Radical Atheism and Modernity

Letters from O'Brien #22

Dear Mr Smith,

Some more thoughts for your Substack – and thanks as always for posting.

Radical Atheism and Modernity

Among the strewn byproducts of modernity is a particular school of thought known as ‘radical atheism’. Amongst the many qualities of the movement’s adherents are virtue (through lack of self awareness) and a steadfastness of character (apparently one cannot accept it without incorporating it into their very personality). So why has this random movement come into my conscious awareness? Because, once again, the supposed ‘god’ of the movement - Sam Harris - has managed to stir up controversy online, thrusting him momentarily back in the spotlight. So I thought to take a moment and analyze the ‘radical atheist’ movement.

Harris - an icon revered by rebellious teenagers across the globe - took it upon himself to personally go to war with both God and Americanism, an occupation he has been at for some time. Now I’m not really interested in criticizing Harris as an individual, but I do want to highlight the issues around what he has promoted over the years - new atheism - and why he and his ideas may be on the brink of irrelevancy…

TRUTH OR PERSONALITY

I think one of the most absurd element of this whole ordeal is the fact that the radical atheist movement has become a mockery of itself. In its claims of standing against religious dogma, superstitious thought, and the limitations of tribalism, the radical atheist movement has managed to generate a belief system which both encompasses all of the aforementioned attributes, with the added bonus of being completely unaware of its hypocrisy.

Harris has built a career criticizing certain religions while promoting his own. Like a prophet of old, condemning what is false and preaching what is true, evangelizing the world with his doctrine of godlessness. I’d say few within the ‘atheist intellectual’ sphere actually add anything to the process of scientific discovery they so heavily espouse. They simply complain. Harris - as with so many of his radical peers - has integrated his faith and ideology into his very own personality. So an attack on atheism is not only an attack on the principles of the faith, but an attack on the personalities who hold true to the faith of atheism. [An from a commercial perspective Harris’s own livelihood is based around this movement, so to attack his ideas is to threaten his own financial stability in some sense.]

MODERN THINKERS

The intellectual role of Harris within the modern framework is difficult to place. Although he has clearly fallen in popularity - as radical atheism has in general over the past few years - there is no denying that his veneer of intellectual legitimacy still remains. The so called ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ has helped solidify him amongst numerous online thinkers – who themselves don’t seem to add much to the legitimacy of the movement, but play more a supporting role in the faith. The ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ - I may add - is a loose term referring to an ever-changing group of ‘thinkers’, many of whom are so stratified in their beliefs that it is evident they were only ever grouped together due to their united rejection of woke ideology. Harris is amongst them, although I am unsure why. Other names on the list include Jordan B Peterson (whom I personally respect) who’s belief system is basically in contradiction to atheists such as Dawkins and Harris.

One attribute which separates some of these thinkers from the rest is the level to which rationalism is elevated. ‘Rationalism’ in this sense is hard to define, and somewhat ironic, since many claims of superiority made by modern atheism are still - to their own disgrace - unproven. This worship of rationalism is where I believe ‘right-wing’ thinking (Enlightenment) can go too far, even absurdly so, and where a counterbalancing ‘left-wing’ perspective (German Counter-Enlightenment) has something of value to add. The rationalism-above-all mentality is unfortunately held by many bright minds, such as Stephen C Hicks (author of Explaining Postmodernism), whom I sometimes reference in my letters. I say this is unfortunate because in his criticism of the German Counter-Enlightenment, Hicks and many other rationalist-worshipers fall into the same ideological trap as those they are challenging. The Counter-Enlightenment thinkers such as Hegel, Fichte, and Heidegger were more often wrong than right, but they were in many cases right in their critique of Enlightenment thought. As such, it is foolish to dismiss anything which doesn’t adhere to the (often self-defined) idea of rationalism as ‘false’.

I feel radical atheism represents an absolute void of creativity and possibility. Even the Communist idea holds (misplaced) faith in the unknown, Utopian future. I need not touch too deeply on the philosophical fallacies of the ideology – I’ve written much on that. The foundation of the ideas espoused by such radical members of radical atheism as Harris, who take the foundations of western civilization for granted, are so lacking in depth and reason that it is a wonder they were ever taken seriously by anyone. But - somehow - they were.

Given the undeservedly large platform of the movement over the past few decades, it is worth asking… what has atheism actually given us? What profound wisdom has it extracted to better us? The answer is simple; nothing.

ATHEISM’S FUTURE

Why then does the radical atheist idea exist? Is it simply a form of rebellion? Or is it a form of meaning-making for those who have fallen into nihilism? I believe it can be both. The justification for its existence seems to be that society would ‘benefit’ from the destruction of religious ideas, and thus the spreading of atheist arguments is something to be done joyfully. Despite this, the radical atheists have neither gain nor reason to do this. Nothing of value is attained from the promotion of these ideas, and they have failed to create their own values to outdo those we currently have. It is reductionistic by nature, only ever taking away. In some ways, it mirrors social media addiction, in which the individual attaches a part of themselves to an act which furnishes a false sense of meaning while creating nothing of utility or value.

The radical atheist mindset is something truly interesting. It is a self-referential mind. I believe it may only ‘create’ meaning through the justification of its own existence while simultaneously adding nothing at all to ones life in a meaningless universe but for the intellectual satisfaction of creating meaning where there is none (according to their own doctrine). This is why I believe it will eventually be cast to the side, as increasing numbers of young people turn to either classical religions or radical Utopian based ideologies (neo-Marxism, neo-Fascism). Ideas such as those espoused by Harris - which prospered only in the west during peace and prosperity - will quickly be cast away as challenges arise. I do not believe that atheism as a belief system can stand.

I say this because the radical atheist ideal was only ever upheld when people were relatively conflict-free. I see this changing already, and it is happening quickly. In its reductionistic, hollow nature, radical atheist movements would suck the life out of those who espoused its doctrine. Whether it be an act of rebellion, or a form of ‘entertainment’, upholding the faith of radical atheism was made possible only because the rest of society wasn’t! What then, when times get tough? Will it be time for a another Sam Harris book about the randomness and meaninglessness of everything? Something to ponder over on the train to university? What about another Harris vs Peterson debate? I’m sure the masses would be lined up for another hollow, reductionistic, uninspiring clanging of important sounding yet pointless words…

Let me now turn to the often-cited ideas of the token philosopher; Nietzsche. He predicted that once the western world did away with the idea of a transcendent God, chaos would ensue. If one rejects the idea of the absolute and perfect, all they are left with is the material condition of the moment. He predicted that the eradication of the idea of the Divine would not give people a sense of ‘freedom’ as they believed, but rather result in a void which was unquenchable. This void would lead to people electing totalitarian figures, seeking limitations on freedom, and asking for absolute guidance from the state (whom Hegel believed would be the physical manifestation of the yet-to-be-realised Divine).

In my opinion, Nietzsche’s predictions align with the ideas espoused by Harris and his followers. The naivety of radical atheism is based on the unconscious assumption that things just ‘happen’, hence the foundations upon which atheism seeks to rule over are assumed to simply be “the way things are”. The foundations of the west are in opposition to the establishment of the atheist hyper-state that these people envision. This substructure that forms the basis for Americanism is by definition inspired by the Divine, and thus any attempt to rid the world of divine ideals must also uproot western culture.

RELATIVISM

But what happens if the goal of complete religious annihilation were to be achieved? Well, just like the Utopian socialists, the ‘atheist community’ doesn’t seem to know. With nothing but their own extrapolated pseudo-Utopian ideas, perhaps they are not far off from being Utopianists themselves. In the hypothetical scenario of an ‘atheist takeover’, I can foresee a few possibilities, and none are positive.

Before his retirement, Pope Benedict XVI said that the most pressing issue of this era would be a type of relativism which breaks down absolute truth. He pinned most of the responsibility for this on Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, and predicted that peoples rejection of divine reason in favour of ‘freedom’ would result in each individual becoming oriented around his or her own ego (this mirrors Karl Marx’s goal of man ‘orbiting around his own sun’). In Pope Benedict’s own words “absolutizing what is not absolute but relative is called totalitarianism”.

That is also to say that the ‘new atheist’ worldview attempts to absolutise what is most certainly not absolutely provable. This could also be claimed about Christian values, yet time and time again these values have been the glue holding societies together, and anything else injected into the framework has either been of no effect or turned into a corrosive element of detriment to the society at large. If we are going to use rationalism alone - which I advise against - then this is likely, and ironically, lead to Judaeo-Christian values being retained for the benefit of everyone.

Another possible outcome is an increased sense of the already present religiosity of atheism. I see many people who take hold of the atheist framework and make it part of their personality - an inevitable outcome for many who have completely lost any sense of divine meaning but are yet wired to construct some sort of meaning. Indeed, it will be a great opening for totalitarian control which Nietzsche foresaw.

Throughout this entire process, I imagine a type of nihilistic outlook will take hold of all who reject divinity. This will be manifested in social movements and in a general inability to look to the future with any sense of hope or reason. This may also include an inability to create anything of true value or beauty. In an ironic turn of events, atheism with its claim of self discovery will abandon the answers to the world riddle (as Nietzsche would put it) and instead either exist in the dirt, or generate abstractions to justify nihilism, ultimately spinning in circles…

It is not hard to find many people who have already fallen into a sort of inability to move forward as a result of societal relativism. Jung theorized that it could be possible that certain unexplained and sudden mental illnesses could stem from an inability to properly move forward, thus leading to a type of repression. This suggests that there is a universal path forward into fuller life. Jung said that those who reject this well worn path essentially fall into a type of egoism which makes every life choice - no matter how simple - far more challenging, since it must be essentially generated.

DEATH OF ATHEISM, RISE OF UTOPIANISM

There is, however, one final possibility I can foresee taking place. That is, the majority of those who have gone along with the ‘atheist movement’ will abandon the conventional ideas of western atheism and take up the flag of openly Utopian ideology. My personal prediction would be a form of Americanized socialism (like modern Critical Theory) oriented around liberation from being. Why? Because the most vocal atheists I have encountered orient themselves around a type of anger towards the nature of being, not merely the dislike of dogmatism. For many of these vocal types, atheism is a public announcement that one is both self enlightened and oriented around his own sun. It is not much of a stretch from radical atheism to liberation-Utopian beliefs such as Critical Theory.

I say this because Critical Theory is Marxism in a more spiritual form, whilst still rejecting spirit in favor of material reality. Just as radical atheism is a naive attempt to reject the oppressive and hierarchical reality of being, Critical ideology offers the tools needed for complete liberation.

‘Wokeness’ is the current sloppy adaption of these Critical ideas. Within the current iteration of the woke paradigm, oppression is primarily found in group differences, such as sex, race, class, nationality, etc. The oppression associated with this is upheld by the current societal system. However, the uprooting of said forms of ‘oppression’ will not actually lead to the end of the ideology. Instead, the idea of oppression will shift beyond cultural issues and into specifics, as we are already beginning to see today. This includes the realization (through adopting a Critical Consciousness) that one is inherently oppressed, not merely through societal preconditions, but through everything from ones own biology, to nature and the nature of reality itself (God).

The goal is complete liberation form ones own oppression, replacing the limitations of ‘being’ with a Utopian belief in man as God of his own universe. As Marx said in his Critique of Hegel, “he will move around himself as his own true Sun” (the term ‘Sun’ is capitalized by Marx himself). It is a type of unattainable freedom from everything, all ‘oppression’. This is - I believe - a full manifestation of the naive claim of the rejection of divine nature put forward by radical atheists. Yes, there are other reasons individuals may claim to fall into the category of ‘radical atheist’, but in honesty, what leads one to claim radicalism for a cause aimed at rejecting divine values underpinning most of the developed cultures on Earth? I believe for many it is a claim of liberation, hence I see many eventually turning to Utopian beliefs such as socialism as the hollow materialist nature of atheism eventually proves unsatisfactory.

To top this all off, I feel that persistence to move further into the realm of reductionist thinking is pointless. Is life not enough already? Do we not already have much on our hands? I have found myself critiquing the ideas of many philosophers. I have critiqued the mainstream thinkers such as Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Kierkegaard. Despite often voicing pessimism towards some of their particular ideas, I also see the truths evident in some of their work. For example, Nietzsche both annoys and fascinates me. Why? Because I feel that many philosophies following the Enlightenment (which was originally a realization of Biblical proposals) have since become self referential systems, or rather man’s way of projecting his own psychopathology and ego-centrism to explain reality, whilst simultaneously struggling to rebuild God and the world from scratch to underpin these ideas. There are sometimes breakthroughs which truly add something to the world. But I often imagine that things would be easier if thinkers were not fighting an uphill battle, looking to “complexify” ideas which already work. This is amplified tenfold in the case of ‘radical atheism’, which in all its arrogance seeks to simply destroy things which already work, for no apparent reason.

I find this interesting, since ‘atheism’ as a philosophical idea attempts to mask itself in the ‘positive’ Anglo-American Enlightenment movement. That is, it claims to stand by the foundations of reason, logic, and scientific research, whilst pointing towards a brighter dawn. Despite this being the claim, the ‘atheistic’ idea is something more akin to a concept bridging the gap between the Anglo-American reason-based philosophy, and the ‘negative’ or ‘reductionistic’ elements of the German Counter-Enlightenment. It takes the claims of rationality as paramount, whilst simultaneously calling for the reductionistic analysis and reconstruction of western society. This is why atheism is practically never pushed with a positive or hopeful attitude, but always with a false sense of urgency, anger, and a general sense of teenage angst (Sam Harris, for example, is one of the most pessimistic public speakers of our day, offering only reductionistic critique).

FINAL THOUGHTS

So why I have I bothered to write this all down? I feel like radical atheism is a parasitic ideology latched onto our society that seeks to suck the life out of us. However, when times get tough, these ideas offer nothing. They reduce and corrode. I feels it’s nothing more than a platform for the rebellious teenager to voice his discontent at traditional values.

Materialist atheist ideas do not lead anywhere good, despite what the so called scientific community may claim. It is not inspired. It is not a form of enlightenment. It is a wilful rejection of divinity in favor of a false sense of freedom yet without hope or ultimate meaning. It is to shackle oneself unnecessarily to the floor, to flay around in the dirt, whilst claiming to be self-enlightened (or so it seems in my imagination).

I pity Harris and the radical atheists, truly. I do not mean this in a mocking manner. What is left in their world beyond the mundane? Nothing. In rejecting religious ideas, the Divine, the transcendent, the thing-that-cannot-be-measured, they have willfully blinded themselves to the incredible depth contained within the ideas of the Bible, which underpinned the foundation of the Western world.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Hope it wasn’t too rambling.

Sincerely Yours

O’Brien