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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
One of my favorite contemporary philosophers, Federico Campagna, tackles a lot of similar concepts to re-enchantment in his work, albeit from a far less christian- or even deist-leaning direction. Highly recommended!
<<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.
I'd add Iain McGilchrist. He probably edited out more neuroscience from The Matter With Things than I'll ever know, and he's coy about religion and ontology in the book itself, but he does come off as critical of materialism and an ardent opponent of the New Atheist oeuvre.
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.
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 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 ascendant for the moment of political ascendence, and the political right is shattered and reorganizing itself. And indeed, we can see that the resurgence is only among those with partisan identification with the political right.
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 in partisan warfare.
The tribulations of todays youth does 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 them 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 ecnoomic 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?
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.
If it's not too much trouble, what's your beef with Dreher?
To be honest, I would take it as a good thing; this analysis is transcending political distinction and tackling the question at hand.
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?
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.
Beauties piece
Don't agree with all of it but I think this is, overall, very well done.
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, 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.
“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.
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.
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.
One of my favorite contemporary philosophers, Federico Campagna, tackles a lot of similar concepts to re-enchantment in his work, albeit from a far less christian- or even deist-leaning direction. Highly recommended!
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.
<<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.
I'd add Iain McGilchrist. He probably edited out more neuroscience from The Matter With Things than I'll ever know, and he's coy about religion and ontology in the book itself, but he does come off as critical of materialism and an ardent opponent of the New Atheist oeuvre.
Good piece.
I particularly appreciate the apolitical character of these 4 as they are not in the same political camps.
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.
The 4 I would list are Feser, Hart, Craig, and Haldane
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 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 ascendant for the moment of political ascendence, and the political right is shattered and reorganizing itself. And indeed, we can see that the resurgence is only among those with partisan identification with the political right.
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 in partisan warfare.
The tribulations of todays youth does 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 them 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 ecnoomic 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?
Just as plants need water and sunlight, humans need literature, art, nature, connection, and spirituality.
Religion offers so much to those trying to survive a world growing more artificial by the day.