Camille Paglia and the Ineffectiveness of Religion and Secular Humanism?

Question

I was just hoping to get all of your thoughts on some of the recent comments made by Camille Paglia (a regular pundit on Salon.com - feminist/atheist/literary critic).

I argued that secular humanism has failed, that the avant-garde is dead, and that liberals must start acknowledging the impoverished culture that my 1960s generation has left to the young. Atheism alone is a rotting corpse. I substitute art and nature for God -- the grandeur of man and the vast mystery of the universe.

The young, who are masters of ever-evolving personal technology, are besieged by the siren call of materialism. In this climate, it is selfish and shortsighted for liberals to automatically define religion as a social problem that needs suppression or eradication. Without spirituality in some form, people will anesthetize themselves with drink or drugs -- including the tranquilizers that seem near universal among the status-addled professional class of the Northeastern elite.

Additional Details

and now her comments on the religious sideshow.

"Nevertheless, the pervasiveness of religion in American politics is becoming a tedious distraction from urgent social problems like healthcare. I detest sanctimony in any form -- from the unctuous piety of smarmy televangelists to ostentatious badge-wearing (such as the gold-cross necklace that Hillary Clinton was regularly flaunting around Capitol Hill). Religious protestations are now a rote formula for asserting family values and opposing moral relativism, with which the Democrats have been tagged since the hedonistic '60s. One reason religion is so intrusive in the United States is because of the mammoth institutional power of our mass media, which is unparalleled anywhere else in the world. Religion has become a prophetic voice crying in the wilderness against our Hollywood Babylon. "

For the record:

Camille isn't some closet-theist just in case anyone was wondering. She's an atheist of the Nietzschean extraction, if i had to try and pin her down. She's also a Libertarian.

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

I agree with her pretty much 100%. Paglia is a riot - I always find her stuff entertaining even when I think she's a bit batty. She never just tows the party line on anything, and that's great. But in this case, she's dead on.

I'm an atheist, but certainly NOT a materialist - look, it says so right in my profile...lol. I agree that we need "spirituality" - although the word itself is so overloaded with unfortunate religious connotations that it's hard to use without this kind of qualifier. I've practiced the Buddhist and Hindu meditations - without committing myself to any religious dogma - and obtained some of the classical "trances" so-called, viz. states that transcend the ordinary laws of consciousness. I'm also an artist, so naturally I have to agree with the idea that art is "true religion," the means by which man participates in the divine prerogative To Create.

As for drugs, by the way - "mind-altering" drugs can at least demonstrate to anybody that there are other levels of consciousness. It's no objection to say that they're merely the results of introducing chemicals into the brain, since ALL modifications of consciousness are caused by - or at least correspond to - chemical changes in the brain. The techniques of "mysticism" are simply ways of causing these changes "organically" so to speak.

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

I think Paglia makes a good point, you can't be "anti-something," replace it with something uninspiring and expect that to resolve the problem.

A positive solution is necessary, something i fear that other atheists seem to forget during their rages against religion.

Answer 2

I don't disagree.

Answer 3

More artiste then scientist eh?

Well, i will give her this - she's obviously approaching the religious question from a completely different angle instead of mere "banner waving."

Source(s):

Daoist-Buddhist

Answer 4

We all have a choice and she made hers.

Answer 5

She is also a humanist.

Answer 6

I agree with her comment. We are not ellecting a theologian in chief, we're electing a CEO.

Answer 7

She's entitled to her opinions and that's all that they are... opinions... and we all know the old saying. Opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one.

Answer 8

Yes, and Camille is also an enemy of gender feminists (the ridiculous feminism that has hijacked academia and helped to bring us PC hell). I love her, she's usually right about things.

"The status-addled professional class of the Northeastern elite" includes that sewer-trout family the Kennedys, as well as Kerry, Gore, the Bushes, the Clintons, et al.

Forget the Republican/Democrat divide, it's the New Englanders we need to keep out of the White House.

Love Jack

Answer 9

"In this climate, it is selfish and shortsighted for liberals to automatically define religion as a social problem that needs suppression or eradication."
It's short-sighted not to define religion as a problem because as long as religion exists so will religious extremism.

A short term alliance with some religious people could be beneficial but only in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of way (e.g. getting liberal Christians to fight creationalist idiots) and there left is infested with people who seem not understand who the enemy actually is (i.e. they think that capitalism is the enemy which is why they ally with the Islamic terrorists (since Islamic fundamentalism is about the only thing that still opposes capatilism)).

Though suppression of religion is something that you've got to be careful of, it's very easy to get religious nutcases to be violent, not to mention that if we don't win by persuasion we can't really say to have won.