Christianity is and always has been predicated on belief in the actual, historical virgin birth, death, and resurrection of God in the flesh.
You can try to promote a Christianity divorced from those propositions, but it will no longer be the religion that underlay the Western world for 2k years.
That Christianity is dead for educated, intellectually honest people, and it’s not coming back. This article comes off as an expression of the conservative impulse desperately grasping at straws (no offense).
No offense taken. I respect this argument, and I think it partially true. However, it's worth noting that analogical and metaphorical interpretation has always a part of Biblical exegesis. Many elites did not believe the faith literally. If you read Clement or Origen, for example, you encounter an abstract, philosophical God. And of course this is even more true for post-Enlightenment theologians, e.g., Schleiermacher, Rahner, Kung, et cetera.
So, yes, literalist Christianity is dead for educated, intellectually honest people. But I do not think that precludes sincere faith.
Clement and Origen both explicitly and forcefully defend the historical reality of the virgin birth and resurrection. Their abstract/philosophical conception of God is irrelevant, but that's how lots of Christian theologians have understood God anyways. But they pretty much all believe in the miracles if they can call themselves Christians. Belief in salvation through the actual, historical resurrection of Jesus as God in the flesh is the definition of a Christian for most people, and Clement and Origen were definitely Christians in that respect.
I don't know anything about the post-enlightenment theologians, but whatever the case may be they are irrelevant to this discussion. The enlightenment was the death of Christianity as it was known for 2k years. There was and continues to be lots of cope in the aftermath of Darwin and Newton.
Sincere faith in what? Without the miracles and the God in the flesh, I'm not sure what's left to have faith in. Symbols? Mythos? Good luck selling that to the masses. People aren't singing songs or (back in the day) martyring themselves to a symbol. They sing songs to and die for a God who actually sacrificed himself for their sins.
I appreciate your sincere defense of a symbolic interpretation. I just think this is a purely intellectual exercise that will have no psychological or cultural teeth whatsoever.
To be clear about Clement and Origen: I did not mean to claim that they were entirely scientifically rational or eschewed all metaphysics moderns would find unacceptable. Rather, my claim was that their notion of God was quite elevated and philosophical and required scripture mythologically.
I also agree that Christianity as it existed in, say, 545 CE was killed. About that, Nietzsche was right. In my view, that leaves room for a different understanding of Christianity, one more poetic and mythical. The faith is in the institutions and stories that preserve the message.
I also agree that the "masses" have more literalist beliefs. They likely always will. I'd make a distinction, as Catholics do, between implicit and explicit faith. Most people have implicit faith. They do not know exactly what they believe, but if asked, they'd probably assert literalist beliefs in the virgin birth, resurrection, and so forth. That's fine. Theologians and philosophers, on the other hand, will have more elevated and less literalist beliefs. I don't think one can avoid this, and it's certainly true in any area of empirical/theoretical inquiry.
It's a purely intellectual exercise, I agree, since it's an attempt to justify deeply held beliefs and hat are emotionally powerful. Any explicit articulation of those beliefs is bound to be an pale ghost of the actual faith.
In my personal opinion, a lot of Catholic orthodoxy must have been the product of church politics. Which doctrines won out was also about who was going to control the church as an on-going institution. The precise way the doctrine of the Trinity was interpreted, for instance. It functioned in much the same way certain litmus tests function among woke academics today: either you believe [fill in the blank] or you are not going to get tenure.
Not that this was necessarily a bad thing for the future history of the Church the way woke orthodoxy is for the future of today's liberal arts colleges and universities, where it needs to be rooted out.
This is a confusing proposition for me. You’re saying sincere faith, but without the virgin birth, death, and resurrection, what is the sincere faith in? Is it just that the Bible does an especially good job of providing ‘meaning?’ The idea seems to be that we need stories, but not the wrong stories, so let’s use this older set of stories, even though they didn’t exactly prevent the predicament which seem to be triggering the call to return to these stories.
It sounds more like a social-cognitive tool in this context. Am I reading you badly?
While it’s true that central mysteries of Christianity like the Incarnation and Resurrection can’t be reduced to metaphor, the world-historical power of Christianity never came from assent to propositions. It came from the tragic, symbolic drama that consecrated life and death, sacrifice and redemption, into cosmic meaning. This drama created the West’s form of life, its art, and its language of justice and mercy.
To say that Christianity is dead for educated people is to mistake the decline of literalist assent for the death of the underlying form itself. Civilizations cannot live without the sacred; and the sacred always returns. The real question is not whether belief can be made to fit a particular standard of intellectual honesty, but whether the West can survive without the grammar of tragedy and redemption that Christianity alone provides.
I basically agree that the power of Christianity never came from assent to propositions, but that doesn't mean there can be anything like Christianity apart from those propositions. Without assent to the propositions, it's just not Christianity as it has been understood for 2k years.
"It came from the tragic, symbolic drama that consecrated life and death, sacrifice and redemption, into cosmic meaning."
True, that is the power of the Christian mythos. But if you affirm that while denying the historical reality of Jesus Christ as resurrecting God in the flesh, you're still not a Christian. Saying that you believe in the power of the symbolic drama of sacrifice and redemption, and denying the historical reality of virgin birth and resurrection does not make you a Christian, certainly not in the eyes of the vast majority of Christians.
--
"The real question is not whether belief can be made to fit a particular standard of intellectual honesty, but whether the West can survive without the grammar of tragedy and redemption that Christianity alone provides."
Probably not. But the task here is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and doing so will leave us with something that has little in common--aesthetically and intellectually--with what currently calls itself Christianity.
That’s fair, but the problem here is the assumption that the mysteries must be affirmed or denied in the scientific sense. This is what I would call (following Spengler) a mistake of Faustian rationalism. They can be affirmed as mysteries, which are not less but more real than facts, because they transfigure facts into meaning; and it was precisely this transfiguration that gave the West its form of life.
If you want to promote a version of Christianity in which the virgin birth and resurrection aren’t understood as historical facts (which is how they were understood long before science came along), go for it. But again, my contention is that it will have no psychological or cultural teeth.
Out of touch comment. Younger more educated (men) are much more likely to attend Church. President of the Harvard GOP club was raised with 0 religion and became Catholic. This is a 90s talking point unsubstantiated with any current data
Brilliant apologia for Christianity. It becomes increasingly clear that humanity abhors a spiritual vacuum and that which is left by the absence of Christianity will be filled by destructive nihilism, Marxism, radical Islamism, or other spiritual toxins.
This has become a common refrain, but all I have seen is opinion, anecdotes, and correlation, no persuasive evidence. Counter examples are secular societies such as Japan and Nordic countries.
Non-western religions are as deeply meaningful for their practitioners as Christianity. Meditation, which doesn’t necessarily require a supernatural belief, cultivates equanimity and compassion, not ideological extremism.
Of course, Christians will insist their particular version of the sacred is superior, but their arguments are primarily persuasive to those who already believe. A Buddhist friend of mine from Thailand read the Bible last year and said he didn’t recognize much spirituality in it (although he was fond of some of Jesus’ teachings).
Ask a Muslim and they’ll tell YOU that. Throw in a Jew too. Have you not heard of the Abrahamic God? All three of these religions worship Him, which is why the conflict between the three is so tragically ironic.
The fault lies not in the gods men worship, but in themselves. Religion at its best seeks to help men overcome their bestial tribal tendencies and love one another. Thus in my view, it is a force for good.
Can men love one another and behave morally and justly without divine intervention? I refer you to the bloody, violent history of the human race. In my estimation, the evidence is to the contrary.
You certainly know that religion has often justified terrible wars. Nevertheless, I suspect that the human race overall has benefited from religion (and obviously it served a purpose in Evolution), and a case can be made that Christianity contributed uniquely to moral development in the West (as did Buddhism in the East). But it is not a cure all, it doesn’t work for everyone, there are good alternatives for individuals, and, eventually, it will probably be replaced by something better (if we don’t blow ourselves up). It is not, after all, true objectively, so it’s vulnerable to reality.
"Ask a Muslim and they’ll tell YOU that. Throw in a Jew too. Have you not heard of the Abrahamic God? All three of these religions worship Him, which is why the conflict between the three is so tragically ironic."
But they slaughter and brutalize each other in the name of their religion. So one could conclude that religion is evil.
This may be Mr. Weingard’s greatest achievement, and, given his body of work, that is something marvelous.
Would that all thoughtful people read this, and think on it, and then do whatever can be done to share this sublime but complex thinking with those who are not thoughtful—who most need not just to hear it, but to live it.
And that is what is most powerful and impressive about this piece: It inspires, and vivifies. For me, for one, and hopefully many others.
It’s great that you’re not hostile to Christianity as it clearly was the backbone of the West. However the problem is being vaguely pro Jesus isn’t enough. No one makes sacrifices for a fake myth. If one is told they need to give up fornication, require fasting, tithe instead of going on a nicer vacation you’d be an idiot to do that for something you don’t believe. And nothing in science contradicts the Catholic faith that’s a myth created by John William Draper to stir up anti Catholic immigration sentiment to get back at his sister who was a nun and Andrew Dickson White who wanted money and power to start Cornell. Instead you should just read some old books and realize modernity is the outlier and classical theism and divine simplicity as stated in the Fourth Lateran Council still holds up today.
We perhaps have different views of what is consistent with science, which is fine. But I wouldn't call the view that Christianity is a collection of powerful myths, fake. The point of Genesis, let us say, is not to describe the actual creation of the universe. But I don't think that means Genesis is fake.
I do take your point that literal belief is a more powerful motivator of behavior. I don't have a great answer to that. These are difficult issues.
But the message of Genesis is that a literal supernatural being created the Cosmos, right? What is the non-literal, mythological, personally edifying interpretation? (By the way, Bo, I greatly appreciate your thoughtful, respectful, and engaging interaction with commenters.)
Have you read any serious traditional philosophers? You should check out Ed Fesers work. The idea that Christianity can be inconsistent with science is a false one because science has to do with discoveries of the hypo-deductive method while theology and philosophy have to do with first principles of being. They are totally unrelated fields and advances in science don’t discredit metaphysics because science takes certain metaphysical assumptions for granted
I think you can grant Bo all his points, namely that civilisation seems to require religion, that when Christianity withdraws other superstitions fill the void, that a rationalist view of life is colder and less 'human' than a religious one but somehow that doesn't help those of us who would quite like to be religious but can't. I know, I know, we moderns are supposed to view Christianity as a myth, as poetry, and not as a rival to science. But if you don't believe that it is literally true, I'm not sure in what way it can transform your life. Once you've seen that the wardrobe is simply a wardrobe with a solid wooden back and not after all a portal to a winter wonderland, it becomes very difficult to still believe in Aslan.
Regarding the New Atheists Bo said, '...the man who rages against the divine is often more religious than the man who simply shrugs'.
This is simply a mistake. Dawkins et al. were not raging against the divine. They were raging against people who believe in the divine. If I make fun of people for believing in fairies this doesn't suggest that deep down I too believe in fairies. It suggests instead that, unlike the man who just shrugs, people who believe in fairies annoy the hell out of me!
Julian Jaynes thought religion came about through humans imagining the voices of ancestors telling them what to do. If he was right, then perhaps the best way to retrieve religion is to reimagine those voices.
Fair points. I do think the thoughtful atheist is often more religious in some ways that the casual believer. But I do not think that mocking belief (or raging against believers as you put it) means one is more religious that somebody who just shrugs.
I do not believe that many of the stories of Christianity are literally true, and they profoundly influence my life. Of course, I do not believe that Anna Karenina is literally true, and it moved me to tears--and to joy and deep meditation.
In my mind I have always made a distinction between 'the godless' and atheists. The godless are those for whom God has never been 'a thing' and irrelevant to their often dysfunctional lives.
Atheists on the other hand are people who have at least thought about the problem of God and decided the evidence for Him is unconvincing. Yet the fact that atheists have grappled with the problem at all perhaps suggests that the question of God is more important to them than to either the godless or unthinking religious sheep.
The older I get the more I take on the rational modern mindset, the one that disenchants the world. Most of my old romantic views about Christmas; Ye Olde England; rural life; night trains to Berlin; Batavia and Conrad's exotic East; the lowering skies and desolate moorland of Wuthering Heights; women. None of these have survived real world contact, as opposed to the wonderfulness of them all in my imagination. I have now been to the 'exotic' East many times and seen it up close and it really isn't that exotic. Christmas now means out of town shopping centres and mingling with big-bodied, loud people. Women can be just as petty-minded and nasty as men.
If there were some way to recapture the way I used to drape the world in the lovely hues of my imagination, a way to re-enchat the world, then I would. But it seems that once you have been expelled from Eden there is no going back. Now the only things that make me see the world as slightly wonderful are TikTok videos of kittens, puppies and beautiful Japanese children.
While folk tales like those of the Brothers Grimm still make me feel they are tapping into something deep in the northern European psyche, the Bible stories, set as they are in the Middle East, don't give me any such tingle of ancient forests and ancestors.
Above I referred to unthinking believers as 'sheep' but I want to take that back. Perhaps the only way to view some things and to keep them alive is either by not thinking about them or by looking at them aslant. The people I really don't understand are the ones who spend a lifetime looking into religion to finally conclude that the evidence for the truth of the Bible and the existence of God is unimpeachable. Really?
I know that this was your second go at defending Christianity but how you view it is still not clear to me. You don't believe the Bible is literally true but you do believe the stories contain a lot of wisdom, in the same way that Anna Karenina also does. Since Christianity is so old it has accrued some extra quality that Anna Karenina doesn't have? Is that it? I don't understand how a myth, which is understood to be a myth rather than the literal truth, is something a people can rally behind in the way Muslims rally behind, and organise their lives around, Islam. Surely the only reason Muslims take Islam so seriously is because they think it's true. If they thought it were a myth then surely Islam would soon go the same way as Christianity.
May be worth noting here that Spengler saw Christianity in its earliest form as a product of Magian civilization, only later adopted and re-shaped by the Faustian West. That helps explain why Biblical narratives can feel symbolically alien compared to European folk tales. Where the Magian world is dualistic, desert-bound, and compressed, the Faustian is expansive, forested or oceanic, and infinite in potential. Grimm’s stories speak natively in the Faustian idiom, while the Gospels and Old Testament retain the Magian imprint even when naturalised into the Western canon. Hence the sense of strangeness alongside familiarity.
I think you are mistaken about what the New Atheists were for.
Growing up in England in the 70s and 80s, most my friends were atheists and a bunch were Christians — but no one cared about the difference. We went to church together and said the Lord’s Prayer together. America circa 2000 was very different. The wall between Christians and Atheists was high, most atheists kept it to themselves and there was a great deal of disdain for them (”I don’t know that atheists should even be considered as citizens. This is one nation under God.” — The President). The New Atheists just showed young atheists that it was OK to believe what they believed. I don't think they even changed many minds.
The number of people who checked ‘no religion’ on the surveys tripled though.
That's a fair comment--and you are likely correct. They didn't change many minds, but their very public embrace of atheism showed atheists that atheism was all right.
I think you should have added that, 'The New Atheists just showed young AMERICAN atheists that it was OK to believe what they believed'. As you suggested at the start of your comment, it had already been okay to be an atheist in England for a long, long time. In fact, as you possibly remember, from the 1960's onwards Christianity was viewed more as something for your grandmothers and other old folk.
I'm not sure I agree. The question of whether or not God exists is one of probability. Not even Richard Dawkins claims to KNOW that there isn't a God. I therefore think it's correct to say that while believers believe God exists, atheists don't believe this. I think it's completely possible to believe that something isn't true.
Nope, I'm afraid you've lost me there. You don't believe that God exists, therefore it's not a matter of belief? That makes no sense to me. Are you saying that it WOULD be a matter of belief if you DID believe but since you don't, it's not a matter of belief?
It's true that most people thought of Christianity as for old folks (my grandparents went to church regularly), but the atheists went to church too, and we all got along. That doesn't happen in America.
Gotta say that I didn't know any atheists that went to church. What on earth would possess them to do so? Just to keep their Christian friends company? Was this a regular weekly thing? That Christians and atheists got on fine together in England is not something I dispute. After all, very few people took it seriously.
Yes, Dawkins has often talked of his love of English churches, carols, religiously-inspired music (Bach's St. Matthew Passion) and various Christian holidays and traditions. Some people see in this a contradiction but I'm not one of them.
Schools were required to have a Christian assembly every morning. We sang hymns and said our prayers. We had a church near the school, and we went there for Holy Communion quite often. We went to weddings, funerals and christenings all the time. Not as often as Christians, sure, but WAY more than American atheists do.
Yes, I remember 'assembly' very well. We sang (or rather missang) hymns, often having no idea what the actual words were or what they meant ('Hosana is ex-Chelsea', anyone?).
It sounds like your school was Catholic as opposed to the usual C of E that I attended. So, no church attendance for me and no Holy Communion. The only wedding I attended was my sister's and to this day I have never been to a Christening. The first funeral I attended was at the age of 40-something. The first time I remember entering a church was Westminster Abbey on a trip to London. Christianity just wasn't a thing in the suburban East Midlands housing estate I grew up in in the 1960's.
I was CofE, too, but I got to enjoy a lot more church than you! And I still go to Evensong quite often! ;-)
I like the way we do it better than the way they do it over there. We lived there for 25 years, and my kids were never exposed to religion at all. It makes the wall between believers and non-believers so much higher.
"To demand that Christianity speak the language of empirical science, and to subject its myths to historical or rationalist scrutiny, is to misunderstand the nature of religion."
I demand nothing from Christianity or any religion. What I expect from modern humans is reasoning, logic, critical thinking, and searching for the truth. Of course, I am mostly disappointed.
The nature of religion is to provide a crutch for those afraid of the truth and a tool for control of the masses.
I do not, of course, agree with this description of religion, although certainly religion (like any other ideology) can be used for these purposes.
I do not expect more of human nature than we can get. And since humans live by more than logic, reasoning, critical thinking, and searching for the truth, I think your expectations are unreasonable. Most people want to live meaningful lives and be decent humans. They don't care about abstract metaphysical truths or skeptical inquiry. And that's fine by me.
"I do not, of course, agree with this description of religion, although certainly religion (like any other ideology) can be used for these purposes."
And all of them have.
"I do not expect more of human nature than we can get."
How do you know how much we can get? I am a firm believer in the ascent of humanity. We are nowhere near our full potential. Through psychometric research and genetic enhancement, we can make vast improvements in positive traits.
"And since humans live by more than logic, reasoning, critical thinking, and searching for the truth, I think your expectations are unreasonable.
Most people want to live meaningful lives and be decent humans."
Sadly, most humans live for bread and circuses, e.g, mind-numbing entertainment.
"They don't care about abstract metaphysical truths or skeptical inquiry."
I said nothing of abstract metaphysical truths. A lack of critical thinking and skeptical inquiry has brought us to our current disastrous situation.
"And that's fine by me."
Are you happy with the current state of the world?
In your opinion but then there lies the problem. You talk of closed minds, I would suggestion yours is not only closed but bricked up. What did God/Christianity do to you apart from, some one argue, give you life and your free will!
Typical Atheist snobbery smh. It's ironically Atheists who are far more intellectually cowardly and prone to existential anxiety on average than religious people of any stripe according to Psychometric research. For example, Your typical conservative Muslim for example has more mental strength (not related to IQ) on average than 90% of White Western people. Atheists and Sceptics frequency make the pseudo-scientific claim that Religion is rooted in fear, but Cognitive Science has consistently shown that this largely projection on part of the critics.
The bravest men and cultures in the world and throughout history have consistently been either highly religious or followers of some quasi-religious ideology like Communism or Fascism. The only known exception to this is Napoleon and even he wasn't an Atheist. The most cowardly and weakest willed peoples tend to be Secular Utilitarian types such as the Epicureans of antiquity and the Modern Liberals of today.
Yeah and so what? Just because most people hold a certain position doesn’t mean it’s true. You’d have to defend materialism otherwise you’re simply arguing fallaciously. However materialism can’t account for features of the mind such as qualia, intentionality, and rationality so no matter how popular it is, it’s simply a nonstarter
"Ok so you’re not a materialist and you think traditional religion is for fools, what do you think is correct then?"
What does materialism have to do with religion? I do not say that traditional religion was for fools. I believe religion is for those who can not face the reality of life...those who need a sky daddy to guide them. They are incapable of controlling their actions and read scripture written by others who can, supposedly, converse with the sky daddy. Of course, this gives church elders tremendous power over the weak, which they readily exploit...I give you the Catholic Church as one example.
Is it possible to have a cultural Christianity that preserves the architecture, myths, language, and rituals without being a faith in Christ being the son of God who performed miracles? If so, can this cultural Christianity be widely practiced across the bulk of society or is it just reserved for intellectuals?
Or do we truly have to choose between a traditional faith-based religion and a scientific outlook?
Great questions. I think we need a third way: fully informed by Science, not supernatural, values the arts (broadly defined), and includes a “spiritual” discipline. I think forms of meditation that cultivate attentiveness and loosen the grip of egoism could be a good foundation.
While I agree with Bo’s comments about the natural persistence and value of Christianity and unfair criticisms by some atheists, his portrayal of Christianity is hygienic and romanticized. I’ve noticed this tendency in non-religious conservatives who have limited or no experience in the U.S. Christian world.
Evangelicalism is the dominant form of Christianity in the U.S. and if anybody is committing a category error, it is Evangelicals. More than 50% believe the universe is less 10,000 years old and that Darwinian evolution is false. It condemns homosexuality and enforces an unnatural repression of sexual desire between unmarried people. Christian nationalism, which rejects the idea of a secular state, is a growing force, thus its embrace of Russia. It is evangelistic, and often condescending towards people outside the fold.
I am sympathetic with Sara Hader’s argument that, concerning intellectual benefits, religion provides a higher floor than secularism, but a lower ceiling. For example, religious people have resisted absurd woke illiberalism, but it also limits the benefits of rationality.
I accept that Christianity is meaningful for many people and has social benefits. But we must remain vigilant to its negatives and dangerous impulses. Furthermore, we must recognize that Christianity does not work for everyone. I was raised in an Evangelical home and believed fervently. But ultimately, I could not affirm the literal beliefs that Christianity requires. I would have to sacrifice an essential part of who I was to be welcomed in the church. The transition from my Christian beliefs and community was excruciating and lonely. In the end, I discovered greater sources of meaning and a more authentic relationships.
Yes this is very fair. I was making the case for a certain form of Christianity, and undoubtedly there are many perverse versions out there. I think we should criticize them.
I think people generally underestimate the affect of rituals and get it confused with organized religion. Durkheim got it right. Hence, they go along with the virgin birth, etc. because they like the feeling from the religious rituals. As an atheist, I can't deny the feeling of getting married on the alter of a Catholic church in front of a couple hundred relatives and friends.
Truly excellent, one of your very best pieces. (I didn't know you had it in you, Bo!). My only quibble is I have now come to think of it as Judeo-Christianity as a way to emphasize its this-worldly, secular value, which I associate with Judaism. But that's just me.
"To call them false because they are not literally true is a category mistake, as though one were to shout that The Godfather Part II is a “false film” because Michael Corleone never lived". Maybe, but when enough people start perceiving whole story as made up fairy tale, it just automatically loses grip and power, can't really help it.
Here is the Nicene Creed. This seems pretty literal to me, affirming the veracity of certain historical statements.
I suggest that the Pope has a better understanding of what Christianity really is than Bo Winegard, as the Pope does it full-time as a job.
'"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.'
'To demand that Christianity speak the language of empirical science, and to subject its myths to historical or rationalist scrutiny, is to misunderstand the nature of religion.'
When Paul said 'These things were not done in a corner', he was speaking no more than the truth, for these things were not done at all.
"It is not a failed science; and its myths are not primitive metaphysics."
Well, they were originally, and many people still use them that way.
"Where many Enlightenment thinkers tempered reason with a recognition of myth and mystery, the New Atheists exalted reason and reveled in a juvenile denunciation of religion, caricaturing it before mocking and repudiating it."
I may be wrong about this, but I believe Richard Dawkins has consistently said that he only objects to supernatural doctrines, not to the practice of religious rituals. And I distinctly remember his saying that the Bible should continue to be taught as literature. Perhaps it could be argued that he has not made such points often enough.
As for the adulation of politicians being a substitute for religion, I think it's also a substitute for monarchy, aristocracy, and similar institutions such as the Social Register in America. If memory serves, C. S. Lewis said this with regards to arictocracy in particular. And he, being a Christian apologist, would hardly have had much disagreement with the content of this article.
In any event, Dr. Winegard seems to be mostly defending religion in general rather than Christianity in particular. This is close to my thesis, in an essay for Merion West, that Christianity was valuable for the upbuilding of Western civilisation because it absorbed some of this civilisation's better elements and acted as a unifying and motivating belief system for its people, rather than because it introduced any especially valuable ideas of its own.
Christianity is and always has been predicated on belief in the actual, historical virgin birth, death, and resurrection of God in the flesh.
You can try to promote a Christianity divorced from those propositions, but it will no longer be the religion that underlay the Western world for 2k years.
That Christianity is dead for educated, intellectually honest people, and it’s not coming back. This article comes off as an expression of the conservative impulse desperately grasping at straws (no offense).
No offense taken. I respect this argument, and I think it partially true. However, it's worth noting that analogical and metaphorical interpretation has always a part of Biblical exegesis. Many elites did not believe the faith literally. If you read Clement or Origen, for example, you encounter an abstract, philosophical God. And of course this is even more true for post-Enlightenment theologians, e.g., Schleiermacher, Rahner, Kung, et cetera.
So, yes, literalist Christianity is dead for educated, intellectually honest people. But I do not think that precludes sincere faith.
Bo W
Clement and Origen both explicitly and forcefully defend the historical reality of the virgin birth and resurrection. Their abstract/philosophical conception of God is irrelevant, but that's how lots of Christian theologians have understood God anyways. But they pretty much all believe in the miracles if they can call themselves Christians. Belief in salvation through the actual, historical resurrection of Jesus as God in the flesh is the definition of a Christian for most people, and Clement and Origen were definitely Christians in that respect.
I don't know anything about the post-enlightenment theologians, but whatever the case may be they are irrelevant to this discussion. The enlightenment was the death of Christianity as it was known for 2k years. There was and continues to be lots of cope in the aftermath of Darwin and Newton.
Sincere faith in what? Without the miracles and the God in the flesh, I'm not sure what's left to have faith in. Symbols? Mythos? Good luck selling that to the masses. People aren't singing songs or (back in the day) martyring themselves to a symbol. They sing songs to and die for a God who actually sacrificed himself for their sins.
I appreciate your sincere defense of a symbolic interpretation. I just think this is a purely intellectual exercise that will have no psychological or cultural teeth whatsoever.
To be clear about Clement and Origen: I did not mean to claim that they were entirely scientifically rational or eschewed all metaphysics moderns would find unacceptable. Rather, my claim was that their notion of God was quite elevated and philosophical and required scripture mythologically.
I also agree that Christianity as it existed in, say, 545 CE was killed. About that, Nietzsche was right. In my view, that leaves room for a different understanding of Christianity, one more poetic and mythical. The faith is in the institutions and stories that preserve the message.
I also agree that the "masses" have more literalist beliefs. They likely always will. I'd make a distinction, as Catholics do, between implicit and explicit faith. Most people have implicit faith. They do not know exactly what they believe, but if asked, they'd probably assert literalist beliefs in the virgin birth, resurrection, and so forth. That's fine. Theologians and philosophers, on the other hand, will have more elevated and less literalist beliefs. I don't think one can avoid this, and it's certainly true in any area of empirical/theoretical inquiry.
It's a purely intellectual exercise, I agree, since it's an attempt to justify deeply held beliefs and hat are emotionally powerful. Any explicit articulation of those beliefs is bound to be an pale ghost of the actual faith.
Bo
In my personal opinion, a lot of Catholic orthodoxy must have been the product of church politics. Which doctrines won out was also about who was going to control the church as an on-going institution. The precise way the doctrine of the Trinity was interpreted, for instance. It functioned in much the same way certain litmus tests function among woke academics today: either you believe [fill in the blank] or you are not going to get tenure.
Not that this was necessarily a bad thing for the future history of the Church the way woke orthodoxy is for the future of today's liberal arts colleges and universities, where it needs to be rooted out.
This is a confusing proposition for me. You’re saying sincere faith, but without the virgin birth, death, and resurrection, what is the sincere faith in? Is it just that the Bible does an especially good job of providing ‘meaning?’ The idea seems to be that we need stories, but not the wrong stories, so let’s use this older set of stories, even though they didn’t exactly prevent the predicament which seem to be triggering the call to return to these stories.
It sounds more like a social-cognitive tool in this context. Am I reading you badly?
While it’s true that central mysteries of Christianity like the Incarnation and Resurrection can’t be reduced to metaphor, the world-historical power of Christianity never came from assent to propositions. It came from the tragic, symbolic drama that consecrated life and death, sacrifice and redemption, into cosmic meaning. This drama created the West’s form of life, its art, and its language of justice and mercy.
To say that Christianity is dead for educated people is to mistake the decline of literalist assent for the death of the underlying form itself. Civilizations cannot live without the sacred; and the sacred always returns. The real question is not whether belief can be made to fit a particular standard of intellectual honesty, but whether the West can survive without the grammar of tragedy and redemption that Christianity alone provides.
I basically agree that the power of Christianity never came from assent to propositions, but that doesn't mean there can be anything like Christianity apart from those propositions. Without assent to the propositions, it's just not Christianity as it has been understood for 2k years.
"It came from the tragic, symbolic drama that consecrated life and death, sacrifice and redemption, into cosmic meaning."
True, that is the power of the Christian mythos. But if you affirm that while denying the historical reality of Jesus Christ as resurrecting God in the flesh, you're still not a Christian. Saying that you believe in the power of the symbolic drama of sacrifice and redemption, and denying the historical reality of virgin birth and resurrection does not make you a Christian, certainly not in the eyes of the vast majority of Christians.
--
"The real question is not whether belief can be made to fit a particular standard of intellectual honesty, but whether the West can survive without the grammar of tragedy and redemption that Christianity alone provides."
Probably not. But the task here is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and doing so will leave us with something that has little in common--aesthetically and intellectually--with what currently calls itself Christianity.
That’s fair, but the problem here is the assumption that the mysteries must be affirmed or denied in the scientific sense. This is what I would call (following Spengler) a mistake of Faustian rationalism. They can be affirmed as mysteries, which are not less but more real than facts, because they transfigure facts into meaning; and it was precisely this transfiguration that gave the West its form of life.
If you want to promote a version of Christianity in which the virgin birth and resurrection aren’t understood as historical facts (which is how they were understood long before science came along), go for it. But again, my contention is that it will have no psychological or cultural teeth.
Out of touch comment. Younger more educated (men) are much more likely to attend Church. President of the Harvard GOP club was raised with 0 religion and became Catholic. This is a 90s talking point unsubstantiated with any current data
For "educated, intellectually honest people" it should be more about understanding than belief.
You definitely haven't seen Eva Schubert's podcast on the Peasants Revolt.
Brilliant apologia for Christianity. It becomes increasingly clear that humanity abhors a spiritual vacuum and that which is left by the absence of Christianity will be filled by destructive nihilism, Marxism, radical Islamism, or other spiritual toxins.
Thank you. Agreed of course.
Bo
This has become a common refrain, but all I have seen is opinion, anecdotes, and correlation, no persuasive evidence. Counter examples are secular societies such as Japan and Nordic countries.
Non-western religions are as deeply meaningful for their practitioners as Christianity. Meditation, which doesn’t necessarily require a supernatural belief, cultivates equanimity and compassion, not ideological extremism.
Of course, Christians will insist their particular version of the sacred is superior, but their arguments are primarily persuasive to those who already believe. A Buddhist friend of mine from Thailand read the Bible last year and said he didn’t recognize much spirituality in it (although he was fond of some of Jesus’ teachings).
Why is the Christian god better than the Muslim god, or any other god? One does not have to believe in a god to be a moral human.
The Christian God is the Muslim god.
"The Christian God is the Muslim god."
Tell a Muslim that!
But you didn't answer my question. Why is the Christian god better than any other god???
Ask a Muslim and they’ll tell YOU that. Throw in a Jew too. Have you not heard of the Abrahamic God? All three of these religions worship Him, which is why the conflict between the three is so tragically ironic.
The fault lies not in the gods men worship, but in themselves. Religion at its best seeks to help men overcome their bestial tribal tendencies and love one another. Thus in my view, it is a force for good.
Can men love one another and behave morally and justly without divine intervention? I refer you to the bloody, violent history of the human race. In my estimation, the evidence is to the contrary.
You certainly know that religion has often justified terrible wars. Nevertheless, I suspect that the human race overall has benefited from religion (and obviously it served a purpose in Evolution), and a case can be made that Christianity contributed uniquely to moral development in the West (as did Buddhism in the East). But it is not a cure all, it doesn’t work for everyone, there are good alternatives for individuals, and, eventually, it will probably be replaced by something better (if we don’t blow ourselves up). It is not, after all, true objectively, so it’s vulnerable to reality.
"Ask a Muslim and they’ll tell YOU that. Throw in a Jew too. Have you not heard of the Abrahamic God? All three of these religions worship Him, which is why the conflict between the three is so tragically ironic."
But they slaughter and brutalize each other in the name of their religion. So one could conclude that religion is evil.
Brilliant. Thoughtfully, carefully, lovingly so.
This may be Mr. Weingard’s greatest achievement, and, given his body of work, that is something marvelous.
Would that all thoughtful people read this, and think on it, and then do whatever can be done to share this sublime but complex thinking with those who are not thoughtful—who most need not just to hear it, but to live it.
And that is what is most powerful and impressive about this piece: It inspires, and vivifies. For me, for one, and hopefully many others.
Thank you, Bo.
Thank you for the kind words.
It’s great that you’re not hostile to Christianity as it clearly was the backbone of the West. However the problem is being vaguely pro Jesus isn’t enough. No one makes sacrifices for a fake myth. If one is told they need to give up fornication, require fasting, tithe instead of going on a nicer vacation you’d be an idiot to do that for something you don’t believe. And nothing in science contradicts the Catholic faith that’s a myth created by John William Draper to stir up anti Catholic immigration sentiment to get back at his sister who was a nun and Andrew Dickson White who wanted money and power to start Cornell. Instead you should just read some old books and realize modernity is the outlier and classical theism and divine simplicity as stated in the Fourth Lateran Council still holds up today.
We perhaps have different views of what is consistent with science, which is fine. But I wouldn't call the view that Christianity is a collection of powerful myths, fake. The point of Genesis, let us say, is not to describe the actual creation of the universe. But I don't think that means Genesis is fake.
I do take your point that literal belief is a more powerful motivator of behavior. I don't have a great answer to that. These are difficult issues.
Bo
But the message of Genesis is that a literal supernatural being created the Cosmos, right? What is the non-literal, mythological, personally edifying interpretation? (By the way, Bo, I greatly appreciate your thoughtful, respectful, and engaging interaction with commenters.)
Have you read any serious traditional philosophers? You should check out Ed Fesers work. The idea that Christianity can be inconsistent with science is a false one because science has to do with discoveries of the hypo-deductive method while theology and philosophy have to do with first principles of being. They are totally unrelated fields and advances in science don’t discredit metaphysics because science takes certain metaphysical assumptions for granted
I think you can grant Bo all his points, namely that civilisation seems to require religion, that when Christianity withdraws other superstitions fill the void, that a rationalist view of life is colder and less 'human' than a religious one but somehow that doesn't help those of us who would quite like to be religious but can't. I know, I know, we moderns are supposed to view Christianity as a myth, as poetry, and not as a rival to science. But if you don't believe that it is literally true, I'm not sure in what way it can transform your life. Once you've seen that the wardrobe is simply a wardrobe with a solid wooden back and not after all a portal to a winter wonderland, it becomes very difficult to still believe in Aslan.
Regarding the New Atheists Bo said, '...the man who rages against the divine is often more religious than the man who simply shrugs'.
This is simply a mistake. Dawkins et al. were not raging against the divine. They were raging against people who believe in the divine. If I make fun of people for believing in fairies this doesn't suggest that deep down I too believe in fairies. It suggests instead that, unlike the man who just shrugs, people who believe in fairies annoy the hell out of me!
Julian Jaynes thought religion came about through humans imagining the voices of ancestors telling them what to do. If he was right, then perhaps the best way to retrieve religion is to reimagine those voices.
Fair points. I do think the thoughtful atheist is often more religious in some ways that the casual believer. But I do not think that mocking belief (or raging against believers as you put it) means one is more religious that somebody who just shrugs.
I do not believe that many of the stories of Christianity are literally true, and they profoundly influence my life. Of course, I do not believe that Anna Karenina is literally true, and it moved me to tears--and to joy and deep meditation.
In my mind I have always made a distinction between 'the godless' and atheists. The godless are those for whom God has never been 'a thing' and irrelevant to their often dysfunctional lives.
Atheists on the other hand are people who have at least thought about the problem of God and decided the evidence for Him is unconvincing. Yet the fact that atheists have grappled with the problem at all perhaps suggests that the question of God is more important to them than to either the godless or unthinking religious sheep.
The older I get the more I take on the rational modern mindset, the one that disenchants the world. Most of my old romantic views about Christmas; Ye Olde England; rural life; night trains to Berlin; Batavia and Conrad's exotic East; the lowering skies and desolate moorland of Wuthering Heights; women. None of these have survived real world contact, as opposed to the wonderfulness of them all in my imagination. I have now been to the 'exotic' East many times and seen it up close and it really isn't that exotic. Christmas now means out of town shopping centres and mingling with big-bodied, loud people. Women can be just as petty-minded and nasty as men.
If there were some way to recapture the way I used to drape the world in the lovely hues of my imagination, a way to re-enchat the world, then I would. But it seems that once you have been expelled from Eden there is no going back. Now the only things that make me see the world as slightly wonderful are TikTok videos of kittens, puppies and beautiful Japanese children.
While folk tales like those of the Brothers Grimm still make me feel they are tapping into something deep in the northern European psyche, the Bible stories, set as they are in the Middle East, don't give me any such tingle of ancient forests and ancestors.
Above I referred to unthinking believers as 'sheep' but I want to take that back. Perhaps the only way to view some things and to keep them alive is either by not thinking about them or by looking at them aslant. The people I really don't understand are the ones who spend a lifetime looking into religion to finally conclude that the evidence for the truth of the Bible and the existence of God is unimpeachable. Really?
I know that this was your second go at defending Christianity but how you view it is still not clear to me. You don't believe the Bible is literally true but you do believe the stories contain a lot of wisdom, in the same way that Anna Karenina also does. Since Christianity is so old it has accrued some extra quality that Anna Karenina doesn't have? Is that it? I don't understand how a myth, which is understood to be a myth rather than the literal truth, is something a people can rally behind in the way Muslims rally behind, and organise their lives around, Islam. Surely the only reason Muslims take Islam so seriously is because they think it's true. If they thought it were a myth then surely Islam would soon go the same way as Christianity.
May be worth noting here that Spengler saw Christianity in its earliest form as a product of Magian civilization, only later adopted and re-shaped by the Faustian West. That helps explain why Biblical narratives can feel symbolically alien compared to European folk tales. Where the Magian world is dualistic, desert-bound, and compressed, the Faustian is expansive, forested or oceanic, and infinite in potential. Grimm’s stories speak natively in the Faustian idiom, while the Gospels and Old Testament retain the Magian imprint even when naturalised into the Western canon. Hence the sense of strangeness alongside familiarity.
I’m curious Bo, how do the Christian stories influence your life?
I think you are mistaken about what the New Atheists were for.
Growing up in England in the 70s and 80s, most my friends were atheists and a bunch were Christians — but no one cared about the difference. We went to church together and said the Lord’s Prayer together. America circa 2000 was very different. The wall between Christians and Atheists was high, most atheists kept it to themselves and there was a great deal of disdain for them (”I don’t know that atheists should even be considered as citizens. This is one nation under God.” — The President). The New Atheists just showed young atheists that it was OK to believe what they believed. I don't think they even changed many minds.
The number of people who checked ‘no religion’ on the surveys tripled though.
That's a fair comment--and you are likely correct. They didn't change many minds, but their very public embrace of atheism showed atheists that atheism was all right.
I think you should have added that, 'The New Atheists just showed young AMERICAN atheists that it was OK to believe what they believed'. As you suggested at the start of your comment, it had already been okay to be an atheist in England for a long, long time. In fact, as you possibly remember, from the 1960's onwards Christianity was viewed more as something for your grandmothers and other old folk.
'The New Atheists just showed young AMERICAN atheists that it was OK to believe what they believed'.
In the case of atheists, it is not a matter of belief.
I believe in lots of things. Just not God.
I'm not sure I agree. The question of whether or not God exists is one of probability. Not even Richard Dawkins claims to KNOW that there isn't a God. I therefore think it's correct to say that while believers believe God exists, atheists don't believe this. I think it's completely possible to believe that something isn't true.
I do not claim to know that God does not exist...I do NOT believe he exists. Therefore, it is not a matter of belief.
Nope, I'm afraid you've lost me there. You don't believe that God exists, therefore it's not a matter of belief? That makes no sense to me. Are you saying that it WOULD be a matter of belief if you DID believe but since you don't, it's not a matter of belief?
So you don't understand...move on.
It's true that most people thought of Christianity as for old folks (my grandparents went to church regularly), but the atheists went to church too, and we all got along. That doesn't happen in America.
Gotta say that I didn't know any atheists that went to church. What on earth would possess them to do so? Just to keep their Christian friends company? Was this a regular weekly thing? That Christians and atheists got on fine together in England is not something I dispute. After all, very few people took it seriously.
Even Richard Dawkins would have gone to chapel when he was a professor at Oxford. 😉 He still goes to Evensong. Me too.
Yes, Dawkins has often talked of his love of English churches, carols, religiously-inspired music (Bach's St. Matthew Passion) and various Christian holidays and traditions. Some people see in this a contradiction but I'm not one of them.
Schools were required to have a Christian assembly every morning. We sang hymns and said our prayers. We had a church near the school, and we went there for Holy Communion quite often. We went to weddings, funerals and christenings all the time. Not as often as Christians, sure, but WAY more than American atheists do.
Yes, I remember 'assembly' very well. We sang (or rather missang) hymns, often having no idea what the actual words were or what they meant ('Hosana is ex-Chelsea', anyone?).
It sounds like your school was Catholic as opposed to the usual C of E that I attended. So, no church attendance for me and no Holy Communion. The only wedding I attended was my sister's and to this day I have never been to a Christening. The first funeral I attended was at the age of 40-something. The first time I remember entering a church was Westminster Abbey on a trip to London. Christianity just wasn't a thing in the suburban East Midlands housing estate I grew up in in the 1960's.
I was CofE, too, but I got to enjoy a lot more church than you! And I still go to Evensong quite often! ;-)
I like the way we do it better than the way they do it over there. We lived there for 25 years, and my kids were never exposed to religion at all. It makes the wall between believers and non-believers so much higher.
"To demand that Christianity speak the language of empirical science, and to subject its myths to historical or rationalist scrutiny, is to misunderstand the nature of religion."
I demand nothing from Christianity or any religion. What I expect from modern humans is reasoning, logic, critical thinking, and searching for the truth. Of course, I am mostly disappointed.
The nature of religion is to provide a crutch for those afraid of the truth and a tool for control of the masses.
I do not, of course, agree with this description of religion, although certainly religion (like any other ideology) can be used for these purposes.
I do not expect more of human nature than we can get. And since humans live by more than logic, reasoning, critical thinking, and searching for the truth, I think your expectations are unreasonable. Most people want to live meaningful lives and be decent humans. They don't care about abstract metaphysical truths or skeptical inquiry. And that's fine by me.
Bo
"I do not, of course, agree with this description of religion, although certainly religion (like any other ideology) can be used for these purposes."
And all of them have.
"I do not expect more of human nature than we can get."
How do you know how much we can get? I am a firm believer in the ascent of humanity. We are nowhere near our full potential. Through psychometric research and genetic enhancement, we can make vast improvements in positive traits.
"And since humans live by more than logic, reasoning, critical thinking, and searching for the truth, I think your expectations are unreasonable.
Most people want to live meaningful lives and be decent humans."
Sadly, most humans live for bread and circuses, e.g, mind-numbing entertainment.
"They don't care about abstract metaphysical truths or skeptical inquiry."
I said nothing of abstract metaphysical truths. A lack of critical thinking and skeptical inquiry has brought us to our current disastrous situation.
"And that's fine by me."
Are you happy with the current state of the world?
What utter rubbish!
"What utter rubbish!"
Great counter post. With considerable thought and substantiation.
I really cannot be bothered discussing God with people who have closed minds and hearts.
"I really cannot be bothered discussing God with people who have closed minds and hearts."
There is no one more close-minded than a dogmatic religionist.
In your opinion but then there lies the problem. You talk of closed minds, I would suggestion yours is not only closed but bricked up. What did God/Christianity do to you apart from, some one argue, give you life and your free will!
What utter rubbish! LOL
Typical Atheist snobbery smh. It's ironically Atheists who are far more intellectually cowardly and prone to existential anxiety on average than religious people of any stripe according to Psychometric research. For example, Your typical conservative Muslim for example has more mental strength (not related to IQ) on average than 90% of White Western people. Atheists and Sceptics frequency make the pseudo-scientific claim that Religion is rooted in fear, but Cognitive Science has consistently shown that this largely projection on part of the critics.
The bravest men and cultures in the world and throughout history have consistently been either highly religious or followers of some quasi-religious ideology like Communism or Fascism. The only known exception to this is Napoleon and even he wasn't an Atheist. The most cowardly and weakest willed peoples tend to be Secular Utilitarian types such as the Epicureans of antiquity and the Modern Liberals of today.
A diatribe with no substantiation, just your opinion.
Are you a materialist? Because materialism for most of history has been viewed as a joke of a philosophy of nature
"Are you a materialist?"
No, I am a Realist.
" Because materialism for most of history has been viewed as a joke of a philosophy of nature."
Yet, most people today are materialists, including those who believe in God.
Yeah and so what? Just because most people hold a certain position doesn’t mean it’s true. You’d have to defend materialism otherwise you’re simply arguing fallaciously. However materialism can’t account for features of the mind such as qualia, intentionality, and rationality so no matter how popular it is, it’s simply a nonstarter
I did not defend materialism. You asked me if I was a materialist.
Ok so you’re not a materialist and you think traditional religion is for fools, what do you think is correct then?
"Ok so you’re not a materialist and you think traditional religion is for fools, what do you think is correct then?"
What does materialism have to do with religion? I do not say that traditional religion was for fools. I believe religion is for those who can not face the reality of life...those who need a sky daddy to guide them. They are incapable of controlling their actions and read scripture written by others who can, supposedly, converse with the sky daddy. Of course, this gives church elders tremendous power over the weak, which they readily exploit...I give you the Catholic Church as one example.
Is it possible to have a cultural Christianity that preserves the architecture, myths, language, and rituals without being a faith in Christ being the son of God who performed miracles? If so, can this cultural Christianity be widely practiced across the bulk of society or is it just reserved for intellectuals?
Or do we truly have to choose between a traditional faith-based religion and a scientific outlook?
Great questions. I think we need a third way: fully informed by Science, not supernatural, values the arts (broadly defined), and includes a “spiritual” discipline. I think forms of meditation that cultivate attentiveness and loosen the grip of egoism could be a good foundation.
While I agree with Bo’s comments about the natural persistence and value of Christianity and unfair criticisms by some atheists, his portrayal of Christianity is hygienic and romanticized. I’ve noticed this tendency in non-religious conservatives who have limited or no experience in the U.S. Christian world.
Evangelicalism is the dominant form of Christianity in the U.S. and if anybody is committing a category error, it is Evangelicals. More than 50% believe the universe is less 10,000 years old and that Darwinian evolution is false. It condemns homosexuality and enforces an unnatural repression of sexual desire between unmarried people. Christian nationalism, which rejects the idea of a secular state, is a growing force, thus its embrace of Russia. It is evangelistic, and often condescending towards people outside the fold.
I am sympathetic with Sara Hader’s argument that, concerning intellectual benefits, religion provides a higher floor than secularism, but a lower ceiling. For example, religious people have resisted absurd woke illiberalism, but it also limits the benefits of rationality.
I accept that Christianity is meaningful for many people and has social benefits. But we must remain vigilant to its negatives and dangerous impulses. Furthermore, we must recognize that Christianity does not work for everyone. I was raised in an Evangelical home and believed fervently. But ultimately, I could not affirm the literal beliefs that Christianity requires. I would have to sacrifice an essential part of who I was to be welcomed in the church. The transition from my Christian beliefs and community was excruciating and lonely. In the end, I discovered greater sources of meaning and a more authentic relationships.
Yes this is very fair. I was making the case for a certain form of Christianity, and undoubtedly there are many perverse versions out there. I think we should criticize them.
I think people generally underestimate the affect of rituals and get it confused with organized religion. Durkheim got it right. Hence, they go along with the virgin birth, etc. because they like the feeling from the religious rituals. As an atheist, I can't deny the feeling of getting married on the alter of a Catholic church in front of a couple hundred relatives and friends.
Good text! Food for thought… but not an easy solution in sight, among other reasons, for what Brett Anderson says…
The future will depend on whether humanity continues to let religion weaken the mind or whether it will move toward knowledge, curiosity, and courage.
Truly excellent, one of your very best pieces. (I didn't know you had it in you, Bo!). My only quibble is I have now come to think of it as Judeo-Christianity as a way to emphasize its this-worldly, secular value, which I associate with Judaism. But that's just me.
"To call them false because they are not literally true is a category mistake, as though one were to shout that The Godfather Part II is a “false film” because Michael Corleone never lived". Maybe, but when enough people start perceiving whole story as made up fairy tale, it just automatically loses grip and power, can't really help it.
Here is the Nicene Creed. This seems pretty literal to me, affirming the veracity of certain historical statements.
I suggest that the Pope has a better understanding of what Christianity really is than Bo Winegard, as the Pope does it full-time as a job.
'"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.'
'To demand that Christianity speak the language of empirical science, and to subject its myths to historical or rationalist scrutiny, is to misunderstand the nature of religion.'
When Paul said 'These things were not done in a corner', he was speaking no more than the truth, for these things were not done at all.
That is what myth means.
"It is not a failed science; and its myths are not primitive metaphysics."
Well, they were originally, and many people still use them that way.
"Where many Enlightenment thinkers tempered reason with a recognition of myth and mystery, the New Atheists exalted reason and reveled in a juvenile denunciation of religion, caricaturing it before mocking and repudiating it."
I may be wrong about this, but I believe Richard Dawkins has consistently said that he only objects to supernatural doctrines, not to the practice of religious rituals. And I distinctly remember his saying that the Bible should continue to be taught as literature. Perhaps it could be argued that he has not made such points often enough.
As for the adulation of politicians being a substitute for religion, I think it's also a substitute for monarchy, aristocracy, and similar institutions such as the Social Register in America. If memory serves, C. S. Lewis said this with regards to arictocracy in particular. And he, being a Christian apologist, would hardly have had much disagreement with the content of this article.
In any event, Dr. Winegard seems to be mostly defending religion in general rather than Christianity in particular. This is close to my thesis, in an essay for Merion West, that Christianity was valuable for the upbuilding of Western civilisation because it absorbed some of this civilisation's better elements and acted as a unifying and motivating belief system for its people, rather than because it introduced any especially valuable ideas of its own.
https://www.merionwest.com/christianity-and-the-west-e2-80-95criticizing-lawrence-auster/