“Comte remains one of the secret rulers of our world, pointing the way to human self-deification and an evisceration of authentic political life.’’
The importance (significance) of Comte (1798 – 1857) is not general knowledge. Comte was a French philosopher and writer who founded the doctrine of positivism. He can be regarded as the first philosopher of science. He also invented a new religion . . .
“As Professor Mahoney luminously explains in the chapter devoted to Auguste Comte’s “religion of humanity,” this mental formation is coextensive with the specifically modern, or democratic, transformation of our social condition. With American independence and the French Revolution, Western people discovered that they could organize themselves without reference to a divine Law but rather according to human rights; once humankind has become the farthest and most authoritative horizon of human action, the idea of Humanity necessarily becomes the highest and most authoritative idea.’’
Yep, the French and American Revolutions dramatic change. Why then, doesn’t Mahoney credit Rousseau, Voltaire, or even Luther and Calvin as essential influences? Seems that he highlights Comte (obvious) and leaves other players in the shadows.
The theme —‘Humanity’ replaces ‘God’ which Mahoney demonstrates. Insightful.
( . . . Hegel not mentioned. Seems to me that analysis of modern political thought requires recognition of Hegel’s influence . . . )
“Once the Christian God is no longer the keystone of the sacredness of the common, mankind itself is fated to become God—not in a metaphorical or loose sense, but in a politically relevant one: humankind is the only great thing that citizens can spontaneously and sincerely consider greater than themselves.’’
The contrast of humanity as ‘political god’ — not ‘theological’ gives this work genuine subtlety.
“Thus Professor Mahoney’s reconstitution of Auguste Comte’s religion ‘de l’humanité’ is not just some interesting inquiry belonging to the history of ideas; it is part and parcel of an urgent question addressed to every citizen and thinking being, at least in the Western world, since it is a matter of disentangling the Christian God from the humanitarian Grand-Être, or the other way around.’’
‘Removing Christianity from worship of humanity’ recalls Ten Commandments— no idols.
“They ought to be courageous, moderate, just, and prudent—a tall order that they should not elude or shirk in the name of an indiscriminate “love” or “openness.” The heart of the challenge lies in what Professor Mahoney, calls the “falsification of the good.” What makes humanitarianism or the religion of humanity so alluring is that it gives its adepts the certainty of doing good as well as the feeling of being good, all the more so because in the world of fellow-feeling, most of the doing lies in the feeling. It is an offer that is difficult to resist!”
Why worry about results, when motive is all!
“In the spirit of ideology, Comte simply announces that these questions can no longer be asked in the great Occidental Republic of which he is the prophet and forerunner. He imposes on reason a crippling self-limitation that prevents it from engaging in properly philosophical reflection. In this way, too, Comte remains a ruler of souls and is one of the sources of the flaccid positivism that dismisses out of hand those questions about truth and meaning that are at the core of our dignity as thinking animals.’’
‘Flaccid positivism’; positivism was all the rage in early twentieth century Vienna. Gödel (part of the group) destroyed its foundation. Nevertheless, positivism still powerful.
“ . . . one can love Humanity through a vague and undemanding sentimentality. Loving real human beings is another matter altogether.’’
Herbert Butterfield famously condemned ‘worship of abstract nouns’ — State not people, humanity not friends, race not individuals, etc., etc..
INTRODUCTION The Secular Religion of Our Age
CHAPTER ONE The Humanitarian Subversion of Christianity and Authentic Political Life
CHAPTER TWO Orestes Brownson: From the Religion of Humanity to Catholicism and Constitutional Republicanism
CHAPTER THREE Soloviev on the Antichrist or the Humanitarian Falsification of the Good
CHAPTER FOUR The Humanitarian Ethos
CHAPTER FIVE Solzhenitsyn’s Red Wheel: A Tough-Minded and Humane Christian Vision
CHAPTER SIX Pope Francis’s Humanitarian Version of Catholic Social Teaching
CHAPTER SEVEN Jürgen Habermas and the Postpolitical Temptation
CHAPTER EIGHT Reason, Conscience, and the Return to Truth
APPENDIX The Humanitarian versus the Religious Attitude, by Aurel Kolnai
Mahoney writes (as he explains) as a Catholic layman. Nevertheless, he is respectfully critical of Pope Francis throughout. Analyses his use of humanitarian doctrine — explaining that is not catholic tradition. Mahoney points to other popes and traditional catholic teachers to indicate the contrast.
(Recalls Lord Acton’s (devout Catholic) and his teacher Döllinger (excommunicated) dispute with the Church in late nineteenth century)
Also sources much from other thinkers (as shown above) especially Solzhenitsyn.
Concluding chapter -
“The causes of the totalitarian episode were not some intellectual “monism” or “totalizing truth,” as our relativists and postmoderns like to claim. . . . Rather, the destruction of the listening heart, the civilizing traditions and memories to which it appealed, and the denial of the availability of right and wrong to objective reason all paved the way for the totalitarian negation of Western civilization.’’
‘Rejection of possibility of finding truth’ poisoned civilization.
“The totalitarian lie radicalized the subjectivism and relativism at the heart of liberal modernity. It did not so much re-enchant the world as empty it of all the resources of faith and reason. Comprehensive relativism, the denial of God and a natural order of things, and not some alleged moral absolutism, is at the source of the worst tragedies of the twentieth century.’’
This world ‘empty of reason’ brings misery, seems so . . . so . . . weird! Nevertheless, historical experience shows . . .
Writing for serious, thoughtful, analytical reader. Not obscure or arcane, but assumes desire to follow evidence, reasoning to the conclusions presented.
However, Mahoney is writing with two (conflicting) goals. One, defend Christianity and two, promote politics. Well . . . pretty difficult.
Mahoney rejects Tolstoy’s Christianity . . .
“But this was not Tolstoy’s way. He insisted on reducing Christianity to passivity, to the imperative of not resisting evil with violence and rejecting all wars. There is no place for the nation, or for patriotism, in this perversion of Christianity. His “fifth commandment” entails a comprehensive rejection of the moral and theological grounding of the nation, going so far as to say that Christian citizens should not defend their own political communities.’’
( . . . is where ‘conscientious objectors’ come from . . . )
“Turning Augustine on his head, Tolstoy severs the common good from any recognition that charity sometimes demands the defense of the innocent and one’s fellow citizens. Tolstoy’s Christianity calls for nothing less than the radical repudiation of the Mosaic Law. Like the early Christian heretic Marcion, Tolstoy vehemently rejects the Old Testament or the witness of the Jews as in any way pertinent for what it means to be Christian.’’
Well . . . Judaism worships same God as Jesus. Jesus adjusted the worship of the Jewish God. What changed?
Judaism designed for one people, in one place, serving as both as civil and moral law. Christianity intended for all people, in everyplace, and only moral law. The civil law provided by ‘Ceasar’. Two different systems for two different situations.
(For example, when Pilate asked Jesus ‘Are you a king’ . . .
“My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.”
So Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?”
Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is on the side of the truth listens to my voice.’’
Jesus proclaims ‘truth’ not political power. He was killed. His people did not kill. Thrown to lions. Defeated Romans.)
Mahoney presenting historical analysis more than philosophical argument. Although he does include fundamental ideas that explain results history relates. Reader will need to evaluate conclusions.
Erudite and researched. For example, search on kindle shows following numbers . . .
Solzhenitsyn (83), Voegelin (19), Benedict (99), Comte (83), Tocqueville (16), Tolstoy (76), Marx (21), Aron (15), Evil (185), Humanitarianism (130), etc., etc..
(See also: “The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches” (1911) by Ernst Troeltsch; “Positivist Thought in France During in the Second Empire 1852-1870” by D G Charlton)
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Frequently bought together
This item: The Idol of Our Age: How the Religion of Humanity Subverts Christianity
$11.83
Get it Jul 3 - 10
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
+
$24.49
Get it as soon as Tuesday, Jul 1
In Stock
+
$24.99
Get it as soon as Tuesday, Jul 1
In Stock
Total price: $00
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start over
About the author
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews. Please reload the page.
- Reviewed in the United States on December 9, 2018
Top reviews from other countries
-
José Luis Juan Flores QuiñónezReviewed in Mexico on April 4, 2020
Un análisis actual y necesario.
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
