Today liberal humanism has the pervaisve power that was once possessed by revealed religion. Humanists like to think they have a rational view of the world; but their core belief in progress is a superstition, further from the truth about the human animal than any of the world’s religions.
Outside of science, progress is simply a myth. In some this observation seems to have produced a moral panic. Surely, they ask, no one can question the central article of faith of liberal societies? Without it, will we not despair? Like trembling Victorians terrified of losing their faith, these humanists cling to the moth-eaten brocade of progressive hope. Today religious believers are more free-thinking. Driven to the margins of a culture in which science claims authority over all of human knowledge, they have had to cultivate a capacity for doubt. In contrast, secular believers — held fast by the conventional wisdom of the time — are in the grip of unexamined dogmas.
~ John Gray, Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals
Straw Dogs
August 4, 2008 · 6 Comments
Categories: Uncategorized
6 responses so far ↓
Danny // August 8, 2008 at 10:56 am |
Can you name one contemporary liberal who espouses these ideas, at least in terms of how simply Gray paints liberal-humanism?
Christian // August 8, 2008 at 1:36 pm |
I’ll name five: Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, E. O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett.
Danny // August 8, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
Notice, though, that Gray has a caveat, namely “outside of science”, which describes almost everyone you mention (that is they are either scientist or pseudo-scientist – Harris/Dennett). I agree with his comment that they espouse a myth, but I suppose I think the over all judgement is a bit myopic and generalized. I mean, if you read this to Dennett do you think he would say, “You pegged me”? I think this form of discourse puts forward a false dichotmous impasse between faith and religion so as to prevent a real understanding of the commonalities between the two. I mean, is it by chance that scientism was birthed out of a Christian teleogical understandng of history. This is why both are predicated upon faith. In fact Blumenberg suggests that the problem with modern science is that it never jettisoned a particular Christian conception of history.
Robb Beck // August 20, 2008 at 9:40 am |
Danny,
“I think this form of discourse puts forward a false dichotmous impasse between faith and religion so as to prevent a real understanding of the commonalities between the two.”
Your point is clear enough: driving wedges between what appear to be conflicting accounts of morality, politics, etc. does not do justice to the common genealogy of each – to say nothing of what each contemporary liberal individual might have to say in their defense.
However, Gray’s point has to do with his first sentence; that is, it is a question of who has the power and who has been usurped. And far from this being a postmodern critique a la Foucault, I think Gray is attempting to point out the fallout effect of a “rampant enlightenment”: savage capitalism, militant democracy, science without value, etc. that one side of the spectrum cannot (or chooses not) to see.
Another point Gray is trying to make is that it’s the perceived blindness of someone like Gray (especially Hitchens!) who does not have the intellectual wherewithal to recognize their own mythic moorings. Regardless of your point about “you pegged me,” I do not believe that people like Hitchens et al would like to be in the same camp as so-called religious folk, and herein lies the problem: finding this neverland of “real understanding” of the “commonalities.”
Danny // August 20, 2008 at 11:08 am |
I agree that the last thing that Hitchens would want to be told is that he really is being religious or operating under some myth.
At the same time, I find the postmodern move that basically suggests this to be a cheap move. Foremost, it calls not only the credibility of Hitchens world view into question but that of the all world view as well. Secondly, it sounds eerily familiar to Karl Rahner’s notion of the anonoymous Christian. I mean could you imagine walking up to a “good” Buddhist and telling them that they really are a Christian? Likewise, I find it just as disrespectful to tell someone like Hitchens or whoever what it is that they really believe or what the epistemic status of those believes really are. This is too easy. Hitchens can simply pull the reverse which is what he is actually doing. What we need is a more nuanced view here one in which transcends the notion that one is really operating under religious presumptions or non-religious presumptions. Something a bit more tricky.
danny // August 21, 2008 at 1:21 pm |
Sorry about all the typos.