of letting the strength of the argument make the point.

It's usually the case (but not always) that when you read something trying to claim that some accomplished people believed or did something (like discovered god in their advancing years) then they're basically trying to con you because there is no good reason to accept the claim being advanced on its own merits. So instead they try an argument from authority and hope you're so swooning over the fancy credentials that you don't even notice, and it sometimes works, especially when you already believe the claim.

Look at this claim: "George Sexton, for example, decided that Jesus as presented in the Gospels was so compelling and haunting that only a historical original could account for this."

Oh really? He "decided" that must be true? I'm more than a bit concerned for his decision-making capacity. This is a falling-down-laughable claim, especially from someone who was supposed to be an intellectual. Anytime there is an unknown it supports the christian story?? Is this really an example of rigorous religious thought?

Elizabeth said...

That is a very interesting comment, Lisa, as I am reading a logic book that Howard recommended now and he makes some similar points. will have to do a post about that soon. Thanks.

bwj said...

Eliz, thanks for providing the link. Without the least desire to "con" anyone, nor to compete to see who can bring the most impressive sesquipedalian ammunition to this (pointless) debate (which after all, *en fin de compte,* boils down to a personal preference,) I do find a certain (irrational! illogical! oooooooh! shoot me!) comfort in the words and writings, both fictional and non, of those who, for whatever reason and by whatever paths, have arrived at a belief with which I can identify.

"O reason not the need." Or, if "reason" is your God, then reason away, and I'd be the last to make fun of you for finding joy in cold logic.

Again, thanks for being fair, Eliz. I thought that it would interest you, and that's why I passed it along.

Anonymous said...

A few words from a casual bystander. I read the WSJ article, and as usual was disappointed to find that there was no obvious path to a confident faith. But neither is there an obvious path to faithlessness. I think bwj gets the better of the exchange with Lisa in that regard.

Ms. Lisa, I respect your intelligence, but goodness you need to be more respectful of others. You come off as something of a Houyhnm. (See Book IV of "Gulliver's Travels." And no, I'm not sure of the spelling.) A Houyhnm is a perfectly rational creature (a horse, in fact), and lives in a perfectly rational society, but she is intolerant of any opinions but her own. She is a classic "puritan," by definition one who consistently commits the Fallacy of Degree. (The fallacy of failing to recognize that sometimes a difference of degree is more important than a difference of kind. Example: equating a social drinker with a drunkard.) The Houyhnms share their world with a population of loathsome creatures whose specific name I can't recall. When a human shows up and it becomes clear that he is not perfectly rational, the Houynhms ignore the fact that humans are many degrees closer to rationality than the creatures, and simply equate the humans with the creatures.

One who believes should be treated with respect. One who disbelieves should be treated with respect. I am a seeker myself, and do not expect to find the Answer in any direction. I am fairly certain that puritans of all stripes are too much in love with an idea, and not enjoying the fun of making a mess of things. I try to treat them with respect, but it is a hard thing.

"I said, 'I will be wise,' but it was far from me."

mel said...

Anonymous said:
"One who believes should be treated with respect. One who disbelieves should be treated with respect."

As far as I can see, Lisa is not disrepecting anyone - it's beliefs she's attacking.

Surely you're not suggesting we afford irrational beliefs the same fegree of respect as rational ones? Otherwise we'll be nodding politely at tales of alien abduction.

BTW Anonymous, who are you? We have so many anonymouses around here it's hard to keep track.

Lisa said...

I didn't see the other comment you mention, but I thought in the spirit of correction that I mention that I am perfectly tolerant of religious people until they start making outlandish and unsupported claims like there is some rational basis for their belief, or until they start harming people whilst claiming to be a vehicle of god, and that they love others. I am well aware of the many psychological reasons people have for believing in a deity and everlasting life, etc. etc., and have no problem with them.

I am also completely respectful of ideas that have some basis in reason, even when they conflict with my own. There are lots of ideas communicated on this blog that I don't agree with, but which are reasoned. I happen to think a lot of things are indeterminate, and with that position it is impossible to be intolerant of others whose positions differ. I don't recall ever seeing a religious claim like this here, however. Those are usually pure nonsense.

And I see no good reason for respecting nonsense as being as valid a way of understanding of the world, although naturally I defend the right of you or anyone to do so. But I will also speak up and point out the incoherence and inconsistency whenever I see it so that anyone who has not noticed can see it plainly for what it is.

Lastly, I do understand you're mischaracterising me, because otherwise you wouldn't have any basis for your complaints because my arguments are valid, and you don't like them. I have never said anything about people being perfectly reasonable. I presume you are familiar with this as a fallacy of degree, but it's always helpful to have another example! :-)

Elizabeth said...

Yes, and I think it's meant to be a bit intimidating -- 'you aren't showing this person respect' so maybe Lisa will shut up. Or maybe this is just the way it feels to me because I have gotten feedback about my blog like that from a brother -- you shouldn't be putting this stuff up in public, stop doing this -- and I felt intimidated and wondered if I should stop.

I think we respect other people here or else I wouldn't have put up a post that Brenda asked me to to show another point of view. But the blog will always be skewed to my personality so it won't be balanced to everyone's taste.

I love ridicule and sarcasm -- I think that's why I love Swift and Voltaire and that's why I'll always be offending someone.

Steve Borthwick said...

Anonymous, (with respect) what utter nonsense!

Lisa is attacking the idea not the person.

Perhaps you have an intolerance for contrary ideas or confuse debate with personal attack, you seem to want to promote one viewpoint by denying someone else theirs, hardly the spirit of parity that you claim to desire?

In my experience people play the "respect" card when they have run out of arguments, i.e. when they know they have lost.

All opinions are not equal and respect for an idea is not due just because someone believes it or even if a billion people believe it.

Jack Munro f/k/a Anon. said...

A little more on the Fallacy of Degree.

I do not have respect for beliefs that bolster cruel behavior toward others. I may not be wise, but neither am I foolish.

I sense, perhaps wrongly but strongly enough to take time to make these comments, that Lisa is too prone to lump all theists together. A. N. Wilson, whoever he may be, is a fairly rational creature who has chosen a form of theism. As such, he may be different in "kind" from nonbelievers, but he is very different in "degree" from the theists who consider the Second Amendment holy. The difference of degree is more important than the difference of kind.

The main thing to me is not to be too positive in one's own opinions. (Those who are were the primary target of Swift's satire.) "Every truth is the last truth but one."

Sorry, Elizabeth, but it makes me sad to hear someone say that they love ridicule and sarcasm. I know you must be exaggerating for effect, but still. As the true King of Pop once said, "don't be cruel."

Elizabeth said...

Satire, I guess I should have said. Private Eye is my favorite magazine.

Elizabeth said...

Oh, you probably don't know what Private Eye is. If you don't know who AN Wilson is, then I'm guessing you don't live in the UK.

Private Eye is a mag that satirizes politicians mostly but really anything that can be satirized, ridiculed or mocked (like stupid government decisions, for example).

Lisa said...

I think we're just completely different creatures with different values. I don't think pretending someone is making sense when they are making invalid or incoherent claims counts as kindness; I imagine you must think of universities as pinnacles of cruelty.

I personally find it to be patronising and insulting to listen to someone say something that many people can see is senseless, and then behave as though the opinion is worthy of respect. It's even worse to remain silent and allow other people who read or hear to take what is said at face value.

So when Elizabeth posts some supposedly sophisticated discussion of religion that turns out to be a sheep in wolf's clothing, complete with a lot of comments about how "well respected" these people are, but very little in the way of good reason, I will say so. No one has said why these people are so well respected or why we should care about that irrelevant fact; maybe they should be a little less respected so that people don't believe what they say just because they said it.

Fractured arguments about god have been presented here many times before; you haven't said why I should give these people special dispensation and consider them to be some loftier level of christian.

Is it because the article was in the WSJ? Is it because they've read some books? Where is the evidence that they should be seen as different when they engage in the same practices? You take a paragraph to say that I am making a mistake lumping people together, but you don't actually say what the basis of the mistake is and what the reasons are that they shouldn't be lumped together. They do have in common that they make unsubstantiated assertions and engage in slippery reasoning. This isn't lumping all theists together - I considered the substance of this article on its own, apart from any other claims I have heard theists make. And then the claim turns out to embody the same sort of faulty reasoning that other theists mentioned in this blog have made. In this regard, I claim, they are alike.

And I don't find any problem with this; all I am able to know about Sexton is what he actually says - I don't have any intention or interest in reading his mind for other more thoughtful or valid arguments he may actually have but didn't say. Perhaps the person who wrote this article was presented with many valid arguments and chose to write solely about the few rubbish ones. If this is the case then hopefully the subjects will write in to clarify, although I would answer they shouldn't be making silly claims like jesus as a gospel figure was so compelling that he therefore MUST be real if they want to be taken seriously.

And I'm not sure about a LOT of things, but I can certainly tell when someone is flailing about, invoking credentials and telling the romantic tale of a brilliant mind and his religion loved, religion lost, religion found and loved again that is supposed to make us all swoon and capitulate, quickly, before we reason too much about any of it.

I would suggest to you to have a look at the article again, perhaps putting aside any hope of finding something that can rationally substantiate faith, and see that it is largely devoid of any thinking, but is mostly rhetorical, trying to get us to think that if someone was an atheist who now is a believer then there must be some compelling reason they switched, and that we should find that reason compelling as well (even if we're not really clear about what it is).

This is an old technique, and it is usually used with CS Lewis (who made some seriously desperate arguments, let me tell you, even if he is the patron saint of the rational believer). It mostly consists of an argument from authority and some backward reasoning about logic not providing all the answers somehow properly giving rise to the conclusion that god therefore exists. A little sleight of hand, if you will.

It's ok if you're impressed by this, but I am not.

Jack Munro said...

Lisa,

I apologize if I seemed judgmental. Your last comment is well-written, as before, but also has a more balanced tone. You may not want my praise, but I tender it anyway, and happily.

You mention C. S. Lewis. His best books, I think, are The Allegory of Love and his small treatise on "Paradise Lost." His Christian apologetics are well done, but they default into a sort of smugness. "If you are a Christian, you must believe that your religion is right and every other religion is wrong." I'm afraid that such a declaration, however logical, is finally just cold-hearted.

Oh, well: "Argue not concerning God," said the poet. Why do I keep forgetting his wise injunction?

And dear Elizabeth, I'm with you: let there be satire.

Elizabeth said...

'And dear Elizabeth, I'm with you: let there be satire.'

I love it when people call me Dear.

Thanks

Lisa said...

Jack,

I don't have any problem with being judged, provided it is not done by misattributing a position to me, otherwise mischaracterising my claims or eschewing reason - meaning as long as it is done fairly. Judgment to me is just evaluative, which I think is a very positive process.

mel said...

You mean as in "Yes, dear"?