Imagine There's No Heaven . . .

Not even on earth. That's the dis-illusioning message of a book I want to read -- John Gray's Black Mass, a takedown of ALL forms of apocalyptic utopianism, be they commie, neocon, millennial, or militant atheist.  From Bryan Appleyard's London Times review:

Gray transforms [saiah] Berlin’s basic insight into a refutation of all notions of progress or perfection and of the special destiny of humanity. Man, he asserts, is a tribal carnivore possessed of reason. His reason may give him science, a progressive, cumulative enterprise, but it cannot give him the wisdom to transcend his nature. Science, like everything else in the human world, will be used for evil as often as good. Conflict is eternal and all utopian thinking is fantasy. The best we can hope to do is protect, for a time, our cherished ways of life.

Because forms of utopianism are either implicit or explicit in most human projects, Gray’s is a world-view that causes vertigo when it does not cause outrage. Antiutopianism is the deep consistency in all his thought. [...]

The collapse of communism in 1989, and the publication of an academic paper and subsequent worldwide bestseller, Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History, signalled the start of Gray’s next campaign against utopianism. [...] 

“That phrase ‘the end of history’ was like a red rag to a bull. It was an apocalyptic notion, and it was to me a sign that when the Soviet Union collapsed, we would not have a move towards prudence and realism, we’d have a politics of faith. I was adamantly opposed to that – it was what I had been opposed to in communism.”

Uncovering the faith base of seemingly rational opinions is a Gray speciality. He finds the apparent rationalism of militant atheists such as Daniel Dennett, Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens particularly funny. He regards atheism as a late Christian cult, based on the supremely Christian (and Marxist) idea that by changing people’s beliefs, you change their behaviour. He also sees an irony here. “They attack something congenitally and categorically human as an intellectual error, yet call themselves humanists.” [...]

“I had been puzzled by the intensity and systematic and methodical character of the violence of the 20th century, because that century was dominated not by religious belief, but by secular belief in progress or the capacity of human beings to create a better world. It also featured unprecedented levels of mass murder.

“But I was even more puzzled by how quickly the memory of the 20th century began to fade; that, with the threat of religious-linked terrorism, the lesson of that secular fanaticism that had cost tens of millions of lives in Russia and China – and continues to do so in Sri Lanka and Nepal – seemed to be completely forgotten. And the reason those terrors have gone into the memory hole is that they illuminate cracks and absurdities in the beliefs of the secular humanist faith in progress.” The point is that what appeared to be secular projects were as founded upon belief as any religion. The lesson was that any human project could be used to justify slaughter: “Nothing is more human than the readiness to kill and die in order to secure a meaning in life.”

That 20th-century amnesia, Gray says, led to new, faith-based utopian cults, but this time the primary one, neoconservatism, was of the right rather than the left. He shows, in Black Mass, how many of the neocon prophets were originally Trotskyists, a clear sign of the utopian linkage between Marxism and the neocons. [...]

! ! !

Perhaps Gray’s most controversial point is that the roots of modern terror lie in the western Enlightenment. Before the 18th century, he argues, wars and terrorist campaigns were not conducted as if they were mechanisms of general improvement. It was the French revolution that introduced the idea of terror as a tool of progress, and we have been living with – and dying from – that legacy ever since. Al-Qaeda, he argues, is a very modern organisation, precisely because it has learnt the lessons of the West.

In other words, Progress is merely Heaven transposed to earth.  And the conversion crusades and "destroy them to save their souls" mentality of Communism was merely a systematization of an impulse shared with religion and now swapped back to it in newly lethal form.

Maybe in the last analysis Gray's message is too bleakly Darwinian.  There is evidence that we can both afford and aspire to get kinder as reason makes our lives less desperate.  Both the spiritual and the scientific make vital contributions to that modest and imperiled groping towards improvement.  But "modest" is the key word.  It sounds as if Gray gives humanity a humility-inducing thrashing.  Hurts so good.

Hat tip:  Internet Ronin.    

Comments

[Michael Reynolds]

It strikes me as a sort of reductio ad absurdam argument: because the most extreme "utopians" manage to screw things up, all those devoted to progress are doomed to fail.

Nah. Not buying.

In my lifetime cars, medicine, food and communications have all improved dramatically. Huge leaps forward. Does that mean the second coming is nigh? Does it mean we're on the verge of becoming a society of saints? Of course not. But it does mean that cars, medicine, food and communications are all better. Progress is made.

The guy's just selling books.

[amba]

The improvement in cars is not denied by his argument:

His reason may give him science, a progressive, cumulative enterprise, but it cannot give him the wisdom to transcend his nature.

It's the improvement towards perfection of humans, as the result of various programs -- be they of equalization, mortification, enlightenment, or martyrdom -- and the ironically stupid and/or brutal lengths people are willing to go to to get everyone else with the program, that's being decried.

It's worth noting, over and over again, that the American experiment isn't about the perfectability of man. It's about outfoxing the worst parts of his nature -- keeping the power-hungry in check so the rest of us can enjoy life. Even that doesn't work so well, but consider the alternative.

[RW Rogers (Internet Ronin)]

Hey! Those were my lines! (I knew you would appreciate the idea behind this book. As I am not up to the mental gymnastics required to discuss it tonight, I'll contribute my two cents some time tomorrow.

[Tom Strong]

I'm quite excited to read this book, though at the rate I'm going through Baruch Spinoza, it may be a year or two.

[Michael Reynolds]

Okay, let's look just at humans.

For 99% of human history, slavery was acceptable. Now it's not. For 99% of human history it was perfectly acceptable to slaughter women and children in war, and now it's not. No one ever much considered the "feelings" of animals. No one made much of an argument for the notion that the planet is a resource we must care for. Only a blink of historical time has elapsed since we first considered that we might want to let people choose their own governments, their own religions, their own husbands and wives . . .

The typical h. sapiens circa 2007 is infinitely more compassionate than the typical human circa 1007. Think of the story of the artist who starved a dog to death that you linked to a few days ago. Obviously it points to the fact that the human race isn't perfect, but it also points to the fact that the majority of people are deeply affecrted by a tale of cruelty to an animal. That would not have been the reaction 500 or 1000 years ago.

[amba]

Right! I agree with you. I think I said so in the post: "There is evidence that we can both afford and aspire to get kinder as reason makes our lives less desperate. Both the spiritual and the scientific make vital contributions . . . " etc. We can and have learned! The dark side hasn't gone away; some serious (always precarious) victories have been won over it. Comfort, safety, and freedom don't make people kind -- there were probably a few people who were kind in 1007, and there are plenty of comfortable, safe, spoiled-rotten people who feel free to be rude and mean in 2007 -- but they make kindness an easier option for many more people without extremes of sainthood. Gradually fewer future brutalizers are brutalized into being. This trend could and would reverse in a heartbeat if we ever got "bombed back to the stone age."

Human nature probably can't be changed (the church has not succeeded in stamping out lust from hearts any more than Marxism-Leninism succeeded in stamping out greed), but it can be manipulated by the circumstances around it to bring out its better or worse potential. Gray is bashing Utopians who don't bother to start with how things really are, like the neocons who barged into Iraq.

[Michael Reynolds]

So we agree that we're better people with better cars.

Except for that stupid S.O.B. in a Hyundai on 15/501 who sees I have my turn signal on, and sees me merging, and sees that my car has probably half a ton on his, and yet decides to accelerate and try to cut me off. There's no improving a guy like that.

[amba]

And there you have it in a nutshell.

[Icepick]

[A]nd there are plenty of comfortable, safe, spoiled-rotten people who feel free to be rude and mean in 2007....

Stop, you're making me blush!

Gray is bashing Utopians who don't bother to start with how things really are, like the neocons who barged into Iraq.

Not everyone who wanted to invade Iraq was a NeoCon. In fact I imagine most weren't. (I certainly wasn't.) Just so we're clear on that particular point.

[T]he church has not succeeded in stamping out lust from hearts any more than Marxism-Leninism succeeded in stamping out greed....

Is the (Christian) church trying to stamp out lust? I thought one of the core beliefs of mainstream Christidom was the IMperfectability of man. Lust would be just a part of that imperfectability?

[amba]

Ice -- it's not the going into Iraq I'm objecting to (as I hope you know), it's the cavalier disregard for the realities that it was obvious would be found there.

You're right, the Christian church never said it was possible to stamp out lust. I guess I should've said "heresy."

[Pastor_Jeff]

"the supremely Christian (and Marxist) idea that by changing people’s beliefs, you change their behaviour."

Not saying that Christians haven't believed this, but Jesus was quite clear that while belief is necessary, it's not sufficient. "You must be born again," means that while we can change behavior, fundamental and lasting change comes only from a renewed heart -- a spiritual transformation which results in changed behavior.

I think the confusion arises here: often when Christians have attempted to make a "Christian" society, they've assumed everyone was already a believer and made laws expecting that people should act according to their beliefs.

[realpc]

"The typical h. sapiens circa 2007 is infinitely more compassionate than the typical human circa 1007. "

Oh baloney. H. sapiens is just as screwed up as ever, and moreso. At least in the past people could always count on their extended families. That's over. Even husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, aren't necessarily going to be there for each other.

All we really have to count on is ourselves and our wits.

We may have turned up the shallow pretense of compassion. But it isn't worth much.

There never will be a heaven on earth; I have always said the same thing as this book. Life was not meant to be heaven. The more you improve one thing, the more screwed up some other thing becomes.

I like living in this society, and I'm not saying I want to be a hunter-gatherer, or a slave-owner. I'm glad I wasn't born even 20 years before I was.

But I still see it all as trade-offs. Our species is some crazy experiment, and it's interesting. But it certainly is not heading for any kind of utopia.

And, as the book says, more lives have been destroyed for the cause of progress and heaven on earth than for any other reason.

[Michael Reynolds]

Real:

You might want to read more history. People -- at least in the developed world - are clealry more compassionate. Today: American Idol. 2000 years ago: Christians vs. Lions. I'm not a fan of idol, but at least they don't feed the losers to wild animals.

[realpc]

Michael,

I am not ignorant about history. I think if people currently had a chance to watch violence, and if it were not considered uncool, they would.

I don't believe we are any better now, or any worse. We are different in some ways.

Violence has become unfashionable mostly because we are afraid of the weapons our wonderful technology has given us. We can't afford to express our natural violence, because we would all end up dead.

The whole world lives under the threat of annihilation. This is the Pax Americana.

We still have gangs in the US, but they are no match for the police, because the police have better weapons.

Pacifism became cool during the 20th century. But our nature hasn't changed. Not that I think our nature is wrong. Violence is natural. Violence has evolved, because of technology, and I don't think what we have now is all that great. The constant threat of annihilation is what we have now.

And I don't blame this on anyone. It's one of the many tragic and unforeseen results of progress.

[realpc]

Oh yes, and a lot of people see themselves as wonderfully compassionate. This is more common among "liberals," I think. Christians see themselves as sinners and know they have the potential for evil. Liberals, especially if they are atheists, see themselves as compassionate and saintly. People are great at self-deception.

[Michael Reynolds]

I think if people currently had a chance to watch violence, and if it were not considered uncool, they would.

You're missing the point: it is considered uncool. Meaning that a large enough percentage of people are turned off by violence. Making my point, not yours.

Violence has become unfashionable mostly because we are afraid of the weapons our wonderful technology has given us. We can't afford to express our natural violence, because we would all end up dead.

What? First, only a tiny minority of nations possess nuclear weapons, and none of them have threatened to use them in the event Fox schedules a new Christians vs. Lions show. Your theory is that, say, Danes -- the children of Vikings -- are very nearly pacifists today because if they engaged in violent play we would nuke them?

The whole world lives under the threat of annihilation. This is the Pax Americana.

Again, violence is not limited to international conflicts where conceivably nuclear weapons might be used. And no, the world does not live under the "threat of annihilation" by the US, as witness the fact that Sudan goes merrily on its way committing genocide and we seem not to be raining nuclear fire down on their heads.

We still have gangs in the US, but they are no match for the police, because the police have better weapons.

Quite the contrary, actually, gangs often carry heavier weapons and have no restrictions on their use. And if the gangs are no match for the cops how is it we still have gangs? And in any event, what would be the relevance of your point?

Pacifism became cool during the 20th century. But our nature hasn't changed. Not that I think our nature is wrong. Violence is natural. Violence has evolved, because of technology, and I don't think what we have now is all that great. The constant threat of annihilation is what we have now.

No one says our nature has changed. Our beliefs have changed. Our actions have moderated. And as a historical point, all humans from the dawn of time have lived under the threat of annihilation. You think the people standing in the path of Attila or Ghenghis or Hitler weren't in danger of annihilation? Annihilation has threatened from the beginning of time. You need to understand that peasant standing between the Golden Horde and their objective, the annihilation of his family, his village and his people, was every bit as all-consuming as some theoretical nuclear annihilation.

Oh yes, and a lot of people see themselves as wonderfully compassionate. This is more common among "liberals," I think. Christians see themselves as sinners and know they have the potential for evil. Liberals, especially if they are atheists, see themselves as compassionate and saintly. People are great at self-deception.

Again this goes to historical ignorance. To say that large numbers of people see themselves as compassionate is to make my point, not yours. The fact that compassion -- for those not in your family, clan or tribe -- is seen as a cardinal virtue, is a radical shift in human belief systems.

[realpc]

"The fact that compassion -- for those not in your family, clan or tribe -- is seen as a cardinal virtue, is a radical shift in human belief systems."

Yeah, and my point is that it's fake. We are MUCH LESS compassionate towards our close relatives than people in ancient or traditional societies. Our compassion is watered down and abstract, and I think it's fake.

[Michael Reynolds]

Real:

Perhaps you're speaking for yourself?

Over here in my world I actually do love my family. And I actually do care what happens to strangers. I can't speak for you or your family, obviously.

[realpc]

I love my family as much as anyone loves their family. I am not in any way talking about my personal experiences.

But if you tell me, Michael, that you love strangers as much as you love your wife or kids, or your parents or siblings, then I would say the love you have for your family doesn't count for much.

If you said you would feed a stranger even if your kids were hungry, then what you call love isn't love.

If you would do as much for a stranger you pass on the street as you would do for your wife, then your wife has a bad deal.

But I don't believe it. I think you deceive yourself into thinking you love strangers. Abstract and undiscriminating love for humanity is something other than love.

If you sacrifice your life for a stranger, you deprive your family of a husband and father. Is that a loving act? Or is it twisted?

Yes Jesus said "love your enemy." We don't really know what the heck he meant. He also asked people to forsake their families to follow him. How loving were those followers who abandonned their families to follow Jesus?

Obviously the word "love" has no clear definition and can mean many things.

The word is thrown around and I am not at all convinced that you Michael, and everyone else who claims to be so big-hearted, are seeing yourselves objectively.

I am as loving and compassionate as anyone, so I am not coming from some atypical perspective. I have faced the fact that no, I do not love everyone. And I love people to different degrees and in different ways. And I can love someone one minute and hate them the next. And I think you, and everyone, is just like me.

But the "liberal" myth is that everyone can love everyone all the time. No, you can't, and you don't. Or else the word "love" has no meaning whatsoever.

[realpc]

I hope that ended the italics.

I would like to add this: Why can't we RESPECT everyone instead of trying to love them all?

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt and respect and trust them until or unless they demonstrate they can't be trusted and don't deserve respect.

[realpc]

I thought of something else: some famous examples of humanity-lovers were actually a little twisted in their personal lives. Tolstoy and his wife stopped getting along because he wanted to give all their money to strangers, rather than to their children. Mother Teresa is known to be sort of odd. Gandhi also.

Public humanity-lovers don't always do so well in their personal relationships. And the supposedly selfless love always turns out to be mixed with a need to be adored by milions.

[Michael Reynolds]

You're ranting, RealPC, contradicting yourself, and either inadvertantly or deliberately misunderstanding what I've written.

No one ever claimed they loved strangers as much as family. I said that we now show more compassion toward strangers than in times past.

Then, you said: We are MUCH LESS compassionate towards our close relatives than people in ancient or traditional societies. Our compassion is watered down and abstract, and I think it's fake.

Then you deny that you're talking about yourself. No, it turns out that by "our" you actually mean those who disagree with ou on political or religious grounds. You're just ranting about "liberals" and "atheists." Quel surprise.

So, according to you, "we," meaning people unlike yourself, are only pretending to compassion, and in fact, are even faking our love for family?

You have yet to respond to anything I've said, although you act as though you are responding. Do you have something other than the usual fact-free, logic-free jeremiad about atheists and liberals?

[realpc]

"So, according to you, "we," meaning people unlike yourself, are only pretending to compassion, and in fact, are even faking our love for family?"

NO -- I said you're pretending to love strangers. I never said you are faking love for your family. But I don't think modern Americans have the same empathy and loyalty for their families as people do in traditional societies. Maybe you have this for your kids. Some couples have it for each other. But outside the nuclear family it's pretty weak. We might not even know our cousins. We might not feel any respect for our mother-in-law.

In taditional societies, these bonds are strong and dependable. We have lost that. The number of people we can really count on is much lower now than even a few generations ago.

I am not saying we should be different than we are, just pointing out some of the trade-offs. And the hypocrisy which I think is tremendous among secular liberals.

[amba]

Real is talking maybe about nursing homes?

[wj]

Real, maybe that point is that so many people today (at least in some societies) make the effort to at least fake compassion. Is that as good as actually feeling compassion? I would agree with you that it is not.

But is it nonetheless a massive step forward from finding the very idea of compassion outside the immediate family or tribe incomprehensible? I have to agree with Michael that it is. After all, what we are talking about here is a massive cultural change. And part of the way cultures are passed on is by children growing up seeing what is regarded as "proper behavior". Even if their parents and other adults are faking it.

A change like this will generally go thru stages:
- Can't even imagine such feelings (compassion towards all other human beings, in this case)
- How odd that person is, who speaks of them
- How exceptional, and admirable, that person is who speaks of them
- What an exceptional person, to actually act on such beliefs
- More people >should act like that
- That is how everyone should act.
- That is how all good people should feel, whether they always act that way or not
- That is how all good people behave
- That is how all good people DO feel
- That is how everybody (always an overstatement with exceptions, but stated that way) acts
- That is how everybody feels

In real cases, of course, you can see backsliding. And changes which never actually go to completion. Not to mention that it takes a long time -- like generations. But the path, when it happens, is along those lines.

[realpc]

"Real is talking maybe about nursing homes?"

Maybe that's part of it. But the average person doesn't have the resources to nurse a disabled person. I know you're doing it amba, and it's a heroic effort of genuine love. But most people just can't.

In traditional cultures a severely disabled person would eventually die, because they wouldn't have the technology to prolong life. So I don't know how much nursing they actually did, or do.

I think it's sort of a separate question. Yes modern Americans dump the elderly and disabled in nursing homes, but it isn't always out of lack of compassion. Often it's simply that the task would be impossible.

I'm really talking about less severe needs. Americans love to be free and independent, and to move whenever and wherever they feel like moving.

The extended family has disintegrated as a result. I'm amazed when old people retire in Florida, leaving all their grandchildren up north. It's like they don't even care how often they see them!

But it's just as common for young people to move away from their parents, lured by careers or climates, or just wanting to get the heck away.

Cell phones and email are making it a little easier to stay close, but it really is not the same.

And remember all the mother-in-law jokes? Americans were very happy to escape the old obligation to in-laws. Not so long ago everyone had to take in their widowed mothers and mothers-in-law, and not everyone was thrilled about it.

Now we are free to get divorced, to escape our parents, children, grandchildren. People used to have cousins, aunts, uncles, neices, nephews, to celebrate with and to mourn with, and to share the ups and downs of life.

Now we have our circle of friends, our co-workers and our immediate families.

IT IS NOT THE SAME. We have lost much more than we realize.

[Randal Rogers]

RPC: You are writing about an idealized past. The truth is that, as a nation of immigrants and nation of successive new frontiers, an extremely large portion of our society has been relatively mobile throughout our history and often families were not all that often all in one place. Looking back at the 13 generations of the one who surname I carry, such togetherness over a lifetime was the exception rather than the rule, unless my ancestor happened to be the oldest or only male child.

[realpc]

wj,

I simply don't agree. I don't think faking compassion leads eventually to compassion. Faking compassion leads to improvements in the ability to be fake, to ignore real feelings.

[realpc]

"as a nation of immigrants and nation of successive new frontiers, an extremely large portion of our society has been relatively mobile throughout our history "

Yes I know. People have always separated from their extended families when it was necessary. But now they separate just because they want to.

My grandparents were immigrants, but when they got here they stayed close to their siblings and other relatives. No one thought it would be nice to get away from relatives, and no one moved just because.

It's very different now. There is very little desire to have an extended family.

I am not idealizing the past. I am not saying the past was great. I'm just saying there are things we have lost. And you can ask anyone who has lived in a traditional society if it was better in some ways.

We have more freedom, and we have lost connectedness. We find connections wherever we can -- at work, church, organizations. But it isn't the same. The connections we make can be fragile and shifting.

[Michael Reynolds]

Real:

As WJ and Randal have suggested, we are a nation founded by people who abandoned their extended families. No sooner did we ditch the losers in Europe and settle into the eastern seaboard than we promptly abandoned our new extended families for the West. And then further west. And further.

Look, the TV Land version of the 1950's is not the sum of history. Throughout most of human history families habitually carried out infanticide, ridding themselves of sick or weak or supernumerary children. They sent the old folks out to sit on an ice floe. Often they sold their children into slavery or its near equivalent. They couldn't afford to do anything else, they were ten calories away from starvation.

You want a picture of the good old days? Look at tribal societies today, where men consider it a moral obligation to kill loose-living female relatives for honor's sake. You and I are horrified by such things precisely because we have in fact progressed a bit from doing similarly heinous things ourselves.

The example of nursing homes reveals precisely the opposite of what you think it shows. It shows a society that has devoted staggering resources to keeping unproductive individuals fed and clothed and cared for. Having extended the lives of the old and the sick we sometimes have difficulty dealing with them, but it beats hell out of telling them, "Hey, grandpa, when we move the teepee next week? You won't be coming."

[realpc]

Michael,

You don't make even a half-hearted effort to be objective. You do the opposite of idealizing the past.

The past was better in some ways and the present is better in some ways. You absolutely cannot see the problems caused by progress. You absolutely cannot see anything good about the past.

We have massive problems now. Cancer epidemics from the toxic wasted created by our wonderful technology and industry. The constant threat of nuclear war, which you casually dismiss as unlikely. Unlikely! It's amazing it hasn't happened yet.

We have the sort of problems no one knows how to solve because they are completely new, completely different from anything we evolved to deal with.

Sorry, we are not heading towards some technological heaven on earth.

I accept that life isn't perfect and never will be. "Perfection" is an impossible concept anyway. I don't feel a need to believe that progress will solve everything. It's ok that life is unpredictable and treacherous and challenging. Heaven would get boring pretty soon anyway.

I do not relate at all to utopianism and I agree with the author that it has created more misery and destruction than greed or any other negative impulse. The hopeful striving for perfection motivated Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the true devils of the 20th century.

The desire to create a perfect society is arrogant and ego-maniacal.

As amba, or someone, said, this country was based on the opposite idea. Our freedom and success depend on precarious balances between the society and the individual, and between various components and forces. It's a balancing act that rests on the faith we all have that by some miracle it will not collapse into chaos.

Perfectionism and utopianism and blind faith in human nature threaten this delicate balance.

It isn't human compassion or human intelligence that keeps this miracle going. It isn't human individuals. The whole is infinitely greater than its parts.