Interesting article. You provide us with what I’ll call hypothetical situation A:
Let us stipulate that smoking is unhealthy. Let us then assume that a tribe in some remote jungle believes that tobacco smoke attracts malevolent spirits. A public health official sent into the region does not, of course, share this superstition. But he makes use of it in dissuading people from acquiring a taste for newly available cigarettes—because he knows that some people do the right thing for a wrong reason. Eventually, he thinks, people will do the right thing for a better reason. And that will be the end of the demonological theory of tobacco smoke.
Now let’s change things to hypothetical situation B:
Supposing there is a tribe that stipulates that smoking attracts malevolent spirits. A member of that tribe comes to visit us and learns that we think smoking is unhealthful. Although he knows this is pure nonsense, he makes use of this in dissuading people from taking up smoking in order to keep away the demons. “Eventually, he thinks, people will do the right thing for a better reason.” That is, they will come to understand how it is important not to attract demons. And that will be the end of the health theory of tobacco smoke.
Which of the two people, the public health official or the visiting tribesmen, has a clearer understanding of the world? Justify your answer.
Who, in fact, will get to define the “real situation?” Why?
Whose ideas will, in fact, survive in the long run?
I don’t know if I could answer your specific questions, but whenever I visit Whole Foods or try to fix a meal for the young food “puritans” in my life, I begin to think I am somewhere on the boundary of science and religion; I know organic spinach is beneficial to the body, but sometimes I think I am participating in a ritual that will ensure long life for true believers who seem to live by a dietary regimen somewhat like the rules for Kosher foods.
I don’t think we have really achieved a secular society, we just are better at disguising our beliefs. I for one take my spirituality straight and neat.
Professor Berger says that Habermas credits Christianity with having driven out magical thinking. I don’t know anything about Habermas, but this seems strange to me. I would contend that both Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity epitomize magical thinking. In fact, I think an argument can be made that the Orthodox Church views it’s chief business as magic at least if one views magic as the evocation by ritual of the spiritual experiences most critical to human existence.
For how many millennia have Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians relied on the majestic glory of the mass to provide protection from evil forces both known and invisible?
How many Christians like their churches dark precisely because that seems to make the church a particularly good hatching place for magic? What purpose does the sacramental bread and wine serve if not to join the mere mortal with the divine through the mediation of magic?
If you remove the magic from Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity isn’t what you’re left with called Protestantism?
The following Habermas quote can be found at Wikipedia.com:
“For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk.”
Wikipedia says the above statement was misquoted in a number of American newspapers and magazines as: “Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization,” which Habermas did not say.
The likely reason Habermas is misunderstood is because he is incoherent. And he is incoherent because he is like a character out of Robert Musil’s A Man Without Qualities who has no self and thus struggles with what psychologists call boundary maintenance of his own thoughts.
Perhaps E-Notes.com sums up Jurgen Habermas best: To his detractors, the result has been an amalgam of ill-fitting elements that merits comparison more to Rube Goldberg than with that of Marx.”
Both served cold
Belief can provide solace, but religion also provides for an argument from authority (e.g., “God tells me that you’re evil”) that attacks reasoning from the facts.
The answers to the questions are as follows:
1) The tribesman has it right. Anyone who considers the tobacco industry can only conclude that it is demonic. Its main goal is to addict as many people as possible to a habit that will kill them, and it uses all of the powers of seduction and illusion that modern advertising has developed for this purpose. Finally it does all of this just to make a little bit of money.
2) It depends on who has power and authority. If the tribesman went back and told the local shaman about the behavior of tobacco company executives, he would surely agree (quite correctly) that demons rule the modern world. On the other hand, since my physician has the power to declare me insane, I would think twice before I told him that demons overrun our world.
3) The future is up for grabs. There is a long conflict in the West between Gnosticism and classical Christianity. Gnosticism (of which the modern world is a variation) holds that we can save ourselves through knowledge. Christianity holds to the demonic quality of the world, especially as it perverts the human will. Every time I read the news, I’m reminded of the Christian truth. But I know I’m in a minority. God only knows if the modern world will awaken from its Gnostic dream world in which the demons have us ensnared.
Pingback: Berger: What Happens When a Leftist Philosopher Discovers God? | the northampton seminar()
It isn’t the “comforts” of Christian religion that are so useful to society; it is the *challenges* of that religion, in the form of moral codes, that make us better than the animals that Rationalists believe us to be.
Feel like lying on your mortgage application to get a better house, and think you’re going to get away with it? The unshakeable belief that hellfire is the end result of that sort of thinking has a tremendously salutary effect on human behavior.
Then, add to that the habit (weekly) of self-examination and absolution, amongst fellow believers who will reinforce, teach, and remind you of God’s (unchanging) expectations, and you’ve got a workable system.
God gave us this system for a reason. He gave us this system for our eternal good, and it also does wonders for the temporal good of ourselves and those around us.
But humans, like Habermas and his ilk, will always attempt to subvert this system from what God wants, because some of God’s commands are very much at odds with our sinful nature.
So “secularization” is actually a pretty good guess as to the trajectory of humanity… if it weren’t for the fact that God still works in hearts and minds today.
I would heartily recommend the works of CS Lewis to Herr Habermas, and devoutly hope that he follows Lewis’ path.
Pingback: Peter Berger on Habermas | theoutwardquest()
Pingback: Peter Berger on Habermas’ Religion | The Book of Doctrines and Opinions:()
_Feel like lying on your mortgage application to get a better house, and think you’re going to get away with it? The unshakeable belief that hellfire is the end result of that sort of thinking has a tremendously salutary effect on human behavior._
Maybe, but it seems to me the real importance of God is not that He rewards the good and punishes the evil but that He grounds the very distinction between good and evil. Without an objective moral order, good and evil are mere preferences (whether cultural or individual). In the absence of that objective order, Mother Theresa = Hitler morally speaking; there is no way to adjudicate which of those two is good and which is evil because the very terms are meaningless. An objective moral order can only come from God. In His absence we have only our preferences (with nothing to say that my preferences are better than Charles Manson’s) or our cultures’ preferences, with nothing to say that a culture that practices female circumcision, slavery, genocide, or honor killing is doing anything wrong (since wrong would be a meaningless term). The reason to be good is not fear of hell but because not to be good is a betrayal of the moral order inherent in creation, therefore the loving creator who put it there, and ourselves and our fellow human beings as His creatures.
You have just described the modern Left.
I think the example of Hitler=Mother Teresa is true, but from the perspective of most people whose moral sense is inevitably shaped by a Judeo-Christian culture in which they have been marinated from birth, the equivalence is not really believable.
A more logical, unemotional example is a nest of ants. Are there good ants and bad ants? To even ask the question is nonsense. Ant1=Ant2=Ant3, etc from a moral perspective. In the absence of God, the question of morality has no absolute meaning. The only question is one of utility. To get back to Hitler and Mother Teresa, it can be argued that Hitler is by far the more important and achieved a higher status for himself during most of his lifetime.
“Any sociologist will agree that religion, true or not, is useful for the solidarity and moral consensus of society. The problem is that this utility depends on at least some people actually believing that there is the supernatural reality that religion affirms. The utility ceases when nobody believes this anymore.”
That’s fantastic, so long as the moral consensus revolves around “love your neighbor as you love yourself.” I don’t see many Christians practicing that. I see a lot more who think that Christendom is a gang, and it must defeat some rival gangs. I don’t doubt that there was a moral consensus in favor of many of the great injustices in our country’s history: the civilization of the natives; the dominance of the white people (oh, yes, that was the Supreme Court saying slaves were better here in slavery than back in Africa); etc., ad nauseum, right through contemporary attitudes towards gays, Moslems, etc. Don’t believe me? I bet this comment gets a torrent of “but Islam is evil!”.
No doubt the Pharisees and the Sadduccees found themselves in a moral consensus, informed by divine revelation, that a certain, now quite famous, rabbi was a problem. God didn’t work out so well for God right there.
“If you remove the magic from Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity isn’t what you’re left with called Protestantism?”
No, it’s called Marxism. It seems to me that Habermas has spent his entire life looking for someone who can tell him what he is supposed to think.
No doubt the Pharisees and the Sadducees found themselves in a moral consensus, informed by divine revelation, that a certain, now quite famous, rabbi was a problem. God didn’t work out so well for God right there.
there may be many valid critiques of the “modern Left,” but argument from authority is the least viable
Those commenting who say that without God, no morality, seem to have forgotten (or never learned) that even Thomas said that God willed things because they were good, and not that things are good because God wills them. Morality, for Catholic Christians anyway, is grounded in reason, not the will of God. Or has some Pope or other declared Aquinas mistaken? I am grateful that those taking such a line do believe in God, else they might
wreak havoc. Ivan Karamazov is the great perpetrator of this hokum; Ivan’s creator, Dostoyevsky has him say: ‘If God does not exist, then anything is permitted’. Bizarrely, it follows from this, by modus tollens, that if there is something that is permitted, then God exists
Pingback: What Happens when a Leftist Philosopher Discovers God? « Gyrovague's Raves()
Peter Berger, this article shows that you have no clue who Habermas is, you have obviously never seriously read his work, and the following comments are just pure comedy. This is below community college level. 20 minutes perfectly wasted, thanks A&L Daily.
One has to ask: What does one care that Berger, a minor intellectual, has a sniffy disregard for Habermas, a truly important one? The person who comes of as arrogant here is Berger, for score settling with someone whose reputation has, in the time since they crossed paths, swallowed his whole. Really a weak piece of writing; and one that produces in the reader the exact opposite effect intended.
It’s a bit ironic that you contrast “Gnosticism” with what you call the Christian recognition of the demonic quality of the world. I understand what you are getting at, but it was the Gnostics who thought the world was an evil dream from which we need to awake. Of course, it depends on what you mean by “world.” I understand that you probably didn’t mean “physical world.” But you didn’t really explain what you meant.
Pingback: Varieties of Ignorance « Choice in Dying()
The foundation of individual rights was laid in ancient Greece and Rome where every citizen had certain rights that could not be abridged, in contrast to the absolutist monarchies which surrounded them. A notable addition to this development was the creation of the tribunate in Rome, the first example of divided government in the world. Even St. Paul went to Rome to be tried, his right as a Roman citizen. Although these achievements were largely lost under late phases of both societies, the ideas survived and were revived in the 18th century by philosophers and statesmen who were either hostile or largely indifferent to religion, leading to the American and French revolutions and then the spread of democracy around the world. Mr. Berger has got his history upside down.
I don’t agree that Knowledge always must fail in the contest with demons, and that Gnosticism must lead as astray. Christianity teaches us to respect human life; so does a nuanced understanding of modern cosmology. For example, read John Leslie’s essay “The pre-requisites of life in the universe” and not be moved to a deeper appreciation of human beings and a sorrow at how cheaply life is spent in human conflict.
From Jung’s standpoint, smoking DOES in fact attact evil spirits.
Pingback: What Happens when a Leftist Philosopher Discovers God? | Peter Berger | De camino a la abulia()
Dear Professor Berger,
Introducing a critique by laying out the grounds for your personal animosity rarely contributes to enhancing your own rigor of reasoning. That being said, I cannot quite grasp your thesis here. You seem to provide a gloss of Portier’s account of the “three phases” in Habermas’s intersection of religion with society. At the end, having read your article, I am left asking the question, “so what?” If we wanted to read Portier’s account, we can read that. But what is it you are actually saying here about Portier, or about Habermas himself, or even about Habermasian sociology as it relates to religion?
Pingback: What Happens when a Leftist Philosopher Discovers God? | Peter Berger « Multitud()
Pingback: My Weekly Reader | FavStocks()
Morality describes the tension between fitness in an individual and fitness in a population. Its objective reality is proven by the growth of cultures exhibiting a balance favoring the population and the absence of alternatives.
There are some interesting parallels between how Habermas’ :
“students fanned out across West German academia, creating a network which for a while administered an effective ideological hegemony in the human sciences”
and the proliferation of militant ecology under Paul Ehrlich’s banner at the same time. In both instances, some few true believers are trying to rewrite enough recent history to facilitate a revival.
The manner in which Habermas’ “students fanned out across West German academia, creating a network which for a while administered an effective ideological hegemony in the human sciences.”
seems to some degree paralleled by the proliferation – and present revival, of Paul Ehrlich’s ecological views, and those of such successors as Stephen Gould and Jared Diamond.
Pingback: Darwiniana » Habermas()
Just because many Evangelicals have a distrust of government does not mean that they do not “love their neighbor”. Keep in mind that many Anabaptists were persecuted and killed in Europe by corrupt governments. My ancestors fled France under such circumstances. If you were to look at my wife’s family tree, many branches were wiped out completely in the Soviet Union, murdered because of their religious beliefs (they were Mennonite).
Can you blame us for wanting to keep the power and scope of government in check?
Pingback: Tasty Tidbits 10/3/11 « Tipsy Teetotaler()
Berger states: “Any sociologist will agree that religion, true or not, is useful for the solidarity and moral consensus of society. The problem is that this utility depends on at least some people actually believing that there is the supernatural reality that religion affirms. The utility ceases when nobody believes this anymore.”
Alfred North Whitehead conceived of a God within nature; the supernatural had no interest for him. God was simply where all possibilities reside. “Collective enthusiasms, revivals, institutions, churches, rituals, bibles, codes of behaviour, are the trappings of religion, its passing forms…The end of religion is beyond all this.” And further: “Religion is what the individual does with his own solitariness.”
Pingback: The Divine Conspiracy Blog » Blog Archive » Juergen Habermas()
@ James Lane
re: [Who, in fact, will get to define the “real situation?” Why? Whose ideas will, in fact, survive in the long run?]
For a brilliant exposition on this topic, I would recommend Alisdair MacIntyre’s “Whose Justice, Which Rationality?”. MacIntrye’s answer is that which ever tradition/worldview is more adequately and completely able answer the questions of the other will prevail. It may be that at present the two worldviews are radically incommensurable, and it will require a development in one in order to appropriate and answer the questions of the other. (His primary example here is Aquinas’ appropriation of the Aristotelian tradition into Christian theology.)
“…even Thomas said that God willed things because they were good, and not that things are good because God wills them.”
Thomas is contrasting the Christian and Moslem understanding of God. Moslems hold precisely the latter view: Allah is absolute will, and a thing is only good so long as Allah wills it.
Catholic Christians hold that reason and the natural moral law are intrinsically in harmony with the will of God. Rational order exists in the universe because God is the source and origin of both order and universe: rationality and the moral law are design attributes of creation just as are the laws of physics. As beings ‘created in His image’, we have innate knowledge that reason and the natural moral law are good. So it’s a false dichotomy to oppose reason with God’s will.
Pingback: The Stone Philosophy Links - NYTimes.com()
Pingback: Radical thinker praises Christianity | Cranach: The Blog of Veith()
I concur with Richelieu. A combination of a few irrelevant personal trivia, then talk about how he created “a network of neo-marxists”, and then some stuff about religion does not a coherent argument make, nor even a point.
When one runs out of days, when one stares into the chasm of black fate, when one realizes the irrelevance of philosophy, only then does one cry for a comforting god, as a child cries for its mother.
Pingback: What Happens when a Leftist Philosopher Discovers God? « Religion and Spirituality in Society()
Pingback: Sunday links | THE WESTERN EXPERIENCE()
John Barker, comment #2: “I don’t think we have really achieved a secular society, we just are better at disguising our beliefs.”
Bingo in one.
I don’t feel the content of this article actually answered the question the title posited. If you can’t comment on his personal beliefs, what does it mean to “find God” other than an intellectual pursuit into nuance and tolerance. (Tolerance in the archaic sense of holding firm your ground while lending an ear to the opposition.)
All of this hot air has taken us no-where; I’ll settle for the First Cause Argument.
Pingback: Habermas’ religious turn? | winged keel and crumpet()
This part was pathetic:
Pingback: Occupy Interfaith: Why Millennials, Including The Irreligious, Need To Care About Religion « In Our Words()
I also think that Habermas is giving a credit to a new Christianity