Have you perchance been possessed by the spirit of your tutelary daemon, Stephen Fry, I wonder? While I can sympathise with your antipathy towards simplistic and patronising assertions of Christian faith, I must confess myself surprised by the “imaginary friend” take, which I assume is just clickbait. Irrational belief in an imaginary friend really wouldn’t have been sufficient to fuel the philosophical, literary, political and broadly cultural movements of Jewish, Christian or Islamic society over the millennia. Nor was God conceived of as a “being,” even the “supreme” one, until the late 13th century, which in my view is where the rot set into the western philosophical tradition. The claim that secular countries, including France, are spiralling into chaos because of their rejection of any absolute metaphysical Good perhaps deserves more attention than you give credit. The spectres of Rousseau and de Sade, mediated by Foucault, hover behind many of the more destructive and anti-conservative aspects of the Enlightenment, not least in their native land, and the exorcism of God from the public square is as important a part of their modus operandi as that of their Marxist heirs. I remain unconvinced that conservatism, unless by that term one really means liberalism, is intellectually sustainable without a metaphysical absolute to undergird it. Allow me to come back to this more fully in due course. And I mean to be neither patronising nor sarcastic when I say, may the God in whom you do not believe bless you! And please do keep writing your impressively erudite political posts, which are always so informative.
My dear Tom, I hold my hands up to a shade of frustrated clickbait. As I say, and you know, I have several friends possessed of deep faith (often hard won), and I am happy for them (and you!), and I don’t take the view that Hitchens and maybe Fry (and once upon a time Dawkins?) did/do that religion is and must be pernicious and destructive. Certainly terrible acts have been committed in the name of all sorts of religion, but then Stalin and Mao, who top any list of history’s mass murderers, were atheists, so religion is not unique. But I am deeply concerned by the notion I keep finding (I do not for a moment accuse you of it) that conservatism is essentially unsupportable without Christianity, or without faith. It must have a moral code, certainly, but I would argue (I almost said “believe”!) that it is possible to have such a code, a notion of right or wrong, without faith or spirituality. Atheism need not, though it certainly can, bleed into moral relativism. I’m delighted to have Christians (and those of other faiths) in the trenches alongside me, but they are not uniquely qualified nor is my presence somehow less valid as an atheist. And, as I say, even if none of this were true, conservatism cannot be tied to a dying demographic, which British Christianity undoubtedly is at the moment (and I see no cause to think the sharp trend will reverse suddenly). In the end, though, we should all talk, freely, confidently, passionately and with tolerance. We will get through this and I don’t think centre-right politics are dead. They’re just… not very well. E
A comment on "I think the whole basis of Christianity, while it embodies many admirable virtues, is based on a fallacy, the idea that there is a supreme being and that a 1st-century AD radical Jewish agitator was the manifestation on earth of that supreme being. "
If by 'supreme being' you intend some thing which, if we could search the whole cosmos, we could find, or in the absence of finding, conclude that it doesn't exist --- then, I assert that there is no supreme being.
I intend by 'God', being itself, 'He-who-is'. It is faith that leads me to seek a kind of conversation with He-who-is and to assert that He-who-is is love.
This debate is part of a long and ancient conversation, and I admit that my words are inadequate -- and I can well see why some people find apophatic theology frustrating.
Good-bye and bless you.
Martin
(A postscript on 'Jewish agitator'. While some find Jesus of Nazareth's folksy parables and paradoxical method annoying, lots of people accept that he is prophetic, at least in the broad sense of making some incisive criticisms of the current order.
Trinitarian Christians, _pace_ not only atheists but also Unitarians, preach that this Christ crucified was *both* a bloke *and* the Word of God.)
My dear Eliot
Have you perchance been possessed by the spirit of your tutelary daemon, Stephen Fry, I wonder? While I can sympathise with your antipathy towards simplistic and patronising assertions of Christian faith, I must confess myself surprised by the “imaginary friend” take, which I assume is just clickbait. Irrational belief in an imaginary friend really wouldn’t have been sufficient to fuel the philosophical, literary, political and broadly cultural movements of Jewish, Christian or Islamic society over the millennia. Nor was God conceived of as a “being,” even the “supreme” one, until the late 13th century, which in my view is where the rot set into the western philosophical tradition. The claim that secular countries, including France, are spiralling into chaos because of their rejection of any absolute metaphysical Good perhaps deserves more attention than you give credit. The spectres of Rousseau and de Sade, mediated by Foucault, hover behind many of the more destructive and anti-conservative aspects of the Enlightenment, not least in their native land, and the exorcism of God from the public square is as important a part of their modus operandi as that of their Marxist heirs. I remain unconvinced that conservatism, unless by that term one really means liberalism, is intellectually sustainable without a metaphysical absolute to undergird it. Allow me to come back to this more fully in due course. And I mean to be neither patronising nor sarcastic when I say, may the God in whom you do not believe bless you! And please do keep writing your impressively erudite political posts, which are always so informative.
My dear Tom, I hold my hands up to a shade of frustrated clickbait. As I say, and you know, I have several friends possessed of deep faith (often hard won), and I am happy for them (and you!), and I don’t take the view that Hitchens and maybe Fry (and once upon a time Dawkins?) did/do that religion is and must be pernicious and destructive. Certainly terrible acts have been committed in the name of all sorts of religion, but then Stalin and Mao, who top any list of history’s mass murderers, were atheists, so religion is not unique. But I am deeply concerned by the notion I keep finding (I do not for a moment accuse you of it) that conservatism is essentially unsupportable without Christianity, or without faith. It must have a moral code, certainly, but I would argue (I almost said “believe”!) that it is possible to have such a code, a notion of right or wrong, without faith or spirituality. Atheism need not, though it certainly can, bleed into moral relativism. I’m delighted to have Christians (and those of other faiths) in the trenches alongside me, but they are not uniquely qualified nor is my presence somehow less valid as an atheist. And, as I say, even if none of this were true, conservatism cannot be tied to a dying demographic, which British Christianity undoubtedly is at the moment (and I see no cause to think the sharp trend will reverse suddenly). In the end, though, we should all talk, freely, confidently, passionately and with tolerance. We will get through this and I don’t think centre-right politics are dead. They’re just… not very well. E
A comment on "I think the whole basis of Christianity, while it embodies many admirable virtues, is based on a fallacy, the idea that there is a supreme being and that a 1st-century AD radical Jewish agitator was the manifestation on earth of that supreme being. "
If by 'supreme being' you intend some thing which, if we could search the whole cosmos, we could find, or in the absence of finding, conclude that it doesn't exist --- then, I assert that there is no supreme being.
I intend by 'God', being itself, 'He-who-is'. It is faith that leads me to seek a kind of conversation with He-who-is and to assert that He-who-is is love.
This debate is part of a long and ancient conversation, and I admit that my words are inadequate -- and I can well see why some people find apophatic theology frustrating.
Good-bye and bless you.
Martin
(A postscript on 'Jewish agitator'. While some find Jesus of Nazareth's folksy parables and paradoxical method annoying, lots of people accept that he is prophetic, at least in the broad sense of making some incisive criticisms of the current order.
Trinitarian Christians, _pace_ not only atheists but also Unitarians, preach that this Christ crucified was *both* a bloke *and* the Word of God.)