The Drama of Atheist Humanism

De Lubac’s Drama of Atheistic Humanism is a masterpiece but for a relatively small audience.In it he gives a profound summary of the thought of Nietzsche and Comte; not so much for their own sake as to show that their ideas of the human person are irredeemable flaws in their systems.His major point is then to set forth a apologetic Christian Humanism. In other words, the ancient saying, “Know Thyself” takes on a new meaning. In more fully understanding human nature, human beings find God in their inmost core.This apologetic is found in nascent form in the works of Fyodor Dostoevsky. Here we see the results of atheistic humanism in the downfall of such characters as Ivan Karamazov and the victory of a truer, Christian account of human nature.It might be said that De Lubac, like Dostoevsky, was more articulate in finding the systematic errors of Nietzsche and Comte then in expositing his own humanism. Even so, the book is a philosophic masterpiece and has had an immense influence on Catholic thought to this very day.Personally, I found the humanistic turn unsatisfying. Unlike Aquinas or the Church Fathers there is no attempt to ground this humanism in a rational account of the cosmos. Instead, man looks inward and finds God only in the “discovery” of a unlimited and eternal soul. For those who find such arguments appealing, De Lubac will be welcome reading. As I said before, a masterpiece but for a small audience.

To look at Nietzsche, Comte, and Marx through the eyes of this genius is the best way to think about what Atheism is, and why it became the religion of the 19th century. The book will point you to Dostoevsky if you are looking for the Christian response. De Lubac doesn't waste his time on arguments against atheist humanism ---arguments will not win this fight. As a Roman Catholic it occurred to me that the answer to atheistic ideologies is not a Christian ideology (if such were possible). This is a humanism invented by often tormented and arrogant men who saw a real problem--rationalism--and found Christianity wanting. Their new religions required a denial of God, and the assent of the mind to their man made creeds. I have to say, how like men. The real answer? The unvarnished, real answer? If you want a book, read The Devils by Fyodor Dostoevsky.But there's a better one, and she appeared at Fatima during the early part of the 20th century.

Despite the title, this book has almost nothing to do with atheism. De Lubac criticizes the writings of POLITICAL pundits like Marx and Nietzsche, then pretends that by doing so he has proved something about atheism. But religion and politics are separate, and there have been many brutal Christian political rulers too. In fact Nietzsche used RELIGIOUS leaders as his models: the Greek Pagan slave states like Athens and the Christian emperor Napoleon.Nietzsche was actually RELIGIOUS not atheistic. He created his own religion with spirit quanta ("will") instead of atoms, and an Eternal Return. In fact de Lubac even closes with a chapter called "Nietzsche as mystic", after calling him an atheist for hundreds of pages!The problem with Nietzsche was he wanted a brutal oligarchy which would suppress or exterminate the general population. That has nothing to do with atheism. Politics is politics, not religion.Comte and Marx were also political authors. Their (ir)religion is an irrelevant side issue. Many of Dostoevsky's (fictional) scenes were clearly criticizing Communist politics, not religion. Like the famous Grand Inquisitor scene which is about politics and religion, but not atheism at all; the temptations were of interest only to political leaders, while the Inquisition and Jesus are Christian.

This is de Lubac's best book, and the translation is superb. He is superb when making his point indirectly by reference and citation of other authors. Those who have found de Lubac's excursions into neo-scholastic controversy obscure and puzzling will finally discover what he was really getting at and why he was a great theologian.

The book was in great shape at a decent price and arrived ahead of schedule.

Henri de Lubac, S.J. lived through some very difficult times, including the Nazi occupation of France and Soviet Communism. The Nazi and Communist understanding of the State and of who man is was not just of intellectual interest to de Lubac. He experienced and understood the brutal consequences of these philosophies and the totalitarian governments they inspired. These philosophies contrasted greatly with the Christian worldview which inspired and moved de Lubac.This book was originally published in French in 1944, during the Nazi occupation, and was translated into English in 1949. It looks at the impact of atheism and secular humanism on Christian thought through a wide range of philosophers. He discusses Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Comte, and Dostoevsky and the impact they had on philosophy and the human mind. De Lubac considers what they wrote and why and what they were trying to accomplish in grappling with the question of man, who he is, and how he functions in the world.I found the discussion quite "heavy-duty," largely because I know so little about philosophy. (Those once-required college courses in philosophy were no longer required by the time I got to college.) The book is a challenging but enlightening introduction to these philosophers and their impact on our understanding of man.De Lubac is one of the great twentieth-century Catholic theologians, one of the "resourcement" theologians who sought to return to the Fathers and early theologians (return to the sources) of the Church for inspiration. His impact on the Church was significant, especially at the Second Vatican Council where he was rehabilitated after being silenced for several years.Pope John Paul II named de Lubac a Cardinal in 1983, in recognition of his contribution to theology and the Church. He died in 1991 at the age of 96.

Henri de Lubac is a Catholic thinker, who, to me, seems doomed to languish in the shadow of that other great Catholic theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar. This work seems to demonstrate why to some degree. Though a very well-written collection of writings on the subjects of atheism, positivism, scientism and the like, the issue I have with de Lubac is simply that he speaks to the specialist and not to the layman. Balthasar, for all his faults, still speaks to the educated layman in a way that is intelligible, though still dense. Balthasar often references the Church Fathers, as well as once-controversial figures such as Blondel, and many mystics. De Lubac seems to be fixated on obscure references to thinkers only specialists in the field would have ever even remotely heard about; frankly, it detracts from what he saying in that it is hard to discern what de Lubac himself thinks. De Lubac, certainly, is an extremely intelligent theologian, and I greatly enjoy much of his thought. However, this work seems to be so wrapped up in obscurity and constant references to other works that it is hard to understand what de Lubac actually thinks about the subject. I do enjoy the work - don't get me wrong. I remember reading a review of this work by a Catholic traditionalist that trashed it simply because he put Dostoevsky above Aquinas in a way, and to be honest, that's what decided things for me in terms of purchasing the work.If you're willing to do your homework on the references, or if you're already very well educated in Catholic thought of the 19th and 20th century, especially Blondel, then by all means purchase the work. If you're interested in Christian responses to the atheist polemics of today, go for it. It's a worthy purchase. Just be warned, this book is going to require some real legwork to get to the bottom of what de Lubac is saying.

great book