Is the Godlessness of the elite a problem?

[Torie]

This article has another title, but my title is my interpretation of its thesis (granted the word God is not used, nor is the word religion, and instead a series of more complex words are used in lieu thereof imo). The article fails really to offer up examples of just why it is a problem in practice, although to be fair, it is one of a two part series, with the second article yet to be published.

Myself, I don't find that today's elite to be any more unethical or whatever than elites of old, and in some ways, due to a more cosmopolitan and diverse society, in the information age, perhaps less. I know one poster among us has posted that "militant secularism" (whatever that  means exactly), is a threat to us all.  Is it?

Anyway, the "deep thinkers" among us, may find this of some interest. For me, it is all out of my comfort zone. I prefer to wallow in the more mundane.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Perhaps it's easy for me to say as a non-believer in deities, but I'm not convinced that belief in a god necessarily has any impact on the morality of leaders. The elites of old and ancient were just as capable of debauchery, treachery, corruption, and blatant disregard for the well being of others regardless of their public piety. I consider religion primarily as a means of structuring society and providing its denizens a common purpose and identity, but not necessarily as an insightful barometer of morality, which tends to be more dependent on the character of individuals and incentives provided by institutions.

As a matter of fact, the current crop of religious elites in America are arguably proving more problematic in the department of principles than the secular ones. Just look at how tightly they've embraced the nihilistic indulgences of Trump and sold all their proclaimed values down the river in pursuit of political influence. Am I supposed to believe this is the best that the Christianfolk have to offer in their leaders and that the godless liberal elites are somehow more dangerous to our society? You could provide counterexamples on both those points, but that just reinforces my argument; what's the difference? Structures, incentives, and individuals define the character of leaders, not religion.  

Anyway, my spiel probably doesn't have much to do with the National Review article you linked to, but I do find it amusing how deeply entrenched in religious right talking points some are when they clutch their pearls over the horrors of the liberal, secular elite as if they're somehow any worse than the religious elite.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Being outwardly pious never made the elite more moral in the past - see everything from the Renaissance clergy to Victorian British aristocracy. That said, there is something uniquely terrifying about the particular brand of brazen moral and cultural nihilism that the modern elite seems to be embracing. I'm not willing to say it's objectively worse, but it's definitely... uglier, I guess.

[Georg Ebner]

Animals - and modern mankind is consisting nearly entirely of primitive animals - are driven by genetical egoism, utilitarism is only a part of that (do ut des).

The homo religiosus, on the other hand, doesn't care about ethics per se (what even the early LUTHER still knew, cf. "On The Freedom Of A Christian").

"GOD is not a perfect moral-system, but the only adventure, which is worth falling into it." :GOMEZ DAVILA: "The homo religiosus is in the essence not directly a morally better human being, but a new kind of human being." Vita Nuova...

[136or142]

I think the Godlessness of those who claim to be religious (like the Southern Baptists and other right wing Evangelicals) is a much bigger problem.

[HillGoose]

No. I have 1000x more respect for the "Godless elite" than I do for the religious people I was "raised" by.

[Senator Incitatus]

No. I have 1000x more respect for the "Godless elite" than I do for the religious people I was "raised" by.

That's not the comparison being made. I'd say a pious elite is preferable to the current elite, regardless whether both is preferable to your family.

[HillGoose]

No. I have 1000x more respect for the "Godless elite" than I do for the religious people I was "raised" by.

That's not the comparison being made. I'd say a pious elite is preferable to the current elite, regardless whether both is preferable to your family.

I still prefer the current elite because religion is totalitarian, at least in my opinion. If those with a lot of power became totalitarian, it would end up as dictatorship.

[Ohioguy29]

Yes, the decline of religion is one of the greatest modern tragedies. That really isn't the point of the article though. His point is largely that most of the brilliant thinkers and highly educated people are going into the tech industry or finance, and very few of them are writing great literature or pondering the great dilemmas of our time. Lots of intelligent elites driving the engine of commerce, no prominent intellectuals questioning their ideas or decisions. Captains of industry are fully in control of the direction our society is going and they aren't encountering much resistance. Regardless of your views on religion, I think many of us can agree that this isn't ideal and that there should be intelligent people in our society thinking about broader philosophical and ethical questions. These people could be atheists.

I have no idea how you got "it's a shame Jeff Bezos don't go to church, God bless" from an article about how we need more intellectuals in the humanities and how we need a counterbalancing force on consumerism. For heaven's sakes, he uses George Orwell as an example of what we're missing right now. If you'll recall, he was an atheist.

[Storebought]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's looking in the wrong places. Critiques of crass consumerism won't be found in academies or the traditional arts  -- they've both been long overwhelmed by the same consumer impulse as every other endeavor -- but in the "new" genres of video games and animated series ... and, yes, rap.

[RINO Tom]

I will have to re-read after my afternoon meeting (I admit I couldn't read that as thoroughly as I am assuming the OP did), but I didn't really get the vibe that the article was talking about what you were talking about, specifically...

[Ohioguy29]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's looking in the wrong places. Critiques of crass consumerism won't be found in academies or the traditional arts  -- they've both been long overwhelmed by the same consumer impulse as every other endeavor -- but in the "new" genres of video games and animated series ... and, yes, rap.

I don't think he's limiting himself to the academies. Academia does actually have critiques of crass consumerism, but these works have limited influence outside of the ivory tower. He references writers and thinkers who had more of an influence on the broader public like George Orwell, William F. Buckley, etc.

As for the idea that video games and TV are our hope for taking down consumerism...lol.