AsiaCultureReligion

A reply to: ”Vacuous Grandiloquence” – death of culture?

By January 2, 2017 4 Comments

This is a response piece to ‘Vacuous Grandiloquence?’ by Last Pagan and Black Pigeon Speaks video ‘Why Atheism is vacuous grandiloquence

First, we must remember that Atheism is essentially a belief. The correct philosophical approach is Agnosticism. For the existence of God can neither be proved or disproved. If it could be proved, the concept of faith would be non-existent; if it could be disproved, religion would not exist.

But what I think is the main argument of BPS is that (as I have personally experienced) atheists are not only destroying religious belief, but all of the cultural aspects that come with that religion. Meanwhile, BPS states that atheism is a leftist ideology. But on the other hand, compares it to that ideology based on how they both behave.

During the French Revolution a big atheistic movement rose. and is undeniable that it behaved like any other barbaric zealot religion. Atheism, being a belief, can be institutionalized into a religion, as it did in France.

That is why sane Atheists prefer the American Revolution to the French one. So atheism is an ideology, like Christianity. Sane atheists should abhor what happened in France, just as Christians should be disgusted with the French Wars of Religion. Atheism and Christianity behave in the same ways.

You can argue that atheism is the rejection of religion, but because of its essential nature it can become what it rejects. Remember that definitions do not hold up to their practice always, like the definition of feminism.

Now, going back to culture. While BPS claim that religion makes up most cultural characteristics is wrong, he is right to say that it is a part of culture. Thus, to claim that atheists are destroying culture is not invalid.

It is true that advanced civilizations become less religious, and that the social vacuum is inconsequential in such a state of affairs. However, a vacuum is produced when a civilization is declining.
When the Romans became decadent, their culture became decadent, a vacuum was produced, and they culturally accepted Christianity as a religion. Only the well educated resisted the longest, but the masses did not.

Many western nations are not rising but are declining. Regardless of their previous height, their fall creates a cultural inertia, like the french “mal du siècle” or the malady of the century. A distinctive french romantic perspective, caused by the vacuum that napoleon left.
Culturally speaking, the hipster phenomenon, the rise of partisan atheism, the loss of spirituality and the rise of Islam, are signs of cultural decadence. And if not decadence at least stagnation. There is a general loss for the respect and the following of tradition. Just look at things like “White Guilt” or Multiculturalism, I see a culturally defeated people. Just like a mal du siècle.

The Japanese are incredibly advanced and incredibly atheistic. But their respect for culture and tradition is not undermined. Even if some say that they are at the brink of economic collapse, they’re culturally healthy. They have no mal du siècle.

It is only at the end that BPS makes a distinction between culture, belief, and religion. And why I think he is totally right in the video.

Vergilius Rex

Vergilius Rex

Just someone who remembers the past and sees virtue in it.

4 Comments

  • Sankt Athanasion says:

    The one qualm I have with the video on atheism done by BPS is the argument which can be summed up as, “the Supreme Being cannot possibly be interested in the moral actions of human beings due to their miniscule size in relation to the universe.” This is an argument I have repeatedly heard form agnostics and atheists but it simply doesn’t make any sense. Arguing that the number of atoms composing or, the amount of mass arising from, an object makes it “unimportant” or “uninteresting” morally (for lack of better terms) to the Supreme Being, Who is omniscient, makes no sense at all. An infinite, omniscient Being would be as familiar with an individual grain of sand as the It would the vast Milky Way Galaxy— all things would be equal, in a sense, given that such a Being has an infinite amount of knowledge, influence, familiarity with all created things. While I respect agnostic theists, I would contend that Aquinas’s argument from contingency, among others, makes gnostic theism the most probably choice in the spectrum. As a Catholic Christian, I know very well the foundation the Catholic Church laid, with Greco-Roman Philosophy and later scholasticism, for Western Civilisation, which is the most glorious and most supreme civilisation the world has ever known. This is the utilitarian argument for the benefit of religion, which was also how Charles Maurras argued for Catholicism as the state religion of France, although he was an agnostic. But the truth is, we do not need the shell of Christianity. We need the real, actual, philosophical, cultural, traditional, rational, mystical, scholastic, spiritual Catholicism of our ancestors. Not the emasculated, feminized Catholicism pushed by the current Roman Pontiff, but the masculine, martial, “crusader” Catholicism of Innocent III or Julius II. Juan Donoso Cortes and Joseph de Maistre argued this ages ago. And Donoso predicted all of our modern maladies and already had the solution, presented in the 19th century, in his speeches and letters on Proudhon. It is there for all to see, the socio-political salvation of Western Civilisation, and I would argue also its true spiritual salvation.

    • VergiliusRex says:

      The problem is that the moral foundation of Christianity is non-martial, of humility. I prefer philosophical Hellenism. However the stance you propose is the only real solution for the West, when talking about religion. Good thinking!

  • Wutra says:

    Nope, atheism isnt a belief. Some people try to make it into one
    (including some atheists) but in itself its just thinking someone elses
    ideas are incorrect. Is not believing in santa a belief in itself?
    Atheism makes no particular assertions, it makes no claim beyond ‘i
    disagree’. It doesnt tell us how to live our lives, it doesnt tell us
    how the universe came to be, it answers no questions and has no moral
    code. Technically agnosticism IS the correct stance but oddly we dont
    apply that to much else, no one is agnostic about the underpants gnome
    or the potato goblin and yet agnosticism TECHNICALLY applys to almost
    everything and still no one makes a big deal about it. If you insist on this technicality as the basis for your argument you have nothing.

  • damiansarch says:

    I am agnostic, but I find myself wanting to return to my Christian roots at times. Jordan Peterson has done an amazing job of revealing the practical lessons of the Bible and other mythologies as well. I think it’s really worth mentioning the contributions, or perhaps utilities, that religion provides to society. Religion provides a single transcendent ideology to unite those who consider themselves a part of that religion. Christians want to convert you regardless of your race or geographical location, unlike Judaism or Shinto Buddhism. But with the loss of a unifying ideology to attach one’s identity to, people seem to be going every which way.

    If only we could somehow create an ideology for the west that incorporates all the best aspects of our philosophy, mythology, religion, economics, and science.

Leave a Reply