The Irrational Atheist, Part 5

Finally, Kelly finished Chapter 4 of The Irrational Atheist, and I feel obliged to follow suit. Her response at this point is rather incoherent, but that may simply reflect the relative incoherence of this chapter.

In Chapter 4, “The Religion of Reason,” Vox starts out OK, with four pages about how untrustworthy atheists are. This is based on the fact that atheism by definition is not associated with any particular moral direction or set of guidelines, other than the denial that the god of one’s enemy exists (this is the corollary to Vox’s “moral parasitism” thesis on p. 63). The illustrations are entertaining, but the point is belabored.

The next eight pages meander away from morality and instead attempt to define atheist ethics based on specific atheist and humanist statements. Here Vox is mainly trying to show that the basis of atheist ethics is Enlightenment humanism updated to the post-Soviet era, rather than science. Again, the point could have been made more concisely without controversy. This section resembles Vox’s random, unedited notes, and it is a worthy companion to Kelly’s half-conscious response.

The next section has two good paragraphs at the beginning, then veers off into a rant against the European Union, makes a couple of clear points about morality and politics, then finishes up weakly. Here are the money quotes:

When asked why so many individuals with theoretically anti-authoritarian beliefs somehow end up supporting authoritarian government actions, [Hitchens] explained that this was because of the way in which temporary expedients considered necessary for the achievement of a primary goal are easily transformed into dogma that cannot be questioned lest the attainment of the goal be jeopardized. This is the very rational reason that the historical religion of reason so quickly produced massive violence and why its revival is very likely to lead to the same result. If the desired end cannot be reached without resorting to an ugly means, then either the end must be abandoned or the ugly means must be adopted. [p. 75]

History shows that it is easy enough for Christians to violate their fairly explicit moral strictures, and it is even easier for humanists to ignore their own nebulous moralities in self-righteous, rational pursuit of their ultimately irrational goals. . . . It is not the end of faith that is the ultimate goal; this is merely a necessary prerequisite to the economic, cultural, and moral integration required for establishing the world government that the devotees of Reason hope will bring a permanent end to war. [p. 76-77]

The first point, that Atheism + Power = Oppression because of the difficulty of meeting the typical atheist political objectives, is similar to (surprise!) an observation made by John Gray. He noted that the main problem with allowing atheists to implement their pet political programs is that, since they categorically reject the cultural beliefs of the majority of the population, they must eventually use force to achieve their objectives.

The second point is important because it is coherent. However, it is not really controversial, since almost all modern atheists will readily admit to seeking world peace through universal enlightenment. They would dispute the claim that they are self-righteous, on the principle that their goals represent the desires of all humanity; and they would further dispute the claim that their goals are irrational, on the principle that if all humanity sought the same goals, they could be achieved. This would bring us back to the impractical Enlightenment doctrine that educating the proles as to their true self-interest is the ideal way to bring about the worldwide revolution and institute eternal peace and prosperity.

In summary, Vox could have cut this chapter down to about ten paragraphs and changed the title to “The Unenlightened Peacemakers.” As Kelly suggested, Vox fails to show here that atheism is the religion of reason. The problem is not that atheists deny worshipping reason, but rather that they do not consider it unreasonable to worship reason.

The functional definition of atheism, for me, is the denial that your enemy’s god exists. All this requires is that the atheist contradict his enemy’s profession of faith, and presto!, by the magic of postmodern logic, his enemy is an irrational, hypocritical nut. The atheist claims to appeal only to reason, which is typically defined (incorrectly) as whatever reality everyone can agree on. Since the atheist refuses to agree on the reality of his enemy’s god, it cannot rationally exist.

However, in this appeal to “reason,” the atheist requires a consensus on what is reasonable. This actually has nothing to do with reason itself, but rather with the form of a post-Christian polity in the absence of cultural cohesion. What seems reasonable to the atheist is to keep the heritage of individual rights while discarding any historical or cultural basis for them and explicitly denying any individualist points of view. This kind of nihilism exalts shallowness and collectivism as the highest virtues. Because “reason” is in this case ephemeral, the atheist obsession with it can be seen as purely superstitious.