How the west lost God

[Botnst]

How the West Really Lost God

By Mary Eberstadt

A new look at secularization.


For well over a century now, the idea that something about modernity will ultimately cause religion to wither away has been practically axiomatic among modern, sophisticated Westerners.1 Known in philosophy as Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous story of the madman who runs into the marketplace declaring that “Gott ist tot,” and in sociology as the “secularization thesis,” it is an idea that many urbane men and women no longer even think to question, so self-evident does it appear.2 As people become more educated and more prosperous, the secularist story line goes, they find themselves both more skeptical of religion’s premises and less needful of its ostensible consolations.3 Hence, somewhere in the long run — perhaps even the very long run; Nietzsche himself predicted it would take “hundreds and hundreds” of years for the “news” to reach everyone — religion, or more specifically the Christianity so long dominant on the Continent, will die out.

As everybody also knows, much about the current scene would seem to clinch the point, at least in Western Europe. Elderly altar servers in childless churches attended by mere handfuls of pensioners; tourist throngs in Notre Dame and other cathedrals circling ever-emptier pews roped off for worshippers; former abbeys and convents and monasteries remade into luxury hotels and sybaritic spas; empty churches here and there shuttered for decades and then re-made into discos — even into a mosque or two. Hardly a day passes without details like these issuing from the Continent’s post-Christian front.4 If God were to be dead in the Nietzschean sense, one suspects that the wake would look a lot like this.

Moreover, practically every other modern titan credited or discredited with shaping the world of ideas as we know it — Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, G.W.F. Hegel, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, and many more — would have agreed, with whatever fussy qualifications, that Nietzsche’s symbolic madman got something fundamentally right. So would their intellectually influential descendents. The so-called modernists and postmodernists may indeed have put forth uniquely “transgressive” models of thought, but none has been so transgressive as to ask whether Nietzsche’s madman spoke the truth; whatever their other radical uncertainties, all “know” that he did. So do the popularizers of atheism past and present, from Bertrand Russell (Why I Am Not a Christian) on up to the slew of manifesto writers appearing recently both here and in Western Europe.5 All are heirs to secularization theory and footnotes to Nietzsche even if, as several make clear, “inevitability” is turning out to take a lot longer than any of them would prefer.6

And yet — and yet. In one of those twists that reveals history herself to be an ironist of the very first order, today Nietzsche’s madman seems farther than ever from having the last word on that figurative corpse in the cathedral. For despite one revolution after another these past 120 years, something surprising has happened. Vigorous counterattacks have come to be launched on secularization theory, markedly in the past few years. In fact, “secularization theory is currently experiencing the most sustained challenge in its long history” — an observation issuing not from the Vatican, but from two leading theorists on the other side.7

What’s more, they are right. Perhaps not surprisingly, much of the recent charge has been led by Christian intellectuals, primarily Catholics. Both John Paul ii and now Benedict xvi have believed the re-Christianization of Europe to be a pressing priority, and both have pressed it not only with Catholic rhetoric, but also with the language of modern Continental philosophy. Other critics have appeared similarly emboldened and on the offense. As Robert Royal observed recently in The God That Did Not Fail, “three centuries of debunking, skepticism, criticism, revolution, and scorn” by secularists not only have failed to defeat religious belief, but have actually enhanced its self-defense.8 In addition to critiques by unapologetic believers, secularization theory has also turned out to spur second thoughts among some of its own former proponents, notably intellectual apostate Peter L. Berger.9 In short, and despite the axiomatic status that Nietzsche’s madman has long enjoyed, there is new blood in the water surrounding this matter of secularization theory, and watchful parties on both sides know it.

This essay represents what might be called a radical friendly amendment to the revisionists. It questions the theory of secularization and, by extension, its father Nietzsche, not by citing current facts about religious renewal or historical facts about Christianity’s influence, but rather by exploring a hitherto unexamined logical leap in the famous story line. To be fancy about it for a moment, what secularization theory assumes is that religious belief comes ontologically first for people and that it goes on to determine or shape other things they do — including such elemental personal decisions as whether they marry and have children or not.10 Implied here is a striking, albeit widely assumed, view of how one social phenenomenon powers another: that religious believers are more likely to produce families because religious belief somehow comes first.

And therein lies a real defect with the conventional story line about how and why religion collapsed in Western Europe. For what has not been explained, but rather assumed throughout that chain of argument, is why the causal relationship between belief and practice should always run that way instead of the other, at least some of the time. It is as if recent intellectual history had lined up all the right puzzle pieces — modernity, belief and disbelief, technology, shrinking and absent families — only to press them together in a way that looks whole from a distance but leaves something critical out.

This essay is a preliminary attempt to supply that missing piece. It moves the human family from the periphery to the center of this debate over secularization — and not as a theoretical exercise, but rather because compelling empirical evidence suggests an alternative account of what Nietzsche’s madman really saw in the “tombs” (read, the churches and cathedrals) of Europe.

In brief, it is not only possible but highly plausible that many Western European Christians did not just stop having children and families because they became secular. At least some of the time, the record suggests, they also became secular because they stopped having children and families. If this way of augmenting the conventional explanation for the collapse of faith in Europe is correct, then certain things, including some radical things, follow from it.

more at: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/7827212.html

[pj67coll]

My Bot. You do dredge up some interesting reading! I actually went to the Hoover site and read the whole thing. An interesting take on the phenomenon.

- Peter.

[Larry Delor]

I met quite a few people in Germany who "stepped out" of the church, not because they no longer believed in God, but because they didn't want to pay the Church tax anymore. I imagine that once you step out, you are no longer counted as among those who still have God, so to speak, and that this would skew the numbers a bit.

[kerry]

I just gave the article a cursory skim but it seems worth some more thought. A couple of issues come to my mind. One is the claim that the birth of a child produces a metaphysical experience for people. I'd like to see some empirical data on this point. It certainly didn't for me and I wonder if I am a strange exception or whether the experience of birth is highly conditioned by religious expectations to begin with.
Secondly, at least a couple of the world's most influential religions, have eschewed family life from its highest ideals. What's the connection between celibate monks and priests in Catholicism and Buddhism and the main thesis? I used to have an ongoing dialogue with a Muslim intellectual, professor of English at the University of Saudi Arabia. In all our discussions about Buddhism, he always insisted that it was a lesser religion than Islam because it failed to focus on family life as the center of religion.

Do any of us know non-religious people with very large families?

[Medmech]

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

Do any of us know non-religious people with very large families?

Define large and if you go to your typical rural PWT in my area families of 8-12 are not uncommon. The main reason for it is to create a work force to support the drunk daddy.

[Botnst]

I have known lots of people who have or have had large families who were not what I would call "very religious." For example, lots of C&E Roman Catholics. I have known a few very religious people who had large families but I don't know any now. I imagine the best place to look would be Africa, the Middle East or Utah.

I have never known a-religious or atheists or even agnostics who had very large families. I'll arbitrarily stipulate that "very large" is more than five living children from the same marriage.

For example, I came from a family of 6 surviving children from one marriage. My Mother is quite religious while my Father was a wishy-washy atheist. So in my case, a partial exception, my Mother's religious leanings may have had an influence more than my Father's. My Mother's family (C of E) ran to small families even back through the 19th century. They were urban, merchant and working class. My Father's family was Presbyterian or Baptist and ran to huge families for generations. They were farmers and ranchers and religion was a very important part of their lives.

In the area where I live Roman Catholicism is the largest single sect, though the majority of people are not Roman Catholic. One of my co-workers, probably an atheist (we don't talk religion at work, but he's a biologist and most biologists are atheist or atheistic-agnostic) is from a Roman Catholic family. He has 9 living siblings from the same marriage. Both of his parents came from families of greater than 6 living kids. This is not uncommon for my generation in this area. But few if any of my generation, regardless of religious leanings, have more than 3-4 kids. Most have 1-3.

What does it all mean? I don't know. My inclination is to blame shrinking family size on increased education and voluntary, simple birth control. Also, religion is generally less integrated into their lives than it was with my grandparents, especially the country cousins whose social life revolved around the church.

[kerry]

One other item the author failed to consider in the section on the uneven distribution of religion between the sexes. Many of the predominant Gods are male and very powerful. The increased participation of females in these alpha male cults could be accounted for by the role of sex in religion. More woman than men are involved in religion because the Gods are more sexually attractive to women than they are to men.

Related to this is the fact that deities begin as tribal deities. Once God is no longer the leader of the tribe, but leaders are democratically elected, the authority of the tribal deity (or it's higher evolution, the monotheistic God) is almost certainly doomed. Perhaps, reinforcing the basic point the author is making. Gods and the religion associated with them are part of strong patriarchal family systems. When either the family or the patriarchy breaks down, religion as we know it is going to be in deep trouble.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

One other item the author failed to consider in the section on the uneven distribution of religion between the sexes. Many of the predominant Gods are male and very powerful. The increased participation of females in these alpha male cults could be accounted for by the role of sex in religion. More woman than men are involved in religion because the Gods are more sexually attractive to women than they are to men.

Related to this is the fact that deities begin as tribal deities. Once God is no longer the leader of the tribe, but leaders are democratically elected, the authority of the tribal deity (or it's higher evolution, the monotheistic God) is almost certainly doomed. Perhaps, reinforcing the basic point the author is making. Gods and the religion associated with them are part of strong patriarchal family systems. When either the family or the patriarchy breaks down, religion as we know it is going to be in deep trouble.

The feminization of Yahweh is a curious progression. I am unfamiliar with other religions so I cannot speak to whether or not it is a common phenomenon.

What I mean by feminization is what I see as a progression from a martial commander-god to a stern father-god to a loving (agapeic) friend-god to the currently popular androgenous source of love and peace an harmony.

In reverse of that is the importance of religion to men. As you say, with Christianity the people who show-up in church are in the majority, female and older. There are plenty of exceptions I'm sure, but I think that observation (if not my own) is a consistent trend.

B

[kerry]

Originally Posted by Botnst

The feminization of Yahweh is a curious progression. I am unfamiliar with other religions so I cannot speak to whether or not it is a common phenomenon.

What I mean by feminization is what I see as a progression from a martial commander-god to a stern father-god to a loving (agapeic) friend-god to the currently popular androgenous source of love and peace an harmony.
B

Is that progression correlated with the changing roles of men in modern society? Men are no longer expected to be martial commanders or stern controllers of the family hence the image of God follows suit?
Is the decline of God correlated with this? The sexual attractiveness of a good powerful alpha male brings the women in, whereas men, while not appreciating the sexual competition, can at least admire the power of God that they aspire to in earthly life?
Wimpy God's don't attract anyone.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

Is that progression correlated with the changing roles of men in modern society? Men are no longer expected to be martial commanders or stern controllers of the family hence the image of God follows suit?

Is the decline of God correlated with this? The sexual attractiveness of a good powerful alpha male brings the women in, whereas men, while not appreciating the sexual competition, can at least admire the power of God that they aspire to in earthly life?

Wimpy God's don't attract anyone.

Yeah, that's kind of where I was going, I guess.

The admonition used to be to fear God and love his works. Now we love God and believe he is impotent to do useful work. Yahweh sympathetically watches the divine comedy. Or perhaps he is a playground teacher who lifts us when we stumble but he no longer plays in our game. Or maybe God is a jolly social worker who offers gentle persuasion, not wasting cities and smiting armies like when he was a boy.

[Towel Rail]

That's a really interesting article. It may have taken a woman to put two and two together like that. People do seem to become more conservative when they marry and have kids...

The atheist philosophers of the past (and present) expected logic to prevail, but since religion is much based on "feeling", I doubt it'll ever happen.

- Scott

[Mistress]

Bot, thanks for the cerebral exercise. As long as someone is in trouble, crisis or in need of something/someone that transcends our environment god will always exist, in many shapes, sizes and forms.

[rickg]

Wheeew! Youz guyz are deep! Not EVEN gonna go there(here?)
I think waaay too much is read into a persons reason/need to have a "belief". But have fun with this.

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by rickg

Wheeew! Youz guyz are deep!

Of course were deep dude! Were Mercedes Benz owners...

- Peter.

[A264172]

My god has no nose.

Oh, how does he smell?

...

Oops, wrong thread.