The Twilight of Atheism

My apologies. I’m an engineer, btw, but I am making references to postmodern philosophers and terms that are not very familiar, so again, my apologies.

In short I’m saying that atheism and postmodernism both deny the existence of greater structures or “truths” (which I’ll define for the purpose of this discussion as widely agreed upon truths within a certain time frame and context). I’m saying that these were positions/beliefs that became more popular as western society began to increasingly question traditional structures and their shortcomings/corruptions, and that this kind of questioning leading to the denial of these structures is somewhat characteristic of the boomer generation. But, I’m saying that this denial alone seemed empty to many post-boomers who began re-think the ideas of spirituality and more recently societal structures when they have had more power to do so in a practical sense.

Note however that this is quite different than the phenomenon of those retreating to purely traditional “religious” structures to put a sense of order into the chaos of the deconstructed world (which I will crudely define here as the postmodern, atheist world). One goes forward from the chaos and one goes backward (although I don’t mean to say that all those I’m defining as “going backward” are wrong or doing the wrong thing. Order and stability can be a very important thing in people’s lives and at certain points in people’s lives, but I think that that kind of retreat to order should be a healing and nurturing thing for the individuals and not a claim to rigid, absolute truth in society in general).

Does this help any?

 

Yeah, that post was mostly for rimbaud, and he’s going to cringe at some of my references, but that was the shortest way I could think to answer his question.

And yes, the question you refer to is a very interesting question, and maybe it’ll come up in this thread. I think that the fundamentals of Christianity call us to a spirituality that addresses the world’s dilemmas in a compassionate way which is progressive in the way that can be seen in the positive aspects of what Bono is doing, and as you now I think that’s the way forward for us Christians and the world in general.

 

Have a nice day

 

Of course it is reactionary. Atheism needs religion in order to exist. It is, by definition and etymologically reactionary. Pomo is reactionary in that it needs an original to deconstruct - an author, a text, a cannon. "Progressive" is another issue, but we will get to that later.

To clarify my earlier point, I still haven’t read the article but I see things just starting to change. The boomer generation were the initiators of much of the protest/deconstruction oriented movements and they reinforced each other in this mentality and eventually gave each other good jobs for being keepers of faith of the “angry protester”.

I strongly disagree. The boomer generation is way too late. For atheism, obviously (more on that later), but even beyond. Postmodernism has its early roots in post-revolutionary though - most specifically romanticism and then gets re-affirmed with early modernism. Then, Dada emerges in the teens through thirties and for the first time people really understand what is going on (know the movement for what it is). Pomo is not a theoretical island, to be sure. Also, keep in mind that Foucault and Derrida (Barthes earlier, but he converted from semiotics in his later years, so he doesn't count as an originator in the same way) were born in the 30's so you can't call them boomers. Boomers made it cool, obviously.

But, post boomers began to see this as significantly empty and not solving problems. Yes, the criticisms of these groups were often very valid, but they deconstructed without reconstructing a better vision for society, so what was left was a fragmented society and fragmented people.

I will disagree a little because atheists did and do offer solutions and alternatives. The solution = no religion, the alternative = freedom. Now, you are right that it can leave people fragmented because it is hard to juxtapose a hierarchical, rules-based dogma with an abstract concept of spiritual (and thus emotional physical) freedom. That, however, is the alternative and should be seen to take its place. Most atheists would probably classify that freedom within a form of Hellenistic humanism so that, too, offers specific alternatives. Nihilism and existentialism are other such examples, but of a more negative bent of which people will inevitably tire.

The pomo folk are right in here too.

Well, it is supposed to replace a kind of confused ignorance with enlightenment, but that is a hard sell when the "truth" is that there are no truths. It just gets silly.

So in this fragmented context of deconstructed* metanarratives and seemingly unhappy and unfulfilled “angry protesters” who didn’t seem to be making much progress solving societies practical problems, many mostly younger people started to turn in different directions.

Have you looked into the term and sociological classification of echo-boomers? They are the geeration born between 1983 and 1993. Apparently, they are pretty conservative in social thought and highly conformist in that they don't question rules and those who make the rules because they actually like and want them. Further, they are mostly followers and not leaders, but they are highly motivated and optimistic. It is interesting stuff. Of course, they are being reactionary as well, just to the boomer's rebellion mentality.

Part of this turn was a turn to exploring different kinds of spirituality. There were lots of new agey movements springing up, and a big rise in Buddhism, and a rise in “Christian Fundamentalism” and also in fundamental Christianity. (The two are not necessarily the same, and often aren’t the same, but that’s a different discussion too). I think this change started occurring some time ago (10 to 15 years?) but was essentially an undercurrent here in Canada.

I would be careful because, again, the boomers started most of the new age/eastern religion trend that has continued to be hip these days. As far as Christianity, various hippie types formed cults in the 60's and 70's, but it definitely is seeing a new resurgence with young people these days. I agree, it is a younger search for something (or things) they feel were unanswered by the older generation. Again, though, I don't think this is having too much impact an atheism numbers, because they were alweays limited. It s mostly just making a previously apathetic group more religious, thus changing the larger social sphere.

But IMO the younger generations are realising, in a dramatic way, that if we don’t do this someone else will, and someone else is.

I'll believe it when I see it.

It has existed from the beginning of time, after all, and not even the generation that declared themselves the “end of history” can extinguish it. I don’t think that until recently, however, it has tended to be something seen as legitimate by mainstream liberal society, which is what Canada tends to be.

"The end of" and the "death of" is not quite as you paint it, by the way, of complete destruction. You should know from your religious background that it is simply the hoping for something new...for something to be born. Everyone wants to be part of a time where "something" happened. The death of theroy, the death of the author, the death of God, are all attempts to find that rebirth.


I think formal postmodernism will be a fad, (and Habermas is smiling at your description of it as being conservative. When I read Habermas say this and made the connection it was a huge moment of realization for me that explained soooo much about why that mindset frustrated the **** out of me, btw).

Habermas is not the only one in this regard. Have you read any Fredric Jameson or Terry Eagelton? Two strong writers that have attacked pomo from their Marxist-informed perspective. I enjoy the creative guys like Ben Watson, too, who compared fad pomo to conservative Stalinism in that they both deny a reality from which you can be frustrated or hurt or impoverished, etc.. Fun stuff.


The way forward is to take the responsibility to put forward a proposal for a better solution and to engage in a process of communicative reason to come to agreements about how to proceed … for now. And when validity claims are raised against those structures in the future then the process repeats. Yes, this process won’t be easy. Yes, power corrupts and those in power have a tendency to resort to instrumental reason to justify what they want to do, but those who wish to be progressive and who wish to be part of building the next society must continually engage in it and in the end it will win out. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis....We need to talk and collectively work through dilemmas to chart a course for the new global century, but we won’t be doing this with the belief that we have all the right answers or that we are discovering absolute truth. We do is as part of a never ending process, thesis -> antithesis -> synthesis, which becomes a thesis that will be opposed by an antithesis and the dilemma will be worked through to an synthesis, etc. And the question of spirituality is part of this and indeed spiritual growth works this way too. [/QUOTE]

For a minute, if I knew what you look like, I could have envisioned you foaming onto your keyboard. But seriously, the dialectic progression of history (Hegel-Marx-Adorno) is not something that needs to be forced, it simply is. We are just in an odd stage right now - things are changing, but nobody really knows what or how or, sometimes, why.

I do think that the author's bias (and anybody else looking at this) allows for him to come to his conclusion that it is as simple as "there was an atheistic heyday and now it is close to invisible and will soon die." We all are projecting (look at me - I am defending atheism's present) onto it simply because it has no real form yet...so who knows...

Loose ends: regarding Hegel/Marx/religion/dialectic - I think I have posted this before, but I highly suggest you read Warren Breckman's Marx, the Young Hegelians, and the Origins of Radical Social Theory. It is really a solid book and covers so many things of which you have interest.

Derrida - he amuses me. Have you seen the documentary about him (originally titled "Derrida"). I found it to be downright horrible, but I am interested in other views of it.

 

Outstanding book, Max, and perfect for someone like you. I am surprised it took you so long to find it.

By the way, Alyosha is the closest self-portrait of all of the characters in Dostoevsky's oeuvre.