I watch few videos and listen to few podcasts, but this is one I recommend highly.
As most of us know, Ayaan Hirsi Ali declared recently that she had given up atheism and had become a Christian. In the Unherd article to which I linked, she argued that her belief rested largely on seeing Christianity as a bulwark against sinister forces, like Islam and Chinese Communism, out to destroy Western civilization. As she said in that article:
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.
This, of course, left some questions, most notably this: Does Hirsi Ali really believe the tenets of Christianity—for example the divinity and Resurrection of Jesus—or did she accept it on the basis of its salubrious effects on society? In the 70-minute discussion below between atheist Richard Dawkins and newly-formed Christian Hirsi Ali, that question is answered, but we also learn that Hirsi Ali came to Christianity for reasons beyond its effects on society. In fact, we learn that she became a Christian mainly because of its effects on her own well being.
First, the YouTube notes, apparently written by Richard:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a hero, a staunch fighter against the violent intolerance and bossy control freakery of Islamism. She is also a personal friend of whom I am very fond. When she recently announced her conversion to Christianity, I assumed that she must be no more than a political Christian, regarding Christianity as a bulwark against Islam. I have some sympathy with the view that if you must have a religion at all, Christianity is hugely better than the leading alternative. In Hilaire Belloc’s words, “Always keep a-hold of Nurse for fear of finding something worse.”
I agreed to have a public conversation with her in New York, in which I was all prepared to emphasize the distinction between a political Christian and a true believing Christian, who actually thinks Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. I think the distinction is a really important one. I don’t think a political Christian is a real Christian, any more than the kind of cultural Christian I am myself.
When we met on the stage at the Dissident Dialogues meeting in New York, I was wrongfooted when Ayaan began with a personal statement which seemed to suggest that she really is a believing Christian, not just a political Christian. Well, her form of words was “I choose to believe.” I’m not sure what to make of that. Anyways, see what you think; here is the recording of our New York meeting.
The upshot is that their disagreement is almost entirely about faith versus fact. Richard sees Christianity, and theism in general, as an empirical hypothesis—one of great importance if it were true. But, like me, he sees little evidence for the tenets of Christianity, or for the existence of a God, and that there is also not inconsiderable evidence against the tenets of Christianity.
Hirsi Ali, on the other hand, accepted Christianity since it helped her in a time of crisis, because she sees it as having filled the “spiritual void” that was inside her during a period of mental instability. She then became a real, believing Christian because of that, but also because she chose to believe the message of Christianity, which she sees as one of love and acceptance. And with the acceptance of that message came the acceptance of Christian tenets like the divinity and resurrection of Jesus, the virginity of Mary, and so on. (She’s not sure if there’s a soul that survives us after death.) These are things that, she says repeatedly, she chooses to believe because they helped her personally. The empirical truth of these tenets she takes as a “different plane of perception,” which I construe as “a different way of knowing”. It is a subjective, emotional way of knowing, not all that different from the “other way of knowing” of people like the Māori.
Over and over again, Richard tries to draw the conversation back to the issue of what is empirically true—that is, what nearly all reasonable people would agree what really exists in the universe if were they given the evidence. As a scientist, Richard is truth-based, always looking for the relevant empirical evidence. In contrast, Hirsi Ali looks within and sees whether the message and tenets of Christianity comport not only with what not only soothes her, but also seems “wise.” I’ll give a brief conclusion before the video, which I urge you to watch, but indented below are a few notes I made while watching the video.
Here are a few notes I took during the discussion. I’ve indented them, but they’re my own words:
In 2024, Hirsi Ali says she experienced a personal crisis, involving anxiety, depression, and self-loathing. It got to the point that didn’t want to live any more. She started self-medicating and consulting psychiatrists, seeing these potential remedies as “evidence-based science”. But nothing worked until one therapist diagnosed her with “spiritual bankruptcy”. So Hirsi Ali started praying because she “had absolutely nothing to lose”. She then immediately felt “connected to something higher and greater than herself.” That was Christianity, and she considered her discovery of it a “miracle.” She goes on to say that her conversion is hard to explain, but she is writing a book about it.
Dawkins responds by asserting that a “Christian has to believe in something“, and wonders what, exactly, does she believe about Christianity: did Jesus rise from the dead, was he the son of God and son of a virgin, and so on? She responds that these tenets of Christianity “make sense and are wise.” And so she no longer mocks faith, but argues says that people with faith have something that atheists don’t have. (My response: yes, they have faith: belief in what consoles them regardless of its truth.) Judging by the applause, the audience seems to be sympathetic with Hirsi Ali’s view of the salubrious nature of religion.
The difference between the two is summarized in Hirsi Ali’s statement, “I choose to accept the story of Jesus Christ”, and that that belief rests on a “different ways of perception.” It is “her choice”.
She adds that the message of Western civilization is “essentially Christian”, something that is often told to atheists to silence them: “The whole basis for our culture (and your morality)”, they tell us, “is Christianity.” I find this a debatable assertion, since the whole basis of Judaism is not Christianity, and essentially there is no difference in moral values between Jews and Christians. (Islam, however, is a different matter. I would have asked Hirsi Ali if she thought that Jews, who don’t accept Jesus as the son of God, are doomed and will go to hell. Further, the Enlightenment was a rejection of Christian authoritarianism, so can you praise something because its rejection led to better things?
You have to hand it to Richard. He pulls no punches with Hirsi Ali, saying that the whole Christian story of original sin and our salvation through belief in Jesus is “obvious nonsense” and “theological bullshit”. Christianity, he says, is obsessed with sin. But you also have to hand it to Hirsi Ali for standing by her guns (even though I disagree with her): she responds that “Christianity is obsessed with love.” (Loud applause follows; the audience are clearly, as Dennett might have said, “Believers in belief.”) I’m not sure, further, having watched American Christians, whether in general they’re “obsessed with love”.
Richard again says that if you’re a Christian, you have to accept its empirical assertions along with its moral messages; in his words, “You have to take the whole package”. Ayaan responds again why she believes that Jesus rose from the dead. . . “it is a matter of choice.” She compares Dawkins being moved by art and music to her being moved by religion, though I disagree with this comparison, for nobody asks whether art and music are “true”, only whether they move you or not.
Hirsi Ali apparently thinks that others should accept Christianity, too, so it isn’t simply a personal choice for her, but one that she thinks others should make to both improve their own mental health and Western society. She is no proselytizer, but does argue that others should become Christians, too. I certainly can’t, for I can’t force myself to believe something that I’ve rejected after long thought, and does Hirsi Ali think that children should be brought up believing Christianity is true? (This question isn’t answered.)
Dawkins clarifies that he sees the hypothesis of theism as a scientific hypothesis, and an important one, but one for which there is no evidence. Hirsi Ali says that, religion, contrary to atheism, “offers you something.” Richard says that yes, faith offers you something comforting, but “that doesn’t make it true.” Hirsi Ali then advances the recent argument that evidence for God lies in the observation that “there is something rather than nothing” in the universe. To that I’d add that that is a fallacious argument, but even if it did point to a Creator, it wouldn’t for a minute point to the Christian God.
My Take (after hearing it all): This is a very good and civil argument between two smart and thoughtful people, but in the end they epitomize two different ways of perceiving truth. Richard instantiates the scientific approach: you believe in something in proportion to the amount of evidence supporting it. Ayaan epitomizes the “other ways of knowing”: if you feel something is true, and especially if your belief make you feel better, then that is evidence that it is true.
It’s clear, as you’d see if you read my book Faith versus Fact, that I agree with Richard. You can believe what you want, and are welcome to believe what makes you feel better, but subjective “truth” is no way to ascertain what really exists in the universe. Some religious beliefs may help you, and some may help society, but that is also true of secular humanism, and I see secular humanism as a non-divisive guide for conduct that doesn’t rest on superstition. Almost by definition, secular humanism is not divisive.
And, as northern Europe and Scandinavia show us, a society doesn’t have to accept the tenets of Christianity to be a good and moral society. Data tell us that the religiosity of a country (or of U.S. states) is negatively correlated with the well-being and happiness of its inhabitants. I don’t see how you can ascribe that to Christianity, much religion in general.
Although the audience and the moderator, who says he’s a Christian, appear to be “believers in belief”, I must disagree with Hirsi Ali’s claim that what she subjectively perceives to be true IS true, and that atheism is dangerous to society. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in the supernatural, and of course people want to have a “meaning and purpose” for their lives. Yet, as I’ve argued, “meaning and purpose” are delineated post facto—after people find what makes them feel good and fulfilled. (See my 2018 post when I asked readers what they see as the meaning and purpose of their lives. Virtually nobody named religion as one of those sources.) Steve Pinker has argued, in my view convincingly, that the moral improvement of society in the last 400 years or so has involved the rejection of religion (Christianity existed well before the moral improvement that Pinker discusses). You’ll have to read his two big books (Better Angels and Enlightenment Now) to see his argument in full. (The subtitle of the second book is “The Case for Readson, Humanism, Science, and Progress.”) I recommend those books to everyone. Yes, they’re long, and are criticized by those misguided souls who think there’s been no moral or material progress of humanity, but I think they’re excellent and on the mark.
In the end, I think Hirsi Ali makes as good a case for Christianity as can be made. But Richard shows, to me at least, that her case is weak, as it’s based on delusions and superstitions that made her feel good and, that she thinks, will make others also feel good while at the same time staving off the forces of nescience and authoritarianism.
********************
I invite readers to take an hour and listen to the video below. And then weigh in in the comments. Do we need people to be religious to stave off anti-Western values and to improve their mental health? Did the Enlightenment and secular humanism really come from Christianity, as Hirsi Ali says, or was it a reaction against Christianity, as Dawkins claims? Do we need Christianity as THE faith that will fill society’s moral vacuum (if there is one)? And is there really a moral vacuum now, compared to say, five hundred years ago?
Updates: First, I just discovered that Hirsi Ali now has her own Substack site, called “Restoration” (she’s not the only author). If you want to follow her intellectual and spiritual journey, click on the link, though at $75 per year it’s pricier than many other such sites.
And I couldn’t resist adding this quote from the eminent nonbeliever H. L. Mencken. What if a religion dictates something that you think is immoral? Chritianity certainly does, at least for liberal humanists (see “Catholicism”):
My 1.9 cents :
There is theology —
And then there is theosophy.
Theosophy uses sophistry to make humanity into god and the cosmos into heaven.
Atheism is particularly vulnerable to theosophical temptation.
What to do?
I don’t know. IMHO things are out in the deep ocean now that atheism made a strong case. Ali went to theology IMHO as a retreat and I can’t blame her.
FYI Theology v. Theosophy is James Lindsay’s assertion — not convinced, but can’t ignore either.
I wonder if folx who were assigned atheist at birth are particularly vulnerable to theosophy? I’m a trans atheist who was assigned Catholic at birth, but transitioned to atheism. My transition was really tough because I missed out on getting confirmation blockers, so I had to go through a Catholic confirmation. But in the end my transition was stronger for having to overcome all that incense-infused religiosity. As a trans atheist I feel less susceptible to detransitioning to any kind of Christianity again.
[edit to add] Of course Ayaan was assigned Muslim at birth, so she was also a trans atheist, and her detransitioning to Christianity is a little different that way. I’m sure it all comes down to lived experience and finding a way to access that deeply held and personal sense of religious identity.
Trans atheist. Confirmation blockers.
LOL!
OK, now you’re scaring me.
I’ve decided my pronouns are going to be jesus/fucking/christ.
I love you!
Ayaan is free to believe in what she wants, but it absolutely boggles my mind that she finds Christianity comforting or uplifting.
Christianity teaches that we are all fallen sinners who deserve to go to Hell, and the only way to be saved is to have faith in Jesus and his sacrifice on our behalf. Ayaan had a sister she loved, Haweya, who died at a young age. According to the faith that brings Ayaan so much solace and comfort, Haweya is now in Hell (she was a Muslim) where suffers everlasting anguish with no possibility of respite or rescue, ever. Furthermore, I don’t know if Ayaan’s parents are still alive, but if so, they are almost certainly still Muslims, and are very unlikely to convert to Christianity. That means that Ayaan’s parents also have the fiery lake of torment to look forward to after they die.
How is it in any way comforting to believe that your beloved sister and parents are/are about to suffer everlasting anguish and torment?
Is Ayaan a cafeteria Christian who picks and chooses what to believe: yes to the “Jesus loves me” part, no to the “my loved ones will suffer in Hell for all eternity” part?
I don’t have time to watch the video, but I’m very curious if Richard asked Ayaan about that, and what she would have said if he had.
He asked her only if she believed in an afterlife, and her response was that she didn’t think the body was resurrected or lived on in some form (OBVIOUSLY), but she wasn’t sure about whether there was an immortal soul or not. That last answer suggests she’s not really a full-on Christian, for what is “salvation” for if there’s no form of an afterlife?
It’s possible to be a Christian without believing in hell. You can call this a “cafeteria Christian” if you wish, though they would reply that it is “having a better understanding” of the faith.
But the Bible mentions hell! You can’t misunderstand that–or Heaven for that matter. Both of them explicitly accept an afterlife, yet Hirsi Ali doesn’t know if there is one.
Agreed, but it’s possible for a Christian to regard the Bible as having been written by fallible humans with an imperfect understanding, doing their best to interpret a message from Jesus that they only partially understood.
American-style, literalist Christianity, complete with an in inerrant Bible, is not the only form of Christianity, and indeed is rare in the UK. I’m just reporting here what many Christians (including some of my family members) do indeed believe. It may well be that Ayaan is in the process of forming a similar opinion (not that I agree with her; though overall I respect her greatly).
Many non-fundie Christians regard the bible as a theological salad bar. They put on their mental plate what already appeals to them, and anything that looks icky is considered metaphorical or a product of its time.
I suppose this is an object lesson that we are all susceptible to the god virus. I’d like to think my scientistic thinking gives me sufficient resistance, but if I’d been through what Hirsi Ali has, who knows.
Definitely one for my “quotable” scrapbook!
Was Ayaan Hirsi Ali ever an atheist just because she rejected one religion.
The first few sentences of her dialogue show’s she needs to believe ” there was no flash of light but I wish there was”, and she needed comfort from somewhere for her anxiety and depression.
Yes, she was a pretty diehard atheist when she left Islam.
Question: Does “northern Europe and Scandinavia show us, a society doesn’t have to accept the tenets of Christianity to be a good and moral society” or are we witnessing a unique combination of tribalism (Scandinavian countries, until relatively recently, are homogeneous racially) and vast natural resources for a small population to create a unique set of circumstances for secular humanism to flourish.
As immigration has perturbed the tribalist conditions in Scandinavia, will this good and moral society sustain the tenets of secular humanism, or will secular humanism be displaced by the growth of the radical right in Scandinavian countries?
You make a good point. With my experience of working and living in Norway some considerable time ago I notice the significant changes mainly brought on by immigration which has changed much and I wonder about the future as do my long time Norwegian friends.
The radical right is not far under in Scandinavian countries.
“The radical right is not far under in Scandinavian countries”
I’ve also had this reported to me by close friends visiting their friends and family there.
I’ve never found utilitarian arguments in favor of religion to be compelling. And I find them somewhat condescending.
As the Western world becomes more and more polarised (for various reasons) I find myself becoming less certain about ‘matters’. I would once have said that I was an atheist… but as time has worn on I now describe myself (and I am rarely asked in the secular UK) as a non-theist. Without trying to start a dictionary battle (usually pointless) my ‘stance’ is that I consider the existence of god, gods, or God unlikely and that of a personal god even more unlikely so I it’s not worth thinking about or shaping one’s behaviour in accordance with religious dictat.
I agree.
I agree with you. It sounds like my experience and I am comfortable as are many friends and family. The life growing up in the UK at the end of WWII in a small village community predominantly “Christian” but not “rabid” left me with something described now probably as white and privileged but that is my heritage and eight decades on I still recall it fondly without guilt. I consider myself fortunate to have had this early start in life and no I do not have “God”
All the authoritarian dangers Aayan warns us against — Communism, Islamism, and “woke ideology” — all ultimately claim to be something higher than the self, noble ideals that appeal to those who need more in their lives to give it purpose and meaning. The problem isn’t the basic goals or values, but how they’re interpreted and implemented — the nature of the claims and the truth of the facts.
Trying to fight this by embracing and advocating taking an irrational leap of faith towards something higher than the self isn’t a wise strategy, I don’t care how good it makes you feel. The dangerous people on the other side feel pretty good, too.
+
“The dangerous people on the other side feel pretty good, too.” Spot on. Thanks for this insight.
My knowledge of theology is basic, and of Christianity just that which the English school system instilled on a compulsory basis. I’d say that if you choose to believe in something, rather than being convinced of its truth, you do not qualify for Christian salvation. You are following in Pascal’s footsteps, not out of a cynical wager, but for the package of benefits you get in this life. Now if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is OK with that, well it’s not for me to criticise her. She may even be right that if more people followed her in doing so the society would be in a better place. But if the Christian God existed, I doubt he would look upon those adopting the outward trappings without inner belief with any warmth.
Interesting to see the Mencken quote; no doubt it inspired Asimov when he wrote “Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what is right”!
+1
I agree with Dawkins and PCC(E) here totally.
BUT…. in the recent “Aayan Mystery” as I call it, perhaps we underestimate the life deranging experiences she has had and the effect on her worldview and psychology.
All the way back to Somalia, her unhappy time in Saudi Arabia, the Dutch mess with the assassination and subsequent bullets travelling her way from Islamists.
She may be wrong in some key points – I believe she is – but how she got to where she is has to be a big part of it and her experiences were especially unique.
It is the only way I can square the circle.
D.A.
NYC
That old trope
“there is something rather than nothing”
is repeatedly trotted out as though it is conclusive. Actually, there is a very plausible hypothesis that the net mass/energy content of the universe is zero. One needs some knowledge of physics to either understand it or to attempt to refute it.
“there is something rather than nothing” – same rational used in mass/energy balances to account for the vast unexplained mass-energy content of the universe, i.e. dark matter and dark energy.
ISTM there is far too little appreciation of the power of the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) for disposing of these sorts of arguments.
People fail to follow through with “If there is God, why is there God rather than nothing?” Many claim irreducible mystery at that point, to which I say “that’s not a logical argument but a statement of faith.”
About the negative regional correlation between religiosity and well being: Global correlations are a poor guide to causal processes. Speaking from my memory of the world value survey and similar data, poorer countries with low existential security and low trust have more religiosity, probably mediated both through lack of education and need to conform/being part of a community to survive, and at the same time they have greater “materialism”. If you are lacking basic stuff, self actualization isn’t your priority. People in social democratic countries or communist countries like the GDR or the Soviet Union with high existential security for the provision of basic needs don’t need the crutch of religion that much, they also tend to have a high standard of education. Isn’t it also true that within the US, more religious states tend to also be poorer?
If I remember correctly, closer looks at individuals within regional populations, and holding factors like income or education equal have found positive correlations between active religiosity and good outcomes probably mediated largely by the effects of greater social support via a church community. (Thinking of R.D. Putnam here, it may have been in “Our kids” or in “Bowling alone”.) Also, Henrich, “WEIRD”, talks about experimental studies showing that belief in an all-knowing punishing God does increase moral behavior, although this may well be affected by “replication crisis” related problems.
I know several people who clearly derive emotional benefits from their belief, for which I envy them. There was a time in my life when reciting the Shma’ solemnly daily felt good, among other things by feeling connected to such a long and ancient tradition and all the generations and generations who had spoken the same words. I can no longer do that, I have become too jaded about everything. There is nothing “holy” anymore for me, and it feels like a loss.
This book deals with the causal processes, and as I recall the worse off you are, the more religious you become, since that’s all you have to turn to. And that’s one reason why countries where you get taken care of, like Scandinavia, don’t need religion. But still, wouldn’t one expect a priori that if religious belief makes one comforted and happy, the correlation would go in the opposite direction?
https://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Secular-Religion-Worldwide-Cambridge/dp/1107648378/ref=sr_1_4?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.9iug-4ITV_tnqAFkSRgIyfILwinK0wOifZBySag3dPpVWFrdlk2pQsSqRJ6yvJ6lP3BDMF5NigQ5dZlvoKsFPA-qBmJxaqR6S-GSAJsnZ0QOn0JZTkQJTT_JZzqDoJrEdyXtiYNv0azcwQxroH0QqsJPqBHoftbifvMflPU70quVJC40akF9tzwgNdhhgXFhdaFLsRW57gYU4QX8wyc7fGKxUWlGXW0jeVgriKXvRa8.i83c9AXNwc_hCDZsU7_8gIVpWrFm65ADhDh1Bt7vfT4&dib_tag=se&hvadid=580632735720&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9021740&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=b&hvrand=5921523990435002085&hvtargid=kwd-946572851226&hydadcr=20583_13321867&keywords=norris+and+inglehart&qid=1718391539&sr=8-4
The short URL:
https://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Secular-Religion-Worldwide-Cambridge/dp/1107648378/
I’ve sometimes asked Christians what the value is in praying for someone who doesn’t believe in the power of prayer. I suspect it is comforting for the person praying but it does nothing for the person being prayed for.
Depends on whether the person being prayed for knows whether the prayers are happening. There’s some indication that this is worse than not knowing (and perhaps worse than not being prayed for).
Among patients in hospital recovering from heart surgery, “certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.”
Am Heart J. 2006 Apr;151(4):934-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2005.05.028
“Christianity is obsessed with love.” The history of Christianity suggests otherwise. It has never been obsessed with loving non-Christians or heretics. But Christianity IS obsessed with preying on human weakness. Its selling point is giving reassuring answers to people who can no longer face life head-on, people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Anyone who thinks that the answer to the world’s problems is more Christianity cannot be taken seriously as a thinker.
I can empathize with Ali. I suffer from clinical depression and I have in my moments of weakness desperately flirted with faith. Ultimately I decided I could never convert because I can’t “choose” to believe something as fantastical as a god man.
Likewise. As someone above said, I envy people who *can* believe. I have problems with the word “belief” itself. I also played around with various religions/faiths to try to alleviate depression. No go. I’m with Dawkins. I could never fall for the “theological bullshit”, the silly stories, etc.
Hi Jerry,
I’m more sympathetic to your side of the argument than Hirsi Ali’s, but I just wanted to point out that a big recent study does in fact find a positive relationship between religion and wellbeing. The study’s title is: “A many-analysts approach to the relation between religiosity and well-being”.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2070255
“[W]e acknowledge that another important problem in the literature on religion and well-being concerns the issue of causality. However, as our project uses non-experimental cross-sectional data, this issue cannot immediately be addressed in the current study.”
Causality is big problem: does religious affiliation cause happiness or do unhappy people leave their religious community?
The study also way oversampled atheists or other nonreligious people and way oversampled Jews, and vastly undersampled Muslims and Hindus wrt world population sizes of those groups.
And sorry for overcommenting today. Fun topic.
I am very disappointed in Ayan’s flip. I saw her once, at the Global Atheist Convention. She was impressive. I accidently found myself at the back of the facility and saw her whisked away by four security personal and a black limo. Such was her situation, as alluded to in another comment.
However, her analysis and solution have no real substance. The threats she mentions are not real existential threats and the solution, to choose a feel-good solution that has been totally debunked, to fill a personal void, well, it’s a pity.
I DO believe our society is suffering from a “moral vacuum”. I relate it back to the breakdown in family. It’s interesting that there are so many atheist/secular Jews on this website who seem (from where I sit) to have benefitted mightily from what sound to me like in-tact family systems. I guess it’s what many here have referred to as “cultural Judaism” (others have called themselves “cultural Christians”). I see something very positive there. Such things were absent in my own family of origin. Not sure what my point is…
You are in my opinion very correct in your assessment in what constitutes “cultural Christians or Judaism” I believe this was my experience and that has remained with me for all my life to date despite the rejection of the all knowing “God” This may have been absent in your case but nevertheless I fully understand your point.
Dawkins is in my opinion a “cultural Christian”
Dawkins himself cheerfully considers himself a cultural Christian.
My family (two parents, male & female, and myself) started breaking down around when I was ten years old. After that, things got pretty dicey.
My parents divorced when I was about 16, and I lived with my father for about a year. At 17 I was already sharing an apartment in New York City with a girlfriend, in a relationship that lasted about 3 years. (I left her after I found her making out with someone in our apartment building.)
I then lived with another woman for about 5 years (She left me because I was less aggressive about a career than she was.) (But we’ve reconnected and are quite friendly.)
I did not (and still do not) feel in a moral vacuum, even though I’ve been unmarried for most of my life, until ten years ago. (I’m 74.) I have no connection to my parents’ extended families. I have no children of my own, though I am now enjoying my wife’s adult children and young grandchildren.
A former friend, who is also an atheist, and single all his life, has a very close relationship with his culturally Jewish family & friends — so much so that he ignores most politics (as I would characterized his behavior). He has often expressed moralistic ideas and admonitions, mostly secular-humanist, though they also seem to have an absolutist flavor that might come from his Jewish heritage.
My point? It’s just an anecdotal story. But because of my own experiences, I don’t necessarily buy the idea that there is a moral vacuum caused by a breakdown in family systems. And maybe I’m also suspicious of that idea because it’s a rightwing talking point.
I think there are much more complex reasons for what is going on than just changing family systems. I still tend to favor the “pop” ideas of Alvin Toffler from more than half a century ago — that people are feeling “future shock” because of so much change in a short amount of time. (Which I think is also making people vulnerable to authoritarian “certainty.”)
Interesting points. I wonder if I may be picking up “right wing talking points” without intending to. I live in a severely economically depressed part of town (most of Pima County in which Tucson located is quite poor) and there is definitely SOME kind of breakdown here. I appreciate your points. Stephan Bero (often on this website) has had me wondering about the speech I use, too. I have always had that mynah bird tendency. I pick up accents and regional sayings and sometimes don’t even know what the heck I’m saying. Thanks for the check. Thanks to Stephan, too, if he’s lurking about.
👍🏼 Well, Debi, you are willing to examine your own assumptions, and that goes a long way toward having a more solid-realistic-honest foundation (pick one or more) for what you think and do.
“Well, her [Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s] form of words was “I choose to believe.” I’m not sure what to make of that.” – R. Dawkins
There is an interesting philosophical topic:
“Doxastic voluntarism is the philosophical doctrine according to which people have voluntary control over their beliefs. Philosophers in the debate about doxastic voluntarism distinguish between two kinds of voluntary control. The first is known as direct voluntary control and refers to acts which are such that if a person chooses to perform them, they happen immediately. For instance, a person has direct voluntary control over whether he or she is thinking about his or her favorite song at a given moment. The second is known as indirect voluntary control and refers to acts which are such that although a person lacks direct voluntary control over them, he or she can cause them to happen if he or she chooses to perform some number of other, intermediate actions. For instance, a person untrained in music has indirect voluntary control over whether he or she will play a melody on a violin. Corresponding to this distinction between two kinds of voluntary control, philosophers distinguish between two kinds of doxastic voluntarism. Direct doxastic voluntarism claims that people have direct voluntary control over at least some of their beliefs. Indirect doxastic voluntarism, however, supposes that people have indirect voluntary control over at least some of their beliefs, for example, by doing research and evaluating evidence.”
Doxastic Voluntarism: https://iep.utm.edu/doxastic-voluntarism/
I stopped listening to the video after thirty-six minutes. Richard Dawkins was out of his league. Ayaan Hirsi Ali danced around him using talking points with popular appeal. Professor Dawkins was too fixated on the truth-value of belief to even consider arguments that ordinary people might find attractive. The moderator asked questions that Dawkins was unprepared to answer. And Dawkins lacked a sense of snark when he needed it. Christopher Hitchens would never have allowed Ayaan Hirsi Ali to shovel manure so well.
To add detail to my post, when at 32:21 minutes the moderator asked about the scientific explanation for Dawkins being moved to tears by the “St Matthew Passion” the professor’s reply, “Well, it’s neurology,” had all the appeal of glue on a doorknob. A better answer would have been, “I’m not aware that I’m so important that universities would pay teams of scientists to investigate my every quirk and move. Thus there seems to be no scientific answer to your question. But that lack of an answer doesn’t mean scientists haven’t studied humanity’s response to the arts. There may in psychological journals be any number of answers. I’m just not aware of them. We scientists are specialists. Take us out of our field of study and we know no more than the layman. It’s unfair to ask an astronomer about the sex life of the giraffe. And it was unfair to ask me the question you asked. Indeed, if I asked you, or any member of the audience, why Bach’s music was so moving, I suspect the only answer given would be ‘I like it.’ You sell science short. Don’t.”
Good response! Yes, Hitchens would have given much better responses than Dawkins did in this debate.
Yes.
Really just to say that your post magnificently exposed the incompatibility of thought, between the two mindsets here.
I gave up long ago discussing this ‘subject’ with my friends of ‘faith’, as you either ‘believe in belief’ (as attributed to Dennett) with regards to religion, or you don’t.
In fairness to AH Ali she seems clear here that her ‘belief’ is one of choice, end of.
And in fairness to my two friends (both in their 80s – one Catholic t’other Anglican), whilst unequivocally accepting the ‘Christ’ story, they too would I’m sure acknowledge that for them it’s also about ‘choice’.
This issue of ‘choosing to believe’ is uncannily close to the subject matter of my 2020 Philosophy PhD thesis:
https://www.academia.edu/44115149/Permission_to_believe_Descriptive_and_prescriptive_beliefs_in_the_Clifford_James_debate
Apologies for the blatant plug 🙂
I am not sure I want to watch the video, because it hits a bit too close to home. My life was a protracted trip from atheism back to atheism. At least now, I can say I am not suspending disbelief, don’t avoid the subject to please others, and don’t mistake imagination for a belief. The one thing I am missing with the atheist movement is this: we need more community. Instead of meeting to discuss atheism, we need picnics, dance parties, game nights. Otherwise people will leave to gain human contact and friendship.
Andrew, from Canada here. I was in attendance for this conversation. The “Dissident Dialogues” in Brooklyn, New York. The whole event was a once-in-a-lifetime, very important experience for me. I considered it a privilege to sit in the audience, and witness this historic conversation unfold. After the event, I got to meet Richard Dawkins in person. I got a photo with him, and he signed my copy of The Magic of Reality. It was one of the most important moments of my life, to meet an intellectual hero of mine, Richard Dawkins, in person. Our conversation was short, but I did tell Richard “I was brought up as a Young Earth Creationist”, to which he exclaimed, “Oh, MY!” in his famous British accent, lol. Let me take a moment to do something that I rarely do; say something positive about Christianity. At one point in their conversation, Richard said “I think Theism is the most exciting hypothesis there could possibly be.” I concur with that, even though I think Theism is false. If there were a Creator of the Universe, that would be the most important fact about existence that we could possibly know. When I used to be a Christian, a long time ago, I didn’t think of it as a bad thing, at all. I thought being a Christian was the most wonderful thing that you could possibly be, because I honestly believed it to be true. In fact, I didn’t understand how anyone could *not want this wonderful “Truth”. My deconversion from Christianity took a long time, but the main reason why I don’t believe it anymore, is simply that it isn’t true. If it was true, I’d believe it. But, I still think that the existence of God is the most important question that human beings could possibly contemplate. What side you come down on, on the “Is there/Is there not?” question of God’s existence, is very important. And I think it’s false. That should affect how you live your life. Anyway, I know I typed a lot here, and I don’t usually post this much, but this conversation between Richard and Ayaan was important to me, so I had a lot to say. Once again, it was one of the greatest experiences of my life, to be there to witness this event in person. Truly memorable.