Really great piece! I have no doubts we will both be fighting to rid the world of wokeness while preserving atheism. I think this is going to be a major issue in the next 5+ years as the Right begins to amass more cultural power. The religious purity tests are coming, and we will be exiled from the Right just like we were from the Left.
I'll put it to you this way, since you have no response, and then I'll leave you alone until you write another asinine and desperate-to-blame-others article, which I hope to hell Dr. Colin Wright, whom I admire, appreciate, and respect, doesn't make the mistake of publishing:
Who's the bigger fool: Galileo Galilei, who believed in God? Or the new atheist "firebrand" who "never envisioned the woke atheism" he's fighting so hard to "destroy" -- despite the fact that the woke atheism he and so many others DIRECTLY ushered in was pathetically obvious from the very beginning? Who among those two is the bigger fool?
Who's more ignorant: Issac Newton, who believed in God? Or the new atheist who was so blinded by his new dogma that he will now (only now) emphatically, angrily insist he's "not to blame" for his willful, inexcusable blindness -- so much so, in fact, that he's perfectly comfortable admitting in public and in print this level of blind dogmatic fervor, without any apparent knowledge that what he's admitting should send every sane human on the planet running in the other direction, since this level of ignorance can never lead to anything healthy, human, or good? Who among those two is the more ignorant?
Who has a deeper capacity for a wide range of thoughts and ideas: Gregor Mendel, who was an Augustinian friar and abbot, and who believed in God? Or the dangerously dogmatic atheist who couldn't see the most stupidly obvious facts, which were staring him directly in the face from day one? Who among those two has a deeper capacity for a wide range of thoughts and ideas?
These questions are put forth in complete sincerity.
You are most assuredly and in no small measure to blame, sir, no matter how stridently, no matter how repeatedly you insist to us that you're not. You're directly and demonstrably responsible, and dogmatic blindness, even to atheism or so-called new atheism, exonerates no one. Do you know why? Have you begun to glimpse it? Because dogma is dogma is dogma....
You should then, in this context, never be surprised again -- whether you "envisioned it" or not, whether you "saw it coming" or not.
And you're still fully culpable and complicit in the atrocity exhibition you've helped unleashed, and this basic fact, no matter the pains you take to blame everyone but yourself, will not be forgotten. You may depend upon that.
You may have assumed that all those who subscribe to Colin's substack are atheists like he is, but that's wrong. Many reasonable truth seekers are religious, including Christians like me. You now see us as less threatening than you once did, and I feel the same about atheists like you, that is, the rational, non-woke variety. I have met and befriended more such people in my past two years of fighting gender ideology alongside them than in my previous fifty or so years. While I can appreciate atheists more than I used to, I can't help but disagree with this author seems to still see us as preachers of fire and brimstone (not a common topic in most evangelical churches I've attended). And while you are welcome in our churches, I strongly disagree with you trying to turn them secular. I think you probably would feel the same if I advocated that my fellow believers should infiltrate Athiests for Liberty in an attempt to turn it Christian. How about you treat us as intelligent human being worthy of respect instead? Visit our churches, let us know your stand on God, and then engage in respectful discussions with us. You might just find that there's more common ground than just our mutual fight against wokeness. At the very least, you might make some new friends and expand your viewpoint about what it means to be a religious believer.
Well stated Eliza. As a recent subscriber to Colin’s Substack, I have been very appreciative of much that I have read here, as well as it’s title itself in a world in which belief in objective reality often seems to be actively discouraged and in fact rejected much too frequently. And I am glad that he has posted this piece by Silverman, with whom I was previously unfamiliar. It seems to me to very well illustrate the dilemma of “ non believers” and others who in this post modernist world of relativism now regret that they have indeed “gotten what they wished for” but continue to loudly proclaim that they should not be faulted because their intentions were honorable. ( Do you think any child mutilated on the altar of transgenderism will accept that excuse when as an adult they reject their youthful uninformed and ill considered decision and realize its inappropriateness.) A secular religion in my view is by definition a contradiction, and those attempting to promote such a concept as the means to achieving a just, ethical and moral society are doomed to failure because they refuse to understand the fallibility and corruptibility of humankind.
I do acknowledge this, and I'm guessing your religious friends do, too. Most of the atheists I've met recently seem to be extremely moral people. I don't mind if you think we are nuts to believe in the supernatural, as long as you don't dismiss us as nuts overall and not worthy of basic respect.
As an evangelical Christian(sorry!) I find this development fascinating, encouraging. I realize my position is probably anathema to many, but I think wokeism is bad Calvinism, so what we need is an updated version of a heresy trial? I also admire the writer's outreach towards communities of faith, I believe that ultimately false religion can perhaps only be effectively countered by true religion (religion structured by objective truth/reality)? Problem is that wokeism is in the church, too, so we're fighting these trends in our own camps now. But evangelicals - like them or not - understand what it means or be marginalized by institutions, countering with their own K-12 education programs while needing to not give up on institutions altogether because that's the elite minority voices that drives the culture.
This is a big topic. Just rambling. In short, to really fight wokeism, you're gonna need genuine believers, I feel.
"Indoctrinating a child with beliefs you know to be false (how does one know these are false), with the intent of controlling their actions and thoughts (It's morally reprehensible that the atheists want to control the thoughts and actions of other people's children)...Scaring your children with tales of Hell and eternal damnation (caricature of religion)...to deter them from becoming woke is nothing short of child abuse (label beliefs you don't like as child abuse)." Then there's this nugget. "I envisioned a Scandinavian-style atheistic utopia taking shape in a post-religious country. I pictured a society where critical thought was prevalent, truth was prioritized (whose truth?)." You are admitting to trying to indoctrinate people into accepting your version of utopia. The admission "we failed to eradicate religion," and not seeing the lack of critical thinking in this goal (your way or the highway) is astounding. By the way, I'm not especially religious but I will go down in a ball of flames to protect the right of parents to raise their children according to their beliefs and values, whether that be atheism or an organized religion.
Violence is not required for religious belief or practice, but self-righteousness can lead to violence. Some can't seem to accept the practices and opinions of others if they don't conform in lockstep with the viewer's agenda. Vegans, SJWs, eugenicists are all capable of violence, with or without religious belief. Some of the atheists in your above example would become violent if just one person expressed spiritual beliefs, because those atheists see that independent thought as a threat to their idea of utopia. The Cultural Revolution is one example.
I think we atheists/skeptics/nonbelievers on the left (there ARE some of us on the right, too, btw*) need to do some honest internal analysis of (among other things) WHY we didn't apply our skepticism to the T of the LGBT stuff.
The dominant narrative on transgenderism clearly, at its very foundation, isn't logical or rational (none of postmodernism/queer theory is). I think there are at least a few reasons, including (actual) gender and the disproportionate number of males that made up "new" (and old) atheism, but we (not me, personally, but us as a group/movement) obviously really, really missed the warning signs on that one. Let's talk about why.
*Another at least part of the problem is our tendency, as humans even when we're presumably committed to logic and reason, to paint with broad brushes and to feel superior to whoever we've decided is "evil" (hahaha). Now that I've admitted the part that I also played in creating the "woke" monster, I have to admit that there are tenets of conservative political philosophy that are logical, rational, reasonable, pragmatic, etc. And that I, allegedly reasonable and rational, dismissed it all in the name of my own non-believer (left and yes, "woke") political ideology.
As a liberal Christian who was raised in a version of the faith that was free of dogma and respected reason, I've been watching my many atheist artist friends get sucked into something that I recognize as fundamentalism -- as another commenter has put it, "bad Calvinism". These are people who consider themselves to be too Enlightened and too Clever for Christianity, which they consider to be an absolute disgusting force in the world (while holding Judaism, Islam and any other religious belief to be sacrosanct). I appreciate this article but am also disappointed that Silverman seems to think the only way of being a Christian is to feed your children simplistic, frightening narratives about Heaven and Hell as a way of controlling their behaviour. I assure you, I was raised in a traditional church that never fed such narratives, and I teach Sunday School now without such narratives. I am careful to distinguish for the children between fact and belief. My community doesn't see critical thinking as diametrically opposed to faith in what we call God.
Didn't Richard Dawkins say, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
This is where I don't understand athiesm. I'm grateful for Athiest who speak of morals and telling the truth, but it was only a matter of time for this thought of coming from nothing for nothing would break down to living for me - what works best for me. The powerful get that and are using the confused youth and non-practicing atheist to spread their deception so they can financially cash in. I am grateful for this group of readers who don't do that. That is why I read Colin Wright and will continue to read substack, but God is not dead. He is very much a live.
I am reading "Return to the God Hypothesis" by Stephen C. Meyer. It is well thought out. There is an intelligence that wrote the DNA for our lives. It might be a good practice to try and find out about this Creator. (yes, capitol "C")
The fact that, “at bottom” there is no design or morality clearly doesn’t preclude these things coming to be. Dawkins champions evolution , a non-intelligent form of design.
The explanatory power of Theism is often based on the idea that Like comes only from Like. That’s not so much an explanation as a reason to not try to explain, or look further. When we recognize that morals, like other things, develop out of what wasn’t moral in the first place, it can be both challenging and humbling.
The studies that have been done are wonderful and a lot is being learned about RNA/DNA but part of what is being learned is that even with intelligent scienist in sterile lab environments using materials in pure forms that have not been found in such quanities in nature, the complex information in RNA (and DNA) cannot produce a living being. Any new complexities, like wings to fly or a complex eye cannot be programmed into DNA without intelligence guiding the process.
As far as morals, books by Tom Halland, Rodney Starks or Glenn Sunshine, who are history scholars who have combed history to find how morals and the work ethic developed. Modern day morals find their roots in Christianity. There is a concern that without the belief in Christianity, there is no reason for morality as we see it. There are some morals that all cultures share - like it is never a good idea to sleep with your best friend's spouse, but not telling lies, cheating, earning a living by working hard and saving - these developed in Christian cultures. This is what history tells us.
My concern is that the youth now are growing up without any belief in God, no loyalty to a family or to a friend for that matter if they disagree with their truths. They simply are focused on their needs and as seen by what is happening to the detransitioners, if you disagree, they kick you out. What is also so crazy is that they will kick us out of their lives if they disagree with our views here in America but if another country is sacrificing women or children - it's OK because it is their truth - their culture.
I also were prefer an athiest group than a postmodern nonsense.
A group willing to engage in dialogue and critical thinking is great.
A. Christian morals have a universal appeal to people who are not themselves Christian, but who can recognize and embrace them as grounded in the goals and values of a shared humanity.
B. You have to be a Christian to think its morals are anything other than weird and distasteful.
If B is true, then without Christianity there is no reason for morality as we see it. If you think A is just a bit true, then we’re okay.
Engaging in dialogue, critical thinking, debate and dispute emerged in its best form in Ancient Greece — and aspects of its philosophy were later adopted by many Christians. Postmodern nonsense may be a philosophy, but its adherents with their “no debate” mantra behave more like they’re in a religion.
I guess I would not agree in the shoddiness of a design - difficulty in living - yes. Difficulty understanding suffering - yes.
When we find an old cave with a carving of a horse or stick figures on the wall, we don't think, hey - how interesting that after years of wear and tear in this cave, pictures of people running or horses just appeared. When we see pictures, or carvings of language, we think of intelligence behind it. Like the "Signature in a Cell".
It's one of the better arguments. But as I said above, the designer postulate does not preclude evolution, nor 'bad design'. You presuppose that a designer must follow your notions of what good design looks like.
Imagine that in a hundred years or so we become absolutely, positive that there's no life on Mars, but there used to be! We've found spores. Now, what will the monkeys do? They will do what they always do, they will meddle.
Now, imagine further that, against all rational prediction, the monkeys finally become a civilized species who can wait millions of years for an experiment to run its course. Yes, they will resurrect those spores in the lab, and then tinker with them to make them viable on Mars as he now is.
The spores have taken hold!! But a few million years from now, they've hit an evolutionary dead end. Time to type up some new genes, which the monkeys do. Good stuff, the bugs are mutating again, but, no longer being trapped in the dead end, evolution is getting work done again. But again a dead end develops. Sometimes gradualism just can't turn an airplane into a helicopter. More tinkering. And so on.
So, evolution happens all right, but we're a science project and every now and then our designer tinkers with Earth's collective genome. And I put it to you that we are on the verge of doing this sort of thing ourselves so by what logic can anyone say that it hasn't happened before?
I’m a former evangelical Christian who left the church a few years ago because I was convinced it was false. I was tired of the group think that I thought only religion provided to society. Long story short, I was very naive. I never considered myself to be an atheist but had a huge respect for people like Sam Harris. I shared, for a season, the same frustration with organized religion as the new atheists did. I’ve changed my mind. People like Jordan Peterson and secular historian Tom Holland have a great impact on my life in the past couple of years. Tom Holland, again a secular historian, wrote an incredible book defending the legacy of Christianity and its impact on the Western world called Dominion. Holland makes the case that the values we take for granted in the west, (like equality, human dignity, charity, purpose), come from a Judeo Christian worldview. In my view, Holland makes a compelling case. Holland also debated AC Grayling on this very subject, and in my opinion won. Anyways, after serious consideration I might be returning to Christianity. I’m not sure what’s that going to look like, but it’s something I’m considering. I’m in my early thirties and wanting to start a family someday, and I think a loving Christian home might be the ticket. Not sure yet, I have a lot to think about.
Mike, any church is man made and thus flawed. I urge you to find one that best fits your core beliefs and take from it the community that it can provide. I myself have not regularly attended church in quite a while but my faith has never wavered. My faith has grounded me, given me something to hold on to in this time of chaos. One can be a pragmatic, rational, skeptical human being and still know there is a Creator. FYI: Fire and brimstone has never been part of my faith-hell is being permanently separated from God, no fire or brimstone is needed.
I made a similar journey to the author but reached a different conclusion. Atheism (which I embraced) gave birth to a woke religion that is far worse than the Christianity it replaced. Wokeism and its works are so completely evil that it suggests the existence of something infinitely good that we we used to call God who kept our world in equipoise. This empirical evidence of recent years shows that a world bereft of belief in the divine is a world that wallows in degeneracy and madness. Quibbling about the provable truth of that divinity seems self-destructive when the benefits of acknowledging it are now self-evident in view of recent events. Even if God is only a metaphor it is still a powerful constructive force that should be embraced and not discarded.
The only impossibility is certainty. And what do you mean by "real?" Do Truth, Beauty and Divinity not exist because they cannot be measured or universally agreed upon? If you subtract them from the world you change entire civilizations, which is reasonable evidence of their existence. I was once an advocate of the "new atheism" because of its moral certainty, but then I found that moral certainty is proportional to absolute evil. Such certainty leads transexual advocates to butcher children, social justice warriors to burn cities, legislators to destroy meritocracy and turn millions of their citizens into homeless drug addicts. I think many atheists have found the wisdom to be humble about their certainty, and to acknowledge that they have unleashed the darkest forces of human nature on our world. It is time for decent people to work together repair a world damaged by that hubris.
Sorry you take it personally, but that is another symptom of moral absolutism. So is your statement "god cannot possibly be real." I agree that fundamentalist religion can also be absolutist and wrong, but you mistakenly equate the existence of God or the Divine for absolutism. Absolutism is harmful, whether practiced by an atheist or a religious fundamentalist. Holy books may serve as a justification for absolutism but that is true of any ethical framework (including secular humanism and atheism). A sense of humility about the limits of one's knowledge or the truth of one's opinions is a prerequisite to morality, whether religious or secular. Divinity might not yet be erased from the world but atheist absolutists have made valiant efforts to do so, and our civilization is far more ugly and depraved because of it. The experiment has been run, the data is in, and atheist absolutism has been a disaster. You may want to re-read Silverman's article confirming that they "metaphorically killed God and ushered in the religion of wokeism" (which is a great example of an absolutist religion). And if you reply, please stick to reasoned arguments instead of ad hominem attacks. You are a smart guy and I am glad to discuss ideas with you, but you tend to make things personal when they are not.
How not possible? One can most reasonably state that the overt evidence for him is lacking, but 'not possible' is a strong claim. It seems to me that a purely material universe cannot make itself and the suggestion is absurd on its face. What god does is preserve science by adding something beyond the material to get things going. Again, one can study the Diesel engine scientifically, but science cannot explain how the Diesel engine got here because it didn't happen via natural laws, but by design.
This is a great truth that the OP does not acknowledge.
I am an atheist, but it seems to me that the evidence is overwhelming that atheism "works" for only a small fraction of people, perhaps 5%, essentially all of whom are in the comfortable upper echelons of society (like me).
As the old saying goes, "No atheists in foxholes".
That's an excellent point. Many people in my socioeconomic echelon were high functioning atheists who didn't lie, cheat or steal. They didn't seem to need religion to live decent and ethical lives. However, they did fall for the woke lie when it came along and they are now some of the most ardent practitioners of that religion. Even ethically aware atheists are at risk of moral hazards like wokeism which masquerades as virtue. Academics are an excellent example of the moral failings of the atheist elite. They are skeptical of everything except their own beliefs.
I can only speak about myself. I am an academic scientist. In my own opinion, I study how the world works at a very deep level. In the picture that emerges, there is no room for deities, so I simply cannot believe in them. Furthermore (and much more importantly), I get lots of social props for what I do. People respect me. I'm paid well. This gives emotional support to the idea that how I think about the world (godless) is valid and good. But this kind of support is not available to most, just as the high salaries paid to athletes are not available to most. There is no atheist analog of "Jesus loves me, this I know" that can be applied to everyone, regardless of social status. Thus, IMO, atheism will always fail as a principle around which a society can be organized. Note that the largest attempts at explicitly atheist societies in history were Nazi Germany and Communist Russia and China. These did not do well by the people who lived under them.
I love the idea of "secular Christianity". I have been toying with the idea of going back to Church as a way to help fight back against the insidious takeover of all society (and especially children) by the current "woke" culture, but I can't be a hypocrite having left the church 20 years ago as I couldn't accept many of the core tenets. This may be a way forward for those of us who were brought up with Christian values but no longer go along with all the dogma surrounding Christianity.
Those were a couple of old stories -- some 7 years ago at least. So did a Google and found a Wikipedia entry on her that you might also be interested in:
Wikipedia: "In November 2018, before the hearing could take place, Vosper and the United Church reached a settlement that allowed her to continue the work in her ministry, effectively ending the matter."
I fear David Silverman has as much difficulty defining "Left" as transcultists have with defining the word "woman." Compare and contrast the ample corporate and Millionaire/Billionaire support for "LGBTQ+", "Pride," etc, with their tooth-and-nail opposition to unionization drives at the companies they own and control. The first has nothing to do with class opposition to ownership and control by a tiny elite, the other - actual, real, material world "leftism" - has everything to do with it. All this "woke," and "queer" nonsense has little to anything to do with class-based leftism.
"Scaring your children with tales of Hell and eternal damnation—which you know to be false—to deter them from becoming woke is nothing short of child abuse."
Few will be wanting to do that tho. The author betrays himself as a fundamentalist and he projects his rigidity onto Christians -- most of whom, he would find, are more welcoming and open minded than he is. All fundamentalists are equally dangerous, be they Christian, woke, Muslim or atheist. But one can find reasonable people in any religion especially among Christians and Buddhists. The author is a good example of the difference between the atheist who does not believe in God, and the atheist who believes there is no God.
Ah yes, semantics. Just below the appeal to authority on the scale of valid arguments.
Didn't the Stoics say you don't have to have an opinion? The righeousness of the atheist (skeptic/whatever), trans, vax, or BLM movements is no different and (honestly much more) hypocritical than what I hear and see about organized traditional religion.
I am here because I beleive in the cause this Substack chooses to address: the mutilation of children. I really don't give a rat's ass what you do or don't beleive or what Colin does and does not beleive...except for one issue. And this article really makes me regret my donation.
You don’t have to be a Christian to reject wokism. Common sense and education should suffice. Our civilizations failure to give people a meaningful purpose beyond consumerism is partly at fault. I am an agnostic in the sense that I don’t subscribe to a god but I also find the universe mysterious and can’t rule out some force of creation. I find these concerns with personal sexuality solipsistic and the inability to accept any difference of opinion childish. Our species seems to have reached the limits of its development and is de- evolving.
Really great piece! I have no doubts we will both be fighting to rid the world of wokeness while preserving atheism. I think this is going to be a major issue in the next 5+ years as the Right begins to amass more cultural power. The religious purity tests are coming, and we will be exiled from the Right just like we were from the Left.
Only if you force their hand Coriolanus
I'll put it to you this way, since you have no response, and then I'll leave you alone until you write another asinine and desperate-to-blame-others article, which I hope to hell Dr. Colin Wright, whom I admire, appreciate, and respect, doesn't make the mistake of publishing:
Who's the bigger fool: Galileo Galilei, who believed in God? Or the new atheist "firebrand" who "never envisioned the woke atheism" he's fighting so hard to "destroy" -- despite the fact that the woke atheism he and so many others DIRECTLY ushered in was pathetically obvious from the very beginning? Who among those two is the bigger fool?
Who's more ignorant: Issac Newton, who believed in God? Or the new atheist who was so blinded by his new dogma that he will now (only now) emphatically, angrily insist he's "not to blame" for his willful, inexcusable blindness -- so much so, in fact, that he's perfectly comfortable admitting in public and in print this level of blind dogmatic fervor, without any apparent knowledge that what he's admitting should send every sane human on the planet running in the other direction, since this level of ignorance can never lead to anything healthy, human, or good? Who among those two is the more ignorant?
Who has a deeper capacity for a wide range of thoughts and ideas: Gregor Mendel, who was an Augustinian friar and abbot, and who believed in God? Or the dangerously dogmatic atheist who couldn't see the most stupidly obvious facts, which were staring him directly in the face from day one? Who among those two has a deeper capacity for a wide range of thoughts and ideas?
These questions are put forth in complete sincerity.
You are most assuredly and in no small measure to blame, sir, no matter how stridently, no matter how repeatedly you insist to us that you're not. You're directly and demonstrably responsible, and dogmatic blindness, even to atheism or so-called new atheism, exonerates no one. Do you know why? Have you begun to glimpse it? Because dogma is dogma is dogma....
wat
"You're directly and demonstrably responsible, and dogmatic blindness, even to atheism or so-called new atheism, exonerates no one."
You can read all about my dogmatic approach here!
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/believe-in-believers/
Jesus.
Was this really the best all of you could muster?
You should then, in this context, never be surprised again -- whether you "envisioned it" or not, whether you "saw it coming" or not.
And you're still fully culpable and complicit in the atrocity exhibition you've helped unleashed, and this basic fact, no matter the pains you take to blame everyone but yourself, will not be forgotten. You may depend upon that.
🙂
Big whirls have little whirls
That feed on their velocity,
And little whirls have lesser whirls
And so on to viscosity ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphonaptera_(poem)
Right-handed or left-handed wasn't specified ... 😉🙂
You may have assumed that all those who subscribe to Colin's substack are atheists like he is, but that's wrong. Many reasonable truth seekers are religious, including Christians like me. You now see us as less threatening than you once did, and I feel the same about atheists like you, that is, the rational, non-woke variety. I have met and befriended more such people in my past two years of fighting gender ideology alongside them than in my previous fifty or so years. While I can appreciate atheists more than I used to, I can't help but disagree with this author seems to still see us as preachers of fire and brimstone (not a common topic in most evangelical churches I've attended). And while you are welcome in our churches, I strongly disagree with you trying to turn them secular. I think you probably would feel the same if I advocated that my fellow believers should infiltrate Athiests for Liberty in an attempt to turn it Christian. How about you treat us as intelligent human being worthy of respect instead? Visit our churches, let us know your stand on God, and then engage in respectful discussions with us. You might just find that there's more common ground than just our mutual fight against wokeness. At the very least, you might make some new friends and expand your viewpoint about what it means to be a religious believer.
Well stated Eliza. As a recent subscriber to Colin’s Substack, I have been very appreciative of much that I have read here, as well as it’s title itself in a world in which belief in objective reality often seems to be actively discouraged and in fact rejected much too frequently. And I am glad that he has posted this piece by Silverman, with whom I was previously unfamiliar. It seems to me to very well illustrate the dilemma of “ non believers” and others who in this post modernist world of relativism now regret that they have indeed “gotten what they wished for” but continue to loudly proclaim that they should not be faulted because their intentions were honorable. ( Do you think any child mutilated on the altar of transgenderism will accept that excuse when as an adult they reject their youthful uninformed and ill considered decision and realize its inappropriateness.) A secular religion in my view is by definition a contradiction, and those attempting to promote such a concept as the means to achieving a just, ethical and moral society are doomed to failure because they refuse to understand the fallibility and corruptibility of humankind.
I will go as far as saying most of the fire and brimstone evangelism (suicide, genocide) comes from the church of Trans.
I do acknowledge this, and I'm guessing your religious friends do, too. Most of the atheists I've met recently seem to be extremely moral people. I don't mind if you think we are nuts to believe in the supernatural, as long as you don't dismiss us as nuts overall and not worthy of basic respect.
As an evangelical Christian(sorry!) I find this development fascinating, encouraging. I realize my position is probably anathema to many, but I think wokeism is bad Calvinism, so what we need is an updated version of a heresy trial? I also admire the writer's outreach towards communities of faith, I believe that ultimately false religion can perhaps only be effectively countered by true religion (religion structured by objective truth/reality)? Problem is that wokeism is in the church, too, so we're fighting these trends in our own camps now. But evangelicals - like them or not - understand what it means or be marginalized by institutions, countering with their own K-12 education programs while needing to not give up on institutions altogether because that's the elite minority voices that drives the culture.
This is a big topic. Just rambling. In short, to really fight wokeism, you're gonna need genuine believers, I feel.
"Indoctrinating a child with beliefs you know to be false (how does one know these are false), with the intent of controlling their actions and thoughts (It's morally reprehensible that the atheists want to control the thoughts and actions of other people's children)...Scaring your children with tales of Hell and eternal damnation (caricature of religion)...to deter them from becoming woke is nothing short of child abuse (label beliefs you don't like as child abuse)." Then there's this nugget. "I envisioned a Scandinavian-style atheistic utopia taking shape in a post-religious country. I pictured a society where critical thought was prevalent, truth was prioritized (whose truth?)." You are admitting to trying to indoctrinate people into accepting your version of utopia. The admission "we failed to eradicate religion," and not seeing the lack of critical thinking in this goal (your way or the highway) is astounding. By the way, I'm not especially religious but I will go down in a ball of flames to protect the right of parents to raise their children according to their beliefs and values, whether that be atheism or an organized religion.
A really powerful, thought-provoking and honest comment. Thank you.
Violence is not required for religious belief or practice, but self-righteousness can lead to violence. Some can't seem to accept the practices and opinions of others if they don't conform in lockstep with the viewer's agenda. Vegans, SJWs, eugenicists are all capable of violence, with or without religious belief. Some of the atheists in your above example would become violent if just one person expressed spiritual beliefs, because those atheists see that independent thought as a threat to their idea of utopia. The Cultural Revolution is one example.
I think we atheists/skeptics/nonbelievers on the left (there ARE some of us on the right, too, btw*) need to do some honest internal analysis of (among other things) WHY we didn't apply our skepticism to the T of the LGBT stuff.
The dominant narrative on transgenderism clearly, at its very foundation, isn't logical or rational (none of postmodernism/queer theory is). I think there are at least a few reasons, including (actual) gender and the disproportionate number of males that made up "new" (and old) atheism, but we (not me, personally, but us as a group/movement) obviously really, really missed the warning signs on that one. Let's talk about why.
*Another at least part of the problem is our tendency, as humans even when we're presumably committed to logic and reason, to paint with broad brushes and to feel superior to whoever we've decided is "evil" (hahaha). Now that I've admitted the part that I also played in creating the "woke" monster, I have to admit that there are tenets of conservative political philosophy that are logical, rational, reasonable, pragmatic, etc. And that I, allegedly reasonable and rational, dismissed it all in the name of my own non-believer (left and yes, "woke") political ideology.
As a liberal Christian who was raised in a version of the faith that was free of dogma and respected reason, I've been watching my many atheist artist friends get sucked into something that I recognize as fundamentalism -- as another commenter has put it, "bad Calvinism". These are people who consider themselves to be too Enlightened and too Clever for Christianity, which they consider to be an absolute disgusting force in the world (while holding Judaism, Islam and any other religious belief to be sacrosanct). I appreciate this article but am also disappointed that Silverman seems to think the only way of being a Christian is to feed your children simplistic, frightening narratives about Heaven and Hell as a way of controlling their behaviour. I assure you, I was raised in a traditional church that never fed such narratives, and I teach Sunday School now without such narratives. I am careful to distinguish for the children between fact and belief. My community doesn't see critical thinking as diametrically opposed to faith in what we call God.
Didn't Richard Dawkins say, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
This is where I don't understand athiesm. I'm grateful for Athiest who speak of morals and telling the truth, but it was only a matter of time for this thought of coming from nothing for nothing would break down to living for me - what works best for me. The powerful get that and are using the confused youth and non-practicing atheist to spread their deception so they can financially cash in. I am grateful for this group of readers who don't do that. That is why I read Colin Wright and will continue to read substack, but God is not dead. He is very much a live.
I am reading "Return to the God Hypothesis" by Stephen C. Meyer. It is well thought out. There is an intelligence that wrote the DNA for our lives. It might be a good practice to try and find out about this Creator. (yes, capitol "C")
The fact that, “at bottom” there is no design or morality clearly doesn’t preclude these things coming to be. Dawkins champions evolution , a non-intelligent form of design.
The explanatory power of Theism is often based on the idea that Like comes only from Like. That’s not so much an explanation as a reason to not try to explain, or look further. When we recognize that morals, like other things, develop out of what wasn’t moral in the first place, it can be both challenging and humbling.
The studies that have been done are wonderful and a lot is being learned about RNA/DNA but part of what is being learned is that even with intelligent scienist in sterile lab environments using materials in pure forms that have not been found in such quanities in nature, the complex information in RNA (and DNA) cannot produce a living being. Any new complexities, like wings to fly or a complex eye cannot be programmed into DNA without intelligence guiding the process.
As far as morals, books by Tom Halland, Rodney Starks or Glenn Sunshine, who are history scholars who have combed history to find how morals and the work ethic developed. Modern day morals find their roots in Christianity. There is a concern that without the belief in Christianity, there is no reason for morality as we see it. There are some morals that all cultures share - like it is never a good idea to sleep with your best friend's spouse, but not telling lies, cheating, earning a living by working hard and saving - these developed in Christian cultures. This is what history tells us.
My concern is that the youth now are growing up without any belief in God, no loyalty to a family or to a friend for that matter if they disagree with their truths. They simply are focused on their needs and as seen by what is happening to the detransitioners, if you disagree, they kick you out. What is also so crazy is that they will kick us out of their lives if they disagree with our views here in America but if another country is sacrificing women or children - it's OK because it is their truth - their culture.
I also were prefer an athiest group than a postmodern nonsense.
A group willing to engage in dialogue and critical thinking is great.
A. Christian morals have a universal appeal to people who are not themselves Christian, but who can recognize and embrace them as grounded in the goals and values of a shared humanity.
B. You have to be a Christian to think its morals are anything other than weird and distasteful.
If B is true, then without Christianity there is no reason for morality as we see it. If you think A is just a bit true, then we’re okay.
Engaging in dialogue, critical thinking, debate and dispute emerged in its best form in Ancient Greece — and aspects of its philosophy were later adopted by many Christians. Postmodern nonsense may be a philosophy, but its adherents with their “no debate” mantra behave more like they’re in a religion.
I guess I would not agree in the shoddiness of a design - difficulty in living - yes. Difficulty understanding suffering - yes.
When we find an old cave with a carving of a horse or stick figures on the wall, we don't think, hey - how interesting that after years of wear and tear in this cave, pictures of people running or horses just appeared. When we see pictures, or carvings of language, we think of intelligence behind it. Like the "Signature in a Cell".
It's one of the better arguments. But as I said above, the designer postulate does not preclude evolution, nor 'bad design'. You presuppose that a designer must follow your notions of what good design looks like.
Imagine that in a hundred years or so we become absolutely, positive that there's no life on Mars, but there used to be! We've found spores. Now, what will the monkeys do? They will do what they always do, they will meddle.
Now, imagine further that, against all rational prediction, the monkeys finally become a civilized species who can wait millions of years for an experiment to run its course. Yes, they will resurrect those spores in the lab, and then tinker with them to make them viable on Mars as he now is.
The spores have taken hold!! But a few million years from now, they've hit an evolutionary dead end. Time to type up some new genes, which the monkeys do. Good stuff, the bugs are mutating again, but, no longer being trapped in the dead end, evolution is getting work done again. But again a dead end develops. Sometimes gradualism just can't turn an airplane into a helicopter. More tinkering. And so on.
So, evolution happens all right, but we're a science project and every now and then our designer tinkers with Earth's collective genome. And I put it to you that we are on the verge of doing this sort of thing ourselves so by what logic can anyone say that it hasn't happened before?
I’m a former evangelical Christian who left the church a few years ago because I was convinced it was false. I was tired of the group think that I thought only religion provided to society. Long story short, I was very naive. I never considered myself to be an atheist but had a huge respect for people like Sam Harris. I shared, for a season, the same frustration with organized religion as the new atheists did. I’ve changed my mind. People like Jordan Peterson and secular historian Tom Holland have a great impact on my life in the past couple of years. Tom Holland, again a secular historian, wrote an incredible book defending the legacy of Christianity and its impact on the Western world called Dominion. Holland makes the case that the values we take for granted in the west, (like equality, human dignity, charity, purpose), come from a Judeo Christian worldview. In my view, Holland makes a compelling case. Holland also debated AC Grayling on this very subject, and in my opinion won. Anyways, after serious consideration I might be returning to Christianity. I’m not sure what’s that going to look like, but it’s something I’m considering. I’m in my early thirties and wanting to start a family someday, and I think a loving Christian home might be the ticket. Not sure yet, I have a lot to think about.
Mike, any church is man made and thus flawed. I urge you to find one that best fits your core beliefs and take from it the community that it can provide. I myself have not regularly attended church in quite a while but my faith has never wavered. My faith has grounded me, given me something to hold on to in this time of chaos. One can be a pragmatic, rational, skeptical human being and still know there is a Creator. FYI: Fire and brimstone has never been part of my faith-hell is being permanently separated from God, no fire or brimstone is needed.
Really happy to see Dave here. Thanks for writing, and thanks for hosting him!
I made a similar journey to the author but reached a different conclusion. Atheism (which I embraced) gave birth to a woke religion that is far worse than the Christianity it replaced. Wokeism and its works are so completely evil that it suggests the existence of something infinitely good that we we used to call God who kept our world in equipoise. This empirical evidence of recent years shows that a world bereft of belief in the divine is a world that wallows in degeneracy and madness. Quibbling about the provable truth of that divinity seems self-destructive when the benefits of acknowledging it are now self-evident in view of recent events. Even if God is only a metaphor it is still a powerful constructive force that should be embraced and not discarded.
The only impossibility is certainty. And what do you mean by "real?" Do Truth, Beauty and Divinity not exist because they cannot be measured or universally agreed upon? If you subtract them from the world you change entire civilizations, which is reasonable evidence of their existence. I was once an advocate of the "new atheism" because of its moral certainty, but then I found that moral certainty is proportional to absolute evil. Such certainty leads transexual advocates to butcher children, social justice warriors to burn cities, legislators to destroy meritocracy and turn millions of their citizens into homeless drug addicts. I think many atheists have found the wisdom to be humble about their certainty, and to acknowledge that they have unleashed the darkest forces of human nature on our world. It is time for decent people to work together repair a world damaged by that hubris.
Sorry you take it personally, but that is another symptom of moral absolutism. So is your statement "god cannot possibly be real." I agree that fundamentalist religion can also be absolutist and wrong, but you mistakenly equate the existence of God or the Divine for absolutism. Absolutism is harmful, whether practiced by an atheist or a religious fundamentalist. Holy books may serve as a justification for absolutism but that is true of any ethical framework (including secular humanism and atheism). A sense of humility about the limits of one's knowledge or the truth of one's opinions is a prerequisite to morality, whether religious or secular. Divinity might not yet be erased from the world but atheist absolutists have made valiant efforts to do so, and our civilization is far more ugly and depraved because of it. The experiment has been run, the data is in, and atheist absolutism has been a disaster. You may want to re-read Silverman's article confirming that they "metaphorically killed God and ushered in the religion of wokeism" (which is a great example of an absolutist religion). And if you reply, please stick to reasoned arguments instead of ad hominem attacks. You are a smart guy and I am glad to discuss ideas with you, but you tend to make things personal when they are not.
How not possible? One can most reasonably state that the overt evidence for him is lacking, but 'not possible' is a strong claim. It seems to me that a purely material universe cannot make itself and the suggestion is absurd on its face. What god does is preserve science by adding something beyond the material to get things going. Again, one can study the Diesel engine scientifically, but science cannot explain how the Diesel engine got here because it didn't happen via natural laws, but by design.
There are no such things as non-religious societies. There can be nominally non-theistic societies, but not non-religious.
This is a great truth that the OP does not acknowledge.
I am an atheist, but it seems to me that the evidence is overwhelming that atheism "works" for only a small fraction of people, perhaps 5%, essentially all of whom are in the comfortable upper echelons of society (like me).
As the old saying goes, "No atheists in foxholes".
That's an excellent point. Many people in my socioeconomic echelon were high functioning atheists who didn't lie, cheat or steal. They didn't seem to need religion to live decent and ethical lives. However, they did fall for the woke lie when it came along and they are now some of the most ardent practitioners of that religion. Even ethically aware atheists are at risk of moral hazards like wokeism which masquerades as virtue. Academics are an excellent example of the moral failings of the atheist elite. They are skeptical of everything except their own beliefs.
Just out of curiousity, how does it "work" for you and the other 5%?
I can only speak about myself. I am an academic scientist. In my own opinion, I study how the world works at a very deep level. In the picture that emerges, there is no room for deities, so I simply cannot believe in them. Furthermore (and much more importantly), I get lots of social props for what I do. People respect me. I'm paid well. This gives emotional support to the idea that how I think about the world (godless) is valid and good. But this kind of support is not available to most, just as the high salaries paid to athletes are not available to most. There is no atheist analog of "Jesus loves me, this I know" that can be applied to everyone, regardless of social status. Thus, IMO, atheism will always fail as a principle around which a society can be organized. Note that the largest attempts at explicitly atheist societies in history were Nazi Germany and Communist Russia and China. These did not do well by the people who lived under them.
I love the idea of "secular Christianity". I have been toying with the idea of going back to Church as a way to help fight back against the insidious takeover of all society (and especially children) by the current "woke" culture, but I can't be a hypocrite having left the church 20 years ago as I couldn't accept many of the core tenets. This may be a way forward for those of us who were brought up with Christian values but no longer go along with all the dogma surrounding Christianity.
You might have some interest in a Canadian atheist priestess in a Protestant church, Gretta Vosper:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/29/can-an-atheist-lead-a-protestant-church-a-battle-
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/new-views-of-christ
Some elaborations thereon in a previous comment of mine:
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/reflections-of-a-firebrand/comment/17550212
Thanks, I will take a look!
De nada. 👍🙂
Those were a couple of old stories -- some 7 years ago at least. So did a Google and found a Wikipedia entry on her that you might also be interested in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretta_Vosper
Last entry there was 2018:
Wikipedia: "In November 2018, before the hearing could take place, Vosper and the United Church reached a settlement that allowed her to continue the work in her ministry, effectively ending the matter."
A later one from June 9, 2023:
https://broadview.org/west-hill-united-grows-online-amid-lingering-gretta-vosper-tensions/
I fear David Silverman has as much difficulty defining "Left" as transcultists have with defining the word "woman." Compare and contrast the ample corporate and Millionaire/Billionaire support for "LGBTQ+", "Pride," etc, with their tooth-and-nail opposition to unionization drives at the companies they own and control. The first has nothing to do with class opposition to ownership and control by a tiny elite, the other - actual, real, material world "leftism" - has everything to do with it. All this "woke," and "queer" nonsense has little to anything to do with class-based leftism.
"Scaring your children with tales of Hell and eternal damnation—which you know to be false—to deter them from becoming woke is nothing short of child abuse."
Few will be wanting to do that tho. The author betrays himself as a fundamentalist and he projects his rigidity onto Christians -- most of whom, he would find, are more welcoming and open minded than he is. All fundamentalists are equally dangerous, be they Christian, woke, Muslim or atheist. But one can find reasonable people in any religion especially among Christians and Buddhists. The author is a good example of the difference between the atheist who does not believe in God, and the atheist who believes there is no God.
Ah yes, semantics. Just below the appeal to authority on the scale of valid arguments.
Didn't the Stoics say you don't have to have an opinion? The righeousness of the atheist (skeptic/whatever), trans, vax, or BLM movements is no different and (honestly much more) hypocritical than what I hear and see about organized traditional religion.
I am here because I beleive in the cause this Substack chooses to address: the mutilation of children. I really don't give a rat's ass what you do or don't beleive or what Colin does and does not beleive...except for one issue. And this article really makes me regret my donation.
You don’t have to be a Christian to reject wokism. Common sense and education should suffice. Our civilizations failure to give people a meaningful purpose beyond consumerism is partly at fault. I am an agnostic in the sense that I don’t subscribe to a god but I also find the universe mysterious and can’t rule out some force of creation. I find these concerns with personal sexuality solipsistic and the inability to accept any difference of opinion childish. Our species seems to have reached the limits of its development and is de- evolving.