In 1929, the Thinkers Library, a series established by the Rationalist Press Association to advance secular thinking and counter the influence of religion in Britain, published an English translation of the German biologist Ernst Haeckels 1899 book The Riddle of the Universe. Celebrated as the German Darwin, Haeckel was one of the most influential public intellectuals of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; The Riddle of the Universe sold half a million copies in Germany alone, and was translated into dozens of other languages. Hostile to Jewish and Christian traditions, Haeckel devised his own religion of science called Monism, which incorporated an anthropology that divided the human species into a hierarchy of racial groups. Though he died in 1919, before the Nazi Party had been founded, his ideas, and widespread influence in Germany, unquestionably helped to create an intellectual climate in which policies of racial slavery and genocide were able to claim a basis in science. <\/p>\n
The Thinkers Library also featured works by Julian Huxley, grandson of TH Huxley, the Victorian biologist who was known as Darwins bulldog for his fierce defence of evolutionary theory. A proponent of evolutionary humanism, which he described as religion without revelation, Julian Huxley shared some of Haeckels views, including advocacy of eugenics. In 1931, Huxley wrote that there was a certain amount of evidence that the negro is an earlier product of human evolution than the Mongolian or the European, and as such might be expected to have advanced less, both in body and mind. Statements of this kind were then commonplace: there were many in the secular intelligentsia including HG Wells, also a contributor to the Thinkers Library who looked forward to a time when backward peoples would be remade in a western mould or else vanish from the world. <\/p>\n
But by the late 1930s, these views were becoming suspect: already in 1935, Huxley admitted that the concept of race was hardly definable in scientific terms. While he never renounced eugenics, little was heard from him on the subject after the second world war. The science that pronounced western people superior was bogus but what shifted Huxleys views wasnt any scientific revelation: it was the rise of Nazism, which revealed what had been done under the aegis of Haeckel-style racism.<\/p>\n
Related: New atheists are not scared, but they are angry | Letters <\/p>\n
It has often been observed that Christianity follows changing moral fashions, all the while believing that it stands apart from the world. The same might be said, with more justice, of the prevalent version of atheism. If an earlier generation of unbelievers shared the racial prejudices of their time and elevated them to the status of scientific truths, evangelical atheists do the same with the liberal values to which western societies subscribe today while looking with contempt upon backward cultures that have not abandoned religion. The racial theories promoted by atheists in the past have been consigned to the memory hole and todays most influential atheists would no more endorse racist biology than they would be seen following the guidance of an astrologer. But they have not renounced the conviction that human values must be based in science; now it is liberal values which receive that accolade. There are disputes, sometimes bitter, over how to define and interpret those values, but their supremacy is hardly ever questioned. For 21st century atheist missionaries, being liberal and scientific in outlook are one and the same. <\/p>\n
Its a reassuringly simple equation. In fact there are no reliable connections whether in logic or history between atheism, science and liberal values. When organised as a movement and backed by the power of the state, atheist ideologies have been an integral part of despotic regimes that also claimed to be based in science, such as the former Soviet Union. Many rival moralities and political systems most of them, to date, illiberal have attempted to assert a basis in science. All have been fraudulent and ephemeral. Yet the attempt continues in atheist movements today, which claim that liberal values can be scientifically validated and are therefore humanly universal. <\/p>\n
Fortunately, this type of atheism isnt the only one that has ever existed. There have been many modern atheisms, some of them more cogent and more intellectually liberating than the type that makes so much noise today. Campaigning atheism is a missionary enterprise, aiming to convert humankind to a particular version of unbelief; but not all atheists have been interested in propagating a new gospel, and some have been friendly to traditional faiths. <\/p>\n
Evangelical atheists today view liberal values as part of an emerging global civilisation; but not all atheists, even when they have been committed liberals, have shared this comforting conviction. Atheism comes in many irreducibly different forms, among which the variety being promoted at the present time looks strikingly banal and parochial. <\/p>\n
In itself, atheism is an entirely negative position. In pagan Rome, atheist (from the Greek atheos) meant anyone who refused to worship the established pantheon of deities. The term was applied to Christians, who not only refused to worship the gods of the pantheon but demanded exclusive worship of their own god. Many non-western religions contain no conception of a creator-god Buddhism and Taoism, in some of their forms, are atheist religions of this kind and many religions have had no interest in proselytising. In modern western contexts, however, atheism and rejection of monotheism are practically interchangeable. Roughly speaking, an atheist is anyone who has no use for the concept of God the idea of a divine mind, which has created humankind and embodies in a perfect form the values that human beings cherish and strive to realise. Many who are atheists in this sense (including myself) regard the evangelical atheism that has emerged over the past few decades with bemusement. Why make a fuss over an idea that has no sense for you? There are untold multitudes who have no interest in waging war on beliefs that mean nothing to them. Throughout history, many have been happy to live their lives without bothering about ultimate questions. This sort of atheism is one of the perennial responses to the experience of being human. <\/p>\n
As an organised movement, atheism is never non-committal in this way. It always goes with an alternative belief-system typically, a set of ideas that serves to show the modern west is the high point of human development. In Europe from the late 19th century until the second world war, this was a version of evolutionary theory that marked out western peoples as being the most highly evolved. Around the time Haeckel was promoting his racial theories, a different theory of western superiority was developed by Marx. While condemning liberal societies and prophesying their doom, Marx viewed them as the high point of human development to date. (This is why he praised British colonialism in India as an essentially progressive development.) If Marx had serious reservations about Darwinism and he did it was because Darwins theory did not frame evolution as a progressive process. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Visit link: In 1929, the Thinkers Library, a series established by the Rationalist Press Association to advance secular thinking and counter the influence of religion in Britain, published an English translation of the German biologist Ernst Haeckels 1899 book The Riddle of the Universe. Celebrated as the German Darwin, Haeckel was one of the most influential public intellectuals of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; The Riddle of the Universe sold half a million copies in Germany alone, and was translated into dozens of other languages. Continue reading
\nWhat scares the new atheists<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"