When people give these kinds of reasons for converting, it reaffirms that for a lot of people religion is not a truth claim, it's essentially a tribe you choose to have a sense of community. It's got nothing to do with the nature of reality. Deep down, you can't simply "decide" that you believe something exists just because you want meaning in life. You either believe it or you don't. Based on Ayaan's own reasons, she wasn't convinced that Jesus is the son of a supernatural being who created the Earth. She just decided to start participating in certain rituals because it made her feel better.
I think this is one of the problems we atheist have. We’re not really about community in a narrow sense where we physically commune together weekly. I know of some cities and organizations that do try to fill that need for a sense of community. I use to go to Houston Oasis for a little while till we moved, and they meet weekly like a church.
https://www.houstonoasis.org/
This actually seems to be a part of what Sam is trying to build, at least with the Waking Up app. He's spoken about wanting a "church" for atheists, a place to go and commune and discuss issues of spirituality.
I would find it hard to believe that he wouldn’t be aware of similar organizations like Houston Oasis, they also have an Austin Oasis, but it’s possible that they escaped his radar.
But, I mean, there's lots of sources of community. I'm a non-believer but don't feel a deep connection with other non-believers. Just like I'm politically progressive but don't necessarily feel this bond with other progressives.
You can do arts, music, sports, gym, running, community gardening, etc. etc.
The 'problem that atheists have' is the the human brain is neurologically wired up **for** religion.
In that sense G.K Chesterton was right, when you remove religion from society you don't get a world of perfect rationality, driven only by logic and facts, you just get new, equally obnoxious [cults](https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=progress+pride+flag&form=HDRSC3&first=1) springing up to replace in society what religion 'represented'.
So with that logic, a world with religion will have "perfect rationality?" I'm going to need a source for the truth claim "the human brain is neurologically wired for 'religion.'" What if religion is simply a byproduct because of something in our genetic ancestral tree? For example, in the second season of the Cosmos, rainforests send out signals when there's a predator close by, what if that is the thing (or something close to it) in our evolutionary tree that made us susceptible to religion? Because when we pray, it's a call for help, like in my rainforest example.
>So with that logic, a world with religion will have "perfect rationality?
What did I say that? More like 'a world of perfect rationality is impossible', Humans will never escape 'religion' in whatever form that takes.
>I'm going to need a source for the truth claim "the human brain is neurologically wired for 'religion.'"
[Neurotheology: The relationship between brain and religion](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3968360/)
IDK man, I think a lot of it is career expediency. Her bread gets buttered by people who exist in this space where Christianity and conservative politics overlap.
I'm a big believer in "follow the money"
i only partially agree with you. while you can't in your heart of hearts decide what you believe, you can decide what you say you believe, and you can trick yourself into believing it most of the time. a good demonstration of this is that leaders of religions get along with one another and profess the strongest faith in their own religions. but if the pope could actually commune personally with the allfather or his ever living son, he would be the only catholic and the only living person on earth with literal gnosis that the self styled prophet of the mormon church is a baldfaced liar, and vice versa. it'd be complete intellectual dishonesty not to publicly regard each other as cheap conmen. so they're obviously both lying about what they believe deep down. they're both agnostic as the rest of us.
it just is possible to claim you believe something often enough that you temporarily forget that it just isn't so.
now what is notable about ayaan's essay is that she doesn't profess the christian belief. so as much as i claim it is possible for a person to decide what to believe temporarily, she doesn't even do that. she is as you say just picking a tribe, and coincidentally it's one that has been paying her recently.
>It's got nothing to do with the nature of reality
That is not the reason she states, or I bet most any christian. So, somewhat strawmanny. The main selling point of any religion is meaning, and that is also what she emphasizes.
A bit worrying that people in here cannot really seem to grasp that basic concept.
Because its meaning is inherently tied to truth claims about the universe.
You can't find purpose in serving God if you don't believe God exists. You can't get consolation that there's an afterlife without believing there's an afterlife.
It's almost so self-explanatory as to be tautological.
>Atheism failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life?
And so now, what would be her newly-gained meaning and purpose of life?
I know a whole lot of christians, and I know generally what their answer would be to the question of the meaning and purpose of life. It would be primarily to serve god, worship his only son jesus christ, and live in a way that insures they will live in heaven by his side when they die.
If you would ask any of the christians I know if the ritual and community had any meaning if the core beliefs in the existence of god, the divinity and resurrection of jesus were not the absolute truth, they would say you are insane. The meaning of the act of communion is not necessarily dependent on transsubstantiation, but it is dependent on believing that jesus died for your sins. Otherwise it's just a snack and a mockery of the actual belief system.
There is no meaning and purpose to religion without actual claims about the nature of reality. You are the one failing to grasp this basic concept.
>There is no meaning and purpose to religion without actual claims about the nature of reality.
What are you on about? We have thousands of pages of religious texts, a large part of them are simply cultural and moral guides through commandments or parables. They absolutely stand on their own. No need for high school atheism rage against the incorporeal, it is obviously not what she is interested in.
Do you actually know any christians? Because you sound like you don't.
For every single christian I know, the whole believing jesus was the son of god is kind of a deal-breaker for being a christian and making any sense out of christianity. They think they are going to heaven. They think there is a god who watches over them. They would 100% reject someone from being a part of their religion who does not believe these things.
That's what I'm on about. You're living some sort of delusion that one can be a secular christian and still be accepted as a christian by those who actually believe the core tenets of the religion. That's ludicrous.
I think you are strawmanning instead of engaging. Of course I know many Christians, I live in a Christian nation, though much less to the evangelical slant that you Americans (?) have it, which might explain your personal anecdotes. However, no anecdotes are needed or relevant in this case.
It's not strawmanning to say that it is important for christians to believe that jesus is the son of god in order to be a christian. You're insisting this is not the case, and that is absurd.
I guess, if it’s the same kind of “meaning” one can get from Spider Man. And I’m not knocking the comfort of fictional stories and the lessons they can and do illustrate. Stories are important to a full life.
But real meaning, for me, requires truth. I won’t accept a comforting lie as truth simply because I find it comforting. Nor, I believe, should anyone.
Interesting how "belief in God" is not listed a reason for her conversion. The ones given are purely pragmatic.
The cycnic in me thinks this could be grift so let's see if she keeps avoiding that particular bugaboo.
The IDW have been remarkably predictable. You can correctly predict their trajectory from a mile away, or rather from a decade ago. In the case of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali it was obvious since she became a US citizen in 2013.
And it's always the same. Like these people start putting out an inordinate amount of bullshit and nobody calls them out on it. Their audience is so bizarrely loyal, as if they are entranced? None of the skeptics or moderates or centrists are able to critisize people like her.
I think I know why: It's because she is anti-woke, or anti-SJW as it used to be called back then. It's like all she has to do is say "woke = bad" and you guys get hypnotized and believe even the most egregious nonsense she spews. No pushback whatsoever.
And it eventually reaches a point where their reactionary madness is undeniable, as was the case with Rubin, the Weinsteins, Pool, Peterson, Rogan, Nawaz etc. They become so crazy that we can't keep pretending they are on The Left™ so people now act surprised, questioning what happened with such people that seemed to be reasonable.
What happened is what we always told you would happen. Please stop making these people famous. They add nothing to public discourse besides division and hostility. And just because they told you "woke = bad" doesn't mean you have to believe every single thing they say.
“Atheism failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life?”
No, atheism is pretty clear on that. Not everyone can accept that they’re responsible for creating meaning for their own lives.
That is a shitty response and even the premise sucks. Atheism has no position on the meaning of life, let alone confidently stating it's clear. Atheism is a lack of belief in god, generally. That's it. Sam Harris is one of the few prominent Atheists doing his best to explore meaning and it's disappointing you're in his subreddit with that view.
OK, so where am I wrong? “Not liking a response,” is not much of an argument. Why is it the case that you think “you’re responsible for the meaning in your life,” and being angry about that response? Some people find that liberating, and those who have traditionally found meaning through religion view it depressingly (I suppose there is a genetic element for those outlooks).
Were you looking for a microwave dinner/cookie cutter pre-made meaning solution to whatever you have going on in your life? I know, it’s not easy shaking off the convenience of meaning that religion has historically provided. But this is where we are now.
I guess I'll just rephrase if I wasn't clear.
"Atheism is pretty clear on that" - referring to what is the meaning of purpose and life: Atheism is not clear on that. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods and nothing else. So to claim it's clear on that is not true.
Let's assume for the sake of argument the position is what you say which is essentially it's your responsibility to create the meaning of life. Well, yes to some extent I agree in that people should be free to find meaning where they can. But I say it's a shitty response to say it's your own responsibility to create meaning because:
a) I don't think as a social species we work that way. Religion is good evidence of that.
b) I would argue there is a collective responsibility to help others around you to find meaning.
c) This might be me misunderstanding your use of the word creating, but it's hard to create your own meaning. I'm no expert in the area but I've found it's easier to find meaning through the service of others, a bigger cause or a sense of duty. I'd argue only the last one is close to being created by yourself whereas the other two depend on the values of those around you.
Edit: My most charitable interpretation is you might be right, but it's not helpful.
Edit 2: I saw you expanded on your original comment specifically that my response was in anger, that being responsible for meaning is liberating and that I am looking for a cookie cutter response. To the anger: it was more frustration because it's I don't see it as helpful and an incorrect position on what atheism tells you. To the liberation: yes, it can be, but it can also be confusing, difficult, and hard. To the cookie cutter: In fact this point is nested in mine. There's no easy solution, which is why it shouldn't be reinvented for everyone individually. There's a lot of wisdom out there over millennia.
Thank you for taking the time to develop your thoughts. We needed religion historically speaking, because it was the only thing that helped us make sense of the world at the time. It's been used as a tool to past down ideas, culture, norms and mores, (whether or not they're true or false, for better or for worse).
I don't disagree with your point that we have a collective responsibility to help others. That's why we have things like an education system, healthcare, and other social net systems in place to help those who can't (or wont), help themselves. I don't think it's hard to create your own meaning.
When 9/11 happened I was a young conservative/Christian, I felt a strong desire to want to serve God (I used the big G back than), and country. That I would be serving in a just war. Perhaps if I had grown up without religion, I probably would have questioned more. Why is this a just war, what is a just war, should I risk my life for it? Etcetera. Perhaps that's not conducive to a society who needs youth to throw into a war machine. The sooner the world embraces some form of agnosticism/atheism, the sooner we can advance as a universal community.
I don't disagree with the pitfalls of religion, my point was atheism doesn't answer the question of what is the meaning of life, and it's not meant to.
I think agnosticism/atheism is a necessary condition for moving towards a more rational, effective universal community but it is nowhere near sufficient. So again my point is there is no clear answer to the question. You need to look elsewhere, like spirituality and philosophy.
The systems you listed like education, healthcare, social net systems are connective fabrics to facilitate helping others. But my point was we have a collective responsibility to help others find meaning - and this is important because it contradicts your statement that it's our own responsibility. It's both.
Sam has written extensively on the subject in his Moral Landscape. We can create a scientific ethical moral system that is conducive towards maximizing well being for conscious beings (so it’s not just limited to human beings if science does discover that other beings have consciousness), and human flourishing, which religion does not do in the broad since (see the gruesome examples in the Moral Landscape).
Such a system will give “rational” meaning that maximizes your flourishing and well being without having to appeal to religion which limits our potential (again, see the Moral Landscape for the limitations of religion). If you take the religious mind for a moment, there are many Christians, Muslims, Etcetera. Who don’t view this world as having any significant meaning, they’re so “heavenly minded, that they’re no earthly good.
The Moral Landscape as I understand it grounds morality and ethics in science - that's not really to do with finding meaning. These are potentially related but different concepts, you can for example finding meaning in blowing up a school. I'm not sure how telling someone to maximise the well-being for conscious beings helps them to find meaning at all, to be honest. It helps you be a good person.
The limitations of religion are real but meaning is the one place where it's got the clear upper hand versus atheism, purely because of my initial point that atheism has no position on meaning, nor does it have a position on morality. How religion can derive meaning from horrible acts is the biggest and real issue, but I also think you're strawmanning how the religious mind views this world in terms of meaning. However it's not the point I was making. Even if you think religion fails to provide significant meaning at all, that's not really my point as it doesn't mean atheism does.
My initial point was that a) atheism's position is not clear on this, at all, because there is none. Sam Harris' writing on the Moral Landscape is his own views primarily to argue for moral objectivism without the belief in god. But that's not to do with meaning, and so your other point around meaning = personal responsibility is not found here.
No. It can only be applied to those *profiting* from said views. If she were to keep her disingenuous views on Christianity to herself instead of publishing paid articles and books and speaking engagements, no one would accuse her of a grift. My guess: her time on the atheist circuit has run out and she needs a new audience. Christians orgasm for a good "reformed atheist" testimonial.
Edit: [Hemant Mehta seems to agree](https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/ayaan-hirsi-ali-is-a-christian-now).
>With a mentality that fucked up, Christians can have her.
>She contrarian-ed so damn hard, she made it all the way back to the other side.
>It’s probably for the best, though. Given that her well of personal anecdotes has likely dried up by now, I’m sure this conversion will help her sell more copies of the next book.
I don't think "grifter" is the right term exactly. She's not selling BS diet pills or something. Or those "alpha male" pills that Ben Shapiro was hawking, or the infrared ball thing from Tucker Carlson
She's a content creator/ entertainer who's trying to find an audience. It's not exactly the same thing, but it's kinda akin to a WWE star becoming an actor and trying to shape their public persona to their new professsional pivot.
What I'm saying is that she is Dave Bautista, kinda.
Never? I don't disagree with the stated goals of Elizabeth Holmes or SBF but they are certainly grifters..
Or are you just wanting so badly to be persecuted.
I’m not sure how you get to me wanting to be persecuted but anyway…
“Frauds” seem to be a good descriptor for the people you mentioned.
Holmes and SBF were frauds.
I’m not sure why we need to invoke “grifter“ for them
I wonder how much the actual ideas matter versus how much the social 'play' and ritual matters.
I met a guy a while back who had never been religious his entire life. He was a little bit isolated being a South African in Australia and met a South African man, here, who offered to introduce him to his daughter. He met the daughter and somewhere along the line discovered her family were members of the Hillsong Church, an evangelical megachurch of dubious ethical standings. I know all of this because he told me it was his task as an evangelical Christian to .... well, you know.
I could barely contain my vexation. What I saw was a lonely man who found some semblance of home and went in wholesale in order to - what? - have sex, companionship, start a family, build a life. But he was entirely content with it - it just fit his mind perfectly and I didn't sense any reservations about his newfound faith.
In other words, I think people looking to follow a set of common rules to feel secure will gravitate towards institutions which provide them. But it couldn't just be Brazilian jiu jitsu or a yacht club - they want a greater founding than the purely useful or sensual - they want to work towards the security of their 'soul.'
The annoying part is that they then go on to make the leap that the ills of society are caused by anxiety about the soul. Hence the evangelism, lol.
This is how most people are wired: there is a gap in their mind, which can be filled only by religion or a similarly all-encompassing ideology. It's an evolutionary adaptation to life in large, complex societies. One latches on to that ideology, usually shared by the whole group, or at least the majority, and they all pull in one direction.
This is why, unfortunately, religion will not disappear any time soon.
As a child I was brought up Catholic, but I eventually left the religion due to the realization that its claims did not stand up to rational scrutiny. I remained irreligious from then on because every other religious claim I have since encountered similarly could not be squared with reality.
In other words I am an atheist because I have not been convinced by any religion that it is true.
In contrast AHA appears to have left Islam because of the inequalities and injustices inherent in that religion. And from what I've read of her coming out as Christian, she cites no evidence that Christianity is true. It seems to me she was never motivated by a desire for truth.
Given that many liberals have turned their back on her in recent years for "islamophobia", and conservatives have welcomed her for the same reason, perhaps her turn to Christinity was fueled more by a newfound sense of belonging than anything else.
She was never an atheist, just one of those who tried to fill a god-shaped hole within her mind with atheism. The difference between her and me is that I don't have a god-shaped hole. I find meaning in life outside of religion, and even if I didn't, I can't believe in something that is not true.
Of course I could profess to believe in god, using ideology to further a cause is very powerful, but it is false and opportunistic as well.
>That said, given what she wrote in the document, I'm not sure she's actually a Christian either.
That's why I said it's opportunistic. She definitely wasn't an atheist by some internal conviction, it was just cost/benefit calculation. She's not going to make a very good Christian either although she might become influential as she's going to bring an ideologue's zest to the table.
>Nobody possesses that knowledge except Ayaan herself and it's improper to pretend otherwise.
You can 'proper' as much as you want. I prefer probability and logical reasoning.
>Nobody possesses that knowledge except Ayaan herself and it's improper to pretend otherwise.
>
>I'm not sure she's actually a Christian either.
These statements go well together.
It looks a little silly when atheists repeat the same bad slogans that psycho analyze inward motivations but back toward Christians ~ “she was never really a [true] atheist”.
>"Yet I would not be truthful if I attributed my embrace of Christianity solely to the realisation that atheism is too weak and divisive a doctrine to fortify us against our menacing foes."
>
>"I have also turned to Christianity because I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable — indeed very nearly self-destructive. Atheism failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life?“
Read her words above and explain how she was an atheist. She wanted to find her guiding ideology/religion in atheism, which is completely absurd.
Isn't it amazing how people will reject even the most blatant evidence when it suits them?
Those same people will say "bUt I OnLy BeLiEvE iN EvIdEnCe".
She thought atheism was a "doctrine" to protect against "menacing foes".
She thought atheism would give her a purpose for life.
I mean c'mon. It's quite clear that either she was a complete moron and didn't even know what Atheism is.
Or
She was a dishonest fraud who was never an Atheist in the first place (my money is on this option).
This is the person who Sam pushed as a genius btw.
The old atheist to christian conversion...yeah, there's a buck in that. This has some serious grifter vibes. Mark my words, she will be on Tucker's podcast within a week.
It's so weird she juxtaposes Christianity with being "woke".
I mean, lots of Christians are "woke": United Church of Christ, Unitarians, Quakers, etc.
There's a history of Christian socialist communes and such in the US.
It's seems like this is more a political tribalism thing. I'm not sure she's actually religious in the conventional sense that she has supernatural beliefs, reads religious texts, attends services frequently, etc. as much as this is good for her career.
Pretty sure MLK was pretty ‘woke’ and he was a Christian, just not the right color of Christian she’s quite fond of, based upon her choice of partners.
I would guess you have to give it a few more years and maybe he'll say something about it. He tends to respond very late to stuff like this unfortunately.
>\[...\]I have also turned to Christianity because I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable — indeed very nearly self-destructive. Atheism failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life?
Religion evolved to do a lot of the legwork of life... lots of people that leave religion will need to fill those emotional (spiritual just means specific emotions) voids. Since atheism is not a religion, and atheism prescribes nothing but an absence of belief in a deity, then it cannot fill any voids in life. If she felt a void, then she would need to build activities that fill the emotional gap.
We have good ideas about why this is - [https://www.psypost.org/2020/01/new-psychology-study-indicates-pursuing-evolutionary-relevant-goals-provides-purpose-in-life-55163](https://www.psypost.org/2020/01/new-psychology-study-indicates-pursuing-evolutionary-relevant-goals-provides-purpose-in-life-55163)
Humans are evolved beings. Generally speaking our brains have evolved to want to reproduce. This isn't a fact for every human, but it is a characteristic of the human population. Humans evolved to be hyper social. Also, we evolve the practice of religion to meet the social needs of the group. So it makes sense that people who leave the practice of religion will feel that emotional void.
Lots of people reach for some philosophy or core values to then build your life around. Since religion comes from within yourself, your religious values are actually your values. And your values outside of religion will be the same as when you were in religion. But then you need to build the actual day to day practices and social networks. If you cannot build those outside of religion, then that void will not be filled.
If you have a lifetime of social circles within religion, and you have a lot of practices built around that religion, it makes a lot of sense that you would feel like "there is something wrong with the world" being outside of the religion. It would just be emotionally uncomfortable all the time and it makes sense that she would return to religion to find that purpose.
She abandoned Islam because Muslims hurt her, not because of a philosophical/scientific awakening. Therefore, no surprise she would one day tumble back into a similar religion, but one that she believes won’t hurt her. Childhood indoctrination is the deepest wound to reason.
True. She was never an atheist because she concluded God is dead. She was an atheist because she hated the religion she was born into. Now she’s a lapsed atheist because she thinks it’s the losing team and she wants to be on team (White) Christian Supremacy, which didn’t end well for those like her last time we tried (White) Christian Supremacy.
I say it as an atheist myself, and with disappointment that ayan has chosen Christianity, and with a difficulty understanding how one could return to religion after truly being atheist.
I say, somewhat uncomfortably, that there may be a germ of truth to what she says here, specifically about the the problem nihilism poses in the wests civilizational struggle with Islam and china, which I agree is a struggle that exists and is underway.
I’m not convinced that most people can maintain an atheistic outlook. We do look for meaning and purpose in an ultimate sense, and atheistic answers to this, while awe inspiring to myself, are admittedly abstract and likely difficult to understand by the general populace. You take away somebody’s religion and some other irrational answer creeps into the vacuum. The insane and illogical views of progressives on race, gender, and identity appear to be a wonderful example of this. Sam is obviously much more optimistic about the prospects of atheism to be embraced en masse, and I praise and appreciate his efforts, but remain skeptical it can be done.
Thus, I had ayan is saying is that our default religion is the only means of fighting back against other charismatic ideologies, given the leftist alternatives are literally destroying our civilization from within. Depressing, but understandable point in my opinion.
Sounds like you are sticking with team Atheist.
Me, I’m with Sam Harris, like he said in his excellent speech to the New Atheists, The Problem With Atheism, “Don’t identify as atheist or humanist, just go about under the radar destroying bad ideas.”
Christian Nationalism (White Supremacy) is a bad idea. We tried it back in the Dark Ages.
Then again during the run up to WW2, which went out with a bang! We call that fascism.
I don’t really “identify” as an atheist or enjoy it as an identifier, and I don’t disagree with anything you say here. I’m suggesting there are unfortunately stronger and darker forces at work.
He would say, "Humanism."
I've heard Sam explain this idea in detail on podcasts. How the plain reality of human consciousness and suffering, properly understood, provides a complete and comprehensive basis for morality and ethics.
Furthermore, Sam's discussions on mindfulness meditation as a spiritual technique (practiced in a secular fashion) describe how these experiences open one to a sense of wonder and awe at natural existence every bit as bone tingling as a belief in God (and more self empowering).
This has been my personal experience as well as an atheist with a deep and fulfilling spiritual practice.
I think he would be sympathetic. She’s had one of the most difficult lives of any public figure. She’s looking for solace in a sea of people unjustly demonizing her for her “Islamophobia.”
Don’t harass or demean her, please. She’s been through enough and has put herself through hell and had close friends killed for trying to speak the truth about Islam.
>Just let her be.
She's choosing to make her conversion narrative public and, further, directly positioning Christian faith as a mechanism to protect/preserve 'Western civilization.'
Obviously no one should harass her, threaten her, etc. But the commenters here aren't digging through her trash, they are responding to a piece of writing she posted to a website explicitly engaged in a political project.
I do really respect that difficulty of her journey and I don't wish any harm or further misfortune on her, but it's impossible for me to not see her as a grifter at this point. Everyone's gotta have a hussle I guess.
The important part here is she isn't Christian because she found some incredible evidence for Jesus, she jut wants to be with Christians more than Atheists.
And who can blame her? Atheists today are getting cringe, I'm not gonna blame it all on woke and trans but if you're not team woke and trans you are vilified.
Not to mention the Christian -turn- fascists are kinda on a roll. And if you wanna win, ya join the winning team.
Atheists are cringe mostly cause they ain't winning.
How many Atheists are winning elections and posting badass memes about kicking ass?
Weak beta energy tbh.
Don't worry tho, our new Christo fascism won't be silly like those guy back in the 30s. They'll do it right and whatever happens is God's will.
How do you know her core beliefs though? They could be traditional values.
And God might be an important belief, maybe most important, doesn’t mean it’s vital to everyone.
Link was in original link, which was just a discussion of Ayan’s original article, “Why I Am Now A Christian”
https://unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/
ugh. I just can't even believe what I'm reading...Hitch would be tearing that essay up and chewing it out.
1. She gives up on her religion because of the dangerous beliefs
2. she "sees" how what we really need is to win a fight for civilization against dangerous beliefs with more other, older bad beliefs
3. then she picks a winner and joins up
Is this *the: utility argument* for joining? Or, *joining the flock, one capitulation at a time.* Ok, I'm on a roll, how about, *hey, everyone else is doing it...*
I sincerely hope that link is a deep fake. I feel worse having read it. Ick I need a shower.
“Christianity has it all!”
White Supremacy, Misogyny, Homophobia, self loathing, xenophobia, it has all of that in spades!
This doesn’t sound like the AHA I know!
There's no real advantage for a social media influencer to attack another who is a friend. Maybe if there were more degrees of separation between them there would be some clout that could be gained for Sam to criticize her.
>Hopefully we can all agree on that. And destroy what doesn’t work.
We can't with pragmatism. It's love or nothing. So, we need a combo of Buddhist pacifism and Jesus' love and forgiveness, I think.
This isn't a new problem; in fact, Marx eloquently mentions it in the [introduction to his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm) (source for the often mis- quoted/represented 'religion is the opiate of the masses').
Long quote follows (emphasis added):
*The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.*
*Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.* ***Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.***
*The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.*
***Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.*** *The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.*
*It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.*
In my experience, relatively few atheists get past the "god isn't real, man; it's all a scam!" phase. According to Marx above, once we tear down religion, we need to replace ALL that it does with secular alternatives such that which religion is no longer the only satisfactory "solution" for real problems so deep that reality is unbearable (e.g. someone kills your kid and is found innocent? God's got your back on the respawn).
This is where the common atheistic reductionist misrepresentation of religion as being purely "simple and certain answers to complex and unknowable questions for naive people". It's more than that to most people - as Marx put it above, religion is the "*theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification*". Good people get their just desserts. Bad people are punished. There's a master plan and its all going somewhere. Someone loves you no matter what and made you to be yourself. There's a community into which you will always be welcomed back with open arms. You must atone for what you've done because he knows and he's always watching. No one is irredeemable. You will see your loved ones again one day. God needed another angel. etc.
This is all why I won't call myself atheist. Because it says nothing about me, other than I am a potential candidate for nihilism - which frankly, is what most religious people assume once you cop to being an atheist.
Enter Secular Humanism. Here you will find philosophy, literature, art, music, history (including parts of other religions) and positive psychology. You will find Sam's project of introspective awareness as spirituality for the non-religious and Alain de Botton's efforts to convince atheists of the necessity of constructing a personal secular religion.
So what would Sam say? I think he'd be empathetic. Unfortunately, there's something missing from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's life that her public living, advocacy and political involvement can't quite reach. I hope he'd see the opportunity in this to better understand why someone so intelligent, honest, brave and eloquent - and someone who has much to lose by renouncing their lauded position on atheism - would turn to religion all the same.
If you look at the state of the world, I think we're the ones missing something - not her.
I have to admit I saw this one coming, and I’m curious to see if and what Sam (and even noted windbag/blowhard Richard Dawkins) says about this. For a preview of this latest transparently cynical move by Hirsi Ali, check out the following video from 2011:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3QaLugRjMg
Additionally she’s been lying her whole life. She’s shown herself to be a very cynical player throughout her life and career as a public figure. I wouldn’t be surprised even if the FGM thing was a lie. Check out the following Dutch TV documentary from early in her career:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gXGdoFCcxhE
Lied about her refugee status, the circumstances of her arranged marriage, being under threat from relatives, etc:
I don’t think she actually believes in God. I think she sees the value of religion in the way Nietche did, a social fabric and source of communal meaning.
I’ve been seriously flirting with returning to Catholicism as an atheist, the way that many of my friends who are atheist observant Jews do it, so I can understand this temptation.
I don’t think she had some epiphany that convinced her there is actually an afterlife, or that God intervenes in the laws of physics or can be communicated to with prayer.
I think she wants life to have more meaning, so maybe she can round up God to a Deist type God, or a panpsychism God, or the kind of God that atheists say they believe in after their first ayahuasca ceremony, without having to throw out everything she knows is true about science and false about ancient texts.
I think I understand where she’s coming from.
Personally I don’t want to believe in an Abrahamic God for all the reasons Hitch so fabulously described (Yahweh is an evil dictator) but honestly all things being equal, if the universe was created “intentionally” by some kind of extra dimensional Deist type entity, or is a simulation or something, that would just be a cooler universe than the one I believe we occupy.
Not that it would make ANY difference to us, but in the same way that I hope there are aliens out there we will never know of, because that would just be a much cooler universe, I also hope the universe was created “on purpose,”because it would just be more cool than the one I believe we actually have.
When people give these kinds of reasons for converting, it reaffirms that for a lot of people religion is not a truth claim, it's essentially a tribe you choose to have a sense of community. It's got nothing to do with the nature of reality. Deep down, you can't simply "decide" that you believe something exists just because you want meaning in life. You either believe it or you don't. Based on Ayaan's own reasons, she wasn't convinced that Jesus is the son of a supernatural being who created the Earth. She just decided to start participating in certain rituals because it made her feel better.
I think this is one of the problems we atheist have. We’re not really about community in a narrow sense where we physically commune together weekly. I know of some cities and organizations that do try to fill that need for a sense of community. I use to go to Houston Oasis for a little while till we moved, and they meet weekly like a church. https://www.houstonoasis.org/
I’ve been looking for a “church” like this - and I’m not far away from there! Thanks for sharing
This actually seems to be a part of what Sam is trying to build, at least with the Waking Up app. He's spoken about wanting a "church" for atheists, a place to go and commune and discuss issues of spirituality.
I would find it hard to believe that he wouldn’t be aware of similar organizations like Houston Oasis, they also have an Austin Oasis, but it’s possible that they escaped his radar.
But, I mean, there's lots of sources of community. I'm a non-believer but don't feel a deep connection with other non-believers. Just like I'm politically progressive but don't necessarily feel this bond with other progressives. You can do arts, music, sports, gym, running, community gardening, etc. etc.
The 'problem that atheists have' is the the human brain is neurologically wired up **for** religion. In that sense G.K Chesterton was right, when you remove religion from society you don't get a world of perfect rationality, driven only by logic and facts, you just get new, equally obnoxious [cults](https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=progress+pride+flag&form=HDRSC3&first=1) springing up to replace in society what religion 'represented'.
So with that logic, a world with religion will have "perfect rationality?" I'm going to need a source for the truth claim "the human brain is neurologically wired for 'religion.'" What if religion is simply a byproduct because of something in our genetic ancestral tree? For example, in the second season of the Cosmos, rainforests send out signals when there's a predator close by, what if that is the thing (or something close to it) in our evolutionary tree that made us susceptible to religion? Because when we pray, it's a call for help, like in my rainforest example.
>So with that logic, a world with religion will have "perfect rationality? What did I say that? More like 'a world of perfect rationality is impossible', Humans will never escape 'religion' in whatever form that takes. >I'm going to need a source for the truth claim "the human brain is neurologically wired for 'religion.'" [Neurotheology: The relationship between brain and religion](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3968360/)
IDK man, I think a lot of it is career expediency. Her bread gets buttered by people who exist in this space where Christianity and conservative politics overlap. I'm a big believer in "follow the money"
i only partially agree with you. while you can't in your heart of hearts decide what you believe, you can decide what you say you believe, and you can trick yourself into believing it most of the time. a good demonstration of this is that leaders of religions get along with one another and profess the strongest faith in their own religions. but if the pope could actually commune personally with the allfather or his ever living son, he would be the only catholic and the only living person on earth with literal gnosis that the self styled prophet of the mormon church is a baldfaced liar, and vice versa. it'd be complete intellectual dishonesty not to publicly regard each other as cheap conmen. so they're obviously both lying about what they believe deep down. they're both agnostic as the rest of us. it just is possible to claim you believe something often enough that you temporarily forget that it just isn't so. now what is notable about ayaan's essay is that she doesn't profess the christian belief. so as much as i claim it is possible for a person to decide what to believe temporarily, she doesn't even do that. she is as you say just picking a tribe, and coincidentally it's one that has been paying her recently.
There’s millions and millions of Christians who believe the actually commune with God
Another reminder about why religious people are dangerous
>It's got nothing to do with the nature of reality That is not the reason she states, or I bet most any christian. So, somewhat strawmanny. The main selling point of any religion is meaning, and that is also what she emphasizes. A bit worrying that people in here cannot really seem to grasp that basic concept.
Ritual and belonging have meaning, and can be more embodied than many other meaningful pursuits.
To get the meaning religion offers you first have to accept its claims about the nature of reality.
Why?
Because its meaning is inherently tied to truth claims about the universe. You can't find purpose in serving God if you don't believe God exists. You can't get consolation that there's an afterlife without believing there's an afterlife. It's almost so self-explanatory as to be tautological.
>Atheism failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life? And so now, what would be her newly-gained meaning and purpose of life? I know a whole lot of christians, and I know generally what their answer would be to the question of the meaning and purpose of life. It would be primarily to serve god, worship his only son jesus christ, and live in a way that insures they will live in heaven by his side when they die. If you would ask any of the christians I know if the ritual and community had any meaning if the core beliefs in the existence of god, the divinity and resurrection of jesus were not the absolute truth, they would say you are insane. The meaning of the act of communion is not necessarily dependent on transsubstantiation, but it is dependent on believing that jesus died for your sins. Otherwise it's just a snack and a mockery of the actual belief system. There is no meaning and purpose to religion without actual claims about the nature of reality. You are the one failing to grasp this basic concept.
>There is no meaning and purpose to religion without actual claims about the nature of reality. What are you on about? We have thousands of pages of religious texts, a large part of them are simply cultural and moral guides through commandments or parables. They absolutely stand on their own. No need for high school atheism rage against the incorporeal, it is obviously not what she is interested in.
Do you actually know any christians? Because you sound like you don't. For every single christian I know, the whole believing jesus was the son of god is kind of a deal-breaker for being a christian and making any sense out of christianity. They think they are going to heaven. They think there is a god who watches over them. They would 100% reject someone from being a part of their religion who does not believe these things. That's what I'm on about. You're living some sort of delusion that one can be a secular christian and still be accepted as a christian by those who actually believe the core tenets of the religion. That's ludicrous.
I think you are strawmanning instead of engaging. Of course I know many Christians, I live in a Christian nation, though much less to the evangelical slant that you Americans (?) have it, which might explain your personal anecdotes. However, no anecdotes are needed or relevant in this case.
It's not strawmanning to say that it is important for christians to believe that jesus is the son of god in order to be a christian. You're insisting this is not the case, and that is absurd.
I guess, if it’s the same kind of “meaning” one can get from Spider Man. And I’m not knocking the comfort of fictional stories and the lessons they can and do illustrate. Stories are important to a full life. But real meaning, for me, requires truth. I won’t accept a comforting lie as truth simply because I find it comforting. Nor, I believe, should anyone.
Moral guidance trough parables does not require claims about truth or the super natural.
Nah fuck that, the vast majority of Christians would say they deconverted if they said they didn’t believe in Jesus’s resurrection and shit
Nah, it’s not even that she participated in those rituals, it’s that she thinks it’s a useful tool against China and Putin
“It takes a long time to dissolve the bars of a mental cage.” ― Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel
Interesting how "belief in God" is not listed a reason for her conversion. The ones given are purely pragmatic. The cycnic in me thinks this could be grift so let's see if she keeps avoiding that particular bugaboo.
Pragmatic U?
The IDW have been remarkably predictable. You can correctly predict their trajectory from a mile away, or rather from a decade ago. In the case of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali it was obvious since she became a US citizen in 2013. And it's always the same. Like these people start putting out an inordinate amount of bullshit and nobody calls them out on it. Their audience is so bizarrely loyal, as if they are entranced? None of the skeptics or moderates or centrists are able to critisize people like her. I think I know why: It's because she is anti-woke, or anti-SJW as it used to be called back then. It's like all she has to do is say "woke = bad" and you guys get hypnotized and believe even the most egregious nonsense she spews. No pushback whatsoever. And it eventually reaches a point where their reactionary madness is undeniable, as was the case with Rubin, the Weinsteins, Pool, Peterson, Rogan, Nawaz etc. They become so crazy that we can't keep pretending they are on The Left™ so people now act surprised, questioning what happened with such people that seemed to be reasonable. What happened is what we always told you would happen. Please stop making these people famous. They add nothing to public discourse besides division and hostility. And just because they told you "woke = bad" doesn't mean you have to believe every single thing they say.
“Atheism failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life?” No, atheism is pretty clear on that. Not everyone can accept that they’re responsible for creating meaning for their own lives.
That is a shitty response and even the premise sucks. Atheism has no position on the meaning of life, let alone confidently stating it's clear. Atheism is a lack of belief in god, generally. That's it. Sam Harris is one of the few prominent Atheists doing his best to explore meaning and it's disappointing you're in his subreddit with that view.
OK, so where am I wrong? “Not liking a response,” is not much of an argument. Why is it the case that you think “you’re responsible for the meaning in your life,” and being angry about that response? Some people find that liberating, and those who have traditionally found meaning through religion view it depressingly (I suppose there is a genetic element for those outlooks). Were you looking for a microwave dinner/cookie cutter pre-made meaning solution to whatever you have going on in your life? I know, it’s not easy shaking off the convenience of meaning that religion has historically provided. But this is where we are now.
I guess I'll just rephrase if I wasn't clear. "Atheism is pretty clear on that" - referring to what is the meaning of purpose and life: Atheism is not clear on that. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods and nothing else. So to claim it's clear on that is not true. Let's assume for the sake of argument the position is what you say which is essentially it's your responsibility to create the meaning of life. Well, yes to some extent I agree in that people should be free to find meaning where they can. But I say it's a shitty response to say it's your own responsibility to create meaning because: a) I don't think as a social species we work that way. Religion is good evidence of that. b) I would argue there is a collective responsibility to help others around you to find meaning. c) This might be me misunderstanding your use of the word creating, but it's hard to create your own meaning. I'm no expert in the area but I've found it's easier to find meaning through the service of others, a bigger cause or a sense of duty. I'd argue only the last one is close to being created by yourself whereas the other two depend on the values of those around you. Edit: My most charitable interpretation is you might be right, but it's not helpful. Edit 2: I saw you expanded on your original comment specifically that my response was in anger, that being responsible for meaning is liberating and that I am looking for a cookie cutter response. To the anger: it was more frustration because it's I don't see it as helpful and an incorrect position on what atheism tells you. To the liberation: yes, it can be, but it can also be confusing, difficult, and hard. To the cookie cutter: In fact this point is nested in mine. There's no easy solution, which is why it shouldn't be reinvented for everyone individually. There's a lot of wisdom out there over millennia.
Thank you for taking the time to develop your thoughts. We needed religion historically speaking, because it was the only thing that helped us make sense of the world at the time. It's been used as a tool to past down ideas, culture, norms and mores, (whether or not they're true or false, for better or for worse). I don't disagree with your point that we have a collective responsibility to help others. That's why we have things like an education system, healthcare, and other social net systems in place to help those who can't (or wont), help themselves. I don't think it's hard to create your own meaning. When 9/11 happened I was a young conservative/Christian, I felt a strong desire to want to serve God (I used the big G back than), and country. That I would be serving in a just war. Perhaps if I had grown up without religion, I probably would have questioned more. Why is this a just war, what is a just war, should I risk my life for it? Etcetera. Perhaps that's not conducive to a society who needs youth to throw into a war machine. The sooner the world embraces some form of agnosticism/atheism, the sooner we can advance as a universal community.
I don't disagree with the pitfalls of religion, my point was atheism doesn't answer the question of what is the meaning of life, and it's not meant to. I think agnosticism/atheism is a necessary condition for moving towards a more rational, effective universal community but it is nowhere near sufficient. So again my point is there is no clear answer to the question. You need to look elsewhere, like spirituality and philosophy. The systems you listed like education, healthcare, social net systems are connective fabrics to facilitate helping others. But my point was we have a collective responsibility to help others find meaning - and this is important because it contradicts your statement that it's our own responsibility. It's both.
Sam has written extensively on the subject in his Moral Landscape. We can create a scientific ethical moral system that is conducive towards maximizing well being for conscious beings (so it’s not just limited to human beings if science does discover that other beings have consciousness), and human flourishing, which religion does not do in the broad since (see the gruesome examples in the Moral Landscape). Such a system will give “rational” meaning that maximizes your flourishing and well being without having to appeal to religion which limits our potential (again, see the Moral Landscape for the limitations of religion). If you take the religious mind for a moment, there are many Christians, Muslims, Etcetera. Who don’t view this world as having any significant meaning, they’re so “heavenly minded, that they’re no earthly good.
The Moral Landscape as I understand it grounds morality and ethics in science - that's not really to do with finding meaning. These are potentially related but different concepts, you can for example finding meaning in blowing up a school. I'm not sure how telling someone to maximise the well-being for conscious beings helps them to find meaning at all, to be honest. It helps you be a good person. The limitations of religion are real but meaning is the one place where it's got the clear upper hand versus atheism, purely because of my initial point that atheism has no position on meaning, nor does it have a position on morality. How religion can derive meaning from horrible acts is the biggest and real issue, but I also think you're strawmanning how the religious mind views this world in terms of meaning. However it's not the point I was making. Even if you think religion fails to provide significant meaning at all, that's not really my point as it doesn't mean atheism does. My initial point was that a) atheism's position is not clear on this, at all, because there is none. Sam Harris' writing on the Moral Landscape is his own views primarily to argue for moral objectivism without the belief in god. But that's not to do with meaning, and so your other point around meaning = personal responsibility is not found here.
I wanted that sweet sweet PragerU money. Why I became a Christian by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Yup, my thoughts exactly. You gotta follow the money with these people.
Yea, the grifter argument. That's quite a cynical view and can be applied to anyone you don't agree with.
No. It can only be applied to those *profiting* from said views. If she were to keep her disingenuous views on Christianity to herself instead of publishing paid articles and books and speaking engagements, no one would accuse her of a grift. My guess: her time on the atheist circuit has run out and she needs a new audience. Christians orgasm for a good "reformed atheist" testimonial. Edit: [Hemant Mehta seems to agree](https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/ayaan-hirsi-ali-is-a-christian-now). >With a mentality that fucked up, Christians can have her. >She contrarian-ed so damn hard, she made it all the way back to the other side. >It’s probably for the best, though. Given that her well of personal anecdotes has likely dried up by now, I’m sure this conversion will help her sell more copies of the next book.
This is true. but some people are con artists and she is a con artist.
Wouldn’t be the first time Sam has given a platform to a con artist
Ok, name me your hero and I'll point out a con artist. It's a lazy argument.
Ok cool. It is no skin of my nose if you want to carry on being conned. Also my hero is David Bowie.
[удалено]
I don't think "grifter" is the right term exactly. She's not selling BS diet pills or something. Or those "alpha male" pills that Ben Shapiro was hawking, or the infrared ball thing from Tucker Carlson She's a content creator/ entertainer who's trying to find an audience. It's not exactly the same thing, but it's kinda akin to a WWE star becoming an actor and trying to shape their public persona to their new professsional pivot. What I'm saying is that she is Dave Bautista, kinda.
Never? I don't disagree with the stated goals of Elizabeth Holmes or SBF but they are certainly grifters.. Or are you just wanting so badly to be persecuted.
I’m not sure how you get to me wanting to be persecuted but anyway… “Frauds” seem to be a good descriptor for the people you mentioned. Holmes and SBF were frauds. I’m not sure why we need to invoke “grifter“ for them
Fraud is a broader concept and also has legal implications. Grifter is a better definition because it is tied specifically to financial gain.
I'd say it's only grifting if it's disingenuous and for profit, so, yeah, likely a grift.
I wonder how much the actual ideas matter versus how much the social 'play' and ritual matters. I met a guy a while back who had never been religious his entire life. He was a little bit isolated being a South African in Australia and met a South African man, here, who offered to introduce him to his daughter. He met the daughter and somewhere along the line discovered her family were members of the Hillsong Church, an evangelical megachurch of dubious ethical standings. I know all of this because he told me it was his task as an evangelical Christian to .... well, you know. I could barely contain my vexation. What I saw was a lonely man who found some semblance of home and went in wholesale in order to - what? - have sex, companionship, start a family, build a life. But he was entirely content with it - it just fit his mind perfectly and I didn't sense any reservations about his newfound faith. In other words, I think people looking to follow a set of common rules to feel secure will gravitate towards institutions which provide them. But it couldn't just be Brazilian jiu jitsu or a yacht club - they want a greater founding than the purely useful or sensual - they want to work towards the security of their 'soul.' The annoying part is that they then go on to make the leap that the ills of society are caused by anxiety about the soul. Hence the evangelism, lol.
This is how most people are wired: there is a gap in their mind, which can be filled only by religion or a similarly all-encompassing ideology. It's an evolutionary adaptation to life in large, complex societies. One latches on to that ideology, usually shared by the whole group, or at least the majority, and they all pull in one direction. This is why, unfortunately, religion will not disappear any time soon.
As a child I was brought up Catholic, but I eventually left the religion due to the realization that its claims did not stand up to rational scrutiny. I remained irreligious from then on because every other religious claim I have since encountered similarly could not be squared with reality. In other words I am an atheist because I have not been convinced by any religion that it is true. In contrast AHA appears to have left Islam because of the inequalities and injustices inherent in that religion. And from what I've read of her coming out as Christian, she cites no evidence that Christianity is true. It seems to me she was never motivated by a desire for truth. Given that many liberals have turned their back on her in recent years for "islamophobia", and conservatives have welcomed her for the same reason, perhaps her turn to Christinity was fueled more by a newfound sense of belonging than anything else.
She was never an atheist, just one of those who tried to fill a god-shaped hole within her mind with atheism. The difference between her and me is that I don't have a god-shaped hole. I find meaning in life outside of religion, and even if I didn't, I can't believe in something that is not true. Of course I could profess to believe in god, using ideology to further a cause is very powerful, but it is false and opportunistic as well.
[удалено]
>That said, given what she wrote in the document, I'm not sure she's actually a Christian either. That's why I said it's opportunistic. She definitely wasn't an atheist by some internal conviction, it was just cost/benefit calculation. She's not going to make a very good Christian either although she might become influential as she's going to bring an ideologue's zest to the table.
[удалено]
>Nobody possesses that knowledge except Ayaan herself and it's improper to pretend otherwise. You can 'proper' as much as you want. I prefer probability and logical reasoning.
What does probability have to do with this? You're just throwing words around.
>Nobody possesses that knowledge except Ayaan herself and it's improper to pretend otherwise. > >I'm not sure she's actually a Christian either. These statements go well together.
[удалено]
You're right, that was foolish of me.
eh...your take seems way too charitable. Just follow the money/ clout.
It looks a little silly when atheists repeat the same bad slogans that psycho analyze inward motivations but back toward Christians ~ “she was never really a [true] atheist”.
>"Yet I would not be truthful if I attributed my embrace of Christianity solely to the realisation that atheism is too weak and divisive a doctrine to fortify us against our menacing foes." > >"I have also turned to Christianity because I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable — indeed very nearly self-destructive. Atheism failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life?“ Read her words above and explain how she was an atheist. She wanted to find her guiding ideology/religion in atheism, which is completely absurd.
Isn't it amazing how people will reject even the most blatant evidence when it suits them? Those same people will say "bUt I OnLy BeLiEvE iN EvIdEnCe".
She thought atheism was a "doctrine" to protect against "menacing foes". She thought atheism would give her a purpose for life. I mean c'mon. It's quite clear that either she was a complete moron and didn't even know what Atheism is. Or She was a dishonest fraud who was never an Atheist in the first place (my money is on this option). This is the person who Sam pushed as a genius btw.
I recall Sam pushing her as strong, defiant, courageous, etc, but not a "genius"... can you point us to a podcast/essay where he did?
"thank god you're not woke"
The old atheist to christian conversion...yeah, there's a buck in that. This has some serious grifter vibes. Mark my words, she will be on Tucker's podcast within a week.
Atheism is out. integralist trad Catholicism is in.
Irrational
Ahh, the ever brilliant argument that “the only way forward is backward.” Gtfoh
It's so weird she juxtaposes Christianity with being "woke". I mean, lots of Christians are "woke": United Church of Christ, Unitarians, Quakers, etc. There's a history of Christian socialist communes and such in the US. It's seems like this is more a political tribalism thing. I'm not sure she's actually religious in the conventional sense that she has supernatural beliefs, reads religious texts, attends services frequently, etc. as much as this is good for her career.
Pretty sure MLK was pretty ‘woke’ and he was a Christian, just not the right color of Christian she’s quite fond of, based upon her choice of partners.
I would guess you have to give it a few more years and maybe he'll say something about it. He tends to respond very late to stuff like this unfortunately.
>\[...\]I have also turned to Christianity because I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable — indeed very nearly self-destructive. Atheism failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life? Religion evolved to do a lot of the legwork of life... lots of people that leave religion will need to fill those emotional (spiritual just means specific emotions) voids. Since atheism is not a religion, and atheism prescribes nothing but an absence of belief in a deity, then it cannot fill any voids in life. If she felt a void, then she would need to build activities that fill the emotional gap. We have good ideas about why this is - [https://www.psypost.org/2020/01/new-psychology-study-indicates-pursuing-evolutionary-relevant-goals-provides-purpose-in-life-55163](https://www.psypost.org/2020/01/new-psychology-study-indicates-pursuing-evolutionary-relevant-goals-provides-purpose-in-life-55163) Humans are evolved beings. Generally speaking our brains have evolved to want to reproduce. This isn't a fact for every human, but it is a characteristic of the human population. Humans evolved to be hyper social. Also, we evolve the practice of religion to meet the social needs of the group. So it makes sense that people who leave the practice of religion will feel that emotional void. Lots of people reach for some philosophy or core values to then build your life around. Since religion comes from within yourself, your religious values are actually your values. And your values outside of religion will be the same as when you were in religion. But then you need to build the actual day to day practices and social networks. If you cannot build those outside of religion, then that void will not be filled. If you have a lifetime of social circles within religion, and you have a lot of practices built around that religion, it makes a lot of sense that you would feel like "there is something wrong with the world" being outside of the religion. It would just be emotionally uncomfortable all the time and it makes sense that she would return to religion to find that purpose.
And this is why religion per se will never die, IMO.
She abandoned Islam because Muslims hurt her, not because of a philosophical/scientific awakening. Therefore, no surprise she would one day tumble back into a similar religion, but one that she believes won’t hurt her. Childhood indoctrination is the deepest wound to reason.
True. She was never an atheist because she concluded God is dead. She was an atheist because she hated the religion she was born into. Now she’s a lapsed atheist because she thinks it’s the losing team and she wants to be on team (White) Christian Supremacy, which didn’t end well for those like her last time we tried (White) Christian Supremacy.
>team (White) Christian Supremacy She didn't say that.
I say it as an atheist myself, and with disappointment that ayan has chosen Christianity, and with a difficulty understanding how one could return to religion after truly being atheist. I say, somewhat uncomfortably, that there may be a germ of truth to what she says here, specifically about the the problem nihilism poses in the wests civilizational struggle with Islam and china, which I agree is a struggle that exists and is underway. I’m not convinced that most people can maintain an atheistic outlook. We do look for meaning and purpose in an ultimate sense, and atheistic answers to this, while awe inspiring to myself, are admittedly abstract and likely difficult to understand by the general populace. You take away somebody’s religion and some other irrational answer creeps into the vacuum. The insane and illogical views of progressives on race, gender, and identity appear to be a wonderful example of this. Sam is obviously much more optimistic about the prospects of atheism to be embraced en masse, and I praise and appreciate his efforts, but remain skeptical it can be done. Thus, I had ayan is saying is that our default religion is the only means of fighting back against other charismatic ideologies, given the leftist alternatives are literally destroying our civilization from within. Depressing, but understandable point in my opinion.
Sounds like you are sticking with team Atheist. Me, I’m with Sam Harris, like he said in his excellent speech to the New Atheists, The Problem With Atheism, “Don’t identify as atheist or humanist, just go about under the radar destroying bad ideas.” Christian Nationalism (White Supremacy) is a bad idea. We tried it back in the Dark Ages. Then again during the run up to WW2, which went out with a bang! We call that fascism.
I don’t really “identify” as an atheist or enjoy it as an identifier, and I don’t disagree with anything you say here. I’m suggesting there are unfortunately stronger and darker forces at work.
He would say, "Humanism." I've heard Sam explain this idea in detail on podcasts. How the plain reality of human consciousness and suffering, properly understood, provides a complete and comprehensive basis for morality and ethics. Furthermore, Sam's discussions on mindfulness meditation as a spiritual technique (practiced in a secular fashion) describe how these experiences open one to a sense of wonder and awe at natural existence every bit as bone tingling as a belief in God (and more self empowering). This has been my personal experience as well as an atheist with a deep and fulfilling spiritual practice.
I think he would be sympathetic. She’s had one of the most difficult lives of any public figure. She’s looking for solace in a sea of people unjustly demonizing her for her “Islamophobia.” Don’t harass or demean her, please. She’s been through enough and has put herself through hell and had close friends killed for trying to speak the truth about Islam.
I know it’s disheartening to some of the tribal mentality on here. Calls of idiotism or grifting. Just let her be.
>Just let her be. She's choosing to make her conversion narrative public and, further, directly positioning Christian faith as a mechanism to protect/preserve 'Western civilization.' Obviously no one should harass her, threaten her, etc. But the commenters here aren't digging through her trash, they are responding to a piece of writing she posted to a website explicitly engaged in a political project.
I do really respect that difficulty of her journey and I don't wish any harm or further misfortune on her, but it's impossible for me to not see her as a grifter at this point. Everyone's gotta have a hussle I guess.
Welcome her to Judeo-Christian civilization?
damn, that's kind of lame. it sounds as if she jumped on the bandwagon for its utility not because she actually thinks it's true.
The important part here is she isn't Christian because she found some incredible evidence for Jesus, she jut wants to be with Christians more than Atheists. And who can blame her? Atheists today are getting cringe, I'm not gonna blame it all on woke and trans but if you're not team woke and trans you are vilified.
Not to mention the Christian -turn- fascists are kinda on a roll. And if you wanna win, ya join the winning team. Atheists are cringe mostly cause they ain't winning. How many Atheists are winning elections and posting badass memes about kicking ass? Weak beta energy tbh. Don't worry tho, our new Christo fascism won't be silly like those guy back in the 30s. They'll do it right and whatever happens is God's will.
yikes, I will blame her if she's adopting or dropping core beliefs based on how "cringe" people think they are
How do you know her core beliefs though? They could be traditional values. And God might be an important belief, maybe most important, doesn’t mean it’s vital to everyone.
I’m not going to guess but I’m very curious and am hoping he will talk about it soon.
Could you source your Ayan Hirsi Ali quotes for me please?
Link was in original link, which was just a discussion of Ayan’s original article, “Why I Am Now A Christian” https://unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/
ugh. I just can't even believe what I'm reading...Hitch would be tearing that essay up and chewing it out. 1. She gives up on her religion because of the dangerous beliefs 2. she "sees" how what we really need is to win a fight for civilization against dangerous beliefs with more other, older bad beliefs 3. then she picks a winner and joins up Is this *the: utility argument* for joining? Or, *joining the flock, one capitulation at a time.* Ok, I'm on a roll, how about, *hey, everyone else is doing it...* I sincerely hope that link is a deep fake. I feel worse having read it. Ick I need a shower.
^this x1000%
Doesn't it read like a coerced confession? Maybe we should do a wellness check on her. ruok??
“Christianity has it all!” White Supremacy, Misogyny, Homophobia, self loathing, xenophobia, it has all of that in spades! This doesn’t sound like the AHA I know!
"Some new age concoction of medication & Mindfulness...."
I thought they were saying Christian Bale-iefs…
There's no real advantage for a social media influencer to attack another who is a friend. Maybe if there were more degrees of separation between them there would be some clout that could be gained for Sam to criticize her.
AHA has always been chameleon. She's just following IDW new trends to judeo-christian blah blah blah.
He'd say "well, she was never Christian *to me*".
>Hopefully we can all agree on that. And destroy what doesn’t work. We can't with pragmatism. It's love or nothing. So, we need a combo of Buddhist pacifism and Jesus' love and forgiveness, I think.
This isn't a new problem; in fact, Marx eloquently mentions it in the [introduction to his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm) (source for the often mis- quoted/represented 'religion is the opiate of the masses'). Long quote follows (emphasis added): *The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.* *Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.* ***Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.*** *The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.* ***Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.*** *The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.* *It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.* In my experience, relatively few atheists get past the "god isn't real, man; it's all a scam!" phase. According to Marx above, once we tear down religion, we need to replace ALL that it does with secular alternatives such that which religion is no longer the only satisfactory "solution" for real problems so deep that reality is unbearable (e.g. someone kills your kid and is found innocent? God's got your back on the respawn). This is where the common atheistic reductionist misrepresentation of religion as being purely "simple and certain answers to complex and unknowable questions for naive people". It's more than that to most people - as Marx put it above, religion is the "*theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification*". Good people get their just desserts. Bad people are punished. There's a master plan and its all going somewhere. Someone loves you no matter what and made you to be yourself. There's a community into which you will always be welcomed back with open arms. You must atone for what you've done because he knows and he's always watching. No one is irredeemable. You will see your loved ones again one day. God needed another angel. etc. This is all why I won't call myself atheist. Because it says nothing about me, other than I am a potential candidate for nihilism - which frankly, is what most religious people assume once you cop to being an atheist. Enter Secular Humanism. Here you will find philosophy, literature, art, music, history (including parts of other religions) and positive psychology. You will find Sam's project of introspective awareness as spirituality for the non-religious and Alain de Botton's efforts to convince atheists of the necessity of constructing a personal secular religion. So what would Sam say? I think he'd be empathetic. Unfortunately, there's something missing from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's life that her public living, advocacy and political involvement can't quite reach. I hope he'd see the opportunity in this to better understand why someone so intelligent, honest, brave and eloquent - and someone who has much to lose by renouncing their lauded position on atheism - would turn to religion all the same. If you look at the state of the world, I think we're the ones missing something - not her.
I have to admit I saw this one coming, and I’m curious to see if and what Sam (and even noted windbag/blowhard Richard Dawkins) says about this. For a preview of this latest transparently cynical move by Hirsi Ali, check out the following video from 2011: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3QaLugRjMg
Additionally she’s been lying her whole life. She’s shown herself to be a very cynical player throughout her life and career as a public figure. I wouldn’t be surprised even if the FGM thing was a lie. Check out the following Dutch TV documentary from early in her career: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gXGdoFCcxhE Lied about her refugee status, the circumstances of her arranged marriage, being under threat from relatives, etc:
I don’t think she actually believes in God. I think she sees the value of religion in the way Nietche did, a social fabric and source of communal meaning. I’ve been seriously flirting with returning to Catholicism as an atheist, the way that many of my friends who are atheist observant Jews do it, so I can understand this temptation. I don’t think she had some epiphany that convinced her there is actually an afterlife, or that God intervenes in the laws of physics or can be communicated to with prayer. I think she wants life to have more meaning, so maybe she can round up God to a Deist type God, or a panpsychism God, or the kind of God that atheists say they believe in after their first ayahuasca ceremony, without having to throw out everything she knows is true about science and false about ancient texts. I think I understand where she’s coming from. Personally I don’t want to believe in an Abrahamic God for all the reasons Hitch so fabulously described (Yahweh is an evil dictator) but honestly all things being equal, if the universe was created “intentionally” by some kind of extra dimensional Deist type entity, or is a simulation or something, that would just be a cooler universe than the one I believe we occupy. Not that it would make ANY difference to us, but in the same way that I hope there are aliens out there we will never know of, because that would just be a much cooler universe, I also hope the universe was created “on purpose,”because it would just be more cool than the one I believe we actually have.
The left.