City of God argues that the New Atheists need to learn from history that reason is no guide to world-improvement
If religion had motivated people to die for God and King, surely reason and science had made the dying that much nastier through the innovations of gas, flame-throwers, bomber aircraft, bigger artillery and the like. I would submit that WWI offered an equal rebuke to European notions of religion and science, indeed a rebuke to all myths of Europe as someone superior to the rest of humanity.
The utopian promises held out by the New Atheists that the world can be greatly improved through the abandonment of religion and the taking up of reason and science sounds as enticing as any utopia. But like other earthly attempts at utopia, the historical record has not been pleasant. I can’t believe in the utopia of the New Atheists. Why? To borrow Bertrand Russell’s famous reply to God, not enough evidence!
WWI and WWII weren’t started, as far as I know, because we were being too rational and too committed to Enlightenment ideals of human dignity and inquiry. And science was in no way “rebuked” simply because technology can be used for good or for evil purposes. Science, in terms of scientific methods for attaining to truth were quite vindicated when we learned to do things like split the atom. Science did not corrupt human hearts. And the fact that science did not transform people into angels is irrelevant. That’s not what science was ever meant to do. The real question is whether critical moral philosophy and moral psychology are a better route to human education in virtues than religious authoritarianism.
By evidence of the humane influence of Enlightenment ideals of democracy and tolerance compared with the authoritarian political structures of the Middle Ages or the bloody carnage over nonsense questions of the religious wars of the Reformation, I put my money on the Enlightenment as the ideal to strive for—regardless of how badly the West has failed to embody those ideals at various points in the last century. The Enlightenment should still be the guiding ideal and has been the source of whatever moral progress the West has known in the last 400 years.
Will opposing this one source of human corruption magically remove all the others? No, it won’t of course. But since when does opposing one set of vices (authoritarian habits of thought, superstitious thinking, anti-scientific inferences, fallacies, deference to traditions for their own sake) become impermissible just because removing those vices won’t magically end all human vice? And I’d love to hear the exact explanation as to how becoming less rational, demanding less scientific evidence and rational moral argumentation from those who try to control what we think is a better route to a better world. I won’t even set the bar as high as “achieving a utopia” for anyone who wants to explain this to me. I will settle for an improved state of affairs over the opposite alternative of more rationality, scientific evidence, and demands for moral justification (since all the New Atheists are claiming is that more of these things will make things better, however still imperfect, than their alternatives can).
Reason has limitations which should be respected but not exploited. Reason itself should never be “rebuked” and its limitations are not a license for unfounded claims beyond what we can know. The limitations of our reason are the limitations of our right to believe. Only tyrants and religions are threatened by the demands of reason and demands for reasons.