For the record, I don’t have much in common with the other three figures mentioned here—especially not the ghastly and deplorable Dreher—but thanks for the kind words about that book of mine.
I was thinking the same thing. Douthat I can sort of see because you both engage liberal academics and Kingsnorth is a bit of a Maverick, but Dreher? That was a bit of an insult lmao. I don’t think anyone wants to be compared to him
My sentiment also. Wait a year or so, and Dreher will be off on some other jaunt. Seeing some new revelation to inspire his next book. Soon he will return to his original roots. Going full circle.
Um, no, the word does not have a single unambiguous meaning in this context. “My son was lost (perditus) and now is found.” The good shepherd goes after and recovers the lost (perditum) sheep. The poor woman searches till she finds the lost (perditum) coin. In fact, lostness is never mentioned in the New Testament with some assurance that it’s neverending. And even Augustine speaks of having suffered in perditione till God liberated him. Now, perdition is a circumlocution for hell, it’s true, but that’s rather the issue isn’t it: whether one thinks that “hell” is a permanent state? And I advise that we not argue this, as you will lose (though presumably in the hope of finding again).
DBH shows the world once again what sort of man he is - an arrogant, contemptuous little man who surveys the world from the confines of a small book lined room with the door closed. Must be hard to be so much smarter than everyone else, and constantly misunderstood.
Hello Mr David Bentley Hart. I have wrestled with your insightful, irreverent, subversive, serpentine, & lovely writings for years; admittedly, let me add, very much within the limits of my considerably limited mind … herein & there-such, in the spirit of your inviting, cosmic, & spirited “that all shall be saved” book, why not consider placing a mote or hedge or sock or lid on/in/around the name calling ad hominem mud slinging animus (eg, stupid, insane, evil, fascist, bobblehead, yada-yada) toward Mr Rod Dreher? As you surely know better than most, this habit of mind is not only rampant & rancorous & indulgent & off putting, but alas, this all-too-common, all-too-human drivel of the tongue puts one in mind of & in company with the linguistic habits of one very particular USA President, and related hive minded souls, which perhaps, perhaps, is motive enough to rein it in a bit. Consider it, please sir.
No. My remarks about Dreher are fair and accurate. This is a man who praises Raspail’s Camp of the Saints while affecting to speak as a Christian. His racism foams over his edges with the regularity of Old Faithful. To call him despicable is merely to state plain fact. He is quite evil, he sells evil under the label of Christianity, and it would be morally derelict to fail to say it. One shouldn’t be mealy mouthed when dealing with genuine depravity.
Rod, for his own part, wrote that you would be deeply peeved to have been placed in the same essay with him when he reacted to this. I might take your word that I would not want to know you -- I have great affection for Rod -- but my contrarian nature bids me check your writing out regardless.
I am passingly familiar with his work and have no idea who you are. I am a liberal atheist so I have no insight into the internecine disagreements of the Christian right, that’s why I asked. Not meant to be any sort of gotcha or callout.
Dreher is a foaming at the mouth Christian nationalist/supremacist who fancies himself an academic, self made historian, and expert on whatever he googled last week. @David Bentley Hart is not that. He has a PhD in religious studies from Virginia, has taught at some of the best institutions/seminaries in the US including Duke, St. Louis University, and is one of the most prolific philosophical theologians of the 21st century and considered by many scholars to arguably to be one of if not the best Christian thinker of our time. Where dreher would say you are going to hell for being an atheist. Hart has written the best book on universalism of that 21st century. Does this help?
As I read the article I wondered what DBH would think about being lumped in with Dreher & Douthat. And then coming to the comments I didn't need to wonder. This is a very entertaining and informative comment thread.
Fifteen years ago, I read some Dreher pieces and really appreciated his longing for community. Watching that longing increasingly curdle into xenophobia has been sobering.
The "us versus them" language and mentality of this essay is discouraging. It is clear that the author has not had meaningful interactions with - or possibly even know - many nonreligious people. It's difficult to see because of the way he lumps together "atheists, agnostics, or 'nothing in particular,'" but many nonreligious people are still deeply spiritual and/or believe in some sort of higher power or unifying energy or what have you - they just don't believe that it resembles the "God" preached by the major world religions. Additionally, it is my experience that most people who reject religion do so, not because of a lack of scientific evidence, but because many of the teachings of those religions are appalling and objectively immoral [In order to clarify and avoid further debates on the idea of "objective morality" which really isn't a thing, I am amending the term "objectively immoral" to "marginalizing and harmful"] , considered "good" only because they supposedly reflect the will of God, which means that those religions either grossly misunderstand God, or, if not, that god is not a being that many people could, in good conscience, follow.
Morality was not invented by religion, and religious people do not have a monopoly on defining what constitutes moral behavior. There are many different philosophical ideologies devoted to determining what constitutes moral behavior, so I think you might be correct in questioning whether anything is "objectively immoral," but most philosophies do tend to agree that moral behavior involves certain ideals such as fairness and refraining from doing harm. I took a bit of a leap in referring to behavior that goes against such generally agreed upon ideals as "objectively immoral," so consider my former comment amended to simply "immoral."
I'm not sure I agree with you that morality wasn't invented by religion. At the very least, it seems that throughout all of human history, the two were inextricably linked. Until the modern age, you could not separate one's ethics from one's religious worldview.
Furthermore, you may not agree with this yet I think it's absolutely true, unless an objective morality comes from an Absolute Authority (i.e. God), then it cannot come from anything, as it will always be fluid. So the statement that many religions' gods are immoral makes no sense to me at all, as God is what/who actually determines morality in the first place.
It was immoral for the biblical god to have the Amalekites, Canaanites and other tribes massacred to steal their lands and property, and for Moses to have 3,000 people killed for not sharing his beliefs in Exodus 32:27-29. This is what happens when "god" determines morality and when morality is fear-based and follows the logic of arbitrary authority. This brutality is as immoral as the current genocide in Gaza, which follows Old Testament patterns.
Epicurus (who lived three centuries before the Common Era) taught a morality based on the social contract (an agreement to neither harm nor be harmed) and hedonic calculus, the comparative evaluation of choices and rejections so that they will produce net pleasure in the end. There is no need to make supernatural claims in order to live an ethical and pleasant life.
I agree that religion often has a strong influence on what people consider moral (and throughout history, there have been many atrocities committed and justified by what those religions define as "moral"), but religion is certainly not the only influence.
Additionally, there are, and have been, so many different religions and spiritual beliefs (and lack thereof) throughout history, with so many different understandings of God, that any morality based on religion must unavoidably be fluid unless that Absolute Authority reveals itself to everyone and directly lays out what exactly is moral. And why would we be born with conscience and the ability to reason if morality was simply blind obedience to whatever morality that Absolute Authority dictated?
As I commented above, it was a mistake for me to use the term "objectively immoral." Please see that comment for further understanding of what I was trying to convey.
So long as those "cultural philosophical assumptions" include the idea that unfairness/inequality and harming others are immoral. Are you arguing that they are not immoral?
What I’m saying is that you are declaring something to be immoral after admitting morality is not objective as countless philosophies and ideologies have their own morality. Which means whatever that is immoral from whatever group you are referring to is only because they were raised within a culture that taught them it was immoral.
I don’t think unfairness and inequality are synonymous. I think both are immoral dependent on what is being discussed. Same with harming others tbh.
I already said that it was a mistake to use the term "objectively immoral" as there is no such thing as objective morality. I will clarify to say that the teachings of many religions result in inequality, marginalization, and serious harm to people, and therefore, I believe they are immoral.
You can dismiss "objective morality," what philosophers call moral realism, but the position is doing quite well if you take the latest PhilPapers poll seriously. Edit: Never mind. I see someone else has raised the same objection. Cheers.
I hadn't heard of Rod Dreher before. The book you cited sounded interesting, but my library didn't have it, so I checked out Live Not by Lies and browsed some of his online writing, and am finding it repulsive. I don't see his vision bringing people closer to God, just re-entrenching Christian nationalism and giving cover to the authoritarianism actually engulfing the US. This is a "prophet of re-enchantment"?
Meh, if you wanted a convincing narrative that religion was bouncing back-- maybe you'd see evidence on both sides of the partisan divide. I get that Kingsworth's inclusion is supposed to demonstrate some sort of appeal to liberals, but really Kingsworth is just the prototypical virtuous convert; he has left liberalism to embrace a religiously conservative viewpoint.
This all goes to illustrate that what the focus on "New Atheism" by politically conservative religious writers of the past 20 years is just a fig leaf on the real truth on the 'Rise of the Nones'-- that this has been driven by political partisanship. People left the church in the US because American fundamentalism gained increasing control over the label 'Christianity,' and mainline Protestantism embraced a posture of attempting to reconcile with increasingly extreme politics from the religious right.
Jesus was a guy who, by the 'good' book, spent his ministry teaching against the Pharisees for misinterpreting scripture to their own self-righteous benefit, but fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity increasingly became about preaching how the text could only be interpreted in the way best suited to the self-righteous benefit of the Christian Right. People left not because they weren't receiving the scripture, but because they were reading it and finding out that the church was repeating the mistakes of the Pharisees, either by emulating them directly in declaring themselves the only true arbiters of correctly interpreting scripture, or by coddling these New Pharisees in the name of 'fellowship.'
Any resurgence in American religious participation is better understood as partisan tribalism; it is increasingly true that one cannot profess to be a member of the conservative movement while also professing not to be Christian. Even Vice President Vance feels the need to shame his Hindu wife for her non-Christian faith on a national stage. The political winds blow the way of conservatism for the moment, or did until Trump took office and the political pendulum started it's swing in the opposite direction. It's a hollow ministry, and one that will fall apart when it is the political left who is at the peak for the moment of their political ascendence in the pendulum swing, and the political right is shattered and reorganizing itself. Indeed, we can see that the resurgence is only among those with partisan identification with the political right with polling.
Atheism was just the favored foil, and frankly the "New Atheists" sold more books to the conservatives looking to write the newest, best hot take against them in a five minutes hate than they ever sold books to the people actually leaving the pews. There was never a mass embrace of atheism among the group we now call the nones, just a rejection of organized religion, as organized religion became increasingly centered on partisan warfare.
The tribulations of todays youth do likely have something to do with a loss of a spiritual movement, but it has as much to do with the sickness endemic to organized religion itself today. For the nones-- there is a loss of community, sure, possibly a lack of spiritual guidance. But also we cannot turn a blind eye to the outright trauma being inflicted on many youths by religious organizations and their hyper-partisan beliefs. We can read endless memoirs of the victims of religious trauma; watch endless Netflix and Hulu specials on this cult or that cult, all operating supposedly as Christian organizations. There are so many of them they are only really newsworthy, or documentary worthy, if there's a sex scandal involved. Plain old fraud and religious abuse are just work-a-day non-stories.
More stridently apparent is just the blunt economic truth: two generations and soon to be a third are living lives in which their economic wellbeing is reduced from the lifestyle their parents raised them in. It's no wonder Gen Alpha is looking to a future in which they follow Gen Z and Millenials into economic hardship, where they can't afford homes, can't afford to get married, can't afford to have as many children as they like unless they win the economic lottery. This would be a good time for religious leadership to intervene with the wealthy and the powerful in the economic interests of the average person, or (*gasp* dare we even say it?) the poor, the meek who are inheriting the future. But no, religious leaders line up to fill their own pockets and denounce anyone who speaks out against the hoarding of wealth.
That is the spiritual sickness infecting the next generation; that is the spiritual sickness infecting us all. Today men proclaiming themselves the disciples of a man who preached against the hoarding of wealth care more about property rights than they do about the embodied well being of the poor and meek. This is the face of Christianity today.
But sure, go ahead. Blame it on science and atheism. Got to raise those 30 shekels somehow, amiright?
Interesting take on Reenchantment. My first thought: sacramental vision should lead to radical hospitality and solidarity with the poor—think Dorothy Day. But Dreher’s leads to moving to Hungary and writing about woke totalitarianism. I wonder if Kingsnorth and Dreher share more with the New Atheists than this piece lets on—opposite sides of the same coin, both treating religion and politics as separable when they’re deeply interpenetrated.
You lost me at Rod Dreher. I guess I missed the part of Scripture where Jesus implores his followers to embrace Christo-fascism and a dominator version of faith.
<<As Kingsnorth writes, “It is planting your feet on the ground, living modestly, refusing technology that will enslave you in the name of freedom. It is building a life in which you can see the stars and taste the air. . . . It is to speak truth and try to live it, to set your boundaries and refuse to step over them.”>> A nice signoff, and, interestingly in the context of this article, it has nothing whatever to do with belief in a deity or deities.
Delighted to see *All Things Are Full of Gods* get some praise, and I've been blessed by much from all four here over the years. However, beware Hart's ire with some of these broad associations that you have painted in this playful little essay.
I am wary of the pace of any online conversation involving movements and have lately taken to wondering if we need to wait ten years before we make any noise about such things lest "movements" turn out to be "trends" I also confess I am nervous as well of making a project or movement of "re-enchantment. Barfield may in fact be correct.... it may be far too easy to make models into idols in a time of accelerated change.
Blaming the “New Atheism” for any of this is silly. As if social atomization and the decline of community began in 2006! And has nothing, nothing to do with our consumption economy, “rugged individualism” myths, policy-driven wealth inequality and the hollowing out of the middle class - all of which began decades before and are more likely associated with Republican policies and mythologies.
When I was growing up, the plumber, the (unionized) factory worker, the nurse, the banker and the lawyer all lived on the same street and their (modest) houses were barely distinguishable. Their kids went to the same schools and they tended to belong to the same clubs and attend the same events. Political choices over the last 40 years have shattered that community. Hitchens and the others had nothing to do with that. Quite the phony scapegoat you’re trying to create!
Horrible idea: Christianity brought us Trump, and it has become a huge threat to democracies in Brasil, in the US and in many other places. When will we ever learn?
Plus, the scientific enlightenment inspires new myths, new meaning (as Nietzsche's Zarathustra puts it: "from the earthquake old fountains spring forth again"), new technologies of the self, and a whole world is there to explore by people of curiosity and intelligence. There is no need to fall back into obscurantism or superstition, to shun the gifts of the scientific enlightenment, or to seek supernaturalism just so we can feel that we are something other than natural beings. Why not just be reconciled with nature, study nature, and follow a natural philosophy instead of supernaturalist religion?
Concerning meaning and technologies of self-care, I invite you to read Epicurus and Lucretius. Epicurus teaches self-care, and teaches people to live pleasantly, correctly, justly and prudently without supernaturalism. He uses pleasure and sweet incentives (like holy friendship) for moral development. And he insists on the study of nature, because without some basic measure of a scientific worldview, we are likely to fall back into superstition and fanaticism. The third Epicurean Scholarch Polystratus argued that without the study of nature our pursuit of virtue will come to nothing. In religion, we see righteousness degenerating into obedience, and obedience into service to tyranny.
Lucretius has a parable of the alphabet in his book De rerum natura, Book 2, verses 708-720 and then again in verses 1012-1022 where he compares the letters of the alphabet to the molecules that make up all things and give things their identity and meaning. If meaning is expressed in words which are made up of units / letters, Lucretius is saying that nature makes meaning.
Why, even in these our very verses here
It matters much with what and in what order
Each element is set: the same denote
Sky, and the ocean, lands, and streams, and sun;
The same, the grains, and trees, and living things.
In this way he explains how all things are made of particles, with different combinations of which make up differences in things. See? There is no need to make supernatural claims or to reject nature.
There is no need to return to third grade once we have finished high school: we need a philosophy that is life-affirming and helps us to live in this world and make this life worth living, not the false consolations of another world, and not the confusion of values that is the true legacy of Christianity.
For the record, I don’t have much in common with the other three figures mentioned here—especially not the ghastly and deplorable Dreher—but thanks for the kind words about that book of mine.
I was thinking the same thing. Douthat I can sort of see because you both engage liberal academics and Kingsnorth is a bit of a Maverick, but Dreher? That was a bit of an insult lmao. I don’t think anyone wants to be compared to him
My sentiment also. Wait a year or so, and Dreher will be off on some other jaunt. Seeing some new revelation to inspire his next book. Soon he will return to his original roots. Going full circle.
No, I think he’ll just keep marching toward perdition.
You believe in perdition now?
Always did. I just don’t believe that anything is so lost that God cannot find it again.
Um, eternal damnation is sort of the idea of perdition.
Um, no, the word does not have a single unambiguous meaning in this context. “My son was lost (perditus) and now is found.” The good shepherd goes after and recovers the lost (perditum) sheep. The poor woman searches till she finds the lost (perditum) coin. In fact, lostness is never mentioned in the New Testament with some assurance that it’s neverending. And even Augustine speaks of having suffered in perditione till God liberated him. Now, perdition is a circumlocution for hell, it’s true, but that’s rather the issue isn’t it: whether one thinks that “hell” is a permanent state? And I advise that we not argue this, as you will lose (though presumably in the hope of finding again).
If it's not too much trouble, what's your beef with Dreher?
If you need to be told, you either know nothing about him or would not want to know me.
DBH shows the world once again what sort of man he is - an arrogant, contemptuous little man who surveys the world from the confines of a small book lined room with the door closed. Must be hard to be so much smarter than everyone else, and constantly misunderstood.
Hello Mr David Bentley Hart. I have wrestled with your insightful, irreverent, subversive, serpentine, & lovely writings for years; admittedly, let me add, very much within the limits of my considerably limited mind … herein & there-such, in the spirit of your inviting, cosmic, & spirited “that all shall be saved” book, why not consider placing a mote or hedge or sock or lid on/in/around the name calling ad hominem mud slinging animus (eg, stupid, insane, evil, fascist, bobblehead, yada-yada) toward Mr Rod Dreher? As you surely know better than most, this habit of mind is not only rampant & rancorous & indulgent & off putting, but alas, this all-too-common, all-too-human drivel of the tongue puts one in mind of & in company with the linguistic habits of one very particular USA President, and related hive minded souls, which perhaps, perhaps, is motive enough to rein it in a bit. Consider it, please sir.
No. My remarks about Dreher are fair and accurate. This is a man who praises Raspail’s Camp of the Saints while affecting to speak as a Christian. His racism foams over his edges with the regularity of Old Faithful. To call him despicable is merely to state plain fact. He is quite evil, he sells evil under the label of Christianity, and it would be morally derelict to fail to say it. One shouldn’t be mealy mouthed when dealing with genuine depravity.
Rod, for his own part, wrote that you would be deeply peeved to have been placed in the same essay with him when he reacted to this. I might take your word that I would not want to know you -- I have great affection for Rod -- but my contrarian nature bids me check your writing out regardless.
Let’s just say that he and I operate at different levels.
You should not be proud of being at the level of a fool.
Altitudo longe ultra attingentiam tuam.
I am passingly familiar with his work and have no idea who you are. I am a liberal atheist so I have no insight into the internecine disagreements of the Christian right, that’s why I asked. Not meant to be any sort of gotcha or callout.
If you think I’m on the Christian right, you definitely have no idea who I am. I’m a rock-ribbed democratic socialist.
Dreher is a foaming at the mouth Christian nationalist/supremacist who fancies himself an academic, self made historian, and expert on whatever he googled last week. @David Bentley Hart is not that. He has a PhD in religious studies from Virginia, has taught at some of the best institutions/seminaries in the US including Duke, St. Louis University, and is one of the most prolific philosophical theologians of the 21st century and considered by many scholars to arguably to be one of if not the best Christian thinker of our time. Where dreher would say you are going to hell for being an atheist. Hart has written the best book on universalism of that 21st century. Does this help?
This from you confirms that I must read your work. Bravo.
As I read the article I wondered what DBH would think about being lumped in with Dreher & Douthat. And then coming to the comments I didn't need to wonder. This is a very entertaining and informative comment thread.
To be honest, I would take it as a good thing; this analysis is transcending political distinction and tackling the question at hand.
The differences are more than merely political.
Fifteen years ago, I read some Dreher pieces and really appreciated his longing for community. Watching that longing increasingly curdle into xenophobia has been sobering.
The "us versus them" language and mentality of this essay is discouraging. It is clear that the author has not had meaningful interactions with - or possibly even know - many nonreligious people. It's difficult to see because of the way he lumps together "atheists, agnostics, or 'nothing in particular,'" but many nonreligious people are still deeply spiritual and/or believe in some sort of higher power or unifying energy or what have you - they just don't believe that it resembles the "God" preached by the major world religions. Additionally, it is my experience that most people who reject religion do so, not because of a lack of scientific evidence, but because many of the teachings of those religions are appalling and objectively immoral [In order to clarify and avoid further debates on the idea of "objective morality" which really isn't a thing, I am amending the term "objectively immoral" to "marginalizing and harmful"] , considered "good" only because they supposedly reflect the will of God, which means that those religions either grossly misunderstand God, or, if not, that god is not a being that many people could, in good conscience, follow.
As it happens, I agree. I have no problem at all with atheism, but only with philosophically inept atheism.
Really, *no* problem at all? It seems too strong a position to square with holding Christianity for yourself.
No problem at all. I meant what I said.
Thank you, David. Everything that suggests that Christian faith is a position in a culture war is a hypocritical lie.
“Objectively immoral”
What is objectively immoral to an irreligious person? Whatever social convention they were raised with and operating under?
I only seem to get this kind of attitude from people who have materialist philosophy cobbling together some rootless ethics.
Morality was not invented by religion, and religious people do not have a monopoly on defining what constitutes moral behavior. There are many different philosophical ideologies devoted to determining what constitutes moral behavior, so I think you might be correct in questioning whether anything is "objectively immoral," but most philosophies do tend to agree that moral behavior involves certain ideals such as fairness and refraining from doing harm. I took a bit of a leap in referring to behavior that goes against such generally agreed upon ideals as "objectively immoral," so consider my former comment amended to simply "immoral."
I'm not sure I agree with you that morality wasn't invented by religion. At the very least, it seems that throughout all of human history, the two were inextricably linked. Until the modern age, you could not separate one's ethics from one's religious worldview.
Furthermore, you may not agree with this yet I think it's absolutely true, unless an objective morality comes from an Absolute Authority (i.e. God), then it cannot come from anything, as it will always be fluid. So the statement that many religions' gods are immoral makes no sense to me at all, as God is what/who actually determines morality in the first place.
It was immoral for the biblical god to have the Amalekites, Canaanites and other tribes massacred to steal their lands and property, and for Moses to have 3,000 people killed for not sharing his beliefs in Exodus 32:27-29. This is what happens when "god" determines morality and when morality is fear-based and follows the logic of arbitrary authority. This brutality is as immoral as the current genocide in Gaza, which follows Old Testament patterns.
Epicurus (who lived three centuries before the Common Era) taught a morality based on the social contract (an agreement to neither harm nor be harmed) and hedonic calculus, the comparative evaluation of choices and rejections so that they will produce net pleasure in the end. There is no need to make supernatural claims in order to live an ethical and pleasant life.
I agree that religion often has a strong influence on what people consider moral (and throughout history, there have been many atrocities committed and justified by what those religions define as "moral"), but religion is certainly not the only influence.
Additionally, there are, and have been, so many different religions and spiritual beliefs (and lack thereof) throughout history, with so many different understandings of God, that any morality based on religion must unavoidably be fluid unless that Absolute Authority reveals itself to everyone and directly lays out what exactly is moral. And why would we be born with conscience and the ability to reason if morality was simply blind obedience to whatever morality that Absolute Authority dictated?
As I commented above, it was a mistake for me to use the term "objectively immoral." Please see that comment for further understanding of what I was trying to convey.
Than it would only be immoral contingent on cultural philosophical assumptions that they live in.
So long as those "cultural philosophical assumptions" include the idea that unfairness/inequality and harming others are immoral. Are you arguing that they are not immoral?
What I’m saying is that you are declaring something to be immoral after admitting morality is not objective as countless philosophies and ideologies have their own morality. Which means whatever that is immoral from whatever group you are referring to is only because they were raised within a culture that taught them it was immoral.
I don’t think unfairness and inequality are synonymous. I think both are immoral dependent on what is being discussed. Same with harming others tbh.
I already said that it was a mistake to use the term "objectively immoral" as there is no such thing as objective morality. I will clarify to say that the teachings of many religions result in inequality, marginalization, and serious harm to people, and therefore, I believe they are immoral.
You can dismiss "objective morality," what philosophers call moral realism, but the position is doing quite well if you take the latest PhilPapers poll seriously. Edit: Never mind. I see someone else has raised the same objection. Cheers.
I hadn't heard of Rod Dreher before. The book you cited sounded interesting, but my library didn't have it, so I checked out Live Not by Lies and browsed some of his online writing, and am finding it repulsive. I don't see his vision bringing people closer to God, just re-entrenching Christian nationalism and giving cover to the authoritarianism actually engulfing the US. This is a "prophet of re-enchantment"?
Don't agree with all of it but I think this is, overall, very well done.
Meh, if you wanted a convincing narrative that religion was bouncing back-- maybe you'd see evidence on both sides of the partisan divide. I get that Kingsworth's inclusion is supposed to demonstrate some sort of appeal to liberals, but really Kingsworth is just the prototypical virtuous convert; he has left liberalism to embrace a religiously conservative viewpoint.
This all goes to illustrate that what the focus on "New Atheism" by politically conservative religious writers of the past 20 years is just a fig leaf on the real truth on the 'Rise of the Nones'-- that this has been driven by political partisanship. People left the church in the US because American fundamentalism gained increasing control over the label 'Christianity,' and mainline Protestantism embraced a posture of attempting to reconcile with increasingly extreme politics from the religious right.
Jesus was a guy who, by the 'good' book, spent his ministry teaching against the Pharisees for misinterpreting scripture to their own self-righteous benefit, but fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity increasingly became about preaching how the text could only be interpreted in the way best suited to the self-righteous benefit of the Christian Right. People left not because they weren't receiving the scripture, but because they were reading it and finding out that the church was repeating the mistakes of the Pharisees, either by emulating them directly in declaring themselves the only true arbiters of correctly interpreting scripture, or by coddling these New Pharisees in the name of 'fellowship.'
Any resurgence in American religious participation is better understood as partisan tribalism; it is increasingly true that one cannot profess to be a member of the conservative movement while also professing not to be Christian. Even Vice President Vance feels the need to shame his Hindu wife for her non-Christian faith on a national stage. The political winds blow the way of conservatism for the moment, or did until Trump took office and the political pendulum started it's swing in the opposite direction. It's a hollow ministry, and one that will fall apart when it is the political left who is at the peak for the moment of their political ascendence in the pendulum swing, and the political right is shattered and reorganizing itself. Indeed, we can see that the resurgence is only among those with partisan identification with the political right with polling.
Atheism was just the favored foil, and frankly the "New Atheists" sold more books to the conservatives looking to write the newest, best hot take against them in a five minutes hate than they ever sold books to the people actually leaving the pews. There was never a mass embrace of atheism among the group we now call the nones, just a rejection of organized religion, as organized religion became increasingly centered on partisan warfare.
The tribulations of todays youth do likely have something to do with a loss of a spiritual movement, but it has as much to do with the sickness endemic to organized religion itself today. For the nones-- there is a loss of community, sure, possibly a lack of spiritual guidance. But also we cannot turn a blind eye to the outright trauma being inflicted on many youths by religious organizations and their hyper-partisan beliefs. We can read endless memoirs of the victims of religious trauma; watch endless Netflix and Hulu specials on this cult or that cult, all operating supposedly as Christian organizations. There are so many of them they are only really newsworthy, or documentary worthy, if there's a sex scandal involved. Plain old fraud and religious abuse are just work-a-day non-stories.
More stridently apparent is just the blunt economic truth: two generations and soon to be a third are living lives in which their economic wellbeing is reduced from the lifestyle their parents raised them in. It's no wonder Gen Alpha is looking to a future in which they follow Gen Z and Millenials into economic hardship, where they can't afford homes, can't afford to get married, can't afford to have as many children as they like unless they win the economic lottery. This would be a good time for religious leadership to intervene with the wealthy and the powerful in the economic interests of the average person, or (*gasp* dare we even say it?) the poor, the meek who are inheriting the future. But no, religious leaders line up to fill their own pockets and denounce anyone who speaks out against the hoarding of wealth.
That is the spiritual sickness infecting the next generation; that is the spiritual sickness infecting us all. Today men proclaiming themselves the disciples of a man who preached against the hoarding of wealth care more about property rights than they do about the embodied well being of the poor and meek. This is the face of Christianity today.
But sure, go ahead. Blame it on science and atheism. Got to raise those 30 shekels somehow, amiright?
Beauties piece
Interesting take on Reenchantment. My first thought: sacramental vision should lead to radical hospitality and solidarity with the poor—think Dorothy Day. But Dreher’s leads to moving to Hungary and writing about woke totalitarianism. I wonder if Kingsnorth and Dreher share more with the New Atheists than this piece lets on—opposite sides of the same coin, both treating religion and politics as separable when they’re deeply interpenetrated.
For a man allegedly concerned with beauty, Dreher's work and overall outlook are so, so ugly.
You lost me at Rod Dreher. I guess I missed the part of Scripture where Jesus implores his followers to embrace Christo-fascism and a dominator version of faith.
<<As Kingsnorth writes, “It is planting your feet on the ground, living modestly, refusing technology that will enslave you in the name of freedom. It is building a life in which you can see the stars and taste the air. . . . It is to speak truth and try to live it, to set your boundaries and refuse to step over them.”>> A nice signoff, and, interestingly in the context of this article, it has nothing whatever to do with belief in a deity or deities.
Delighted to see *All Things Are Full of Gods* get some praise, and I've been blessed by much from all four here over the years. However, beware Hart's ire with some of these broad associations that you have painted in this playful little essay.
I am wary of the pace of any online conversation involving movements and have lately taken to wondering if we need to wait ten years before we make any noise about such things lest "movements" turn out to be "trends" I also confess I am nervous as well of making a project or movement of "re-enchantment. Barfield may in fact be correct.... it may be far too easy to make models into idols in a time of accelerated change.
Rod Dreher?!?!???
For reenchantment, I love the works of Hans Boersma and David Bentley Hart.
For refuting the New Atheists, I love Edward Feser and David Bentley Hart.
Definitely recommend these 3 figures.
Yes. Wonderful to see Fr. Boersma’s name here.
Blaming the “New Atheism” for any of this is silly. As if social atomization and the decline of community began in 2006! And has nothing, nothing to do with our consumption economy, “rugged individualism” myths, policy-driven wealth inequality and the hollowing out of the middle class - all of which began decades before and are more likely associated with Republican policies and mythologies.
When I was growing up, the plumber, the (unionized) factory worker, the nurse, the banker and the lawyer all lived on the same street and their (modest) houses were barely distinguishable. Their kids went to the same schools and they tended to belong to the same clubs and attend the same events. Political choices over the last 40 years have shattered that community. Hitchens and the others had nothing to do with that. Quite the phony scapegoat you’re trying to create!
Horrible idea: Christianity brought us Trump, and it has become a huge threat to democracies in Brasil, in the US and in many other places. When will we ever learn?
Plus, the scientific enlightenment inspires new myths, new meaning (as Nietzsche's Zarathustra puts it: "from the earthquake old fountains spring forth again"), new technologies of the self, and a whole world is there to explore by people of curiosity and intelligence. There is no need to fall back into obscurantism or superstition, to shun the gifts of the scientific enlightenment, or to seek supernaturalism just so we can feel that we are something other than natural beings. Why not just be reconciled with nature, study nature, and follow a natural philosophy instead of supernaturalist religion?
Concerning meaning and technologies of self-care, I invite you to read Epicurus and Lucretius. Epicurus teaches self-care, and teaches people to live pleasantly, correctly, justly and prudently without supernaturalism. He uses pleasure and sweet incentives (like holy friendship) for moral development. And he insists on the study of nature, because without some basic measure of a scientific worldview, we are likely to fall back into superstition and fanaticism. The third Epicurean Scholarch Polystratus argued that without the study of nature our pursuit of virtue will come to nothing. In religion, we see righteousness degenerating into obedience, and obedience into service to tyranny.
Lucretius has a parable of the alphabet in his book De rerum natura, Book 2, verses 708-720 and then again in verses 1012-1022 where he compares the letters of the alphabet to the molecules that make up all things and give things their identity and meaning. If meaning is expressed in words which are made up of units / letters, Lucretius is saying that nature makes meaning.
Why, even in these our very verses here
It matters much with what and in what order
Each element is set: the same denote
Sky, and the ocean, lands, and streams, and sun;
The same, the grains, and trees, and living things.
In this way he explains how all things are made of particles, with different combinations of which make up differences in things. See? There is no need to make supernatural claims or to reject nature.
There is no need to return to third grade once we have finished high school: we need a philosophy that is life-affirming and helps us to live in this world and make this life worth living, not the false consolations of another world, and not the confusion of values that is the true legacy of Christianity.