Quote of the day

Isn’t this kind of what Europe is telling its Muslim population, with its doctrines of multicultural postmodern egalitarianism? And aren’t Muslims rejecting it as an insufficient basis to form an identity, at least according to one hypothesis of why 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims aren’t integrating into Europe? Why integrate into a dying society when your own tradition provides you with a powerful mythos to live by?

I hate the Koran, but beside it your Hallmark card ideas are pretty lame stuff, don’t you think? If Moses had come down from Mount Sinai with a tablet that said “Live by the moral laws and everything will be fine”, I doubt we would read about him today. Humans need something meatier than that.

venividivici on April 14, 2009 at 12:50 AM

Atheism, as an organizing social principle rather than a personal belief system, faces the same problem as the various collectivist nightmares that plagued the world throughout the 20th century: it draws up elaborate systems that appear sound in theory, but bear little resemblance to what actual human beings are prone to do. Your point about the savage power of the Koran, pitted against the watery bromides of dying post-Christian Europe, could be extended to cover every nation and culture throughout human history. None of them has ever assembled itself into a determined atheist society governed by pure Reason. All of them have incorporated religious concepts and traditions, some of them considerably less benign than others. Even the most well-meaning and enlightened civilizations have found it difficult to express their enlightenment without reference to divine authority. The aggressively anti-religious, “scientifically designed” societies of the 20th century have been ghastly horror shows.

I don’t believe this is because atheism is intrinsically vicious, or that atheists inevitable degenerate into fascism or communism. Individual atheists are among the most thoughtful philosophers and critics of social decay, as you can see from Allahpundit’s writing, or many of the posts on this comment thread. The atheist philosopher takes pride in reasoning his way to elevated moral beliefs, and the principles of a just society, rather than accepting the principles presented by a religious tradition. It’s interesting that the atheists tend to arrive at very similar conclusions about what it means to be just and virtuous.

The problem with atheism as an organizing foundation for a society is that it denies the hunger of many – perhaps, inevitably, most – of the citizens for a spiritual dimension in their lives. They will seek it out elsewhere if the popular culture does not provide it, and if the official posture of the government is hostile to all religion (instead of equally respectful of all religions) the religious community will increasingly see itself as alienated from the government. This never leads anywhere good, but it’s a story that repeats itself over and over again, every time self-appointed rationalists impose a manufactured set of government policies over a populace that refuses to part with its faith. You can see it in the home-church movement in China, the religious underground that opposes Castro in Cuba, the faith traditions Communist Russia never quite managed to destroy completely, the Christian and Jewish resistance to Nazi Germany… and, on a darker note, the increasingly long Islamic shadow spreading across Europe. The atheist philosopher is wise to remember that the citizens will never give up their religion, and make peace with this truth. When the first men set foot on a world that orbits a distant star, at least one of them is going to be wearing a crucifix or Star of David under his spacesuit.

As to exactly why the religious traditions of the West have been such an important part of its civic virtue: I think religion provides a powerful moral language that helps citizens and lawmakers interact with each other efficiently. Certainly a well-spoken atheist could make a powerful, logical case for why murder is wrong, but it’s much faster and more convenient to embrace the religious injunction against murder – thou shalt not kill – and move on to more complex questions. It’s like writing a subroutine for a computer program. Why spend hours of mental energy building that ironclad, coldly logical case against murder when you can just invoke Class THOU.SHALT.NOT.KILL? A government born from the consensus of enlightened religious traditions, building up from the faith and heartfelt beliefs of its citizens, will always be more solidly grounded and legitimately democratic than a government that dictates politically-designed morality through 10,000 page budgets and hundred-volume codes of law.

Also, religious belief provides one key ingredient that is usually missing from the atheist, materialist society: humility. It’s something you’re not surprised to find is scarce among people who congratulate themselves on having the superior wisdom and virtue to micro-manage trillion dollar economies, or write laws telling banks who they are morally obliged to loan money to. Religious faith among political leaders hardly guarantees wisdom, or even proper personal behavior, but if that faith is heartfelt, it can at least provide a dash of humility that they are highly unlikely to acquire anywhere else. I don’t think a just leader must wholeheartedly believe that a Supreme Being sits in judgment over him… but I do think the country benefits if he behaves as if he believes it.

Doctor Zero on April 14, 2009 at 1:23 AM