Perhaps Scruton is just being nostalgic for what he describes as the old humanism:
“There is no need for God, they thought, in order to live with a vision of the higher life. All the values that had been appropriated by the Christian churches are available to the humanist too.”
And he laments the new humanism, which lacks the noblility of purpose of the old, and offers nothing positive:
“Instead of idealizing man, the new humanism denigrates God and attacks the belief in God as a human weakness”
Scruton suggests Richard Dawkins to be an example of the new humanists. Also, an interesting quote:
“Having shaken off their shackles and discovered that they have not obtained contentment, human beings have a lamentable tendency to believe that they are victims of some alien force, be it aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, capitalism, the priesthood, or simply the belief in God. And the feeling arises that they need only destroy this alien force, and happiness will be served up on a plate, in a garden of pleasures. That, in my view, is why the Enlightenment, which promised the reign of freedom and justice, issued in an unending series of wars”
The Garden Of Eden? What about the unitarian universalists?
See also on this site: Similar topics from Britain: From Nigel Warburton’s Site: A Definition of Humanism?…A Debate: Would We Better Off Without Religion?…Roger Scruton In The City Journal: Cities For Living–Is Modernism Dead?
chr1
It obviously does not occur to Roger that one of the last places he will find the Living God is in the pages of the American Spectator (AS). Or in the various outfits, blogs, etc etc that subscribe to, or link into the AS
Comment by John — April 26, 2009 @ 9:17 pm |
John, thanks for reading.
The American Spectator is conservative, and the conservative party has largely been the party of organized religion.
Comment by chr1 — April 27, 2009 @ 7:22 am |