I have been presenting for years, in these pages, a charge against the Enlightenment: namely that it enshrined, with religious fervor, a radical skepticism that acted as a kind of “universal acid” that no tradition or social order could contain.
In 2022, for example, I referred to:
…the radical skepsis of the Enlightenment, which simultaneously raised Man to the throne of Creation while throwing him back onto his own meager resources. The shearing away of all but “scientific method” as a means of understanding the Universe, and our place in it, meant that the Universe itself had to be put on a kind of Procrustean Bed, upon which all the features of the cosmos that aren’t accessible by those tools and methodology had simply to be cut away, and believed not even to exist. (This fatally narrowing effect, by the way, is a good example of why Pride is considered the deadliest of sins.)
I’ve been making this case for much longer, though. Here’s an excerpt from a post called This Is Your Civilization On Acid, from 2015:
Given that what gives a culture its form is essentially ‘memetic’ — an aggregation of concepts, lore, mythos, history, music, religion, duties, obligations, affinities, and aversions shared by a common people — an advanced civilization is subject to corrosion and decomposition by ideas. And the most corrosive of all such reagents in the modern world is one that our own culture bequeathed to itself in the Enlightenment: the elevation of skepsis to our highest intellectual principle. Moreover, the less a nation depends upon tangible factors such as territory and ethnic homogeneity for its stability, the more vulnerable it is to this hazard — and the modern, rapidly diversifying United States, which describes itself more and more as little more than “an idea” — is most vulnerable of all.
Radical doubt, as it turns out, is a “universal acid”: given enough time, there is no container that can hold it. Once doubt is in control, there is no premise, no tradition, nor even any God that it cannot dissolve. Once it has burned its way through theism, telos, and the intrinsic holiness of the sacred, leaving behind only a desiccated naturalism, its action on the foundations of culture accelerates briskly, as there is little left to resist it.
Because it is in the nature of doubt to dissolve axioms, the consequence of the Enlightenment is that all of a civilization’s theorems ultimately become unprovable. This is happening before our eyes. The result is chaos, and collapse.
Also from 2015:
The modern attitude places the burden of proof upon every aspect of traditional life. All is disposable unless proven necessary, including even the axioms upon which such proof depends.
And so on. (See also this post and its internal links, including links to a discussion we had in 2018 with Michael Anton on the topic of natural law.)
The reason that I am mentioning all this today is that I have just read an outstanding essay at City Journal making this same indictment of the Enlightenment. (The author, Martin Gurri, even uses a term — “The Endarkenment” — that we NRx types were kicking around fifteen years ago.)
The whole thing is so good that I won’t bother posting any excerpts. You should just go read the whole thing yourselves, here.
4 Comments
Just to clarify Malcolm: Certainly most Christians will feel regrets on their death beds, but they have the consolation of a forgiving God who can use even our sins and failures to bring us closer to Him. But what to do in a modern world where such a deity is becoming increasingly hard to believe in, to perceive as real? Well, your Clearchus and his Stoic philosophy would provide what is perhaps the best alternative, to just accept painful realities like unrealized dreams, seeking to transcend such defects by acting virtuously.
But there’s the rub: such a belief system and praxis is likely too demanding for your typical man and woman. Hence the Endarkenment, the world of skepsis you constantly allude to, where so many Westerners appear listless and adrift because they have no solid religion to provide comfort. People have on their own resources to fall back on. Too many Leftists then pursue the ersatz and vapid ideologies of identity politics and multiculturalism, Rightists that of a rabid racialism and nationalism. And contra the fairly watery optimism Gurri expresses at the end of his essay, I don’t think anybody really knows what to do about this.
Jason,
It is pretty watery, I must agree, because it wants to have it both ways: “a dramatically updated spiritual vision” that preserves “the sacred”, but without religion. But we already have that: our secular church of Wokeness has made plenty of ordinary (or conspicuously broken, or even unholy and hideous) things sacred — while the chilling darkness of the Abyss only deepens.
Diagnosis is often easier than prescription.
Jason,
A Christian can only do what he can: tell people of the Gospel of Jesus. There is no forcing the hearer to accept. That is on him for refusing. The single greatest obstacle to faith in Him is Pride. I know, because life threw me down several months ago. I then struggled with the mountain of Pride and suddenly the answer came very quietly…humility. Once humility overcomes Pride, ‘skepsis’ withers away. I am living proof as I sit here. There is no need for ‘religion’ to get in the way of Faith. Religion can consume you/me/anyone with endless reading and study and Lord knows there is endless study available since Bible scholars can spend their whole careers studying it, which is not bad nor wrong, but they do it with Faith first.
It simply begins this way: ““Jesus, I believe you are the Son of God, that you died on the cross to rescue me from sin and death and to restore me to the Father. I invite you into my heart and life to be my Savior and Lord.”
Once asked in true sincerity then it is done for good. The next thing to accept is the final Truth” :I am the way and the light, no one comes to the Father but by me.
Every thing else is just struggle for little reward.
Raising teenagers teaches one the limitations of skepticism, or rather how easy it is to confuse skepticism and incomprehension. Subjectively, “I do not believe” and “I do not understand” are a lot alike, and skepticism is much more flattering to the ego. I don’t say this to belittle the plight of modern skeptics, or because I think I know a sure solution. William James taught us there is a “will to believe,” but I don’t think there is a will to the will to believe. Once the spirit of skepticism has settled in, it take a powerful external force to kick it out.
The fact of skepticism makes me wonder how much of today’s political fanaticism is just a sham. I rode the elevator at the university recently with a student whose tee shirt announced that she is “Radically Inclusive.” In all other respects, she appeared to be a person who would instantly lose her zeal if the prospect of mild discomfort came into view (especially the mild discomfort of a missed meal). The belief of martyrs was not like the “belief” of postmodern man.
Political speech always tends to self-aggrandizing hyperbole, but I believe the distance between political speech and action may now put the Grand Canyon to shame. Would a woman who truly believes that abortion is murder be content to pray on the sidewalk? Would a man who truly believes that melting ice capes will shortly drown New York City be content to buy a Tesla? Would a chubby coed who truly believes in “radical inscugsivity” be content to go to class in a legible tee shirt?
So to the plague of skepticism you may add a plague of posers.