Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory?

[presonorek]

I don't believe it is possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory because there is no affirmative case for atheism. The only argument of atheism is to argue against religion and to criticize religion.

So my question is... Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory?

Atheism has been around quite a while. Has it advanced? Religion has been around almost equally as long. Has it advanced?

 

[ding]

I don't believe it is possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory because there is no affirmative case for atheism. The only argument of atheism is to argue against religion and to criticize religion.

So my question is... Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory?

Atheism has been around quite a while. Has it advanced? Religion has been around almost equally as long. Has it advanced?

I’ll make a thread about it in the bull ring and we can discuss it there.

Fair enough?

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't believe it is possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory because there is no affirmative case for atheism. The only argument of atheism is to argue against religion and to criticize religion.

So my question is... Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory?

Atheism has been around quite a while. Has it advanced? Religion has been around almost equally as long. Has it advanced?

I do not believe in any deity. How does that advance?

 

[dblack]

I don't believe it is possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory because there is no affirmative case for atheism. The only argument of atheism is to argue against religion and to criticize religion.

So my question is... Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory?

Atheism has been around quite a while. Has it advanced? Religion has been around almost equally as long. Has it advanced?

I do not believe in any deity. How does that advance?

I was wondering the same thing. Underneath all the posturing, the thread rests on the tired, and tiresome, "atheism is a religion" trope.

 

[well named]

Where should I go to learn that they were philosophers?

I'm pretty sure you have the tools necessary to find this information out for yourself, but here, from your own IEP article:

"Some of the most prominent figures of the first generation of Critical Theorists were Max Horkheimer (1895-1973), Theodor Adorno (1903-1969), Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), Walter Benjamin (1892-1940), Friedrich Pollock (1894-1970), Leo Lowenthal (1900-1993), and Eric Fromm (1900-1980). Since the 1970s, a second generation began with Jürgen Habermas, who, among other merits, contributed to the opening of a dialogue between so-called continental and the analytic traditions."
​

From there, you can simply google and find biographies, like this:

​

"Max Horkheimer (1895–1973) was a leader of the “Frankfurt School,” a group of philosophers and social scientists associated with the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute of Social Research) in Frankfurt am Main. Horkheimer was the director of the Institute and Professor of Social Philosophy at the University of Frankfurt from 1930–1933, and again from 1949–1958. In between those periods he would lead the Institute in exile, primarily in America. As a philosopher he is best known (especially in the Anglophone world), for his work during the 1940s, including Dialectic of Enlightenment, which was co-authored with Theodor Adorno." (SEP)

"Theodor W. Adorno was one of the most important philosophers and social critics in Germany after World War II.... Adorno studied philosophy with the neo-Kantian Hans Cornelius and music composition with Alban Berg. He completed his Habilitationsschrift on Kierkegaard's aesthetics in 1931, under the supervision of the Christian socialist Paul Tillich." (SEP)

"Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979) was one of the most prominent members of the Frankfurt School.... In 1920 he transferred to Freiburg to concentrate on German literature and to take courses in philosophy, politics, and economics. This period of study culminated in a doctoral dissertation entitled Der deutsche Künstlerroman (The German Artist-Novel), which was accepted in 1922 (Kellner 1984: 18). This work would be the first in a life-long engagement with aesthetics for Marcuse." (SEP)

"Walter Benjamin's importance as a philosopher and critical theorist can be gauged by the diversity of his intellectual influence and the continuing productivity of his thought. Primarily regarded as a literary critic and essayist, the philosophical basis of Benjamin's writings is increasingly acknowledged. (SEP)

"Friedrich Pollock (/ˈpɒlək/; German: [ˈpɔlɔk]; 22 May 1894 – 16 December 1970) was a German social scientist and philosopher. Pollock was educated in finance 1911 to 1915. During this time he met Max Horkheimer, with whom he became a lifelong friend. He then studied economy, sociology and philosophy in Frankfurt am Main, where he wrote his thesis on Marx's labor theory of value and received his doctorate in 1923." (Wikipedia)

"Leo Lowenthal, a retired professor of sociology at the University of California at Berkeley who analyzed the role of literature in society, died Thursday at Alta Bates Hospital in Berkeley. He was 92 and lived in Berkeley. Mr. Lowenthal was born in Frankfurt, Germany andreceived his Ph.D. at the University of Frankfurt." (NY Times)

"Erich Fromm, (born March 23, 1900, Frankfurt am Main, Germany—died March 18, 1980, Muralto, Switzerland), German-born American psychoanalyst and social philosopher who explored the interaction between psychology and society." (Britannica)"

"Jürgen Habermas currently ranks as one of the most influential philosophers in the world. Bridging continental and Anglo-American traditions of thought, he has engaged in debates with thinkers as diverse as Gadamer and Putnam, Foucault and Rawls, Derrida and Brandom." (SEP)

So you can see why I characterized them as philosophers and sociologists. I'm not sure if you're just confused and think that social science and behavioral science are the same, but if so you're laboring under a misapprehension. They have a different intellectual tradition, different theorists, different methods, different journals. They are entirely separate fields. In any case, the work of the Frankfurt School is definitely more on the side of the humanities and philosophy than social sciences.

 

[ding]

Where should I go to learn that they were philosophers?

I'm pretty sure you have the tools necessary to find this information out for yourself, but here, from your own IEP article:

"Some of the most prominent figures of the first generation of Critical Theorists were Max Horkheimer (1895-1973), Theodor Adorno (1903-1969), Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), Walter Benjamin (1892-1940), Friedrich Pollock (1894-1970), Leo Lowenthal (1900-1993), and Eric Fromm (1900-1980). Since the 1970s, a second generation began with Jürgen Habermas, who, among other merits, contributed to the opening of a dialogue between so-called continental and the analytic traditions."
​

From there, you can simply google and find biographies, like this:

​

"Max Horkheimer (1895–1973) was a leader of the “Frankfurt School,” a group of philosophers and social scientists associated with the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute of Social Research) in Frankfurt am Main. Horkheimer was the director of the Institute and Professor of Social Philosophy at the University of Frankfurt from 1930–1933, and again from 1949–1958. In between those periods he would lead the Institute in exile, primarily in America. As a philosopher he is best known (especially in the Anglophone world), for his work during the 1940s, including Dialectic of Enlightenment, which was co-authored with Theodor Adorno." (SEP)

"Theodor W. Adorno was one of the most important philosophers and social critics in Germany after World War II.... Adorno studied philosophy with the neo-Kantian Hans Cornelius and music composition with Alban Berg. He completed his Habilitationsschrift on Kierkegaard's aesthetics in 1931, under the supervision of the Christian socialist Paul Tillich." (SEP)

"Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979) was one of the most prominent members of the Frankfurt School.... In 1920 he transferred to Freiburg to concentrate on German literature and to take courses in philosophy, politics, and economics. This period of study culminated in a doctoral dissertation entitled Der deutsche Künstlerroman (The German Artist-Novel), which was accepted in 1922 (Kellner 1984: 18). This work would be the first in a life-long engagement with aesthetics for Marcuse." (SEP)

"Walter Benjamin's importance as a philosopher and critical theorist can be gauged by the diversity of his intellectual influence and the continuing productivity of his thought. Primarily regarded as a literary critic and essayist, the philosophical basis of Benjamin's writings is increasingly acknowledged. (SEP)

"Friedrich Pollock (/ˈpɒlək/; German: [ˈpɔlɔk]; 22 May 1894 – 16 December 1970) was a German social scientist and philosopher. Pollock was educated in finance 1911 to 1915. During this time he met Max Horkheimer, with whom he became a lifelong friend. He then studied economy, sociology and philosophy in Frankfurt am Main, where he wrote his thesis on Marx's labor theory of value and received his doctorate in 1923." (Wikipedia)

"Leo Lowenthal, a retired professor of sociology at the University of California at Berkeley who analyzed the role of literature in society, died Thursday at Alta Bates Hospital in Berkeley. He was 92 and lived in Berkeley. Mr. Lowenthal was born in Frankfurt, Germany andreceived his Ph.D. at the University of Frankfurt." (NY Times)

"Erich Fromm, (born March 23, 1900, Frankfurt am Main, Germany—died March 18, 1980, Muralto, Switzerland), German-born American psychoanalyst and social philosopher who explored the interaction between psychology and society." (Britannica)"

"Jürgen Habermas currently ranks as one of the most influential philosophers in the world. Bridging continental and Anglo-American traditions of thought, he has engaged in debates with thinkers as diverse as Gadamer and Putnam, Foucault and Rawls, Derrida and Brandom." (SEP)

So you can see why I characterized them as philosophers and sociologists. I'm not sure if you're just confused and think that social science and behavioral science are the same, but if so you're laboring under a misapprehension. They have a different intellectual tradition, different theorists, different methods, different journals. They are entirely separate fields. In any case, the work of the Frankfurt School is definitely more on the side of the humanities and philosophy than social sciences.

You did read social scientists, right?

Who married the work of Freud with Marx.

 

[well named]

You did read social scientists, right?

You did read that "social science" is not "behavior science", right?

 

[well named]

Eh, maybe it's a British thing, or maybe it's a really old fashioned thing. The internets does suggest some people call sociology a behavioral science. I've never heard an American sociologist use that term, and I asked one what they thought. She associated it more with psychology.

Today I learned...

So we can probably stop going down this rabbit hole. However, if we define sociology as a behavioral science then my point that they were philosophers and sociologists is correct in any case. I have this feeling you're trying to attach a bunch of ridiculous nonsense to your understanding of "behavioral science" though, which won't have anything to do with what sociologists actually do.

The gist of the distinction I have in mind is that the hallmark of "behavioral science" historically has been experimental setups, like the kind psychologists tend to use. It's more what people think of as lab research. You get a bunch of people in an artificially manipulated environment and see what they do. Sociological research tends to use entirely different methods, relying on data gathered by government organizations (e.g. the census), surveys, interviews, ethnography, and so on.

Whereas the Frankfurt School folks were all heavily philosophical in their approach, so they didn't tend to be using much of anything in the way of scientific methodology, AFAIK. Of course, neither was Freud

 

[ding]

You did read social scientists, right?

You did read that "social science" is not "behavior science", right?

They were Marxists trying to break the hegemony of traditional cultures for the express purpose of furthering socialism and communism. They married Freud with Marx.

 

[well named]

They were Marxists trying to break the hegemony of traditional cultures for the express purpose of furthering socialism and communism.

Sure, this sounds like you're agreeing with me, e.g. when I wrote:

The goals of critical theory are very directly connected with Marxism but only indirectly connected with atheism qua atheism

The disagreement was about the connection between Marxism and atheism in general, not about whether or not the Frankfurt School was Marxist.

 

[ding]

They were Marxists trying to break the hegemony of traditional cultures for the express purpose of furthering socialism and communism.

Sure, this sounds like you're agreeing with me, e.g. when I wrote:

The goals of critical theory are very directly connected with Marxism but only indirectly connected with atheism qua atheism

The disagreement was about the connection between Marxism and atheism in general, not about whether or not the Frankfurt School was Marxist.

I agree with the first part but not the second the deification of man is how they break the traditional hegemony. That’s atheism. They need to replace love of God, country and family with love of state.

 

[edthecynic]

That’s atheism. They need to replace love of God, country and family with love of state.

More Critical Theory as you define it, equating not believing in the God myth with not loving country and family thus criticizing the beliefs of others. A typical lie of the ConservoFascist Right.

 

[ding]

They were Marxists trying to break the hegemony of traditional cultures for the express purpose of furthering socialism and communism.

Sure, this sounds like you're agreeing with me, e.g. when I wrote:

The goals of critical theory are very directly connected with Marxism but only indirectly connected with atheism qua atheism

The disagreement was about the connection between Marxism and atheism in general, not about whether or not the Frankfurt School was Marxist.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

"...Freud considered suffering and mental diseases to be the inevitable cost of civilization, which in its turn is more and more undermined by elements of the psyche that have broken away from its control. Marcuse, in contrast, undertakes to alter this view so that its pessimistic evaluation is directed only against modern society. Furthermore, he adds the prediction of a future "liberation." To do this, he divides the suppression to which the instincts are subjected into two parts: the repression that inevitably comes from the objective claims of the external world on each organism and another type, which is caused by the striving of certain groups of individuals to attain privileged positions in society. The second form of repression he calls surplus-repression, and he considers the excessive burden that this factor imposes on the human psyche to be a peculiarity of modern civilization. Included in surplus-repression by Marcuse are the following: the necessity of work that does not bring direct satisfaction and whose reward appears in the form of ever more delayed pleasure; the repressive role of genital sexuality and the suppression of more primitive forms of libido, which permit the whole body to be the instrument of pleasure; the dominant role of reason, which subjects all life to itself; the transformation of science and religion into a means of the total mobilization of man; the control exercised by such categories as "conscience" and "morality" over man's inner world. Surplus-repression is directly connected to the fact that the demands of society are not satisfied collectively and in accordance with individual needs but are organized by the dominant part of society.

Marcuse is in agreement with Freud that repression is the necessary price for survival, but he asserts that surplus-repression with all its consequences may be overcome with the help of the latest achievements in technology. Without going into the details of this process (as a rule, one word is used: "automation"), Marcuse draws a picture of a future unrepressed society. It is based on the liberation of the instincts from the control of "repressive reason." This will lead to regression, in comparison to the level of civilization and reason that had been achieved: "It would reactivate early stages of the libido which were surpassed in the development of the reality ego, and it would dissolve the institutions of society in which the reality ego exists." (119: p. 198) "The regression involved in this spread of the libido would first manifest itself in a reactivation of all erotogenic zones and, consequently, in a resurgence of pregenital polymorphous sexuality and in a decline of genital supremacy." (119: p. 201) The body as a whole will become an instrument of satisfaction. "This change in the value and scope of libidinal relations would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family." (119: p. 201) Reason, which is the instrument of the ego, will to a large extent give way to fantasy connected with the id. And this will open up new' ways to understand the future; it will reveal the reality of the possibilities formerly perceived only as elements of a utopia. The liberation of sexual instincts will lead to the development of "libidinal rationality," which will show the way to a higher form of free civilization.

The satisfaction of needs understood in an ever wider sense will become possible without heavy--i.e., alienating--work. Working relations will be simultaneously libidinal relations. "For example, if work were accompanied by a reactivation of pregenital polymorphous eroticism, it would tend to become gratifying in itself without losing its work content." (119: p. 215) On the other hand, work will become play, "a free play of human faculties." (119: p. 214) In a later work (4), Marcuse speaks about "play with automation." Here he considers it essential to correct Marx, who was not bold enough, and to adhere to Fourier.

Marcuse speaks here of the end of culture in the old sense of the word: "It would still be a reversal of the process of civilization, a subversion of culture--but after culture had done its work and created the mankind and the world that could be free." (119: p. 198) The essence of this upheaval Marcuse describes in poetic terms by juxtaposing Prometheus, the hero of repressive culture, with the heroes of his own New World--Orpheus and Narcissus. He ends as follows: "The classical tradition associates Orpheus with the introduction of homosexuality.

Like Narcissus, he rejects the normal Eros, not for an ascetic ideal, but for a fuller Eros. Like Narcissus he protests against the repressive order of procreative sexuality. The Orphic and Narcissistic Eros is to the end the negation of this order--the Great Refusal. In the world symbolized by the culture hero Prometheus, it is the negation of all order; but in this negation Orpheus and Narcissus reveal a new reality, with an order of its own, governed by different principles." (119: p. 171)

The most active socialist current of recent times, the New Left, proved to be extraordinarily receptive to Marcuse's teaching and was to a considerable extent influenced by it. Marcuse's basic propositions are closely paralleled in the slogans of this movement and serve as their theoretical foundation. For instance, the liberation of sexual instincts finds expression in the "sexual revolution," and the suppression of repressive reason is demonstrated in the "psychedelic revolution," that is, in the mass use of hallucinogens. Even ostentatious slovenliness can be theoretically justified, for according to the theory, ego and superego suppress the instincts connected with the sense of smell and enforce the perception of strong smells as "disgusting." (Furthermore, the dominant classes associate garbage with the lower classes, which are perceived negatively as "the dregs of society.") These views also serve as a theoretical basis for "left art," which fosters the idea of "anti-cultural" (or "cultural") revolution, of the destruction of "repressive" or "stifling" culture, up to and including a heightened interest (in both literature and ,art) in garbage and excrement as means of "exploding bourgeois culture."

We provided several examples to illustrate the "anthropology of socialism." Had we considered other developed socialist theories in this connection (for instance, Deschamps's system), we would have been obliged to come to the same conclusion, namely, that socialist ideology seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive, lowest levels and, in each epoch, relies upon the most radical "criticism of man" available. For that reason, the concepts of man in socialism and in religion are diametrically opposed.

So that if socialism is a religion, it must be recognized as a quite special religion, different in principle from all others and antithetical to them in many basic questions. (How else are we to understand Bulgakov's statement that socialism is "a religion based on atheism"?)

Otherwise it would be necessary to expand the definition of religion to the point where it would have no meaning at all."

119. H. Marcuse. Eros and Civilization. A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud. Boston, 1955.

 

[dblack]

Atheism isn't a political ideology. It isn't a religion. Burn your strawmen.

 

[ding]

Atheism isn't a political ideology. It isn't a religion. Burn your strawmen.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

Socialism as a special religion

Bulgakov, among others, formulated this thought in the following way: "For socialism nowadays emerges not only as a natural area of social policy but usually also as a religion, one based on atheism and the deification of man and man's labor and on recognition of the elemental forces of Nature and social life and as the only meaningful principle of history." (115: p. 36)

115. S. Bulgakov. Pervokhristianstvo i noveishii sotsializm (Early Christianity and Modern Socialism, in Russian). Moscow, 1911.

 

[WinterBorn]

Atheism isn't a political ideology. It isn't a religion. Burn your strawmen.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

Socialism as a special religion

Bulgakov, among others, formulated this thought in the following way: "For socialism nowadays emerges not only as a natural area of social policy but usually also as a religion, one based on atheism and the deification of man and man's labor and on recognition of the elemental forces of Nature and social life and as the only meaningful principle of history." (115: p. 36)

115. S. Bulgakov. Pervokhristianstvo i noveishii sotsializm (Early Christianity and Modern Socialism, in Russian). Moscow, 1911.

None of that shows that atheism is a political ideology. And none shows it to be a religion.

I do not believe in any deity. That is not a critical theory. It is my sincere belief. I do not feel the need to prove it to you or to anyone else. I have seen nothing to prove otherwise to me.

 

[ding]

Atheism isn't a political ideology. It isn't a religion. Burn your strawmen.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

Socialism as a special religion

Bulgakov, among others, formulated this thought in the following way: "For socialism nowadays emerges not only as a natural area of social policy but usually also as a religion, one based on atheism and the deification of man and man's labor and on recognition of the elemental forces of Nature and social life and as the only meaningful principle of history." (115: p. 36)

115. S. Bulgakov. Pervokhristianstvo i noveishii sotsializm (Early Christianity and Modern Socialism, in Russian). Moscow, 1911.

None of that shows that atheism is a political ideology. And none shows it to be a religion.

I do not believe in any deity. That is not a critical theory. It is my sincere belief. I do not feel the need to prove it to you or to anyone else. I have seen nothing to prove otherwise to me.

You'd have to read the rest.

 

[WinterBorn]

Atheism isn't a political ideology. It isn't a religion. Burn your strawmen.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

Socialism as a special religion

Bulgakov, among others, formulated this thought in the following way: "For socialism nowadays emerges not only as a natural area of social policy but usually also as a religion, one based on atheism and the deification of man and man's labor and on recognition of the elemental forces of Nature and social life and as the only meaningful principle of history." (115: p. 36)

115. S. Bulgakov. Pervokhristianstvo i noveishii sotsializm (Early Christianity and Modern Socialism, in Russian). Moscow, 1911.

None of that shows that atheism is a political ideology. And none shows it to be a religion.

I do not believe in any deity. That is not a critical theory. It is my sincere belief. I do not feel the need to prove it to you or to anyone else. I have seen nothing to prove otherwise to me.

You'd have to read the rest.

I have no doubt that it states that atheism is a part of socialism or communism. I am not arguing that.

But that does not mean atheism is exclusively socialist or communist. The sky is blue. But not everything blue is the sky.

 

[ding]

Atheism isn't a political ideology. It isn't a religion. Burn your strawmen.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

Socialism as a special religion

Bulgakov, among others, formulated this thought in the following way: "For socialism nowadays emerges not only as a natural area of social policy but usually also as a religion, one based on atheism and the deification of man and man's labor and on recognition of the elemental forces of Nature and social life and as the only meaningful principle of history." (115: p. 36)

115. S. Bulgakov. Pervokhristianstvo i noveishii sotsializm (Early Christianity and Modern Socialism, in Russian). Moscow, 1911.

None of that shows that atheism is a political ideology. And none shows it to be a religion.

I do not believe in any deity. That is not a critical theory. It is my sincere belief. I do not feel the need to prove it to you or to anyone else. I have seen nothing to prove otherwise to me.

You'd have to read the rest.

I have no doubt that it states that atheism is a part of socialism or communism. I am not arguing that.

But that does not mean atheism is exclusively socialist or communist. The sky is blue. But not everything blue is the sky.

Agreed. But anyone who attempts to subordinate religion are furthering the goals of Marxist subversives.

 

[Karl Rand]

Agreed. But anyone who attempts to subordinate religion are furthering the goals of Marxist subversives.

Unadulterated, paranoid nonsense.