The Limits of Secularism

January/February 2012

Isn't that magnificent? But it's possible to rewrite that passage from the opposite point of view, from a completely theistic perspective, and to say virtually the same thing. Here is my attempt at Bertrand Russell:

That man, despite being the product of seemingly blind causes, is not blind, that being in the image of God he is more than an accidental collocation of atoms, that being free he can rise above his fears and with the help of God create oases of justice and compassion in the wilderness of space and time. That though his life is short he can achieve immortality through his fire and his heroism, his intensity of thought and feeling. That humanity too, though it may one day cease to be, can create before that night falls a noon-day brightness of the human spirit. Trusting in that though none of our kind will be here to remember yet in the mind of God none of our achievements is forgotten. All of these things, if not beyond dispute have proven themselves time and again in history; we are made great by our faith, small by our lack of it. Only within the scaffoldings of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding hope, can the soul's salvation be safely built.

I never understood why it should be considered more courageous to despair than to hope. It takes courage to hope; it doesn't take courage to despair. Freud said that religious faith is the illusion — the comforting illusion — that there is a father figure. But a religious believer could say to Freud that atheism is the comforting illusion that there is no father figure and you can get away with whatever you feel like doing. So I don't know why atheism is somehow considered more heroic than theism; I call that an adolescent dream.

Tags:

Like this article? Share, save or print using the icons below:

Anonymous

January 2nd, 2012
9:01 PM

Whether you are a believer or not,f science now knows that a moral sense in fact is inbred that enables one to distinguish between right and wrong. Thus while it good to believe a moral sense comes from religion it is also good to know that you do not have to be or have been a believer to know right from wrong. So go forth and sin no more

Anonymous

January 2nd, 2012
6:01 PM

Well it was NOT Judaism that the Chinese scholar referred to, but Christianity. The Good Rabbi conveniently omits this fact. And there's nothing shocking about this 'discovery.' Nietzsche attributed our doubt, and our atheism to our Christian 'conscience.' But had we not left our 'faith' with Machiavelli and Hobbes, we would still be mired in medieval superstition. And let's not forget that Catholic dogma did not prevent the Holocaust, the 'pacifying of the heathens' and the recent spate of child molestations within the Church.

Roger Wilco

January 2nd, 2012
4:01 PM

We are "damn, dirty apes" (with profound apologies to Charlton Heston). We are here to shovel money at our betters and be grateful for the privilege. We are to live as we are told to live.

Joel

January 2nd, 2012
4:01 PM

The one subject missing from the Rabbi's article (at least up to halfway through, where I tired of the self-serving twisting of facts), is truth. I'm not surprised. Apparently, now that we all need Religion--never mind which of those 5000 contradicting ones practiced today, any will do--it's to be marketed for its usefulness, not its truth anymore. If Christianity or Zorastrianiasm or Voodoo brings families together, we should have faith.

Mike

January 2nd, 2012
2:01 PM

The whole pop-science left/right-brain thing that invades this piece doesn't leave me with a good impression that he knows much about science. People being brought together to worship doesn't imply that they're going to do good. I've witnessed plenty of examples of congregants being perfectly horrible to people who won't take a dose of worship with the charity they're receiving. For an extreme example look at the manifestly man-made ruling "gods" of North Korea. I don't know where he gets his figures on religiosity as a correlate of community involvement: in all the efforts I've been involved in there's been very little of it evident. Maybe he means involvement in "religious" community endeavours? What special precedence does religion has over say philosophy in dealing with issues of human existence? "So there it is: the evidence that intellectuals have systematically misunderstood the nature of religion and religious observance". Sorry, did I miss something?

Phil

December 27th, 2011
4:12 AM

Shane, I see that you disagree with that particular statement of Rabbi Sacks, but your disagreement doesn't seem all that strong. After all, you write that PERHAPS faith is incidental to positive social and moral effects associated with church attendance.

Lawrence Gage

December 26th, 2011
11:12 PM

Perhaps, Shane. But modern secularism tends to teach that man is self-sufficient--not only collectively sufficient without God, but also individually sufficient without others (the two are connected). It's hard to know why people who believe themselves self-sufficient individuals would seek community in any meaningful way, by which I mean in a way that provides any objective, lasting foundation for self-sacrifice. On the other hand, perhaps you can come up with a way for people to rest content in sacrificing their here-and-now desires and interests (a requirement for real community) without any promise of future reward. In the centuries of modernity up until now, no one has succeeded, but you could always be the first. I wish you luck! LG http://realphysics.blogspot.com

Anthony S. Layne

December 26th, 2011
4:12 PM

The problem with "reestablishing [social] networks in such a way as to bring in those who find their meaning without religious faith" is that individualism is a heavily-repeated motif in what I've read from New Atheists. In fact, I find that many speak dismissively of believers as engaging in a sort of herd mentality; their own refusal of religion is their statement not only of intellectual superiority but of intellectual and social independence. Others aren't so uncharitable, but they also don't seem to seek out community with other atheists; in fact, their friends tend to be believers. Certainly, you see groups forming to advance atheism as a cause, but not as — you'll pardon the expression — religious expression.

elixelx

December 25th, 2011
7:12 AM

I am surprised that the Chief Rabbi did not include, yet, the most cogent and apropos expression of the relationship between Science and Religion: the unanimous agreement by the Children of Israel upon hearing the voice of G0D giving them the Torah... "We will DO", they cried with a single heart, mind and voice, "and we will BELIEVE" Consider that: in the presence of Divinity the Israelites made their acceptance of Religion concomitant upon their Experience; they said that a priori was a result of a posteriori; that Good and Useful Science was the bedrock of Strong and Unshakeable Faith... This is why the atheist lies when he maintains that believers are anti-rational. At Matan Torah those who have always excelled at Science, JEWS, got the priority right. FIRST DO, and THEN BELIEVE!

Shane

December 21st, 2011
2:12 PM

Interesting read. I disagree with what seems to be the central point that "individuals may live good lives without religion — the moral sense is part of what makes us human — but a society never can". The church brought people physically together through shared belief (or through social convention or habit maybe) and the loss of this is evident in many ways but perhaps faith is incidental to positive social and moral effects associated with church attendance. The religions have long established social networks and institutions that these foster positive effects by bring people together, hopefully over time we can reestablish these networks in such a way as to bring in those who find their meaning without religious faith.

Post your comment

More Text