I love your writing and your podcasts. Your sensitivity and your reasoning really comes through. When Ayaan called herself an atheist, nobody seemed to question it. As soon as it left her feeling hollow and searching for more, she decided to become a Christian. Now everyone is being so critical of her choice! It's the beginning of her own personal journey and though it comes from a more political stance, it's likely to become more profound with time. Though she made it public, it's still rather a private thing. I see no need to criticize her religious path. Christianity can be an extremely difficult devotion to be part of, but it really makes sense because within the religion you can find humility and try to be in a forgiving place. Next step is possibly being devoted to helping others. I think she is a very courageous woman.
Wow. A brilliant essay. I think it was Jonathon Pageau who said: "everybody needs one miracle" meaning that when you takes things down deep enough, we all require faith-based assumptions to explain why we believe what we believe---whether that faith is in God or "the big bang" or something else. It amazes me that otherwise smart people like Dawkins and Sam Harris seem so blind to this basic truth. I think the work of Iain McGilchrist is very important in this regard. He brings together science, art and the sacred in a way that convincingly makes the "clockwork universe" of the reductionist materialists look stupid and limited. They are thinking with only one side of their brains, technically brilliant but not very wise. Ayaan has more wisdom than the "Four Horsemen" combined and, I would argue, more courage, since the cowardly stance for an intellectual in 2023 is surely atheism.
As someone who spent their early years heavily influenced by the New Atheist movement - in particular Dawkins and Hitchens - their main imprint on my personal philosophy was a commitment to challenging authority and upholding free expression. I am not the militant athiest of my teens, and have come to recognise the value that religion can bring to others, even if I fail to feel its influence personally. I think this was a brilliant piece to read.
Brilliant. In reading Dawkins’ claim about what intelligent people believe, I’m reminded of his short-lived idea that New Atheists call themselves “Brights.” There’s definitely more than a hint of condescension and disdain in his work.
I haven't had time to delve into what Hirsi Ali now actually believes, though I am curious so I'll get to it. I used to enjoy watching watching Hitchens et al because I found the debates clever & interesting, but I was never invested in it, never passionate about my lack of belief. I think now it's because I was *never* a believer - I grew up in a non-religious home, I can't remember it ever even coming up. My parents were teachers, they were good people who valued integrity, honesty, caring for others, all that. For 8 years I went to a summer horse-riding camp (I was horse crazy) run by born again Christians, who I liked very much; at one point I tried really, really hard to believe, because I wanted to fit in, but it didn't work. Anyway, I was thinking recently that maybe the reason I have not jumped into any movement or other belief system is because as someone who never had religious belief, I didn't have a "God-shaped hole" to begin with.
"Notably these public intellectuals jumped away from the question of God’s existence to the subject of moral philosophy."
Sorry, why exactly should atheists respond to an essay that is pretty much entirely about culture wars (and a bit of personal angst) by addressing "the question of God’s existence"?
Clearly, Ali couldn't care less if the God of "Judeo-Christianity" can be demonstrated to exist in the actual world.
The truth is the opposite. You can't have an ought without a factual context that both necessitates it and makes it possible. Most saliently, you need a pre-existing goal. An ought is a means to an end.
For example, if you want to go to heaven when you die, you ought to do God's will. If you don't care where you go, an ought is not necessary -- or possible. A means cannot exist without a pre-existing end. Without preferences, it's impossible even to form the concept "ought".
If you prefer pleasure over pain, health over sickness, longevity over an early demise, joy over suffering, happiness over misery -- in all, what some people call flourishing over withering and what I would call life over death -- there are actions you ought to take. If you had no preference, you would not be able to conceive of such a thing as an ought.
I'm not arguing you *should* have goals, only that if you don't, you can't have oughts. Oughts derive from a particular kind of fact.
On the other hand, if by ought you mean a contextless imperative independent of any goal of yours, a "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not" unrelated to your values, then Hume is right trivially. But he's not. His conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of what ought is.
great essay. thank you for pointing this out about the leap of faith that Atheists take.
as humans, we can’t really prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. we can never know what we don’t know, and thats ok.
believers and atheists all take a leap of faith at some point. what bothers me so much about the New Atheist crowd is that they deny this.
to me it always seems that when you scratch beneath the surface of the Four Horseman crowd, one finds a bubbling contempt of dogmatic Christianity.
their intellectual vanity must construct flimsy straw man arguments to support their imagined superiority. just admit that Atheism is another faith based belief system! if not, than accept agnosticism as the default...
Meanwhile many/most/all of the more than 72 think-tanks (etc) that provide the deep-pockets funding of this project are full of back-to-the-past Christian true-believers. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is closely associated with some of them.
A project which when (not if) gains the necessary political power intends to refashion every minute fraction of American culture and politics. It has an extensive very detailed manifesto of what it intends to do.
Meanwhile of course many back-to-the past Christian true-believers even pretend (or pretended) that the culturally and religious illiterate nihilistic barbarian, namely Donald Trump was/is "God's" chosen vehicle to re-Christianize America.
Where you go wrong, Winston, is in failing to address why you care about morality in the first place. The answer to that provides the rational standard for morality.
We don't have to care about morality -- I don't argue we should. But if we do, why do we?
In all of that, you left out the dagger that slayed all god-based ethical systems, i.e., The Euthyphro. Is it moral because god says it is moral? Then rape and murder could be ethical. Is an action's moral value discoverable independent of the will of god? Then we don't need any divine input on ethics or morals. There is no culture on earth where murder is acceptable. This tells us that prohibitions against murder are inherit in all societies. Rape is generally unacceptable in most societies. Theft is contingent on the concept of private property. One does not need a magical sky father in order to derive an ethical system. In fact, many of the precepts of those religious ethical systems are anachronistic and sometimes harmful, e.g., the 613 dos and don'ts of Judaism, particularly the rules around slavery. Interestingly, none of the major desert religions contain a prohibition against sexually harming children. I guess "god" must've missed that one.
I love your writing and your podcasts. Your sensitivity and your reasoning really comes through. When Ayaan called herself an atheist, nobody seemed to question it. As soon as it left her feeling hollow and searching for more, she decided to become a Christian. Now everyone is being so critical of her choice! It's the beginning of her own personal journey and though it comes from a more political stance, it's likely to become more profound with time. Though she made it public, it's still rather a private thing. I see no need to criticize her religious path. Christianity can be an extremely difficult devotion to be part of, but it really makes sense because within the religion you can find humility and try to be in a forgiving place. Next step is possibly being devoted to helping others. I think she is a very courageous woman.
Thoughtful and reasonable. Unlike the New Atheist Delusion. Thank you.
Love the Pascal tie-in. Would love to read more on your ideas about faith, Mr. Marshall!
Wow. A brilliant essay. I think it was Jonathon Pageau who said: "everybody needs one miracle" meaning that when you takes things down deep enough, we all require faith-based assumptions to explain why we believe what we believe---whether that faith is in God or "the big bang" or something else. It amazes me that otherwise smart people like Dawkins and Sam Harris seem so blind to this basic truth. I think the work of Iain McGilchrist is very important in this regard. He brings together science, art and the sacred in a way that convincingly makes the "clockwork universe" of the reductionist materialists look stupid and limited. They are thinking with only one side of their brains, technically brilliant but not very wise. Ayaan has more wisdom than the "Four Horsemen" combined and, I would argue, more courage, since the cowardly stance for an intellectual in 2023 is surely atheism.
As someone who spent their early years heavily influenced by the New Atheist movement - in particular Dawkins and Hitchens - their main imprint on my personal philosophy was a commitment to challenging authority and upholding free expression. I am not the militant athiest of my teens, and have come to recognise the value that religion can bring to others, even if I fail to feel its influence personally. I think this was a brilliant piece to read.
Brilliant. In reading Dawkins’ claim about what intelligent people believe, I’m reminded of his short-lived idea that New Atheists call themselves “Brights.” There’s definitely more than a hint of condescension and disdain in his work.
People are going to do good or bad things regardless of their chosen religion, whether it's an established one or a godless ideological movement.
I haven't had time to delve into what Hirsi Ali now actually believes, though I am curious so I'll get to it. I used to enjoy watching watching Hitchens et al because I found the debates clever & interesting, but I was never invested in it, never passionate about my lack of belief. I think now it's because I was *never* a believer - I grew up in a non-religious home, I can't remember it ever even coming up. My parents were teachers, they were good people who valued integrity, honesty, caring for others, all that. For 8 years I went to a summer horse-riding camp (I was horse crazy) run by born again Christians, who I liked very much; at one point I tried really, really hard to believe, because I wanted to fit in, but it didn't work. Anyway, I was thinking recently that maybe the reason I have not jumped into any movement or other belief system is because as someone who never had religious belief, I didn't have a "God-shaped hole" to begin with.
This is excellent writing. Brilliant and powerful. Thank you.
"Notably these public intellectuals jumped away from the question of God’s existence to the subject of moral philosophy."
Sorry, why exactly should atheists respond to an essay that is pretty much entirely about culture wars (and a bit of personal angst) by addressing "the question of God’s existence"?
Clearly, Ali couldn't care less if the God of "Judeo-Christianity" can be demonstrated to exist in the actual world.
"I can't get an ought from an is."
--------------------------------------------------
The truth is the opposite. You can't have an ought without a factual context that both necessitates it and makes it possible. Most saliently, you need a pre-existing goal. An ought is a means to an end.
For example, if you want to go to heaven when you die, you ought to do God's will. If you don't care where you go, an ought is not necessary -- or possible. A means cannot exist without a pre-existing end. Without preferences, it's impossible even to form the concept "ought".
If you prefer pleasure over pain, health over sickness, longevity over an early demise, joy over suffering, happiness over misery -- in all, what some people call flourishing over withering and what I would call life over death -- there are actions you ought to take. If you had no preference, you would not be able to conceive of such a thing as an ought.
I'm not arguing you *should* have goals, only that if you don't, you can't have oughts. Oughts derive from a particular kind of fact.
On the other hand, if by ought you mean a contextless imperative independent of any goal of yours, a "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not" unrelated to your values, then Hume is right trivially. But he's not. His conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of what ought is.
great essay. thank you for pointing this out about the leap of faith that Atheists take.
as humans, we can’t really prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. we can never know what we don’t know, and thats ok.
believers and atheists all take a leap of faith at some point. what bothers me so much about the New Atheist crowd is that they deny this.
to me it always seems that when you scratch beneath the surface of the Four Horseman crowd, one finds a bubbling contempt of dogmatic Christianity.
their intellectual vanity must construct flimsy straw man arguments to support their imagined superiority. just admit that Atheism is another faith based belief system! if not, than accept agnosticism as the default...
Good for her... I pray she continues to grow in faith. The Truth has set her free.
Meanwhile many/most/all of the more than 72 think-tanks (etc) that provide the deep-pockets funding of this project are full of back-to-the-past Christian true-believers. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is closely associated with some of them.
http://www.project2025.org
A project which when (not if) gains the necessary political power intends to refashion every minute fraction of American culture and politics. It has an extensive very detailed manifesto of what it intends to do.
Meanwhile of course many back-to-the past Christian true-believers even pretend (or pretended) that the culturally and religious illiterate nihilistic barbarian, namely Donald Trump was/is "God's" chosen vehicle to re-Christianize America.
Where you go wrong, Winston, is in failing to address why you care about morality in the first place. The answer to that provides the rational standard for morality.
We don't have to care about morality -- I don't argue we should. But if we do, why do we?
In all of that, you left out the dagger that slayed all god-based ethical systems, i.e., The Euthyphro. Is it moral because god says it is moral? Then rape and murder could be ethical. Is an action's moral value discoverable independent of the will of god? Then we don't need any divine input on ethics or morals. There is no culture on earth where murder is acceptable. This tells us that prohibitions against murder are inherit in all societies. Rape is generally unacceptable in most societies. Theft is contingent on the concept of private property. One does not need a magical sky father in order to derive an ethical system. In fact, many of the precepts of those religious ethical systems are anachronistic and sometimes harmful, e.g., the 613 dos and don'ts of Judaism, particularly the rules around slavery. Interestingly, none of the major desert religions contain a prohibition against sexually harming children. I guess "god" must've missed that one.