![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/305\/2024\/05\/540px-Slavoj_Z%CC%8Ciz%CC%8Cek_2015_closeup.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nYesterday we posted about people who do not believe in God but are not atheists.\u00a0 Today we are posting about atheists who (sort of) believe in Christianity.<\/p>\n
Many intellectuals are taking to heart the scholarship of Tom Holland, whose book Dominion:\u00a0 How the Christian Revolution Remade the World<\/a> shows how the humane and democratic values that we take for granted today and that virtually all sides agree on\u2013such as human equality, the value of peace over war, compassion for the weak, etc.\u2013derive from Christianity alone and cannot be found in classical paganism or anywhere else.\u00a0 Those intellectuals typically do not believe in God, but they recognize the importance of that Christian legacy, especially as it is currently being threatened by radical Islam and the new illiberal authoritarianism.<\/p>\n So they are claiming that, while they are atheists, they are \u201ccultural Christians.\u201d\u00a0 Even Richard Dawkins, one of the most prominent of the \u201cNew Atheists\u201d of a few years ago, recently said<\/a>, \u201cI call myself a cultural Christian. I\u2019m not a believer, but there\u2019s a distinction between being a believing Christian and being a cultural Christian.\u201d\u00a0 He went on to say that \u201cIf I had to choose between Christianity and Islam, I\u2019d choose Christianity every single time. It seems to me to be a fundamentally decent religion in a way that I think Islam is not.\u201d<\/p>\n I like the rejoinders quoted at Breakpoint<\/a>: \u201cRod Dreher\u00a0<\/span>pointed out<\/span><\/a> that for Dawkins to claim he likes cathedrals and Christmas carols but is glad church attendance is declining is like saying he enjoys eating but is glad his country\u2019s farms are closing.\u201d\u00a0 And Tom Holland<\/a> said, \u201cS<\/span>ecularism & Dawkins\u2019 own brand of evangelical atheism are both expressions of a specifically Christian culture\u2014as Dawkins himself, sitting on the branch he\u2019s been sawing through and gazing nervously at the ground far below, seems to have begun to realise.\u201d<\/p>\n My fellow Patheos blogger Michael Jimenez<\/a>, in the post I referenced in our Friday discussion \u201cThen I Prefer My Mother<\/a>\u201d put me onto another \u201cChristian atheist\u201d whose concerns are actually philosophical, even (sort of) theological, the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj \u017di\u017eek<\/a>.\u00a0 He is a true atheist, a dialectical materialist and a Communist, no less.\u00a0 But he also draws on what he sees as the philosophy of the Apostle Paul and emphasizes the doctrine of God\u2019s incarnation in Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s let Wikipedia<\/a> explain his tortured thinking:<\/p>\n \u017di\u017eek has asserted that \u201cAtheism<\/a>\u00a0is a legacy worth fighting for\u201d in\u00a0The New York Times<\/a><\/i>.\u00a0 However, he nonetheless finds extensive conceptual value in\u00a0Christianity<\/a>, particularly\u00a0Protestantism<\/a>: the subtitle of his 2000 book\u00a0The Fragile Absolute<\/i>\u00a0is \u201cOr, Why Is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For?\u201d. Hence, he labels his position \u2018Christian Atheism<\/a>\u2018,\u00a0and has written about theology at length.<\/p>\n In\u00a0The Pervert\u2019s Guide to Ideology<\/a><\/i>, \u017di\u017eek suggests that \u201cthe only way to be an Atheist is through Christianity\u201d, since, he claims, atheism often fails to escape the religious paradigm by remaining faithful to an external guarantor of meaning, simply switching God for natural necessity or evolution. Christianity, on the other hand, in the doctrine of\u00a0the incarnation<\/a>, brings God down from the \u2018beyond\u2019 and onto earth, into human affairs; for \u017di\u017eek, this paradigm is more authentically godless, since the external guarantee is abolished.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So only through Christ can anyone be \u201cauthentically godless\u201d!<\/p>\n \u017di\u017eek has just published a book to this effect: \u00a0Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 Here is\u00a0the editorial description from Amazon:<\/p>\n Slavoj \u017di\u017eek has long been a commentator on, and critic of, Christian theology. His preoccupation with Badiou\u2019s concept of \u2018the event\u2019 alongside the Pauline thought of the New Testament has led to a decidedly theological turn in his thinking. Drawing on traditions and subjects as broad as Buddhist<\/a> thought, dialectical materialism, political subjectivity, quantum physics, AI and chatbots, this book articulates \u017di\u017eek\u2019s idea of a religious life for the first time.<\/p>\n Christian Atheism<\/span>\u00a0is a unique insight into \u017di\u017eek\u2019s theological project and the first book-length exploration of his religious thinking. In his own words, \u201cto become a true dialectical materialist, one should go through the Christian experience.\u201d Crucial to his whole conception of \u2018experience\u2019 is not some kind of spiritual revelation but rather the logic of materialistic thought. This affirmation of Christian theology whilst simultaneously deconstructing it is a familiar \u017di\u017eekian move, but one that holds deep-seated political, philosophical and, in the end, personal import for him. Here is \u017di\u017eek\u2019s most extensive treatment of theology and religion to date.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And here is the table of contents from the publisher<\/a>:<\/p>\n Introduction: Why True Atheism HAS to be Indirect<\/p>\n 1. Let a Religion Deplete Itself Conclusion: The Need for Psychoanalysis<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What strikes me from this odd melange is his Chapter 5, with the Latin saying \u201cNeither man, nor God, nor nature.\u201d\u00a0 As I understand him, \u017di\u017eek seeks an atheism and a materialism completely ungrounded by anything, with no \u201cexternal guarantor of meaning.\u201d\u00a0 We ought to ground ourselves neither on man (as the humanists do), on God (as religious people do), nor on nature (as the scientific rationalists do).\u00a0 Presumably, this is the atheist version of walking by faith.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n2. Why Lacan is not a Buddhist
\n3. From Superpositions to Athings
\n4. The Sacred, The Obscene, and the Undead
\n5. Neque Homo Neque Deus Neque Natura
\n6. Why Politics is Immanently Theological<\/p>\n