> Max Horkheimer 1963
> Source: Critique of Instrumental Reason. Max Horkheimer. Published by
> Continuum 1974
>
> opposite of religion. Those who professed themselves to be atheists at
> a time when religion was still in power tended to identify themselves
> more deeply with the theistic commandment to love one's neighbor and
> indeed all created things than most adherents and fellow-travelers of
> the various denominations. Such selflessness, such a sublimation of
> self-love into love of others had its origin in Europe in the
> Judaeo-Christian idea that truth, love and justice were one, an idea
> which found expression in the teachings of the Messiah. The necessary
This appears to be the sentiment echoed by Habermas in his essay "A Time of Transition":
"Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter." ... "Thomas represents a spiritual figure who was able to prove his authenticity with his own resources. That contemporary religious leadership lacks an equally solid terrain seems to me an incontrovertible truth. In the general leveling of society by the media everything seems to lose seriousness, even institutionalised Christianity. But theology would lose its identity if it sought to uncouple itself from the dogmatic nucleus of religion, and thus from the religious language in which the community's practices of prayer, confession, and faith are made concrete."
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=20037&eng=y
This kind of thinking disturbs me. My own political awakening arose largely out of the realization that the truth claims of religion were false and that we therefore have to work to make our lives on earth -- the only lives we have -- better.
Increasingly, there is this clamor for new principle that can take on authoritarian nationalism, Christofascism and Islamism, but -- as Andie has argued in the liberalism thread -- we already have a pretty satisfactory set of principles already in the form of liberalism and general Enlightenment principles (indeed, the objections to his arguments all seem to be some version of "liberalism isn't liberal enough").
Enlightenment principles don't "nurture the spirit" in the same way religion does, and therefore they are accused of being "empty" or "spiritually bankrupt," but this so-called emptiness is satisfying in its own way: Thinking critically -- about everything, even "first principles" -- is good for the soul. The question is, how do you persuade everyone else?
In the face of the apparently ascendancy of authoritarian nationalism, Christofascism and Islamism, it's easy to get discouraged about what we on the secular left have to offer, but maybe that's because we lack historical perspective and we don't fully appreciate the richness (and successes) of the skeptical Enlightenment tradition.
-WD
__________________________ thevanitywebsite.blogspot.com