Skip to comments.Mark Steyn: O come, all ye faithless
Posted on 12/15/2005 9:21:38 AM PST by Pokey78
Peter Watson, the author of a new book called Ideas: a History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud, was interviewed by the New York Times the other day, and was asked to name the single worst idea in history. He replied:
Without question, ethical monotheism. The idea of one true god. The idea that our life and ethical conduct on Earth determines how we will go into the next world. This has been responsible for most of the wars and bigotry in history.
And a Merry Christmas to you, too. For a big-ideas guy, Watson is missing the bigger question: something has to be responsible for most of the wars and bigotry, and if it wasnt religion, it would surely be something else. In fact, in the 20th century, it was. Europes post-Christian pathogens of communism and Nazism unleashed horrors on a scale inconceivable even to the most ambitious Pope. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot: youd look in vain for any of them in the pews each Sunday. Marx has a lot more blood on his hands than Christ other peoples blood, I mean but the hyper-rationalists are noticeably less keen to stick him with the tab for the party.
So the big thinker would seem to be objectively wrong in what, for a secular rationalist, sounds more like a reflex irrational bigotry all his own. A thinking atheist ought to be able to appreciate the benefits the secular world derives from monotheism for example, the most glorious achievements in Western art and music. By comparison, militant atheism has given us John Lennons Imagine, that paean to nothingness whose lyric Above us only sky is the official slogan of John Lennon International Airport in Liverpool. Two years ago, in Americas Weekly Standard, Joel Engel pondered that favourite hymn of sentimental secularists, apparently so anodyne and unobjectionable that, in a world twitchy about the insufficient multiculturalism of Jingle Bells, never mind Away in a Manger, the holiday concert at my kids school nevertheless gaily programmed John Lennons fluffy nihilism as an appropriate sentiment for the season:
Imagine theres no heaven,Okay, wrote Engel, lets imagine that; lets imagine six billion people who believe that flesh and blood is all there is; that once you shuffle off this mortal coil, poof, youre history; that Hitler and Mother Teresa, for example, both met the same ultimate fate. Common sense suggests that such a world would produce a lot more Hitlers and a lot fewer Teresas, for the same reason that you get a lot more speeders/murderers/rapists/ embezzlers when you eliminate laws, police and punishment. Sceptics and atheists can say what they like about religion, but its hard to deny that the fear of an afterlife where one will be judged has likely kept hundreds of millions from committing acts of aggression, if not outright horror. Nothing clears the conscience quite like a belief in eternal nothingness.
Its easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
That sounds right. Theres an important exception, of course: the challenge of Islam is precisely that its a religion whose afterlife appears at least according to many of its more bloodcurdling spokespersons to reward wars and bigotry. But the question then is what kind of society is best equipped to defend itself against such a challenge? Its not just that a radical secularist present-tense society will produce more Hitlers and Stalins not all of us want to work that hard but that millions more will lapse into the fey passivity of Lennons song.
In the Guardian last week, Polly Toynbee launched a splendid broadside against The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: Here in Narnia, she sneered, is the perfect Republican, muscular Christianity for America, that warped, distorted neo-fascist strain that thinks might is proof of right. The first half of that sentence I dont particularly disagree with, the second is just plain sad: no one who trades in language for a living should bandy phrases like neo-fascist so carelessly. But Miss Toynbee went on to cite a more sober objection to Narnia.
Aslan, she writes, is an emblem for everything an atheist objects to in religion. His divine presence is a way to avoid humans taking responsibility for everything here and now on Earth, where no one is watching, no one is guiding, no one is judging and there is no other place yet to come. Without an Aslan, there is no one here but ourselves to suffer for our sins, no one to redeem us but ourselves: we are obliged to settle our own disputes and do what we can.
Sounds very nice, doesnt it? But in practice the lack of belief in divine presence is just as likely to lead to humans avoiding responsibility: if theres nothing other than the here and now, who needs to settle disputes at all? All you have to do is manage to defer them till after youre dead which is pretty much the post-Christian European electorates approach to their unaffordable social programmes. I mentioned in the Daily Telegraph a couple of weeks back the amount of mail I get from British readers commenting with gloomy resignation on various remorseless trends in our island story and ending with, Fortunately I wont live to see it. When you think about it, thats actually the essence of the problem: hyper-rationalist radical secularism reduces the world to ones own life span. Why try to settle disputes when youll be long gone? Faith is one of those mystic cords that binds us to our past and commits us to a future.
So Id say Pollys got it all wrong. The meeks chances of inheriting the earth are considerably diminished in a post-Christian society: chances are theyll just get steamrollered by more motivated types. You dont have to look far to get the cut of my jib. And you cant help noticing that since abandoning their faith in the unseen world Europe seems also to have lost faith in the seen one. Consider this poll taken for the first anniversary of 9/11: 61 per cent of Americans said they were optimistic about the future, as opposed to 43 per cent of Canadians, 42 per cent of Britons, 29 per cent of the French, 23 per cent of Russians and 15 per cent of Germans. Three years on, Ill bet those European numbers have sunk even lower. The Krauts are so slumped in despond that theyre running some Teutonic feelgood marketing campaign in which old people are posed against pastoral vistas, fetching gays mooch around the Holocaust memorial, Katarina Witt stands in front of some photogenic moppets, etc., and they all point their fingers at the camera and shout Du bist Deutschland! You are Germany! which is meant somehow to pep up glum Hun couch potatoes.
Its hard to persuade an atheist to believe in God. But unless hes the proverbial militant atheist or, more accurately, fundamentalist atheist the so-called rationalist ought to be capable of a rational assessment of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of different societies. If he is, hell find it hard to conclude other than that the most secular societies have the worst prospects. Rationalism is killing poor childless Europe. But instead of rethinking the irrationalism of rationalism, the rationalists are the ones clinging to blind faith, ever more hysterically. At that ridiculous climate conference in Montreal, Peyton Knight of the National Center for Public Policy Research encountered Richard Ingham, a correspondent for Agence France-Presse: He demanded to know the National Centers stance on global warming. I began to explain to him that it is our view that mankind is not causing the planet to get appreciably warmer. Before I could delve into any specifics, he cut me off, shouting: Why? Because it isnt in the Bible? It isnt in Genesis?
The bit I like isnt in Genesis, but Psalms: What is man, that thou art mindful of him...? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea....
Lets suppose that there is no God and that the Psalmist just conjured that up out of thin air. Nevertheless, it accurately conveys the central feature of our world our dominion over pretty much everything else out there. A couple of months back, I was asked about creationism and intelligent design. Not my bag, so I kept it short. But I did say that the Psalmist had captured the essence of our reality rather better than your average geneticist. Id just been told that not only does man share 98.5 per cent of his genetic code with the chimp but he shares 75 per cent of it with the pumpkin. If thats so, it doesnt seem a terribly useful scale for measuring the differences in our respective achievements. As I put it, The fact is that this is a planet overwhelmingly dominated and shaped by one species, and our kith and kin whether gibbons or pumpkins basically fit in the spaces between.
This modest thought provoked Paul Z. Myers, professor of biology at the University of Minnesota, into paroxysms of scorn: Steyn, he scoffed, must not possess a gut populated by intestinal bacteria. We are at their mercy; without them, we suffer horribly for a while and die.... He must not have any wooden furniture in his home, or plastic ...made from the carbon left by ancient forests.... Its a good thing he doesnt eat, or hed have to excrete without any bacteria or fungi or nematodes or flatworms, the shit would just pile up (this would explain his written output, though).
Oh dear. All I was doing was making a simple point about the scale of mans domination, and all Professor Myerss demolition does is confirm it. My intestinal bacteria may indeed be doing a swell job, but living in my gut isnt exactly a beach house at Malibu. Yes, Ive got wooden furniture. I live in the Great North Woods and the house and practically everything in it is made from those woods. But I sit on the chair, the chair doesnt sit on me. And as for my excreta and the hard-working nematode, who gets the better end of that deal?
In a way, Professor Myers is only taking transnationalism to its logical conclusion. After all, if one is obliged to pretend that the Americans, Belgians, Greeks and Canadians are all equal members of a military alliance, its not such a stretch to insist that the Americans, the flatworms, the intestinal bacteria and your Welsh dresser are all equal partners in some grand planetary alliance. Nonetheless, if we are virtually the same as a chimp, the 1.5 per cent of difference counts for more than the 98.5 per cent of similarity. The Psalmist seems to find that easier to understand than the biologist does.
In the same way, assume that there was no baby in the manger, no virgin birth, no resurrection. A rationalist ought still to be able to conclude that, as a societal model, Christianity is more rational than Eutopian secularism. If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John cooked the whole racket up, its nevertheless a stroke of genius to anchor the whole phony-baloney rigmarole in the birth of a child and his triumph over death. Whether or not there is a hereafter, new life is our triumph over death here on Earth. A religiosity centred on eternal life will by definition be a more efficient organising principle for an enduring society than a secularism focused on the here and now, with no other place yet to come, as Polly Toynbee puts it. The intestinal bacteria might as well pack up and go home.
Whats so rational about putting yourself out of business? On both sides of the Atlantic, the godly will inherit the Earth: in the United States, blue-state birthrates mean that in 20 years America will look a lot less like John Kerrys Massachusetts and a lot more like Texas and Utah; Europe will look a lot less like an Amsterdam sex club and a lot more like Clichy-sous-Bois. Post-Christian Europe will also be post-European. If youre cool with that, fine. If youre not, you might want to rethink the lazy slurs about Americas neo-fascist religiosity. Merry Christmas. Happy Eid.
In before the ping
Yes, victory is mine!!!!
How does he do it?
Not to mention the distinctly Judeao-Christian idea that individuals matter as individuals -- which just happens to be the basis for what's now called Western Civilization....
bookmark to read complete article later.
Oh goody! I see he's bashing my least favorite song - "Imagine"
The single worst idea in human history? I vote...communism.
To clarify while agreeing.
What was unique was the idea that every individual mattered. All other cultures believed that some people mattered and others just didn't. At all.
The Jews and their Christian offshoot invented the idea that every individual is important simply because he/she is a child of God. Probably the most revolutionary idea in history.
I love it when the Lefties on some forums I'm on start mindlessly bashing Christians for mass killings/wars. They really don't like it when I rub the numbers in their faces. Atheist Leftists have the leaderboard pretty well covered.
Excellent article. Thanks for the ping!
Since the global warming would not be happening on my [or their] watch, why should they be so exercised about it? I see a gross inconsistency here.
That page only gives Mao's China 35,000,000 dead? I think that's a little low-- I've read his 'Great Leap Forward' was closer to 70,000,000 alone...
I am ethnically a Kraut. I have never known very many of my relatives to ever be optimistic about much. Something in the culture I guess. But to show a bunch of but buddies dancing around the Holocaust memorial as an ad campaign? What are they trying to do, increase suicide rates?
Everything I need to know about Paul Z. Myers is summed up in this little quote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.