Here, a special hatred was reserved for one subset of unbeliever: the Jew. We cursed the Jews multiple times a day and expressed horror, disgust and anger at the litany of offences he had allegedly committed. The Jew had betrayed our Prophet. He had occupied the Holy Mosque in Jerusalem. He continued to spread corruption of the heart, mind and soul.
You can see why, to someone who had been through such a religious schooling, atheism seemed so appealing. Bertrand Russell offered a simple, zero-cost escape from an unbearable life of self-denial and harassment of other people. For him, there was no credible case for the existence of God. Religion, Russell argued, was rooted in fear: “Fear is the basis of the whole thing — fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death.”
As an atheist, I thought I would lose that fear. I also found an entirely new circle of friends, as different from the preachers of the Muslim Brotherhood as one could imagine. The more time I spent with them — people such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins — the more confident I felt that I had made the right choice. For the atheists were clever. They were also a great deal of fun.
So, what changed? Why do I call myself a Christian now?
Part of the answer is global. Western civilisation is under threat from three different but related forces: the resurgence of great-power authoritarianism and expansionism in the forms of the Chinese Communist Party and Vladimir Putin’s Russia; the rise of global Islamism, which threatens to mobilise a vast population against the West; and the viral spread of woke ideology, which is eating into the moral fibre of the next generation.
We endeavour to fend off these threats with modern, secular tools: military, economic, diplomatic and technological efforts to defeat, bribe, persuade, appease or surveil. And yet, with every round of conflict, we find ourselves losing ground. We are either running out of money, with our national debt in the tens of trillions of dollars, or we are losing our lead in the technological race with China.
But we can’t fight off these formidable forces unless we can answer the question: what is it that unites us? The response that “God is dead!” seems insufficient. So, too, does the attempt to find solace in “the rules-based liberal international order”. The only credible answer, I believe, lies in our desire to uphold the legacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
That legacy consists of an elaborate set of ideas and institutions designed to safeguard human life, freedom and dignity — from the nation state and the rule of law to the institutions of science, health and learning. As Tom Holland has shown in his marvellous book Dominion, all sorts of apparently secular freedoms — of the market, of conscience and of the press — find their roots in Christianity.
And so I have come to realise that Russell and my atheist friends failed to see the wood for the trees. The wood is the civilisation built on the Judeo-Christian tradition; it is the story of the West, warts and all. Russell’s critique of those contradictions in Christian doctrine is serious, but it is also too narrow in scope.
For instance, he gave his lecture in a room full of (former or at least doubting) Christians in a Christian country. Think about how unique that was nearly a century ago, and how rare it still is in non-Western civilisations. Could a Muslim philosopher stand before any audience in a Muslim country — then or now — and deliver a lecture with the title “Why I am not a Muslim”? In fact, a book with that title exists, written by an ex-Muslim. But the author published it in America under the pseudonym Ibn Warraq. It would have been too dangerous to do otherwise.
To me, this freedom of conscience and speech is perhaps the greatest benefit of Western civilisation. It does not come naturally to man. It is the product of centuries of debate within Jewish and Christian communities. It was these debates that advanced science and reason, diminished cruelty, suppressed superstitions, and built institutions to order and protect life, while guaranteeing freedom to as many people as possible. Unlike Islam, Christianity outgrew its dogmatic stage. It became increasingly clear that Christ’s teaching implied not only a circumscribed role for religion as something separate from politics. It also implied compassion for the sinner and humility for the believer.
Yet I would not be truthful if I attributed my embrace of Christianity solely to the realisation that atheism is too weak and divisive a doctrine to fortify us against our menacing foes. I have also turned to Christianity because I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable — indeed very nearly self-destructive. Atheism failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life?
Russell and other activist atheists believed that with the rejection of God we would enter an age of reason and intelligent humanism. But the “God hole” — the void left by the retreat of the church — has merely been filled by a jumble of irrational quasi-religious dogma. The result is a world where modern cults prey on the dislocated masses, offering them spurious reasons for being and action — mostly by engaging in virtue-signalling theatre on behalf of a victimised minority or our supposedly doomed planet. The line often attributed to G.K. Chesterton has turned into a prophecy: “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
In this nihilistic vacuum, the challenge before us becomes civilisational. We can’t withstand China, Russia and Iran if we can’t explain to our populations why it matters that we do. We can’t fight woke ideology if we can’t defend the civilisation that it is determined to destroy. And we can’t counter Islamism with purely secular tools. To win the hearts and minds of Muslims here in the West, we have to offer them something more than videos on TikTok.
The lesson I learned from my years with the Muslim Brotherhood was the power of a unifying story, embedded in the foundational texts of Islam, to attract, engage and mobilise the Muslim masses. Unless we offer something as meaningful, I fear the erosion of our civilisation will continue. And fortunately, there is no need to look for some new-age concoction of medication and mindfulness. Christianity has it all.
That is why I no longer consider myself a Muslim apostate, but a lapsed atheist. Of course, I still have a great deal to learn about Christianity. I discover a little more at church each Sunday. But I have recognised, in my own long journey through a wilderness of fear and self-doubt, that there is a better way to manage the challenges of existence than either Islam or unbelief had to offer.
***
Watch and read Ayaan respond to her critics here.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
Well we’re certainly seeing that play out. It’s difficult to understand the liberal’s sneering at their own Christian heritage, the very foundation of their belief – the idea of devotion to human liberty, with a private sphere protected by natural rights, the sanctity of life, equal moral dignity of the individual and freedom of conscience.
Thank you Ayaan and may God bless you.
Testing, testing. Some of my comments are being banned and not published.
On Newsweek and Yahoo the most innocent of comments are banned if outside the box of community standards.
Ok one got through. Let me try again. I would like to come back as an Ashkenazi Jew – 15% more intelligent and solid values in place.
According to my DNA test, I am 0.1% Hassidic Jew. I wonder if that makes me more intelligent.
Coming from a background of Welsh baptists, it’s not surprising I’m dyslexic, and what an achivement that I can get to the end of these UnHerd essays, dictionary at my side to explain the big words, without a clue as to what is being said?
I have not been DNA tested – but my ancestors are 100% Irish. What does that make me?
Irish
Hopefully Catholic!
In Chicago, it makes you an enemy of the Italians.
Perfect
Although not necessarily in Europe in 1935, I assume.
Where do you get the intelligence part from?
Not so quickly. As an Ashkenazi jew I can tell you that many of us were raised to be atheists because planting trees in Israel was destroying another marginalized group, the Palestinians (who, by the way, none of the surrounding mjuslim countries wanted.) My grandfather used to say “well, it’s like this: Man created God”.
However, lately I am simply torn between which of the two – Judaism or Christianity is best placed to more benignly articulate my rebirth.”
Judaism of course. Judaism does not excommunicate you if you are an atheist. It’s much more open-minded than Christianity. Why join a religion that is just going to throw you out if you go back to your old ways?
Judaism might be difficult to get thrown out of, but it is also difficult to get into. Most religions will accept you if you turn up and knock on their door, but that is not the case with Judaism.
Judaism is very easy to get “thrown out of”. My great-grandfather chose Jesus, and his family forbade him from ever seeing them again. He had to emigrate. His family likely held a funeral for him, as he was no longer Jewish.
My understanding is that the child of a Jewish woman is Jewish, and among other things, you are entitled to citizenship of Israel on that basis.
That belief is not based on anything in the Bible but on the fact that you know who the mother is but not necessarily the father.
‘Mama’s baby – Daddy’s maybe’
Does an atheist have a religion to get excommunicated from? Aren’t you confusing religion with cultural background?
Woke and Communism are both religions,
I have never heard of someone be cast out of Christianity. You may be referring to some of the teachings of the Catholic church which does not represent all Christians.
Some churches do not allow peole who are in defiance to take communion. It is remedial rather than punitive and reversible.
I really like the “Man created God”. So true.
Don’t be so sure of that. If there is a god, you burn in hell. Also, directed evolution is an extremely effective method of writing computer code that is too complex to understand. The deity probably used it to manufacture the human body. Kill Dinasaur’s with an asteroid to advance mammals etc. He had 3 billion years to go from a single cell to a man. A billion years is as a second to God.
If you are a virgin male Jew, you are a Canidate for the 144000 that get sealed by an angel and sent to testify for Christ after the Christians fly off to heaven in the Rapture.
Christianity is Jewish
Trying this again…. want to come back as an ashken..zi j.w, 15% more intelligent and values firmly in place.
As a life long atheist, I am guilty of sneering at Christianity. The bearded man in the sky concept of god still seems as silly as ever to me. I’m starting to come around to the idea of god being that divine best-self or ideal that though unattainable, is still the guiding light by which we all should gravitate towards.
Christianity provides life lessons in the best way possible. Story-form is by far the best way to reach the most people and have those lessons understood. It is timeless and it allows for failure; which also encourages growth.
Hedonism is just short-term thinking and we all know how damaging short term thinking is. Well, our elites don’t. Modern concepts have failed us tremendously and we need to take a step or two back in order to go forward. Christianity seems to be the best guiding concept we have.
What about Spinoza’s concept. God as the ultimate limiting totality. The universe annd anll of time and even before time. This includes all souls and all energy and matter and all that is both physical mathematical or metaphysical.That is how Einstein conceived god.
Micah, and Einstein, in side the black hole, the real world where there is no time and no space.
The trouble is nobody with an IQ of less than 130 is every going to read Spinoza or understand it. And why should they? It’s just more words and cannot even come close to communicating an ineffable mystery. People need simple stories, simple messages. If you aint got that then aint got anything.
One of my personal favorite non-original sneers has always been that Man obviously created God in his own image. But if true, that still makes Christianity, at absolute minimum, the most extensive and profound study of Man ever undertaken, doesn’t it?
Spot on. I can’t get over the rational accuracy. How do you tell a “story” that comport so consistently to “lived experience.”
That’s always been a problem for me, Man! And to crown His ego, in his own image FGS!
You’re a big man for saying this. Seriously kudos.
The historically dominant form of Christianity in recent centuries in the UK has been the Cof E , and in theory I think it’s a good idea for people to return to that. to motivate and provide morale in a power struggle that just can not be wished away.
But can anyone seriously envisage that the Cof E under Welby is going to provide any resistance to the claims of identity politics and decolonisation coming out of US academia . It is more likely to turn into a cover for these tendencies .
Think of all the “secular” advantages the CofE has to produce a shared set of ethics and solidarity if we just had the right leadership. There is a church, a school and very often an aligned Scout and Girl Guide troop, cadets, youth group and so on in every parish in England. The King is anointed by the A of C and swears to protect the faith. The liturgical calendar id weaved into public life: Christmas, Easter, Whitsun, Michaelmas, Harvest festival, All Souls’ Day, Remembrance Sunday and so on. The bishops sit in the HofL.
The danger is that all these things disappear for lack of interest in protecting them against an assault from the woke.
With strong, orthodox leadership church attendance could double or triple pretty quickly. I would suggest C of E schools should provide an explicitly anti-woke, broadly traditional and Christian moral education alongside academic excellence. Parents would love it I think.The quid pro quo would be Baptism and some level of Sunday attendance to get a school place.
Brilliant but with a new leader and help from parliament wich is also still C of E I believe!
Yes. I guess the danger is that Labour get in an appoint some woke-wonder as the next AofC.
1902 Namibia tribes dd not recognise the sovereign Lord of Germany and for this were almost wiped out.This royal cousin In Jerusalem changed Salahuddin’s humble grave into a chapel; walls lined with coloured stone; a conquerer for Prophet Muhummad, in Egypt, Port of Tyre, and Jerusalem-on the 27th day of Rajab, date of Quranic Night Journey;five daily prayers to the worshipful and all the Prophets swearing allegiance to Allah, Muhummad as sole intercessor. Washington,when the Jews thankful to be welcomed to America,said it was not as a ruling Class above another.
Templers made the land theirs,planted,greened the land of Jaffa. Was this in preparation for a promised day of dominion and Justice delivered?
Amnesty International report Sudan,1987: a professor in Biology at Khartoum University was arrested by the Military Police for studying Darwin’s theory of Evolution as it went against the principal teaching of Islam.This man, Ibrahim may remember 1964 revolution for Democracy that utilized heretical knowledge through science experiment to provide equal access medicine – just as this non-segregational, anti-corrupt ethic looked forward to the Democracy in Nepal 1990,led by Medical practitioners that emerged from violent state repression.He was Tortured before eventual prison release.
The liturgical calendar that you mention were all pagan in origin and were all lifted by christianity. And christ called himself ‘ the truth’.
That isn’t my point. My point is that these Anglican rituals are the glue that has traditionally stuck the population of England together.
Just this morning I went to a Remembrance service at my local church (which has been celebrating the Eucharist since the 11th century). The primary school choir sang a hymn. Their headmaster gave a child-friendly sermon. The local scouts were there with their flags. My daughter wore her Guides uniform. The regular congregation was in their Sunday Best and one or two had medals on. Every pew was full and we needed extra chairs at the back. The kids stood to attention to remember our war dead and our active servicemen and women. There was tea and cake afterwards. No doubt many of the children went on to Sunday Lunch with their families later in the day.
This is the good stuff of life and England should remember her traditions and keep them alive. And those traditions are Christian (even if the festival dates had pagan antecedents). And to keep Christian traditions alive you need plenty of Christians.
I ear the C of E is now too woke to attract many new followers.
Certainly at the top of the organisation. The average congregation is very un-woke.
The calendar was changed after Christ’s death. And to transform the pagan festivals into Christian ones: well, that was psychologically sensible and emotionally satisfying, intellectually coherent and spiritually uplifting, don’t you think?
Obviously that’s what you think but why should I? The religion was adopted by the tyrant Constantine, who wanted this for the Empire, and obviously that would have been psychologically comforting for the general population who did not wish to be punished in the most egregious fashion. Emotionally satisfying, as no doubt the populace felt safer. Intellectually satisfying? I don’t think so. Obviously the general population had only the words of the priests who were pushing the agenda but there were atheists in existence at that time and earlier. Seneca, the Stoic philosopher and tutor to Nero, famously said: ‘Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful’. Which sums it up nicely, I feel, and still applies, almost up to the present day. Spiritually uplifting? If the tyrant was divine you mean?
Nero learned from the atheist. Nero blames Christians for setting fire to Rome. Nero kills Christians. What an inspiring atheist story.
I’m not English or CoE, but you miss the point of Christianity. When it’s baptizing people, it’s also baptizing entire cultures. Lifting and plagiarism are anachronistic. Just like saying illiteracy plagued ancient cultures.
Totally agree . Cof E schools ten or twenty years ago had a very good reputation to the point where parents were mocked for pretending to be Christians to get a place for their kids . Have they not opened up now to all faiths and none explicitly ? I agree with your suggestion .It would be a real incentive to get people back to church , but I fear the leadership is sold now on multi -cultural obeisance to religions with more enthusiastic adherents like Islam . You can sense their feelings of inferiority .
There are still plenty of great, sound, faithful teachers, heads, clergy, laypeople, etc. Just needs a self-confident leadership to pull it together.
Immediate things the bishops should do:
1. Call a stop to attempts to change orthodoxy of human sexual relations (or anything else for that matter)
2. Stop all talk of (or plans for) slavery reparations, eco-activity etc
3. Commit to increased financial support for parishes. Stop amalgamation. Every parish needs its own church and priest (within reason).
4. Revert the majority of services to BCP.
The only way out for the bishops is to repent. They have gone against the bible and have compromised with the world. I don’t listen to their trash personally.
In the UK, the head of the Church of England, and ‘Defender of the faith’ has said that he wants to be the ‘Defender of ALL faiths’. What nonsense. One may as well believe anything.
Yes, I don’t doubt that life would be better for everyone if we were just prepared to waste a couple of hours on a Sunday morning listening to dreary sermons and singing dull songs.
You’re right Martin! Far better for the family to spend Sunday morning in separate rooms staring at their phones.
I for my part sleep till lunchtime on a Sunday nowadays.
May God, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, help us find true wisdom to repel the evil that surrounds us!
From where I am sitting, it appears the Churches contain a fair bit of evil.
Of course Martin, they always have done. that is the nature of organised religion.
Christians were not very Christian in the Crusades, but Christianity has undergone reformation and enlightenment since. Islam is still mediaeval., Muhammad was peaceful; it was others who added obligatory violence to Islamic dogma many years after his death, and this has gone from bad to worse since. Moderate Muslims are good citizens but we are under threat from extremist Muslims.
Those of us who are children are under threat from Christian clergy too.
My family are not church-goers. But to suggest that therefore we all sit in separate rooms staring at our phones is quite rude.
We spend our weekend mornings on long leisurely breakfasts talking about our week & each others’ daily experiences. Or brunches with good friends, or setting out for a brisk early walk in the countryside. There is no doubt that religion has brought the world much beauty in music & art, and that it nourishes those who wish or need its comforts. But the suggestion that not going to church impoverishes those of us who don’t have religious faith, whether morally, socially or in any other way, is not fair.
Yes that was unfair (though I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek).
My point is not that I want everyone to go to church – there was never a time in the last 200 years where that was true. My point is that Anglicanism is a central part of the English identity (Scots, Welsh and Irish obviously have others). If we want a strong English culture – one that isn’t prone to every fashion that comes along, whether from the mosque or the academy, – then we should restore the one that has been here for hundreds of years rather than imagining we can fashion a new one.
And all it takes is a little faith and imagination at the top of the church. Not really much to ask.
How can we restore the sense of community, morals etc etc – but without the patriarchal God bit (Anglican or otherwise – CoE being an invention of Henry VIII)? I would be all for that.
The purpose of being is to be at one with Gaia (Mother Earth) and all her creatures, its man invented god stuff that has pulled the world apart (its all part of authoritarian patriarchal power plays) along with the idea that humanity is not part of nature so can take what it needs and return only cr@p back to nature.
So much of what is defined as ‘woke’ is about having respect for other parts of Gaia’s creations, and for mother nature herself! that it is decried says much about people’s views of their place in nature etc etc
I don’t believe it can be done without God. Who on earth is Gaia? He or she is not my God. The way to God is through Jesus and nobody can come to the Father unless they go through Him.
Gaia IS the Earth….
You can believe in an imaginary God/Jesus. Others can believe in an (imaginary) Mother Earth – but The Earth is a physical fact, as are the Seasons, Biology, Ecology, Habitats and other things that the incarnation of Nature/Gaia/Mother Earth is trying to protect (or at least evolve without humans if necessary!)
I don’t think you can just restore the CofE just like that. The church of Jesus Christ is people not buildings. If you have given your life to Jesus you are a part of it wherever you meet.
Perhaps you can explain why, given that Jesus preached love and tolerance, the Christian churches have become a repository of hatred and intolerance.
The faith is there but not the imagination!
Quite so. Many of us still attend church. There are many live churches around. Our meets in a school. It’s a great place to be.
There are live churches around but there is division in the C of E church of a righteous nature namely many of the bishops at the top have compromised the faith.
To quote Sir Humphrey Appleby, the Church of England is primarily a social organisation, not a religious one.
Nothing wrong with that. People have different levels of faith. If the church acts as a social hub for some people, a shared family routine for others, the provider of charity for others and the centre of deep devotion for others, does that matter?
I think people who never set foot in a church benefit from a strong, Established church. I think Britain’s Hindus, Muslims, Jews and atheists benefit too.
A self confident culture requires a central religion which is sure of itself.
I recall another quote, which may also be by Sir Humphrey Appleby – “People don’t go to Church, but they feel better because it’s there”.
That is exactly my point! I suspect many non-religious people like to know that the traditional rhythms of life continue, even if they only step inside a church for a wedding, baptism or funeral. The danger is that the whole thing shuts down for lack of interest. 5% of the population currently goes to church regularly. If it drops any lower, the whole thing could be over. If it grows to 15% the Established Church would be in rude health.
I for my part would be perfectly comfortable with the whole thing shutting down for lack of interest. Of the two “churches” (constructed as such anyway) nearest my house, one is a Pilates studio, and the other has been turned into funky apartments.
Walking past her local church, Mrs Jones, a non-church goer, was accosted by the vicar who invited her to attend the Sunday service. “I’m not coming in there,” said Mrs Jones. “It’s full of hypocrites!”
“Ah, but there’s always room for one more,” replied the vicar
Unlike Christianity, many religions persecute those who criticize or make fun of their beliefs. Jesus did not advise his followers that entry to the Heavenly Kingdom is guaranteed by slaughtering those of a different faith.
It is also worth noting that in this country there are thousands of caring, unpaid Christian volunteers working for countless organisations, such as the Trussell Trust foodbanks and the Salvation Army, willingly offering assistance, comfort and hope to the poor, the disadvantaged, the lonely and the homeless.
Nice one Martin. And I agree about the voluntary work. Almost every regular church-goer I know does some sort of charity work and they are almost to a man or woman kind and dependable people. We try to live in a Christian way towards our fellow men even if we regularly fail. Practising Christians and all that.
I’m so glad someone used the word hypocrite! I was reading these comments and wondering why people think Christianity is just a set of ideas. It’s belief – that God incarnated in Christ, and the Trinity and all of that. If you turn up at Church just because you find it a comforting social occasion, you’re being hypocritical, aren’t you?
I had 12 years of Catholic education and practically none of us continued going to Church, or believing in the Christian faith. So, I don’t see any likely renewal of people, in the West, really believing in the Christian religion.
I go to church because it makes me happy. I pray because it lifts up my spirits.
Being aware of the good things in life boosts my wellbeing.
Hmm, I can’t imagine a Pope saying either of those two sentences.
Are people confusing religious faith with self-help ‘affirmations’?
You would be surprised how many people who go to church and a faith school as children, give up religion as teenagers but then take their own kids to church and choose a faith school for them in turn. I think that instinct – wanting the start in life that you had for your children – is natural. Certainly this is the path I trod and it seems common enough to me.
As for hypocrisy, well I certainly believe in God and the gospel and the ten commandments and eternal life and I keep the Christian holidays and go to church on a Sunday. That is enough isn’t it?
I am surely not qualified to answer your question about faith! But, yes, it seems to me you can call yourself a Christian.
But on the schools thing – I know so many people who have lied, schemed and tried every devious trick to get their kids into Catholic schools when they themselves long ago became just ‘cultural Christians’ (like me). Whether it’s nostalgia, or a concern that state schools just don’t educate kids properly, I don’t know, but it’s not because they want their kids to become actual Christians.
Very telling: what people seem not to understand is that we are all sinners – without exception.
Sinners according to whom?
Sad but true.
He is compromised like a lot of the bishops. Put your trust in God not in man.
I tend to agree. That would be the ideal, but it’s intellectually, and to a significant extent, ethically, bankrupt. For mot people the only real viable option will be to find the best local congregation they can.
COE is a tamed form of Christianity that God spewed out of his moth when he raised up John Wesley. COE was created as a state-controlled religion at the restoration of Charles 2 that was designed to avoid the problems of the Puritans under Cromwell. In addition, they required Army officers to buy their commissions. Both actions served to dispose of the younger sons of nobility. Competence in war and dedication to God not required.
I would concur to up to a point. I didn’t have as much of a problem with God, the white-bearded man in the sky whose portrait was in my Bible, as I did with the Jesus, the story of martyrdom, crucifixion, death, and his ruddy auburn colored hair and beard, whose portrait was also in my Bible next to God’s. The death cult underneath Christianity was too much for me. That was when my atheism took hold. Yet I couldn’t find God completely in Christianity. It took my path to Judaism, with its skepticism of false Gods and its direct connection to the commandments and mitzvot. It took the example of Victor Frankl in the concentration camps to find the living Jew as a role model. To live as a Jew was a path to God and not the dead Jew, was my inspiration.
As a Jew I have a far better relationship with Jesus than as I ever imagined as a Christian. Jesus was a bridge to God, and I crossed the bridge. Though I found some Jews in my ancestry, all Christians have Judaism in their spiritual ancestry. I live as a convert to Judaism and I am grateful every day.
Resurrected Jew not a the dead one!
It’s been done before! By Jesus
By whom? Anyway Jesus rose from the dead, was resurrected into heaven and now sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven where all true believers in Him will follow.
He might find that there are less of these “true believers” than he expects.
Quite so. I have never regretted asking Jesus into my life.
Well at least you are now one of the ‘Chosen People’ of god. I hope you enjoy eternity.
It’s quite a claim to say that any one religion or people is The Chosen. To a non religious person that sounds quite divisive & belittling of everyone who doesn’t hold the same beliefs.
There is only one Jesus who said I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father unless they come through me. All those who appropriate that are one with Him.
It is not my claim; that belongs to the jewish people.
Religions by their very nature are tribal and all claim to be the only true faith. But what is faith? It’s a belief in something without the knowledge of whether it is true or not. I would like to believe in all this nonsense, and be able to tell my loved ones that we shall all meet again, but life is not structured in that way. It’s no more than fairy tales and I find it hard to comprehend that anyone can truly believe in what religions claim, but it keeps the merry-go-round of human nonsense flourishing I suppose.
Chosen in this context does not mean favourite. It simply means chosen as the race into which the messiah would be born.
They still have to make their peace with Jesus though if you read the bible.
So Christianity is the right religion; but what of all the others who claim the same? They are wrong of course…..I know – let’s make war on them and prove to them that we are right, then they will find out the truth – because we have no real evidence to prove anything at all. Jesus had auburn hair – how awful.
And once we know Christianity’s right, we need to figure out WHICH Christianity’s right. Because there’s about 45,000 Christian denominations, many with opposite and irreconcilable teachings on the interpretation of scripture, the atonement, salvation, baptism, communion, tongues, the Trinity, ordination, etc. Yet everyone’s convinced that only their church offers any hope for salvation. The same’s true among sects of Islam.
Billions of people belong to exclusivist faiths, yet almost never ask themselves how they got so lucky as to find the “true” one. It boggles the mind!!
Just one of the many ridiculous things about religion.
More boggling is the assertion that finding the truth is tantamount to a needle in a 45,000 straw haystack. If you accept the notion that a version closer to the source is likely to be more authentic, simply start collapsing the branches. The first major collapse happens at the Protestant Reformation (early 1500s). Your haystack has been reduced by 44,998 to 2 (Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic). Rewind almost 500 yrs (1054), you’re now back to one. Eastern Orthodoxy never had a Protestant Reformation, it views the Reformation as the egg Rome laid (division begets division).
What about the Resurrection? Not exactly a death cult, I think.
All the followers of Jesus have the promise of resurrection.
Why is that important to you Tony?
He was only dead for a couple of days . Think of it as a long hang over ! You don’t get the art in Judaism ( though I suppose that’s more Catholicism ) Did you marry a Jew (Rosenthal sounds Jew-ish )
Three days actually. He didn’t die on the Friday. The sign of Jonah was a sign he gave who was three days in the whales body then was spat out.
Dead is dead!
The so called death cult of Christianity is the price Jesus paid for our sin, the sin which separates us from God. The way to God is to ask for that forgivesness and ask Jesus into your life. Without that there is no forgiveness. It needs to be appropriated. That is when Jesus comes our our lives through whom we have access to the Father.
If you have any relationship with Jesus, you’re certainly not Jewish.
I always thought Jesus was jewish.
As Jewish is a race as well as a faith tradition, it is possible to believe the faith if one is a Jew. Also, since Jewish is a race, it is not possible to stop being Jewish. People have been trying that over centuries.
The auburn Jesus beloved of artists is simply an expression of anti-semitism. In the painting of ‘The Lat Supper’, Judas is the only semite.
Read Matthew,chapter 6 and 7 for 67 days in a row…the light within will become your new path…and the light without will fade away.
Except that christianity it is all borrowed and made up. It derives from sun worship, and then, just like all religions, it is then exploited by the powers that be. If you believe in god then you are liable to believe in anything because one’s ego will not allow the fact that death is the end – full stop.
Why not put your faith in boiled sweets. It works for me.
But bad for your teeth I would imagine?
I only stare at them and worship them. I still have three teeth left. There is more to boiled sweets than one can imagine.
While teaching law at Harvard atheist Dr. Simon Greenleaf was challenged by his students to prove his claim that the resurrection of Jesus was simply a legend.
Greenleaf was unable to explain several dramatic changes that took place shortly after Jesus died, the most baffling being the behaviour of the disciples. It wasn’t just one or two disciples who insisted Jesus had risen; it was all of them.
Applying his own rules of evidence to the facts, Greenleaf arrived at his verdict. In a shocking reversal of his position, Greenleaf accepted Jesus’ resurrection as the best explanation for the events that took place immediately after his crucifixion.
To this brilliant legal scholar and former atheist, it would have been impossible for the disciples to persist with their conviction that Jesus had risen if they hadn’t actually seen the risen Christ.
In his book The Testimony of the Evangelists, Greenleaf states that any unbiased person who honestly examines the evidence as in a court of law will conclude what he did – that Jesus Christ had truly risen from the dead.
Maybe all that can be explained by Jesus not actually being dead when he was taken down from the cross.
You don’t think much of Roman practice then.
For Peter D.,
Take a day, if you haven’t already, to read or reacquaint yourself with the books of Luke, John, then Acts.
Then I suggest a book by Robert H Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible.
It is simple enough for a middle schooler but answers questions like Hebrew euphemisms and the difference between wisdom literature (Proverbs are general rules, and generally true) and promises (Messiah would suffer, would be pierced, pour out unto death , but after he has suffered will see the light of life, Isaiah 53). Note the Dead Sea Scrolls copies of Isaiah, should you be further interested in the validity of Isaiah’s modern translation.
Romans 5:8
I have always made a point of distinguishing between the teachings of the person now known as Jesus Christ, in which I acknowledge some merit (although I don’t believe that “died on the cross, rose from the dead” stuff), and what the Christian Churches have become (namely the constructs of a most unpleasant patriarchy).
It is nice for me to see someone waking up again to Christ. Let go of that “bearded man” thing and the sense you have that giving up Christ is progressive. These sorts of things are no more than the indoctrination of the world. Perhaps try Tom Holland’s Dominion. But it won’t take you much past the utilitarian argument for God which is quite sterile in the end analysis. Perhaps Tom Holland’s observation that Christianity is the source of its own demise may open a door for you if you immerse yourself in your newfound doubt. There are many other wise or blessed people waiting for you to find them from the past three or four thousand years as you grow in your responsibility to be honest and eventually obedient to the quiet voice you are hearing.
You’re not far from the kingdom. Shameless plug from an EO Christian –as an experiment, find the closest Eastern Orthodox Church to you and attend one Sunday. See if you don’t experience the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
There is no bearded man in the sky in Christianity!
Amen to that ! I am a ‘big perspective’ Christian ie no magic, hell etc etc – a ‘grown up’ spirituality is the ONLY antidote for the nasty and banal urges of the humananimal ego – as Jesus and his spiritually evolved cohort have been attempting to tell us for 3000 odd years (socrates ) . Alas the human condition seems very concrete , and, as teilhard de Chardin points out – likely will need another 1000 tears to bear much fruit. in the meantime (sic) we do what we can do with eyes firmly fixed on the big ( pre and post ) death perspective – and perhaps also manage to celebrate a beautiful planet 😉 . many thanks Ayaan for your courageous leadership !!
The Bible condones slavery. It’s not a source of “freedom” at all. It’s not a source of “equal moral dignity” at all. There’s no moral dignity in God drowning the entire planet because human males were horny. There’s no moral dignity in forcing your wife to undergo an abortion because you think she might have been unfaithful, or even just raped (Numbers 5:22-27).
I’d rather stick with the light in the bible personally. I think you have yor facts wrong or have misinterpreted them.
All Wrong – you need to look into these things more carefully.
?!?People are still whining about Slavery in the Bible ?!?
According to AYAAN HIRSI ALI, the subject page to which these comments are posted on
“Christianity outgrew its dogmatic stage.”
“this freedom of conscience and speech is perhaps the greatest benefit of Western civilisation. It does not come naturally to man. It is the product of centuries of debate within Jewish and Christian communities. It was these debates that advanced science and reason, diminished cruelty, suppressed superstitions, and built institutions to order and protect life, while guaranteeing freedom to as many people as possible.”
so sure slavery is in the Bible, but one just has to learn how to let some things go.
GK Chesterton makes a generalisation about the worldview of millions of people. It may be what he thought, but it is not a universal principle.
I’ve been atheist since I was eight years old and have never been remotely drawn simply to ‘believe in anything’. In fact the very position of not believing in things without any evidence is what stops atheists from falling into the traps of empty dogma or ideology. Or it does if they’re truly atheist. Because otherwise they’re just swapping one deity for another.
I also reject the notion that not believing in a god means that I am without moral compass. It is perfectly possible to be a decent person & live a good life without a belief in gods.
The existential crisis that leads a person back to a religious belief that they once intellectually rejected suggests that the only way to beat violent religious warmongers is to join them. It’s the saddest & most defeatist thing I have heard in a long time.
Marx to Mao, and all the variants of woke, clearly show that many an atheist has fallen prey to to ideological possession, but then so has many a church going agnostic. One needs more than rational scepticism at the centre of a life, to anchor it against the storm of doubt and the disease of despair.
For you to see it as the saddest thing you have heard in a long time, suggests your atheism is a complete world view worthy of admiration and respect, a robust defence against the mire of nihilism, as well as the inquisition, a rationalism impervious to the insanities of woke, a cohesive philosophy that you share with fellow atheists, well Atheists plus put paid to any such Dawkian delusion, so all that left atheists now is defeat, sadness and disappointment. Nihilism or Christ, get used to it.
According to John Allen Jr. in his book The Global War on Christians, anti-Christian persecution can and should be classed as a global war. This is in spite of the term ‘war’ being seen by many as over-inflammatory and a provocative call to arms. This is not how Allen uses it.
Allen’s statistics (2016) are alarming. He believes that 100 million Christians currently face interrogation, arrest, torture or death because of their faith. These are in countries in places as diverse as Asia and the Middle East. There has been a seven-fold increase in persecution globally in the last ten years.
According to the secular International Society for Human Rights, eighty percent of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are against Christians.
Contrary to popular belief, Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world. Bible Society July 2015
“100 million Christians currently face interrogation, arrest, torture or death because of their faith. These are in countries in places as diverse as Asia and the Middle East. There has been a seven-fold increase in persecution globally in the last ten years.”
‘God bless you’ What????
I don’t understand your argument.
Surely the ability to sneer at Christianity is a natural consequence of freedom of conscience. Perhaps that’s a flaw in “Christian heritage”.
I am in a quandary since I accept the basis of the argument, but I cannot accept the 39 Articles, the Nicene Creed, the Resurrection, the Supreme Pontiff etc etc. What sort of Christian, anyway? There are many sects to choose from in the supermarket of Christian beliefs. Religion gives us the basis of a moral code. And the moral codes of Judaism and Islam are unacceptable.
As our Western, Christian world becomes beliefless, it may be that it is doomed to extinction.
Welcome home Ayaan! Western Civilization and Western values are inescapably Christian. Everything we believe about the dignity of the individual and his rights is Christian at its core.
I can’t help but think of Hieronymus Bosch’ visions of Hell where the sinful are punished for all eternity in the most cruel and gruesome ways. Not a lot of dignity or individual rights there – obey or suffer horribly is the clear message. And for the more lofty minded let’s not forget Dante’s Divine Comedy, the most popular part of which is the sadistic Inferno – all about the never ending punishment of the sinful.
I do understand the importance of individual conscience as propagated by Christianity but the dignity of the individual and his rights (for better or worse) has been achieved by breaking away from the Church which was always concerned with obligations.
Could those visions be allegories for the individuals, collectively speaking, who are abandoned to their own path? Sobering stuff when engaged on a spiritual level; a grappling with truth. Foolish myth otherwise.
Yes, Dante writes symbolically. For example, those souls Lost due to the sin of formication, wheel around endlessly in the sky like flocks of birds. That’s where pleasure-seeking can lead people – permanent futility.
…check out Matthew Crawford’s latest essay,
https://mcrawford.substack.com/p/misanthropic-uses-of-the-nudge?utm_campaign=email-post&r=64wk8&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Superbly stimulating work from MBC, no doubt about it!
Well, that’s one way of looking at it – the safe, psychologised (or, if you like, spiritualised) way.
The divine comedy is one of the greatest works on human psychology ever written. Christianity understands human nature. The circles of hell represent being trapped in negative behaviour patterns, the punishment is the consequence of the behaviour, for example arrogance is punished by blindness as arrogance is blinding. Purgatory is the pain, time and effort required to break free of the negative behaviour patterns. Paradise is freedom from the negative behaviour.
Yes, I’ve always wondered why Italy doesn’t open Danteland as upmarket competition for Disneyland. What a ride that would be! Failure to do so seems to me to be a terrible way to squander Italy’s cultural heritage.
Can there be a roller-coaster train that travels through hell?
My idea of hell would be being stuck in a room full of Puritans lecturing me about my life choices for eternity
or a bunch of blue haired wokeists lecturing me about pronouns for eternity aaaargh….
It’s almost enough to make me start reading the Bible as an insurance policy if either of those await me
Both are different side of the same insufferable coin.
Both want to make converts to their cause, but a one of them is based on empty narcissism & the other on unifying humans in a spirit of love.
Asked why he had a Bible beside his sickbed, W C Fields replied: looking for loopholes.
That’s funny, thanks for the chuckle.
Yeah, me as well.
I encourage you to start reading the Bible. Start with Genesis and the Gospel of John.
Genesis without a doubt. But select a gospel that is focused on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth–any of the synoptic texts of Mark, Luke, or Matthew–instead of the symbolic, abstract theology that dominates John’s account.
*Then proceed to read the rest of the several dozen books that are stitched together as the Bible, from those that instruct, fascinate, and inspire to those one must largely just try to get through (an assessment that may vary reader by reader, as do our opinions on the relative importance of the four canonical Gospels).
Genesis confused me as a dyslexic child. I couldn’t understand why all that begetting caused a stiring in the lions.
I would start with the Gospels. Christians don’t fall in love with an idea; they fall in love with a Person.
Of course the 21st century equivalent would be to find yourself trapped in a room full of Left wing social engineers lecturing you about your life choices for all eternity. Nobody can lecture with the unflagging stamina and sheer undoubted righteousness of a Lefty.
Leftists, Rightists, Wokeists, Puritans….anybody who subscribes themselves too tightly to any ideology is generally a bore and best avoided
I’m a Lefty not by identity but seeking the least worst premise fording into the mysteries of creation and a world that often requires evil choices be made to privilege one’s capability to survive.
Yet, would I entrust leadership of any community up to national leadership to someone labeled to be a Right Winger in a particular political milieu if that Righty didn’t recognize within themselves as part of human nature a disposition towards social as well as anti-social engineering rigging first attempting mind-controlling lecturing at super-human levels of stamina to assure the rigging of one’s own privilege(s)? Failing that, organizing by any means possible the forced rigging of one’s own privilege(s)! Hello, Daddy Warbucks…..
Jest asking.
Mitch RitterParadigm Sifters, Code Shifters, PsalmSong Chasers
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa (Refuge of Atonement Seekers)
Media Discussion List\ LookseeInnerEarsHearHere
Three years at Cambridge?
LOL. Bloody tabs.
The Virgil line.
Almost a century ago (in the wake of the long but failed quest to pin down just who the Historical Jesus really was), an American ad man named Bruce Barton wrote a book called The Man Nobody Knows. It revealed that Jesus was really the CEO founder of the modern corporation, with the disciples as his board of directors. Now we are told here that Dante was really the original Dale Carnegie or perhaps the original Californian psychotherapist.
Not really, it’s just that human nature and human psychology does not change: it is a constant. Religion has been abandoned for the most part but psychological/ spiritual suffering continues. The psychologist/ therapist has just assumed the role of the priest. Instead of theologians, there are academics and instead of confession, there is the psychiatrist’s chair. In the words of the great TS Elliot: the world turns and is forever still. Alternatively: plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
I think Carl Jung did agree that Confession was psychologically beneficial and encouraged Catholic patients to return to it.
True indeed. And Bosch only reflected the mediaeval, pre-psychological mind.
Thank you for that thought-provoking comment.
Christianity has often been seen as a set of rules, often miserable and puritanical, with the risk of ending up in one of Bosch’s pictures if one breaks enough of them. That’s not helpful, and it’s inconsistent with a loving God who wants us to grow and thrive in the way that brings us closer to true freedom and fulfilment. The fundamental Rules – love God and love your neighbour – involve not doing things that might damage your relationship with your neighbour or God, and behaving in a way that nurtures both. They give rise to personal responsibilities and a moral code, which attempts to define various types of behaviour.
The distinction between rights and responsibilities is important and it depends on whether you’re looking at a person or an institution.
From a personal perspective, a responsibility is essentially generous (something I give) whereas a right is selfish, being something I demand, am entitled to or take.
A government may enforce certain obligations or restrictions on itself or its citizens, and they amount to individuals being entitled to expect certain freedoms or benefits when living in that society.
Rights are, in effect, coerced responsibilities, leading to entitled individuals.
If we were all responsible towards others and ourselves (which Christianity encourages) we wouldn’t need rights. Rights are implemented by governments in order to address the behaviour of people who don’t exercise their responsibilities properly.
That means all of us sometimes.
Interesting – but I’m not sure about rights being coerced responsibilities. Surely rights are freedoms and certain entitlements enshrined in law. Problems arise if a particular group assumes rights but avoids obligations, perhaps seeing obligations as a burden to be born only by those with more social power than themselves.
The law can’t supply any entitlements or even secure freedoms. Only people can take actions like that.
There are no ‘rights’. only privileges: privileges demand historical cognisance, gratitude and especially defence since they are easily annulled .
Why the down votes ?? GB is stating the obvious – it is arrogant entitlement that is causing much of humanities woes !!! Come on downvoters think a little harder here !
You just answered your own question.
Thank you for making this very important point. It is scary to watch people whose minds are clear enough to see what is happening flocking to another set of toxic ideals. Many of the values attributed to Christianity have been wrestled from it by the Enlightenment and Rationalism many moons ago.
The choice is not to obey or disobey, it is to love or not to love. If you fail to love God and your neighbor, you separate yourself from God and love, and end up in a hell of your own making. God sends no one to Hell, each an every denizen choose Hell by preferring something (greed, lust, pride, anger, etc.) over love.
Exactly, Arthur. Contrary to N Satori’s understanding, what we see in Hieronymus Bosch’s paintings are the lives of people enslaved to their own sins. As C.S. Lewis put it, there are two kinds of people, those who say “thy will be done,” and those to whom God says “thy will be done.”
The idea Hell as self-inflicted separation from God’s love has gained popularity as a softer more intellectually acceptable Hell – a replacement for the primitive and frightening eternal torture chamber that sits uncomfortably with the idea of a loving God.
Not sure how you can persuade yourself to love God. Emotions are rather difficult to conjure up.
Love is not purely an emotion but involves choice and action – the choice to see the other as valuable in their authenticity and then acting in their best interests. It’s the reciprocity in the loving relationship that generates the feelings of loving and being loved, along with seeing their inherent beauty.
Well said. Real or lasting love involves both thoughtful awareness and passionate engagement. It lives in the figurative heart, the word, and is manifested by the active hand, the deed. Neither thrives or endures without the other.
you are correct – technically ‘love’ is NOT an emotion – it is rather ‘wanting the best for another ‘. We are doomed if we have to wait for a motivating feeling to accomplish anything !!
Actually, love is a feeling and it’s important to have love and compassion for oneself first, because you certainly can’t feel it for others unless you do. Antisemites hate themselves and project it onto others.
So narcissism is a lifelong, but ultimately unsuccessful, project of preparation for the love of others.
It’s not narcissism. The narcissist sees himself reflected in everything and everybody to the exclusion of ever being able to see anything else. The rest of us struggle to find self-love and are taught it’s a bad thing. Do you find it easy to forgive yourself and have compassion for yourself? Isn’t it easier to have compassion for others?
Compassion is by definition directed at another. Not that I discount your basic claim about being hardest upon ourselves–in some ways.
But here’s a related rhetorical rejoinder: Is is easier to forgive or rationalize one’s own actions or those of others?
Not everyone would give the same response, nor stick to that response in every instance or phase of life, because the answer(s) is/are far from unwavering or unanimous.
Thank you for that interesting and thoughtful response. I agree with all of it. Compassion, whether focused inward or outward, is an ongoing process. It’s fluid, not static, and requires constant attention. Fascinating topic.
Amen.
Perhaps N Satori meant the emotion of ‘being in love’? We all know what that means – and it usually doesn’t last.
Some variation on Stockholm syndrome, I imagine.
Unless my memory deceives me, in a public reading of one of John Donne’s sermons that I heard given way back in the 1970s the main theme was a vision of the nature of Hell that was founded in the idea that it is indeed a “self-inflicted separation from God’s love.” Donne being the literary genius that he was, the detailed description of this Hell in the sermon was not soft at all, it was both harrowing and terrifying.
You don’t. You ask Him – to help you to know Him, to love Him and to serve Him. He will respond.
“Love” is a very loose term to argue over what it is and isn’t. One may “love” chocolate, and also their daughter, and those are clearly not the same emotions. Agape, the Greek term, captures the type of love being called for in Christianity–self-sacrificial concern and care for another. In this respect, loving your neighbor is not merely doing no harm, but being willing to suffer and die for them. A very high bar. Loving God is not merely saying some daily prayers and going to church. It’s being willing to suffer and die in the service of Goodness itself, e.g. liberty, mercy, justice, charity, peace, life…
Most of the Christian writers or speakers I’ve heard emphasize that “love,” in a Christian understanding, is not a feeling, but a choice. E.g. after a fight with your spouse, or child, you choose love by apologizing and/or forgiving them, even when you don’t feel like it, because it is the right– loving–thing to do.
Atheist Richard Dawkins has famously declared the doesn’t believe in anything unless he can see, hear or feel it.
Yet he stated in a Sunday Times article some years ago that he believes in love.
I agree that you can’t make yourself ’love’ a concept. It probably takes an existential crisis to become a believer in god if you have been atheist. Comfort can be found in certainties.
Luke 5:31-32 and 7:47
CS Lewis’s The Great Divorce is very good on this topic.
As the writer indicates, those visions belong to a defunct epoch of dogmatic Christianity. Jesus makes very few, vague references to Hell and most of those are of dubious authenticity. If you are interested in that subject, read Jesus: An Historical Approximation by J A Pagola. An astonishing piece of religious scholarship that unearths who Jesus really was and what he actually said.
To which it must be added that of course Jesus was not some kind of magic manifestation of the god-thing – but rather an advanced soul able to understand more of the ultimate truth than most of us – and clear enough t o be able to act it out whatever the consequences- towards the promotion of ‘good news’ to all of humanity – ie ‘be loving/nice to each other and we will ALL have a pleasant life together !! Not difficult to grasp really – however ‘evil’ prevails ie that which actively works against the love goal – and unfortunately we do have to act against evil. Note that Jesus was very anti the capitalism going on in the temple !!!
No, Jesus Christ was not ‘an advanced soul able to understand the more of the ultimate truth than most of us’
He IS the Son of God, the Messiah foretold by the prophets of Israel. That is what he claimed to be, what he showed himself to be and what Christians believe he is.
Plesee. please tell me what is god?
God is.
Gee thanks!
God is the spoken word, I’m told
Really? Tell that to a child.
Well according to the old Penny Catechism on which I was raised, God is the Supreme Being, who has always existed and who is infinite in all His perfections.
Is that working for you?
That version of faith often serves to exonerate believers from any practice not only of taking up the cross and following the teacher, but even of doing anything but honoring Jesus with their lips while their hearts remain far from him.
What He called himself, most frequently, was the Son of Man, actually. Christians spent the first four centuries AD trying to figure out what he meant. Arianism lost, but that was pure politics. No truth was revealed.
WOW – a surprizing number of downvotes for my rather sensible ( and actually well qualified ) view of ‘the jesus question ‘ – and a very surprizing upvote for a fundamentalist position – odd for a site like Unherd.- never would have guessed that ! Come on you people think it thru a bit – you are promulgating an all-powerful-yet nastily- capricious image of the god-thing – no one will give you any credibility !!
You make the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity sound like a Hindu avatar.
Oooh, look at all those down votes. And the upvotes accorded to Will Longfield for his fundamentalist declaration. Interesting how many readers don’t want to hear that the New Testament was written by people with agendas. Why do they not want to meet the Jesus who lived and walked this earth? I was thrilled to read Pagola’s deep study clarifying that Matthew, for instance, was writing after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. The followers of Christ were multiplying in Jerusalem while the main force opposing them were the Pharisees who were trying to find a way forward for a Jewish faith lacking a Jerusalem temple. So Matthew’s gospel is full of slanders on the Pharisees, who respected prophets like Jesus in his lifetime. But those who wish to believe that every word in the New Testament is the unalloyed Word of God pile on anyone challenging that view.
Not helpful.
There are over 42 sources within 150 years after Jesus’ death which mention his existence and record many events of his life.Traditional New Testament Authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude.
Early Christian Writers Outside the New Testament: Clement of Rome, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum.
Heretical Writings:Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection.
Secular Sources: Josephus (Jewish historian), Tacitus (Roman historian), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian (Greek satirist), Celsus (Roman philosopher), Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Suetonius, and Thallus.
This means that there are just as many non-Christian sources for Jesus’ existence as there are for Tiberius Caesar’s. If one is going to doubt the existence of Jesus, one must also reject the existence of Tiberius Caesar.
Jesus made loads of references to Hell. He was serious about it and so should we be.
Rights VERSUS Obligations?
OR…
Rights AND Responsibilities?
So you reduce that institution that built the west to some hyper imagery of Bosch?. Is that it? Hell is the eternal choice of something less than God Who literally IS Love. Why our cosmos went from stardust to consciousness and rationality. The Alpha and the Omega.. the beginning and the end.
As the great founding father of modern quantum physics (which destroys the naive physicalism of so many atheists) Heisenberg observed matter actually appears as “potentia” that brilliant discovery of Aristotle which the church used to build sound metaphysics … and western culture.
Love requires respecting our God given free wills and we are free to reject grace… the word means “life” and choose eternal death. Our will… not God’s will manifest on of all things.. a cross.
only in its primitive ‘magic’ forms – you need to think past that !
What about the right to life? That was always Christian. The Romans were startled that the Christians would not allow abortion or infanticide and looked after the crippled and the elderly. Christianity gave a lot of vulnerable people rights they never had before.
I think there should be some element of past tense in that description of the West.
Agreed. Even self avowed atheists in the west are ‘Christian atheists’ in the sense that all our basic values and assumptions about the world, people, right and wrong, good and bad etc. are entirely derived from a deep Judeo-Christian root that is so implicit in western life that we don’t even notice it’s there. I personally would like to find a more active faith, however, my church is the Church of England which is now so lacking in any kind of self belief (and this comes from the very top I’m afraid) it’s clergy are rather like lefty social workers in sandals and cassocks. I’ve seriously thought about the Church of Rome but I have some serious reservations about that and I know I’d feel more than a bit of a fraud if I tried to become a Catholic.
Ayaan is right though. The Muslim gang is getting bigger and stronger and more aggressive and they don’t seem to suffer from any doubts. It’s looking increasingly like a war and it’s time to choose sides, being a nice civilized, pacifist liberal isn’t going to help you when you’re buried up to your neck and a baying mob start throwing rocks at your head!
Yes Tom Holland makes a convincing case for this in Dominion
Interesting that she confirms the life of an atheist is empty – living in a spiritual vacuum.
Yes!! Welcome Ayaan! Ever since I read your first book “Infidel” which was incredible, I have been waiting to see if you would be so moved by not only the logic of Christ’s teachings but the beautiful compassion that Christ’s love offers each and every created human being. So happy for you and your continued pilgrimage. The thinking person that you are, you will not be disappointed as you dig deeper and deeper into what Christianity has to offer.
There’s a very deep question at stake here. Can one accept and live by Christian values, without believing in god?
It’s perfectly true that Western enlightenment arose through Christianity, but those who no longer believe in a deity don’t “choose” not to do so, as Chesterton would have it, but because it would require us to base our values on an untruth, which is ultimately a very dangerous and self-defeating thing to do.
I fully respect AHA’s right to take whatever course she needs to take, and i admire her bravery in the face of those in the Muslim world who see her apostasy as an insult and might wish her harm.
However… Muslims aren’t going to be “won over” to a different faith, and nor can populations be expected to start believing in a deity. Purpose and meaning can be found through living by broadly Christian values whilst continuing the human project of exploring ourselves, our planet and the universe beyond. This, to me, is deeply spiritual and allows for intense appreciation of those aspects of our world we find beautiful, whilst maintaining a clear-eyed view of the ugliness and horror too.
Ultimately, Christian values just make good sense, and shouldn’t need to be underpinned by claims to be god-given; we can claim them as human values, which in fact they are.
“It’s perfectly true that Western enlightenment arose through Christianity, but those who no longer believe in a deity don’t “choose” not to do so, as Chesterton would have it, but because it would require us to base our values on an untruth, which is ultimately a very dangerous and self-defeating thing to do.”
This is not true. You have no rational basis to state definitively that God is an “untruth”. You have no evidence to that end. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And, of course, there is plenty of evidence of the existence of God in the Bible, revelation, and miracles through the ages. Read St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.
It’s amazing to me that every serious Christian is full of doubt, and relies on faith to overcome it (and still struggles mightily) while every atheist is full of certainty that they’ve figured everything out on their own. I would suggest a heavy dose of humility when faced with the great unknowns of life.
What Steve said is true and it’s beautifully said. It’s too bad you feel the need to patronize him by suggesting arrogance. You really sound threatened and defensive which is the stance one goes into when defending a belief. But if you know something for a fact you don’t need to believe.
In questions of religion, we know NOTHING for a fact. We simply have to choose to believe or not believe.
It is sad that you should be so arrogant, threatened and defensive in upholding your religion of being anti-religious.
I don’t think you can choose to believe personally, you either believe something or you don’t surely? Even if I wanted to I couldn’t force myself to believe that a man lived to be over 800 years old, or that all mankind descended from Adam and Eve who had two sons.
This isn’t meant to belittle those that are religious, but even if I wanted to be I simply couldn’t remove the scepticism from my head
No – you must choose one way or the other.
Either one chooses to take the Leap of Faith and believes; or one chooses to raise objections and not believe.
It’s a gamble either way.
Though I note that sceptics’ objections are often very trivial and centre around Old Testament passages that only Fundies take literally.
That we are all descended from a single pair of human beings, is accepted science.
Think you have missed the point. It’s a matter of logic that belief is not simply open to choice like whether I shall divorce my wife or not. Pascal’s wager (which argues that you have something to gain if you believe in God and he exists, and nothing to lose if you believe and he doesn’t exist) make’s religious belief a rational calculation- like an insurance policy. That to me is fundamentally unreligious. Paul Kingsnorth is good on this – he says Christianity crept up on him. It was something that happened to him rather than something he chose.
If you are geniunely open with your heart, but just don’t believe in the bible then I would tell you to approach the question of God’s existence from another angle. God wrote two books: A bible and a book of nature.
One can get to deism, even theism through general revelation. The cosmological findings, cosmological constants, fine tuning, origin of life. We don’t have words in our language that do justice to the cosmological odds of human life. Start there… then approach the historicity of Jesus and the evidence for the Resurrection. Everything will look different when you arrive that way. God bless, it’s wonderful!
The Book of Nature is a compelling thing, but there is nothing in it about a man being nailed to a cross.
Enough to get you to deism? To theism? to the cross? That’s the journey. In my opinion it alone can get you beyond deism to theism.
Then who knows, but you’ve gone from 1st floor agnosticism to the 110th floor view. The city, the countryside and world and the conclusions look very different from that view.
I’m happy that you have found such joy in your life from your beliefs. But there is no “evidence for the Resurrection” – that is a matter of faith in the very specific religious doctrine of Christianity. Millions of people have a different belief & millions more have none. Do you believe that they are all wrong-thinking?
Please see Gary Habbermas and others on the evidence for the resurrection. They look at it just like any other history you ever studied, complete with non christian and secular sources.
Belief is open to choice. People believed the world was flat till science proved it wasn’t
Which took their choice away.
Exactly.
Indeed. Jesus said, ‘I chose you. You did not choose Me.’
So what would Pascal suggest happens to those who don’t believe in a god but it does turn out to
exist? What’s the disincentive, if the outcome is the same? Unless there is indeed some dreadful punishment promised for those terrible unbelievers? Which would appear to confirm that fear of hell is a major part of keeping people on message.
“Accepted science”…….the two most terrifying words in the English language (with apologies to Ronald Reagan).
Faith and belief are two different things surely. Having faith in something turning out to be true despite your misgivings is not the same as uncritically believing them to be true
Assuming that one wants to take a leap of faith, and believe in something, why must it be Christianity? I remember asking my uncle (a Lutheran Minister) this, and not getting a satisfactory answer.
All I know is that those who do believe find God who is a very present help in times of need. I am not talking about religion.
I don’t disagree, I know some Churchies who have had it rough and the others in their congregation were a great help to them. Believing that all the horrible things happening to them were part of Gods plan seemed to make them less angry at the unfairness of the situation than I would have been.
Its just that for me personally I wouldn’t be able to believe that the stories in the bible actually happened as I deem them too far fetched, and if I can’t close my eyes to that scepticism then I can’t have faith in the rest of it
Well said.
Marcus Borg has written some books about how to interpret the bible in ways that make sense for the modern reader. His approach is to ignore the “it is true” question and instead ask what is the point of the story. 99% of the stories weren’t written as objective history, so to us modern readers, they simply aren’t true, they didn’t happen (that way). But, the writers wrote those stories for a reason. Usually that reason still has meaning or resonance for people today. Certain stories, for example Abraham and Isaac, are re-told over and over because their central meaning is still relevant.
That is a great approach to the Bible. Some parts are true – the Babylonian exile stories are a case in point. But the two-page book of Jonah is comic farce in the style of Commedia del Arte. The Bible authors knew very well that grand exaggeration and knock-about comedy were highly effective ways of capturing an audience and ensuring they remembered the kernel of teaching.
If we’re going to interpret the Bible in those terms, then what is the idea of faith? If Jesus wasn’t really the product of a virgin birth or the son of God, if he didn’t really feed 5000 with loaves and fishes, if Noah’s ark didn’t really happen then the whole idea of Christianity is redundant. It’s instead a series of well meaning fables, not too dissimilar to The Boy Who Cried Wolf
TLDR: The idea of faith has little or nothing to do with the literal truth of the stories. Yes, many of the old testament stories and some of the new testament ones are basically fables. That doesn’t make Christianity redundant. They are only the garnish, the nub of Jesus’s teaching remains: God always loves everyone equally; be nice to everyone, including people who hate you; its never too late to start. Other religions don’t have this combination of teachings. They are also essential precursors of liberal enlightenment thinking.
Longer answer:
Borg argues that faith has multiple components. What faith definitely isn’t, is belief that a particular story is literally true in a physical or material sense.
The first part of faith, which many people think of the entirety of faith, is assent. We assent or accept that God is real. Not everyone goes that far, they limit themselves to accepting that the possibility of God is real, and take the rest on faith and hope. Similar to how we do with money. If everyone went to the bank and looked to withdraw their deposits, the bank would fail and our money in the bank would be worthless. We act on the assumption that this won’t happen and that we will be able to spend our money. We hope that’s true, but we can’t know it. Science has a similar approach. It’s basic assumption is that the physical rules of the universe are constant through all of time and space. This is unprovable, but that’s ok, it doesn’t stop science from developing useful models of reality. Whether the assumptions any models are built on are true or not is essentially irrelevant. All that matters is whether the model is useful. Similarly, whether the assumption that God exists is true is unknowable, but this doesn’t matter, what matters is whether the model of a God-full universe is useful.
The rest of faith is similar to the banners sometimes seen at football matches that simply say “Believe”. Believe what? It’s pretty nebulous. Believe that your manager knows what they’re doing, believe that if you play well that in itself is a reward, believe that everyone is looking to achieve the same thing and is cheering you on, believe that we can win, believe in yourself. Faith is like this. We believe that God knows what he’s doing, that the universe isn’t some cosmic mistake or accident. This implies that God is both morally good and excellent, and that we should try to be the same. We believe that God is cheering us on, that he’s on our side, that God wants our better selves to win over our own baser instincts. There is no tangible physical connection between a cheering crowd and the players in a team. But, I’ve seen matches were a crowd has sucked the ball into the goal, the intensity of their emotions has had a physical effect. We believe that God’s love for us can do the same.
The purpose of miracle stories, in the bible and elsewhere, are generally to say “God approves of this Person and their Message”. There are many miraculous birth stories for kings in Mesopotamia, particularly those who lacked royal pedigree. For people to accept them as legitimate rulers, the people needed some explanation for the difference between their birth and their position. Today, we don’t care much about a persons family or the circumstances of their birth, so many Christians simple ignore all of the birth stories. As for Mary and Jesus, who knows? Clearly there was something that would cause some people to reject Jesus’s authority. Joseph married Mary despite her being pregnant with another man’s child, which wouldn’t have been easy. That perhaps explains why the family moved to Nazareth. Maybe Jesus’s biological father died, or maybe Mary was raped, or maybe he was someone who was culturally unacceptable, a Samaritan perhaps. The story of the virgin birth was used by Christians both because it was a familiar idea from other stories and because there is a reference to a virgin birth in Isaiah (although that’s probably because of a mis-translation).
Jesus’s message was revolutionary, and very difficult to accept. It basically boils down to: God loves everyone equally; be nice to everyone, including people who hate you; its never too late to start.
It’s a really hard message to accept and its even harder to apply. So the Gospel writers accompanied the message with signs that God approved of Jesus and his message. What exactly happened though is unknowable. It’s possible all the miracle stories were simply made up. Some people think this and are still Christians. Personally I think something happened in at least some of the cases, perhaps a psychological reaction to being told their God did love them. A commonly held belief at the time was that sick was a sign of God’s disfavour. For a religious person this would naturally impede recovery.
You’ve used a lot of words there to essentially say the stuff in the bible didn’t really happen. They’re fables with good morals and if you live your life by them you’ll generally be a good person.
In your telling you don’t have to believe Jesus was the son of God, or that God himself actually exists in order to be a Christian, which I think is a cop out
It is my understanding that, however much a person might live by the teachings of Jesus, they cannot be said to be Christian if they don’t believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and that he died on the Cross and rose from the dead. I have heard a number of Christian clergy agree with that position.
Before 400 there were a bewildering variety of Christian ideas about whether, how, and how much Jesus was the Son of God and/or divine. Nearly all modern Christian churches are successors to churches that signed up to the Nicene creed (325 AD), so there is almost total uniformity now. Most Christians couldn’t tell you what the phrases in the Nicene creed mean, even the ones that say it weekly at catholic mass, never mind accept it as true.
In the context of the Greek & Roman culture of Jesus’s time, if someone was the Son of God it didn’t mean that they were the co-creator of the world. Someone could be little divine, e.g. Caesar, or completely divine, e.g. Zeus. But even Zeus didn’t create the world. Christian beliefs about Jesus went from being completely and only human to being completely and only divine. The development of Nicene creed more-or-less ended these disputes.
In the gospels, Jesus is much more of a divinity in John than in Mark.
Arians in particular didn’t accept the idea of Jesus being fully divine. Their modern equivalent are Unitarians.
Resurrection had and has a similar variety of meanings.
When you hear Christian clergy say that you’ve got to bear in mind the trouble they would get into if they said otherwise. A requirement of their position is that they toe the party line. The party line is the Nicene creed.
Maybe it’s not about ‘being a Christian’ and more about simply agreeing that there are ways of living one’s life that bring benefit and succour to everyone and that there’s no need to adhere to labels & deities attached to that. I’m atheist, but I was brought up amongst what we call ‘Christian values’. I recognise their provenance but the paternalistic god figure is not relevant to me as an adult.
So I try not to be a negative force in the world (and I think that I succeed) even though I don’t believe in gods of any kind. Do you think that’s a bad thing?
,
I used a lot of words all right 🙂 The birth stories and miracles aren’t fables, they serve a different purpose. None of the bibles authors tried to write down what really happened.
Did the sun really rise this morning? No. Did Suella Braverman really get sacked today? On Friday I heard she’d effectively sacked herself. “Really” really depends on your perspective. 🙂
This is particularly true of the gospels. They disagree with each other, even about such things as who and what Jesus was.
Your second point depends on what you mean by believe and Christian.
You certainly don’t have to be sure that Jesus was the son of God to be a Christian. Most Christians barely think about it. Christianity isn’t about belief, although it can certainly look that way, it’s about actions.
Say you have two people. One firmly accepts that Jesus is God but spends their life in the pursuit of money. The other isn’t sure, but lives their life by the teachings of Christ including the ones about loving God, which they interpret as loving all of creation. Which one is a Christian?
That’s kind-of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s point. Even though western Europe has largely rejected official Christianity, its values and mindset are still Christian.
Quite. The bible books were put together 2000 years ago by and for people with a very different understanding of the world. It wasn’t a metaphor to them. They were meant to take it as ultimate truth.
Human nature may not have changed in that time, but our understanding of the way the world & the universe works has evolved massively.
Trying to put a ‘modern interpretation’ on ancient scripts like the bible is bound to end up landing everyone in both a metaphysical and a scientific muddle.
By-and-large, I agree. But:
Metaphor and ultimate truths are complimentary, not opposites. Ultimate truths can only be digested through metaphor. Our little brains are too small for ultimate realities.
Key sections of the gospels contradict each other. So they can’t be true in the sense we usually mean today. No one could be expected to take the gospels that way. They can only be true in a metaphorical or poetic or in-general way. Maybe that’s what you meant.
Whatever gets you through the night, as long as you don’t go around proselytizing and killing others who have a different belief or none at all. Which of course is what happens.
Christians are called to proselytize and to bring people to BELIEF.
Muslims are called to spread SUBMISSION to their faith, not necessarily belief.
Sounds like a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea.
The good intentions of Christian missionaries across the continent of Africa have been not always had a good outcome, and are actually responsible for some terrible events. The Rwanda genocides in 1994 are a case in point. Proselytising does not always achieve the beneficial effect some Christians hope it will.
Yes, that’s what it is, a comfort.
Many find comfort in the certainties presented by belief in any number of ‘gods’. And that is their right.
Not an argument with you but a genuine human response:
I chose to address the scepticism, and found that it was simply the feeling in my head which was alerting me to the things where (if anything) I had only a surface level understanding of from my own cultural context.
Not to dwell on your examples but for example, the Bible says Adam and Eve did not only have two children – it doesn’t even say they were the only people say the time. Also, ancient near eastern cultures don’t approach time and numbers the same way a scientific culture does; many cultures had a base-60 number system and used numbers to indicate other meanings and hierarchy.
So yes, you choose to engage with it and find what is true and real. You might appreciate listening to discussions with William Lane Craig on YouTube or biblethinker.org
That seems to be a way of looking for facts to suit the narrative (and dismissing those that imply the opposite) rather than the coming to an opinion based on all the facts available. Which admittedly is what having faith is all about, it’s just something I can’t do myself
No one should look for facts to suit the narrative. You should understand the facts and the context. Faith is not at all ehat you say. It’s taking all available facts and reaching an end conclusion before the end comes. You might be in opposition to something that’s not what you think it is.
Not really, it’s just that my scepticism is more powerful than blind unthinking faith. There’s times I envy the religious as it must be comforting to believe I’d be reunited with loved ones after I croak rather than being eaten by worms, unfortunately I just can’t see it. I’m just not able to convince myself that it is the likely outcome based on no factual evidence
As a believer in science-based reality I have realised that I will never solve the problem of faith in my head. I resort to another, more nebulous faculty that the ancients would have called the heart. I remind myself that we see all reality through filters evolved to ensure not that we see truth but that we survive. So I step aside from the survivalist chatter in my head and comfort myself that people much more educated and intelligent than I am, some of whom I have met, nevertheless hold a strong religious faith. I humble myself and pray for my faith to grow, and if my brain doesn’t like it, so be it.
Billy Bob, as a Christian theist I am skeptical of you picking a few stories out of 66 texts and applying a literalist stance to them to justify your conclusion.
I have experienced things many times in the past 20 years that are not explained by logic or science. The leap of faith is what we are called on to do. (Left brained cynic talking here).
Such as what? There’s nothing I’ve experienced personally that can’t be readily explained
I wonder why not. My problem, if you can call it that, is that I have. More than once. But not by sitting at home pursuing a career. Spend some time in the Himalayas among Tibetan lamas and walk the Camino de Santiago de Compostela a few times and sooner or later you will come up against something you cannot possibly square with a rational materialist take on the world. It takes a bit of effort.
That’s your experience and clearly it’s an effort you were happy to make. We’re not all looking for the same thing or trying to release ourselves from the rationalist position. Doing the Camino can be experienced for the joy of the physical achievement, wonder at the glorious landscape & sense of freedom from life’s daily cares.
Knowing that certain definitive things were going to happen (that were unlikely) and then watching them unfold.
Sometimes one person’s “readily explained” is another person’s miracle. It may sometimes be a matter of whether we seek awe or whether we seek grounding explanation. Both can be useful.
From Charlotte’s Web:
“Do you understand how there could be any writing in a spider’s web?”
“Oh, no,” said Dr. Dorian. “I don’t understand it. But for that matter I don’t understand how a spider learned to spin a web in the first place. When the words appeared, everyone said they were a miracle. But nobody pointed out that the web itself is a miracle.”
The fact that something is not explained by science does not mean that it cannot be explained by science. In 100 years’ time, science will explain any number of things that it currently does not.
The position “I don’t understand it, therefore it must be impossible” is a bit arrogant.
There is much we all need to learn about life, the universe and everything, but just because you personally don’t understand a thing doesn’t automatically mean that it is illogical or impossible and beyond the understanding of anyone at all.
There are many people who understand things that look impossible to those who are not informed about them. I don’t know how my computer works, it’s like magic to me, but obviously there are people who do.
And if you’re going to actively choose a religion, why not go tailor made rather than off the peg. For example, if you’re generally keen on Christianity but think eternal life in paradise might pall after a bit – why not throw in some intermittent reincarnation as a holiday. To add a sort of leaven to the bread of eternal bliss.
Knowing my luck if there is such a thing as reincarnation I’ll end up coming back as me
Exactly!!
You will come back as a different version of you.
My concern about the possibility of reincarnation is that my ‘To Do List’ will follow me. [groan]
Karma?
Nah I prefer a vindaloo
Now that’s the eternal recurrence of the same.
There is a view that true enlightenment is that on being told that you are destined to live the life that you are living now over and over ad infinitum, you say “Great, bring it on”.
My life has been decent enough, just needed a bit more money, few more women, fast cars, flash house etc etc
Then don’t believe that. Relax. The only thing that matters to your salvation is this: the diety, death and ressurection of Jesus. Center in the the Ressurection evidence.
The leap out and look not at the book of the bible but at the book of nature. God gave us these two books. The cosmos, cosmological constants, exceptional beyond words fine tuning of the universe, the design… it all declares God’s glory and we are centered in it. You can get there. If you’re an intellectual this is probably how God is calling you to discover Him.
And yet you take practically everything else on trust.
Such as what? I tend to trust things that I can see or feel myself that people have an explanation for. I don’t trust people talking about angels and everlasting life when there’s no physical evidence.
I am a Christian and know very well that the Adam and Eve story is a wondrous myth and stories of people 800 years old are nonsense. Being religious and Chistian does not mean one is a literalist unable to distinguish the significance of a story from its apparent historicity.
I appreciate the stories have good morals, however surely the point of religion is you have faith that it’s all true rather than simply picking and choosing the pieces you like?
Depends on what you mean by “it’s all true.” There are many people of deep religious conviction who do not seem to take a literalist approach. The Bible is an immensely complex document, such that even if you do decide that “it’s all true” on a literal level, you can not be certain you have a clear understanding of that truth. You’ll have to account for variations in translation and the limits of historical certainty. LIteralism, taken seriously, still requires humility and uncertainty.
A thought from Franciscan priest Richard Rohr on literalism:
Literalism is invariably the lowest and least level of meaning. For deep readers, sacred texts open up the endless possibilities for life and love. For people who merely want to be right or to seek power, sacred texts are normally a disaster. Our Jewish ancestors called the deeper approach midrash, extrapolating from the story to find the truest message(s). The immature approach is obvious when scriptures are used to justify slavery, apartheid, Western capitalism, nationalism, consumerism, and almost any other “-ism” that serves our egocentricity.
You definitely can pick and choose. Except for the very dogmatic almost everyone does.
This is it. Religion is about taking it all on board surely? Bastardising your faith & trying to rationalise it goes against every religious tenet about ‘believing’. Religious belief was never rational. Isn’t that why they talk about the Leap of Faith?
“I don’t think you can choose to believe”. Hmmm. 🙂 The word believe means a lots of different things depending on the person or context. But, if there is proof of something, then to say “I believe it” is basically meaningless. How could I not? Would anyone say “I believe X is telling the truth” if 50 people have already verified that X is telling the truth? If they did, it would seem odd. The phrase “I believe X” is only used if there is some doubt as to X. So when someone says “I believe in God” it always implies that there is doubt. When there is doubt as to the truth of something, but someone believes it, a choice has been made. The person has chosen to believe. A belief in God is then consistent with free-will. Only as a free choice does it have meaning. If I loved my wife because she had cast a love spell on me, then that love would have no meaning. Choosing to love her does. Personally, I’ve no idea if God exists or not. It’s 50/50 whether its a god-full universe or a god-less one. I think that the universe has been constructed in such a way that it is impossible to ever be anything other than 50//50 as that would be inconsistent with free will. But, I believe in God. In a God that is a force for love and good. I’m sure that this belief makes me a better happier kinder person. I hope there is a loving God. For these reasons, and many others, I choose to believe. I sit in a Quaker meeting once a week or so and think about my life and actions with my mind full of ideas of a loving God.
Exactly! You know nothing for a fact and that’s the problem, you have to defend a belief. Regrettably, you then have millions of others defending a different belief, to the death. And so here we are warring away over beliefs and literally warring in Israel versus Palestine.
Am I the only writer on here who actually experiences a relationship with God? Why treat the existence of God as a theoretical, like “Were Adam and Eve literally the first humans?” That’s not the point. God can be experienced. Every day. Countless (and I mean countless) people over the centuries have talked about a living relationship with Jesus Christ.
The evidence for the existence of a Holy, Loving, Creator God is overwhelming. Once you look with an open mind.
One of the greatest miracles which anyone can research, is the Bible itself. The Bible was not dictated, but was written by about 40 different authors from all walks of life, over many centuries. It’s heroes are the most flawed people, so not written to make them popular, but to resonate as real. Yet it’s principles have been found compelling throughout recorded time. Read “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell, or “Mere Christianity” by C.S Lewis.
But what does your relationship with God entail? It’s all well and good saying it but what does it mean in a practical sense? If you talk to him but don’t get a reply then that’s not a relationship in the sense that most would understand the word
I’m happy to help! You have to start with some truth, i.e. statements the Bible makes that you believe to be true. God promises that seekers will find Him. (Jeremiah 29:11ff). Jesus, as the mediator between man and God, told His disciples that the Father would give the Holy Spirit to those who ask. He said that right before He was crucified, rose from the dead and ascended to God the Father as our intercessor: “I will not leave you orphans.” (John 14:16-18). Which He did. He gives the Holy Spirit to all who ask with faith in who Jesus is. The Holy Spirit is the means of our relationship with the Father through Jesus, who is our mediator, savior and Lord.
How do I hear God? I hear God through the Holy Spirit, especially when I am with other believers, or praying over Bible passages. It’s a deep and profound experience. Read the Psalms. The psalmists talk of hearing HIs voice. Isaiah and Jeremiah heard His voice constantly, as they describe in their writings.
I think you have plenty of like-minded people on this board. More believers than nonbelievers, I’d say.
You are right – and that is my query over the article about which we are debating. Hirsi Ali gives good reasons for choosing Christianity rather than atheism or Islam. But Christianity first and foremost is about a love relationship – with Christ.
What is the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for your god? It’s quite an extraordinary claim and one that your religion doesn’t need. Plus it would negate the need for belief.
I would love to know what it is…
Nice question, Jane! Any thorough answer would encompass the realm of the five senses (science), plus supernatural events, moral law, experiencing God, relationships – in fact every aspect of being human. I can’t get into all that in a few sentences, so I’ll stick to science.
(I would really recommend Mere Christianity because C.S. Lewis is so detailed on the wider topic).
Secular scientists tell us that the only reality is what human instruments have discovered and measured thus far, and have gathered into a body of work called “settled science”. If you think about that, it’s extraordinary – because at one point scientists based theories on Phlogiston. (At some point medicine discovered germs, so things improved.)
Do you know what the latest theory of the origin of the universe is? Nor do I. It may be the Big Bang, dark energy, dark matter or it may be another theory because the James Webb telescope changed everything. Scientists have no idea why we are here or how we got here. They pretend they do, but they have no explanation at any of the key points (first proteins, first cell, information in DNA… it’s all wild conjecture).
The truth is that mathematicians have calculated the number of earth-like planets there should be in the universe, based on random probability – those capable of supporting advanced life – based on hundreds of essential characteristics, a moon the right size, distance from the right-size sun, water of the right kind, large planets to gather asteroids etc I won’t elaborate further. How many should there be based on the total size of the universe??? – None. Zero. 0. We are not supposed to exist in this universe.
Yet we do. And the world is incredible, and beautiful and healthy and magnificent and self-sustaining and rich in life in myriad forms. Completely miraculous.
Though purpose need not be based on organized religion, cultivating a cohesive sense of direction, core values, and connection with something beyond yourself is important. For some this takes the form of going to church, synagogue, mosque, or sangha. For others it’s about feeling connected to evolution, being a part of nature. (Of course, these two don’t need to be exclusive.) The work of Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley, has shown time and time again that experiencing awe—watching a beautiful sunset, listening to moving music, witnessing a master at their craft—leads to self-transcendence and feelings of spiritual connection.
Excellent book if interested: “Return of the God Hypothesis”, Stephen Meyer.
Isn’t it a fact that the earth revolves around the sun and not vv.
And your point is?
Yes, the comment is well-written but I don’t think that to disagree implies arrogance.
I am not religious. I can’t see the logic of religion. My parents were the same. But I don’t think that religion is connected to logic; rather, it is involved with emotion.
I used to think that being religious was ‘weak’ but I’ve grown out of that idea. It is more that certain people need a little mystery in their lives to get away from the scary certainty that we all face. As I said, something to appeal to the emotions.
Unfortunately, where you live the politicians have to mention God a few times in every speech and that defeats the whole thing. Also, many wars have been fought over religion which makes it all meaningless.
Finally, I do see the value of churches in some communities. These can be ‘clubs’ where lonely people meet and do good things. Again, in the USA churches can be overbearing and insist that you join in order to be part of the community.
As a christian I would say that it is not emotion. Emotions will come as we would not be human without them but faith is God given and if He gives us that we need to act on it.
When you say it is not emotion for you, I truly don’t see how you can know; how can you separate your emotions from your normal daily actions?
For a lot of religious people, emotion is definitely important. It is fear, fear of nothingness. Or, in Catholicism emotion comes in with the intensity of the spectacle – the dress of the priests, the ornate nature of the churches, the latin, the thurifers. Or if you are in a battle, emotion comes with the intensity of the teamwork and the fear.
Religion is definitely fear-based, but how could one not love the drama and pageantry surrounding it, the smells, the sounds, the beauty? It’s the best theater ever. I love churches, especially the really old ones, and stained glass windows and Christmas carols and the music, what’s not to love?
The flicker of flames around the heretics knees as the nights draw in.
It has to be love-based rather than fear-based, to be healthy.
Who said it’s healthy?
Well, its all so medieval, for a start.
Also a Christian here. I think all humans, as rational actors with some introspective agency, have the ability to understand what role emotions are playing in our motives and thoughts. To say “I don’t see how you can know” is, in my opinion, not giving enough credit to the introspective person (yourself included). There is no doubt that emotion plays a role in Christianity–because Christianity is full of enormous themes of Redemption, love, justice, hatred of evil, soaring music, gentle prayers and the like. But to reduce it ONLY to emotion, or even to say it is “at base” ABOUT emotion, is not the lived experience of many Christians I know, nor what the Scriptures say. What makes Christianity so powerful is that it appeals to the whole human being: our intellect (both rational and our need for non-rational), our spirit (nurturing, demanding of growth, justice, truth, love), while providing the most important thing of all: meaning. I was an ardent atheist until the age of 35, and I searched deeply for meaning in secular things. To be sure, I found some: family, work, altruism, marriage… but all are, by their nature fleeting, ephemeral. Only God, who is love, and his moral law, provide permanent clarity and purpose. C.S. Lewis, himself at one time an atheist, said it best for me: “In the end, atheism is just too simple.” It dare not honestly ask, nor can it ever answer, life’s most important questions. And that is not a search for mere emotional satisfaction; but emotional satisfaction is surely one of its byproducts.
Well of course atheism is not ‘complex’ in the same way that metaphysics is. It depends what you want to apply your mind to. CS Lewis was an academic in the humanities & possibly not interested cosmology or quantum mechanics or other wonders of science. These pursuits require just as much mental gymnastics as the contemplation of god. And many atheists find them satisfying, complex and yes, wondrous.
It’s probably hope for most. If you’re born in a poor or war torn country and life is a constant struggle, the hope that it’s only temporary and things will improve once you cark it must be quite a comforting thought rather than believing your daily grind is as good as it’s going to get. This probably explains why religion tends to be stronger in poorer countries
Very strong in USA,
Of course, having a community is wonderfully supportive, and of course, if believing in the supernatural makes life easier then why not? I wouldn’t dream of trying to take away comfort from anyone. It’s just not for me and, like Billy Bob, I find it not logical. I have never believed even as a child.
Agree about emotion. Perhap most religions are just an expression of the very human emotion we call Hope. We all need hope -witness how quickly people can die off when they lose hope. But we can enjure huge depravations as long as we have hope. It may even be Darwinian for our survival.
I agree but with one difference. I think that it is certainty, not mystery, that religious believers crave. The world is full of uncertainty & horror with poverty, disaster & the cruelty of war ever-present. Religious faith provides certainties – a loving paternal presence. Many of the posts here talk about a ‘relationship’ with god which suggests that it’s not about the outer world but about a personal feeling of comfort & safety.
…
He didn’t patronise him, he simply offered another point of view
Can I politely suggest that you read Bertrand Russell’s “celestial teapot” before insulting others who make a fair point.
The celestial teapot idea is both wonderfully amusing and wonderfully dishonest.
It is built on the unquestioned assumption that God’s existence is as unlikely and absurd as that of a celestial teapot.
Like all atheist arguments, it boils down to saying “It’s obvious that God doesn’t exist; so God doesn’t exist.”
Convincing – not !
You just made that up. Atheists see no reason to believe in the existence of a god (rather than stating that it is impossible that one exists).
Many deity-believers disingenuously pretend not to notice this distinction.
I cannot see that he insulted anyone.
Implying a lack of humility is insulting.
Exactly.
If I have read this correctly Steve Murray is saying that for him to say God is, would be an untruth, which he cannot do. He was not saying “God is untruth” but “I cannot say: ‘God is’, and to do so would be dangerous and self-defeating”. He has every rational basis to say what he said. As for the Summa Theologiae, it’s a manual of faith to be reasoned with, not a bitter pill (a cure) to be swallowed whole.
Correct.
My response to you is how can it be an”untruth” when you have no evidence that proves falsity? If I say “Steve Murray is a good person” (even though I have no evidence) that’s at worst a speculation or a hypothesis. It can’t be called an untruth, since I have no evidence that you are not a good person.
Curious what Steve would say is “dangerous” about believing in God.
Then again, after reading other comments by this Steve Murray, he says lots of silly things.I think he’s simply taken with himself.
It’s self- defeating to go down this rationalist path. God’s existence is not a scientific hypothesis to be debated – like whether quarks exist. That to me seem like a fundamental misunderstanding of what religious belief is.
Faith is the evidence of things not seen the substance of things hoped for. It is talking about faith in God’s word and not wishful thinking.
I disagree with that. My faith comes substantially from belief that the World makes far more sense as a creation of a loving, intelligent God, than as the result of random processes. First among them is that I can’t justify any condemnation of acts as evil (or praise of acts as good) without reference to a God. Without God, good and evil are just differences in tastes.
That’s also why I’m a Christian and a Catholic. When I look at the various religions, Catholicism’s teachings and theology hold together logically in the way other religions don’t
Catholicism gets children when their very young and puts the fear of god in them. Few people are able to shake that off and leave the church. Seems rather cruel to me not to mention all the other terrible things the church does. It’s a cult like so many other religions.
Define what you mean by a cult. And many people do leave the Church – sadly. They have psychological wounds, or are living in bad faith – or never really took on board an adult faith in the first place.
“Few people are able to shake that off and leave the church.”
This is not true at all. Church attendance and adherence to Church teachings among Catholics in Western countries has been declining for years now.
This is where I disagree whole heartedly. The world can be a horrendous place, with terrible things happening to good people daily. Thousands of creatures that once existed have long become extinct, along with entire civilisations. It seems to me to be much more a world of random occurrences and outcomes rather than some wholesome creation by a loving Father
The idea of reality as a permanent fight between good and evil is far more plausible – and found it’s way into Christianity as a remnant of Zoroastrianism which never got fully digested.
That’s a very big word I’m going to have to google it.
Catholicism has also stood the test of time rather well (respecting the fact that the Jews are our ‘elder brothers’.)
Quite so.
You have no rational basis to state definitively that God is an “untruth”. You have no evidence to that end. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Despite what the expression may seem to imply, a lack of evidence can be informative. For example, when testing a new drug, if no harmful effects are observed then this suggests that the drug is safe. This is because, if the drug were harmful, evidence of that fact can be expected to turn up during testing. The expectation of evidence makes its absence significant. As the previous example shows, the difference between evidence that something is absent (e.g., an observation that suggests there were no dragons here today) and simple absence of evidence (e.g., no careful research has been done) can be nuanced. Indeed, scientists will often debate whether an experiment’s result should be considered evidence of absence, or if it remains absence of evidence. The debate regards whether the experiment would have detected the phenomenon of interest if it were there.
Apologies for the lazy wiki cut and paste, but the facts are that for millenia, huge numbers people have been searching for evidence of God, and none is forthcoming, aside from subjective claims.
“It’s perfectly true that Western enlightenment arose through Christianity”
I am sorry but that patently isn’t true. Have you never heard of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle for example?
“It’s perfectly true that Western enlightenment arose through Christianity” is an accurate statement. True, the Enlightenment did not solely arise, in a vacuum, out of Christianity, nor did it start there. But it did arise THROUGH Christianity. More specifically, the Enlightenment arose out of the uniquely Western confluence of Judeo monotheism + Cristological value for the individual fused with the towering Greek intellectual tradition of Reason. In fact, Jesus and the Apostle Paul are perfect examples of this “fused” epistemology– they used reason to persuade people to believe in God. (And for that matter, Plato and Aristotle reasoned their way to a monotheistic deity that created all things– it is the inevitable conclusion of Aristotle’s First Principles). The Enlightenment would never have existed without the scientific belief in a rational, Christian God that created systems we could identify, predict, and act upon. Tom Holland’s book, Dominion, surely treats all of these points with tremendous care and skill.
Atheists aren’t full of certainty, Arthur. I know a quite a few, quite intimately.
Actually what they are trying to do is ignore God. The problem is that everywhere they look they see the evidence of a design for this world and our existence.
It’s like trying to hold on when you need to pee … you can’t do it for ever.
Nature is truly magical, it never ceases to amaze with what is, somtimes, a terrible beauty the result of evolution and natural selection. I’m an atheist and of this I am certain.
Sorry but this is quite a juvenile response. I am sure you can do better on reflection. “there is plenty of evidence of the existence of God in the Bible.” . So because you read it in a book, it must be true.? I read a book once that said Santa travelled to every house on Christmas Eve pulled by reindeer.
I wish I still believed that. Christmas was much more fun when I was opening the presents rather than drunkenly wrapping them on Christmas Eve
And don’t forget that science is confirming the existence of God as the Creator. Unfortunately most people perhaps are happy enough with a Creator as long as the Creator leaves them to their own devices.
Science doesn’t confirm the existence of god as the creator.
The “truth” of God is necessarily subjective, but no less real because of it. Both my parents were religious, and I went to church as a young child (CofE mostly, although my mother, being German, was Lutheran), but there was no point in my conscious memory when I recall being even remotely Christian, which is to say having a belief in the fundamental tenets of Christianity. Belief in them was never an option for me.
The notion of truth vs untruth becomes nonsense when applied to things that can can’t be proven – it becomes a matter of faith whether a thing is true or not.
The statement that ‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ suggests that the evidence is out there but has not been discovered yet, but let’s carry on as if it has.
I would reply to it by saying ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’.
Surely it is only once the evidence is in that can we make claims about ‘truth’.
The evidence is in.
Steve- I’ve only been on this board for a year or so. When I used to see your posts, I chalked them up to Hubris. A belief that you know it all. I will give you credit for recognizing that Christianity has a value set that correctly identifies the cultural rot. Your acknowledgement shows integrity. IE that you’re trying to get things correct.
In a sane Western world, you would have Humanist Atheists on the Left Center and educated Christians and Jews on the Right Center debating the best ideas. Secular Humanists and Christians have not been “enemies” since the advent of Democracy. They enhance the other’s understanding of the world.
Pre-Democracy Divine Right of Kings was NOT a “Christian Project.” Feudal Europe was not “Christian.” It was Magisterial Statist. My family fled Europe because of Church persecution. Christianity is not supposed to be an imposed religion. You are free to accept or reject it. That it was imposed in Feudal Europe should not define it.
The overwhelming majority of commentary that I digest is from Secular Humanists. I would encourage all Atheists to be skeptical and 100% empirical and just find out where it takes you. I would say, start interrogating the “Science” of Anthropology a little and see if it objectively checks out.
Not believing in god isn’t something I feel the need to defend.
Ah. That’s why you’re at such pains to do so !
Notably by attacking the alternative belief.
I don’t see any attack. God gives us freewill to believe or not but that will decide our destiny.
Not true, I’ve said Godspeed if you want to believe just keep me out of it.
I thought it was clear that I’m not an unbeliever more of a non-believer,r and if your faith is a comfort to you I’m happy for you.
The alternative belief? The alternative to what?
I’ve yet to see you defend any belief. You only make pithy comments like a typical, green-haired Karen. It’s fine. You be you.
Exactly! I don’t feel the need to defend anything because I don’t have a belief.
Oh screw it, that was meant to be “I don’t feel the need to defend anything because I don’t have a belief to defend”.
Thank you for giving me permission to be myself.
Congratulations on your first net positive post. I hope it made your day!!! Materialism rocks! Yay Transitional species! Woot Woot Socialism!
Not believing in god isn’t something I feel the need to defend.
Precisely. It is those claiming supernatural things that need to provide proof. After all “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and there isn’t any.
There actually is quite powerful evidence. See “A Cardiologist Examines Jesus” by Dr. Franco Serafini.
One book by a cardiologist?
Some of my ancestors fled to England from one of the early secular states in Europe that of revolutionary France at the time of the Vende rebellion when Christian’s were persecuted by atheists. One French historian describes the actions of the French state as genocidal.
Unfortunately neither a belief in God nor an unbelief leads automatically to tolerance and a love of your fellow creatures, but at the heart of Christianity the message that you should love god and your neighbour as yourself is a benign message.
Why is one supposed to love “god”? And what is it?
How would you suggest I “check out” the science of anthropology?
Fair question. Do you find Anthropology to be a science?
In search of a greater narrative for life than the perpetuation of a species in the least painful way possible, I certainly find it easier to work from science to religion rather than having religion be the primary guide. I can’t speak to any works on anthropology but, as I’ve done before, I recommend John C. Lennox’s book ‘God’s Funeral – Has science killed God?’ He looks closely at the nature of DNA, the credibility of ‘the blind watchmaker’ and the irreducible complexity of the cell etc. The world famous American nano (molecular) chemist James Tour is also interesting on the cell and the nature of life (as in ‘aliveness’). You could accuse me of using a ‘God of the gaps’ approach but it is far from that. ( Plus, I would respectfully suggest that the science covered is ‘harder’ science than anthropology)
PS my approach does not elucidate the nature of any guiding/creative intelligence. It merely investigates the probabilities of there being one.
Not everyone who calls themselves christian are christian. If they are christian it will eventually show itself in the way that they behave and treat other people. There is christianity and then there is religion which means doing things to earn your place in heaven which is a bit like the Moslems. We are not jusitified by works but by faith in Him and His word. Works will come out of that.
Jimmy Carter is a wonderful example of Christianity in action. I’m sure he and his wife don’t wear crosses around their necks, either.
He created Habitat for Humanity and even when he was very old helped to build the houses.
It’s not about there is or isn’t ‘a God’, as if God is a thing; there is, however, as I experience, that which for want of a better word, one might want to call God. (Acknowledgment: I’ve started carefully and thankfully reading McGilchrist’s ‘The matter with things’, which, I’ve just noted, I worked into the first part of this, hopefully, tentative response.)
I call it Nature – ie: that intelligent (to us) order beyond not only our control but of our comprehension. Defying Nature, especially our inherent nature, is where it all goes wrong.
You might well be right, although my sense is of a coming-into-being; presence; intimacy; other; benevolence.
Quite so. The heavens (stars, sun, moon etc) shows His glory and creation as does nature but they are not God.
And since we came from stars we all have a bit of them inside. How’s that for community?
Are you using the term ‘Nature’ to describe human nature?
So, very well said. Thank you, Steve. I most certainly could not have said it better myself. A perfect description of a third way, perhaps, that doesn’t advocate for believing in the supernatural but instead advocates simply for kindness and compassion towards one’s fellow man.
Thanks Clare. What others mistakenly attribute to “hubris” is a lifetime of pondering our existence, our consciousness of ourselves. Am i to be castigated for my conclusions? I don’t castigate the author for hers. I respectfully request the same courtesy from others, which doesn’t often happen.
You describe Christianity as an untruth – a mistake or lie.
Is that being courteous ?
If so, please try being rude !
Then I must ask: Is it always rude to tell someone that they are mistaken, or that what they believe is untrue? (I don’t believe Mr Murray ever used the word “lie”.)
As for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whom I have tremendous respect for: This is a moving essay, and yet… she states that she still has a lot to learn about Christianity, and that she learns a bit more every Sunday. In the future, it will not surprise me at all to learn that, once she learns precisely how many impossible things she may be required to believe before breakfast, she quietly drops the whole thing. Christianity, for example — with its “blood curse” — did not remotely form an adequate bulwark against the kind of antisemitism that she deplores in the islamic culture of her youth.
To call someone’s faith tosh is as rude (and as sweeping) as calling it a lie.
Impossible things to believe ? Well, the Virgin Birth (for example) is entirely believable if you accept that miracles can happen (as they do, in fact).
It’s only impossible to believe if you start from the presuppositions that (a) miracles can’t happen and (b) that the Gospel narratives are tosh. And if you then persevere in those irrational assumptions.
As most Christian converts, well-educated ones included, persevere in (and deepen) their Christian faith on a lifelong basis, it’s statistically very probable that Ayaan will remain a Christian.
Especially as the alternative – Western unbelief – is infinitely futile and unappealing. And doomed.
The “blood curse” is a wilful misinterpretation of a passage in a book written by a Jewish author, namely Matthew’s Gospel.
That misinterpretation has been condemned by the Church.
I have never understood the need for some Christian writers, or any writers, to pursue scientific explanations for miracles. Surely, a miracle is a miracle because it defies the laws of nature. Though I did wonder about Christ’s DNA.
“Though I did wonder about Christ’s DNA”.
Not that long ago that remark would have found you on a Bonfire for blasphemy Aphrodite. Even now some UnHerd commentators might enjoy that.
I have no doubt there is a substantial number of Unherd readers who would happily see me burnt for various different blasphemies against their chosen religions (feminism probably being the number 1) and gods. Curing adult blindness is rather problematic too as vision is a combination of visual input and memory, a substantial part is memory. An adult who is suddenly cured of blindness would have none of the requisite memories and the visual input would be a mess of colour and indeterminate form, thought if it’s a miracle, I guess providing the requisite memories could be part of the miracle.
Feminism!?
Surely that battle is long passed?
I can’t be long before we have a female Pope, a MAMA not a PAPA.
Which will be quickly taken back by one that “identifies as a woman” but has a Y-chromosome.
They’re usually miracles because they are myths (i.e. not real or true).
Apart from the fake miracles the modern Catholic church makes up to justify creating more saints.
Of course people are free to believe what they want. But there’s no requirement for others to share or respect those beliefs if they consider them ridiculous.
I just wonder how many of the “isn’t Christianity fantastic” brigade in this comments section are amongst those who claim in other places that Islam is fundamentally flawed.
That said, whilst I believe in no religion, it’s only fair to note that the practice of religion can be beneficial socially and individually in many cases (and harmful in some others). I wouldn’t argue that religion is a net harm, only that it’s irrational.
I’ve occasionally considered whether I should take up a religion for the benefits this may bring, in spite of the fact that I can never see myself being a believer. But this just feels wrong to me – it’s a transactional relationship that conflicts with what a religion is supposed to be about.
And that’s why I don’t warm to the echoes of adopting Christianity to further material/worldly goals that the author implies here. Is there an element of “fake it till you make it” in this ?
If Our Lord had DNA it would be from the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
We have virgin births now, largely within the lesbian community, no miracle required. I’ll let anyone draw their own conclusions from that.
There were doubters at the time. The villagers referring to Jesus as the son of Mary implied they believed he was a b******
Well wasn’t he?
Technically, I guess, yes.
Legally?
Not sure about legally. According to the OT, Jewish law came directly from God and according to the NT, God proclaimed his paternity: Matthew 3:17.
Middle Temple would love that.
Insemination by the HolySpirit is a miracle.
Strange you are unaware of the difference.
Who called your faith “tosh”?
No but a proper reading of the bible show that it is not remotely anti semitic but the exact opposite.
Agreed, and saner Muslim clerics say the same about certain passages in the hadith. However, that passage in the New Testament was used to promote antisemitism nevertheless. Self-professed Christians happily took part in pogroms, or sent people to the gas chamber. I’m very far from saying that Christianity was to blame; merely that being Christian does not prevent people from acting in atrocious ways.
I always thought the White Queen’s boast was a poke at Roman Catholicism rather than Christ’s teachings. You could start with Christ’s teachings: read Mark’s Gospel. It’ll take you a couple of hours if you write down each of Jesus’s instructions for living as you come across them. Any you feel are wrong or horrible, put aside for the time being. Any you think are right or good, obey. For just 24 hours.
It’s a simple experiment that doesn’t require you to believe anything you don’t believe.
See how you manage, unaided, for a single day. You may be surprised.
Lots of down votes. That’s fine, but what’s disappointing is the lack of counter argument.
I advocate for Christian values. They don’t need to be seen as “true” or “untrue”, but it’s my contention that if you base values on something that can be questioned in a very fundamental sense, those values also come into question. That’s the risk being run by basing values on a deity, and it’s a civilisational mistake.
You can’t advocate FOR something. You are either an advocate for something or you advocate something – the ‘for’ does not go with the verb.
I come from a secular family in a secular country so I’m thankful I didn’t have god thrust down my throat. If I had I’m sure logic would have won out.
Don’t you come from the USA, the most ‘god fearing’ hellhole on earth? Or am I mistaken?
Yes, you are mistaken, Charles, I went to the US(San Francisco) in 1970 at the age of 30 having lived in London for 13 years, going from a Hampshire village. And yes the US is a “god fearing” hell hole.
If you think the US is bad, try Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Or, if they’re too faraway, try London or Birmingham.
Which is a very tall order. Most human beings only feebly attempt it, if at all. And that has always been the case.
The existence nowadays of a huge army of middle-class virtue-signallers prattling idly about compassion, doesn’t alter this.
Good if you can do it but I could not until I found God.
You’ve answered your own question. To judge by this article and what AHA said in a panel discussion at ARC, she has realized what I realized some years ago, that belief in God is not a precondition of being a Christian.
I found this essay very moving.
Belief in God is not a precondition of believing in Christian ethics.
It is a precondition for being a Christian.
You have hit the nail on the head. One grows in the ethics later. Faith in God is only the beginning of a journey.
I think it is equally possible to maintain ethics that are largely common with Christianity while not being a Christian. Particular ethics are not usually exclusive to specific religions or atheists.
Neither Christianity nor for that matter Islam brought anything of value to the concept of civilisation. Both merely ‘piggybacked’ on the glories of Classical Civilisation that predated both of them by several centuries.
The fact that this is ignored is due to the appalling stranglehold ‘religion’ has exerted over education until very recently, and to the observation made by the late Bertrand Russell* that, “Most people would rather DIE than THINK, and most do”.
(* 3rd Earl Russell.)
I think Tom Holland in ‘Dominion’ would disagree with you – but he might be wrong.
He’s a good, popular historian but NOT a Classicist, as he would be the first to admit.
The impact that Christianity had on the development of Western civilisation (and you yourself have gloried in the splendour of medieval church architecture) can’t be denied. I too glory in it – as a testament to the ingenuity of man, who conceived and built those edifices over many generations.
I do agree, that far too many people simply accept what was spoon-fed to them from birth, then recoil in horror when others question it.
Architecture is but a very small part of Western civilisation, and whilst I may applaud a building such as St Ouen and its magnificent organ, I know that it was built by skill NOT faith.
Charles, I suspect it was both skill and faith. The great mediaeval churches were often built over decades, even centuries. And sometimes through trial and error – we don’t see the experiments that failed and assume they were done “right first time”. To have the perseverance to see these projects through needed something more than just skill.
“The great mediaeval churches were often built over decades”, was primarily due to financial ineptitude, bad planning or even lack of manpower.
“We don’t see the failures”, because normally they were rebuilt. Ely being a good example.
On the other hand Ancient Rome had little trouble throwing up colossal buildings such the Colosseum, the Baths of Diocletian or the Basilica of Maxentius within about ten years.
Faith had little or nothing to do with it, professional skill was what counted, and still does.
ps:-
The Colosseum used 900,000 tons of Travertine,Tufa Brick and concrete to construct.
By comparison Durham Cathedral used 65,000 tons of sandstone.
“Look on my works ye mighty and despair “.
Would you deny the religiosity of the Romans, O Carolus? Perhaps you can inform us how many sacrifices were made during the Colosseum’s construction, and to which deities.
They weren’t monotheists which was a good start!
In answer to your second question, quite a few rabbits and the odd cow would be my best guess.
Off course once the building was completed then the ‘fun’ really began!
But without a belief in a higher power, Christian values become perverted by those with nefarious agendas. As we witness today, concepts like kindness and compassion have become weaponized to defend unwholesome behaviors and to attack and demonize those who oppose them. For instance in the past, we would have rightfully castigated a grown man wearing a dress and hanging out with teenage girls, now we insipidly applaud them for being ‘brave’.
You are correct in asserting that Muslims aren’t going to be won over by Christianity, but I don’t think that’s what the author meant here; I took it to mean that without Christianity we have lost the drive, the survival instinct, to maintain our culture, and therefore will eventually be conquered by more fundamentalist and fanatical cultures – by those who couldn’t give a fig how enlightened or clear-eyed you are.
What is happening in Israel today could easily happen in Europe and America tomorrow unless we regain our Christian heritage and unite ourselves against a common foe.
Thankyou.
But without a belief in a higher power, Christian values become perverted by those with nefarious agendas
There is an embarrassment of evidence, historical and contemporary that people with a belief in a higher power, even the Christian God, are perfectly capable of nefarious behaviour. At the same time, there are/have been a great many ‘Christians’ who don’t really believe in God who were/are clearly good, and whose absence of belief did not corrupt their values – some joke that one such group is CofE clergy.
I agree. Anyone can rationalize that they are doing good, even Christians.
And pedophile priests.
Remember the Castrati!
Or as a member of Royal Navy said many years ago, by way of a wardroom joke:-
“Hey Cardinal the Pope is a queer!”
“How do you know?”
“His c*ck tastes of sh*t”.
That’s the answer to repelling a murderous cult like Islam.
Steady on ! There might be small splinter groups that you might try to fit that label too. But as a generalisation, surely not. Nor is such behaviour unique to one religion.
Love that “steady on” it’s so British!
I doubt that Faith will stop the flow of Islam. It’s a terrifying cult with zealous, dogmatic violent followers who only, regrettably, understand force. They want to take over the world and they’re multiplying faster than Christians and non-Christians. What’s to be done?
Have more kids!
In the UK many people are happy to admit to being ‘cultural Christians’, accepting the culture, morality and heritage without needing to believe in the actual God stuff, which is frankly (without aiming to be offensive) really rather fairytale.
Cultural Christianity usually amounts to B All.
It’s your disbelief that is fairy tale. The Gospels are grimly realistic.
Call it what you like. I accept some of the culture, morality and heritage without ever having believed. I regard that as a core part of being English (for my generation who were born here at least). I don’t think this is at all unique.
Religion to me is the fairy tale (as you insist on using that label). But that doesn’t mean I need to be rude to or disrepect those who do believe. Do I think any less of the late Queen because she believed in what I consider to be a fairy tale” ? No. If we have to judge people (usually best avoided I think), can’t we just do it on their merits ?
It sounds like a workable way to live.
Christian values just making good sense may seem self evident and therefore taken for granted, by those of us who have grown up in the west.
But surely one of the points of this article is that to those who are from cultures not founded on Christianity, the merits of those values are not self evident at all.
One cannot live by Christian values using one’s own strength. The whole message of the bible is that we live out of God’s strength through receiving Jesus the way, the truth and the life.
I suspect we lived by “Christian” values for a long time before Christianity turned up and co-opted them.
That can only be believed if you know zero about the ancient world or the classical world.
Yes, those fundamental to the development of societies once the agrarian revolution took hold. Respect, tolerance, co-operation and good will. These pre-date what some refer to as the Classical world.
I suggest peering into the workings of a cell. It’s a veritable city of activity and coordination being performed by tiny protein machines. And ponder this question, could all of that complexity have evolved from a primordial soup of elementary molecules, even over 50 billion years? Molecules don’t have intentions. They just randomly bump into each other, maybe something new is formed, but probably not. Or was there a force pushing the creation of life as we know it? You think molecular biologists have everything figured out? Not even close.
I suggest you ask me first if i’ve ever pondered that before making assumptions.
Because people haven’t figured it out — and may never figure it out — does not mean that there has to be a creator. And even if a creator does exist, it does not follow that the tenets of Christianity are true. Why not those of Norse or Greek mythology?
Exactly.
“Claim them as human values” is the funniest phrase I have ever heard.
You don’t claim values, you act them out. Values are abstracted from actions. Psychologically, one can’t even understand the concept until it has been acted out many times and until it becomes something coherent to which a name can be given.
That being the case, saying one claims values is like saying one claims athleticism. It’s something you do, it’s something you do many times in order to achieve it, it’s something you do when you have other reasons not to do it and it is difficult.
So you should ask why you even are aware of it in order to “claim” it, and whether by claiming it you are even achieving anything. Most importantly, if you claim it, what enables you to act it out? The answer is the underlying, universal, transcendent source of these values which amazingly is something that wants to give you these values and help you slowing achieve them in yourself.
I didn’t use the word God so I hope that helps.
If that phrase is funny to you, might i suggest you have a “comedy deficit”?
In actual fact, they ARE human values, since they derive from humanity. Christ re-inforced them with his teachings, but to think they didn’t exist in communities before that point isn’t worthy of debate.
They didn’t exist in communities…?
Christ didn’t reinforce anything like your state, he overturned moral understanding and demonstrated that human values are exceedingly lacking. I hope you deliver deeper than that surface level understanding.
“There’s a very deep question at stake here. Can one accept and live by Christian values, without believing in god?”
Ie how can we avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water. I believe a lot of the problems we face in this country and globally is because we have lost sight of human values. Have people rejected the values when they rejected the religion or where they never brought up to understand and respect the values in the first place?
I do think less talk of rights and more emphasis on the values which can be found in all the major religions if you are prepared to look would go a long way to getting humanity back on a better path.
Religion has been around for a long time and look at where it’s got us – another religious war.
And look at the millions killed in the wars started by communism and fascism.
Incidentally, Hamus admires Hitler. 2nd best selling book in Gaza, after the Koran is Mein Kampf (Arabic translation).
Hamas are religious fanatics so I think you’ve merely proved my point!
What an excellent point. I was not convinced that Ayaan has accepted Jesus as her lord and savior. When one does that, the joy and love spring from the writing. I did not see that here. So I think she is still very much on her journey. May God bless her.
I really and with compassion would like to point out that the above is missing a key ingredient in Christian faith. It is convicting and so I will leave it at that for now. You’re over the target if you’re realizing that Christian values are important, but still not there yet.
I would say those who are looking for proof of God’s existence first, but are suspicious of scripture, and fear being made a fool, being wrong among their peers, or even worried about what it might mean for their lives, should look to general revelation first rather than trying to just get there from scriptural revelation. The advances in cosmology, cosmologic constants, fine tuning, and design speak to theism. It is a great time to be a believer. That’s a starting point for the agnostic non-believer. I would strongly recommend Stephen Myer or Hugh Ross. God bless.
A fundamental problem for me with the otherwise unsupported notion that “Judeo-Christian” values “just make good sense”, is that historically no one else in the history of the world came up with them. History is chock full of examples of might-makes-right, authoritarianism, caste structures and the like, but not what was created in the West based on equality of persons, property rights, rule of law, concern for the “other”, and so on. One simply does not find it existing anywhere else. Correct me if I’m wrong. Even Confucius states the “golden rule” in negative, not positive terms.
Perfect response. You can go ahead and drop the mic.
Excellent
Totally agree. I accept that our society has values that broadly stem from a Christian background. But that doesn’t mean that the existence of God is true. I stopped believing a few years ago and am far happier in myself.
I took her to be saying that that civilization is separating into two sides along a religious fault line and atheists will basically be caught in the middle when the arrows start flying. Pragmatically speaking, she may be right. But it hardly seems an argument for becoming a Christian.
I am in a similar boat. I was raised fundamentalist, and likely due to being taught the Bible literally, it became impossible to maintain any faith in God once that interpretation failed to hold up to the scrutiny I applied to any other question.
Now, I view the likelihood of supernatural beings existing in our universe negligible enough to consider myself an atheist, and I don’t think I’ll ever have the capacity to believe in a deity. Although, as I got older, I learned to appreciate the fact I existed in a Christian culture and that most of that wasn’t a bad thing.
However, after Covid, the concept of the “god-hole” solidified, and I realized the post-religion utopia I imagined was a naive, idiotic fantasy.
I loathe the idea of allowing the religious fanatics I grew up with any sort of political power, but at this point I’d take them as the lesser evil to the critical-theory poisoned progressive left.
I mostly hope we can acknowledge our Christian heritage as westerners so that we have some sort of structure of acceptable conduct, even if that isn’t based on faith in God, or fear of hell.
God isn’t a person, or a literal embodied creature. It could be something like the infinite ground of reality, a sense of the absolute, or a creative guiding force. The literal-mindedness of many modern atheists is the chief factor in their certainty on this subject.
I agree. I don’t understand the impetus to return to past ways of living or doing things, any more than I understand the aversion to learn from them.
We should always take the best of what we’ve done and discard the bad. Too much of religion stands in the way of that happening. We need strong human values, community, common purpose – but none of that says we need religion, to me.
I think many of our issues in Western countries stem from the idea that celebrating our accomplishments has become taboo. No one can really come together over negativity. That is what’s leaving a void, more than religion per se.
No need to resort to mysticism; we could just push for more celebration of all the good things we’ve done, and focus more on building on that, rather than getting mired in any and every bad.
Watching For All Mankind – it occurs to me it could be so simple as just believing collectively we can build great things, again. Sort of hokey, but I honestly sometimes think we just need to believe in ourselves, more!
No need for God. Just less Eeyores.
You’re certainly getting to the core of what maters within, across, and even outside of any faith: purpose and meaning.
For some, worship and faith are living, loving forces, not mere letters and rules. Some derive comfort, or a sense of substitute purpose, from a faith that is almost entirely otherworldly or abstracted–one that rarely reaches the heart or hand.
I agree that Christian or even “God-fearing” values can be lived by those who acknowledge no deity, rather in the way that much Buddhism is not explicitly theistic.
We should all strive to live some good and improving version of the path(s) we have discovered or been shown (which is chicken and egg type distinction). And acknowledge the vast remaining mystery and elusive presence that underlies all we can see, hear, taste, smell, touch, or think in this embodied state. We know an astonishing amount now, but sometimes let a sort of self-astonishment blind us to how much we have yet to learn, and likely will never know. We even repeatedly fail to learn, in an enacted sense, what we already know as societies and individuals.
The only thing is, Christ never said “Follow My values”. He said “Follow Me”. That is, we follow a Person, not a set of good moral precepts. Love of Christ comes first, then ‘If you love me, keep my commandments.’
Exactly false. The following intended is the following of his teaching and embodied example. “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord…” and “these people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me”. The prayer he offered to all began “Our Father” not “Dear Jesus” (or “Dear me”) . Those who make him a perfect being or someone interchangeable with the creator actually pervert his message: “You can do these thing and greater”. Show me Gospel evidence that Jesus wanted to be honored with words and ceremony, rather than discipleship, emulation, and furtherance of his inspired mission of peace and sacrifice in this world . “Take up your cross and follow me” is not about the ego or individual personhood of Jesus of Nazareth.
Making him into a born-perfect or impossible-to- emulate being actually cheapens both his earthly achievement and his urgent ministry.
I was not convinced that Ayaan actually has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, moreso that she’s adopted Christianity as a logical place to be. That’s better than nothing.
Respectfully, those who think you can have Christian values without God, please look around at the crumbling west. You cannot be serious. Nothing in Christianity works without the Resurrection.
Those who think they can follow the living Jesus with an exclusive focus on the hocus pocus of magical and otherworldly thinking are well afield of what Jesus said or represents in any original sense. (No undue respect intended).
Are you under some nostalgic impression that belief in the divinity or supernatural powers of Jesus ever led to actual Christ-like practice, let alone peace on earth? What exact year of Western vibrancy do you imagine you’d like to return to?
No, there has always been sin, but it doesn’t logically follow that things can’t get worse when you remove belief in God.
Everytime I have done something objectively wrong, I look back and He was the furthest thing from my heart and mind.
We have free will and are able to push him out of our minds and hearts, even as believers. It’s so powerful, it’s awe inspiring, the hurricane of love and blessings, but we still fail sometimes. But once we push him out, slow or fast the evil and eventual terror begins to grow. We need God.
Ayaan. I remember years ago reading your books Infidel and Nomad with great admiration for your courage, and praying at the time that your intellectual and spiritual journey would lead you to Jesus Christ. And so my heart skipped a beat when I saw the title of this essay. As I read it out loud to my wife, I was afraid that it is just a cultural embrace of Christianity, similar, as far as I can tell, to Tom Holland’s journey. And of course, it is the Christian culture that gave the West it’s foundation, as you and Niall have so eloquently argued. But Christianity is also extremely personal, with Jesus calling on people to believe and abide in Him for forgiveness of sin (based on His merits alone, not works, which sets Christianity apart from every other religion, secular and mystical), peace, joy and ultimately “everlasting life” beyond the grave. — “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” If not already there, I pray that your honest quest for TRUTH, will ultimately lead you home.
Christianity is based on the Gospels -ie: evidence written about at the time of Jesus’s life – and the Ten Commanments, the greatest guide to civilised living there is. Unlike the Koran, that was put together from fragments of writings long after the lifetime of Mohammed who lived around 600-700 AD.
Actually the Quran is believed to have been written much closer to Mohammeds death (estimates state within 20 years) than the New Testament was to Jesus’ death (which is believed to be between 50-100 years).
I wouldn’t treat either as evidence of anything substantial mind you
The gospels were written earlier but the letters an average of 80 years but the news about the faith travelled much further by word of mouth and writings not collated together until much later.
Not really, when you look at it. A lot of the Quran isn’t written till much later. And some fragments, oddly, appear to have been written before Mohamed!!
Which is because the Quran is fundamentally a compiling, one that went through a long editing process, and borrowed from a number of sources.
This is not acknowledged as it would betray the obviously non-divine origin.
How does what you describe differ from the scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism?
I’d assert that it doesn’t. Some of the writings are inspired, but all are written by people, not God Almighty, and they are derived from sources that vary by date, tone, intention, and quality.
I find that the whole bible slots together beautifully but it is true that the doorway is Christ Himself.
Well said Marc. It’s instructive that the word Jesus is not used in this essay. That is OK – the Lord calls people in different ways and not everybody has some sudden Damascene conversion – but it does show that the title of the piece probably needs revision.
Thank you for this comment. I have listened to Ms Ali on podcasts and have read articles by her, and I have much admiration for her depth of character and intelligence. I also admire her courage for speaking out against the faith in which she was raised. However, as you point out, the personal is missing from the reasons she lists for becoming Christian. The only reason to become Christian is for Christ Himself, and in doing so one encounters Truth. That includes finding out who one’s self is by finding out who Christ IS, which is God incarnate having entered our world to offer us each a way to become more like Him, to rise above our lesser selves, to actively love others as we have been loved first by God and to live accordingly. Love is the reason to become Christian; the reasons Ms. Ali lists are utilitarian, rather political reasons for having become Christian. But at 62 years of age, having been raised Protestant but having converted to Catholicism at the age of 45, I am still developing and growing in my relationship with Christ. One’s relationship with Christ is never static. It evolves as we seek to know Him better, to conform ourselves to Him, so Ms Ali is surely still growing in her relationship with Christ. This article is written at a certain point in her walk with Christ. I suspect one day in the future she will write an article in which she does mention Christ and Him as the person who informs her Christian faith.
I’ve read 162 comments and found that many, maybe most, are personal reactions either in favor of or in opposition to religion (although few agree on what that phenomenon either is or is not). But Ayaan Hirsi Ali is writing not only about her own personal path from Islam to Christianity but also, more urgently, about a grave collective threat.
Most readers, as at least one has pointed out, define religion from a point of view that’s narrow even by Western standards: assuming that religion is synonymous with personal “beliefs” or “values.” Actually, it’s not. Organized religion is a universal feature of human existence, not necessarily at the personal level but always at the collective level. Some religions are theistic; others (notably secular ideologies) are not. Some religions rely primarily on beliefs; others rely also on experience. Some forms focus almost exclusively on personal or political morality; others do not (because other institutions organize moral norms). Some forms focus heavily on other-worldly goals; others less heavily. But this variety does not mean that religion can mean anything at all. Apart from anything else, religion is the cultural glue that binds people together on an enduring basis as cohesive communities, societies or civilizations. Religion is what motivates loyalty and even self-sacrifice for the common good.
Despite some brutal episodes in earlier centuries, Christianity has evolved in ways that have directly or indirectly produced much of what we often now take for granted as necessities. Whatever you think of it as a personal religion, it clearly is the origin and heart of Western civilization. Those who reject or even oppose it, therefore, live as individuals on its borrowed capital. And that capital is disappearing at a startling rate.
Back now to Ali. The West faces an internal (and sometimes external) threat from Islam–a rival civilization that, in its most aggressive current forms, has no qualms about the brutality of warfare, including terrorism, in the interest of global conquest. In view of that (let alone the widespread complacency, cynicism and hedonism in Western countries), can our civilization carry on without Christianity–that is, the Judeo-Christian tradition? Several cataclysmic experiments with secular replacements suggest that it cannot. For the time being, we might be able to muddle through collectively, but time is running out.
It’s this civilizational wake-up call, more than anything about herself, that Ali’s essay tries to convey. She explains her own personal solution but without assuming that all readers will try the same solution.
Good, and much needed, post. The Western world does indeed face a very serious threat. The Islam invented by Mohammed was, in principle and practice, no different from that of Hamas, the Taleban, the IS, and thousands of other ‘fundamentalist’ groups and movements. Whenever and wherever it relaxes its dogmas and intolerance, another ‘purist’ movement arises, overthrows and destroys the ‘UnIslamic’ leaders, and resets the clock. That is happening now with the rise of Wahhabi, Deobandi, and Salafi strains. Enabled by the internet, Muslim immigration, and ME money, and encouraged by ‘white guilt’, the race and rights industries, and the lack of courage of supposedly ‘moderate’ Muslims, its ideologues have global reach and enormous influence.
Yes, it’s very scary.
Thanks for a very wise response. I am of course biased in being pleased for Ayaan, but realise this is not about us, but the collective. It’s an old question as to whether the world revolves around me or I am subject to older, wiser and wider mores. I hope some of the 162 commentators see beyond their own preferences and find our shared heritage still has some merit, for believers and non-believers alike.
Yes, we enjoy a heritage that comes from a far more enlightened focus than in the past and this has allowed us to live in a society that brings about great peace and advancements.
Perhaps then her article is misguided in conflating two things which are not necessarily connected beyond her personal experience.
If the “civilizational wake-up call” is the main and most critical thing, why not stick to that and outline a range of ways we might do something about it ?
If it’s her personal religious conversion, why mix that up with the geopolitics ?
The civilisational wake-up call is indeed the key to her article, but it’s wrong to think the comments you’ve read fail to address it. Cultural glue requires the vast majority to be on board, and what you’ve read is many individuals calmly explaining why belief in a deity can no longer be an ingredient in that glue.
You make a good point about religions based on experience, except the religious paradigm is almost certainly now debased beyond the point of no return (due to many factors) and a different way of accepting collective responsibility which can enable societies to flourish can and should be encouraged, in a way that encompasses our natural human spirituality. In that regard, the article has real value irrespective of the path the author appears to have chosen.
Steve, a ‘cultural glue’ premised exclusively on ‘our natural human spirituality’ requiring ‘the vast majority to be onboard’, and no use for a deity is exactly what some of us see endangering all we hold dear: progressive wokism.
There’s that silly catch-all meaningless word again.
Clare, apologies: by ‘wokism’ (if that’s what you were referring to) I meant the (post) modern doctrine of purity and stain underpinned by Marxist praxis that has delegitimised the very tenets of Western civilisation and will, I believe, (and here I’m channeling my understanding of Jung’s ‘Answer to Job’) unleash the forces of darkness that Christianity has kept in equilibrium.
What?!!
It’s true, Steve, organized religion has been secularized beyond recognition for most people (mainly because so many ostensibly religious leaders have led the way). Even discussing religion has become almost impossible (although, for some reason, I keep trying now and then). I don’t know what to do about that.
Worse, much worse, I don’t know what to do about the consequent tendency to replace organized religion with organized secular ideologies.
As for Ali, she offers readers an opportunity to think about our collective race toward the proverbial cliff. I wouldn’t expect her to do more than that, certainly not in one essay. Speaking for myself, at any rate, I must admit that I can’t even imagine a practical or popular solution to what looks a lot like civilizational suicide.
One more thing. I can see why you say, Steve, that there’s no point in joining an organized religion if you can’t believe in its doctrines. But maybe you assume that belief is the entryway to organized religion. I don’t think that it is, certainly not in all organized religions. For one thing, most people don’t become Christians or Hindus as adults; they do so, very gradually, beginning as young children and in the context of family and communal life. Children neither know nor care much about doctrines. What attracts them is the sensual side of religion: singing songs, watching liturgical pageants, eating special holiday foods, lighting candles on festivals, family rituals and so forth. Eventually, of course, they do consider beliefs. But not all religious communities actually expect doctrinal conformity even from adults. That’s partly because no religious community relies on mind-readers or (except, perhaps, for conversion ceremonies) gate-keepers. This is the largely unguarded border between personal religion and organized religion.
Here’s one of many examples, the one that I happen to know best. No rabbi has ever asked me what I believe–not even when I came of age (bar mitzvah). It’s not because no rabbi cares. It’s because no rabbi can actually know what I believe. Even I don’t know most of the time, although I do know that my beliefs have changed many times over the years. And, in a way, my current beliefs don’t matter. Rabbis do expect, or at least hope, that my behavior will conform to rabbinical teachings. But they expect also, or at least hope, that I will eventually come to internalize Jewish beliefs by conforming to both the outward moral standards of Jewish behavior and the outward ceremonial ones (which have been authorized with access to holiness in mind). And if I don’t immediately act with the highest level of intention (kavanah), I might yet come to do so over the course of a lifetime within the community. Call it the religious equivalent of behavioral conditioning.
Interesting and largely persuasive reflections, Paul.
However: In my experience and second-hand observation, belief in some kind of higher power or transcendent force is inborn, perhaps not universal but predominant, and known to most by the age of about 5 or 7. The ritual and sensual aspects of worship may or may not appeal to–or be imposed upon– a particular child, but often no outward superstructure is needed to support an indistinct yet powerful sense of presence and transcendence. Not for a while that is, until natural and common human tendencies toward doubt and disappointment (etc.) become heightened between the ages of 9 and 15 or so.
And while it mightn’t be common with many faiths, such as Hinduism and Judaism, adult conversions to Christianity are not rare at all. Also, I think those who become most zealous or evangelistic are over-represented among born again believers or other late-adopting Christians. It’s true some cultural groundwork is in place for most Westerners, but a bare foundation doesn’t quite do the work of conversion or immersion.
Even those who are brought up in outward, regular Christian worship seem to require a more personal deepening or renewal to get the faith in a more living and lived-out form. People who attend services in a perfunctory and half-hearted way may retain enough belief or fear of supernatural consequence to, for example, rule out suicide or mass shooting followed by suicide (though that’s not a guarantee these days), but that doesn’t seem like a legacy that places Christianity distinctly above any other faith, except from within a circle of religious or cultural self-congratulation.
From the vantage point of a respectful outsider, I notice that Judaism is a faith that permits questioning, even bargaining and arguing with the Lord, and multiple re-interpretations or “glosses” upon scripture or received doctrine, in the Talmud and elsewhere, across millennia, from a variety of rabbinical and scholarly “angles”. Of course some of the more orthodox are less open to such practices.
I know you have a substantial background in the study of religion, Paul. Above, you seem to claim that Islam itself is directly manifested in its current civilizational forms, especially those that are the most zealous and violent.
Do you think there’s anything approaching a one-to-one correspondence between what used to be called Christendom circa 1600 and a modern, secularized, (more) ecumenical, pluralistic, and even atheistic West? I don’t see any unfractured or unchallenged religious inheritance, nor any way that we can or should return to a bellicose and doctrinaire model of the Christian World, administered by State or ruling Church.
And at the height of Christendom (circa 1500-1700), warring states and sects committed more “Christian-on-Christian” violence than at any time before or since. The Muslim World has not gone through a similar period, not on such a scale–not yet.
As you well know, many of the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels have direct antecedents in Hebrew scripture, though the Galilean often put his own “rabbinical twist” upon the official teachings of Judaism.
Much of Islam is derived from the so-called Old Testament too–at whatever remove, with whatever sponsoring motives or seeming agenda. I don’t think it’s wise or correct to reduce any major, established faith–especially a monotheistic, Abrahamic one–to the perversions, or stubborn unevolved backwardness of some practitioners.
This is a sincere question: Is it your contention or belief that Islam is fundamentally too steeped in violence and cultural chauvinism to emerge from its current maelstrom, perhaps so much so that we in the Christian(ish) West must fight fire with fire?
I’ll begin with your final question, AJ. I’ve said nothing about “fighting fire with fire.” If Western civilization is to endure, we’ll have to rediscover the wisdom and beauty of our own tradition through our own resources (one of which, however, has been borrowing from other civilizations). The West will have to generate another renaissance, in short, not another reformation. Not being a fortune-teller, I don’t know how likely that is. All I can say is that Western history has already included not one but several “rebirths.”
As for Islam, I would not recommend a reformation (not that any Muslim would care about the advice of an outsider), because that would mean returning to the purity of very early Islam in the seventh century (just as the Protestant Reformation meant returning to the purity of very early Christianity in the first century). The only way to do that is by rejecting the philosophical interpretive traditions that took centuries to develop and adopting fundamentalism–that is, above all, rejecting modernity as an inherently alien and therefore threatening worldview. In that sense, Islam has already had several reformations. Consider the rise of fundamentalist movements such as the Wahabi or Salafi movements in Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia but also that of the clerical movement that now prevails in Shia countries such as Iran.
Islamic history is not all about fundamentalist purity and intolerance. Many periods were notably open to foreign civilizations and harmonious relations with non-Muslims. These golden ages could recur. But other periods have produced intense religious, political and military ruptures within Islam.
As I’ve explained several times elsewhere, Islam is very unusual in one important but problematic way. According to the Quran itself, Islam was founded not merely as a proselytizing religious community (like that of the early Christians and Buddhists) but as a conquering state, its goal being to establish an Islamic empire through jihad (which originally meant warfare, not some private internal struggle). Apart from anything else, this ultimately denies the legitimacy of Muslims forming integrated minority communities within non-Muslim countries. They might do so anyway, of course, but they couldn’t cite many Quranic or other early Islamic texts to legitimate the acceptance of minority status on an enduring basis.
Back now to the West. Like all civilizations, this one has evolved through history. Even if we could restore Christendom as it was centuries ago (which we could not), very few Christians would even want to do so.
Neither I nor Ali would argue that theologically indifferent people should join churches purely for social, political or civilizational purposes. I argue only that theology is not necessarily the first step in becoming Christian. Sometimes, living within a religious community can gradually lead to a theological outlook or to the deepening of a shallow one. In any case, religious communities (or other communities) are where people belong. They’re part of what we mean by “home.” That can lead to an appreciation of the worldview that created our civilization–an appreciation that is unlikely to come from playing video games, say, or twittering incessantly–and therefore to a sense of loyalty and even of the need for self-sacrifice. Unfortunately, most churches have themselves already abandoned their own traditions, seeking “relevance” by translating them into the secular terms of personal or collective morality, political ideologies, psychotherapy, ethnicity and so on. Seekers would have to look real hard, I guess, to find a church that offers more than weekly moral lessons.
Oh, by the way, I used Judaism as a case study only because of its familiarity to me. But much of what I said about that tradition applies also to other traditions–even the part about sensuality, which is very obvious in many forms of Christianity: High church Anglicanism, Catholicism and especially Eastern Orthodoxy. I’m not saying that anyone can just walk into one of these churches and be at home (although some people do). I’m saying only that people experience religion in many ways, not only in the cognitive one.
It’s true that not everyone experiences the sacred in ritualized or conventional ways. As you say, it can occur spontaneously. Either way, there’s a window of opportunity (like the one that permits children to learn empathy or music). And it doesn’t stay open for more than a few years–not unless the family and community continue to encourage it directly or indirectly. It’s true that all children rebel, moreover, because that’s a necessary stage of growing up. But even rebellion is usually a transitory stage. When the dust settles, though, some people can rely on resources that they acquired much earlier and make use of them in new and creative ways. I sure did.
I appreciate your initial clarification and other detailed comments on Islam and religious experience more generally, as you understand it.
I find much to consider and, breaking from my contrarian habit, little to disagree with in your remarks. I’m glad to see you present Islam as something that is not “fundamentally fundamentalist” in some insuperable way.
In my non-thorough observations of the Islamic world and faith, I also worry about the warlike origins. Even so, the YHWH of some Judaic texts is quite warlike, and vindictive toward the Israel’s enemies. Nor is any large-scale outreach to the Philistines, Egyptian, or Babylonian ever proposed. All this to say that there’s a version of Judaism that is very militant. And the Chosen People dimension of the faith can be taken in a very hostile or supremacist direction, while adhering to at least some canonical Biblical writings.
But that’s not the only path, and the great majority of modern Jews don’t worship or think in that extreme way, I don’t think. Perhaps there’s a way out of the clutches of extremism for more Muslims too, singular bellicosity of early practices notwithstanding. I don’t know but I’m quite stubbornly hopeful.
I’m not persuaded that the window of spontaneous immanence/awakening– or of empathy–opens as narrowly as you claim.
There is great individual variation. There are a small minority of people who are dull of spirit I’d say, and a sizable number, if small percentage, of true psychopaths for whom empathy may remain out reach. Beyond that, I don’t see much conclusive closing of the windows to the soul or empathetic apertures of mind. One man’s opinion. Thanks for your thoughtful engagement.
It’s true that God appears in some biblical texts as the “lord of hosts,” a bellicose tribal god (whose “jealousy” was due to the Israelite attraction to rival gods). Books such as Exodus and Joshua are about that god. Books such as Isaiah and Amos present a very different picture.
But Judaism is not merely a less “extreme” version of Israelite religion. It’s a different religion. Israelite religion evolved into a new religion. More specifically, it evolved into two new religions: rabbinic Judaism (beginning after the first exile) and Christianity (just before the second exile). Both are successor religions that have roots in Israelite religion, but both are as different from Israelite religion as Hinduism is from Vedic religion and Buddhism is from Hinduism.
Much nonsense has been written about the idea of a “chosen people.” I could go into a discussion of its various rabbinic interpretations, but I won’t because that’s unnecessary. The fact is that every community regards itself as “chosen,” or special, in one way or another no matter what words they use. That’s because no community could endure for very long without some sense that participating in it is worthwhile–that is, worth the striving and often sacrifice that membership entails. This is precisely the problem that now confronts Western societies, which, as Ali points out, have largely succumbed not only to hedonism but also to ideologies that foster cynicism and even collective suicide.
But here’s my point in replying to your question, AJ. The god of rabbinic Judaism, far from being a divine warrior, is what amounts to a cosmic rabbi. In rabbinic texts (agadah), God runs a rabbinical seminary in paradise and discusses the finer points of Jewish law (halakha), among other things, with the students. Meanwhile, in daily life, prayer and study, associated with the synagogue, have replaced the temple cult. Instead of rejecting scriptural texts about holy war, moreover, the rabbis have interpreted them in ways that would have surprised the Israelites, to say the least.
And a similar evolution occurred in Islam. The difference is that Judaism evolved over a much longer time than Islam did. And it did so in very different circumstances. Jews lived as minority communities within both Christendom and Islam for approximately 2,000 years. Muslims, on the other hand, lived as the majority for approximately 1,400 years. Jews (and Christians) could therefore adjust slowly to modernity. But Muslims had to adjust very quickly due to the sudden arrival of Europeans. Some Muslims simply abandoned Islam and replaced it with modern ideologies such as nationalism and Marxism. Other Muslims rejected both evolving Islam and modernity by trying to re-create the purity (and ferocity) of early Islam through fundamentalism.
As for windows of opportunity, that’s the province of psychologists. They have developed rough developmental timetables. But they generally agree that childhood, even early childhood, presents opportunities that are very difficult or even impossible to replicate in adulthood. They generally agree also that each stage of development is heavily influenced by “environment.”
It just isn’t that simple or clear in several respects, Paul. The God of canonical Judaism is, at times, “a jealous and vengeful God” (Nahum) who (in Exodus) “visits the iniquities of the father upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me”. And the ancient Lord also gives instruction like this from Samuel: “Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass”
How would you characterize that deity?
You assert singularity about what you prefer to emphasize and universality about what you’d rather diminish. Of course every long standing community holds some sense of specialness. But very few have the extreme sense of Special Election or chosen-ness that appears (or has appeared at one time) in Jewish, Puritan and Amish flocks of believers, for example.
I knew you were referencing prevailing psychological beliefs about developmental stages and what they contain or exclude. That doesn’t make them true, nor any more valid than Freud’s absurd and reductive claim that the personality is almost entirely formed by age 4 or whatever.
It is just an insistent, overreaching claim with an element of truth, something Freud, along with many other psychologists (and, to be fair, human in general) seem especially prone to.
Your distinctions between Islam and Judaism (with a smuggled aside to Christianity) seem valid to me. But they are also sweeping and simplified. Right?
One should resist trying to diagnose, let alone pathologize whole populations. You mostly do, Paul, but at times you do get a bit more ambitious in your claims.
More Sufis, rabbis, and mystic monks please. Fewer zealots and holy warriors, across all faiths.
And some Sufi dancing!
Yes. And ecstatic poetry!
The canonical texts remain as they were when first written down, AJ. Interpretations, however, keep changing. This is true of all revealed religions.
I was referring not only to all communities (in general) but to all religious or ideological communities (in particular). The former don’t need self-definitions other than “home” The latter do. They have distinctive vocations, or missions and are therefore, by definition, special in some way. And these communities are not few but many. They would include, for example, all Christians (who identify themselves as the “new Israel” or the “true Israel”), all Muslims, all Buddhists, all Marxists, all feminists and so on.
It’s true that not all psychologists agree on the precise sequence and duration of developmental stages. Unlike Freudian, Jungian or other psychoanalysts, however, they at least rely on empirical evidence to support their theories. Calling both approaches “absurd and reductive” is, well, reductive.
My comments sound “sweeping and simplified”? Sure. Describing religious traditions is never easy, because these vary a great deal across both time and space. Nothing is “fixed” or “pure” except to a fundamentalist–which is not what a scholar in comparative religion is. You can find almost any tendency in all of them. Nonetheless, some tendencies are more common in each than in others, due mainly to historical, geographical, cultural, economic, political and other circumstances. So, I don’t apologize for trying to answer your questions, as I have, in very brief comments.
Like you, AJ, I’m very, very, reluctant to argue that holy war remains a vital part of Islam (even though not all Muslims take it at face value and actually become holy warriors, let alone terrorists). I do make this argument, however, because that’s where the evidence leads. One central method in both comparative religion and cultural anthropology is to take seriously what informants actually say about themselves. Personally, I’d like nothing better than to discover that must Muslims are Sufis, writing beautiful poetry, dancing their way into ecstatic trances, contemplating cosmic mysteries and so on. But most Muslims are not Sufis. And most never were, although many royal and imperial courts did admire, encourage and subsidize Sufis. The advent of modernity changed all that. Both reformers and revolutionaries called Muslims to “wake up” from their mystical reveries and oppose modernity. That’s where the Islamic world is right now. Who knows what it will be in the future?
Fair enough for the most part, Paul. But I did not call the psychological approach itself “absurd and reductive” only some of its most venturesome and self-certain conclusions, like a “empathy window” with a hard closure or fixed and conclusively discernible developmental stages for the psyche.
Yet psychology is among the fields where empirical or “data-driven” methods are most often conflated with mere assertion or even “hocus pocus” speculation. We don’t yet understand much of what happens in our heads and (my assertion) almost certainly never will.
Self-styled specialness surely varies a lot between faith communities, In this respect, Unitarians are not that similar to the Amish, nor to Orthodox Jews.
Good point about the interpretation which Judaism has been very open to and richly engaged in from time immemorial. Other faiths could stand to take many more pages (so to speak) from that approach.
I hope the Islamic world will. I must agree that the evidence doesn’t point very strongly in the direction in tolerance, modernity, or ecumenicalism. We can be cautiously hopeful, and even model some version of our largely-aspirational Western tolerance without being naive or foolish.
*And I acknowledge that discussions or assertions of large-scale tendencies are necessarily generalized and simplified to some extent–especially in a forum like this one–and not therefore without any value. It’s just that their value tends to be introductory & provisional, rather than comprehensive or reliable. I should have confined myself to specific qualifications, clarifications, or objections instead of charging your particular approach with being “sweeping and simplified”. That was careless framing on my part, and it amounted to a cheap shot.
I’ll try to be fair to the psychology, even though I, like you, have grave doubts about its commitment to scholarly honesty and integrity (although I’d say that of any field these days, including the hard sciences). I refer to those psychologists, for example, who, contaminated by popular ideologies, have condoned and even contributed to the public hysteria over “repressed-memory syndrome” and “toxic masculinity.” The American Psychological Association, in particular, has routinely manipulated “studies” to support woke causes. As I say, though, even psychologists are more closely linked with science than psychoanalysts, who rely on theory alone.
Islam has already demonstrated its ability to interpret, or reinterpret, scripture. Under the Abbasids in Baghdad and Cairo, and as late as the Safavids in Persia, the early Mughals in India and the early Ottomans in Turkey, Islam produced a brilliant and innovative civilization. What went wrong? Many historians have asked that question. Even before the rise of modern European empires, Islam was severely wounded by the Mongol invasion (even though the Mongols adopted Islam). Whatever the cause, Islam declined gradually and became more reactionary than innovative by the eighteenth century.
There’s certainly some psychological research and analysis that seems both rigorous and persuasive, to my non-expert eye.
I’m more drawn to Jung, whose claims often venture into the realm of reflection, or even poetical-mystical inspiration, but still seem quite true to the objective human experience of mind and the unconscious as a (Jung asserts) partly collective inheritance and subjective phenomenon. I consider Jung to be have been something of a polymath and rare genius more than a mere psychoanalyst. Freud was anomalously brilliant too, but seemed to believe too many of his clever invention and to almost default to exaggeration.
All the social sciences have trended and tended toward left-wing pieties or extremism in recent decades. I could probably find a few other conservative or traditional-minded psychologists aside from Jordan Peterson, but he’s very far from the norm.
Exactly. Aayan Hirsi Ali is not being partisan but just explaining her shift and need for something in her life. After being an atheist for 30+ years, I do understand this. Also, your work and the books you have written about men are wonderful and real men are needed now, more than ever. Thank you.
https://www.amazon.ca/Spreading-Misandry-Teaching-Contempt-Popular/dp/0773530991
And I owe you my gratitude, Wanda. Not many readers pay any attention to me (especially on the topic of religion), so I’m often tempted to read the essays and skip the comments–709 of them in this case.
Because you mention my books on men–which are more specifically about the misandric fallout from ideological forms of feminism–I should take this opportunity to add that what I’ve found in my research on misandry dovetails with my current research on other forms of hatred, notably anti-Zionism and its relation to anti-Semitism. Although anti-Semitism is not a new phenomenon, its sudden re-emergence in our time suggests that a new factor is involved. This is not ancient or medieval anti-Judaism (which occurred in both Christian and Islamic forms). Nor is it necessarily racial anti-Semitism. Rather, it’s the almost inevitable fallout from wokism–that is, from decades of ideological precursors such as postmodernism, postcolonialism, feminism, intersectionalism and so on.
My heart goes out to you Ayaan, but you are wrong. Picturing Christianity as some pure good in the face of more violent forms of religion is an untruth. The “tolerance” of present Christianity is merely an exhausted truce from bloody centuries of Christian sect fighting Christian sect, pillaging or burning at the stake believers in exactly the same god, as do Muslin sects now. Religion is poison- the poison in the certainly in their particular interpretation and certainly in iits sole “truth”. Look at the intolerance and hatred that exists in American evangelical politics
There is no god. Any good in mankind comes from an innate empathy and innate sense of justice that underlies our evolved human nature. Choosing Christianity as the least bad religion is senseless. Choosing religion is choosing unending war. The best in Western thought comes from the Enlightenment… and that was NOT a religious enlightenment… it was a recognition of science and common humanity applied to the well of human philosophy . Try to have faith in that.
Opposing Christianity is choosing the collapse of the West. And choosing War – the two world wars were entirely secular.
Science doesn’t back the Enlightenment – which led to the bloodbaths of the French and Russian Revolutions. Copernicus, Galileo, Faraday and other great scientists were devout Christians.
Look at the intolerance and hatred in American irreligious politics.
Or atheist Communism.
Btw the”bloody centuries” of Christian religious war were 1517-1648. Christians then realised that Jesus disapproved of the fighting and stopped it. The cause of humane, moderate Christians like Erasmus triumphed.
Whereas in Islam, the extremists win out.
What about the Albigensian Crusade(s)? and the numerous other so called Crusades?
The Peace of Westphalia/Osnabrück of 1648 was almost immediately followed by a long series of wars lasting until at least 1815.
Erasmus FAILED.
In fact, the 50 years after Darwin’s “Origin of Species” (1859) might be amongst the most peaceful in Europe.
TB’s contention that American politics is “irreligious” is ludicrous !
If Galileo was a devout Christian, then what were the Catholic church and the pope at that time ?
No he didn’t. You’re commenting on this, and we’re reading this comment and discussing with you. Erasmus won.
Islam was founded in 610 CE. Where was Christendom 1,413 years after the founding of its Church?
These are not one-to-one correspondences or comparisons of course, but let’s introduce a bit more context and axes of analysis, especially if we’re going to act as if they are one-to-one.
Yes, thank you Unherd reader.
So are all the political beliefs also religions?
When you use the word “innate”: What do you mean in the absence of any acknowledged possibility of a Creator?
So in summary the author at one point didn’t require proof for any of her beliefs, then decided that scientific proof was required, then decided again that she would suspend her new-found rationality to believe in a different set of beliefs. How did she put the genie back in the bottle, or did the genie even come out in the first place? It seems the author took the red-pill then spat it out without swallowing.
Most atheists hate being termed as such, and I would imagine if they were to be pinned to a belief at all (as opposed to a lack of one) would simply subscribe to a belief in the scientific method; do you have evidence that the thing you are talking about can be proven to an extent that its accepted as true or real? Without the data religion simply ends there for me and it’s frustrating to see that what should be such as simple question has endured for millennia. Jesus, how hard is this to grasp?
Science deals only with nature.
Whether the supernatural exists is a question it cannot answer.
Firstly, the scientific method is more epistemology than science, though scientists use it to see if a theory can be proven. Second, Science could easily answer the question if it exhibited any change on the physical world at all. I don’t mean to be deliberately rude here but this is the reason why it’s generally pointless debating these sorts of things with religious people (yet here I am again). That you are prepared to believe in a concept that you have already stated is not measurable suggests to me that your methods to attain knowledge are not sound.
Hi Tony, Jung would agree with Matt, namely, the debate is pointless as – and now he would agree with you, Tony – Matt has made a category error:
‘Religious statements […] refer without exceptions to things that cannot be established as physical facts. If they did not do this, they would inevitably fall into the category of the natural sciences’ (Jung, C.G. (1958xii) ‘Answer to Job’. Routledge & Kegan Paul)
Perhaps, and undoubtedly often factual, but not dispositive or comprehensively true. Nor can even the strictest adherence to Method, by itself, render one’s conclusions sound.
Your round claim that Science (!) “could easily answer the question” if the question concerned only what is physically measurable by current methods is only too true. To some for whom Science must encompass everything, things like consciousness, spirit, and living growth are never explained, except to be “explained away” or treated as though they do not exist.
Even the more intellectually adept and temperamentally rational among us use an instrument–the human brain–that we do not fully understand, to put it mildly. It remains inscrutable to us, yet it’s ever more common to use that inherited (or, if you prefer, randomly mutated and arranged) instrument to declare our creaturely (or animal) conclusions supreme–as if we were no longer at a veiled distance from the source of our knowledge. A non-theistic self-deification.
By the way, I’m not a religionist. But neither am I a logical positivist or hyper-materialist. Four centuries after Hamlet’s dig at Horatio: There are still more things in the earth and sky than are dreamt of in your natural philosophy–or mine.
The burden of proof is on the believer.
Perhaps Religion is nature’s Placebo?
Nor can we answer the question of if there is a teapot circling Mars
We’ve left so much garbage in space that there could well be a teapot!
Hi Matt S, Jung (together with Tony Buck above or below this reply) would most likely deem yours a category error:
‘Religious statements […] refer without exceptions to things that cannot be established as physical facts. If they did not do this, they would inevitably fall into the category of the natural sciences’ (Jung, C.G. (1958xii) ‘Answer to Job’. Routledge & Kegan Paul)
I think she is pretty clear: her “conversion” is not based on belief.
She seems to view Christianity as a useful instrument in the culture war. She may be correct about this, but I think it is a dishonest way to operate.
I do think that Christianity’s track-record (or, at least the comparative track-record of what we would consider “Christendom”) should make it worth a look for an intellectually-curious person. However, absent a true spiritual revelation (which she does not indicate that she has had), I don’t see how you can honestly call yourself a Christian.
I think she is pretty clear: her “conversion” is not based on belief.
She seems to view Christianity as a useful instrument in the culture war. She may be correct about this, but I think it is a dishonest way to operate.
I do think that Christianity’s track-record (or, at least the comparative track-record of what we would consider “Christendom”) should make it worth a look for an intellectually-curious person. However, absent a true spiritual revelation (which she does not indicate that she has had), I don’t see how you can honestly call yourself a Christian.
Agreed.
Much like the many lifelong self-professed Christians who make little to no mention of the exemplary life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and focus mainly on the supernatural and otherworldly aspects of the Gospels.
How do those who muster faint or nonexistent attention to love for neighbor, compassion, justice, sacrifice, and how we treat “one of the least of these my brethren” when they are hungry, sick, cold, strangers, or in prison, claim to know Jesus–except as a word they repeat in connection with their Christology?
I understand Ayaan’s need to believe in something. Not believing is not for her. It’s very personal. I have never found the need to believe or not believe. To claim one is an unbeliever still sounds like a need to believe, an identity. I do think there are certain personality types that need religion and that it’s based on fear. Hearing about Islam from the inside is so chilling, and whatever it takes to stop it from taking over the world must be done.
Religion based on fear ? More on sadness – that of bereavement and that of living in a world where the individual appears, prima facie, to live in vain, being annihilated at death.
Why did medieval peasants, say, bother to go on living. given the unimaginable hardships of their lives ?
There are certain personality types that don’t need religion – they are phlegmatic, emotionally unimaginative; and possessing middle-class comforts and advantages.
Which in 2023, will soon be gone.
Indeed. Christianity is a desert plant that doesn’t flourish in lush environments.
peasants kept living because of the evolved motivation for survival we have inbuilt into our brains. You can see it in all animals similar to humans, and any organism.
In other words religion is crutch for those who have nothing else to help them endure the suffering of life. Perhaps there was some truth then in Marx’s ‘opium for the masses’?
Exactly.
Quoting at greater length gives us a better picture of one of old Karl’s most-referenced sayings: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of our soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
That’s actually quite poetic.
I find in it a joy and a peace that counteracts all that comes against me. Many Christians will tell you the same if they know Christ.
Exactly, it’s a comfort, it’s supposed to be, that’s what it’s for. Whatever gets you through the night, and why not?
Rubbish and very judgemental.
You probably know by now that I’m one of the people who don’t need religion, so to be insulting is a personal attack, which is uncalled for since you nothing about my life’s circumstances.
I have so much respect for Ayaan, and although I’m an atheist I do see the value of the ritual and ethical frameworks of Christianity in our culture. But she is mistaken in concluding that defending the writers of the western religious, ethical, and philosophical canon requires that we accept the supernatural beliefs that were pervasive at the time of its origin, and I think her conclusions betray a shallow knowledge of history. Russell’s essay is as valid today as it was then. The ‘Judeo-Christian’ tradition is as much Marquis de Sade and Nietzsche as it is the Golden Rule. It is as much Seneca and Plato as the Bible. Many stories of the new and old testaments have their roots in polytheistic Egypt and Mesopotamia. What we need is a better appreciation of our philosophical inheritance, including where it intersects with religion, not a woolly belief in a heavenly realm. After all, Russia’s violent cronies view themselves as a guardians of orthodox Christianity and use their faith to justify all sorts of crimes against humanity. That is not a path we in the west want to go down. We can and must protect our values but we do not need to jettison the knowledge we have gained about the nature of reality over the last 2000 years. It is ok and normal to feel something deep and moving listening to Palestrina in a Gothic cathedral, and believe that is worth cherishing and protecting. If you want to believe in an intervening deity that literally sacrificed his son who then rose from the dead, that’s your right but to suggest Christian faith is the bulwark against threats to western civilization is a stretch. Which Christianity does she mean? Mennonite? Coptic? Mormon? Southern Baptist? Roman Catholic? They are not even compatible among themselves. I think Ayaan needs to have a chat with her old atheist pals.
It reads like the author simply wants to follow whichever group she’s with at the time. Started out as a somebody going through the motions like the others in her circle, then became a much more fundamental when a new group arrived and disowned those who didn’t follow suit. Next she moved to the much more secular west with atheist friends and became an atheist, now finally by dint of the culture wars she’s found herself aligned with more conservative Christians and has joined their ranks. None of the beliefs seem to be held particularly strongly.
I also don’t really see how religion would help in a war with the atheist Chinese Communist Party but maybe that’s just me. I can appreciate that western society was largely shaped by Christianity but that doesn’t mean I believe any of the stories to be true unfortunately
But do you try to live, mostly, by christian values – the 10 Commandments? I think.most civilised people do broadly.
As I said, I can see how the Christian beliefs have shaped the attitudes of western society, and I think society is better for it. However that doesn’t mean I believe that those stories in the bible actually happened, or that we’re going on to everlasting life after the grim reaper comes calling
Many of those who reject Jesus Christ will go on to everlasting death – Hell, in the vernacular.
Thanks, Tony. …but no threats or pressure, of course. ; )
Your words are not making the case for being religious.
No we are only saved by faith in Christ. There are no rosy promises written for those who reject Him. Those who believe everyone is going to heaven regardless is not backed up by the bible.
How can we be said to be “rejecting” something we do not consider to be real ?
Someone made a comment earlier that religion was partly based on fear. But we don’t believe in heaven any more than a god or gods, so it’s of no consequence whether you think we’re going or not. I don’t need or want “rosy promises”.
The old “fear of god” thing.
“Broadly” – ie feebly, tepidly, very loosely indeed.
Just because we have some of the same values it’s not because they are Christian but because they are good. Why do you not kill? It’s either because it’s fundamentally wrong or because you are afraid of god. If it’s wrong then it can be derived by anyone, and if it’s because god told you not to then are you really good at all? Plato talked about this in Euthyphro 2000 years ago.
Not so much fear of god as fear of the law! We do have laws against most of the Ten Commandments. Though I think you safely covet your neighbor’s wife without fear of prosecution.
But not her ass!
I read a post which resonated with me the other day. To paraphrase it: I don’t support any religion, I support godly people. My personal belief is that the divine is present in all of us.
I think most compassionate, psychologically healthy people would naturally live by what’s in the Ten Commandments even if they weren’t commandments.
I disagree. She has a powerful testimony coming from the backround she had. I believe that if a person like that finds Christ she will not depart from Him. Other than that I believe she has spoken the truth about the breakdown of society and the enemies we face. This will only get worse until we change.
I’m willing to bet that in 20 years time she will have abandoned Christianity. Once the novelty wears off, she’s in with a new group of friends and the doubts about whether all the miracles could have happened kick in it will disappear along with Islam and her Atheism
We’re never going to change, this is it. History repeats itself. As my bumper sticker says “The climate is changing faster than we are”.
I am not religious, but neither do I reject religion in terms of being an unbeliever.
Neither am I in a wilderness of fear and self doubt.
I have strong moral values for good in societies without any need for religious teachings.
Turning to Christianity to repel the perceived threat from other nations and woke ideology is a very peculiar notion, I really do not understand the benefits of such an undertaking.
But that’s all my personal view, if the author is finding sanctuary with this approach then fair enough.
Without Christianity, the West is simply a dead parrot
Quite true but the reality of christianity must not be based on being ashamed of Jesus the foundation of it.
I read recently that at the current trend Christianity will be gone in the uk by 2060.
Gosh, that long?
If we last that log with climate change.
Not true.
Apart from a Christian resurgence, what else will stop ‘woke’? Much like Islam, it is a totalitarian ideology completely immune to rational discourse and evidence. While Wokeism threatens to destroy the West from within, Islam threatens it from without. They’ve already joined forces on our college campuses, places which are supposed to be secular, enlightened and ‘good’, yet these colleges lack the moral conviction to stop this rot.
Woke is rooted in Christianity.
GK Chesterton
I would argue that the great preponderance of ‘bad things done by Christians’ happened before the reformation; and that the violence after it was mostly tribal/factional – the old trying to control the new, and preserve their power, even at the cost of ignoring the fundamental tenets of Christianity.
What about the pedophiles in the Catholic church?
They’ve long since moved on and are now teaching queer theory in schools.
So believers are “woke”?
Aye. As if Christendom wasn’t largely corrupt and vicious, and the world and even grimmer place, prior to the Reformation.
I’m not saying the above post by is a definite case of it but the recent rise of Medievalist nostalgia is a strange form of revisionism. I understand there’s a few things we could stand to recover–such as their relative toughness and honesty, on average–but come on look at the whole picture!
Well if it wasn’t previously, it certainly appears to be nowadays.
I’m more confident in the non-believers amongst us seeing off woke than the current eastablished church in the UK.
I agree with your assessment of wokism, but I’m not confident Christianity has any mechanisms to suppress it.
And it’s on college campuses that anti-semitism is alive and well which is pretty rotten.
Yes, Jew hatred is the mongrel child of Islam and Woke.
With zero Christian complicity?
“Any religion that leads to spiritual enlightenment should be encouraged. A Muslim scholar’s quote, with which, I as a Christian, absolutely agree.
Your essay is superb, as is everything you write. But I cannot join you in becoming a Christian. As a Christian friend warned me, Christianity is not about accepting the moral teachings of Jesus, or believing he was a great man, or wanting to preserve the heritage of our forebears in Christian Europe and before that, Greece and Rome. I accept all that, with enthusiasm and commitment.
It is, he said, about believing that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God and that he sacrificed his life so that we may be “saved,” that is, saved from going to Hell – and that, unlike the rest of us, after he died he was resurrected. To be saved, we must believe all that.
I don’t. It is supernatural mythology. It didn’t happen. If there is a God, we are all children of God. Like most Jews I regard Jesus as a Jewish teacher who said many wise things and a few foolish things. We would do worse than to emulate Jesus of Nazareth.
But I cannot make myself believe something that I do not believe. That is why I am not a Christian.
No one cannot force oneself to believe. God doesn’t want robots and that is why He has given us freewill. If you have chosen not to believe the gospel that is your decision which you have made.
Assuming the Christian/Catholic I suppose, God exists then some atheists are going to be pleasantly surprised at judgement day, Because in the Catholic theology there is the concept of “Baptism of Desire” and IF they have lived the good lives they claim they want then they may find themselves heaven bound as many a believer who didn’t live those lives, heads the other way. 😉
Jesus is, indeed, the only begotten Son of God. He did lay down His life for us and raise it back up again so that we might live with Him forever. He loves you very much, Laurence, and will give you the evidence you desire. Open your mind and heart and read “A Cardiologist Examines Jesus” by Dr. Franco Serafini. May God bless you abundantly.
The antidote to Islam is not another belief system, nor is it ‘atheism’, it is rationality; evidence, intelligence, reason, and, most importantly, doubt – the recognition that there is always more to know, and that every ‘fact’ is conditional and provisional, depending on what the fact is supposed to represent, and on the strength and nature of the evidence for it. The ‘golden age of Islam’ was nothing to do with Islam as a religion, but a product of enlightened caliphs and the reach of empire; caliphs who recognised and valued the power of knowledge. It was just what the ideologues feared – knowledge and doubt undermined the unquestioning certainties on which their power bases relied (and rely), so they demanded utter certainty. The golden age came to an end, and Islam went backwards. The West must grow the courage to question and criticise, force Muslims to face up to what they have signed up to, starting with the ridiculous, and frankly dangerous, idea that religious beliefs should be ‘protected’. Islam’s golden age could come again.
Rationality can lead to the death camps just as well as anything else. What was Marxism except for a “scientific rational materialism”. Rationality can not answer the need for morality, because rationality can not provide any value to the human individual. If we are mere animals, slaughtering humans you don’t like, and whose stuff you want, is just as rational as slaughtering animals you want to eat.
IF it wasn’t Islam’s Golden Age in the first place, how can it come again for Islam?
I still don’t get why our lives have to have meaning or purpose. We simply evolved over millions of years and experience the gift of life and consciousness, with a strong motivation for survival inbuilt. Christianity may have provided a lot and I am thankful for that, but must I really go and read the creed every Sunday pretending I believe in the holy lamb of God and the holy spirit – superstitious ideas from antiquity?
Or; if anyone is incapable of finding meaning in their lives – not in looking after others, meeting others, trying to build a better future, nature, astronomy, philosophy, the arts, sports, wine and song (I could go on)…..then they are truly lost.
I agree. I don’t need “meaning” in my life, it’s simply a selection of random events that I react to accordingly, trying to make it a bit easier and more fun for me and the kids
‘The Kids’? There is an interesting phrase, ‘The Kids’ completely changed my view of life AND the way I live it.
At this time, I’m also feeling the pull towards Christianity more than at any other point in my life. I’m coming from a completely different direction than the author: never christened, idyllic childhood in rural Yorkshire, primary education at a CofE school, quite pleasant visits to church at Easter and Christmas, and a non-judgmental introduction to other religions at secondary school. I had, and have, a quite neutral and interested relationship towards religion: I would describe myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist.
The coronation in May was the moment at which I began to think that I could “have faith” in a more direct sense. The ceremony was wonderful anyway, but it also came at a moment when the world is making less and less sense to me: that, in turn, has made me more open to religious faith. The moment when Charles disappeared behind the screen for his anointment and private moment with God amid the choir singing “Zadok the Priest”, I found myself willing, if not yet quite able, to believe in that God. (And in tears – floods of tears.
Religious faith seems like a good way to regain stability and a feeling of belonging in an increasingly unhinged world.
This is Christianity as cultural and instrumental, religion for the sake of spiritual or psychological consolation and the shoring up of Western, liberal values against their many adversaries. I sympathize, but I still think the only reason to become a Christian is that you believe it is true: that Jesus literally rose from the dead, the Bible is the word of God, and faith will lead to eternal paradise, while lack of faith will lead to eternal suffering and damnation.
Christianity is not (merely) a worldview or cultural armor. It is a demanding set of beliefs and practices to which one must conform in the face of a very real possibility of deprivation and punishment — for eternity. It is actually quite terrifying. And I’m not sure it is true.
Half of Christianity is gentle and beautiful, half of it austere and alarming.
But which is worse ? – to be terrified by a fire alarm – and thus survive, Or to ignore it and be burnt.
Jesus referred to Himself as the Good Doctor.
Good doctors say scary and uncomfortable things.
So as to save us from ourselves.
Brilliant synopsis apart from the last line. I hope and pray that you will dicover the truth of it. The vast majority are not saved by fear but some are according to the scriptures.
It’s not.
Whatever Christianity is or isn’t, at the moment what the author hopes it will save us from is far worse. I happen to think she is wrong. I think Western Society isn’t any where near as lost as she thinks. As ever, it will be the ordinary people who save us. Our Elite are so rotten they’ll not survive any crisis that threatens our everyday lives, and Net Zero is the current biggest threat.
Sorry Ayaan, totally ‘get’ the Christendom culture argument (it’s a heritage we can be grateful and proud of in many ways), and furthermore the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, whoever he was, remain the most wonderous and remarkable basis for how one lives one’s life. But the problem is belief in some Deity that lies behind all this – who took 4.6 billion years of Earth creation and evolution before deciding to reveal himself to a series of illiterate Iron age tribes in one small, largely dry and arid peninsula a couple of millennia ago and now requires we regularly worship him like some Kim Jong Un cult. Sorry large elements are nonsense and we ain’t going back to that anymore than we’ll all start believing in the Tooth fairy again. But we can take the the best teachings and traditions and retain those elements. One suspects Ayaan will end up there in due course.
Nonetheless folks can believe in nonsense and in the West the Christian heritage is ‘live and let live’, ‘render unto Caesar etc’ so long as you do not impose yourself on another’s freedom. This idea the West’s values decaying and increasingly corrupt feels a bit of tosh too. The day people stop flocking to the West we’ve a problem and that ain’t happening anytime soon. They see a light, even if we and they cannot articulate it. This articulation of Values that united us is not always easy and we have challenges and cannot be complacent but it has dealt with much worse before. As Orwell said freedom is the ability to tell people what they do not want to hear, and he conveyed as a warning where we end up without that.
No one ever did believe in the tooth fairy.
The human experiment is important – when it ends (almost certainly this century), so will the Earth.
Someone’s been saying that every century for at least the last 2000 years …
The Greens are not only saying it, they are well on their way to ensuring it. Net Zero, unless of course Armageddon beats it to it.
I had a fairly religious upbringing but as I reached my late teens/early 20s I realised I had no faith and Christianity does require that. Nonetheless, I recognise that it provided me with a sound moral compass. When my kids were small many parents got their kids out of RE at school, but I felt this was something the kids could decide for themselves and I would answer any questions they had as honestly as possible without trying actively to put them off. I think they too acquired a good moral compass through this, despite heavy duty interference from staunchly atheist grandparents on one side. Curiously what they both loved was the still and beauty of their other grandparents’ church – something they still love and admire. where else provides that in modern life?
Nature.
Ms. Ali’s psychological and emotional discomfort with a God-less universe is not evidence that God exists nor for the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. Is she saying that we should swallow the theology–however implausible–for the sake of cultural unity? In my view the moral values that she most esteems–freedom of conscience and speech–are better supported by reason, critical thinking, evidence, and science than by faith in divinity.
Furthermore, I object to her premises that “Western Civilization” is threatened by authoritarian Russia, Communist China, Iran, Islam, and “woke ideology.” The most pressing danger of authoritarianism arises from fascist movements within western countries, including from within the Republican party of the US (with which Ali’s patrons American Enterprise and Hoover are linked). Military confrontations with Russia, China, and Iran pose much greater dangers (including nuclear war) than does acceptance of their historical spheres of influence in a great power geopolitical world. She’s certainly right that radical Islamists wish to establish a caliphate ruled by sharia–but bombs and drone strikes are not effective against that belief system.
Her idea that woke ideology is a major threat to Western Civilization is provocative but implausible. It would be helpful if she had given even one example of woke ideology and its nefarious effect on the “moral fiber of the next generation.” According to Wikipedia, ideas associated with “wokeness” include skepticism of American exceptionalism and of capitalism, the existence of systemic racism and white privilege, support for reparations for slavery and discrimination, opposition to police brutality, opposition to sexism, support for gender fluidity, and opposition to Donald Trump and his claims that the 2020 election was stolen. These are all ideas which deserve discussion and debate, not to be taken as dogma, but hardly erosive of moral fiber.
She does not mention some very real and pressing dangers to civilization: climate change, natural resource depletion and degradation, overpopulation, runaway militarism, nuclear war…
Would these dangers exist if everybody followed Christ’s comand to love one another?
Wow!
My reaction too – an outstanding piece of writing.
It’s very sad that so many people seem unable to focus on “ethics” rather than driving themselves to believe in an unsubstantiatable deity.
Your definition of ethics would largely come from what others call morals which have their roots in Christianity though, at least in the west. I think it’s all a load of nonsense personally but I can appreciate the good the church has done in shaping attitudes in society
Has it?
Why bother with ethics ? They’re only a middle-class preoccupation.
The poor have a naked choice between good and evil. Religion helps there; degrees in Ethics don’t.
What does poverty have to do with choosing between good and evil? Everyone has that choice, whatever the size of their bank balance. The poor in many countries have to choose every day whether to beg, borrow or steal to survive. Most still make the right choices, with or without religion.
I came to the same conclusion 4 years ago. My family are all now Catholic. Ayaan – my wife said to me this morning that you were the single greatest woman and person she could think of right now, and I agree. Thank you and God bless.
As a lapsed Episcopalian, I find myself turning more and more to C.S. Lewis these days, whose writing I loved as a young person but who I thought I had outgrown. I was wrong.
That’s wonderful. C.S. Lewis is the first author I read on becoming a Christian. After four degrees in philosophy and theology, I find myself wanting to leave it all behind and return to Lewis. Welcome back!
Excellent, thoughtful essay. The Oct. 7 massacre has shown me that large swathes of people living in the west actually hate us. I used to think progressives were simply low-information weaklings who used victimhood as a crutch – and maybe that’s the case for many of them – but many others will gladly take that crutch and beat you to death with it. I’m truly shocked at the scope of antisemitism in the west. Yet it runs much deeper. These people don’t just hate the Jews. They hate us all. Despite enjoying more freedom and privilege than any other society in the history of the world, they want to burn it all to the ground. I suspect that many people marching in the streets are useful idiots – those who can’t locate Israel, Gaza and the Jordan River on a map – but they might be more dangerous than the zealots driving the bus. I’m not sure what the solution is, but more than ever, I fear for the future of my children and their children.
My mouth fell open at this litany of nonsense. I don’t doubt that Christianity is a bedrock of western cuture. And has much to recommend it as a moral guide. But to abandon one load of nonsense in favour of another load of nonsense is ridiculous, if you want some real answers try science not magic. The idea that the billions of galaxies that we can detect were all made by a god for the peoples of the middle east to enjoy is so far beyond ludicrous it makes me want to weep.
But the Bible doesn’t say that about the galaxies.
Science can’t tell you how to live or even whether you should bother to.
You are worshipping Science idolatrously, as a false god.
Christianity isn’t a form of magic – it’s reality.
Do you really need someone to tell you how to live? The answers to that are inside you.
Are they? Someone hasn’t been watching the development of children secretly videoed in nurseries etc. We ALWAYS seem to need other people to teach us how to live in society, though not always in formal classroom settings.
We learn by example. It’s not so much what parents tell their children as how they treat them, treat each other and live their lives as role models to their children.
Who put them there?
Are you following me, David?!!
Science is only discovering the laws of what God has created.
“Every sperm is sacred”!
I hope not. That sock under my bed as a teenager would have been holier than Jesus himself
Good one Billy Bob, thanks for the laff.
That surely is a better belief than Jews can be slaughtered, defiled, beheaded and Mum and Dad will approve of it?
Thank you, well said!
Weeping isn’t scientific is it?
Science was very useful to the Nazis, it enable them to produce Zyklon B, saved on bullets and the psychological drawbacks of shooting all those Jews.
Perhaps mobile phones and whatsApp would have been better. Mum and Dad praising you for what they see of those you massacred on Whats App being the solution to the issues the SS discovered with their executioners needing vast quantities of alcohol to cope?
All we need now is for the Archbishop of Canterbury to convert from Socialism to Christianity and we’re good to go.
“Western civilisation is under threat from three different but related forces:” There is a fourth threat: the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, through the use of lockdowns, control of money, the removal of wealth-creating industries (as opposed to money-creating industries) and the plundering of public funds. Forty years ago Thatcher wanted a house-owning democracy. Now we have Klaus Schwab threatening us with, “You will own nothing but you will be happy.” The same threat as that made by socialists.
To me, this freedom of conscience and speech is perhaps the greatest benefit of Western civilisation. It does not come naturally to man.
I think it does come naturally to man – as we all want to think and speek freely.
It does not come naturally to those in power. The natural tendency for those in power is to maintain and expand their power, and freedom of speech undermines that.
I’m a Christian so I welcome you, but maybe things aren’t as black and white as all that. Islam wasn’t always as angry and exclusive as much of it is now. The Sufi poets would grace Christian devotion, and there are some very nasty Christians out there.
‘Islam wasn’t always as angry and exclusive as much of it is now.’ I suggest you look up the Kharijites, the first Islamic sect. Islam has been ‘angry and exclusive’ from its invention.
And every Moslem isn’t a Kharajite, just as most Christian don’t belong to the Westboro Baptist church
Islam encourages BAD behavior (banditry, murder and oppression) but most Muslims are not like that at all.
Christianity encourages GOOD behavior (peace, love for one’s fellow man and grace in all things) but most Christians are not like that at all.
God has not abandoned those who profess in Islam, just as those who profess Christianity do not have a Get Out of Jail card.
Peter Hitchens has some interesting views on why the people of Israel and Islam will only ever come to live peaceably together IF there is no official settlement, but the people work together more often.
Which is arguably why Hamas/Fatah regularly ensure that such ‘working together’ is interrupted whenever they think it is heading the way Mr Hitchens’ claims.
I do not believe in God as such, and although an English secular Jew, I have a healthy regard for most of the religions of this world, which endeavour, at least nowadays, to preach kindness, tolerance, love and peace etc. they bring great comfort to many people. I exclude Islam from this list. It publicly and constantly posits the one and only god, that the entire world should live under Sharia, and those that don’t should not live, and more.
Now this may upset some of you, the wonderfully erudite Ayaan Hirsi Ali tells us The alternative, indulging in the pleasures of the world, was to earn Allah’s wrath and be condemned to an eternal life in hellfire. It strikes me, many leftists who find themselves bedfellows with Hamas and Hezbollah and others feel the same way as Islam does about the rest of us.
“It strikes me, many leftists who find themselves bedfellows with Hamas and Hezbollah and others feel the same way as Islam does about the rest of us.”
Seconded. The decline of established religion in the west forced those of a puritan instinct to find a new, secular way of bullying everyone else, and Karl Marx provided the necessary platform for that.
The people in question are spiritually fuelled by the same old hatred of other people’s freedom that their ideological ancestors were.
While writers typically don’t generate their own headlines, this one — “Why I am now a Christian” — neatly encapsulates the main value of this piece as an exegesis of one woman’s continuing spiritual journey. It’s interesting in that regard. But I see no overarching, broadly applicable truths about Christianity — which, after all, brought us the Crusades and the Inquisition — to recommend it over other religions. All have their virtues, and all, unfortunately, attract zealots inclined to elevate their beliefs and only their beliefs to the point of imposing them by force on “infidels.”
The Crusades were a response to overwhelming Jihadism.
Correct the Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression, and the Inquisition killed about as many Jews per century as Hamas did in one day.
Jerusalem fell to Islam in 636AD, more than four centuries later in 1099AD it fell (astonishingly)to an opportunistic assault by the ‘Crusaders*).
That can hardly be described as a “response to Muslim aggression”.
(* Primarily a bunch of unwashed, uncouth, Franco-Norman impecunious thugs.)
The Byzantine Emperor requested Western help to deal with continuing Muslim aggression in Anatolia. There were also issues about Western pilgrims being prevented from accessing the Holy Land.
All of the Levant and Egypt and North Africa were Christian before they were conquered by the Arabs.
The Roman Empire, sometimes erroneously called the Byzantine Empire had been at war with Islam almost from the moment that it emerged from the Arabian desert in the mid seventh century.
Neither side can claim the moral high ground, and ultimately the Crusades not only LOST, but only exacerbated the situation.
POSTED AT. 22.09 GMT.
12.11.23.
Such a peace loving people, they were welcomed into North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, Constantinople, the Balkans, Caucasus. Where, curiously quietly, and recently, the Armenian Christians were NOT ethnically cleansed from Ngorno-Karabakh – according to Muslim Azerbaijan and Turkey, they left of their own accord. Turkey who as Ottomans didn’t commit genocide against the Armenians either.
Then, if not for the sheer ungratefulness of Don John of Austria and assorted Hungarians,they’d have been welcomed with open arms into Europe. Like today?
PS Those unwashed, uncouth, Franco-Norman’s were invited into Ireland after conquering us English by the Irish. Then the Scots populated the North at the behest of Scottish Royalty. Scottish Royalty also took over the English throne when the Welsh Royalty that had succeeded the French Royalty when they under duress vacated it also vacated it by mortality. Yet the Irish have always blamed us English.
Nonsense.
See above.
Only I don’t see what Christianity is to Ali beyond a religious sanctioning of liberal values, which is somehow supposed to strengthen them.
I doubt it will because, as figures from William Blake to Ivan Illich have pointed out, Christian moralism only instils fresh horrors.
Liberal values come from Christianity (and Judaism as the precursor religion).
Read Dominion by Tom Holland if you don’t believe me.
I do believe you and have read Holland. Blake and Illich’s point is that when Christianity secularised, which happened when churches institutionalised as much as secular societies emerged from Christianity, the central spirit of Christianity was lost.
What was transcendent and free – grace, gift, the spirit blowing where it wills – becomes immanent and required – moral duty, good order, the right to this to that.
This is a mutation or perversion of Christianity, as Charles Taylor puts it: “a mutation in which the Church began to take with ultimate seriousness its power to shape and form people to the demands of the Gospel.” Modern government is the inheritor of that seriousness.
Only, further, in the secular, immanent world, that power to shape and form twists again into escalating demands for security, order, control, efficiency, with all the clashes, costs and anxieties that produces.
It’s tragic because the impulse is to do good, but with little or no sense of where that impulse or the good comes from, or what it is like – transcendent, free, even reckless-seeming: a divine source.
What liberal values?
The Old Testament is a litany of lies and homicidal shrieks that makes Mein Kampf seem like something from Enid Blyton.
The idea that God cares about every individual created the idea that every individual has worth and value, and certain human rights.
The Greek, Roman, Chinese, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Islamic civilizations all lacked this crucial element. In all those world views if you’re powerful, or a citizen, you have immense value. If not you’re a slave or peon, and of no worth whatsoever. No one objected to genocidal war or millions of slaves and peasants dying in public works projects. No one objected to the powerful raping or killing their slaves.
I hear what you say, but for example where was the God person whilst Auschwitz was going on?
On sabbatical perhaps?
He was on the belt buckles of the camp staff and guards; ‘Gott mit uns’.
Thanks, I had forgotten that detail!
Not to mention Adolf was baptised a Roman Catholic! Praise be too God!
Well, you learn something every day. I had no idea. Put’s a new slant on “With God on our Side” by Bob Dylan – seems he wasn’t aware of this either.
Matt 7,15-23 KJV – might answer any implied question on whose side God may have been, regardless of the claims to his support.
I’m sure as a babe in arms he asked to be ‘Baptised’ in to that faith;-)
PS Stalin was a seminarian. Though it doesn’t appear that the word as used to describe the Seminary has the same meaning as in the UK where it is an establishment to train priests.
He also wasn’t Russian. Which is tough on Russia as it’s ‘Russia’ that gets the blame for him.
The New Testament is quite a good read. Here’s a sample – not quite as you might think, even to the point of wondering,
“Is the Pope Catholic?” perhaps?
Matthew 7, 15-23 King James Bible.
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
17 Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.
20 Therefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 “Not every one that saith unto Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father who is in Heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that Day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name have cast out devils, and in Thy name done many wonderful works?’
23 And then will I profess unto them, ‘I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.’
I’m a non-believer by the way, but I can’t say it has made me happier than I was when I did believe.
I’m not sure that’s what it’s all about, is it?
If there’s no God, what’s wrong with the Nazis? Why is their morality any worse than ours? It’s just a matter of preference.
You are a free being. IF God exists, would you want to dance on the end of strings he has attached to you? That is basically the Catholic answer to your question.
God was doing tremendous good, as He always does. His true followers, like Maximilian Kolbe, were as well.
The weird voting here, no uptick registered it doesn’t seem authentic.
And the Magdalene laundries? The billions the RC Chuch has paid out to the victims of its Cardinals and priests? The burnings at the stake? The Thirty Years War – more than 5 million killed?
More like 10 million, and don’t forget the Christian Buggers* of dear old Ireland.
(* Officially Brothers!)
To mention just a few horrors!!
Let me know when the Church of Rome actually preaches those practices as part of the Catechism and the faith.
Mao managed ten times that in far less time. Even 2000 years ago, the founder of Christianity saw what men would do and what questions would be asked.
Matthew 7, 15-23 King James Bible.
You need to read the New Testament, in it Christ explains how he has a new covenant.
PS I don’t believe in God, but I was educated by Jesuits and brought up in a very devout Irish Catholic family. It was a good upbringing.
I have the most immense admiration for Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She has lived her life with a coherent bravery I doubt one in a hundred of us would be capable of. But here I have a big problem. The only reason why you should belong to any religion is that you believe it to be true. Our friends the evolved Christians and such simply miss the point, and the point is that, either the man Jesus son of Mary from Nazareth in Galilee was God, or he was a deceiver and a madman. And if he and his followers were the latter, then what you preach is a lie. Russell’s emphasis on the reasons for this and that are themselves escapistic – I may have a million reasons to be afraid, but if I am afraid of Adolf Hitler, I am in the right, and if I am afraid of a mouse, I have a problem. Fear in itself means nothing, and incidentally Russell’s furious promotion of pro-German propaganda under the guise of pacifism suggests that he did not understand that some things really ought to be feared. But that is beside the point. Either there is a God as this religion describes it, or that religion describes it, or there is not. That is all that matters.
P.S. I am a member of the Catholic Church and have been so for most of my adult life. Just to be clear.
You say ” either the man Jesus son of Mary from Nazareth in Galilee was God, or he was a deceiver and a madman”.
Those are not the only options. Another is that he was an enlightened man who taught some valuable messages and that either he mistakenly believed he was God, or his followers imposed that idea on him.
I’ve heard this ‘it’s either true or he was a liar’ from believers all my life. However, it’s not true and you are not a liar for believing it. You are just mistaken.
Although I understand and appreciate the “civilizational” part of Ayaan’s conversion, I struggle with politics as a reason for adopting Christianity.
To paraphrase the race identity maniacs of the 21st century: My faith is not your cosplay.
As a Christian, I am so glad to welcome Ayaan to Christian faith.
I attended the 2012 Atheist conference in Melbourne attended by 5,000 actual and budding atheists with all their great ones, Dawkins, etc. up front, including Ayaan. I heard her speak and say things in appreciation of Christians, especially in their works of charity. Ever since, I have wondered whether she might cross over and now she has (John 5:24). I find great joy in the Lord for this. May there be many others of her intellectual quality to follow suit!
A Christian is a person who has a trusted Christ.
The Apostle Paul clearly made provision for the Christian communities to last into the distant future. Yet there is nothing in his stated expectations that an entire civilisation was to be formed from Christianity. He feels no imperative to mobilise masses.
Though the description in Acts of the discussion between Paul and the Twelve is brief, it was evidently a fierce debate. Paul declares that he gave place to others not for an hour. When the Twelve agree to preach to the circumcision, they were following their Master’s instructions. Unlike Paul, they were not professional missionaries. The Twelve’s objectives were limited.
As the Lord declared, His kingdom is not of this world. It’s not made up of political parties, economies, bureaucracies and armies, however Christianised.
Russell misunderstood the nature of godly fear. The Edwardian Bishop of Durham wrote: “Let us remember what godly fear is. It is not a frightened alarm. It is just love upon its knees. When a believing, loving sinner and sorrower kisses the feet of this dear, glorious, self-sacrificing God-Man, and gives the whole heart to Him, that is godly fear.”
Never let what you know be disturbed by what you don’t know.
Last sentence basis of assurance.
Your every point is a nail in the coffin of false assurance – or mere ,empty formalism.
(Late to this party, but!) Former Protestant, then Eastern Orthodox, now agnostic atheist here, who’s fascinated by Islam (how awful it is, specifically). I’ve long admired the courage of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and all ex-Muslims, and I’m glad if she’s found a spiritual home.
But several elements of her message seem … odd. Here’s three.
FIRST: For a longtime public professional atheist writer and speaker, Hirsi Ali has a wacky take on what “atheism” is and does.
After she identifies the most pernicious threats to the west (two of which — Putin’s Russia and global Islamism — are backed by major world religions), she wonders what commonality we (Westerners) all could use as a bulwark against them — then sighs, “The response that ‘God is dead!’ seems insufficient.”
To which I say, “Well, duh.” A can opener and a bouquet of pink roses would also be insufficient for that task.
Not only is The West comprised of 70 countries of people of thousands of different creeds and levels of religiosity (and therefore no religious commonality, but a history of strife between religions), “God is dead” isn’t even a pro-atheist slogan in the first place. (Did she think it was?) It’s an acknowledgment that one value system has collapsed in the West and a new one will have to be built.
Hirsi Ali then repeats the point in different words, dismissing atheism as “too weak and divisive a doctrine to fortify us against our menacing foes.”
To which I (again) say “Well, duh.” (The reader can insert a couple of irrelevant tools here.)
That’s because “atheism,” as Hirsi Ali should know, isn’t a doctrine of any sort. It simply identifies a disbelief (or lack of belief) in God, nothing more. It’s not a philosophy, value system, or moral code — we atheists derive our morals and ethics from the culture around us (local laws and customs; actual philosophies; our parents, extended family, neighbors and teachers; our social groups and those who inspire us) rather than from ancient texts. Truth be told, most religious folks derive their morals and ethics the same way. (If someone parks in your spot and your reaction references Deuteronomy, that’s a problem!)
I understand the confusion. In the U.S., for example, the majority of atheists lean left. But that’s largely because since the 1800s, Protestant Christians and skeptic groups grew largely in reaction against each other. There’s plenty of right-leaning atheists, though, not to mention the world’s other 1.8 billion atheists who can’t be classified according to American politics and who have little in common besides atheism.
Atheists can be good and bad people, educated and ignorant, hate religion or just not care about it. There’s atheists who accept Darwin’s theory of evolution and atheists who believe humankind was planted here by green men in UFOs. Still not convinced? Then ask yourself whether any given atheist in Denver or Milwaukee “belongs to the same religion” as any given atheist in Japan, Norway, China Germany, South Korea, or Vietnam.
So Hirsi Ali’s lament that “Atheism failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life?” is like blaming a single wrench for not being able to overhaul your engine. For an ex-Christian or ex-Muslim, “unbelief” isn’t the solution, but the FIRST step on a journey to find one’s OWN meaning (which can be tremendously powerful and affirming). It seems strange that someone as knowledgeable as Hirsi Ali doesn’t see this.
SECOND: Many people have “God-shaped boxes” that provoke loneliness and insecurity if left empty. And If Hirsi Ali needed to fill that box, I’m very grateful she chose Christianity rather than reverting to Islam. But her essay doesn’t really explain how Christianity solves the problems she found in Islam.
Don’t get me wrong: In the current era, Islam (particularly Jihadist/Islamist groups) are a much, much larger danger worldwide than Christianity is. (We Americans should be able to admit that without disregarding the danger Christian Nationalism poses to our own democracy.)
For example, Hirsi Ali doesn’t say what branch or denomination of Christianity she’s joined. She doesn’t have to. But many of them still warn of everlasting hell for sinners and unbelievers (including Jews who don’t convert), and a few forbid “music, dancing and cinema.”
To be clear: Even the most conservative form of Christianity today is nowhere NEAR as confining as almost all forms of modern Islam. Today’s Christians aren’t cutting the hands off of thieves, throwing gays off buildings, stoning adulterers or lashing consenting adults for premarital sex. No Christians are stabbing artists to death for drawing pictures of Jesus. Nor do ex-Christians fear execution, as ex-Muslims do. There is truly no comparison between Islam today and Christianity today.
All that said, many forms of Christianity have blood on their hands for past atrocities, and some continue to inflict emotional and spiritual abuse to believers. It almost seems like Hirsi Ali imagines Christianity as always having been as tolerant and inclusive as some forms are now, when these are fairly modern developments —influenced, ironically, by secularism.
Moreover, in defending Western civilization, Hirsi Ali appears to pit “faith” (that is, Christianity) against “nihilism” (China, Russia and Iran) … while somehow ignoring the fact that Iran and Putin’s Russia are on fire with the RELIGIOUS spirit of radical islam and (regrettably) Russian Orthodox Christianity. (Just because some believers align themselves with evil movements, as we see them, does not mean they aren’t “true believers.”)
It’s interesting that Hirsi Ali picks up the shield of Christianity to fight battles in 2023. The “Judeo-Christianity” she embraces isn’t a real thing: it’s an idea largely promoted in post-WWII America to make our society seem more strongly amalgamated than it really was. But it never reflected true acceptance of Jews. We can see how things are going now in the horrific growth of antisemitism against Israel’s military response to a Muslim aggressor.
It’s also a weird choice given that Christianity’s weakening impact on the world in recent decades. Many Western nations that were formally majority Christian are now mostly secular; interestingly, divorce and violent crime rates are also decreasing, and literacy and women’s rights are increasing. Maybe Hirsi Ali finds comfort in embracing the past, but she’ll have a problem finding team members this way.
THIRD: Hirsi Ali likely didn’t write the headline “Why I am now a Christian,” but throughout her essay she says that she now “calls herself” a Christian. She’s also written an essay listing the strategic reasons she finds Christianity superior to Islam.
But nowhere does she mention coming to actually believe in God or Christ. And I don’t mean by the narrow definition Evangelicals and Pentacostals use (“accepting Jesus as personal savior,” “being born again,” or whatever). She doesn’t mention any transformative or spiritual connection with any diety whatsoever.
And that’s fine. I’m not judging her. But logical facts don’t always translate to an inner conviction of religious truth. No one can “force” themselves into a supernatural belief, even if they really want to. It sounds like Hirsi Ali really wants to. But she hasn’t yet.
Thank you for that well-written, humorous,and comprehensive piece, babyhumanist. I think you’ve addressed everything. I also said I thought Hirsi Ali had a need to believe in the supernatural, the “god-shaped box,” so the void had to be filled. It’s very courageous of her to leave Islam and be critical of it. God knows it’s near impossible even for Catholics to cut ties with that church, as it would be to leave any cult that threatens hell and damnation, but with Islam it’s a literal threat of physical harm (look what happened to Salmon Rushdie). I hope she will be safe.
I’m glad to see a fellow atheist on this board, one who is playful and funny. I look forward to more of your articulate comments.
You spoke of Catholics losing faith – my mother was excommunicated for marrying my dad, the son of a United Church minister.
“And that’s fine. I’m not judging her.”
Which is exactly what you have been doing all the way through your article. Ha, ha, ha.
Except that I’m actually NOT “judging” her. Her bravery and activism are invaluable to the cause of human rights. And lots of people feel more comfortable in a spiritual framework than in “hard” atheism or materialism — they’re “spiritual but not religious,” and those feelings are valid.
What confuses me, though, is that she spent 20 years as a highly visible atheist yet apparently didn’t understand what atheism actually is and isn’t. All her criticisms of atheism are strawmen, and the specific reasons she gives for preferring Christianity suggest she doesn’t know basic history.
It would be different if she’d had a SPIRITUAL call toward Christianity; if she’d felt the presence of a loving God in her soul, reflected best within a Christian framework. But her reasons for accepting Christianity aren’t spiritual at all. They’re political and strategic.
I’m having a hard time understanding your use of words like “spiritual”, “god” and “soul” as an avowed atheist. What do those words mean to you?
Anyone who does the “ha, ha, thing” is immediately disqualified from being taken seriously about anything they say.
Oh, dear. Anyone with a lack of a sense of humour should not be taken seriously.
Well stated!
My feeling from what I read in Ayaan’s article is more of a “Christian lite.” More of a historical aspect of how we in the West have come to accept the more humanistic aspects of faith that includes community, fellowship and helping fellow humans. This too includes forgiveness. Much of what we are seeing withing today’s progressive ideology leaves no room for forgiveness.
Atheism can’t equip us for civilisational war
Truer than you think…..
Nor can a year at Sandhurst these days.
Funny!
Then what can?
I’m hoping that general atheism will be a good condition for civilisational peace.
You’re not going to get people to give up their beliefs, It’s devastating, I know, I was crushed as a child to find out there weren’t fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Nothing……fortunately!
Losing the first couple of battles and experiencing what that will mean. Then see how quickly the leaders “who can’t” are replaced by ones “who can”.
It has happened repeatedly throughout history and not just when it comes to wars. Watch how quickly the “Green Net Zero” politicians recant when the consequences start to hit home.
However, one day, it won’t happen quickly enough AND we not only lose the battles, we’ll lose the war. IF that war is with Islam, ten it’s game over. Look at the demise of the Jewish and Christian population of the Islamic world. How anyone can ignore that when complaining about ethnic cleansing is curious.
Encouraging the migration we have of the type we have or not discouraging the illegal migration we have, will one day ensure the answer to your question is
“No one can.” – and Islam will most likely rule Europe. Perhaps Erdogan sees that as the best way of getting Turkey into the EU?
A fascinating article.
While it is true that Christianity has contributed massively to the fields of science, technology, the treatment of the unbeliever etc. as the author rightly points out, I’m reminded of Paul’s utterance in 1 Corinthians 15:14-19
And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
In other words, to call oneself a Christian, it isn’t enough to say that you adhere to the contribution Christianity has brought to the West and beyond (true as that is.) One must also accept their own personal need for the death and resurrection of Christ for their sins (this may well be true for the author btw.)
Relatedly, Christianity isn’t the most convincing set of myths/stories among money, but must be seen as historically and factually true. That is not to say Christianity doesn’t have anything to say regarding morality, value and purpose (it absolutely does!) but all of this is built upon the historicity of Christianity and the Bible.
The intellectual grounds for atheism are embarrassingly unintelligent. Bertrand Russell the big atheist intellectual leader, could not even successfully identify the first line of the still unrefuted cosmological argument. He, like most of the new atheist dogmatists taught that it says “Everything has a cause”… but it is not that absurd bit of goofery, but rather “Everything that comes into being has a cause”, the principle that underlies western science and progress which Catholicism grounded in an intelligible cosmos.
Its a long and absurd story how the west became so stupid with materialism after its break with the classical realist metaphysical principles the church promulgated and continues to promulgate in her universities, but I am so extremely happy that I was able to have the modern absurdities leading to full intellectual collapse in the postmodernism made manifest at the University of Toronto in philosophy at St Michael’s College.
Did Hume refute the cosmological argument of Aquinas with his famous “Fork Rule” to attack metaphysics? No. His Fork Rule breaks his Fork Rule. Its that dumb. Did he refute causality with successive association? No.. he just took away any rational justification for believing his silly rule.
Ockham, the 14th century Franciscan monk broke with western sanity as found in Aristotle, the father of western science, and Aquinas who was perhaps the most intelligent men who ever lived.
Hume carried on with dumb empircism.. and it does leave you dumb, and these intellectual tropes have left the west literally stupid.
Philosophers like Norris Clark or Ed Feser.. a former Russell fan… until he read what Aquinas actually argued so successfully, are good names to google if one is interested in sanity and sane answers to the deepest metaphysical truths. It is quite easy to demonstrate the existence of God by reason alone analogically as Aquinas showed almost a millennium ago.
Good luck to the author…. I’d read the Thomist realists where reality can re-emerge. And those who .. after Hume and Kant, believe you can’t know anything with certainty, be advised that certainty… what is… is the foundation of logic itself in our intelligible cosmos.
Having read a great deal, you’re able to reel off a whole list of references but what is actually embarrassing is your lack of insight into the spirituality of being alive and conscious of ourselves that many human beings experience which doesn’t require a god to underpin that experience. It’s not an intellectual ‘position’ – it’s not a ‘position’ at all.
Rationally perhaps one might ask how spiritual one can be without a spirit?
What exactly is “the spirituality of being alive?” Enlighten us.
Bless you. Ayaan! I am a Christian because it is based on love; love of God, love for each other, and forgiveness. Jesus was brutally murdered for us, yet never advocated revenge or violence against his torturers and murderers – instead, he forgave them. Christianity doesn’t threaten – it invites all of us.
I’m Christian because I turned to Christ in my hour of need and he was there with me, despite me having ignored and shunned him for most of my life. That one moment changed my life forever. I didn’t deserve it and I still don’t.
I am curious that a column titled Why I am now a Christian does not mention Jesus Christ.
I understood her point is less that she believes in Jesus Christ than that she recognizes how weak and futile atheism is, especially faced with Islam.
She is at the point where she recognizes the emptiness in her soul (the “god-shaped hole” in all our hearts) and she is seeking to be closer to God.
I can tell you from my own experience that no matter what you have done, no matter how much you have ignored or distanced yourself from God, the moment you turn to him, he will be there for you.
A great testimony,thank you. But also very brave. We all know what radical Islamism thinks of those who deny the faith or who become Christians (consider countries like Pakistan where persecution of Christians is the norm).
I became a committed Christian over 60 years ago. As a medical student I was fortunate to attend one of the large evangelical Anglican churches in London where the bible was taken seriously and taught by highly intelligent, thoughtful ministers. (I use the word “evangelical” carefully because, although it is a good word taken from the Greek meaning good news, it is now frequently negatively associated with right wing American republicanism). Then and now this church, as other similar ones, attracted thousands of students and city workers with many finding faith in Christ and an increasing confidence in the bible giving a coherent answer to today’s moral and spiritual vacuum.
Having scrapped our Judaeo-Christian roots what have we put in its place? Diversity, equity and inclusiveness which we all know has come to mean exactly the opposite. Sadly secular humanism in the 20th century produced Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler et all, and was the bloodiest century so far in the history of the world.
‘If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent Him.”
I seem to manage OK as an atheist but it’s undoubtedly true that many people feel the need to believe in something. The climate change religion is popular at the moment.
Despite not being a believer, I do believe in the glory of our collective Judeo-Christian civilisation. We all need a hinterland to share: the hymns and folk songs we learnt at school; the literature, music and art of European culture; the military achievements of our ancestors; the Morecambe & Wise show with Mr Preview and “Don’t tell him, Pike!”.
The fervent Muslim cares nothing for anyone’s values and traditions except his own. Though the Caliphate has been relatively tolerant of other religions in some earlier eras, today’s version is definitely not.
As the Taliban reputedly told the Soviet occupiers, you have the watches but we have the time. Wishy-washy liberalism won’t do. We either fight (and I don’t mean that metaphorically) to assert Western culture in the West, or we’ll all be living under Sharia law within decades.
“We will overcome you by the womb,” a chilling remark made to me two decades ago by a Muslim.
Not only womb, but also by Channel dinghies.
As a Christian and someone who has been following you for years through your journey, you have brought me to tears. Thank you for this sound essay. I hope one day you actually meet Him through the Holy Spirit. Your sails will really be filled then. Blessings to you and yours!
Read ‘Women Who Risk’ by Tom and Joann Doyle, the wonderful account of women in the Middle East who have come to know and follow Christ after enduring violent marriages, sexual abuse in childhood and for some, life in very conservative families etc. Their joy
is exhilarating even though they know they may face death as apostates. Their testimony to the reality of the living Christ is humbling. From Maureen Newman.
By a remarkable coincidence I have just read the same Russel speech. It was in a collection of books in a hotel that guests could borrow. I have now come to the conclusion that such opinions are far more effective in shoring up my currently hesitant grasp on faith than any book aiming to support Christian faith. Russell is full of straw-man arguments.
I don’t get it. I get atheism-as-non-Islam after 9/11. But 1) why is it a religious faith that must come to the rescue of a Western civilization in need of unification? and 2) if Christianity, which Christianity?
Westboro Baptists?
I suspect even they would be more welcome than Islam. Or have they bombed Ariane Grande concerts too?
Or has Islam found Ariane Grande has some distant ancestor who took part in the crusades and so is deserving of having her concerts bombed?
Try saying that if you are gay in Africa or South America, or the US. At least in the UK you can largely avoid Christian homophobia by staying away from churches.
In a previous book of hers, AYA stated something like … the only real practical protection against Islamic hegemony may be Christianity, because of the strength in numbers. There are simply far too few atheists / Jews in comparison to the numbers of Muslims.
By promoting Christianity, she is being practical… better Christianity (in its present circumscribed form) than what’s on offer from Islam.
When Dr Ali says she has become a Christian, the difficulty is determining what that means. Both Islam and early Christianity have opposing strands, but unlike in Islam these do not represent a mere squabble over leader succession but fundamental differences of ideology. And within them there are sub-strands that can be disentangled and selected or interpreted to taste.
Furthermore, Islam is ‘set in stone’, or rather parchment. Islam IS the Qur’an, the precise word of God written down without error, and the Prophet (PBUH) through whom the word was handed down according to his testimony. If you take away either, the rest has no authority.
Christianity is quite different. Its founding texts are not the word OF God (as church lesson readers have recently adopted the habit of claiming), but ABOUT God and a man who the texts record as claiming to be ‘Son of Man’, i.e. one in direct communication with God. There is no claim that the Bible is without error or contradiction, or that Jesus recited a text handed down from God. Indeed Matthew’s three chapters of the Sermon on the Mount are just a statement of Law to which Jesus or a faction attributing it to him ascribed, not even claimed to be novel.
Conversely, in his letters to the Galatians the apostle Paul states “I certify to you brethren that the gospel (literally ‘good news’ not a written text) that was preached of me is not after man … for I never received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” adding later “knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ”. This is diametrically opposite to what is in the Gospels, noting that it leans more towards Jesus ‘anointed’ as priestly Christos/Masiach than as King in the line of David as claimed by Matthew (by implication come to drive out the Romans).
Having begun by reflecting the confusion of the times, Christianity proceeds to get even more confused, with its adoption by the Roman imperium, the mystical invention of the Trinity, the burgeoning of litanies, hierarchies and rituals, and mixing of conflicting narratives and pure invention. For example, if Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which is not in Mark the earliest Gospel, was he visited by wise men (Matthew) or shepherds (Luke) or Kings (nowhere mentioned), and by three of them (ditto)?
Going back to Jesus’ reported sayings, does Dr Ali subscribe to his fundamentalism as expressed in Matthew (5:17-20), his condemnation of re-marriage of a divorced woman (5: 31-32), and his repudiation of labour, rather reminiscent of Orthodox Jewish Haredim (6: 24-30)? Does she approve of the campaign by the Diocese of Guildford to evangelise schoolchildren, or for that matter the religious instruction of children in schools? What part of Christianity does she pick and choose?
Then we have the problem of the name itself. If one follows someone ‘anointed’ as a king or high priest, as opposed to just recognising them as a constitutional figurehead, is that compatible with representative democracy and the separation of powers? As Jesus himself says, you cannot serve two masters. It is no coincidence that church gatherings are described as ‘services’ or ‘worship’. One can certainly serve others, the community etc, but is it appropriate to ‘worship’ anything at all?
Finally, there is the intellectual ambiguity of adopting a religious position while being ambivalent about the existence of God. I vividly recall, at the age of 13, being invited to the local church where the vicar tried to persuade me to be confirmed on the ground that it would be a good thing even if I did not believe.
One cannot ‘be’ a Muslim or a Christian, even if there is a neuron somewhere in the brain that switches on to one state or the other, still less be born as one. There is nothing in the genes that makes one either. Religion can only be indoctrinated, including self-indoctrinated. Even personal revelation, unless it represents insanity as is often the case, does not occur in a vacuum.
The word ‘God’ can be used as a metaphor for some kind of essential justification for teleology or morality (notably by Albert Einstein and Mohandas Gandhi), but factually either God exists or does not. There is no evidence for the existence of God or ‘His’ intervention at any level, physically at all scales from the quantum to the entire cosmos, nor biologically, nor morally from the lowest instinct for survival to the highest intellectual musings.
If there is merit in notional or explicit Christian precepts that seem compatible with today’s morality, presumably excluding those relating to practice in the Temple two thousand years ago, one may ask how original they are. For example Matthew 7:12 “all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets”. This has been ascribed to Rabbi Hillel, around half a century before Jesus, when its origins were already lost in antiquity.
One can also ask whether, if moral principles can be derived from the diktat of supposed gods and prophets, necessarily expressed in human language, whether they can equally well be derived from rational principles or simple observation, without the need to invent religious props. I suggest that some cannot, such as the dominance of men over women, the requirement to circumcise children, and the damnation of unbelievers.
The sting in the tail is that the Christian movement was never a blueprint for the next two millennia, but an apocalyptic zealotic movement that predicted the imminent End of Days. The line: “this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done” appears in all three Gospels. That it fulfils the prophecy in Daniel 12, written during the Babylonian exile in the 6thC BCE, is shown by the reference to the ‘abomination of desolation’, meaning a sacrilegious act. Coincidentally, all this is happening at a time when Palestine is under a foreign occupation aided by the collusion of the local establishment.
The real problem here is disillusion with secular systems brought about by their actual performance or lack of it. Could not one say the same about religions, that have had a lot longer to get things right, including nearly two millennia when they effectively suppressed both the ancient Hellenic enlightenment and tried to do the same for the European Enlightenment?
I do understand and applaud Dr Ali’s determination to “better manage the challenges of existence”, and to defend what is virtuous in our civilisation (there’s a word that exercised the Greeks!). However, I don’t think this will be advanced by standing in a row in a church listening to a preacher, any more than sitting in a row in a mosque listening to a mullah.
A good start, however, would be to read the Christian Bible, if she hasn’t already. Then the first challenge will be to establish what the Judeo-Christian legacy actually is, and how much is original, how much derivative, and how much re-invented, and whether the term ‘Judeo-Christian’ is anything more than a label of convenience for want of one that is more descriptive.
Where’s your evidence for the non existence of God?
Christianity allows free speech and dissent including rejection and mockery of Christ because Jesus did. He never forced anyone to accept Him and the Gospel records that not all who encountered Him believed Him.
If Islam were being criticised the way some here have disparaged Christianity there would have been overwhelming outrage. At the very least, many comments would have been censored.
Politics is about the worst reason I can think of for anyone to embrace genetic Christianity (or generic Judeo-Christianity). And this is a Catholic speaking, mind you.
In a way this is a typically British, that is to say Anglican way of thinking, which is seriously flawed. If Americans are for the most part secularized Calvinists, the British are secularized Anglicans. Going from the custom, to the doctrine, from the lex vivendi (the way of life) to the lex orandi and ultimately to the lex credendi, without considering that the relationship is also backwards: from the lex credendi derive both the lex orandi and the lex vivendi. Right belief is essential and not incidental, whereas practice may be contaminated by extraneous if not inimical elements, such as the practical, if not theoretical, atheism implied in the “secular freedoms” of markets, “conscience”, “feedom of the press”, or of expression, as understood by modern (meaning 19th-century liberalism).
Small wonder Edmund Burke, for all his merits, was and remained always an Anglican, an Anglo-Irish Anglican, at that.
Reason is the only thing that will save us. The idea that the masses are sheep who will only do the right thing when they are controlled by religion is condescending. Here in the west, we are now three generation into a world with ill-educated people, who are only good to neo-liberal capitalism as consumers. The best consumers are stupid. If we can free ourselves form the yoke of the corporation, we can fix our education systems and start producing intelligent citizens again. The West must embrace reform.
Embracing Christianity only means taking a side in a religious war that will further erode civilization. Christians vs. the Woke. Christians vs. Islam. Someday maybe we will realize they are all the same thing, belief systems grounded in fantasy. As a species we have to grow up and leave childish fantasies behind, or we might as well destroy ourselves.
IMO, Christianity is not just a more enlightened way of understanding and being effective in the world.
It’s a decision to start a spiritual journey and relationship, that starts here and now … and continues … forever…. (!!)
A spiritual journey can be undertaken without adhering to any of the established religions. The search for meaning, or as the Buddha called it ‘enlightenment’, can take many forms.
Exactly.
Might not Buddhists think every sperm is sacred, as long as it shows signs of life?
I don’t know perhaps you should ask them.
“compassion for the sinner and humility for the believer” – beautiful
Turn the clock back a few centuries and you have Christians behaving in exactly the same way as the Muslim Brotherhood.
Christianity grew up, Islam needs to grow up in the same way, but we can’t afford for it to take so long about it. What is needed is for the majority of Muslims who can see the evils of extreme Islam to stand up against it.
Has the Koran any equivalent to the New Testament? Christianity is of the new Testament, where Christianity goes all wrong is usually when it concentrates on the Old Testament. At least as far as I can see, the Koran is ALL Old Testament.
I have begun to wonder myself whether life without god is really that liberating.
Is life with God any more liberating?
It depends IF one believes there is one I suspect. Rather like believing or not one is to be hanged in the morning. One makes for a good nights sleep, the other reputedly seriously concentrates the mind.
PS IF there is a God, let’s hope it is the Christian God. At least that way all us unbelievers have a chance of avoiding hell and damnation. Though I suspect hoping for 70 virgins, or however many it is, pandering to our needs in a Christian afterlife isn’t on.
The Clash of Civilizations. The War of Civilizations. I find little of the actual will to fight in the West anymore. We have given up all our treasures and no longer have any sense of who we are. It’s strange that this is Remembrance Day when the Will to Fight was a common good. If you want peace prepare for war….it’s been said. Seems that way in 2023.
There is a huge number of comments on here and I hesitate to think I can add anything worthwhile! But I should like to say anyway, in case the author should ever flick through these comments, that for some time I have considered Christianity to be more akin to a lifeboat in a hurricane sea, than to a private members club with an agreed Mission Statement and a black-balling policy: and so, although I am not sure congratulation is entirely the correct response for those fortunate enough to reach the lifeboat, I would certainly like to say that I am encouraged to look up amid the storm and find that I am sharing the same lifeboat as Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
“For tho’ from out our bourne of Time and Place
The flood may bear me far,
I hope to see my Pilot face to face
When I have crost the bar.”
Welcome aboard Ayaan!
“ And we can’t counter Islamism with purely secular tools. ”
> Wby not?
AYA hinted about this notion of appealing to Christianity as a tool / mechanism to face up to Islam in a previous book. Was it Infidel?
I understood it was because of a numbers game, as in strength in numbers. There are huge numbers of Muslims who are aggressively and unashamedly seeking Muslim hegemony and there a far fewer atheists who just don’t want to be bothered. But not wanting to be bothered isn’t good enough, because Islam will one day steam roller over those not wanting to be bothered. Hence the appeal to Christianity as a bulwark against the Islamic poison. They are far greater in number, including the nominal ones, and thus in a better position to push back against Islam.
So I think she’s saying … better the current Christianity than what’s on offer from Islam. Atheism, appealing to reason and evidence (she doesn’t mention them) doesn’t persuade in sufficient nunbers to stop Islam. She’s being practical over insisting on defending atheism / agnosticism.
She’s seen what’s happening within the younger generation in Western cities and it has scared her out of her atheist boots and into Christian ones.
Ayaan, I relate so much to this essay, because I also became a christian because of my head, and then my heart. Much of the same intellectual arguments brought me back home.
50% of this argument to embrace Christianity is that without it, too many citizens of the Western world have no core principles to combat the story-strength of Islam. It’s just the old argument that Christianity may not be true, but its valuable for the stupid masses. I embrace truth, science, individualism, pursuit of happiness. I reject falsehoods no matter how comfortable. Sure, the modern Western world’s leaders are ready to believe anything, and maybe a great swathe of its population, but that doesn’t mean Christianity is the answer. There is a great story about the rise, and the fight, for Western values. It’s even more remarkable than Jesus, because the fight was sustained and shared by many people. We overcame Christianity’s bigots to get here. We can continue to fight off religious mania. We can find the strength of will, and strong individuals, to keep the West free.
If you really did embrace truth, science, individualism and pursuit of happiness, you’d be a true Christian (not one of the “sinner’s prayer” variety).
True.
The reason Christianity has survived for thousands of years is because it works. It changes the lives of followers of Christ for the better. It fills us with a desire to follow the teachings of Christ; it reveals to us the way to true happiness is through loving one another. True Christians are aware that the way to happiness lies in making others happy, not material belongings, not through artificial stimulants and not through riches.
And, I might add, It saved me from drinking my life away more than 20 years ago. It gave me hope and a purpose in life.
I was wondering if the author has joined a robust faith with deep historical roots and is familar with Islam as a cultural foe?
A brave piece — with echoes in place of C. S. Lewis! I’ve just written a comment piece on this for another magazine here: https://www.premierchristianity.com/apologetics/from-islam-to-atheism-to-christianity-the-unlikely-conversion-of-ayaan-hirsi-ali/16741.article
Ok, I get the point. It seems that Christianity, the Christian worldview appears to be super useful, and the author has bought into some historically verifiable data points that support its usefulness in that it seems to have what I would say “blessed” the societies, nations, and cultures that have been informed by it. Namely Western culture.
As a Reformed (Protestant) Christian, I would like to point out that Christianity valued for its utilitarian benifits as more akin to teaching kids that Santa Clause says, “you’d better be good for goodness sake”. Appeling it its utilitarian value while stripping it of Christ is hollowing it out and making use of a dead thing, and I think that’s a significant mistake to make.
I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be good for cultures to have “Christian values”, but that personally if our Christianity consists of valuing, it’s this-world-utility, that’s not really a Christian faith, and that also has consequences for us personally.
So, in the interest of valuing truth, I think it would be helpful to first define faith, a biblical-faith or what Reformers would consider a “saving faith”. Faith is more than simply the casual acceptance of the truth. A “saving faith” would be considered to consist of three essential components. In the Latin they would be: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.
First off in Christianity faith has a specific object. That is the person and work of Jesus Christ. So in order to have faith in Christ we would need to know something about him. This is the “notita”. We know about Jesus from the bible. Then “assensus” would be “I believe it’s all true!”, and finally “fiducia”: “I believe it’s true for me”. It personalzes it, or it’s a personal faith.
In other words the John 3:16 “whoever believes in Him has eternal life” , the person who has a saving faith believes that “yes, I put my faith in Jesus Christ, and I believe that promise of God in Christ, that through faiht in Christ I have eternal life”. Not that our faith saves us, but that Jesus saves us by His person and work, and faith is the instrument by which God unites us to Christ and His saving work. So, we don’t put faith in our faith, but faith in Christ who saves us.
This is a Christianity basic. I am glad when someone recognizes the blessings of a Christian worldview, which I would say that vindicates its truthfulness in many ways, yet we don’t come to Christ to make my life better here, or to make the world a better place. Those might be consequences and side effects of the Christian faith, or more so, God blessing the truth when it’s believed and lived out in the world He created, but the point of Christ’s work is to undo the curse of death and perdition that Adam merited for us by Christ as the second, or last Adam, who merited life and the inheritance of the whole world, (which are the new heavens and the new earth) for all who would beleive in Him. In this regard, Christianity has a telos not of this world transformed into something better, but of the life to come in the new creation world to come. The new creation where there will be no more death, no more sin, no more crying, because all things are as they should be.
——
I would also like to note that there are some arguments in in Christianity were Roman Catholics would say that our good works are also a condition for attaining eternal life, and we Protestants would say that, no, Christ alone merited heaven, and we attain it through faith in Him alone, and our good works occur as a consequence of the new creation we Christians are in Christ, and not a condition for attaining heaven.
So even arguments over conditional and consequential necessities are important to the genuineness of one’s faith, and what it’s really in, because one of those makes us at least partly our own saviors, and is therefore a “faith+something else ” position, which is really condemned in the bible, particularly in Galatians. Faith in Christ alone is the alone saving faith. At least according to the scriptures.
As a Catholic, I would point out that – though we cannot earn Salvation by good works – they are an essential ingredient of Saving Faith (ie sincere faith).
No good works = no compassion = no salvation (1Corinthians chapter 13).
Tony, I would agree that if someone has no “good works”, they aren’t saved. Like Jesus said “a good tree bears good fruit” (Mt 7:17) , and “you will know them by their fruits”. So we both agree that “good works” necessarily occur, only you would say it is a conditional necessity, and we would say it is a consequential necessity.
For example: The winner of a race is the winner by meeting the condition of crossing the finish line first. This is an example of a conditional necessity. The sun is hot, is an example of a consequential necessity. The fact that it is hot does not make it the sun, but the fact that it’s the sun means it’s necessarily hot.
The same with the good tree. The tree is not constituted as the good tree by the fact that it bears good fruit, but it bears good fruit based on the fact that it’s first constituted as a “good tree”. So, we would say that our good works are the fruit that evidences our salvation in Christ. The precondition is that God makes us “born again” (regenerated), makes a new creation in Christ, and therefore our new creation hearts have new desires for the things of God, which means we begin to bear good fruit to God’s glory. Yet at no time does this fruit bearing play a part in our justification before God. Faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ is the alone instrument by which heaven is attained.
“Faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ is the alone instrument by which heaven is attained.”
Certainly in Catholicism there is the concept of “Baptism of desire.” – which basically means anyone who seeks to live a good life can gain salvation, even if they have never heard of God or Christ.
Bill, it sounds like you’re saying that seeking to live a good life is the cause of attaining heaven. It sounds like you’re you’re own savior.
According to Matthew 7:15-23 – what fruit you bear determines whether Christ knows you or not. So the Protestants aren’t right. Whether Catholics are is another matter. Casting out devils in his name doesn’t qualify it seems NOR does just knowing him. In fact I’m fairly certain, that there is more than enough evidence in the New Testament to show that Christ himself didn’t rule out anyone who was ‘good’ from Salvation, he just seemed to think that his ideas were the straight path. The Centurion and Samartian woman in the New Testaments both suggest you don’t have to have a f’ormal ‘baptism’ In fact IIRC some 50 years ago in my Jesuit run religious instruction classes there was what was described as “Baptism of desire’ whereby even a creature who had never heard of Christ but who espoused the ideals of loving your neighbour achieved salvation.
Bill, you’re looking at those good works as the cause of Christ claiming to know someone. I believe the right way to understand that is that because Christ knew them they bore that fruit. In John 3, Jesus teaches that it is those born of the Spirit that see the kingdom. It’s they who believe and therefore act on their belief. So the precondition is the Holy Spirit’s giving a person a new heart, not the good works. The good works follow as a consequence of the new heart, not the reverse. Christianity is not a self-salvation project. It’s a Jesus salvation of us project.
Wow. Just wow. Beautifully written, Ayaan.
Typically brave and captivating. The only challenge to a broader reaffirmation of Christianity is the terrible vacuum of leadership. Ayan will like many need no guide. But for a wider awakening one needs a Church. And our miserable Church of England has bowed its knee and sits alongside the secular progressives ripping our values and traditions to shreds. When they shut the Sanctuary – the doors of the Church – into lockdown the game was up. Sadly there must be a new revolution within Christianity to reclaim its glory and mission.
That’s not the only challenge to a reaffirmation of Christianity. I would like to say reason but alas I think it’s apathy, distraction and a loss of community that are the worst offenders. For some reason the church seem preoccupied with conversions and numbers, so much so that they erode their core doctrines in order to be more popular. I’m atheist though have several Catholic friends who bemoan their faith for a lack of inclusion (women, abortion etc). They don’t seem to understand that there are some things that you simply can’t change if you want to remain a catholic. On most levels I’m glad for the secularism however unfortunately for me it’s not because people are more enlightened but because I fear they are more stupid. Hopefully we at least share some common opinions here!
She says “atheism can’t equip us for civilizational war” and I suppose she’s right.But we can’t simply say “Oh sh**! They have belief and we have nothing!! Let’s get some belief quickly, or we’ll be overrun!!”.
Much of the West’s legal system and civilizational norms are based on Christian concepts, it is true – but when the underlying Christian faith of the people fails, the laws and rules patently lack foundation and will be removed one by one, to be replaced by the norms of the pre-Christian world. We see it already, once Christianity is removed, how things that once seemed so obviously unassailable like Marriage, sexuality and gender are suddenly re-defined in a destructive and pagan way.
Christianity is a faith of the interior, and is centered on a one-to-one relationship with Jesus Christ. It saves individuals, not civilizations.
And some civilizations may not be worth saving.
Good observations but the last line is a bit of a non-sequitur, in my view.
Religious fanatics are inherently narcissistic. It does not help that Islam’s founder lacked the humility of his hero, Moses. I wonder how many understand the meaning of the 3rd commandment?:
“Thou shalt not raise [or bear] the name of the Lord in vain, for he will not make clean who raises [or bears] his name in vain.”
It is saying, “do not speak in God’s name” and “do not bear my name as a banner and then bring it dishonour” for if you do, you will not be forgiven.
Regrettably there are even some Jews (who should know better because they can read the original Hebrew) who do not understand this and fail to tremble before the stark assertion that violation of the 3rd commandment is one of the few unforgivable transgressions.
“Any religion that leads to spiritual enlightenment should be encouraged. A Muslim scholar’s quote, with which, I as a Christian, absolutely agree.
I agree that spiritual enlightenment should be encouraged.
I am not sure how that thought touches my point about the duty of religious humility (in both conduct and speech), especially on the part of those who pose as being “of the party of God”.
While I do not agree with Ali about the search for meaning, this is nevertheless a very thoughtful article by this brilliant and incredibly courageous woman.
Her recent talks w JP unfortunately seemed to allude to that. I wish she would revisit Sam’s work. There are several critical points to consider.
First, the notion of a ‘nihilistic vacuum’ in atheism overlooks the rich, meaningful experiences found in secular humanism. Atheism is not inherently despairing but offers a platform for finding meaning in human values, experiences, and the natural world, independent of supernatural beliefs.
Secondly, the characterization of atheism as weak and divisive simplifies complex global challenges. The divisiveness and irrationality we often confront are rooted more in religious extremism than in a lack of faith. Moreover, turning to Christianity for answers seems incongruent with Hirsi Ali’s past critiques of religious ideologies, especially considering the historical and doctrinal issues within Christianity itself.
Perhaps in her most compelling argument, Aayan posits that in the face of a potential escalating conflict between Islam and the West, the absence of a unified religious-cultural front could leave the West vulnerable. This argument, while compelling in its urgency, paints a rather grim picture. It is based on the premise that cultural and ideological battles are best fought with religious solidarity. This perspective might be overly pessimistic, and I certainly hope from the bottom of my heart she won’t be right here. A secular approach, grounded in shared human values and rational dialogue, could offer a more inclusive and resilient path forward in navigating global conflicts.
Regarding Hirsi Ali’s reference to the Atlantic therapy article (mentioned in her new Unherd video on youtube), her endorsement of its narrative is problematic. The article’s approach, using a specific study of DBT in a school setting to generalize about the efficacy of therapy for teens, is misleading. It deviates from the established principles that underpin successful therapy by misapplying DBT, a therapy meant for specific mental health issues, to a general teen population. This oversight, coupled with the non-voluntary participation of the teens, diverges from the personalized nature of effective therapy. The article’s stance potentially undermines the credibility of therapy, a tool that has been instrumental in aiding countless individuals.
But Ayaan seems to not care much about evidence lately, does she?
It’s also important to note that spirituality can coexist with secularism and atheism. A secular, humanistic worldview accommodates a profound sense of spirituality, defined by a deep appreciation for the universe’s mystery, human connections, and the mind. This form of spirituality is not reliant on religious doctrines but on a sense of awe and wonder grounded in rational inquiry.
Furthermore, while Western liberalism is intertwined with Christian theology, its roots can be traced back to the intellectual traditions of ancient Greece. Thinkers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle laid the early foundations of humanist values centered on reason and empirical evidence. Christianity, in this context, was more a vessel than the originator of these liberal ideas. The Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason, science, and individual rights evolved these concepts, often challenging religious dogma.
In summary, while she will forever be one of my heroes and I will always respect Ayaan’s personal journey, the reasons presented for her conversion seem to overlook the principles of rational inquiry and skepticism central to a secular, humanistic worldview. The compatibility of spirituality with secularism, the historical roots of humanist values, and the complex relationship between religion and societal challenges all merit deeper consideration.
I am coming back as an Ashkenazi Jew. They have good values and are 15% more intelligent than the rest of humanity. This is evidenced daily in life and on social media.
Clarity is seeing Islam as a war against everyone who qualifies as an infidel dog, which by their reckoning is all who are not Muslim. People don’t understand this because our cheap and superficial culture has made us blind to the obvious. Ayaan Hirsi Ali will not regret accepting Christianity, expecially when her end approaches and she can look back on a life devoted to practicing what Jesus Christ preached.
“Christ’s teaching implied … a circumscribed role for religion as something separate from politics.” It certainly did, but try telling that to the present leadership of the Churches of Rome and England.
I look forward to seeing where this journey takes her – though for now, she should realize that wanting to preserve the cultural legacy of Christendom is a far cry from being a Christian. In many respects this essay sounds like one of the dozens that were written 125 years ago, when people appreciated the cultural progress that Christianity had enabled, but just couldn’t accept its exclusive claim to supernatural truth. But – as we have learned – denying those exclusive claims to supernatural truth will inevitably undermine the cultural progress that is built upon them.
Cultural progress was only possible when the Reformation showed that the clerics’ iron grip could be challenged – till then the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches were every bit as intolerant and repressive as Islam is today – and the Enlightenment finally forced those churches, or at least most of them, to relax and reform their most repressive measures. The mistake we make is thinking that the CofE is religion, and religion is the CofE. Neither is remotely true; the CofE is a pale shadow of a religion.
The CofE is to religion what non alcoholic beer is to Guinness. There is a similarity that lets you pass in a crowd, but the underlying chemistry and effect are totally different.
Thanking the Reformation for the cultural progress is making my point. The Reformation was premised on taking the theological claims of the Bible more seriously than the Romans had been doing. The modern West’s great mistake has been misunderstanding how Christianity changes societies. It doesn’t do it by lecturing on the ‘equality of man’ or the like, but through the heart stopping power of the spiritual conversion of individuals, one heart at a time.
They believe in God so that’s religion.
It would be great to read about her reflections on the mystery of Christ and how it touched her.
Thank God for Ayaan Hirsi Ali
The line often attributed to GKC can be correctly attributed to Emile Cammaerts, a Belgian playwright and poet.
In which case, given I took it from a Chesterton publication, feel free to attribute it to whoever actually said it.
Be a friend to all. Love is good. Remove hate from your religion. Then you are there. It was a thing before all those cults and sects. It will supersede them too.
I respect Ayaan Hirsi Ali for she is now a target for radical Islamise groups – however there is another step beyond atheism and that is that there are no beliefs they are just ideas – ideas formulated over thousands of years of human evolution in which Man ( yes Men ) needed to create an understanding for their existence their surroundings – the moon , sun , animals volcanos all played a part until as we know Science eliminated these ideas . Man, also feared death, so again and idea of what happens when you die alleviated those fears and then of course ‘power and control’ – and these ideas played and have played, a huge part in how we have been controlled.
Over 3000 different ideas exist – Christianity split and still catholic and protestant squabble – the Islamic world is in turmoil depending on which of the 43 ‘sect’ of the Quran you believe in – 1.2 billion Muslims of which 15 % believe in destroying the western world including Israel.
With these beliefs explain cancer in babies – explain why people who have lived a good life are then struck down by dementia?
Beliefs (religions) have been the root cause of many wars – look at the current conflict in Israel and Palestine – it will continue until one side or the other are exterminated – no-one has the guts to confront either side.
Where is the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury? Praying in a safe surround to an ‘idea’.
There has been no devotion to human liberty – we are all controlled – there are no freedoms – there is no sanctity of life – look at how a woman is killed every 3 days in this country due to domestic violence – look at the treatment of women in Iran.
The only freedom of conscience is that to tell the truth – there is no Gods, no beliefs – just ideas in which as individuals depending in which of the world you live – you hang your hat.
So, Ayaan good luck with Christianity another idea – which if you’re a fundamentalist in the USA – the world was created 6000 years ago,
May science preserve us.
“Russell and other activist atheists believed that with the rejection of God we would enter an age of reason and intelligent humanism. But the “God hole” — the void left by the retreat of the church — has merely been filled by a jumble of irrational quasi-religious dogma. The result is a world where modern cults prey on the dislocated masses, offering them spurious reasons for being and action — mostly by engaging in virtue-signalling theatre on behalf of a victimised minority or our supposedly doomed planet. The line often attributed to G.K. Chesterton has turned into a prophecy: “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.””
Excellent essay and this paragraph stood out in particular, partly because the GK Chesterton quote is one of my favourites, but also because it implies an insight I’ll take further in the hope I’ll be able to express it half as well as Ayaan Hirsi Ali does with the article in general.
It’s this: the success of religion in the past didn’t stem only from the opportunist harnessing by a priestly caste of people’s metaphysical doubts about the universe. It developed as a set of practical techniques in daily life that dealt with the ever-presence of the unknown, and for that reason wasn’t something only relevant on the Sabbath, but underpinned the manner in which the individual coped in the face of uncertainty, adversity and loss at all times.
It partly achieved this by establishing conventions of thought and traditions of behaviour that permitted individuals to better understand and predict the actions and expectations of their fellow man and woman. This is often thought of today in negative terms, excluding as it does minority identities and preferences and that’s partly true, but it has to be viewed over the long term as a successful strategy for replacing tribal systems in which violence was far more common, where the price of this success was worth paying in terms of the associated imperfections.
The point I’m getting to is that the modern nonsense that fills the “God hole” these days isn’t necessarily evidence that humans are instinctively irrational beings willing to believe any old rubbish (although some people do provoke that impression, I’d agree). It’s that even with the advances of science and the pushing back of the horizons behind which the unknown still exists, modern life still contains radical uncertainty on a daily basis for which spiritual and emotional resilience is essential, and this resilience must still be drawn ultimately from shared social conventions and norms because otherwise it means nothing and has no use: it cannot equip a person to live successfully amongst others facing similar challenges.
The modern forms of nonsense that fill the God hole is, I argue, evidence that most people still want and need at least some guide to how to live alongside others that goes beyond their material wants and provides a sense of purpose.
God hole nonsense?
“The grace of God is the power and ability of God operating through us that compels us to love one another.“As grace has been extended toward me, I extend grace to others and try and show them the love and goodness of God.”
For more than 30 years I was a self-centred, whinging alcoholic who hated life. Becoming a born-again Christian saved my life over 20 years ago.
I know without any doubt, that there is a meaning to this life, I have a purpose in life and I feel blessed to be alive in this world and it is to be found through a connection with God through Jesus Christ.
I suspect you’ve misread my comment.
In “God is Red”, Vine Deloria jnr questioned (1)The right to discovery(2)the right to dominion (3)the right to appropiate ,Er from a native Red Indian perspective.
Commodified truths – the Maxwell 1823 Johson vs McIntosh ruling – that the west -let alone the american constitution is built ‘on’…. beggars belief.
“For the land shall not be sold permanently – for you are fellow strangers and sojourners with me” Leviticus 25:23
The idea of non resorting ownership is why the intl Webster Dictionary of sociology 18 vols has NO definition of ‘person’
Not even ‘personhood’..
That’s because the expression ‘individual’ ,has subsumed the aspects of the real shared experience Christ actually died for.
‘Sobernost’ (‘ solidarity ‘) is a concept foreign to any form of individualism,while avoiding the avidity of over appropiated individualism.Solzhnitsyn was always practical on this.
To refer to Lev 25:23 is to examine a more desert reality- absolute ownership perhaps deemed rather heavy to bear… alone.
What I seriously question ,aside from my heartfelt admiration ,and respect for Hirshi Ali – is the point in alluding to Tom Holland’s replacement of one form of dominion AS elision for another.
I find it deeply offensive to reduce Jesus Christ to market values or even the outer trimmings of freedom.
You are reading close to ‘henein interpretatie ‘ HA.
May God be praised! Thank you for this, Ms. Hirsi Ali. I hear an echo of Christopher Dawson’s insisting on the historic reality of Christian culture; it is unavoidable (and a most powerful thing).
It’s very interesting to hear the thought processes of someone who found her way through to Christianity via Islamism and Athieism. Hopefully it helps others in their search for the Truth.
The super-confident “there is no God” folks who believe that we evolved simply by chance from lower life forms really ought to watch “Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution” on You Tube and get caught up on the subject. The conclusion there between David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer is that 21st century science has long passed Darwin’s 19th century theory.
Ok, let’s say we watch that, and accept what it says. Why would that necessarily lead us into the embrace of the Judeo-Christian God?
A very courages article, especially in the present climate.
Welcome, Ayaan
Welcome. Consider yourself, please, to be well-met in Christianity.
I can’t be a Christian, because
1.The inadequacy of the supposed proofs of God’s existence – the Arguments from Design, Cosmology and Ontology fail in my view;
2.Ockam’s Razor and the explanatory adequacy of science constrain me to believe that the universe’s origin is not to be explained as the creation of a conscious entity.
3.I lack faith.
Nevertheless, as a conservative I regard Christians as my allies in the civilisational war against barbarism.
So, despite not being Christian, your world view is broadly in line with that of Christians? If that is the case, it might be said that you are a “cultural Christian”.
It’s difficult for people steeped in one of the Abrahamic religions to note that civilizations had been very successfully evolving far before those traditions became dominant in Western cultures. Look at China: yes, prior to Mao it was an assortment of kingdoms forever at war, but surely European history in the Christian era recorded at least as bloody a record as medieval China. Confucianism and Taoism had no need of the Christian heaven-and-hell dynamic in their purest form, though all of the Eastern religious traditions have suffered doctrinal degradation in modern times. If atheism is so bleak, then why are the famously non-religious Nordic countries amongst the happiest and most developed in the Western world? Some would say that they have retained the good features of Abrahamic teachings and discarded the magical beliefs, which may be true. Perhaps we should look to them for inspiration, rather than falling back into comfortable Abrahamic narratives with all of the baggage that entails. As someone who has read two versions of the Bible in my younger days, and more recently the Qur’an, for me they were neither inspirational nor nurturing in the least; in fact, quite the opposite. The descriptions of a genocidal, vengeful, punishing god and the contradictions and crazy claims that pepper their pages are ample proof for me that there is a humanism completely ignored by Abrahamic faiths.
COE is a tamed form of Christianity that God spewed out of his mouth when he raised up John Wesley. COE was created as a state-controlled religion at the restoration of Charles 2. COE was designed to avoid the problems of the Puritans under Cromwell. In addition, they required Army officers to buy their commissions in order to avoid military coups. Both actions served to dispose of the younger sons of nobility. Competence in war and dedication to God not required.
“Religion, Russell argued, was rooted in fear: “Fear is the basis of the whole thing — fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death.”
On the contrary and you might have read Marx rather than Russell.
The attraction of religion is that it makes people happy – hence – “the opium of the people”, or in more recent times – ‘the happy clappies’.
I believe in Aston Villa.
Thank you, Ayaan, for that much-needed article. The Christian message of love & peace is needed in the 21st century more than ever before.
Christ seems to have sensed that the human race was weak & wilful and would rapidly descend into a hellish version of Ancient Rome – with i-phones, which he probably did not foresee.
He also (probably) did not foresee the birth of a warlike religion 600 years after his crucifixion.
I go to church once a year, on Good Friday, to mourn the death of one who changed the history of the world. What a Man.
What a brilliant essay, clear and convincing. Thank you.
Niall is a lucky man.
Good, well put, miss.
A well-written article. However, it leaves me with a question: The author started life as a normal human being, was seduced by the Muslim Brotherhood, gave that up, seduced by atheism, gave that up seduced by Christianity. Why should we take your advice, Ayaan?
However, i do agree that society cannot live without religious beliefs, however absurd they are. The hope in the 1970s that, freed from the stranglehold of belief, that humans would soar to new heights of humanity have clearly not being realised.
Without some threat of hell-fire etc, humans are just too self-centered, consumerist and open to ideology to open up to their higher selves.
Ironically the author contradicts your claim “without the threat of hellfire’ – she escaped the ‘threat of hellfire’ and is now driven by Christianity, a religion whose creator said “There are only two commandments.
Love your God with all you heart and soul.
and
Love your neighbour as yourself
Note he didn’t command that you Love you neighbour MORE than yourself, BUT he did give some idea of what Love might mean.
“Greater Love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend.”
I’d say she escaped the chains of fear to pick up the almost impossible to carry Cross of love.
To return to Chesterton
“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”― G.K. Chesterton, What’s Wrong with the World
How right is he?
Mike, in time people mature.
Superb essay. One of the most concise and precise presentations of Christianity’s relevance for our time.
Thank you.
Wokery is the enemy of civilisation besides which other threats – such as climate change – are trivialities. Christians are the most significant movement showing pro-human values so it is valuable for other pro-humans to ally with and support the Christians.
Sorry, you’ve lost me
How does expressing compassion for other races, genders and sexualities eat into moral fibre? Or are you taking the lazy definition of woke from the alt right?
Nice try, but there will be no takers here for any argument that won’t recognise that Woke principles are enforced ruthlessly against those who question its methods and priorities. It is an authoritarian system in which minority interests are cynically weaponised in ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of the minority in question.
The “compassion” you mention is not compassion. It is greed for power masquerading as compassion. Most people of sense are capable of seeing this for themselves.
How is sterilizing and mutilating gay and autistic kids “compassion”?
One thing you might conclude is that the Christian churches have failed us. Instead of providing us with a guide to daily life, they have provided us with a pseudo-Marxist self-flagellation.
Example: is it right or wrong to give £10 to a hawker asking for money on a tube train. Answer 1: it is right because you have £10 to spare. Answer 2: it is wrong because it rewards feckless behaviour and it is a simple act of buying an indulgence. If you have £10 to spare, give it to a charity that you trust is actually helping homeless people.
We face 101 dilemmas in our everyday life, and the Christian churches seem to have nothing to say. We need the churches to stand for simple right and wrong, not gay marriage, not women bishops. Simple right and wrong.
Woke ideology is destroying our civilisation eh? Our “supposedly doomed planet”, implying I suppose that climate change is non-existent. Climate change is not going to destroy the planet. It will destroy the ability of billions of people to survive.Before “woke” ideology it was “political correctness2 that was going to destroy us. Let me think, was that about not calling people racist names, not talking about women in demeaning ways, or discriminating against unmarried mothers, the right of gay people to be open about their sexuality and not be ostracised? Funny thing is most people would say we have become more civilised. Where did most of these discriminatory attitudes originate? A little tome known as The Bible. The author’s harsh words about Islam are fully justified. But ALL religions claim to be peaceful and Chritianity has been involved in the killing of millions through the centuries, starting with the Crusades. Our social freedoms do not exist BECAUSE of Christianity, that is absurd and the author is clearly historically ignorant.All over the world, including countries like Poland, and until very recently Ireland, the Catholic church does everything in its power to take away the freedom of conscience in relation to abortion rights. We see the same in the U.S.A. with fanatical Bible lunatics who have a history of murdering people involved in abortion. So the solution to the problems we face is to return to a ‘Christianity’ that is a mirror image of the Jihadists. A plague on ALL religions.
“I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable — indeed very nearly self-destructive.”
A neat summing up of the fear that Russell spoke of. Atheists cannot offer an answer to what is the meaning of life because there is none. To think we are the only carbon based life in the world that does not die when we die is ultimately both arrogance and fear. Christianity started as a cult, all religions are precisely that.
“The reason anti Semitism is worldwide is because the Jews are living proof of the authenticity of the Bible – it is their history.”
Author of quote unknown.
G.K. Chesterton sounds exactly like the frustrated Marxists who claim the problems with Marxism were nothing to do with the ideas, just that they weren’t put into action properly or correctly. Both Marxism and Christianity rest on a belief that humans can become perfectible. The Christian church, i.e. Catholocism in the first instance became corrupt from its earliest foundation.So too did Islam, whether Shia or Sunni. Look at the rulers of all the Islamic states, the wealth owned by Revolutionary Guard commanders in Iran, the obscene wealth and vulgar taste of the Saudi Arabia ruling family and the Gulf states. All claim to be devout. As for the argument that societies can’t exist without religion that is just the observation of humans who do not wish to grow up an accept responsibility for their actions; much easier to blame the devil, or god. In the earthquake that killed over 100,000 Turks and Syrians there was the grotesques spectacle of survivots thanking Allah for ‘saving’ them; it wouldn’t occur to ask why Allah allowed the earthquake in the first place. If you argue with religious believers abiout the evil people do they invokle freedom of will or the devil. But what conceivable evild could those victims of the earhquake have committed? Or is you question the fact that believers say god is all powerful and responsible for biths and death and point out how many millions of children die annually from diseases and ask why did they deserve such a fate you get told “we can’t know the mind of god.” If god did exist then prosecution as a mass murderer would be in order. Where you find religion you find ignorance and where you find ignorance you find religion.
Whenever I, as a born-again Christian, get asked the question: “Why does God allow bad things to happen?”
My reply is: “I can’t answer that question unless you can tell me why He allows good things to happen.”
Atheists often blame religions for “starting wars. I think Putin. and Hitler, Stalin and Mao would disagree.
There can be more than one reason for starting a war. There are “Holy Wars” and unholy wars. Ukraine/ Russia is an unholy war, a land grab war. Israel/Palestine is mostly a Holy war.
Your argument fails the moment you said that Christianity rests on a belief in the perfectibility of humans. Far from it, Christianity requires that one recognizes that he/she is a fallen sinner, and can’t save themselves. Hence the need for a Savior, one who paid the price for our sins on the cross.
Marxism, humanism, and a whole lot of other -isms strive to create a heaven on earth and end up falling very short, precisely because they kid themselves that humans are perfectible. In Marxism’s case, the result has been a hell on earth for the millions killed or enslaved by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and others.
This is the normal outcome of someone who seeks meaning from magical sources, but has too much skepticism to be able to accept the magic of her chosen ideology.
Islam yesterday, Christianity today, and tomorrow ?
Life without an external locus of solace is “unendurable” for her, so she will keep seeking a god(s) to satisfy her need.
Atheism cannot and does not seek to provide her or anyone else with a solution to this.
This article is just a Christian apologist writing. Why I am I paying to read that
God bless you Ayaan on your search.To really understand Christianity and who Jesus is, why don’t you do a short course with your church or another church near you? In the UK, there is the Alpha Course or Exploring Christianity. There’s so much more than cultural Christianity.
She’s trapped at a level where others must define her inner person. While I support Christian values, I feel sorry for her.
Until mankind throws off the need to believe in fairy stories and eternal life we are condemned to repeat cycles of war and genocide. Being thoughtful of others and group and even global teamwork with a rules based order (centuries evolved common law) works for the security and betterment of all. We don’t need false Gods and religious superstitions to keep us on the straight and narrow. We need education, respectful debate, and to learn throughout our childhood that tolerance of others different opinions is essential.
Russell was right. Life is a happy biochemical phenomenon sculpted over billions of years by the unimaginable power of evolution by natural selection.
For the first time in the history of life on Earth, there is a species Man that can think, plan and shape our world and future and so far we are unable to overcome the lizard brain instinct by critical thinking and action based on solid reasoning and the feedback of evidence but fall back on Bronze and Iron Age fairy stories. Nobody reading this article existed for billions of years before 1900 and nobody reading it will exist ever again after 2150. It is what it is. Live your life and do others no intentional harm but instead help them when you can. This is a basic golden rule for individual and collective prosperity and peace. We don’t need hocus pocus supernatural beliefs to achieve this. Just critical thinking and evidence based decision making on a personal and national level.
That ‘throwing off of the need to believe’ worked really well under the communists of every flavour in the USSR, China, North Korea and noticeably Cambodia under Pol Pot and the Khymer Rouge.
Perhaps the Christian view of man as ‘sinful’ is the key to understanding how all philosophies have something that they might like to hide. Though, to be fair, Islamist’s of Hamas seem prepared not to hide it, but to phone home and show Mum and Dad photos of the dead Jews in return for familial approbation.
Islam discriminates between four levels of worship; the shariat, terekat, hakekat and ma’rifat. What people receive in the mosques and other places of worship is only to be attributed to the lowest level, the shariat. It may perhaps sometimes be on the level of the tarekat – which is about looking for the deeper meaning of Islam, but it seldom is, for it is more difficult for people to reach than the level of the shariat. The shariat can be called the ordinary, the usual thing, the rules of living, whereas what is called the hakekat is the inner reality.
I don’t know the terms in Christianity but the levels exist there as well. The mystics who experienced the inner reality were seldom well received. A man as Kierkegaard who understood the reality of Christianity – hakekat – was seen as an enemy by the church.
The ‘shariat’ in both religions are heavily distorted. Islam heavily tilts to the male, so there the inner jihad becomes war on the unbelievers. Christianity tilts to the female and its distortion is weak (male) leadership, woke ideology, victimhood culture and gender confusion.
Religion is primarily a way to overcome the fear of death. With the promise of an afterlife people can survive many things, or even wish for death as Muslims do.
The afterlife is a false promise, of course. So without religion one needs a purpose in life other than reaching a good afterlife.
The ethics of the Judeo-Christian tradition are almost identical with those of secular humanism – do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The rest of Judaism and Christianity is about the power structure on earth and specific practices and behaviors. One can discard those and embrace the core principles.
I prefer the religion OF JESUS, not the religion ABOUT JESUS. WWJD? Not how should we honor Jesus.
So the ethics of secular humanism are “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” are they?
Why? What it severely inconveniences you? What’s the point of it THEN?
Atheism is pitifully easy to deconstruct.
“the ethics of secular humanism are “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
(aka “An eye for an eye?”)
They aren’t the ethics of Christianity. Leaving aside the commandment to Love God (as I’ll assume there is no God), the commands on how to behave to your fellow men are clear in Christ’s words.
“Do good to them that hate you.”
“Love your neighbour as yourself.”
He also wasn’t naive enough to believe it was easy or we’d always manage it OR more to the point that the hide of his sheep wouldn’t be good cover for the wolves out there wishing to prey on them.
Christianity and Islam are both Martyrdom cults, with the proviso of taking out as many of the enemy as possible before the long-awaited oblivion. Christians tend to gloss over its gory beginnings in favour of ‘Peace’n’love’ and while Islam still revels in blood.
Hopelessly simplistic and sadly misses every nuance of the article above.
Blah blah blah. She hates Muslims and thinks that embracing a different set of fairy tales will endear her to evangelical nutters who will buy anything that reaffirms their fascist ideas.
LOL – wonderful. If I said Christmas is a time to enjoy oneself ,you’d say it wasn’t.
You have serious problems Charlie. Posting tripe on Unherd to wind people up won’t solve them. Get a dog, ditch your computer and take the dog for long walks in the countryside.
I assume that you are old enough to be allowed to do things for yourself, and I know, from the quality of your posts, that may be a big assumption, BUT, don’t worry, when you reach 18, as long as you still aren’t confined to your parents house and your bedroom, you can buy you own dog and no one can stop you taking it for long walks in the country side. Except of course if you are broke and live in an inner city ghetto well away from the countryside. In which case, move, the life you lead is clearly one you need to move away from ASAP.
If only Russell had discovered Deism rather than Atheism you would have found enlightenment on a par with Buddah.
Belief in the Wheel of Sorrow – reincarnation – isn’t enlightened
I’m a cultural Judaeo-Christian & atheist who also warms towards Pantheism (which is the philosophical religious belief that reality, the universe and the cosmos are identical to divinity and a supreme being or entity), who is a Zionist, counter-Jihad, anti-globalism, anti WEF, anti CCP, anti Ukrainian Nazis & pro life post 15 weeks for practical purposes, who doesn’t believe in man-made co2 induced climate change, who doesn’t believe the world is overpopulated but who thinks Britain is densely populated due to rapid mass immigration since open borders Blair & then others since then, who is socially conservative, anti gay marriage, anti surrogacy, believer in sex not gender & an inclusive populist economic nationalist MAGA, Make Britain Great, Trump, Farage4PM, Tommy Robinson (the Robin Hood of his day) & proper Brexit supporter. I believe in the explanatory science of “The Big Bang Never Happened” by Eric J. Lerner post the James Webb Telescope’s latest discoveries, & agree with the philosophy of the book “Christian Atheist: Belonging without Believing” by Brian Mountford. I believe Christian atheism or Judaeo-Christian atheism are the answers to the problems Hirsi Ali rightly presents here, but it also happens to be true, which supernatural Christianity (or any other supernatural religion) fails to be. I hope this doesn’t sound like a fudge, as I believe that truth matters.
Very moving essay.
***
There is one feature of Christian philosophy that we ought to jettison: Original Sin. It is very damaging, especially as inherited by secular religions (such as fanatical environmentalism) which view mankind as a blight, but lack Christianity’s faith-based redemption escape clause.
*****
The Jewish approach to the Garden of Eden story is that it is a coming of age story – part of what makes us human. With knowledge comes freedom of choice and responsibility. Adult humans, no longer dependent on their parents work for their sustenance. That is the meaning of leaving Eden. That is how we become partners with God in creation.
Original sin is about the brokeness many, or all, human beings experience because they are born into broken families and communities, and a world where there is suffering. This means we lack unity with ourselves, with God, and with others around us. We struggle to overcome what some might call our emotional and spiritual baggage.
It’s an idea to be embraced in the sense that it means that we aren’t entirely culpable for many of our failures. They are often, at least in part, a result of imperfect understanding and a compromised ability to do what we know we should.
The idea that we are all entirely culpable for our failings, on the other hand, seems quite terrifying.
The author is a fine writer and a fine person, but this entire stance is outright nonsense.
Yes, the idea is for all faiths to live in peace, and not to destroy those of other faiths.
I am confused if the writer is advocating only for the West. If so, why do Westerners accuse us Hindus or Jews in India or Israel to be chauvinistic when we have secular constitutions and give equal rights to minorities but prefer to be civilization states rooted in our ancient faiths?
Christianity’s arrogance stems from its belief that it is the inheritor of Ancient Rome.
It isn’t! It is an aberration.
Errr … no, actually it overthrew ancient Rome.
It is holy to the Catholic Church because St Peter and St Paul were publicly executed in ancient Rome for the edification for the degenerate pagan masses and the glory of imaginary idols.
300 years later, those lifeless idols were gone and the heart of pagan darkness became the fount of Christianity.
Because Hinduism is mistaken and Judaism is incomplete.
The politics is irrelevant.
Thanks Tony, you have rather made my point.
Not my view!
Interesting that believer and orthodox Christians have such a dim view of other faiths, rather similar to Islam.
Well, its impossible for both to be right.
Does one God exist or a pantheon of gods?
Is Jesus Christ the Jewish Messiah, the one whose birth was foretold by the prophets for 3000 years or is he not?
Is Mohammed a messenger of God or is he not?
Christianity holds that each and every one of us is precious and beloved by God (Jew, Christian, Hindu, Muslim) and we are called to to love all as our neighbor. The fact that Christians have acted almost as horribly as everyone else over the centuries is more a testament to mans fallen nature than to the falsehood of Christianity.
Christians are not very good Christians, generally.
There are NO Gods, never have been, never will be.
Death is nothing, and therefore it is illogical to fear nothing, is it not?
That’s an interesting statement. Rationality versus faith has always been contentious. If you read the philosophy of the Carvakas, atheists and rationalists from 1st century BC, this debate has been age old.
I am not too well informed but I vaguely recollect some historical speculation about Christ being in India for some time, when he is supposed to have come in contact with Eastern mysticism.
My position is essentially one of irreligiousness. I’m not religious. As such, I view all religious beliefs with incomprehension – as in why on earth would you believe this stuff? And if you do, why don’t you believe in all of them religions simultaneously – it’s not like anyone can defend the internal consistency of any individual religion, so you may as well embrace the fantasies and do a pick and mix. This includes Hinduism as much – and I find most things most Hindus believe most of the time are plain ludicrous. The truth is typical unthinking religious belief is childish, and most intellectual religious belief is self-serving. But I don’t state this in everyday life (unless provoked) for the sake of a quiet life. Because people get offended – and this can include people I like very much, or are near to me.
It should be fine to hold ultra rational views as you do.
Personally I distinguish between religious faith and spirituality. The latter is more an approach, and I find it through acceptance of a higher force and energy. Oddly this can be through different faiths- for as the 19th century reformer Shri RamKrishna said” there are different paths to the same source”.
Buddhism, Quaker Christianity, and Lao Tzu hold equal meaning as Hindu belief.
The author is right- Christians are long overdue their own HolyWar!
But it is a war not against flesh and blood but against unseen evil principalities and powers in high places. This kind of war cannot be waged by those who do not know God. Some will laugh but that is the bible and I make no apology for it.
Powerful message here.I have written a book “Born to Live” and you can join me on my life journey by reading it.. The adventure of living with the Creator of the universe, God in your heart through the narrow but compelling gate of receiving Christ as savior through repentance. Contact me and I will send you a copy or buy it through AMAZON
I am pretty certain that Ayaan Hirsi Ali wants no such thing.
Should we thank Islam for providing it then?