A European Legacy Worth Fighting For

Written by

in

verting the noble spiritual messages of their creeds ring increasingly hollow. What about restoring the dignity of atheism, one of Europe’s greatest legacies and perhaps our only chance for peace? […]

This argument couldn’t have been more wrong: the lesson of today’s terrorism is that if God exists, then everything, including blowing up thousands of innocent bystanders, is permitted — at least to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, since, clearly, a direct link to God justifies the violation of any merely human constraints and considerations. In short, fundamentalists have become no different than the “godless” Stalinist Communists, to whom everything was permitted since they perceived themselves as direct instruments of their divinity, the Historical Necessity of Progress Toward Communism.

Atheism is a European legacy worth fighting for, not least because it creates a safe public space for believers….. While a true atheist has no need to boost his own stance by provoking believers with blasphemy, he also refuses to reduce the problem of the Muhammad caricatures to one of respect for other’s beliefs. Respect for other’s beliefs as the highest value can mean only one of two things: either we treat the other in a patronizing way and avoid hurting him in order not to ruin his illusions, or we adopt the relativist stance of multiple “regimes of truth,” disqualifying as violent imposition any clear insistence on truth.

What, however, about submitting Islam — together with all other religions — to a respectful, but for that reason no less ruthless, critical analysis? This, and only this, is the way to show a true respect for Muslims: to treat them as serious adults responsible for their beliefs.

Comments

  1. Dr.D. Avatar

    We must treat them with the equal vigour we would employ when engaging with those whose opinions we deplore. Muslims fail to realise with what patronising contempt we deal with them when we call for a restraint that would only be appropropriate towards an intellectual inferior.

  2. P. Froward Avatar

    If the “patronizing contempt” is functionally indistinguishable in practice from “grovelling obedience”, why should they object? It’s true that Western lefties really believe the West is eternal and indestructible, and can therefore afford to make any arbitrary concession to anybody who comes along, but other folks know better.

  3. Cyrus Avatar

    I’d be more impressed by Zizek’s argument if he didn’t use the common debating trick of redefining Stalinism as a religion. The effect of this is to make the claim ‘atheists are more humane than religious believers’ into an unfalsifiable one. For any atheist whose belief system leads him to commit mass murder gets categorized as not a real atheist at all.
    Filter this out and we are really left with not much beyond the trivial claim that belief systems lead to mass murder when they include the belief that mass murder is justified.
    I believe in God. I believe that mass murder of unbelievers is precisely not the will of God, and that a ‘God’ who commands such acts is no God at all, and belief in such a God no better than atheism. These beliefs may be true or false, but they do not of themselves make me complicit in the consequences of beliefs which I reject. I fully agree that critical analysis is the best way to show respect for my beliefs, so long as I can also show the same kind of respect for Zizek’s beliefs, and so long as we are agreed that the object of the exercise is to bring us both a little closer to the truth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *