Seven Types of Atheism, a Review
Humanists, atheists, and freethinkers should read Seven Types of Atheism, the recent book by the British philosopher and iconoclast John Gray. It’s not a great book, but it’s an informative read.
The central point of Gray’s book is that people who have stopped believing in metaphysical truth too often — read “usually” — merely replace the key points of a religion with a secular alternative without considering if that alternative is valid or even particularly useful as a life stance.
For example and centrally, according to Gray, the promise of eternal life is often replaced with the equally dubious promise of human progress — that “arc bending toward justice” thing.
To simplify only a bit, atheists do a “global replace” in their religion file, replacing the concept of “god” with the concept of “humanity.” “Heaven” becomes “social utopia.” Other God-surrogates are science, technology, and the all-too-human visions of transhumanism. (p. 158)
Yes, we must strive for a better today and tomorrow — perhaps even Utopia — but we must remember all the while that justice for all is an impossible dream.
Contemporary atheism is, in other words, often a conceptual continuation of monotheism by other means — “a monotheistic hangover,” as Gray phrases it.
Is there such a thing as an aggregate “humanity” that can plausibly be “believed in”? Gray doesn’t think so. And I find at least that part of his argument compelling. Universalisms are dangerous. The dream of a collective human agency is dangerous. And pointless.
As Dostoyevsky has one of his characters say in his novel The Brothers Karamazov,
The more I love humanity in general the less I love man in particular. In my dreams, I often make plans for the service of humanity, and perhaps I might actually face crucifixion if it were suddenly necessary. Yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone for two days together. (character: Father Zosima)
Professor Gray writes, “Modern politics is a chapter in the history of religion.” Which I think is true. Except that Dr. Gray doesn’t quite go far enough out. Not only is modern politics a chapter in the history of religion, but the history of religion and politics is the same history.
You don’t need to be ISIS to think that your nation is a gift of god.
As Gray phrases it, “Other animals do not need a purpose in life . . . Can we not think of the aim of life as being simply to see?”
Professor Gray does offer a formula for a workable future: The first step toward a future is to abandon the old and erroneous idea that human beings are rational agents. We are not. The old good / evil distinction is erroneous as well. How about a humanism that not only recognizes the limits of the human but insists upon it?
Here’s the thing: dividing history into an “Age of Faith” and then an
“Age of Reason” might be an easy way to learn history, but it is inherently false. Most of humanity now and always have lived in an Age of Faith.
For those of us who think that human good lies in inquiry and reason rather than supernaturalism, the way forward is all about the process, best summarized by Albert Camus, as pointed out by Humanist theologian Anthony Pinn: “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”
