Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Secular Humanism: Our Only Hope for Defeating Radical Islam
In response to Paddy’s thought-provoking suggestion that a secularized Western culture is doomed to fall before committed barbarians, permit me to start with a statement that might shock: Secular humanism defeated radical Islam centuries ago. Everything we’re doing now, essentially, is mop-up.
The story began when Johannes Gutenberg invented the first European printing press with movable type, one of the most important events in the arc of modern history, if not the most important. Before Gutenberg, the marginal utility of acquiring skills such as reading and writing was low, because the cost of books, laboriously copied by hand, was high. The price of a single Bible could easily exceeded the economic value of a village.
His invention loosed a revolution. Literacy exploded, followed by the Reformation and the Enlightenment. The last came not a moment too soon. The Ottoman Turks had been on a torrid winning streak, seizing territory hand-over-fist in Eastern Europe and Spain. Then came the cataclysmic Battle of Vienna, where the tides of war changed, and the previously superior Muslim forces were handed a defeat from which they never recovered.
Long before Grand Vizier Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha’s disastrous foray into Europe, Muslim scholars had sat atop the pinnacle of human knowledge, providing important contributions to algebra, geometry, architecture, astronomy, and medicine. They translated works from antiquity and advanced classical ideas. Intellectual disaster struck in the tenth and eleventh centuries, when adherents of the Ash’arite philosophy seized the reins of Muslim society from Mu’tazilite thinkers. With Asharism came a wholesale rejection of rationalism and an embrace of fundamentalism. The Ottoman Empire’s immense momentum and superior organization allowed it to wash up on Europe’s shores — to the point of massive overreach — centuries after the passing of Islam’s day as a leading force in the arts and sciences.
The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution were irrevocable changes in trajectory of Western Civilization, just as the trajectory of Muslim society was forever changed by the collapse of Mu’tazilah philosophy. Europeans rapidly embraced rationalism as a means to improve their living conditions. Material explanations of and solutions to vexatious problems displaced explanations previously offered by religious authorities, with immensely positive economic consequences. European per capita GDP zoomed upward, along with standards of living. Muslim societies were left in the dust. This has taken place over nearly half a millennium. It should thus come as no surprise that when Westerners envision the average Muslim nation, they envision a 14th-century basket-case — because in many cases, that’s absolutely true. No similar improvement has transpired in that nation in the past 1,000 years.
Most of the nations of the world where Islam is dominant would rightly be described as third-world hellholes. The exceptions are nations that have immense mineral wealth (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait), and the larger nations at the edges of the Ummah (Turkey, Indonesia). But as a rule, if your country has been under the thumb of Islam for a thousand years, it’s now a hellhole.
The differences are not limited to the economic. There’s evidence that the improved economic success of Western European nations has had an impact upon the intelligence of its citizens. The Flynn Effect is the term used to describe a steady uptick in intelligence scores worldwide in the past century, especially in nations where the public not only values such things as infectious-disease prevention, childhood nutrition, and education, but pursues them in a fashion sufficiently rational as to obtain them.
Poor nations that lack the resources to improve their human capital are further hampered by centuries of ingrained backwardness. Still worse, 50 percent of their citizens — the female ones — are relegated to the status of chattel slaves and breeding stock, where they’re hardly apt to contribute productively. So these nations continue to fall ever further behind. A heartbreaking illustration is the hampering of efforts to eradicate polio by Islamic radicals who insist vaccination is a plot to sterilize them.
Western civilization and the Muslim world inhabit two different planets. On one is a relatively peaceful, prosperous Europe and the Anglosphere. On the other are nations dominated by people whose thoughts do not necessarily dwell upon the evils of Western civilization and their burning need to destroy it. More often, they are urgently consumed by their struggle for day-to-day survival. Their own governments, or sheer chaos, pose a much more immediate threat.
We are no more at risk of being overrun by them than we are at risk of being overrun by ants. It’s true that the insect biomass could be roughly equivalent to that of all human beings, and that if ants decided en masse to attack us, we’d have to rush down to Home Depot. But ants are not a serious threat. Ants spend more time defending their colonies than they do conquering neighboring ones.
What we face is in some ways harder to accept. The mass murder of European tourists on Tunisian beaches makes the headlines, but the vast majority of the victims of Islamist violence live in the Muslim world. We don’t yet know exactly how many people have died in the Syrian conflict, but I’m sure historians will one day find the numbers staggering. Perhaps it will not be as high as the toll of the Khmer Rouge. Perhaps it will be close.
What can we do? Unfortunately, the only thing we can do, realistically, is wait it out. The radicals can’t win forever, and they employ only the simplest of tactics to incite terror. Obviously, we need to try to limit the damage they inflict upon us, because a hornet can sting painfully in its death throes. But we are at no risk of losing our society to Muslims scaling the walls, nor are we in any danger of losing a war of ideas. We could certainly lose our sense of security if they’re lucky enough to land a sucker punch and bloody our noses. But as people worldwide are exposed to the idea that there can be a better life, they will want it. They will be willing to fight and die for it. This might take centuries — after all, we didn’t get here overnight — but happen it will.
The only question is how much worse will it get for them, and for us, before it starts to get better?
Published in Foreign Policy, General, History, Religion & Philosophy
I think you’re conflating cultural implications with the veracity of their metaphysical claims. Israel is a huge success because it is a thoroughly Western and highly secularized nation. On the genetic question, Ashkenazi Jews are noted for having extraordinarily high IQ. That certainly doesn’t hurt if you’re in the business of making scientific hay.
This zips right past the fact that the implication here is that because Newton was correct (within a certain frame of reference) about mechanics that it must automatically lend credence to his weird, mystical ramblings about the Philosopher’s Stone.
One had nothing to do with the other.
This is important – especially the last part. In order to have technological advancement it is necessary to assert both that man is able to improve nature, and that it is a good thing to do so.
The vast majority of cultures in the world lack the combined belief. Indeed, California presents a showcase of what happens when people revert to the pagan belief that man should not mess with nature.
Huh?! Lots of nations are thoroughly Western – but per capita, Israel tops them all in terms of science and technology.
97% of Israelis have a Passover Seder. The cultural baggage of Judaism runs deep. And many of those scientific advances are from orthodox Jews. Secularism is not the driver.
I think we all know lots of smart and basically useless people. Something has to motivate and guide the raw talent. Being smart and secular does not create the conditions under which Israel has flourished.
On the subject of Newton, it’s insupportable that his work (which was underpinned by, and infused with, Biblical concepts of the universe) was somehow unconnected with his religion. Going back a little to the Royal Society milieu of the 17thC, I would make the point that it was closely connected to (and supported by) the Puritans of the Commonwealth after the English Civil War. And how about science, or “natural philosophy” itself? Did that evolve separately from the medieval church? Hardly. And we must also consider, bearing in mind the importance placed here upon Classical thought, the role of the medieval church in bringing ancient texts to light.
Quite frankly, the arguments in favour of the proposition appear to be largely ahistorical, concerned merely with defining away the importance of Christianity (and to a lesser extent Judaism) rather than addressing it in relation to the cultural, scientific and economic development under discussion.
That is precisely what I am not doing. I am saying that the metaphysical claims are clearly useful for human advancement, whether or not they are actually true.
You are concerned about veracity. I am pointing out that human advancement, at least in Israel’s case, is clearly not the product of secular humanism.
Correct. He was nuts – but the craziness was clearly connected to his innovations. He was not the first.
He did nothing in Syria, except draw a red line he did not enforce, so I don’t see why you list that as an active policy by Obama. As to Lybia, he overthrew an ally, which is not what anyone is advocating, and went against Obama’s better judgement through Hillary and the other women involved. Obama’s strategy is do nothing. Do nothing takes on risks. Sure the liklyhood of a Muslim domination of the west is not high, but even a 10% chance that ISIS wins and unifies the Muslim world is not worth taking at the risk of western civilization. Squash them now before they become a real threat. And they will become a real threat to Israel and our middle east allies.
I think it’s beyond doubt that we have nothing to fear from Pashtun goatherds, but that they have a great deal to fear from their own government and from extremist elements who are interested in revanchism and ideological purity.
If you look at Boko Haram for instance, (their very name means Western education is Forbidden) there is a decided element of economic Luddism there. The reasons for that are this: Islam (particularly Radical Islam) advertises itself as a complete lifestyle. It encompasses all aspects of life; religious, social and economic.
The “goods” that Islam provides are somewhat intangible. It seeks to provide monolithic cultural solidarity and spiritual satisfaction to its adherents. Not concerning themselves with improvements of the material world and an embrace of asceticism are a hallmark of such extremism. This falls out as a revolt against material prosperity – particularly as seen in the West, because that material prosperity is attractive to poor people. It threatens cultural solidarity, enhances individuality and makes people (as they see it) discount the otherworldly riches that they are offering.
They also know that they cannot defeat us militarily, which is why you see the sorts of attacks that you do – any simpleton with a gun can shoot people on a beach.
CONT’D
I’m constantly amazed that we don’t see that sort of attack carried out again and again in the Western world. We have so many soft targets, and they have so many people who are willing to kill and die just for the sheer joy of it.
The Beslan attack should serve as a warning to all of us – that sort of thing could become a weekly occurrence, and I’m not really sure why that tactic hasn’t been employed. It strikes abject terror and disgust into the hearts of westerners to contemplate our children meeting this sort of fate – and perhaps that’s the reason why. The calculus goes that if they attack children we would become so wroth as to be spurred to serious action.
But they don’t! That’s the amazing thing. If they had so many people willing to die, trucks would drive into restaurants every day.
The problem with secular humanism is that it provides precious little reason to risk your life fighting for your nation or ideology. It is not an ideology for the foxhole, and despite the immense achievement of science and technology, it can still be brought low by barbarians at the gate.
Science is based on medieval philosophy that held a number of crucial tenets – the world operates according to its own laws most of the time (an idea which I believe derives from natural law theory) and mankind has a duty to improve upon nature. The synthesis of Christian theology and Greek philosophy was the foundation for future scientific progress. Copernicus did his work for the Church, after all. Later generations continued to see no contradiction between devout faith and scientific advancement – see Faraday, Thompson, Joule, Maxwell, etc.
This was not just a one-way street either: Christianity greatly benefited from the Renaissance and the Scottish Enlightenment. Christian Humanism took off even before its secular cousin, and the eventual embrace of democracy and reconsideration of capitalism greatly improved the faith. For example, usury has be reinterpreted as “being a loan shark” as opposed to any form of lending at interest, since lending at interest in a free market is a type of service as opposed to exploitation of the poor.
Majestyk, I am concerned that you seem to have missed the primary thrust.
Posit that Muslims become dominant populations in “Secular Humanist” Europe. They don’t assimilate (indeed, further generations tend to show more radicalism, not less). They then vote for Sharia. Democracy: One Vote, One Time.
How does Secular Humanism win?
Let me follow you down this rabbit hole for a moment.
I’ll ignore the fact that this is impossible. The Shia in Iran have no interest in seeing Sunni extremists form a cohesive state-like entity right on their border comprised of the remains of Syria, Iraq and parts of Jordan and maybe Saudi Arabia. That’s why they’re currently in the curious position of allying themselves with us to fight ISIS.
So, this happens. What does that mean? That actually means good things for us (in a sense) because our military is geared towards defeating Westphalian state actors. We’re great at that. We aren’t so good at beating asymmetric warfare tactics – so if the Islamic state actually becomes, well, a state, that gives us an advantage in that there is a capital to bomb, materiel to blow up and men to kill.
Or, if the “state” such that it is remains so dissolute that the best they can do is have some crazies issue forth with some guns and there is no GDP, industrial base or other things that actual nations have which represent a threat to us, then doing nothing remains a pretty attractive option.
I would think that 9/11 showed that even pretty stupid non-state actors who want to do America harm can figure out a way. I don’t think this is a country that would accept “routine” demolitions of occupied buildings, for example.
There is nothing in the Bible about how to engineer something as rude as an outhouse. I’m sorry. I just can’t agree that there is anything specific about medieval Christianity which is supportive of scientific inquiry and advancement, else, why did we have this thing called the “Enlightenment”? Why did all of the things which came about as a result happen after it and not before?
Up until these scientific revolutions people thought the Sky was a Bowl or Crystal Spheres or other fantastic things and the Church would burn you at the stake or lock you up permanently if you said any different.
Allow me to clarify: by “do nothing” I mean we don’t go about setting loose our military forces to intervene in the Levant – at least until there’s some overwhelming reason to do so.
By “do nothing” I am also advocating for emphatically NOT accepting ANY refugees from ANY Muslim countries and to severely curtail Muslim immigration. As you’ve mentioned, they’re notoriously difficult to assimilate, are culturally heterodox and beyond that: there are dozens of Muslim countries that we could just as easily bribe to take these people rather than putting them in our nation. I mean, yes – turning tens of thousands of people with 14th century sensibilities loose in our nation is not just stupid, it’s suicidal.
Ah, OK. We agree on something!
Actually, there are fairly detailed specifications for temple buildings in the Bible. I’d imagine you probably think those are ruder than outhouses.
Do you have evidence for this scientist burning church? Aside from Galileo, who was mostly in trouble because he personally aggravated the Pope, the various astronomers were not opposed by the Church. In fact, the Church needed their work to keep the calendar in line. The real problem with early heliocentrism (any scholar in the Middle Ages would be able to point to the Greek knowledge that the Earth was round – it was clearly stated by Aristotle and others) was that no one had any idea of the scale of the universe. You could not see the parallax with the naked eye, as the stars are light-years away, but people quite reasonably thought the universe was smaller.
Really interesting post and suppositions.
I would question, however, the risk assumptions of the ants against the house protected by Ortho Max.
On September 11, 2001, we saw 19 people kill nearly 4,000 people. Those are the numbers I find worrying.
I am not reassured at all that a couple of people at the top of the intelligence, means, and money pyramid in a third world hell hole cannot irradiate and annihilate thousands of people. The whole world of drones and EMTs and biological weapons is a crazy numbers relationship: 1 person, 1 vial, can kill thousands of people.
The original post describes ants. However, I think of the deadly tick and mosquito Terminators. I wish we were talking about only harmless ants.
Actually, there are very considerable requirements for metal refining, casting, and working, woven and dyed textiles, and the like in the Torah. The external walls of Herod’s Temple features single stones that weigh 160,000 pounds.
Human creativity is highly regarded in the Torah. G-d does not destroy anything the Egyptians built, or the Tower of Babel or even idols: human creations are featured prominently, and openly respected by G-d as extensions of His own creative powers.
I criticize medieval Christianity, but there is no denying the incredible engineering that went into some of those cathedrals.
Human creativity is, of course, not limited to building works. It includes art and music and letters. Are you seriously going to argue that these are not features of Judaism and Christianity?
I don’t think you appreciate the importance of the medieval church as a sponsor of learning, philosophy and enquiry into the natural world, and that this is on a continuum with the later development of science, and that science was (and remained for many like Descartes, Mendel, Lemaitre and many others) an attempt to understand God’s creation. Early scientists like John Dee (a priest) are at the dividing line betwen when the church ceased to be overtly involved and “natural philosophy” (with its theological underpinnings) became “science” and when science was “set free” from church dogma, but the later secular form of science did not come into being in a vacuum — nothing does.
As to the point that there is little engineering in the Bible (Noah’s Ark? the Ark of the Covenant?), no-one is claiming that religion is identical with science.
These concepts of the universe (which are actually pre-Christian) are in some ways similar to theoretical conceptions of the universe today, many of which are entirely speculative (if not unfalsifiable), and which come in all shapes and sizes, including bowls. That these earlier ideas were later rejected by science is not to say that they weren’t part of its development.
Also I think you’re greatly exaggerating the enforcement of church dogma. Of course ideological conformity in the church was real, but earlier natural philosophers rarely came into conflict with the church because they all had the same worldview as the church, and were often trained by the church, in much the same way that modern scientists have their own ideological conformities, e.g. in psi research or climate research. It’s interesting that Lemaitre’s “big bang” theory was initially rejected because it was promoted by a priest and was seen as being biblical not scientific. The Nazis provide a more striking modern example with their rejection of “Jewish science”.
Modern science is in fact dominated by the materialistic paradigm, in overt ideological opposition to religion — rejecting out of hand anything that might imply a spiritual component to nature, often in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. Conformity is enforced by selective de-funding, which is perhaps more effective than the stake. Part of this conformity seems to involve rewriting history to exclude the church from the history of science.
No – but they are features of humanity in a broader sense. Non-Christian civilizations all over the world have accomplished incredible feats of megalithic engineering, art and architecture.
Religion can be a driver, for sure. Secular Humanists tend to revert to sitting on their posteriors and pursuing hedonism. See: Europe.
They paid to have everything translated into Arabic. The Greek classics. Sanskrit texts. Chinese writings.
That was the point. They were interested in it all. That’s what made it a golden age.
And, imho, it’s that same avid interest in the entire world, not just itself, that makes today’s West a golden age of knowledge.
I think you’re forgetting the 20% that aren’t Jewish.
I can see at least two fallacies in there. (1) If it was a positive development than you attribute it to Secular Humanism; if it wasn’t then you asign it to religion. That’s a fallacy of a self-sealed argument. (2) You point out that non-Christian civilizations accomplished great things, and yet you fail to see that those civilizations had religious beliefs too. Therefore non sequitor
The question is did those civilizations create a culture where learning and human dignity could flourish. With all due respect to those other cultures, Christianity with its roots in Judaism and the classical world did it best.
Indeed.
I know you know better! We Jews chased all them AyRabs out in 1948!
Sloppy work, I guess. Peace.
Majestyk – You are right on Gutenberg, whose invention led the industrial revolution, visual logic, literacy and rationality. As the printing press yields to electronic circuitry, and the Industrial Age to the Information Age, there are equally powerful shifts and effects.
If McLuhan is right, and he has been so far, we’ll experience some disturbing ones (tribalism, violence as a quest for identity) and reversals. Knuckle-dragging cave dwellers scratch their heads at the Great Books, but they’ve always understood icons.
Western Civ isn’t an easy winner. Our cities and routes are vulnerable to destructive enemies fond of shortcuts. They bypass centuries which led to smartphones, social networks, and advanced weaponry, and grab hold of the end product.
Secular humanists + Judeo-Christian tribes, authentic Muslims, and other recruits will need to assess, penetrate, and confront the threat, including the propaganda arm.
Old logic dictates that a youth with an innocuous looking object in hand is no threat. Given smartphones and fundamentalist indoctrination, that’s exactly where many asymmetric threats arise. Remember how the Redcoats used to march into battle in a linear formation? That myopic vision evolved from Gutenberg, too. Today’s multi-dimensional battle space includes the media with which we communicate.
This is a war, alright, fought in a new age, in a new way. I’m not sure “wait it out” wins. In some ways that sounds like the enemy’s strategy, to make us imagine that we’re winning.