Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jim__

(14,097 posts)
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:08 PM Jun 2012

Susan Neiman: Why the Enlightenment refused to abandon religion

This is a somewhat long essay by Susan Neiman on the Enlightenment and reverence. She discusses some topics occasionally discussed in the R/T forum: Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, his debate with God about the destruction of Sodom, the origins of morality. And more. A short excerpt:

...

The Enlightenment denied piety to make room for reverence. If piety is a matter of fear and trembling, reverence is a matter of awe and wonder. There is very little written on the concept of reverence, and no wonder: reverence itself is virtually ineffable. It's what gives rise to the feeling expressed by Wittgenstein: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Reverence is what you feel when you feel overpowered, struck dumb by the realization that some things are beyond human grasp. Why should human language be able to contain it?

Music, if not silence, is its deepest expression, though not every piece of music will do. In 1977 the United States launched the Voyager spaceship bound for the stars with a message to whomever might eventually find it. But what message should be sent from the Earth as a whole? Like most committee decisions, this one was a mishmash.

When those extraterrestial beings of whom we know nothing decode the instructions for playing the gold-plated copper phonograph record that prefigured the CD-ROM, they will hear greetings in fifty-five languages and sounds including humpback whales, Peruvian wedding songs and Chuck Berry. One member of the committee, having failed to convince his colleagues, later printed his dissenting proposal:

"I would vote for Bach, all of Bach, streamed out into space, over and over again. We would be bragging, of course, but it is surely excusable for us to put the best possible face on at the beginning of such an acquaintance. We can tell the harder truths later."


Which truths, exactly? That we are rarely that beautiful, almost never sublime? That though most religious traditions place us in God's image, only a few of us ever approach it? All that, to be sure, and something more: few of us realize how short we fall, which means that not just great art but reverence itself is in limited supply.

...
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
2. Partly it was because atheism could get you killed or otherwise inconvenienced.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 04:35 PM
Jun 2012

But then again there were prominent atheists. Hume, Dedirot, Spinoza for example. The essay seems to be more about the author's personal religious perspective than about the reality of atheism in the enlightenment.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,424 posts)
4. His atheistic works were published under different names, outside France
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 05:00 PM
Jun 2012

which seems to back up the "could get you kill or otherwise inconvenienced" point.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
5. Perhaps, but he nevertheless was quite active and, to all appearances, thrived.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 05:06 PM
Jun 2012

His personal atheism was no secret.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
7. Yes, he was afraid to tell anyone.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 05:37 PM
Jun 2012
Holbach used his great wealth to throw the dinner parties for which he is famous. He owned a house in Paris in rue Royale, butte Saint-Roche, which, generally, had a guest list restricted to serious intellectuals, and a chateau at Grandval where, in addition to his coterie, Holbach also hosted social friends and relatives. Holbach's coterie included intellectuals who, although their positions varied on many issues, shared at least a willingness to entertain views that many would have thought too radical to be discussed in social settings. The coterie met from the 1750's into the 1780's. The group evolved over time, but its core members, Alan Kors has argued, were Denis Diderot, the encyclopedist; the diplomat and cultural critic Friedrich-Melchior Grimm; the naturalist Charles-Georges Le Roy; the writer and critic Jean-François Marmontel; the historian and priest abbé Guillame-Thomas-François Raynal; the doctor Augustin Roux; the poet and philosopher Jean-François de Saint-Lambert; the writer Jean-Baptiste-Antoine Suard; the pamphleteer François-Jean, chevalier de Chastellux, the pamphleteer abbé André Morellet; and the philosopher Jacques-André Naigeon. Many of these men were, like Holbach, avowed atheists and many also pushed radical, even revolutionary political agendas. So the general character of his coterie might suggest that Holbach was a figure on the fringe of Parisian society, a kind of eccentric parvenu with a taste for scandal.

What is really remarkable about Holbach, however, is that he managed, despite what one might expect, to keep his coterie firmly in the mainstream of European society. French nobles, as well as ambassadors from countries across Europe — Denmark, England, Naples, Saxe-Gotha, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Wurtemburg, and Sweden -- attended his dinners. So did prominent intellectuals of all kinds, including, at different times and with different degrees of enthusiasm, the philosopher and novelist Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the mathematician Jean Le Rond d'Alembert, the historian Edward Gibbon, the writer Horace Walpole, the chemist Joseph Priestley, the social critic Cesare Beccaria, the philosopher Nicolas-Antoine Boulanger, the statesman and scientist Benjamin Franklin, the actor David Garrick, the philosopher Claude-Adrien Helvétius, the philosopher David Hume, the economist Adam Smith, and the novelist Lawrence Stern. Holbach was known in France not primarily as a political radical but as le premier maître d'hôtel de la philosophie. Many in Paris coveted invitations to rue Royale, and Holbach's house was the first stop for many prominent international visitors.

Holbach's character must have been remarkable to have maintained a salon in which the espousers of political and religious reform met so freely and so often with visitors who either cannot have been accustomed to such open dialogue or who were themselves parts of the establishment under attack. Indeed Rousseau, who himself came to feel unwelcome by the coterie, nevertheless memorializes Holbach in La nouvelle Heloïse, as the paradoxical figure, Womar, an athiest who nonetheless embodies all of the Christian virtues. In addition to his good character, Holbach's generosity at table (his dinners and especially his wine were famously good) and in supporting many of his acquaintances may explain his success at being both a pillar and a critic of society. Perhaps, also, Holbach was not in the eyes of many of his contemporaries as clearly a radical as some other members of his coterie. He did publish some of the most notorious works of the French Enlightenment, including Le Christianisme Dévoilé (Christianity Unveiled), Système de la nature (System of Nature) and Le Bon-sens (Common Sense). These books evoked long and heated responses from such notable figures as Voltaire, abbé Bergier, and Frederick the Great; System of Nature and Common Sense were condemned by the parlaiment of Paris and publicly burned. Holbach, however, was not in his own time as notorious as his books. He was careful always to publish anonymously, so that those who did not know him or who did not care to think of him in that way, might have remained at least partially ignorant of his religious and political views.

Holbach's coterie met for thirty years, from the early 1750's until about 1780. During that time his first wife died and he married her younger sister, Charlotte Suzanne d'Aine, with whom he had four children. Holbach wrote prolificly throughout this time. According to Vercruysse, Holbach authored or coauthored over fifty books and over four hundred articles. He died in 1789.


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/holbach/

No one suspected a thing.

Jim__

(14,097 posts)
8. Spinoza was publicly a pantheist, Voltaire a deist- positions some considered atheist at the time.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 05:49 PM
Jun 2012

So, there is no reason to assume that they were lying about their philosophy to avoid charges of atheism.

Neiman supports her position about the Voltaire and Kant with either direct or indirect citations from them. She also states in the article that Hume was a true atheist.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Susan Neiman: Why the Enl...