Customer Reviews

Heresies: Against Progress and Other Illusions

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

When I was younger I used to argue with others that belief in God was irrational and nothing more than superstition. I eventually realized that this was very upsetting to many people and stopped. Unknown to me, my own faith at the time was what John Gray calls liberal humanism, a belief that science and reason can lead to human progress. Over many years I have gradually became less sure of this. "Heresies" and John Gray's previous book "Straw Dogs" completed my disillusionment. I find he is as unsettling for me as I was for others.

John Gray is a Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics. He has written several books on economics and modern politics and at one point was even an advisor to the government of Margaret Thatcher.

In this book John Gray brilliantly exposes the vanity and hubris of the human species and in particular the view that secular humanism is really a religion with God left out.

"Heresies" is a collection of 24 of his essays which were published in the "New Statesman" magazine during the period leading up to, during, and after the present war in Iraq. The issues he addresses are quite wide ranging, from a discussion of why liberal humanism is only a secular rendition of Christian myth, but without the idea of original sin, to the total misguidedness of the war in Iraq.

Like his other books, his writing is a model of clarity and precision in the statement of both his own ideas and the ideas of others. He has the extraordinary gift of making the reader have a revelationary understanding of what in retrospect should have been really quite obvious, but is normally hidden by the fog of humanistic ideals and a faith in the perfectibility of man.

His "Introduction" sets the tone for what is to follow:

"Secular societies are ruled by repressed religion. Screened off from conscious awareness, the religious impulse has mutated, returning as the fantasy of salvation through politics."

"Belief in progress is the Prozac of the thinking class." "...the idea of progress still pervades human culture. In the last analysis it is an assertion of faith in human will- the most absurd faith of all."

"Unlike science, ethics and politics are not activities in which what is learnt in one generation can be passed on to an infinite number of future generations. Like the arts, they are practical skills and they can be easily lost."

"The hope of a better future maybe shaky, but it is the only faith people have left. Lacking any genuine religion, they cannot accept the truth that the future will be little different than the past."

"The theistic belief that humanity has been given dominion over the world,...has been recycled as a humanist belief, that by using the power of science, humanity can escape the natural laws that govern all other animals."

In "Biotechnology and the Post-Human Future", he observes that some scientists believe that biotechnology can change the future course of human development and can lead to "what Lenin could only dream of becoming - an engineer of souls." But, unlike E. O. Wilson (whose writings he has a very high regard for), he doesn't share the belief that humanity can take charge of its own evolution.

In "Faith in the Matrix", he concisely outlines the premise of the film The Matrix, and sees that the main idea behind the unreal world of the Matrix is the outcome of a failed attempt to redesign the world so that it no longer contains suffering and evil. Modern governments also look to science and economic growth to achieve this for us since religion and politics have failed to rid the world of evil. He observes that if politics failed to prevent an absurdity such as the war in Iraq, what hope is there of eradicating hunger in the world. Even though technology can never be a surrogate for political action, in practice we will use it to mask problems we cannot solve.

In "When the Machine Stops", he discusses the shortcomings of the ideas of endless economic growth and globalization. Another essay discusses the absurd cult like beliefs of the cryogenics movement whose members think they can have their bodies frozen when they die to be resurrected to life again in the future. His predictions in essays on the consequences of the war in Iraq seem very prescient, but it remains to be seen whether his outlook for the future of Tony Blair will come to pass.

It is hard to argue with the reality of life as John Gray lays it out in this book, but after reading it, I was filled with a sense of gloom and pessimism about the human condition. Fortunately hope and optimism seem to be genetically programmed into the human animal and this soon kicked in again. If John Gray can live in the world as it is, then so can I.

I am not going to let my kids read this book though.

According to Gray, the Enlightenment cast off the shackles of one religion, only to forge replacement fetters. The new religion, based on "humanism" is called "progress". This faith rests on the notion that the human condition can be constantly and continuously improved - forever. Instead of a metaphysical paradise, the new religion proposes one that can be achieved here and now. We act, he says, in the false belief that "science" is the new divinity. With so many problems having been solved through the application of science and technology, we've come to believe ALL obstacles can be overcome. What this faith ignores, Gray warns, is the finite supply of resources our planet has to sustain this programme.

In this collection of thought-provoking essays, Gray closely and critically scrutinises the new "faith" and explains its manifestations. In a trinity of themes, he looks at "progress", "terrorism" and "politics". The "scare quotes" are necessary here, because the reader may discover wholly new definitions of these terms within these pages. With incisive wit and deep insight, he examines the dedication to "progress" - where it came from and what it means now. A careful observer, he explains that "progress" is meaningful in the process of science. In the hands of politicians, industry and modern education, it is but a superstition. The world, he says, is "suffering from disseminated primatemaia - a plague of people." In his view "Homo sapiens" has evolved into "Homo rapiens", stripping the planet of resources with little idea of the impact it's having. The plague must be curtailed like any other infection. The first step in that therapy is shedding the belief that resources are limitless and technology can replace shortfalls.

He is scornful of the "war on terror", knowing that clumsy thinking followed by clumsy action easily creates more terrorists than it eliminates. The "crusade" now under way is simply generating fresh enemies. These antagonists are perhaps even more dedicated to destruction than those who launched the World Trade Center attacks. In "Washington's New Jacobins", Gray demonstrates the fallacies of using authority and military power to impart ideologies. It wasn't successful in the French or Communist revolutions, so there's little reason for thinking it will be accomplished by the Anglo-American Axis. The evangelists of the new faith are the neo-cons in Washington and their acolytes on Downing Street . "Dr Billy Graham has joined forces with Dr Strangelove", forging a bizarre and dangerous alliance.

As a heretic against the new orthodoxy, Gray seems to be standing alone. Heretics can be destructive, but they can also provide constructive pointers. Gray's approach isn't a hysterical rant - he's too knowledgeable for that. Instead of grand, sweeping and futile gestures such as Afghanistan and Iraq, Gray seeks a gradualist approach to issues. His method requires scrutiny and understanding of the underlying conditions of any issue. The approach requires work and people to perform the tasks. Read this and find out where you can make a contribution. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

When reviewing a book like this, it's almost impossible to leave your political views aside. Even though I often disagree with John Gray, I have to admit that he's a prolific and sometimes brilliant writer. In a previous review of `HERESIES against progress and other illusions'', I made the blunder of not recognizing that the piece `Torture: a modest proposal' was a parody. Apparently I wasn't alone in this and that it was a parody wasn't as obvious as in Swifts proposal that we roast and eat babies. But I suppose the title should have given it away and I totally missed that. Thanks to Zachary Michaelson for pointing this out.
In his spoof article Gray thus mocks Alan Dershowitz but is he also poking fun at liberals like John Rawls? I suppose that's the idea but I'm not sure it's a laughing matter. Maybe he tries to convince us, as John Banville suggests in the Guardian, that it's a `foolish and tragic mistake... to imagine that (more dental implants and) fewer thumbscrews will make us into better beings'.
His critique of humanism, atheism and the idea of progress is well known by now and in my view tends to become a bit monotonous. In contrast to the `evils that come with the growth of knowledge', `the myth of religion are ciphers containing the truth of the human condition', Gray heralds onto the congregation.
This is how I ended my now deleted review: `HERESIES is highly entertaining, provocative and witty but at the same time frustratingly biased and presumptuous. John Gray takes us on a bumpy ride indeed.'
That's still how I feel and these essays, first published in the New Statesman, gives us a good idea of his spirited polemics.

For those who have read Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals and Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia this books contains many (and some variations) of the same themes. I've enjoyed reading all three as he presents a very logical and convincing arguement. While part of me still holds out hope for humanity, this is definitely not the book to reaffirm that hope. I think he makes a convincing case that technology will not lead humans to some uptopian state, instead we use technology to reinforce our existing biases, beliefs, and behaviors (He expresses this much more eloquently than I just did).