Hoover Institution discussion ... about God?

[TomF]

The Hoover Institution has several series of round table discussions and interviews which they publish both as long-form podcasts and YouTube videos.

They usually have prominent but very conservative guests - with whom I mostly disagree profoundly, but who I often want to read or listen to, even when I disagree. Because they're intelligent, influential in the culture, and it's important to me that I challenge my preconceptions, and avoid mischaracterizing what others think.

Yesterday, they released a roundtable conversation with Tom Holland (historian, not actor), Stephen Meyer, and Douglas Murray. They discussed a wide range of issues in the relationship between science, theism, and culture, which tipped a hat to Dawkins' 2006 The God Delusion, but focused on how science and discussion have proceeded in the decade and a half since.

Of the 3 (dunno about Hoover's moderator), only one (Stephen Meyer) calls himself a Christian in a conventional sense. And I found his stuff deeply suspect - versions of Intelligent Design. In contrast, Murray is an affirmed atheist, and Holland's agnostic.

Tom Holland makes the argument from his 2019 book Dominion that those of us who live and function in the Western culture, whether or not we're aware of it, are as goldfish swimming in the water produced by Christianity. Even secularism is a concept which has its origins in Christianity - modern secular atheism of the Dawkins type is essentially a continuation of the Protestant Reformation, using the same dynamic to eject theism while retaining its cultural products which Protestant reformers used to eject Catholicism while retaining the culture.

Starting at about 40:20 in the video. Holland goes farther than I'd heard him take this before, to a different conclusion. In response to the charge from modern secular and scientific atheism that the belief in God is weird and mad, Holland doesn't disagree - but says:

Holland: It's not as though secular liberals, whether they're atheist, agnostic or whatever aren't equally capable of believing weird, mad things .... I would say that also very odd is, say, a belief that human beings have rights, the idea that human rights exist.

Most people in the West believe in human rights, but human rights don't exist objectively. I mean, they're as fantastical as believing in Angels. And their origins are very specifically rooted in Christian theology. [The concept] is formulated by the lawyers who are in the wake of the great revolution of the 11th and 12th Century who are trying to construct a fabric or framework of law for the Christian people, and they look to the scriptures and they see that Christ teaches that those who are rich should give shelter and food and water and clothing to the poor. And they deduce from that the instinct that the poor therefore have rights to these things. And this sets in train this incredibly fertile notion that human beings have rights.

Now, people today are very reluctant to face up to the idea that this is a very culturally contingent idea rooted in Christian theology, medieval Catholic theology. And so they'll say you'll find [the concept of] human rights are in China or Greece or Rome or whatever, but it isn't.

And what I have found, meditating and reflecting on the incredible inheritance of Christian theology and practice and liturgy and all kinds of things is that I want to believe in the things that I believe in as a secular humanist.

I want to believe in human rights.

And if I can believe in that, there are times where I think that I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. If I can believe in human rights, then why can't I believe in Angels?

Then later (about 43:15 and following) Holland says:

Holland: I have found the experience of immersing myself in the history of Christianity and the examples of Christian history often to be unsettling; you know, it often is. But I think why do I? And even when I'm unsettled by Christian history, I realize that it's for Christian reasons. If I'm unsettled by the Inquisition, it's because they are killing innocent .. you know it's powerful people killing an innocent person. And why am I revolted by that?

Meyer: The cruelty of the ancient world, the Greco-Romans would not have worried about those same types of events in the way we do?

Holland: Well, as Dostoyevsky in his great great story about the Inquisitor. Christ, you know... If you as an atheist enshrine the Inquisition as a model of something horrific, it's for Christian reasons. It's because you are shaped by a culture that has had an innocent person put to death by a state apparatus.

And so ... therefore ... I feel that the kind of the bundle of my instincts, my beliefs, my presumptions are generated by this incredibly mysterious Christian inheritance, and I am very open to accepting that there is a strangeness there that I don't want to deny.

What do you think?

[Nicholas Carey]

I dunno about God, but the indented block quotes don't show up in Tapatalk.

[TomF]

I dunno about God, but the indented block quotes don't show up in Tapatalk.

Dang. OK, here they are, un-indented.

Starting at about 40:20 in the video. Holland goes farther than I'd heard him take this before, to a different conclusion. In response to the charge from modern secular and scientific atheism that the belief in God is weird and mad, Holland doesn't disagree - but says:


Holland: It's not as though secular liberals, whether they're atheist, agnostic or whatever aren't equally capable of believing weird, mad things .... I would say that also very odd is, say, a belief that human beings have rights, the idea that human rights exist.


Most people in the West believe in human rights, but human rights don't exist objectively. I mean, they're as fantastical as believing in Angels. And their origins are very specifically rooted in Christian theology. [The concept] is formulated by the lawyers who are in the wake of the great revolution of the 11th and 12th Century who are trying to construct a fabric or framework of law for the Christian people, and they look to the scriptures and they see that Christ teaches that those who are rich should give shelter and food and water and clothing to the poor. And they deduce from that the instinct that the poor therefore have rights to these things. And this sets in train this incredibly fertile notion that human beings have rights.


Now, people today are very reluctant to face up to the idea that this is a very culturally contingent idea rooted in Christian theology, medieval Catholic theology. And so they'll say you'll find [the concept of] human rights are in China or Greece or Rome or whatever, but it isn't.


And what I have found, meditating and reflecting on the incredible inheritance of Christian theology and practice and liturgy and all kinds of things is that I want to believe in the things that I believe in as a secular humanist.


I want to believe in human rights.


And if I can believe in that, there are times where I think that I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. If I can believe in human rights, then why can't I believe in Angels?


Then later (about 43:15 and following) Holland says:


Holland: I have found the experience of immersing myself in the history of Christianity and the examples of Christian history often to be unsettling; you know, it often is. But I think why do I? And even when I'm unsettled by Christian history, I realize that it's for Christian reasons. If I'm unsettled by the Inquisition, it's because they are killing innocent .. you know it's powerful people killing an innocent person. And why am I revolted by that?


Meyer: The cruelty of the ancient world, the Greco-Romans would not have worried about those same types of events in the way we do?


Holland: Well, as Dostoyevsky in his great great story about the Inquisitor. Christ, you know... If you as an atheist enshrine the Inquisition as a model of something horrific, it's for Christian reasons. It's because you are shaped by a culture that has had an innocent person put to death by a state apparatus.


And so ... therefore ... I feel that the kind of the bundle of my instincts, my beliefs, my presumptions are generated by this incredibly mysterious Christian inheritance, and I am very open to accepting that there is a strangeness there that I don't want to deny.

[Peerie Maa]

Do Human Rights not devolve from Altruism?
Altruism can be explained by natural selection

Societies, from way back, had and valued ethical behaviors. Human Rights just puts those concepts in flowery legalese.
The Golden Rule is more succinct.
P.S. The Golden Rule predates Christs teaching, it is at the core of Judaism as well.
Maybe the agnostic is putting on airs to be interesting?

[skuthorp]

"Tom Holland makes the argument from his 2019 book Dominion that those of us who live and function in the Western culture, whether or not we're aware of it, are as goldfish swimming in the water produced by Christianity."

As a long time unbeliever I agree with that. Despite having atheist grandparents on one side and secular parents more or less I was definitely brought up swimmig in that soup. And as a beneficiary of that 'soup' I have had the luxury of choice, and knowing what the choices were.
And of course everything is relative.

[TomF]

Nick? Holland's historian's eye says no.

He's a Cambridge (I think, though could be Oxford) educated historian specializing primarily in the Greco-Roman classical period. He's read all of the extant primary and secondary sources - taught himself ancient Greek at a level to publish his own translations of some. The values of Greek and Roman antiquity are not the values of modern secular humanism.

If altruism were sufficiently explained by natural selection, it would perforce have been normative in those civilizations, and all others. And it wasn't.

[TomF]

I will suggest that folks listen to the last 5 minutes or so of the video, if you're concerned that Holland is somehow evangelizing. The host and at least one of the other guests really push him to avow Theism of some type, to step away from agnosticism, on his own arguments.

Holland won't go there.

He retains the ambiguity in his own personal commitment to Faith, to Theism, while doggedly arguing that pretty much all that he holds to be most important in his secular humanism is inherited from Christian theology and practice.

I find it almost tragic, personally.

[Peerie Maa]

Nick? Holland's historian's eye says no.

He's a Cambridge (I think, though could be Oxford) educated historian specializing primarily in the Greco-Roman classical period. He's read all of the extant primary and secondary sources - taught himself ancient Greek at a level to publish his own translations of some. The values of Greek and Roman antiquity are not the values of modern secular humanism.

If altruism were sufficiently explained by natural selection, it would perforce have been normative in those civilizations, and all others. And it wasn't.

I'll bet that the ethical systems deriving from evolved altruism did exist within the tribe, the city state, the network of Patronage and extended families. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. We all benefit. That and discouraging criminal behavior.
The hypothesis of evolution of altruism is new, so I would not expect a Professor of Grecian and Roman history to be up to speed on the topic and how it might be applied to the societies that he studies.
IIRC Dawkins did not credit altruism when he wrote The Selfish Gene, but now does so.

[TomF]

You may be right, Nick, but frankly I'd be surprised if Holland were not up to speed in that respect.

Even had he not been while writing his 2019 book, he's been in very high demand giving public lectures and debates and etc. with prominent Christians and Atheists alike ever since it came out - many of which are on YouTube. The issue couldn't help but arise.

His point is that the places where prominent secular humanists argue that they find evidence of human rights or etc. manifesting in various other cultures in various other parts of the world .. don't stand up to rigorous historical scrutiny. The "Golden Rule" is certainly restated in slightly divergent iterations, but nowhere is there the full-on reversal of "might is right" which is the literal crux of (Judeo-) Christian theology, and its aspirational place in the subsequent Western cultural legacy.

[Peerie Maa]

You may be right, Nick, but frankly I'd be surprised if Holland were not up to speed in that respect.

Even had he not been while writing his 2019 book, he's been in very high demand giving public lectures and debates and etc. with prominent Christians and Atheists alike ever since it came out - many of which are on YouTube. The issue couldn't help but arise.

His point is that the places where prominent secular humanists argue that they find evidence of human rights or etc. manifesting in various other cultures in various other parts of the world .. don't stand up to rigorous historical scrutiny. The "Golden Rule" is certainly restated in slightly divergent iterations, but nowhere is there the full-on reversal of "might is right" which is the literal crux of (Judeo-) Christian theology, and its aspirational place in the subsequent Western cultural legacy.

Humans are tribal, Clannish. The them and us issue. The really enlightened extend the ethic further now that education and the speed of communications have increased. In the past, the clan or tribe was smaller.
I have seen a discussion where the "neighbor" as in Love thy neighbor as thyself, applied only to your immediate circle of acquaintances. Neighbors were literally from the same temple and village.
Anyone else was fair game.
That makes evolved altruism closer to those sharing blood ties.

[peb]

I watched it, fascinating discussion. One may disagree with some of Murray's politics, but one cannot say he doesn't make you think. Holland was truly brilliant. Meyer held us own just fine. As usual, Peter Robinson is very prepared as an interviewer. I do believe Robinson is Catholic, but can't swear by that.
All four are English educated men, there must be something to be said for Cambridge and oxford.

[peb]

Holland's point on the difference between communism and fascism was very well made.

[George.]

Most people in the West believe in human rights, but human rights don't exist objectively. I mean, they're as fantastical as believing in Angels. And their origins are very specifically rooted in Christian theology. [The concept] is formulated by the lawyers who are in the wake of the great revolution of the 11th and 12th Century who are trying to construct a fabric or framework of law for the Christian people, and they look to the scriptures and they see that Christ teaches that those who are rich should give shelter and food and water and clothing to the poor. And they deduce from that the instinct that the poor therefore have rights to these things.

I like Tom Holland, but this is not so.

First of all, human rights are not shelter and food and water for the poor. They are things like freedom and personal inviolability. Christians were quite satisfied with giving alms for the poor while accepting serfdom, slavery, and brutal treatment by the powerful.

Human rights were conceived of during the Enlightenment, at the same time as Christianity was rejected in favor of theism, deism, or atheism. You can't discuss human rights if you believe an all-powerful Lord can dispose of them arbitrarily.

Beyond that, more people had more freedom in Greek and Roman societies than in Christian ones. And the Romans famously had the grain dole, land grants, public baths and aqueducts, and other programs to guarantee that everyone (except for slaves, of course) had food, water, and shelter.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Doesn't "do unto others as you would have them to do unto you" cover everything we need to understand about Human rights?

[George.]

Sure it does, but...

The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one wants to be treated. Various expressions of this rule can be found in the tenets of most religions and creeds through the ages.^[1] It can be considered an ethic of reciprocity in some religions, although different religions treat it differently.
The maxim may appear as a positive or negative injunction governing conduct:

• Treat others as you would like others to treat you (positive or directive form)^[1]
• Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)
• What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathetic or responsive form)

The idea dates at least to the early Confucian times (551–479 BCE), according to Rushworth Kidder, who identifies the concept appearing prominently in Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and "the rest of the world's major religions".^[2] As part of the 1993 "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic", 143 leaders of the world's major faiths endorsed the Golden Rule.^[3][4] According to Greg M. Epstein, it is "a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely", but belief in God is not necessary to endorse it.^[5]

[George.]

and

Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at, appears in the story of "The Eloquent Peasant", which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."^[9][10] This proverb embodies the do ut des principle.^[11] A Late Period (c. 664–323 BCE) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."^[12]

and then there is what PM pointed out about reciprocal altruism.

[Keith Wilson]

Most people in the West believe in human rights, but human rights don't exist objectively. I mean, they're as fantastical as believing in Angels.

Nah. People who believe in angels think they actually exist, like trees or rocks. 'Human rights' are ideas about how people should treat each other, what we should do and not do. While I'm as much in favor of them as anyone, they certainly have no objective existence. We can decide to behave in accordance with them, or not.

[TomF]

I'd put a caveat around that, Keith (and George); some people certainly think that things like human rights are merely subjective ideas about how we should treat each other.

The language used to describe them, however, is far more Platonic than Aristotelian. Less a notion of ideas describing functional agreements, and more a description of an actual status - true whether or not it is respected by people's behavior.

While it's a valid point of divergence to suggest that the Platonists are mistaken, the Platonists really believe that they aren't. An Aristotelian could argue that human rights aren't simply objectively true in the same manner as, say, gravity. After all, not accounting for the law of gravity has rather impartial but predictable effects. A Platonist might respond, however, that there are also predictable negative impacts when human rights aren't observed - typically experienced throughout the broader society. It's exactly such negative impacts that advocates of responsible democratic institutions track when they make contrasts with authoritarian societies.

One can decide to not believe in the independent existence of some principles governing behavior, which have measurable impacts whether or not one believes in them. It's worth noting though that rejecting the concept doesn't only reject the formulation that Holland and others may make, linking such principles to a religious or philosophical legacy, but paradoxically also rejects the kind of formulation proposed by the "it's evolutionarily adaptive" supporters.

[Keith Wilson]

. . . but paradoxically also rejects the kind of formulation proposed by the "it's evolutionarily adaptive" supporters.

Nah. I'm 100% convinced that we have evolved tendencies to behave in certain ways, some of them more benign than others. Reciprocal altruism is real enough, some aspects of morality are probably evolutionarily advantageous, and humans are better at cooperating at large scales than any other species this side of bees, but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is NOT an evolved feature of the human mind. 'Is' and 'ought', ya know?

[Peerie Maa]

I'd put a caveat around that, Keith (and George); some people certainly think that things like human rights are merely subjective ideas about how we should treat each other.

The language used to describe them, however, is far more Platonic than Aristotelian. Less a notion of ideas describing functional agreements, and more a description of an actual status - true whether or not it is respected by people's behavior.

While it's a valid point of divergence to suggest that the Platonists are mistaken, the Platonists really believe that they aren't. An Aristotelian could argue that human rights aren't simply objectively true in the same manner as, say, gravity. After all, not accounting for the law of gravity has rather impartial but predictable effects. A Platonist might respond, however, that there are also predictable negative impacts when human rights aren't observed - typically experienced throughout the broader society. It's exactly such negative impacts that advocates of responsible democratic institutions track when they make contrasts with authoritarian societies.

One can decide to not believe in the independent existence of some principles governing behavior, which have measurable impacts whether or not one believes in them. It's worth noting though that rejecting the concept doesn't only reject the formulation that Holland and others may make, linking such principles to a religious or philosophical legacy, but paradoxically also rejects the kind of formulation proposed by the "it's evolutionarily adaptive" supporters.

It seems to me that what we think of as Human Rights have evolved through time, just as the God that many believe in has also evolved through time.
Then Caxton invented the printing press, and political thinkers were able to disseminate, debate, and harden up their ideas.

[TomF]

Thanks for the thoughts, folks - I've not the time/energy to really think through what you've written, and see what shifts in my ideas yet. But I appreciate you putting your stuff out there.

[WI-Tom]

I am skeptical of any claims that morality is dependent on religion. More than skeptical, actually. I think that claim is pretty much dead wrong. It's a narrative that appeals to religious people for obvious reasons, but I don't buy it.

I think what has happened, both within religion and in the secular sphere, is a gradual expansion of the tribe throughout history--that is, a growing willingness to include the "other" among those we consider deserving of basic fundamental "rights." These "rights" are every bit the human/social/cultural constructions that religions themselves are. But I see no reason to believe that the presence of such rights in the secular sphere is somehow a result of religion.

It's a common claim, though--"no morality without religion." It just happens to be untrue.

Tom

[Keith Wilson]

I am skeptical of any claims that morality is dependent on religion. More than skeptical, actually. I think that claim is pretty much dead wrong.

Religion can certainly affect how people behave, for better or worse, like other ideas people hold. But the idea that without religion, people would be without morality is obviously hogwash.

I think what has happened, both within religion and in the secular sphere, is a gradual expansion of the tribe throughout history--

HEY! That's my copyrighted phrase; you owe me royalties!

[sandtown]

If the Hoover's said that the sky is blue, I would go outside and check.

Here is their take on the insurrection - it made me gag.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/07/03/w...rectionists-2/

[TomF]

to be honest, I was interested in the conversation because of Tom Holland's participation, not because of who hosted the conversation.

[WI-Tom]

Religion can certainly affect how people behave, for better or worse, like other ideas people hold. But the idea that without religion, people would be without morality is obviously hogwash.

HEY! That's my copyrighted phrase; you owe me royalties!

Yep, I knew I heard that somewhere before... Check's in the mail!

Seriously, the wording is yours, but I think so, too. (Though I think you reach more optimistic conclusions than may be warranted by that fact).

Tom

[sandtown]

The ancient pre-Christian Stoics developed the concept of human rights well before Christianity.

And other societies did so as well.

Holland is even mentioned in this essay . . .

https://areomagazine.com/2019/01/31/...he-individual/

The intellectual tradition of the Hoovers includes the idea that it is OK to not tell the truth.

And I do not like them very much.

[J.Madison]

The op is basically just a high minded version of the tired old idea that all morality comes from religion. Not true. He is not uncomfortable with the murders of the inquisition for "christian" reasons, he is uncomfortable with murder because he doesn't want himself or family to be murdered and has basic empathy for others. Just like chimpanzees do.

[Chip-skiff]

When I had a fellowship at Stanford, I'd walk by the Hoover Institution twice a day.



It reminded me of the Dark Tower of Mordor.

[sandtown]

When I had a fellowship at Stanford, I'd walk by the Hoover Institution twice a day.

It reminded me of the Dark Tower of Mordor.

Wow, now that is scary !! Good Post !!

[skuthorp]

"The intellectual tradition of the Hoovers includes the idea that it is OK to not tell the truth"
A lie as in a reply to 'Does my but look too big in this?' is OK
A lie for political or private gain is definitely not! 'free speech' notwithstanding, it's fraud.
And an court supporting such lies are complicit in the act, and in condoning more of the same.

[sandtown]

"The intellectual tradition of the Hoovers includes the idea that it is OK to not tell the truth"
And an court supporting such lies are complicit in the act, and in condoning more of the same.

I did not invent that charge - many right wing philosophical heavyweights make that very argument . . .

Check out the Straussians for example - but at least they are honest in their elitist distain for the masses' right to the truth.

[Bob (oh, THAT Bob)]

OP: All this means, is that while Holland rejects Christ as a deity, he agrees with him as a philosopher, which is also my view, as a non-christian, non-other-organized religion athiest/agnostic. And I think there are other good philosophies to be gleaned from some other beliefs. My feeling is that society should keep the parts of religion dealing with objective ethics and fellowship with other (ALL) human beings, and reject all the hokey beliefs that were invented in the lack of science to explain them. Science has a much better record than all faiths.

We have good theories on the origin of our universe, or at least this "cycle" of it (IIRC, there's a theory that the universe expands, until it doesn't, then contracts(?)). But prior to Big Bang, how can time have no beginning? How can the universe extend to infinity, and if not, what lies beyond? Big questions, to put it mildly. But just because we don't have the answers, doesn't mean there must be a god behind it. Doesn't mean there isn't a god; That would be the same mistake as the deists, imparting a belief in the absence of facts. It simply means *we don't know, we lack yet an understanding*. Which means, I *would* argue, that we should be spending time on the sabbath, helping others with the means of existence (preferrably the most needy and not just those in our "club"), rather than chanting prayers and songs to the sky. Because to me, that makes the most objective sense.

[John Smith]

Do Human Rights not devolve from Altruism?
Altruism can be explained by natural selection

Societies, from way back, had and valued ethical behaviors. Human Rights just puts those concepts in flowery legalese.
The Golden Rule is more succinct.
P.S. The Golden Rule predates Christs teaching, it is at the core of Judaism as well.
Maybe the agnostic is putting on airs to be interesting?

Would I be wrong to think the less religion, the more rights individuals have?

I seem to be the world's only 'irrelevantist'. I don't see the existence or non existence of God as relevant. If he never gets involved in the affairs of humans, his existence is simply not relevant. If he exists, and if he cares, he could render guns inoperable inside houses of worship. He could make those houses of worship fireproof. He could help a witness tell the truth.

When I bring these things up, I am told that he never gets involved in the affairs of humans. Does that not make him irrelevant?

[John Smith]

Nah. People who believe in angels think they actually exist, like trees or rocks. 'Human rights' are ideas about how people should treat each other, what we should do and not do. While I'm as much in favor of them as anyone, they certainly have no objective existence. We can decide to behave in accordance with them, or not.

Human rights are, in some places, determined by religious beliefs. Look at what women are going through in Iran.