Progress

Progress - the very word feels dated, an aura of Victorian side whiskers and men with flat caps marching behind red banners. It has had a chequered century, to say the least. I will contend however that, despite everything, it remains the deity of most so-called atheists and agnostics, and the principal god even of most Christians, YHWH and his son relegated to a secondary, supporting role. Progress is flagging, however, and losing his power.

Progress is indeed the bastard son (definitely a male deity, this one) of the Jewish G-d, as until linear eschatological time was conceived, he would not have been possible. This brings vision, but also a need for hope. In the static/atemporal world of Indian religion, hope is another of the delusions of maya: what is needed is insight and detachment. In the equally static Chinese vision of Daoism, we should strive to be in harmony with nature.

Atheists may deny that God exists, but few are the egotistical hedonists that some religious people stereotype: most care about their societies and for humanity in general , and hope that life will get better. In other words, they have a faith, in Progress. Christians are more interesting. One would have thought that they cared not a wit about progress as such, only in so far as it produces societies which help individuals to achieve salvation and heavenly eternal life. Yet in practice the vision of society differs not a whit from secular vision, apart from minor ethical concerns (and no concern about the biggest current moral failing, greed). The trouble with Progress is that while concerned with humanity at the general level, as an impersonal deity he has little for the individual and his cares. Jesus might help here, perhaps better than your local psychotherapist or self help group. This is a bit more than just Rieffian therapeutics ("Jesus makes you feel better"), but it definitely relegates him to a secondary deity.

The only competing gods are Allah (obviously- back to 7C please) and Gaia. She has a part - she cares more for the future in some ways - but is cruel and amoral, and would probably prefer humans not to be around at all.

It is easy to scoff and say that Progress has descended into crass materialism, but the Enlightenment vision had more than that - liberty, tolerance, and more humane ethics for a start. That vision (and materialism) may still inspire Chinese and Indian peasants, but the problem is the developed world: the Enlightenment project has largely been achieved. In the developed world this may be as good as it gets. But travelling is better than arriving, and what do we do now? It needs to be defended (environmentally, culturally, demographically) but how do you inspire people to defend, as opposed to a positive vision? Or should we learn from Buddhists and Stoics, on how to live without hope?

What could be a vision of the worthwhile life, to replace or supplement the one we have?

On Europe

A fascinating detail of the foundation of the EU was that its main architects were all Catholics from marginal Geman-speaking areas: Adenauer (Rhineland), Schumann (Alsace), De Gasperi (Trentino Alto Adige). De Gasperi actually sat in the Vienna parliament pre 1914. They were actually trying, probably subconsciously, to recreate the Holy Roman Empire as it should have been.

With the decline of Christian Democrat belief, the EU has become a soulless economic machine, which engenders no emotional loyalty, although Germans and Italians are the strongest believers, and the ex-Protestant Brits and Scandinavians the least.

Churchill and De Gaulle were great, ruthless bastards, and thoroughgoing nationalists: they did revive their nations. The alternative for the EU would have been an assertive European nationalism : De Europe instead of De Gaulle and the "Neo-Austrians" above. Cannot see how that would have been possible post 1945.

I have been sceptical of an existential model of demographics - but note that the demographically healthiest parts of Europe still have a confident nationalism (yes, that is even true of those socialist nostalgics, the Scandinavians). Catholic German Ratzinger may be onto something, with the "neo-Austrian" model at the back of his mind. So are the French and British, but the models are hard to reconcile (the Catholic/post-Catholic soul of France has always battled with nationalism, and the nationalism has always won. Catholicism is also a proxy for nationalism in Poland). Europe sweeping back to Catholicism still seems deeply improbable however, and how would a European "national" leader arise. I don't see how things can go on as they are, however.

Oh, if only Bismarck had been a democrat... but he remembered the spineless ineffectual academics and lawyers in the 1848 Frankfurt parliament..