Atheism is an offshoot of deism

[rug]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau – part 3: Atheism, like Rousseau's deism, sees rationalism as a benign force that can liberate our natural goodness

Theo Hobson
theguardian.com, Monday 3 February 2014 04.00 EST

In the previous article, I considered Rousseau's political radicalism, at some speed. I want to offer a summarizing reflection on that theme, before moving on to his religious thought.

Political justice, said Rousseau, depends on an understanding that state power belongs to the people, exists to serve the common good. What is this vision? Where does it come from? It is motivated by a moral idealism rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition (social justice, concern for the poor, hostility to luxury, the equal worth of all human lives). But its practical side is derived mainly from Plato's Republic. It's a potent conjoining. Rousseau is perhaps the principal pioneer of the idea that a more moral politics must be established and sustained through force – as all political order is.

His political radicalism annoyed the authorities, but what really provoked them was his religious radicalism. In his novel Emile he put his thoughts into the mouth of an ultra-liberal priest, the original trendy vicar (in his youth Rousseau was deeply influenced by a real-life version of this figure). He explains that God is the creator of the orderly universe, that his rules are written in our hearts, in the form of conscience, that virtuous action brings true happiness. We are made for virtue – though we are free to misunderstand this and do evil. Because "the greatest ideas of the divinity come to us from reason alone", revealed religion is dubious, a source of conflict and error. It is a slur on God to associate him with anger and vengeance, and narrow intolerant doctrines. "If one had listened only to what God says to the heart of man, there would never have been more than one religion on earth."

But traditional religion cannot be simply rejected, says this fictional priest – otherwise he would have left his job. The truth of rational religion must be propagated through traditional religious forms – this is its necessary packaging (an idea later developed by Kant and Hegel). People need structures, traditions, ritual practices, through which to relate to divine morality.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/jean-jacques-rousseau-atheism-deism

Part 1:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2014/jan/20/rousseau-compassionate-intense-relevant-philosopher

Part 2:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/series/how-to-believe

Theo Hobson was born in West London. He studied English literature at York, then theology at Cambridge. He did his PhD thesis on Protestant theology and rhetoric; which became his first book - The Rhetorical Word: Protestant Theology and the Rhetoric of Authority (Ashgate 2002). Theo Hobson worked as a teacher, then as a copywriter and journalist. He then started wanting to reform the Church of England, perhaps the world's most thankless task. Later he started a campaign for its disestablishment, and wrote a book - Against Establishment: an Anglican Polemic (DLT 2003). Theo Hobson announced that he was a post-Anglican. He explained that this meant he cannot feel at ease in his native tradition, while it is so steeped in nostalgia – yet can see no better form of church to which to move. Theo's next book was on the ecclesiology of Rowan Williams - Anarchy, Church and Utopia: Rowan Williams on Church (DLT 2005). For a few years now Theo has been trying to 'come out' as a post-ecclesial Christian theologian. He says we have to reinvent this religion away from its institutional past. A truly postmodern theology will serve this end. So far, so-called postmodern theology has been neo-orthodox, a highly erudite dead-end. Theo Hobson is married with three loud children.

His website is www.theohobson.co.uk.

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2007/jun/03/theohobson

[Brettongarcia]

1. Good stuff for the thinking person; after Rousseau

Last edited Wed Feb 5, 2014, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Not sure I'd endorse ALL of it of course.

Especially the apparent conclusion that rationality has to be taught within religious formats.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. Wrong.

"Atheism derives from religion? Surely it just says that no gods exist, that rationalism, or 'scientific naturalism', is to be preferred to any form of supernaturalism. Actually, no: in reality what we call atheism is a form of secular humanism; it presupposes a moral vision, of progressive humanitarianism, of trust that universal moral values will triumph. (Of course there is also the atheism of Nietzsche, which rejects humanism, but this is not what is normally meant by 'atheism')."

Secular humanism is not atheism, and is in fact not even dependent upon atheism to function. One could perceive, believe in, and reject a supernatural god and become a secular humanist anyway.

An atheist cannot believe in and reject a perceived supernatural god, by definition.

Many atheists may be secular humanists, but not all are. (I am not)
Many secular humanists may be atheists, but not all are. (via something like Dostoyevsky's 'Ivan' character, rejecting the scapegoat premise of Christianity, and 'seeking to return the price of the ticket'.)

This 'atheism is a form of secular humanism' line of logic is not only invalid, it is offensively presumptuous, and ignorant.

[Goblinmonger]

3. This + a billion

This 'atheism is a form of secular humanism' line of logic is not only invalid, it is offensively presumptuous, and ignorant.

That won't stop people from continuing it.

[SecularMotion]

4. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

I believe humans were atheists before the concept of Deism was developed.

[NeoGreen]

5. Ahh...no... not so much...

...we're all atheists.

Some, just one...god...less....

[Brettongarcia]

6. Not sure the author is saying what Rug's title says; ultimately REASON seems behind it all, not God

The author seems to be trying to summarize Rousseau. Who in turn (after Hobbes? Locke?) seems here to say that it seems good, even rational, to organize humankind in cooperative networks, in communities and civilizations. Since they are more productive than isolated, warring individuals. This idea, Rousseau seems to suggest, seems to be found in early religion; but ultimately it is rational. We agree to cooperate with other individuals; because when we help them, they help us. I learn plumbing; and trade my services for those of an electrician. In that way, cooperation, the social contract, helps everyone.

Then the author goes on to quote a fictional priest, who adds that he believes that most people can't understand the reason here. For that reason, people should just be taught it by rote, ritual; until they understand it.

But to be sure, there ARE many objections here.

My objection would be that we CAN teach this through simple reason; and people can grasp the reasoning, after all. It seems rational, useful, for people to cooperate in society.

In ignoring the rational basis of the social contract, and emphasizing the role of religion instead, this selection looks curiously like many that Rug selects; it looks a lot like the kind of material they like to present in Catechism classes, and Catholic/"parochial" schools. Articles whose moral is always that we MUST have religion, Catholicism; even to learn Reason. But in the 250 years since Rousseau, we have long sense learned to present science and reason on their own; without presenting them as formulas to be religiously, blindly followed, without understanding them rationally.

The fact is, there IS some reason behind the social contract, and humanism, socialism, etc.. And today, we can simply describe it, directly. Rather than ask everyone for blind, religious faith in its formulations.

[rug]

7. It's not my title.

Your penultimate paragraph is, kindly, ridiculous.

[Brettongarcia]

8. YOu're apparantly saying "deism" is the root of atheism

Deism is quite close to belief in God.

But then my paragraph summarizes Rousseau, above and beyond the article, as background. For whom belief in God, and/or deism, is somehow fundamental to, or related to, Reason. (Which in turn is related to Atheism, some would say). Rousseu's "Social Contract" is finally rather rational.

But your title, in contrast, puts "Deism" in the driver's seat. Whereas even for Rouseau, Reason seems more important. (Though he gives religion a role in promulgating Reason.)

Finally the real bottom line is this: Reason, not Deism, is the deeper root of Atheism. Even for Rousseau.

[rug]

9. Oh, am I?

Did you read the headline at the link?

Tell me what is apparent to you.

[Brettongarcia]

10. For a moment, parts of Hobson favor Reason. But then? God/Deism

Hobson:

"Atheism derives from religion? Surely it just says that no gods exist, that rationalism, or 'scientific naturalism', is to be preferred to any form of supernaturalism. Actually, no: in reality what we call atheism is a form of secular humanism; it presupposes a moral vision, of progressive humanitarianism, of trust that universal moral values will triumph. (Of course there is also the atheism of Nietzsche, which rejects humanism, but this is not what is normally meant by 'atheism').


So what we know as atheism should really be understood as an offshoot of deism. For it sees rationalism as a benign force that can liberate our natural goodness."

Belief in "natural goodness" is rather religious. I prefer the rationalism of the Social Contract. Help others; they will help you in turn.

Beware of titles and subtitles in newspapers. As a former editor, I know this: often editors, not authors, write the titles.

[rug]

11. Then as a former editor you should be happy to issue a correction for a false attribution.

[Brettongarcia]

12. I'd say Hobson thinks Rousseau favors sentiment of goodness, religion. And thinks sentiment is #1

Last edited Thu Feb 6, 2014, 10:46 AM - Edit history (1)

Many think that. Possibly in fact, Rousseau IS a bit sentimental about sentiment, religiosity.

But I'd add that BEYOND Rousseau's idea of the Social Contract, was influence by Hobbes; and is quite rational. Indeed even Deism is rather rational, naturalistic.

So finally it is not religion that leads to humanism, or the Social Contract or atheism either; it was Reason of course.

And we don't need Religion to explain the Social contract. It's just pragmatic, material reasonable sense: help others, and they help you. "Scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."

Pretty simple. Anyone can explain it to a 5-year old. Purely by simple reason. And without resort to supernatural images, or religion, or rituals.

So beyond Hobson and Rousseau and religion too, is ... REASON. As the real origin of humanism - and atheism too.

(Not that humanism and atheism are identical; but they can be reconciled by Reason).

[rug]

13. .