I recently watched a video on Youtube (see here) in which two eminent intellectuals, the author Tom Holland and the philosopher AC Grayling, debated whether Christianity had given the West its human values with the former saying it had and the latter denying that. It actually struck me as a fairly pointless argument. Of course, Christianity made the West what it was and, of course, there were other influences involved, most notably Classical civilisation. They also discussed whether humanism was a form of Christianity, just one without God, with the first saying it was and the second disputing that, pointing to Greek antecedents and maintaining that similar beliefs had arisen elsewhere, most obviously in India and China. But since humanism arose in a profoundly Christian world here again the conclusion seems obvious. On one level, it may be innate to human beings. It would be strange if it were not given human beings, all of them not just Christians, are made in the image of God. But, on another, in its developed form it only took hold in the Christian world. It seemed to me that what CS Lewis called the Tao was available to men everywhere, which no one would question, but Tom Holland was saying the West had something more than the Tao and it got that from Christianity.
I agree with Tom Holland. Any other position seems perverse to me, the mind believing what the emotions or the will want it to believe. Besides this is surely not the question. The question should be, is Christianity true? Was Christ the Son of God, the Logos? Is salvation, meaning salvation from the world, the flesh and the devil, attained through Christ? Can we be raised to a higher state of being through Christ? When you put the matter like this, it is not whether the West was formed by Christianity that matters. It's whether we can be transformed in and by and through Christ. That is the only question that really matters in life. And the answer is yes. For when you come down to it, Christianity has something that no other religion has. Yes, there are similar teachings elsewhere but no other religion has Christ and it is the person of Christ that is the essential and critical spiritual truth even more than the teachings. "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" means what it says.
18 comments:
William, yes that was an interesting debate.
Tom Holland is one of those rare non-believers who truly wishes he could believe. I hope he gets his wish some day.
The only place he really faltered was when Grayling asked him just what new thing Christianity brought. His answer was so weak that I can't actually remember what he said! The command to Love thine enemy would have been a good response. So often people mix up this Golden Rule that Christ brought with the various "Silver" Rules of reciprocity that existed in earlier times.
I think it was something about monogamy. I agree it was very feeble. Your suggestion is much better. But the new thing really was Christ himself and the resurrection.
Whenever I see Grayling talk he's very persuasive but he also seems to demonstrate what I call the serpentine mind in which a smooth and clever articulateness covers up a spiritual vacuum.
If he was able to say the Resurrection - then he might have already got his wish!
The coming of God to Earth, His Death and Resurrection to redeem Mankind so far surpasses anything else that it stands alone and cannot be listed alongside other "things".
You describe Grayling very well indeed. But the days of the atheist philosophers are numbered. Holland, despite his lack of belief - outshone him in every department.
@william - why not contact Tom Holland and the other chap online to take up the conversation? It might be what they need to move forwards? And you could learn something new also perhaps?
I often wonder if more of these 'analyses' posts of other other bloggers/thinkers, is an invitation to discussion in waiting, assuming the person being analysed is alive.
2 reasons why not, David.
One, TH and ACG are big names and would have no interest talking to me.
Two, my assumed position is that God is real and that's the foundation of everything. I can't really go back to a position of debating whether that is true or not. It would just be an intellectual argument and no one has yet been able to prove intellectually that God exists. I don't think we are meant to do that. We have to move beyond the intellectual mind to begin to approach the spiritual.
I can't really go back to a position of debating whether that is true or not.
Very true William. For a while I was drawn to watching the "Unbelievable" youtube channel. The host Justin Brierley has some good qualities. But whilst it may be useful for some agnostic types to watch - I do find the atheist guests increasingly tiresome.
We already know the truth - and need no further convincing!
We already know the truth - and need no further convincing!
Exactly!
I take your second point but would contest the first:
"One, TH and ACG are big names and would have no interest talking to me."
That sounds a bit like a self-fulfilling prophesy. An assumption, that there is no possibility of changing positively influencing a 'big names' mind. I would put it to you, that if we make these kinds of assumptions without trying then potentially a very valuable opportunity could be lost. I don't assert this as a maxim, but an intuition born from personal experience. Sometimes only the right conversations/contacts with a specific person can make an enduring influence. Sometimes that positive spiritual influence only matures long after -sometimes several years - after a discussion/argument/call it what you will. But then, you know this already.
Well, the second point was the main one! I do feel that you can only change someone's mind if that person wants their mind to be changed and most people just want to argue their position. As the Masters told me, mind can argue for any position but truth can only be known. If anyone is to come to spiritual belief there has to be a stirring within that person pushing him in that direction. Atheists like Grayling do not have that though Tom Holland very possibly does from what Moonsphere says.
It was Tom Holland I felt was possibly ripe for a productive conversation. The earlier comment about his seemingly wanting Christianity to be true struck me as encouraging.
Many of the believers that appear on these debates - even the most eloquent, perhaps especially those - leave me cold. They forever lean on academic research, proving the credentials of this person or that. I feel absolutely no resonance with any of it.
My believe came overnight, many years ago - a full transformation - the full nine yards and beyond.
I take no credit - it is the most precious gift in my life.
Looking back upon it - the belief came first. The details came second.
I have called it a "moment of neutrality" - that is all it takes.
As you intimated earlier William - to be a non-believer requires an active resistance.
Hi Moonsphere, I apologise for being so direct. But your statement, "My belief came overnight, many years ago - a full transformation - the full nine yards and beyond" does not ring true for me. Yes, I agree you experienced a moment where peace and love surpassed all knowledge but to then say, "a full transformation" occurred for you, I am very wary of that. I don't think that is possible.
Kirstie, clearly Moonsphere is talking about faith in the reality of God not some state of spiritual perfection. It's not really for anyone else to dispute that especially on the internet where we don't know the person.
Thank you for pointing that out, William.
My apologies again, complete novice on blogs!
@Kirstie Just to clarify - by "full transformation" I was referring to an ability to believe. I would certainly make no claims to my spiritual advancement!
I once had an email conversation with A. C. Grayling, initiated by him, in response to some posts of mine that were critical of his work, so he at least is perfectly willing to interact with the hoi polloi. I don’t know anything about Tom Holland.
Post a Comment