Gray's Critique of Liberal Atheism

To illustrate his argument, Gray states in Seven Types of Atheism that progress is merely a "Christian myth," asserting that "the modern faith in progress began with shifts in Christian thinking." He elaborates that the contemporary myth of progress emerged from a blend of Christian faith and Gnostic ideas.

Christians anticipate the return of Jesus and a final judgment of humanity, events foretold in Christian texts. The era governed by God is envisioned to be vastly superior to the current one, with the transition carrying apocalyptic significance.

In modern times, this theological process was secularized by liberals, who now attribute the improvement of the world to reason and technology, suggesting that each generation moves toward a secular utopia framed in naturalistic rather than theistic terms.

Furthermore, Gray posits that the progressive historical perspective, which views the appearances of various prophets as steps toward a divine conclusion, contrasts with ancient polytheistic beliefs that recognized improvement but accepted the inevitability of loss over time. He argues, "Unlike the dominant view of history in the ancient world... the modern neo-Christian belief in progress asserts that human life can be improved cumulatively and permanently."

Gray continues by stating that a combination of Gnostic and Christian narratives shaped Comte's atheistic religion of humanity, which influences contemporary liberal thought. He claims that liberal societies aren't templates for universal political systems but rather specific forms of life. Yet, liberals often assume that ignorance is the only barrier to universal acceptance of their ideals—a perspective inherited from Christianity.

According to Gray, liberals should be humbled by the multicultural realities of a godless world. As Oswald Spengler noted, nature generates societies that thrive temporarily before decaying. However, liberals have taken to creating a cult around Wokeness, condescendingly viewing conservatives as lacking divine sanction, despite the absence of any transcendent viewpoint in their atheism.

In summary, Gray contends that "monotheism gave birth to liberal values," implying that liberal atheists should feel ashamed for adhering to a worldview as incoherent as those of monotheistic religions. He believes that since liberal atheists have not transcended the influence of the ideologies they critique, they should adopt a more radical stance akin to those pessimistic atheists.

Cultural Borrowing and Evolutionary History

While I largely agree with Gray's conclusion, I don't believe it logically follows from his arguments. So what if liberal secular philosophers drew from Christian theology? Christian theologians borrowed from Judaism and Zoroastrianism, which were themselves influenced by even older, now-obsolete cultures. Cultural originality is a myth; if one were to live in isolation, their thoughts would resemble those of an animal.

Gray acknowledges that "dualistic visions in which the world is a battleground of good and evil forces originate in the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism," which contributed to Manichaeism, the original faith of St. Augustine, thus shaping Christianity. This observation, however, undermines his attempt to connect liberal atheism to Christianity, as historical influences stretch back to shamanic animism and beyond. Just as Buddhists might argue, nothing exists in isolation.

Gray's critique comes off as simplistic. Our concepts and theories are shaped by historical contexts. We simplify because we cannot grasp the entirety of reality, so we rely on the information available to us. Early modern secularists in Europe had only Christian thought as a foundation.

The key question is whether the liberal synthesis of Christian and Gnostic ideas can be viewed as an independent construct. If so, it would be misguided to commit the genetic fallacy that Gray seems to imply when he reminds readers that liberalism's roots lie in Christianity.

For example, Gray claims that pagan polytheists perceived history in cyclical terms, rather than as linear, cumulative progress. This misrepresents liberalism, as most liberals wouldn't argue that secular progress is irreversible. Although setbacks occur, the humanistic belief is that by recognizing our vulnerabilities and collaborating to avoid detrimental superstitions, life can improve gradually from one generation to the next.

Whether pagan polytheists grasped this notion is secondary, as Gray overlooks the possibility that early modern philosophers not only turned to Christianity but also to Greco-Roman traditions that contained implicit ideas of progress independent of theology.

There has indeed been progress from the Stone Age to civilization, as well as measurable advancements from the medieval era to modernity, driven by scientific skepticism, capitalism, democracy, and the rule of law. While this progress isn't entirely objective—it relies on the ideals we embrace—it is evident that the meanings of certain trends in biological and social evolution have no ties to monotheistic theology. Rather, both monotheists and early modern liberals are attempting to understand the same world from their unique perspectives, pursuing different agendas.

We articulate the facts in our limited ways, and one such fact is that personhood has evolved from animal existence, leading to the development of civilizations aimed at subduing nature.

Is that ambition foolish and futile? Likely, in the long run. But would Gray prefer to exist as an animal in a cave or as a cultured individual in twenty-first-century London? Let’s not overlook the broader context while critiquing liberalism.

The Nature of Progress in Our Existential Reality

Progress in history is indeed present, although it is subjective and relative to our life goals. Monotheists did not invent the concept of progress; they interpreted the data they faced through questionable theological lenses. Modern liberals have encountered the same historical realities and sought to move beyond medieval theism. Some secularists may have advanced further than others in creating new atheistic terminologies, as Gray suggests.

However, that distinction is irrelevant, for the Christian and Zoroastrian understanding of progress merely theologizes the shared realities that personhood emerged from animality and that humans constructed complex societies. Christians frame those realities theologically, while liberal atheists secularize them. Both perspectives apply cultural frameworks to the evidence at hand in an attempt to understand their existential situations.

Should a liberal adopt a theological view of progress and create a cult around certain liberal ideals for political correctness? Probably not. Yet Gray's assertion that liberalism is discredited because it is influenced by its Christian roots is a non sequitur. Liberals need not feel ashamed of the fact that liberalism partially evolved from a Christian worldview; shame would only arise if liberalism were merely a superficial façade masking underlying Christian theology.

Examining the secular humanism that Gray tries to reduce to monotheism reveals significant differences. This humanism is explicitly atheistic, replacing God with humanity and perhaps religion with science and art, while aspiring toward technological and social progress. Humans can be seen as relatively godlike compared to animals, and the monotheistic concept of God has roots in Jewish and Greco-Roman philosophies that may have merely reinforced human thought processes.

There exists an existential condition common to all civilized people, characterized by our use of instrumental reasoning. We have objectives and strategize on how to achieve them, modeling our environment, exploring possibilities, and employing logic to navigate choices and relevant factors.

Who can say that both Judeo-Christian/Zoroastrian and modern liberal conceptions of progress do not stem from instrumental reasoning itself or from the intrinsic relationship between means and ends? If that’s the case, both theologies and philosophies are grounded in the shared existential realities we encounter as civilized beings. Thus, it becomes less significant that liberals have borrowed ideas from their Christian predecessors.

Gray's observations pale in comparison to the existential insights he claims to respect in his atheistic heroes. Figures like Schopenhauer and Spinoza endeavored to adopt a transhistorical perspective, contemplating life from a cosmic viewpoint. Such a perspective may not exist objectively, as it is contingent upon religious, philosophical, or artistic interpretations. Likewise, there may be no absolute or divine progress, nor a predetermined historical trajectory, given the absence of a cosmic plan governing life's evolution.

However, there are more and less favorable methods to interpret the patterns observed in prehistory and history, which can be assessed not merely through cultural biases but from a more profound existential standpoint. In the grand scheme, considering the likely unconscious purpose of civilization, what would be the most beneficial course of action for humanity?

One advantage liberalism holds over Christianity is its alignment with an existential viewpoint, as it better accommodates scientific objectivity. Scientists objectify facts to harness them for social and technological advancement, in line with liberal ideals of liberty and happiness. Christianity, by contrast, is at odds with this modern Faustian perspective, as the scientific and industrial revolutions coincided with the rise of liberalism (capitalism and democracy), culminating in what we refer to as "modernity" compared to ancient and medieval civilizations.

Thus, dismissing liberalism as a mere imitation of Christianity is an unfair and simplistic critique.