John Milbank, who is something like the head of the “Radical Orthodoxy” movement:
“Atheism is bourgeois oppression. Atheism is the opium of the people—it claims to discover an ontology which precludes all hope. This is what someone like Žižek now openly says. We need now to celebrate instead the faithful legacy of peasants, learned, honourable and paternalist aristocrats, Christian warrior kings like Alfred the Great, yeomen farmers and scholars. Péguy is the man for the hour. William Cobbett also. Chesterton and Belloc likewise.”
More here.
This sort of critique of atheism is much more interesting to me than the old, useless back-and-forth of apologetics. I mean, the old stuff bolsters the spirits of the true believers—on both sides—but Milbank is about something more robust.
6 comments:
Samuel Skinner
There onto us! Soon they willl figure out that gravity theory was yet another part of our plan to oppress the masses! "twirls mustache"
Honestly, I find that hilarious. How does atheism precludes hope? And more importantly, don't people without hope act more desperately? If you no longer have a chance to rise, if there isn't enough bread for tommorow... revolution!
As for celebrating the legacy of our past... just so you know, that makes African Americans extremely nervous. Can someone say "antebellum"? For Europeans... you do realize there is a reason that Napolean was considered a hero? That the French Revolutionaries considered the ends justify the means a "good start"? Because feudalsim is, quite simply, the most inhumane system ever devised by human beings. In a fight between communists and feudalists, people risk their lives to join the commies.
Welcome to the blog... I don't really know where to start with your comment, though. Off the top of my head:
I'm certainly not endorsing any sort return to feudalism, nor am I celebrating the antebellum south. Even though I am a southerner, I know that the Old South had to be destroyed, because it was culture suffused with evil.
The feudal system emerged more or on its own after the complete collapse of the Roman Empire; it's hard to say that it was really “designed.” The French system was thoroughly ossified and refused to evolve; thus, revolution. Things went more smoothly, albeit not perfectly, in, say, England.
I love science, and gravity is an immense help to me in everyday life.
I am glad that you have a mustache: they make the world a better place.
Finally, please don't hold me responsible for things that Milbank says. I'm not nearly as extreme as he is, although I find his extremism quite interesting. (In fact, when it comes to practical matters, I don't think I'm extreme at all. Seriously, quiz me on policy.)
Samuel Skinner
I was mocking the "return to the legacy".
Yes, to provide protection. Essentially mob rule, with the dons having respectability. As for design... well it wasn't. I'm sorry for that impression. It should be created, not devised.
Oh, I thought you endorsed his post.
Policy eh... don't worry- this is quick.
Question- You find this person in real life.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.html
Now, you have six possible cases.
PS- by "sign", I mean something that would set him off and do what he sid he would do..
1)There is no God, and there will be no sign.
2)There is no God and there might be sign.
3)There is no God and there will be a sign.
4)There is a God and there will be no sign.
5)There is a God and there might be a sign.
6)There is a God and there will be a sign.
What do you do?
A) Join him.
B) Listen to what he has to say.
C) Condone his actions.
D) Nothing
E) Try to stop him
F) Kill him
G) Torture him in public as a warning to others
H) Hunt down the source of this madness
I) Kill him and anyone else who agrees with him
J) Kill everyone on Earth who agrees with him.
K) Other
PPS- I am serious. This IS a good way to see a person's character... and sanity.
I'm much more opposed to theologies of God as transcendent despot than I am to the best kinds of atheism, which can be quite noble.
At the risk of seeming callous, I call situation number four, and option E (try to stop him) if the fellow believes he has some sort of sign, with F (killing) as a very last resort if the poor tot's life is in imminent danger. What does that say about me?
Samuel Skinner
It says you are logical and moral, but not consistent- or at least you don't believe that God is the source or above morality. Hard to reconcile with the bible though- but means that you are a nut job.
Also means that you restore some of my trust in humanity- Vox wasn't the first... or the most disturbing- seriously, a theologian justifying rape currently takes the cake.
As for sign, perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant something that would set him off. So, "no sign" means he wouldn't do anything, possible means there is a chance and certain means it will happen.
I hope you mean that I'm *not* a nut job.
Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling has a long section on "the teleological suspension of the ethical": God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac because this task requires Abraham to step beyond ethics into faith. It's an eloquent account of a situation similar to what you are describing, and why the Christian God would do such a thing to poor Abraham. But the whole argument makes me very uneasy. (That's the point, Kierkegaard might say.)
As for what I do believe, you may be right that I am inconsistent. I'll readily admit that I don't have the alternative to Kierkegaard (and Calvin, perhaps?) worked out, and I don't think I'll have it anytime real soon.
You might want to seek out the theologians who argue against Kierkegaard's position; they aren't that hard to find. Modern Thomists would probably do so (drawing as they do on an interpretation of Aristotle), as would many Eastern Orthodox theologians (who are seem to be more Platonic). Whose interpretation of the Bible is right? Honestly, I have no idea.
Out of curiosity, what do you believe makes the best foundation for ethics? (Feel free to duck this question if you want, or just to point me to an author that you like.)
Post a Comment