In December 2023, Ed West wrote for The Spectator about a phenomenon I have been interested in for quite a while: the rise of a new counter-Enlightenment that defends religion, and Christianity in particular, based on its social value rather than because it is true.
I'm reading "The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America" by Coleman Hughes. Listing causes for the recent spread of "neoracism" (i.e. woke racism, exemplar proponents being Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo), our fellow atheist Hughes writes:
--
"Second [after the end of the cold war and declining importance of the War on Terror that previously occupied Americans], the decline of Christianity in American culture—which has been beneficial in many ways—has created an ideological vacuum into which neoracism has been able to enter. The common humanity and anti-racism of the civil rights movement had strong ties to Christianity. And Christianity promoted the value of interracial harmony: unity in Christ. But the appeal of Christianity has since waned—especially among liberal white Americans and young black Americans, and the resulting vacuum has given neoracism—a far more racially divisive ideology—a place to settle."
--
Religion may "poison everything" but I can stomach Christians more easily than illiberal leftists and if belief in heaven and hell is the only thing preventing someone from murdering me and mine, then praise Jesus. What do you think of this condescending view? A version of it was held by the greatest atheist in history (Spinoza). Though he favored a civil religion for the masses based on justice and charity, scrubbed of most supernatural elements.
I haven't read the book, but I like Hughes. Going on that quote alone, though, I'd say that 'which has been beneficial in many ways' is rather to understate things!
I think it also underestimates the role of Christianity in promoting 'interracial harmony' - were not slavery and Jim Crow underpinned by appeals to Christianity? It also obscures the central role played by freethinkers and secularists in the civil rights movement - people like A. Philip Randolph (organiser of the March on Washington), James Forman, and James Baldwin, to name a few. Never mind that freethinkers throughout history have generally had a better record on race, slavery, and the like than the religious of whatever persuasion.
Matt Johnson in the article linked above also deals with the argument that Christian decline allowed 'neoracism...a place to settle.' See also Helen Pluckrose's recent Twitter thread on this argument: https://x.com/HPluckrose/status/1756088465454719052?s=20. (Both are about wokeism in general, not neoracism in particular, but their points stand.) We can quibble over whether the labels 'Christian' or 'religion' applies, but wokeism clearly has some things in common and derives some of its ideas - and certainly its righteousness - from them. Replacing dogmatism with dogmatism is not the answer.
I think there's a risk of short-sightedness in valorising Christianity against 'illiberal leftists'. For one thing, they're sometimes the same people. More importantly, and as stated, replacing dogma with dogma is no solution to dogmatic thinking. Christianity is as well capable of convincing people to kill you and me as it is otherwise. If it's preventing someone from killing you, it's also inspiring someone else to think that you are worthy of death. Why not do away with it altogether and rely on humanism, which does not have any interpretation whereby heretics and infidels and degenerates can be slaughtered on a whim?
And the risk with the focus on 'illberal leftism' - a concern I share - is that one becomes blind to the threat of the right, which, for my money, is far more concerning right now. Trump, supported by Christian nationalists, might take the White House. If that happens, anti-woke Christians (and non-Christians) will delight in seeing Ukraine obliterated by their pal Putin. They will delight in seeing globalist institutions like NATO undermined or even disbanded - which would, of course, be a terrible thing for the security of liberal democracies. They will delight in the tearing down of Jefferson's wall of separation. Degenerate democracy, sexual diversity, free speech, and all the rest will be under threat. I don't think the risks of illiberal leftism compare right now - though I am opposed to illiberal leftism just as much on principle as I am to the religious right.
I can stomach Christians who are basically humanists more than illiberal leftists, too, but that's hardly an indication of Christianity's superiority. It's an indication of its defanging - a long and arduous and still unfinished task.
This is something I address above: the idea that Christianity is now harmless or benign. First of all, insofar as it is, it is only so because it has been made so. Second, that task is not complete. Christianity is still very capable of unleashing evil upon the world - indeed, it is doing that across several continents as we speak. The suffering caused by Christianity is much less than it once was, but it is still immense.
So, in short: yes, it's a condescending argument, but it doesn't even work on its own terms! It saddens me to see atheists take this view. At best, it is dangerously short-sighted. (Incidentally, Spinoza's civil religion is a far cry from actual religion! It's certainly not Christian. It might even be called secular humanism - and maybe, just maybe, that's all we need.)
I think you misunderstand my comment. The scope is restricted to those who just can't get past supernatural belief in a rational way. For that group, one of the more benign forms of Christianity is not the worst path to take. The point that secular humanism would be better is conceded, but whether possible is not - it can only be a goal at this point in our history.
The Hughes quote shouldn't be taken as "valorizing" Christianity. It's a possible explanation for the recent explosion of neoracism and is certainly not Christian advocacy.
I have just deleted a long reply in which I ranted and raved on many topics and in various ways, because I just realised that I am still not entirely sure what you are trying to say. I think you are making - or at least communicating - the claims that 1) The decline of Christianity is a possible explanation for the rise of neoracism/wokeism, 2) secular humanism is not realised or realisable at present, and 3) benign Christianity is better than wokeism. Is this a fair assessment?
Yes that's quite accurate, with 1) being more of a communicating than a claim since I just started considering it and it seems interesting and plausible. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has recently shocked me with respect to what might fill a perceived vacuum. I am certainly not advocating Christianity as cure for wokeism. Though in the U.S. wokeism is currently far more pernicious and influential, particularly among younger people.
If those three points were the subject of your rant, please rant away. If not, help me improve my writing by letting me know what you thought I said.
Well, 'rambling away' is probably more accurate than 'ranting', in fairness!
Well, for point 1, I think it's not a great explanation - but Matt Johnson in the article cited above and, more recently, Helen Pluckrose on Twitter have shown why, so I'd recommend reading them more fully. https://x.com/HPluckrose/status/1756088465454719052?s=20
For 2, I just don't agree. Millions of people are secular humanists and they live in the best societies ever produced by humanity - ones produced by secular and humanistic principles. Many - probably most - of them aren't woke. While plenty of religious people are woke! It's not really utopian to champion secular humanism against both given all this.
On 3, fair enough. But benign Christianity is benign because it's been made to be so. And are there not ways in which wokeism - or benign forms of wokeism, if there be any such - is preferable to malign Christianity? There are plenty of woke people much less dangerous than, say, Donald Trump's fanbase. What about benign Scientology vs wokeism? Or benign Islam? The point is one needn't pick one or the other. Both are false and dangerous, and insofar as they aren't, it's because they have been forced to be.
The foregoing is also a disagreement with the idea that wokeism is the worst thing in the US right now. I think it's bad - very bad - but worse than Christianity? I think that's a difficult case to make, given Trumpism - I'd argue that Trumpism, which is buttressed by Christian nationalism, is perhaps the most dangerous thing on the planet right now. If he wins - goodbye constitution, goodbye Ukraine, goodbye NATO (or at least, he'll try to say goodbye to them - and he might just be able to, which would be catastrophic for the entire world, and especially for liberal democracy).
Again, I think there's a myopic element here - we can get so frustrated by and pissed off at the idiocy and harmfulness of wokeism that other threats, even arguably worse threats, seem irrelevant in comparison. Give me a woke-influenced dotard like Biden over Trump any day, in other words. If that sounds like Trump Derangement Syndrome, I could say that the opposite position is Woke Derangement Syndrome - and I think that would be a fairer characterisation!
Such are my two cents, anyhow. Thanks for taking the time!
I don't think we disagree about much here. Since you referenced Matt Johnson's essay from 6 months ago, I'll reproduce my comment on it:
--
It's a weak argument that claims terrible things will happen without religion. Would anyone who makes it go about murdering, raping, and stealing if they came to understand the truth? Maybe for such people religion is beneficial.
In fact, we see as religious belief declines, so does crime and violence. Thanks to the "new atheists" (and the many others who believe the same but haven't been dubbed so) the socially imposed proscriptions against non-belief have largely fallen away in the West.
Some may be filling the "god shaped hole" with garbage, but it is atheists who are and always have been in the forefront against wokeism and other species of illiberalism.
--
On the dangers of Trumpism vs. wokeism I do disagree. The influence of wokeism in the media, education, business, and progressive politics is profound in America. It will take decades to scrub this from our culture. Trumpists are mainly a pitchfork wielding mob and the cowardly, pandering politicians who seek and rely on their votes. Trump is not buttressed so much by religion, but by Anti-wokeness. At the same time, anti-Trumpism drives wokeism. Without wokeism, we wouldn't have Trump. If Trump dies or loses in 2024 the dangers (which you describe accurately) will be behind us. Wokeism is not so ephemeral. I hope the Democrats wise up and replace Biden, but I will vote Democrat in any case.
Danny, I couldn't agree more! Thank you for writing this clear-headed piece! I feel insulted every time people suggest that I'm only moral because religion has paved the way in the West for me. This resurgence of religious thinking, and particularly in this odd caliphate-like iteration, where Christianity, is viewed as a useful and necessary political tool more than or as much as it is metaphysical hypothesis—it fails on this front, as you duly note—is very disturbing. It keeps giving Roman empire and Pope Pius vis à vis Mussollini and Hitler. It's terrifying and insulting. And UNTRUE... which is the most important factor.
I'm reading "The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America" by Coleman Hughes. Listing causes for the recent spread of "neoracism" (i.e. woke racism, exemplar proponents being Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo), our fellow atheist Hughes writes:
--
"Second [after the end of the cold war and declining importance of the War on Terror that previously occupied Americans], the decline of Christianity in American culture—which has been beneficial in many ways—has created an ideological vacuum into which neoracism has been able to enter. The common humanity and anti-racism of the civil rights movement had strong ties to Christianity. And Christianity promoted the value of interracial harmony: unity in Christ. But the appeal of Christianity has since waned—especially among liberal white Americans and young black Americans, and the resulting vacuum has given neoracism—a far more racially divisive ideology—a place to settle."
--
Religion may "poison everything" but I can stomach Christians more easily than illiberal leftists and if belief in heaven and hell is the only thing preventing someone from murdering me and mine, then praise Jesus. What do you think of this condescending view? A version of it was held by the greatest atheist in history (Spinoza). Though he favored a civil religion for the masses based on justice and charity, scrubbed of most supernatural elements.
I haven't read the book, but I like Hughes. Going on that quote alone, though, I'd say that 'which has been beneficial in many ways' is rather to understate things!
I think it also underestimates the role of Christianity in promoting 'interracial harmony' - were not slavery and Jim Crow underpinned by appeals to Christianity? It also obscures the central role played by freethinkers and secularists in the civil rights movement - people like A. Philip Randolph (organiser of the March on Washington), James Forman, and James Baldwin, to name a few. Never mind that freethinkers throughout history have generally had a better record on race, slavery, and the like than the religious of whatever persuasion.
Matt Johnson in the article linked above also deals with the argument that Christian decline allowed 'neoracism...a place to settle.' See also Helen Pluckrose's recent Twitter thread on this argument: https://x.com/HPluckrose/status/1756088465454719052?s=20. (Both are about wokeism in general, not neoracism in particular, but their points stand.) We can quibble over whether the labels 'Christian' or 'religion' applies, but wokeism clearly has some things in common and derives some of its ideas - and certainly its righteousness - from them. Replacing dogmatism with dogmatism is not the answer.
I think there's a risk of short-sightedness in valorising Christianity against 'illiberal leftists'. For one thing, they're sometimes the same people. More importantly, and as stated, replacing dogma with dogma is no solution to dogmatic thinking. Christianity is as well capable of convincing people to kill you and me as it is otherwise. If it's preventing someone from killing you, it's also inspiring someone else to think that you are worthy of death. Why not do away with it altogether and rely on humanism, which does not have any interpretation whereby heretics and infidels and degenerates can be slaughtered on a whim?
And the risk with the focus on 'illberal leftism' - a concern I share - is that one becomes blind to the threat of the right, which, for my money, is far more concerning right now. Trump, supported by Christian nationalists, might take the White House. If that happens, anti-woke Christians (and non-Christians) will delight in seeing Ukraine obliterated by their pal Putin. They will delight in seeing globalist institutions like NATO undermined or even disbanded - which would, of course, be a terrible thing for the security of liberal democracies. They will delight in the tearing down of Jefferson's wall of separation. Degenerate democracy, sexual diversity, free speech, and all the rest will be under threat. I don't think the risks of illiberal leftism compare right now - though I am opposed to illiberal leftism just as much on principle as I am to the religious right.
I can stomach Christians who are basically humanists more than illiberal leftists, too, but that's hardly an indication of Christianity's superiority. It's an indication of its defanging - a long and arduous and still unfinished task.
This is something I address above: the idea that Christianity is now harmless or benign. First of all, insofar as it is, it is only so because it has been made so. Second, that task is not complete. Christianity is still very capable of unleashing evil upon the world - indeed, it is doing that across several continents as we speak. The suffering caused by Christianity is much less than it once was, but it is still immense.
So, in short: yes, it's a condescending argument, but it doesn't even work on its own terms! It saddens me to see atheists take this view. At best, it is dangerously short-sighted. (Incidentally, Spinoza's civil religion is a far cry from actual religion! It's certainly not Christian. It might even be called secular humanism - and maybe, just maybe, that's all we need.)
I think you misunderstand my comment. The scope is restricted to those who just can't get past supernatural belief in a rational way. For that group, one of the more benign forms of Christianity is not the worst path to take. The point that secular humanism would be better is conceded, but whether possible is not - it can only be a goal at this point in our history.
The Hughes quote shouldn't be taken as "valorizing" Christianity. It's a possible explanation for the recent explosion of neoracism and is certainly not Christian advocacy.
I have just deleted a long reply in which I ranted and raved on many topics and in various ways, because I just realised that I am still not entirely sure what you are trying to say. I think you are making - or at least communicating - the claims that 1) The decline of Christianity is a possible explanation for the rise of neoracism/wokeism, 2) secular humanism is not realised or realisable at present, and 3) benign Christianity is better than wokeism. Is this a fair assessment?
Yes that's quite accurate, with 1) being more of a communicating than a claim since I just started considering it and it seems interesting and plausible. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has recently shocked me with respect to what might fill a perceived vacuum. I am certainly not advocating Christianity as cure for wokeism. Though in the U.S. wokeism is currently far more pernicious and influential, particularly among younger people.
If those three points were the subject of your rant, please rant away. If not, help me improve my writing by letting me know what you thought I said.
Well, 'rambling away' is probably more accurate than 'ranting', in fairness!
Well, for point 1, I think it's not a great explanation - but Matt Johnson in the article cited above and, more recently, Helen Pluckrose on Twitter have shown why, so I'd recommend reading them more fully. https://x.com/HPluckrose/status/1756088465454719052?s=20
For 2, I just don't agree. Millions of people are secular humanists and they live in the best societies ever produced by humanity - ones produced by secular and humanistic principles. Many - probably most - of them aren't woke. While plenty of religious people are woke! It's not really utopian to champion secular humanism against both given all this.
On 3, fair enough. But benign Christianity is benign because it's been made to be so. And are there not ways in which wokeism - or benign forms of wokeism, if there be any such - is preferable to malign Christianity? There are plenty of woke people much less dangerous than, say, Donald Trump's fanbase. What about benign Scientology vs wokeism? Or benign Islam? The point is one needn't pick one or the other. Both are false and dangerous, and insofar as they aren't, it's because they have been forced to be.
The foregoing is also a disagreement with the idea that wokeism is the worst thing in the US right now. I think it's bad - very bad - but worse than Christianity? I think that's a difficult case to make, given Trumpism - I'd argue that Trumpism, which is buttressed by Christian nationalism, is perhaps the most dangerous thing on the planet right now. If he wins - goodbye constitution, goodbye Ukraine, goodbye NATO (or at least, he'll try to say goodbye to them - and he might just be able to, which would be catastrophic for the entire world, and especially for liberal democracy).
Again, I think there's a myopic element here - we can get so frustrated by and pissed off at the idiocy and harmfulness of wokeism that other threats, even arguably worse threats, seem irrelevant in comparison. Give me a woke-influenced dotard like Biden over Trump any day, in other words. If that sounds like Trump Derangement Syndrome, I could say that the opposite position is Woke Derangement Syndrome - and I think that would be a fairer characterisation!
Such are my two cents, anyhow. Thanks for taking the time!
I don't think we disagree about much here. Since you referenced Matt Johnson's essay from 6 months ago, I'll reproduce my comment on it:
--
It's a weak argument that claims terrible things will happen without religion. Would anyone who makes it go about murdering, raping, and stealing if they came to understand the truth? Maybe for such people religion is beneficial.
In fact, we see as religious belief declines, so does crime and violence. Thanks to the "new atheists" (and the many others who believe the same but haven't been dubbed so) the socially imposed proscriptions against non-belief have largely fallen away in the West.
Some may be filling the "god shaped hole" with garbage, but it is atheists who are and always have been in the forefront against wokeism and other species of illiberalism.
--
On the dangers of Trumpism vs. wokeism I do disagree. The influence of wokeism in the media, education, business, and progressive politics is profound in America. It will take decades to scrub this from our culture. Trumpists are mainly a pitchfork wielding mob and the cowardly, pandering politicians who seek and rely on their votes. Trump is not buttressed so much by religion, but by Anti-wokeness. At the same time, anti-Trumpism drives wokeism. Without wokeism, we wouldn't have Trump. If Trump dies or loses in 2024 the dangers (which you describe accurately) will be behind us. Wokeism is not so ephemeral. I hope the Democrats wise up and replace Biden, but I will vote Democrat in any case.
Danny, I couldn't agree more! Thank you for writing this clear-headed piece! I feel insulted every time people suggest that I'm only moral because religion has paved the way in the West for me. This resurgence of religious thinking, and particularly in this odd caliphate-like iteration, where Christianity, is viewed as a useful and necessary political tool more than or as much as it is metaphysical hypothesis—it fails on this front, as you duly note—is very disturbing. It keeps giving Roman empire and Pope Pius vis à vis Mussollini and Hitler. It's terrifying and insulting. And UNTRUE... which is the most important factor.