The seeds of nihilism are sown...
I have a suggestion for militant atheist cum zoologist Richard Dawkins about a British (although it has now got to America as well) TV program to watch, that is bound to lift his spirit: The Jeremy Kyle Show.
There he can see exactly the kind of society he is trying to promote and propagate.
People who appear on the show have been living the sort of life which was advertised for £140,000 on billboards all over buses and underground trains across England, Scotland and Wales, in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh, York, Leeds, Newcastle, Dundee, Sheffield, Coventry, Devon, Liverpool, Wolverhampton, Swansea, Newport, Rhondda, Bristol, Southampton, and Aberdeen a few years ago for weeks, with the message: "There's probably no God... now stop worrying and enjoy your life": campaign and message that Dawkins totally endorsed.
She [little known comedy writer Ariane Sherine, that the article calls the "brains" behind the campaign] said she wanted to promote her own message that people can believe whatever they wanted. [It certainly takes a great brain to come up with such a formidable idea.]Obviously a vast number of people are never so happy as when they are encouraged to do just exactly whatever they like and indulge in any fancy they may have, reassured in the belief that this is the right course of action by "luminaries" and intellectual authorities à la Richard Dawkins, with the full backing of science, no less, behind this highly satisfactory claim.
Speaking at the launch of the campaign in central London, Ms Sherine said the sheer number of donations received had demonstrated the strength of feeling in the UK.
The consequences of choices and actions, though, pace Dawkins and that superb "brain" of Ms Sherine, are not just in the afterlife but in this one as well.
...and the fruits are harvested
And the consequences of the "stop worrying and enjoy your life now" lifestyle, when embraced by large swathes of society, can be calculated at the time of the Budget and seen as a form of public entertainment in TV broadcasts like The Jeremy Kyle Show (undoubtedly there are many similar others).
The show's guests have "enjoyed" their lives all right, if by "enjoyment" we intend overeating (this they do not need to declare, you just have to look at them, especially the women), booze, drugs, not working, and above all - by far the most frequent reason that brings them to this TV production which promises them solutions, therefore indicating that this is what has the most serious consequences in their lives - sexual promiscuity.
The expressions, usually uttered by Kyle, "unprotected sex" and "unsafe sex" are sprinkled all over the chats, which are in fact rows and shouting matches. Hearing those phrases makes me shudder. The very fact that we have come to see sexuality as an activity that has to be treated with surgical gloves, that we need to put the mechanistic, physical, even medical, aspects ahead of everything else - because there is little else left - shows our society's general confusion and failure in its sexual ethics.
The show is a carousel of different people who are in fact all the same, exactly like a rotating carousel always represents the same figures.
They need the program to pay for two, recurrent types of test: DNA paternity and lie detector.
Uncertainty about who fathered whom reigns supreme, as about who cheated with whom, how many times and to what level of sexual intimacy: the DNA test is hoped to help with the former, the lie detector with the latter.
Here we have the dream of Richard Dawkins made reality in the flesh of the underclass: no God, no rules, no certainty, no faith, in particular no faith in other people.
Who needs faith when we have science? And who needs trust in a relationship when we have the products of science in the form of DNA paternity test and lie detector test?
Ms. Ferreri,
ReplyDeleteI believe you are very misguided if you equate Christianity with morality or cannot understand that atheists, such as myself, are incapable of morality. This is a huge subject and as such is obviously impossible to cover in a blog response. However typically atheists are not the nihilists you describe, we understand that society is to some arguable extent, a collectivist entity, that requires laws, traditions, customs, etc. in order to provide a context in which individuals will firstly; be protected, and secondly; be allowed to develop to their potential. To us the courthouse is our church and the chamber of elected representatives is our cathedral. I personally find it impossible to believe that there was ever an "immaculate conception", or that anybody was ever raised from the dead, does that make me a nihilist? Does it make me amoral? What is on display in the video you posted is a total lack of personal responsibility on a multi-generational basis. If these people had to face up to and live with the consequences of their stupidity they would at least serve as a warning that such behavior can have terrible results. Human behavior is like water in a vessel, it will expand and fill the available space, if irresponsible behavior is encouraged through, for example, a benefit system that indulges self destruction, then more self destruction will occur. Corelli Barnett has written extensively about the decline of Britain, and I think has come closer to understanding it than anyone.
I enjoy my life, at least partially because I have always tried to act in a responsible manner, in my work, in my family and in my community. I do not need a mumbo jumbo merchant to advise me.
regards
roger in florida
No, I do not think that atheists, one of whom I was myself until not long ago, or agnostics, one of whom I am now, are incapable of morality.
DeleteYou are right, it is a complex subject and I will cover it in future posts in more detail.
All the things that you say about many atheists I agree with.
But, in short, I believe that, although individuals can be atheist, societies cannot.
I do not consider you a nihilist for not believing in God any more than I considered myself a nihilist when I did not believe in God.
I also agree with what you say about the welfare state encouraging the kind of immoral behaviour discussed in my article.
But there is a bigger point to make.
One can be atheist or agnostic and still understand a) conceptually, that Christianity is the best ethical system, b) historically, the fundamental role that Christianity has had: without Christianity, the West would not have existed, and Europe would be indistinguishable from the Third World; this is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of knowledge of history, which unfortunately Leftists and militant atheists have tried to obfuscate with some degree of success, c) politically, the role that Christianity still exerts in keeping the West itself, civilized, Islam-free and ethical; you can see what I've written in this regard here:
http://www.enzaferreri.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/we-are-so-used-to-assaults-on.html
I suppose that you know Oriana Fallaci, who was a great pioneer, among the first, if not the first, to alert the West
to the dangers of Islam when nobody in the West was thinking about it, long before Pamela Geller, Melanie Phillips etc.
She called herself an "atheist Christian", because she understood that Christianity defines the West and is the bastion against Islamization.
For democracy in the narrow sense of majority rule is value-neutral (think of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), and so is nationalism.
To make democracy non-value-neutral you have to add to it human rights, and that concept is derived from the Christian doctrine of natural rights.
As I said, I will write on these things, there is much more to say.
The problem is not atheism or agnosticism, but only anti-Christian atheism and agnosticism.
There are many decent atheists, and from what you say you are very probably one of them.
Ms. Ferreri,
ReplyDeleteI apologize, that 1st sentence doesn't read correctly, I meant that we atheists are capable of morality, without Christian beliefs.
Anyway to the important issues: There is now fertile ground for a pan-European fascist/nationalist/anti-Islamic/anti-capitalist political movement. You must be a student of European history; can you not smell it, taste it, hear it? Youth unemployment at record levels in Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Lithuania, Hungary and shortly in France and even Germany. Anti-Islam groups growing by the minute. Dissatisfaction with the established order providing opportunities for demagogues to appeal to resentment and discontent. With the difference now that the movement will be Europe wide. How sweet; the EU elite seek to prevent a new Hitler, but actually provide an opportunity for a Hitler type to lead 360 million people! Keep an eye on Marine Le-Pen, if she starts campaigning at EDL, German skin-head or similar organizations then watch out, the new fascism will be Europe wide.
Interesting times we live in!
regards
roger in florida
Richard Dawkins has described himself as a 'cultural Christian' by which he presumably intends something different to what Fallaci meant. I use the term 'Cultural Christian' for myself, as it's a very nice packaging of the political meaning of the term.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Europe is Judeo-Christian, and that Europe first blinked itself awake (with Jewish help) during the downfall of the Roman empire. I'm going to write an article sometime on Constantinople, in many ways the Mecca of Christianity, and which should (ideally) be retaken by Europe. If more people knew about Constantinople they'd sense a cultural birthplace for Europe, and from that, a cultural genealogy. Because many see Christianity as foreign, or "un-European/un-Aryan" (the church-burning Norwegian Black Metal scene a few years ago being an extreme example) or Jewish (which it is of course, but it's also supposed to be Universal), many Anti-Islam nationalists are drifting towards the idea that atheism of a Nietzchean kind, is a more native European faith than Christianity. The effort must be to link European nationalism to a non-racial philosophy which provides a front against Islamisation. The only answer, as you right say, is religion. Perhaps Constantinople, as well the disgraceful occupation of Cyprus by the Turks could be a rallying card to this end.
Ms. Ferreri,
ReplyDeleteSorry to be a bore, but can you comment on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eyCpidT53nY#!
Just how significant is he in Italy?
regards
roger in florida
Beppe Grillo is a comedian, as you can see from that late '90s video, who became a politician.
DeleteHe's done remarkably well at the last general election in Italy earlier this year in terms of votes, he is very popular.
Ms Ferreri,
ReplyDeleteI don' think implying what Dr. Dawkins is promoting directly leads to the dilemma relating to the video is that simple. Correlation does not imply causation. Do we know if these promiscuous individuals call themselves christians? Protestants? Atheists? Hedonists? One of the main issues here is consciousness. Consciousness of one own's well being and to those around us, being a devotee to whichever you might be. Even a quite number of christian advocates give in to this kind of actions, and worse (we know about the current issues with some priests and their underage legal skirmishes, to name one). And people who call themselves atheists too. Just because someone calls himself an adherent to a philosophy, doesn't mean he or she has absorbed it or is a practitioner. You can read all sorts of scientific and religious illiteracy in the public forums, in both parties. It's mostly about emotional unfounded responses. I agree that such an open statement like "enjoy your own life" can be taken in wildly different ways, but being an enthusiast in a determinate belief system doesn't guarantee a moral alignment of using knowledge in a positive or negative way. These problems have been present for quite a while. Nowadays it's very easy to link due to technology and the web.
aLeRGya, since the answer to your comment requires an in-depth analysis, I have written two articles on it, the first of which is published here (I'll let you know when the second is published):
Deletehttp://www.enzaferreri.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/anti-christian-atheism-and-immorality.html
One should note that such an advertising campaign is itself evangelical, in the sense of proselytization to a belief system. "No God" is as much a belief as "God." Dawkins is making money selling books, and therefore this urge to convert others has a more mundane side -- simple greed. While one can argue for and against moral stances and systems, the fact is that this particular campaign is empty of moral statements, and simply old-fashioned hedonism in a new guise. It amuses me that so many trendy "new" thinkers have nothing really new to say. Like political slogans without a specific meaning, Dawkins' campaign is empty enough of anything other than a statement of probability and a definition-less advice to "enjoy." This passes for today's deep thinking. Thank you for your blog, Mr. Ferreri.
DeleteThank you for your very interesting comment.
DeleteAtheists can be moral. But they cannot explain why they should be moral. If you are just a meat machine created by unguided chance, then "should" simply does not exist.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of truth in that.
DeleteEnza, this was a great post, and the comparisons to the Jeremy Kyle show say it all.
ReplyDeleteAtheists cannot technically be moral people in their own right. Why? Because they cannot believe in objective morality, since there is no higher authority than themselves (unless they slavishly serve the state). They can be "good", by the Christian, Jewish, or Hindu definition of "good", but since atheism cannot have a definition of "good", they are held to the standard of those religions, instead of their own.
Atheists define right and wrong themselves. Think of it like this.
If one atheist decides that it is moral to steal, and another atheist decides it is immoral to steal, who is right? The answer is neither. Right and wrong cease to exist as definitive ideals when you serve no divinity. They are simply the opinions of men, and all men being equal, the only supremacy some opinions can have over others is that which is backed by force.
You must ask, why has no atheist society ever succeeded in being just and free? Cambodia, North Korea, the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China? Because it is not natural. Atheism puts ultimate power in the hands of the powerful, who answer to nothing but their own desires. Why did Stalin kill so many? Why not? What judgement did he fear for what he was doing? He feared none, because he believed in his own absolute superiority.
Everyone worships. Every single functioning person on the planet has his idol. The difference is in what we serve.
A - We serve a divinity. We put our faith in power beyond all life, the creator. We humble ourselves, declaring our own weakness and insignificance compared to that which has shaped time and space, and we follow the commands given to us in scripture, valuing the gift of free will while doing our best to repent for our infractions, and knowing that after the death of our earthly bodies, we are returned to the arms of the creator.
B - We serve other men. One of the deadly routes atheism can take, in the absence of the divine, we put our faith in men like us. Call them what you like. Leaders, dictators, autocrats, those who know best. The devotion atheists in North Korea feel towards their dynastic leadership is religion in and of itself even if they fail to recognize it. They have made a god out of a man. They have given him supreme authority to tell them what is right and wrong. This is where people end up getting killed, since men are not gods. Men are selfish, power-hungry, and evil at their most basic level.
C - We serve ourselves. There is no right and wrong but what we decide. Our society and our upbringing serve as a guideline, but we're free to violate it when we choose, without any kind of consequences beyond this life. The universe is built around us, and we are the masters. Since there is no soul, murder is no crime more serious than executing an animal or an insect. We are merely flesh, and there is nothing in this world but our desires, which we have to fulfill before our lives end, since after that we rot in the ground.
Of course atheists can be good people, but by whose definition of "good" do you define them? The Sikh definition is very different to the Christian definition, and atheism has no fixed definition since it is simply opinion, and Dawkins' opinion of right and wrong is no more reputable than Edmund Kemper's opinion of right and wrong.
This may surprise atheists, but you will actually live a far more fulfilling life in a religious society than in an atheist society, and most of the time, you will be afforded more rights.
In a religious society, the goal of people will be to get you to believe.
In an atheist society, the goal of people will be to get you to not believe.
You have to be alive to believe. You don't have to be not to believe.
Thank you. What you say is highly enlightening.
DeleteWow! After reading this I scrolled down to the comments expecting to see the usual insults and down right nastiness between both sides (Atheists and Theists) I always see on the internet. But not here. Very civil discussion.
ReplyDelete