You are here:   Civilisation >  Critique > It's Not God Who Needs Saving - It's Us
 

The "undergraduate atheists" have had their day. The spiritually deaf onslaught of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and their ilk has presented such an unfair and one-sided picture of religion that not only has it won few converts, but it may even have aided the cause of faith. If such crude tactics are the best the militant atheists can come up with (many open-minded readers must have thought) then perhaps religion is worth a second look after all.

Of much greater interest, and vastly more intellectual sophistication, are two books, one by the Princeton philosopher Mark Johnston, the other by the French best-selling author André Comte-Sponville, formerly of the Sorbonne. Both are inspired by the achievements of modern science, both firmly reject the traditional idea of a transcendent creator and yet both are sympathetic to our long heritage of spirituality, whose riches they would like to preserve if humanly possible.

 
Upwardly mobile: The 12th-century "Heavenly Ladder of Saint John Climacus" at the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai, Egypt 

But can it be done? Johnston, in his intriguingly titled Saving God (Princeton University Press, 2009) insists: "The causal mechanisms that lead to life, conscious awareness, and choice can be perfectly natural, that is, in accord with the laws of nature, and they may indeed take the form of random mutation and natural selection." This is something that most theologians would now accept: why should not a divinely created cosmos develop and evolve in accordance with natural laws? But Johnston proceeds to rule out any transcendent creator by nailing his colours to the mast of ontological naturalism — the idea that there are no supernatural entities or forces and that basic science explains all there is: it provides a "causally complete model of reality". 

And now comes the distinctive twist. There is, Johnston argues, "a religious argument...that we should hope that ontological naturalism is true. For ontological naturalism would be a complete defence against...our tendency to servile idolatry and spiritual materialism." Spiritual materialism involves retaining our ordinary selfish desires (for security, comfort, success, etc) and trying to get them satisfied by manipulating supposed supernatural forces. Idolatry is similar, placating the gods to get what we want. Authentic spirituality, by contrast, must address the "large-scale structural defects in human life" — arbitrary suffering, ageing, our and our loved ones' vulnerability to time and chance and, ultimately, death. The religious or redeemed life, Johnston argues, is one where we are reconciled to these large-scale defects. 

Johnston's achievement here is to grasp the crucial difference that authentic religion makes to ethics — to the whole question of how we should live. The ordinary secular virtues (self-confidence, fairness, good judgment, etc) "take life on its own unredeemed terms and make the most of it". By contrast, the theological virtues (faith, hope, love) are "not merely intensifications of ordinary virtue, but conditions of a transformed or redeemed life". Johnston, unlike the "undergraduate atheists" (the aptly pejorative label is his own coinage), is deeply sympathetic to the resonant insights of Scripture — for example, the story of the Fall, which shows how we are by our nature caught in an oscillation between self-will and the "false righteousness" which conforms to the good out of fear or self-interest. 

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
jay
September 8th, 2010
5:09 PM
'Morality must have authority ... and that authority is God, and by God, I mean [insert prefered deity here]' The problem with this is, the problem always is: which authority? Usually the author of such an argument is plainly picturing an arbitrarily selected deity, and assuming that if everyone simply listened to the morality that diety (actually the particular interpretation of the words of that deity) then the world would be a much better place. But that's where this breaks down. No one has convinced more than a fraction of the world of the authenticity of any set of religious teachings so there is simply no agreement on what constitutes 'right' even when you go to theologians (even within a subset, such as Christianity, there is wide disagreement as to what what is acceptable or not---except on some fundamental things, murder, theft, rape etc., but those taboos are common to most any culture so they hardly require a religion to figure them out). Until you can unambiguously demonstrate that a set of religious moral beliefs is right (and unambiguously show that the conflicting beliefs are wrong), then you have done NOTHING to clear up the confusion. [Ironically, the link page that got me here also had a link to a frightening article about women being killed in 'honor killings', killings performed by deeply religious people who really believe in their God's rigid standards. I don't hear much of 'honor killings' among secularists.]

MyName
September 8th, 2010
5:09 PM
As far as the two books go, it seems to me that the authors are basically trying to fulfill a human need for something greater than oneself with a kind of pantheism. I don't feel that the question of whether the universe emerged on its own through natural processes or was created by some higher power can detract from the realization that there are alot of amazing things out there. Just studying and explaining what is happening in the world around you can be transcendent at times. If that's what makes things work for the authors of these books, I don't think anyone can have a real objection to that. What bothers me about this article, however, is the idea that rejection of a personal deity somehow implies a rejection of moral authority. First of all, human beings don't learn right and wrong from God, they learn it from their parents and by listening to their own empathy for others. While some of these teachings are augmented by personal experience (i.e. even when told that fire burns, children still touch it), that isn't necessary for alot of things. For example, you don't need to murder someone to understand that murder is wrong and has negative consequences, you know this intuitively because you recognize that if you were that person, you would not want to be treated that way. The difference between a moral person and a murderer, then, has nothing to do with authority, but rather the murderer is the person who recognizes that their behavior is wrong and decides to go ahead with it anyways. And this has nothing to do with a God personal or otherwise. A Pagan, an Atheist, or a Christian Murder would still feel the wrongness of their actions. And this is so ingrained in humanity, that the only people who could fail to do so have some sort of mental disorder.

Ken Pidcock
September 8th, 2010
4:09 PM
So must we assert the presence of God, even absent justification for believing it? To claim such extraordinary knowledge seems to me the very opposite of humble.

John Lauritsen
September 8th, 2010
3:09 PM
Cottingham writes: "much of the resonance of the Judaeo-Christian worldview lies in its luminous moral insights." Sure -- like the provision in Leviticus that males who have sex with each other should be put to death. Like the idiotic prohibitions in Leviticus against eating tabooed foods or wearing the wrong type of clothing. Like Yahweh's demands that his people indiscriminately slaughter men, women, children, and even animals of gentiles. Like the war that both Jews and Christians waged against the higher culture of Classical Antiquity, leading to the Dark Ages. Like the Christian glorification of uncleanliness and ignorance. Like the burnings of heretics, witches and sodomites. "Luminous moral insights", indeed!

Alan Tuttle
September 8th, 2010
2:09 PM
It's hard to take seriously any position that begins from the claim that naturalism is a causally complete explanation of reality. Even within the context of nature, causal explanatory lacunae are innumerable (starting with the still unanswered "What was the Big Bang exactly?"). But more importantly, naturalism has no ontological causal explanation to offer: Why does nature exist at all? (Only dunces like Vic Stenger think is does.) So naturalism is like any other "set"--and, as Godel showed, no set can justofy its own internal "assumptions".

Zachary Bos
September 8th, 2010
2:09 PM
Why must a review nominate his candidates for our abuse, before he feels he can credibly appreciate books by authors in 'the other camp'? Cottingham's review would have lost nothing, and gained much in civility, had it not begun with a derisive, unreflective dismissal of "Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and their ilk." The works of Richard Dawkins are erudite and enlightening; the writing of Christopher Hitchens is as valuable a public intellectual asset as we've had in many years. I suspect Cottingham may be right to endorse these two new books under review, by Mark Johnston and André Comte-Sponville; it is a shame that he didn't resist the nasty impulse to set up the "New Atheists" as unsophisticated strawmen.

David B
September 8th, 2010
1:09 PM
"...what provides morality with its authority?" If morality needs authority, you're not a moral person. Where is the 'authority' for my love of my mother, or for my recognition of beauty when I see it? Religion's essential claim is: there is a Creator, and we know the mind of that Creator. We know what the Creator likes and hates. We know what the Creator thinks. We know the Creator's plan. Something other than these patently idiotic claims is something other than religion. Those who make such claims are liars or fools, those who believe them are stupid. The entire tradition is disgusting to a person of intelligence. If 'morality' must be founded within this tradition, if it is grounded in lies, then let 'morality' die today, and we'll replace it with the sense of right and wrong that lies within our hearts, alongside our sense of beauty and our craving for love, authority or nay.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.