Essay by Helen Pluckrose on why secularists calling for a Christian revival are wrong h
L
The Enlightenment had many strands, such what we now call liberalism, but out of it also came Marxism, fascism, and other totalitarian, quasi-utopian attempts to reproduce the sort of deeply rooted authority that was lost with secularized culture (including the "Reign of Terror" at the end of the Enlightenment itself). The problem is that "liberalism" is a faith too, or belief-system, or what I would call a mythos, like those other attempts, but in itself it's too shallow, and too conflicted, to be sustainable -- hence the earlier tries at something more totalizing; hence the various versions of retreat now into religious revival (i.e., not just Chistian); and hence the quasi-religious mutations that go under the heading of Woke. Myself, I share the liberalism mythos, but also believe that it's incomplete, and can't last by itself.
Me:
The history of ideas isn’t a strength of mine. I’m unfamiliar with the *ideas-connections* between the Enlightenment and Marxism and fascism. It’s not like there weren’t episodes and regimes of tyrannical violence before the Enlightenment. And I have trouble seeing—-*if you mean to suggest this,* if, if, if—that within liberalism as such lies the seeds of Marxism, fascism, etc. Where we have collapses of secular liberal regimes into something much worse, I can’t see that secularity was the cause or a significant one.
I don’t see liberalism as a faith or belief system in the way religious faith is. Liberalism broadly is a set of principles and values that have been historically put into practice with observable consequences leading to a supportable judgment that it holds the best promise for human betterment. That’s where faith in it exists. I wonder if saying liberalism is a faith, a belief system, a mythos is like saying science is. The vivid contrast between a judgment about a historically-situated and tested set of principles and values on one hand and religious faith is self evident. I’m with Pluckrose that a retreat—if retreat there be, and “retreat” being the key word—to religion at the expense of liberalism is regressive.
At the expense of liberalism is a key point.
Given what I’ve said, still there is one aspect of her argument that caught my critical attention, which is her tendency to impose a binary between liberalism and her notion of religion that subsumes what she calls, rightly I think, its manifestation under liberalism, a kind of symbolic, abstracted, complicated kind of weak or light faith. There is in her argument, and consistent with the line taken by the old “new atheists”, a desire to drive out all religious faith and be sharply critical of all of it. That’s not necessary to her argument and flaws it by taking it too far. Her reasoning is that such abstracted religious belief is like a soft outer layer covering literal belief, cocooning it so to say, and therein, she suggests, lies an anti liberalism danger. She goes too far with that. I see no persuasive reason why religious faith nesting as it might within liberalism must be thrown out of the nest.
L:
I'm not claiming a strength in the history of ideas myself -- these thoughts are just my reading of it. As such, then, I view the Enlightenment as a turning point in Western, and for that matter the world's, history, its defining characteristic being the elevation of science/technology at the expense of traditional religion, resulting in so-called secularization. But that in turn leads to many different results and reactions, of which what we now call liberalism is just one. The promise of human betterment is one held out by all the heirs, reactors, or rejecters of the Enlightenment, including fascists once, and communists, the Woke, and utopians still. I'm not arguing for mere relativism -- I think liberalism is a faith, but one can be objectively supported by good arguments. But it's not a science, and its only ultimate test is by history, of which we're just in the midst, as always.
Faith or not, however, my main point is that liberalism by itself is not enough, and needs the cover of some more encompassing idea or ideal to survive long term. My hope is that that ideal can take form within the natural world, but otherwise the only hope for humanity is some form of supernatural retreat. What that natural ideal is, however, or could be, I don't know.
Me:
My wondering about the analogy to science in relation to faith is quite imperfect. I thought about it after and thought that the discipline of history might be a better stand in. But science, however imperfect as an analogy, works too. My view is that, again if you mean to suggest this, the ascription of faith to liberalism being comparable to religious faith is inapt. The testing by history leading to (objectively) good arguments is one way of putting the overwhelming reason why. After all, we’re by definition always in the midst of science as well, since provisionality is one of its essential marks. To put my main point in the way philosophers talk, liberalism as faith is only so in a thin sense of faith while religious faith is as thick a notion of faith as is we can imagine.
Your good point about the Enlightenment being a massive paradigm shift preparing the ground for all sorts of major political (among other) developments is fair enough. But I’d thought you meant there was some direct or inherent link between enlightenment and, for examples, communism and fascism, the way seeds directly grow into whatever.
I don’t think, if I read you correctly, it’s precise enough to note that a variety of those political developments promise human betterment, liberalism simply one more offering of its means to that promise. For as you say, we can, I think, objectively contrast and compare differing regimes rooted in their philosophical premises, note the results in history, interpret them, judge them and then argue over the results. Our judgments here are of course less firm and more provisional than science’s falsifiable conclusions but seem to me to be pretty firm at that.
I get fairly lost when thinking about what encompassing ideal or ideal might enrich secularity to allow liberalism to survive, even granting that necessity for argument’s sake. I can’t imagine what that might practically be. The creedal foundation of American republicanism (not the party), liberalism’s goal of individual liberty making possible individual flourishing in tandem with promoting the common good, and practically and pragmatically fighting the various scourges plaguing humankind seem encompassing enough as ideas and ideals. For one thing, and I know you’re not saying this, the ascendance of religion as once more such an idea or ideal is a non starter.
L:
In fact, though, it gets into some deep issues that I think would need an essay or a series of essays to handle, so at this point I can only try to summarize my positions, and just accept that they're all arguable.
1. A faith differs from an ordinary or scientific belief in that it's not empirical, it embraces a wide area of experience, and it's held with varying degrees of moral fervor and certitude, from flexible to "fundamentalist". Obviously, religions qualify, but so do Marxism, feminism, environmentalism, MAGAism, libertarianism, etc., including, I'm saying, liberalism.
2. You're saying that liberalism is "encompassing enough as ideas and ideals" (which is why I'm saying it qualifies as a faith under the above definition), and I'm saying, even though I accept it as a faith myself, that it's not. My evidence is, on the surface, the ongoing culture war embroiling politics throughout the West and beyond; underneath, the pervasive sense of dystopia and existential dread apparent in media, popular culture, etc.; and at the lost fundament level, the simple inability, under the modern liberal regime, of the human race to reproduce itself in sustainable numbers anywhere (except within fundamentalist religious communities). On that last point, see this book review R sent me: "Are We Doomed?"
Me
L, an essay, let alone a series of them, is unlikely to happen here. I have neither the will nor the strength. We understand each other though we’re not agreeing to disagree. Not at this point anyway. Let’s just rather say the next time we physically meet over a drink, a coffee, a meal or more than one, we can continue this.
