You hit the nail on the head - These groups that were once the social/societal outliers chose to take a path littered with radical opportunists- and they happily invited them into their ranks.
What none of these groups understood, as you so astutely pointed out, is that radicals are never stagnant or satisfied.
They are perpetual destroyers and disruptors, who'll vanquish your enemies at all cost - scorched earth is a win for them, but will always be looking for the next group or opportunity to exploit.
The problem comes when the radicals jump to the next in vogue outlier group (in this case immigrants with an ultra religious model) and then turns on the previous group (New atheists) , who've cultivated fertile/productive ground in order to give their "cause" space, standing and agency (Ideological Lebensraum). Dawkins is indeed experiencing "buyers remorse" as the radicals now set fire to his fields, huts, grain stores and way of life.
This truly should be a lesson to us all, as the radicals don't just come in the form of field burning destroyers - they also appear as hucksters peddling tolerance, progressivism, junk philosophy and science, to an established and functioning society or country. The infiltration and subversion will always start in academia, to be followed by the indoctrination and grooming of the youngest in the educational systems. In short order - a decade or less - you have organically grown radicals spreading the learned subversion like a cancer. And then the capture is complete.
This is how we have these WEF, Globalist, Ideologs in seats of power both in government and Industry, in every country around the world today.
Like Dawkins, we all slept walked into this mess.
No one - on the whole - stopped to play out the consequences of those feel good catch phrases and proposed policies of inclusions and equity. No one pulled their collective heads up from their screens long enough to see that the "boomers, Phoebes and Racists" they were instructed to cancel today, would be them tomorrow.
Dawkins, like many, is finding out that there is a price to be paid, not only for thumbing ones nose at God, but for allying with radicals to further your cause.
It will be interesting to watch, as he tells the muslims that their god is a figment of their imaginations. Let's hope on that day, he has his best trainers on and is well hydrated - because it will be a long and frantic race, to stay ahead of those who will be trying to kill him.
Great comment. I do think Dawkins deserves a modicum of credit for saying his bit out loud. I've not heard much from other prominent atheists about these matters.
And let's be honest, this is the tip of the iceberg. What are the women thinking cheering on the whole refugee thing? And the gays of course. Much of it must be mental illness at this point.
You should write up your points above. We are going to be getting a lot of people like Dawkins in the next ten years.
And Dawkins has made a few comments about Islam. But I'm sure all the media types are aware of Salman Rushdie's fate.
Yes, I would think Salman sent Dawkins a note, that echoed our (America's) drooler in chief's message to Iran - "Don't".
I agree, Dawkins is not unique, at all. The American Blacks/Hispanics are waking to this, via being supplanted by illegals; Gays are being eaten by the lgbtFU contingent; women are losing their spaces and even their universally exclusive claim, that they are the only ones who can gestate and birth another human.
And they all invited the radicals in and cheered them on, at some point.
I may rip this and create a post, between off screen demands.
You are correct, there will be many, who will be scratching their heads, just like Dawkin.
I also agree, give him credit for speaking up, but do not trust him. He and his ilk, after all invited the radicals in to destroy YOU and your societies.
As with those who would have had you jailed and even killed for not wearing a mask or taking a jab, we would be foolish to turn our backs on or trust them ever again.
You wrote exactly what I have been thinking and trying to put into words for years, so a million thanks for doing it so well. A friend of mine who had become a very proud atheist (they are always so annoying about it) foisted a Dawkins book on me and a few chapters in, I saw that it was basically about bashing Christianity, nothing more.
As a life long liberal AND a Catholic (yes, we used to coexist peacefully), I became horrified as the left began trashing Christianity and looking their noses down at anyone of faith (people clinging to their God, guns and bibles?). The media did a stellar job of reporting ad nauseum about the sins of churches, doing everything possible to destroy the institutions. So did Dawkins and his bunch. Well, it’s all been a wildly successful movement. Yes, it was good of Dawkins to acknowledge the destruction he was a part of, but a lot of us are reaping what THEY sowed. Faith requires that I at least try to believe in a renewal of what’s been lost, so I try.
I do think this Dawkins moment is important. He led the charge, but he has at least spoken about what is happening. That gives me hope.
What the New Atheists represented wasn't challenging religious belief, but the stupidity of religious believers. That is why it was so readily embraced by the chattering classes. And yet it is them who will be massacred first when our unwise import policy really asserts itself. Their premise that trashing religious belief would lead to a rational society based on Enlightenment principles is being proven wrong. It is being replaced with Islam, which will not tolerate neodarwinists in any form. How ironic.
I just hope it prompts them to reexamine all the other causes they embraced, from climate to mass immigration. Time will tell.
I’m going to go to bat for the Crusades: What modern people fail to appreciate is that the entire Mediterranean littoral was Christian in 630. The Holy Land was taken by Muslims from Christians by force, as were all of North Africa and Southern Iberia. The Muslims were attacking Byzantium in Asia Minor, and would conquer Constantinople in 1453, then taking most of the Balkans and repeatedly assaulting Austria until their last attempt at Vienna in 1698. They continued attacking Europe from the West until they were expelled from Spain in 1492. Even after this, they continued to attack European shipping in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, taking millions of European slaves over the centuries..
The Muslims were the initial and predominate aggressors in this conflict, and all subsequent Christian violence was in response to their provocations. It was an existential conflict, one that would have destroyed Europe, and made modern secular materialist “Enlightenment” culture impossible if the Muslims had triumphed.
The Crusades were a counter attack in the context of this wider war, meant to aid Byzantium and protect Western pilgrims and commercial interests in the Eastern Mediterranean. They had far more justification than the conquest of Iraq did in 2003. Notice that the “New Atheists,”particularly Hitchens and Harris, were vociferous in their support of the Iraq war, while hypocritically condemning the Crusades. This is both stupid and unconscionable, a testament to the harebrained idiocy of that claque of clowns, who are only now beginning to understand the value of the humanism, artistic and scientific genius, and freedom that Christian - more to the point, Catholic Christian - culture always preserves and promotes.
When reading this, I got to wondering how many atheists who refuse to accept that God might even exist on the grounds of "lack of proof", were also perfectly happy to believe in March 2020, through unalloyed faith in the new scientism clergy, that a deadly pathogen was tearing through the population. In spite of an endless supply of hard evidence to the contrary all around. Excellent piece.
Covid was good for exposing them. The new atheist phenomenon was largely about laughing at religious believers as backward. People left behind by the march of progress.
They wrapped it up in a rationalist package of course. But I'd argue the process was one of tranference not a change in thinking. They swapped the God of Christianity for the god of science. I think it was this transfered faith we saw on display during Covid, and not the rational stance they claim to possess. They believed the hype while pretending to use rational critical thinking.
I suspect Dawkins represents many of them. He is now recognizing what Christianity is being replaced with and it won't be pleasant for the chattering classes as that unfolds. They have let the wolves into the chicken coop not us.
Next thing you know, he’ll be recognizing that Time/Space and the Laws of Physics were only meant to be the loosest of frameworks all along! (…if at all applicable.)
The atheism of recent decades (since about 1970) is morphing now into a 'cultural atheism'. Soon we'll wish for that age-old modernist Star Trek-like future in which science & technology continue their reign as the only faith system left standing. We want that back, but it was always an illusion. There is always in every human society a faith foundation, acknowledged or not.
Since a fully 'atheist' society is a contradiction in terms, our current Christian faith malaise could actually empower us. Shockingly, we may oversee a true resurgence of Christian faith, reinterpreted. I see something like that happening in about the 2080s.
I hope Dawkins will continue to publicly question his previously stated assumptions and prescriptions for society. I think his venom toward ideas of faith and a creator might be tempered in the same way his ideas about the value of Christianity in western culture appear to be.
I don’t expect the man to do a total 180, be baptized, and start spreading The Word. However, I think an intelligent and rational voice like Dawkins’ (when combined with some newfound humility and an open minded attitude) could be really helpful for a lot of people struggling with similar internal conflicts.
Your comment on how Atheism focuses on trashing Christianity reminds me of why I stopped taking it seriously a long time ago.
Atheism as we understand it is entirely based on the criticism of certain "Strawman" interpretations of God derived largely from what could be called Christian "Folk Theology". But confront Atheism with radically different Theologies and crumbles pretty fast. For example, what use is that common retort that if God existed then why does he allow evil in the world, if you believe that God must have a fundamentally different sense of morality on account of him not being a human being, with all those moral instincts that we take for granted?
I think the great sin of the New Atheists was this straw man mentality, the purpose of which was to ridicule believers and church goers. That is what the chattering classes wanted. A way to feel superior. Only morons would attend church etc.
As a consequence they ignored the social aspects of it. In many ways the New Atheist were just a popular and milder version of the woke brigades who would come later. And like them there are consequences. I do believe Dawkins has real concerns about what he sees happening around him.
Anglo-saxon colonial vestige and hubris in ruins. Science on the back seat everywhere in the world. Oh! that 'Selfish Gene' got nowhere while serving late capitalism and empire. Worse than a shaman, Dawkins turned out to be...
We know how it all pans out because it has been unfolding through history. Competing cultures don't mix. They fight for dominance. There are no exceptions. The nice liberal ladies who ignore this will find themselves on the wrong side of history.
The only way to make mass global immigration work is to severely limit numbers, filter on the basis of some desirable trait like IQ or work ethic (hello Chinese!), and then insist on full assimilation within two generations.
More succinctly, do not tolerate ethnic mafias; the Saudi's and the Chinese don't. You must embrace their way within a reasonable timescale or leave.
As for Muslims they are honest. They make no bones about the fact they dislike Western culture and want to destroy it. We would do well to listen to them.
Precisely so. Even encouraged. But when it comes time to get a bride they phone their mother who sources a nice Muslim girl. They are off limits for shenanigans of course.
That was inspiring, Spiff. Thanks for sharing. Dawkins, like all publicity whores, feels a need to see his name in print from time-to-time. Maybe he is actually experiencing an epiphany and is ashamed of the harm he has done to Christianity.
That being said, Everything is in the process of being born or dying. Many (myself included) have become disenchanted with Christianity because it "borrows" so much from pagan religions going back to the beginning of time.
Is there a need to a "trinity"? The Hebrews believed in One God. I've got a voice, but that voice is a part of me: it does not have a separate identity as the trinitarians would have me believe. And the idea that a "holy ghost" appeared that the Jews never knew strikes me as adolescent science fiction. Don't get me going on virgin births because that, of course, brings us back all the way to Egypt.
Maybe all the pagan religions simply pointed to the arrival of Jesus as mankind's savior. The idea that one man's sacrifice could replace the constant murder and dismemberment of doves and sheep is certainly an improvement over the old Jewish Temple exercises in cruelty.
I don't have a horse in the race. I don't care if we are being directed by Reptiles from another dimension. I'm convinced a new New Age religion may come of all this - with time dedicated to meditation during spiritual exercises. Or the world will end. I'm good with it all.
About Christianity borrowing from other religions, parallels are often exaggerated and similarities are tenuous. For example, Osiris remained in the underworld after he received new life, according to the myth. That God would come in human form to die as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, and communicate with people by His Spirit after returning to heaven is unique among the world religions, as is the creation of the cosmos by God out of nothing, by his spoken word alone. Also unique is a day of judgment in which all are guilty of sin but forgiveness is found only through the sacrifice of Christ. Some imagined similarities actually show contemporary religions imitating Christianity, and copying the most successful and most rapidly growing religion.
About the Trinity, why should there not be one God with aspects and attributes beyond our comprehension? We do not even fully understand how the human spirit works, why should God be fully comprehensible to our little minds? Material objects cannot be three-in-one. Three cars cannot be one car. But God is Spirit, and Spirit is not confined within temporal boundaries or by physical laws.
Your voice is a part of you, as you said, but perhaps a sort of trinity in the human soul can be described more effectively in a different way. If I remember my trip to Paris (memory), and want to go again (desire), and plan when I might go, how much I can spend, and what I would like to do on my next trip (reason), then we have memory, desire, and reason - three distinct faculties, yet also so closely united as to be inseparable.
About the virgin birth, there may be virgin births in mythology, but what makes the virgin birth of Christ unique is that it was not mythology; for the longing for a closer experience of God which expressed itself in so many myths was met in the reality of Christ having been born with no human father.
The world will end some time. No one expects it to be here 100 million years from now (do they?). The bible predicts the creation will be dissolved by fire to be replaced with a new heaven and a new earth, in which righteousness will dwell without imperfection and without sin, injustice or suffering.
As an orthodox Jewish friend of mine used to say whenever the topic of Jesus came up, "I don't know. I wasn't there."
Trust me: I have no desire to weaken anyone's faith and I, personally, have an undying faith in the goodness of our Creator. God, the spiritual force that created the universe, time, and reality, is still creating. It is His nature and there is no reason to suspect that He is done.
Of course, you are right. The sacrifice of Jesus to atone for all of our sins is a unique feature of Christianity and that fact (and the fear being put into us by the government and the media) will likely lead to a great Christian revival in the West.
We are likely to see miracles and miraculous interventions as God protects and saves his chosen.
I am glad to see your awareness of and regard for God - but why should it not be possible for us to learn more about Him and get closer to Him, if he has created us for communication and spiritual growth?
Bless your heart, Joe. I was brought up in both the Mennonite and Free Methodist religions. The twists of fate have turned me into a Daoist, apparently. Every day I repeat the Buddhist mantra OM MANI PADME HUM (i.e. May my heart and mind be ever-directed towards God and doing His will.")
Sounds like we could have an interesting conversation. I went to a Methodist church growing up, but can’t say I was really brought up in it. I attended church and Sunday school but was never asked about anything and didn’t get anything out of it.
I was later very much attracted to the figure of Christ in the New Testament, but never found a church I wanted to join. I wish I could recommend you to a good biblical church, but do not know of any, so many are basically social clubs. Some are more biblically oriented but I find them dissatisfying.
Oriental religions never attracted me. I read the Tao Te Ching a couple of times over the years – in some ways it coincides with the Bible, but in many ways it obviously does not.
About doing God’s will, Christ said “Seek, and you will find.” I do believe Christ is a revelation of the Godhead which can be found no where else, but one does not need church for that.
My take on it is a religion unifies and has social aspects the new atheists just ignored. But even Dawkins accepts some religions are better than others.
I suspect any epiphany with Dawkins would be about the shortsightedness of the attack on religion given what is pouring over the borders.
Christianity only works if it is true. If God exists; if he created the world; if he has appeared to us in human form in the person of Jesus Christ, instead of a great blazing ball of divine fire terrorizing everyone into groveling submission; if he inspired men to give us authoritative revelations concerning God's nature and the reality of the afterlife - then we have a foundation on which to build.
In Europe, in past centuries, many people did believe these things and sincerely tried to live by them - not enough to make Europe a heavenly paradise, since mankind remains basically sinful, but enough to impart a general reverence for basic morality and a conception of life founded on divine law. So much of European culture on all levels was affected in the past by the sincere belief of many that in the afterlife we would be held accountable for what we said and did in this one. This led to the creation of very high standards that were aimed at by many, enough to make a difference.
Without true belief, without Christ as God in the flesh and a resurrection from the dead and a day of judgment, but only as a source of political strategy for social benefits, Christianity is useless.
And what if the rise of Islam in Europe is the direct judgment of God? What if God himself has decreed, "You do not want Christianity? This is what you get instead. You do not want your own children? These are the people you get instead."
I read once years ago of an American homosexual who went to Holland to get away from the narrow minded and repressive intolerance of Christianity. He couldn't stand the bigotry of American Christians who had the insolence to believe his lifestyle was wrong - and then in Holland he discovered the Muslims.
I was a 'didn't know' for ages, raised christian. And then one day I 'jumped' that is - in to the abyss - and "Realised", capital R.
So I now understand what "God" always referred to through time eternal, and how extraordinary the experience is, and how up for personal sacrifice one must be for the process to go off without a hitch. There is a BIG opportunity for things to go badly wrong, especially for us in the west because we will have literally no clue what is happening at the time, like tripping on acid for a week or two, and insanity is a very real possibility. The husband knows of a few personally who - during the experience - started yammering about God talking to them and ended up institutionalised on drugs for 8years.
So it's wise to understand there is *something* in it, even if church christianity is gay af.
At the end of this Kali Yuga, it's gloves off dirty fighting for reality to reveal the illusions we've been robot'ing under for so long.
The three abrahamic religions (all based off Islam which is based off any number of versions going back to Mesopotamia and beyond), all suggest a similar thing esoterically (or internally).
The 3 abrahamic exoteric or everyday life systems are awkward/incompatible because the minds are so different, even if our potential for Realisation is identical. The west simply worships Mammon or money, that is their exoteric daily religious system. Make everything material.
So this is trouble.
The eastern religions don't do what we do, we don't do what they do.
A new religion MUST come of it, because it's ye olde 'as above so below' shenanigans and the east must marry the west... speaking as much of the brain hemispheres as the unification of the globe so we can all sit around the campfire singing Kumbayah'n'sheeiiit.
I'm not sure a new religion is needed. Dawkins' largely targeted faith itself. He ignored the social aspect of religion which is one of its strong points. A literal congregation.
The problem with calling a literal congregation as a strong point of religion, is that one person emerges as leader, and the sheep follow, and I mean that with no disrespect of course - the pastor (shepherd) literally tends his flock. They tell us quite plainly how it is.
The problem, and it is a big one particularly with western religion is that the Bible is open to interpretation.
For example, esoterically (and the Bible is an esoteric book of parables, not literal, historic etc.) women are either whores or virgins. The whore refers to the lower nature, the virgin to the highest nature/consciousness of man. These are not women per se, they're describing men - people, depending on how well they have mastered the human condition.
"Women" and "daughter" refer to EMOTIONS which must be subjugated. Not ignored, not struck physically like they are told to do is Islam, but emotions felt, and overcome.
It all comes from the Indus Valley... it has been interpreted forever, and wrongly in our case because as westerners since the Greeks we have been trained to make everything literal and material.
Overcoming emotions can only be done within the individual mind... of the individual, in silent meditation.
There is no way on this earth standing and sitting around singing hymns will achieve that. The congregation is one of religions weakest points. The majority is never right. Take the vax. w/80% uptake. They follow. They are sheep. Our abrahamic religion must change because it was only ever designed for the few who could grasp esoterism. We need an esoteric doctrine like the Tao and a daily standard like Confucianism.
I think whatever Christianity is, it reflects the European mind. For the vast majority who attend church it is a social event, one that provides a sense of belonging. I think over emphasis on the meaning of scripture or the basis for the beliefs is irrelevant to most. Some more elevated philosophy would make very little difference to them.
Agreed it's irrelevant to them and the church is reduced to a social club, like a game of bowls or a flower show. Which leaves their minds free for Mammon; in other words it's worthless to our culture as it exists right now.
Excellent Post!!
You hit the nail on the head - These groups that were once the social/societal outliers chose to take a path littered with radical opportunists- and they happily invited them into their ranks.
What none of these groups understood, as you so astutely pointed out, is that radicals are never stagnant or satisfied.
They are perpetual destroyers and disruptors, who'll vanquish your enemies at all cost - scorched earth is a win for them, but will always be looking for the next group or opportunity to exploit.
The problem comes when the radicals jump to the next in vogue outlier group (in this case immigrants with an ultra religious model) and then turns on the previous group (New atheists) , who've cultivated fertile/productive ground in order to give their "cause" space, standing and agency (Ideological Lebensraum). Dawkins is indeed experiencing "buyers remorse" as the radicals now set fire to his fields, huts, grain stores and way of life.
This truly should be a lesson to us all, as the radicals don't just come in the form of field burning destroyers - they also appear as hucksters peddling tolerance, progressivism, junk philosophy and science, to an established and functioning society or country. The infiltration and subversion will always start in academia, to be followed by the indoctrination and grooming of the youngest in the educational systems. In short order - a decade or less - you have organically grown radicals spreading the learned subversion like a cancer. And then the capture is complete.
This is how we have these WEF, Globalist, Ideologs in seats of power both in government and Industry, in every country around the world today.
Like Dawkins, we all slept walked into this mess.
No one - on the whole - stopped to play out the consequences of those feel good catch phrases and proposed policies of inclusions and equity. No one pulled their collective heads up from their screens long enough to see that the "boomers, Phoebes and Racists" they were instructed to cancel today, would be them tomorrow.
Dawkins, like many, is finding out that there is a price to be paid, not only for thumbing ones nose at God, but for allying with radicals to further your cause.
It will be interesting to watch, as he tells the muslims that their god is a figment of their imaginations. Let's hope on that day, he has his best trainers on and is well hydrated - because it will be a long and frantic race, to stay ahead of those who will be trying to kill him.
Great comment. I do think Dawkins deserves a modicum of credit for saying his bit out loud. I've not heard much from other prominent atheists about these matters.
And let's be honest, this is the tip of the iceberg. What are the women thinking cheering on the whole refugee thing? And the gays of course. Much of it must be mental illness at this point.
You should write up your points above. We are going to be getting a lot of people like Dawkins in the next ten years.
And Dawkins has made a few comments about Islam. But I'm sure all the media types are aware of Salman Rushdie's fate.
Yes, I would think Salman sent Dawkins a note, that echoed our (America's) drooler in chief's message to Iran - "Don't".
I agree, Dawkins is not unique, at all. The American Blacks/Hispanics are waking to this, via being supplanted by illegals; Gays are being eaten by the lgbtFU contingent; women are losing their spaces and even their universally exclusive claim, that they are the only ones who can gestate and birth another human.
And they all invited the radicals in and cheered them on, at some point.
I may rip this and create a post, between off screen demands.
You are correct, there will be many, who will be scratching their heads, just like Dawkin.
I also agree, give him credit for speaking up, but do not trust him. He and his ilk, after all invited the radicals in to destroy YOU and your societies.
As with those who would have had you jailed and even killed for not wearing a mask or taking a jab, we would be foolish to turn our backs on or trust them ever again.
But that's just my humble opinion.
Quite agree. Covid was a learning opportunity. I'm not one to bear a grudge. But I'm more wary than ever.
You wrote exactly what I have been thinking and trying to put into words for years, so a million thanks for doing it so well. A friend of mine who had become a very proud atheist (they are always so annoying about it) foisted a Dawkins book on me and a few chapters in, I saw that it was basically about bashing Christianity, nothing more.
As a life long liberal AND a Catholic (yes, we used to coexist peacefully), I became horrified as the left began trashing Christianity and looking their noses down at anyone of faith (people clinging to their God, guns and bibles?). The media did a stellar job of reporting ad nauseum about the sins of churches, doing everything possible to destroy the institutions. So did Dawkins and his bunch. Well, it’s all been a wildly successful movement. Yes, it was good of Dawkins to acknowledge the destruction he was a part of, but a lot of us are reaping what THEY sowed. Faith requires that I at least try to believe in a renewal of what’s been lost, so I try.
Thanks again.
I do think this Dawkins moment is important. He led the charge, but he has at least spoken about what is happening. That gives me hope.
What the New Atheists represented wasn't challenging religious belief, but the stupidity of religious believers. That is why it was so readily embraced by the chattering classes. And yet it is them who will be massacred first when our unwise import policy really asserts itself. Their premise that trashing religious belief would lead to a rational society based on Enlightenment principles is being proven wrong. It is being replaced with Islam, which will not tolerate neodarwinists in any form. How ironic.
I just hope it prompts them to reexamine all the other causes they embraced, from climate to mass immigration. Time will tell.
Yes, I do too.
I’m going to go to bat for the Crusades: What modern people fail to appreciate is that the entire Mediterranean littoral was Christian in 630. The Holy Land was taken by Muslims from Christians by force, as were all of North Africa and Southern Iberia. The Muslims were attacking Byzantium in Asia Minor, and would conquer Constantinople in 1453, then taking most of the Balkans and repeatedly assaulting Austria until their last attempt at Vienna in 1698. They continued attacking Europe from the West until they were expelled from Spain in 1492. Even after this, they continued to attack European shipping in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, taking millions of European slaves over the centuries..
The Muslims were the initial and predominate aggressors in this conflict, and all subsequent Christian violence was in response to their provocations. It was an existential conflict, one that would have destroyed Europe, and made modern secular materialist “Enlightenment” culture impossible if the Muslims had triumphed.
The Crusades were a counter attack in the context of this wider war, meant to aid Byzantium and protect Western pilgrims and commercial interests in the Eastern Mediterranean. They had far more justification than the conquest of Iraq did in 2003. Notice that the “New Atheists,”particularly Hitchens and Harris, were vociferous in their support of the Iraq war, while hypocritically condemning the Crusades. This is both stupid and unconscionable, a testament to the harebrained idiocy of that claque of clowns, who are only now beginning to understand the value of the humanism, artistic and scientific genius, and freedom that Christian - more to the point, Catholic Christian - culture always preserves and promotes.
When reading this, I got to wondering how many atheists who refuse to accept that God might even exist on the grounds of "lack of proof", were also perfectly happy to believe in March 2020, through unalloyed faith in the new scientism clergy, that a deadly pathogen was tearing through the population. In spite of an endless supply of hard evidence to the contrary all around. Excellent piece.
Covid was good for exposing them. The new atheist phenomenon was largely about laughing at religious believers as backward. People left behind by the march of progress.
They wrapped it up in a rationalist package of course. But I'd argue the process was one of tranference not a change in thinking. They swapped the God of Christianity for the god of science. I think it was this transfered faith we saw on display during Covid, and not the rational stance they claim to possess. They believed the hype while pretending to use rational critical thinking.
I suspect Dawkins represents many of them. He is now recognizing what Christianity is being replaced with and it won't be pleasant for the chattering classes as that unfolds. They have let the wolves into the chicken coop not us.
Next thing you know, he’ll be recognizing that Time/Space and the Laws of Physics were only meant to be the loosest of frameworks all along! (…if at all applicable.)
https://stevenberger.substack.com/p/tribulation-wrath-and-necessities
The atheism of recent decades (since about 1970) is morphing now into a 'cultural atheism'. Soon we'll wish for that age-old modernist Star Trek-like future in which science & technology continue their reign as the only faith system left standing. We want that back, but it was always an illusion. There is always in every human society a faith foundation, acknowledged or not.
Since a fully 'atheist' society is a contradiction in terms, our current Christian faith malaise could actually empower us. Shockingly, we may oversee a true resurgence of Christian faith, reinterpreted. I see something like that happening in about the 2080s.
That seems to be happening in Russia, They are certainly more religious than the West.
I hope Dawkins will continue to publicly question his previously stated assumptions and prescriptions for society. I think his venom toward ideas of faith and a creator might be tempered in the same way his ideas about the value of Christianity in western culture appear to be.
I don’t expect the man to do a total 180, be baptized, and start spreading The Word. However, I think an intelligent and rational voice like Dawkins’ (when combined with some newfound humility and an open minded attitude) could be really helpful for a lot of people struggling with similar internal conflicts.
I also think he has clout with the kind of people wrecking society with their own limited ideas.
Perhaps seeing someone retreat a little from their position like this may give them pause for thought.
Your comment on how Atheism focuses on trashing Christianity reminds me of why I stopped taking it seriously a long time ago.
Atheism as we understand it is entirely based on the criticism of certain "Strawman" interpretations of God derived largely from what could be called Christian "Folk Theology". But confront Atheism with radically different Theologies and crumbles pretty fast. For example, what use is that common retort that if God existed then why does he allow evil in the world, if you believe that God must have a fundamentally different sense of morality on account of him not being a human being, with all those moral instincts that we take for granted?
I think the great sin of the New Atheists was this straw man mentality, the purpose of which was to ridicule believers and church goers. That is what the chattering classes wanted. A way to feel superior. Only morons would attend church etc.
As a consequence they ignored the social aspects of it. In many ways the New Atheist were just a popular and milder version of the woke brigades who would come later. And like them there are consequences. I do believe Dawkins has real concerns about what he sees happening around him.
Anglo-saxon colonial vestige and hubris in ruins. Science on the back seat everywhere in the world. Oh! that 'Selfish Gene' got nowhere while serving late capitalism and empire. Worse than a shaman, Dawkins turned out to be...
And he couldn't anticipate what would replace the cultural foundations of Britain. But he is being forced to witness it, hence his discomfort.
I am intrigued as to how many others in his strata of society are similarly spooked by what is coming.
I read somewhere (maybe Gato?) that gays championing Islam is like chickens championing KFC. Maybe a slaughter will wake people up.
That is a hard one to understand. Something close to mental illness perhaps. Maybe even a manifestation of suicidal thinking.
We know how it all pans out because it has been unfolding through history. Competing cultures don't mix. They fight for dominance. There are no exceptions. The nice liberal ladies who ignore this will find themselves on the wrong side of history.
The only way to make mass global immigration work is to severely limit numbers, filter on the basis of some desirable trait like IQ or work ethic (hello Chinese!), and then insist on full assimilation within two generations.
More succinctly, do not tolerate ethnic mafias; the Saudi's and the Chinese don't. You must embrace their way within a reasonable timescale or leave.
As for Muslims they are honest. They make no bones about the fact they dislike Western culture and want to destroy it. We would do well to listen to them.
Muslims can and encouraged to have premarital sex. But not with muslim women...
Precisely so. Even encouraged. But when it comes time to get a bride they phone their mother who sources a nice Muslim girl. They are off limits for shenanigans of course.
That was inspiring, Spiff. Thanks for sharing. Dawkins, like all publicity whores, feels a need to see his name in print from time-to-time. Maybe he is actually experiencing an epiphany and is ashamed of the harm he has done to Christianity.
That being said, Everything is in the process of being born or dying. Many (myself included) have become disenchanted with Christianity because it "borrows" so much from pagan religions going back to the beginning of time.
Is there a need to a "trinity"? The Hebrews believed in One God. I've got a voice, but that voice is a part of me: it does not have a separate identity as the trinitarians would have me believe. And the idea that a "holy ghost" appeared that the Jews never knew strikes me as adolescent science fiction. Don't get me going on virgin births because that, of course, brings us back all the way to Egypt.
Maybe all the pagan religions simply pointed to the arrival of Jesus as mankind's savior. The idea that one man's sacrifice could replace the constant murder and dismemberment of doves and sheep is certainly an improvement over the old Jewish Temple exercises in cruelty.
I don't have a horse in the race. I don't care if we are being directed by Reptiles from another dimension. I'm convinced a new New Age religion may come of all this - with time dedicated to meditation during spiritual exercises. Or the world will end. I'm good with it all.
About Christianity borrowing from other religions, parallels are often exaggerated and similarities are tenuous. For example, Osiris remained in the underworld after he received new life, according to the myth. That God would come in human form to die as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, and communicate with people by His Spirit after returning to heaven is unique among the world religions, as is the creation of the cosmos by God out of nothing, by his spoken word alone. Also unique is a day of judgment in which all are guilty of sin but forgiveness is found only through the sacrifice of Christ. Some imagined similarities actually show contemporary religions imitating Christianity, and copying the most successful and most rapidly growing religion.
About the Trinity, why should there not be one God with aspects and attributes beyond our comprehension? We do not even fully understand how the human spirit works, why should God be fully comprehensible to our little minds? Material objects cannot be three-in-one. Three cars cannot be one car. But God is Spirit, and Spirit is not confined within temporal boundaries or by physical laws.
Your voice is a part of you, as you said, but perhaps a sort of trinity in the human soul can be described more effectively in a different way. If I remember my trip to Paris (memory), and want to go again (desire), and plan when I might go, how much I can spend, and what I would like to do on my next trip (reason), then we have memory, desire, and reason - three distinct faculties, yet also so closely united as to be inseparable.
About the virgin birth, there may be virgin births in mythology, but what makes the virgin birth of Christ unique is that it was not mythology; for the longing for a closer experience of God which expressed itself in so many myths was met in the reality of Christ having been born with no human father.
The world will end some time. No one expects it to be here 100 million years from now (do they?). The bible predicts the creation will be dissolved by fire to be replaced with a new heaven and a new earth, in which righteousness will dwell without imperfection and without sin, injustice or suffering.
Thanks for your words of wisdom, Joe.
As an orthodox Jewish friend of mine used to say whenever the topic of Jesus came up, "I don't know. I wasn't there."
Trust me: I have no desire to weaken anyone's faith and I, personally, have an undying faith in the goodness of our Creator. God, the spiritual force that created the universe, time, and reality, is still creating. It is His nature and there is no reason to suspect that He is done.
Of course, you are right. The sacrifice of Jesus to atone for all of our sins is a unique feature of Christianity and that fact (and the fear being put into us by the government and the media) will likely lead to a great Christian revival in the West.
We are likely to see miracles and miraculous interventions as God protects and saves his chosen.
I am glad to see your awareness of and regard for God - but why should it not be possible for us to learn more about Him and get closer to Him, if he has created us for communication and spiritual growth?
Bless your heart, Joe. I was brought up in both the Mennonite and Free Methodist religions. The twists of fate have turned me into a Daoist, apparently. Every day I repeat the Buddhist mantra OM MANI PADME HUM (i.e. May my heart and mind be ever-directed towards God and doing His will.")
Sounds like we could have an interesting conversation. I went to a Methodist church growing up, but can’t say I was really brought up in it. I attended church and Sunday school but was never asked about anything and didn’t get anything out of it.
I was later very much attracted to the figure of Christ in the New Testament, but never found a church I wanted to join. I wish I could recommend you to a good biblical church, but do not know of any, so many are basically social clubs. Some are more biblically oriented but I find them dissatisfying.
Oriental religions never attracted me. I read the Tao Te Ching a couple of times over the years – in some ways it coincides with the Bible, but in many ways it obviously does not.
About doing God’s will, Christ said “Seek, and you will find.” I do believe Christ is a revelation of the Godhead which can be found no where else, but one does not need church for that.
My take on it is a religion unifies and has social aspects the new atheists just ignored. But even Dawkins accepts some religions are better than others.
I suspect any epiphany with Dawkins would be about the shortsightedness of the attack on religion given what is pouring over the borders.
Christianity only works if it is true. If God exists; if he created the world; if he has appeared to us in human form in the person of Jesus Christ, instead of a great blazing ball of divine fire terrorizing everyone into groveling submission; if he inspired men to give us authoritative revelations concerning God's nature and the reality of the afterlife - then we have a foundation on which to build.
In Europe, in past centuries, many people did believe these things and sincerely tried to live by them - not enough to make Europe a heavenly paradise, since mankind remains basically sinful, but enough to impart a general reverence for basic morality and a conception of life founded on divine law. So much of European culture on all levels was affected in the past by the sincere belief of many that in the afterlife we would be held accountable for what we said and did in this one. This led to the creation of very high standards that were aimed at by many, enough to make a difference.
Without true belief, without Christ as God in the flesh and a resurrection from the dead and a day of judgment, but only as a source of political strategy for social benefits, Christianity is useless.
And what if the rise of Islam in Europe is the direct judgment of God? What if God himself has decreed, "You do not want Christianity? This is what you get instead. You do not want your own children? These are the people you get instead."
I read once years ago of an American homosexual who went to Holland to get away from the narrow minded and repressive intolerance of Christianity. He couldn't stand the bigotry of American Christians who had the insolence to believe his lifestyle was wrong - and then in Holland he discovered the Muslims.
"Over time unforeseen consequences emerge from the initiative"
Very much foreseen by the ones who organized it, methinks.
In some cases, perhaps. With Dawkins I suspect not. I think he is shocked at the developments in his home town.
Another useful idiot look in the mirror you are the problem
Thanks for your input 🙂
I was a 'didn't know' for ages, raised christian. And then one day I 'jumped' that is - in to the abyss - and "Realised", capital R.
So I now understand what "God" always referred to through time eternal, and how extraordinary the experience is, and how up for personal sacrifice one must be for the process to go off without a hitch. There is a BIG opportunity for things to go badly wrong, especially for us in the west because we will have literally no clue what is happening at the time, like tripping on acid for a week or two, and insanity is a very real possibility. The husband knows of a few personally who - during the experience - started yammering about God talking to them and ended up institutionalised on drugs for 8years.
So it's wise to understand there is *something* in it, even if church christianity is gay af.
At the end of this Kali Yuga, it's gloves off dirty fighting for reality to reveal the illusions we've been robot'ing under for so long.
The three abrahamic religions (all based off Islam which is based off any number of versions going back to Mesopotamia and beyond), all suggest a similar thing esoterically (or internally).
The 3 abrahamic exoteric or everyday life systems are awkward/incompatible because the minds are so different, even if our potential for Realisation is identical. The west simply worships Mammon or money, that is their exoteric daily religious system. Make everything material.
So this is trouble.
The eastern religions don't do what we do, we don't do what they do.
A new religion MUST come of it, because it's ye olde 'as above so below' shenanigans and the east must marry the west... speaking as much of the brain hemispheres as the unification of the globe so we can all sit around the campfire singing Kumbayah'n'sheeiiit.
I'm not sure a new religion is needed. Dawkins' largely targeted faith itself. He ignored the social aspect of religion which is one of its strong points. A literal congregation.
The problem with calling a literal congregation as a strong point of religion, is that one person emerges as leader, and the sheep follow, and I mean that with no disrespect of course - the pastor (shepherd) literally tends his flock. They tell us quite plainly how it is.
The problem, and it is a big one particularly with western religion is that the Bible is open to interpretation.
For example, esoterically (and the Bible is an esoteric book of parables, not literal, historic etc.) women are either whores or virgins. The whore refers to the lower nature, the virgin to the highest nature/consciousness of man. These are not women per se, they're describing men - people, depending on how well they have mastered the human condition.
"Women" and "daughter" refer to EMOTIONS which must be subjugated. Not ignored, not struck physically like they are told to do is Islam, but emotions felt, and overcome.
It all comes from the Indus Valley... it has been interpreted forever, and wrongly in our case because as westerners since the Greeks we have been trained to make everything literal and material.
Overcoming emotions can only be done within the individual mind... of the individual, in silent meditation.
There is no way on this earth standing and sitting around singing hymns will achieve that. The congregation is one of religions weakest points. The majority is never right. Take the vax. w/80% uptake. They follow. They are sheep. Our abrahamic religion must change because it was only ever designed for the few who could grasp esoterism. We need an esoteric doctrine like the Tao and a daily standard like Confucianism.
I think whatever Christianity is, it reflects the European mind. For the vast majority who attend church it is a social event, one that provides a sense of belonging. I think over emphasis on the meaning of scripture or the basis for the beliefs is irrelevant to most. Some more elevated philosophy would make very little difference to them.
Agreed it's irrelevant to them and the church is reduced to a social club, like a game of bowls or a flower show. Which leaves their minds free for Mammon; in other words it's worthless to our culture as it exists right now.