Intolerance and Civilization

Theodore Dalrymple has a long, boring essay on why he doesn't like the new atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc.) He tries to be very philosophical, C of E, and superior to the discussion, and in so doing permits himself to ignore the larger problems of Christianism, Creationism, Left-Behind-ism, and all of the emergent militant schools of religious thought.

Instead he'd rather take a stand for tradition in a harmless, isn't-life-nicer-when, sort of way:

The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy. And in my own view, the absence of religious faith, provided that such faith is not murderously intolerant, can have a deleterious effect upon human character and personality. If you empty the world of purpose, make it one of brute fact alone, you empty it (for many people, at any rate) of reasons for gratitude, and a sense of gratitude is necessary for both happiness and decency. For what can soon, and all too easily, replace gratitude is a sense of entitlement. Without gratitude, it is hard to appreciate, or be satisfied with, what you have: and life will become an existential shopping spree that no product satisfies.

Notice that he firsts conflates civilization with religion to make his argument tidier, and then argues that faith always has a positive effect on people because it gives one purpose and makes one grateful for what one has.

Now the "thinness" of this argument resides in the fact that:

1. Civilization is comprised of a great many things (art, technology, sports, food, fashion, etc), and religion is one of those, but faith is by no means the core or the totality of what it means to live in a culture. You could just as easily argue that the family meal is the center of human society and get a lot further with an anthropological study of feast days.
   
2. There is nothing that says that faith and purpose are always positive: as Nietzsche pointed out, a religious fanatic will take the void for his purpose, rather than be void of purpose. He will kill and destroy and pray for apocalypse if it gets him closer to God and Heaven. As for, gratitude leading to happiness and decency, well that's just wishful thinking as anyone with high hopes for family get-togethers can tell you.
3. Nowhere does he deal with facts. He is simply asserting that "faith" in and of itself is beneficial for human beings even if there's no basis for it, even if it is just the placebo effect of a positive outlook and wishful thinking.
4. He sneaks in that caveat, hoping no one will notice: "provided that such faith is not murderously intolerant." In his view, atheists are stylistically intolerant compared to religious writers and that is a much bigger problem than a few "murderously intolerant" bad apples.
   

Eventually Dalrymple and his arguments retreat into obscure writings and meditations. Which is fine. My argument has always been that it is not faith that sustains us, but poetry, philosophy, and story-telling: the mind's attempt to explain itself to itself. As human beings we wish to understand and create meaning. This is why some go to church, but this is also why we go to the movies, read books, and watch TV. Religion is just a story that has forgotten that it is a story - created by and for ancient cultures to help create social order, provide a purpose to the daily hardships of work and toil, explain nature's mysteries, justify social inequities, and provide continuity from one generation to the next. It is civilization in its primitive form, and one which we have expanded upon and outgrown.

What survives and is good about religion is its art, its poetry, its music, its myths and legends. All those things that we carry on today in secular and creative new ways. The story of civilization since the Renaissance has been the story of how we've taken these tools and reinvented them for modern life: Shakespeare builds upon the language of the King James Bible to give us a new foundation for western literature; Science and Medicine replace Astrology, Alchemy, and superstition. If the New Atheists seem impatient or adolescent, it is because of the larger world's inability to recognize the achievements of this project. Ultimately, Dalrymple shrugs off complicated truths in the name of cozy, tea-time niceness, and personal preference.

Shorter Dalrymple: Cake or death? Cake, please.