The Atheist Who's More Christian Than He Thinks | Tom Holland
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ค. 2023
- In this Clip, John and Tom Holland discuss Friedrich Nietzsche and his understanding of how Christianity has influenced our modern morality. Holland makes the case that although modern atheists position themselves in opposition to Christianity, they underestimate how much their own morality is depended on uniquely Christian ethics.
Watch the full conversation here: • The Making Of The West...
Tom Holland is an award-winning historian, author and broadcaster. He is the author of many award-winning books on topics ranging from Ancient Rome and the Persian Empire to the origins of the Islamic faith. Despite his non-belief, Holland’s most recent book, Dominion, is a sweeping account of the impact of Christianity on foundational Western institutions, constitutional norms, morality and social outlooks. It is one of the most compelling histories of Christendom yet written.
Tom Holland served two years as the Chair of the Society of Authors and is Chair of the British Library’s PLR Advisory Committee. Holland is the presenter of BBC Radio 4’s Making History. He has written and presented a number of TV documentaries, for the BBC and Channel 4, on subjects ranging from ISIS to dinosaurs. He is also the host of a widely popular history podcast called The Rest Is History.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversations feature John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, interviewing the world's foremost thought leaders about today's pressing social, cultural and political issues.
John believes proper, robust dialogue is necessary if we are to maintain our social strength and cohesion. As he puts it; "You cannot get good public policy out of a bad public debate."
If you value this discussion and want to see more like it, make sure you subscribe to the channel here: / @johnandersonconversat...
And stay right up to date with all the conversations by subscribing to the newsletter here: johnanderson.net.au/contact/
Follow John on Twitter: / johnandersonac
Follow John on Facebook: / johnandersonac
Follow John on Instagram: / johnandersonac
Support the channel: johnanderson.net.au/support/
Website: johnanderson.net.au/
Podcast: johnanderson.net.au/podcasts/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow Tom Holland
Twitter: holland_tom?ref_s...
The Rest Is History Podcast
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/7Cvsbcj...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
Tom Holland is one bloke i could listen to with rapt attention, love his books, thanks for having him on John.
I always felt that Nietzsche was one of the most misunderstood, especially (and understandably so) since his ideas were adopted and repurposed in use of supporting fascism and nihilism but I always saw his ideas as more of a warning of nihilism rather than an encouragement of it, especially after his ideas were subverted.
Don’t forget that the man ended up losing his mind.
> "fascism and nihilism"
The two are the opposite. Nietzsche considered Christianity a nihilistic doctrine _par excellence,_ hence Hitlerism was a measured response to that.
- Adûnâi
@@angamaitesangahyando685 They're two different things which can unfortunately go hand in hand when pursued (or co-opted) ideologically rather than philosophically, The Fascist Nazi's decided to read Nietzsche like an ideological instruction manual (they were Germans) instead of as a warning or ideas to simply consider/ponder......which in itself should be a warning against turning philosophical ideas into non-questioning ideology. Mao Zedong had generally well regarded philosophical musings (and a really well respected calligraphic style) but then you consider what they were used for and/or turned into.
@@johnschuh8616 So did Tesla, overloaded perhaps? (or perhaps due to the type of illnesses which can now be cured with penicillin).
@@secretgoldfish My comment got yeeted, yay! Mao Zedong expelled the Christians from China and Korea.
- Adûnâi
An interesting conversation. Christianity is more than a philosophy, an idea or an organisation. Without the Resurrection there is no Christianity just people doing good deeds
I find it sad that Christianity has so little to stand on.
Dude I promise you if u are genuine with acknowledging your bias (we all struggle with our own personal bias, it is what it is) and apply yourself to researching what genuine Christianity is, you’ll see why people have solid reason to their faith. I hate to be that guy that feeds scripture in TH-cam comments but… cmon this is too easy.
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”
Matthew 7:7 NIV
Without Jesus, it'd be Judaism ... What you are referring to is the New Testament. The Old would still be there, with the 1st five books basically being the Torah (aka by Christians the Pentateuch/Tanakh) simply speaking.
@@KevinSolway I find it sad that you have NOTHING to stand on at least I have a path you have.......nothing not even a path just sand.
God Bless
@@firstorder438 The path is broad, but people love to be sidetracked.
I love John and Tom and I can’t wait for the whole episode
Good talk
Why do you compare Dawkins with Nietzsche. The latter was genious.
He was off his face on drugs ... he lived in a fantasy world
@@pablorages1241 "He was off his face on drugs ... he lived in a fantasy world"
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Agreed. Dawkins is a great evolutionary biologist, but he's so far out of his depth when it comes to the evolution of religion on our emerging conscious that its embarrassing.
Lol clearly disrespecting the great Dawkins. Smh
@@anthonybrett The Will to Power ... the guy was an idiot off his rocker ... he just used verbose language to describe simple concepts to make himself sound intellectual just like the post modernist fools
I think many Nietzsche fans would disagree with the interpretation and what I would ask is this - if that's all he was getting at, then why bother repeating it? It's lightweight. Really liked the part on the logical conclusion of protestantism. Post-modernism as the logical conclusion of Socrates would have been quite Nietzschean.
They probably would disagree with it because they don't understand what they're a fan of.
I think Tom must have been reading David Bentley Hart, in at least, helping him to come to the conclusions he does.
Well Hart is great to listen to and a fun read.
We are all now so busy being clever and sophisticated - we too have been indoctrinated into the woke mind set of contempt and we too will pay and pay and pay. The grace of God is still available to all who seek Him however.....Blessings and appreciation to you John Anderson.
Lol
I'm not sure who you are calling woke.
Put this guy in a cowl and he’s a spot on monk with that homegrown hair job lol
Where do you get the golden rule?
The mind of a man.
@@Sal3600 the mind of which man in particular?
Golden rule was called it because it is somehow found in majority for world religions even though most of them conflict one another, the rule seems to be there. And it shows the consistency of morality that humans are supposed to be caring about others as they care about themselves.
@@jhedjoardumago7691 which implies that there is an ultimate, universal and definitive truth. If so many disparate cultures have this concept in some way, that is not an invalidation of One definitive truth and good, but rather more proof of it imo.
Peter Hitchen, the brother of Christopher but a Christin, says something like this: that unless you accept the Resurrection, then justice is a meaningless concept.
So what? I don't accept the resurrection, and yet the concept of justice still has meaning for me. Looks like Peter Hitchens was wrong.
@@studlord9970 So what. if everything reduces to a matter of power then the strong will take what they want from the weak.
@@johnschuh8616 The strong DO take what they want from the weak. What is your point?
@@studlord9970ffs atheist are shallow think deeper.
But is that wrong, and if so, why? Or is it good, and if so why?@@studlord9970
Good on you John returning to the radical idea of God coming in human flesh, being crucified on the cross and rising from the dead, Tom was implying its all superstition and looked embarrassed by showing his materialist side.
Is it bad that I thought Tom Holland was the actor Tom Holland, and that's why I picked the video. But good interview regardless. 👍🏽
From 2:20 to 2:47 is genius.
As I recall Erich Heller wrote, Nietzsche was the most religious of writers. That seems to dovetail with Holland's assessment.
"The people who walked in the dark shall see light" - christian idea through and through?? The Christians went back in time and whispered words to Plato when he wrote the story of Cavern? I think not. Or, if he's reffering to some verses of a psalm, i find it wrong to label it as Christian without also stating it was originialy jewish idea that Christians adopted.
Christ is both for the jew first, and then the gentiles. So Christianity is totally jewish
It shows that the French and the Russian Revolutions misinterpret the Cross: it's not that the victim is now the victor over the torturer, but that through the Cross there is peace between the victim and the torturer. Peace.
Absolutely fascinating. We should think beyond the silly supernatural aspects of religion, and recognise that the symbolism in Christianity is radical and powerful. We should be asking "why is it so powerful?", and ""how do we ensure we dont lose that power?". Instead secularists ridicule it for trivial reasons.
Perhaps we should start by not being too dismissive about it as "silly"?
What is silly about it? Christianity and the Bible gives us a moral framework. To focus on how these messages are conveyed is silly.
To opine that a snake can't have a conversation with a woman is to completely miss the point.
And the issue with atheists isn't whether or not they can believe preposterous things (like a man in a dress being a woman), they simply don't want to adhere to any moral system.
In short, the atheist is just in rebellion.
@@zgobermn6895ndeed, I would use far stronger words to dismiss religion and deity as completely mental insanity. Spirituality is the only real thing the great majority have not have the slightest notion of what that is.
Claiming right over morals ethics values and all that by Christianity is a false claim.
@@zgobermn6895 the vast bulk of atheists have rejected Christianity because rational thinkers know that the supernatural doesn't exist. The idea of the physical resurrection of Jesus is as silly as fairies at the bottom of the garden. Yet Tom Holland is right when he says that Christianity, the biblical stories interpreted as metaphors, has powerful meaning. All Christianity has to do to align with science is to stop with the supernatural nonsense and the literal translating.
It’s not complicated to understand why it’s successful but to attempt to deconstruct and cherry pick the “magic” is to negate the reasons for its effectiveness to begin with .
Without Christianity, Nietzsche, qua philosopher, wouldn't exist. Almost his entire philosophy was an attempt to negate Christianity. Thus, he was parasitical on Christianity, as were the French existentialists - in both language and content... As for "modern atheists", people like Richard Dawkins have freely admitted that they owe much to Christian traditions and history. This is something which the Deconstructionist Derrida also happily accepted. So there's an element of tilting at windmills here.... Also, many critics would pick up on a few other things here - though I wouldn't necessarily agree with them. Tom Holland attempts to separate Nazism from Christianity. However, for the past 90 years or so, many Marxists - and others on the Radical Left - have stressed the connections. As for Nietzsche and the Nazis, many "scholars" are keen to tell us that the Nazis perverted Nietzsche and misunderstood him, just as they attempt to separate Martin Heidegger from the Nazis. My own view is that many Nazis were deeply anti-Christian. Some were Christian. There was a subtle interplay here. And I actually see Nazism embedded in various of Heidegger's *philosophical* views, not only in his private life and political affiliations. As for Nietzsche, of course the Nazis were inspired by him. But that doesn't mean that they attempted to be loyal to his every word.
Yeah it’s Nietzsches fault he wasn’t born in Ancient Greece so he could pre empt Christianity taking over thus polluting his philosophy.
I agree, I like Tom Holland but he takes things a bit too far.
Ok, so because something was once pervasive, it should always stick around? We have oodles of literature, philosophy, art, and science to immerse ourselves in, to learn from, to be inspired by. It ain't "Christianity or bust".
@@wet-read Who are you replying to? Your reply comes after my comment, but I didn't argue that "because something was once pervasive, it should always stick around".
Your Christian forefathers built thermonuclear fire bombs to roast civilians by the millions. And used them. Christianity is bent on annihilation of truth and beauty because it’s based on a known lie, an act of intellectual violence against oneself: you MUST accept that Jesus died (a human man) and was resurrected and ascended into heaven. This is so childishly absurd that whoever accepts it commits themselves to all kinds of falseness and evil, calling them Truth and Good.
It doesn't mean anything to call Nietzsche an atheist without specifying which kind of God he doesn't believe in.
Maybe listen again and see if you recognise the term Christian!
@@KelvinWilson53 Different Christians have different conceptions of God. Many Christians believe that God is some kind of conscious being. Many don't.
@@KevinSolway what do you believe ?
@@KelvinWilson53 God is the All. It is not a conscious being like ourselves. God is the alpha and the omega. The beginning and the end. Everything.
@@KevinSolwayGod is a relational being, as seen multiple times in the Bible He communes with Abraham, got wrestled by Jacob, etc. Jesus came down in a body, bore by a woman, and made relationships.
God is alive. Any "christian" who thinks otherwise is a christian by title, not by gospel.
There was a dutch pastor named Klaas Hemdrikse who was an atheist. So it doesn't seems strange to me that the modern atheist position is one comming from christianity, especially protestantism.
The modern atheist is using science as its Church. The rituals are in schools, with the classic changeovers at around 7,12, 14, (18) 21. Just lik the hedens did and the christians did afterwards. The modern priest is the 'scientist' and the bischops are the 'experts'. The mirracle, even useless and its effects invissable for the 'heresees' , are vaccines and ESG interventions. But only the enlighted ones can clearly see what the real problems are and all the others are fools who wander in the dark, they are WOKE. They sell a new heaven, and it is reachable, also for the sinners, if you confess your sins and adopt the univeral and true faith, represented by a collorfull flag, that what is known as science, but that is rather be called scientism since a lot of the propositions are rather unempirical (gender ideologie, climate change, equality, economic interventions,etc...). If you addopt that faith you shall reach this heaven, but the heretics must be transofromed or even liquidated (cancel culture) because heaven is in this worldly place, in this physical realm. To reach this heaven you need to do bad things, you need to destroy to rebuild afterwards. Like the communists did, like the nazi's did.
The scientific method replaces the discernment of salvation.
I describe myself as a protestant atheist, just because one doesn't believe in sky fairies doesn't mean throwing the good elements of a culture system of belief and way of life.
Without God the good elements of a culture become just one of many options and immediately lose ground to populist ideologies of ruthless power. Christianity is so radical and demands such individual restraint that no one would ever consider it or practice it deeply enough to see the beauty in it without first recognising that there is a God. Unfortunately for some it has not yet been possible to throw out the bathwater without the baby in this context, you can't just keep the parts of Christianity you want and throw out God. It doesn't work.
Rules without consequences are just suggestions. You've thrown it all out.
@@bobhill4364 Much more concise.
Nietzsche mocked atheists of your kind. Once you cut a flower (the good) from its stem/roots (belief in God that is the ground of the Good), it will eventually wither and die. That's exactly what's happening in western societies today. Nietzsche got it right. Modern day atheists still hold on Christian values while dismissing its faith in God. IOW, sentimental atheism is parasitic.
@@bobhill4364 consequences worse world, worse life.
I shall go back a bit, and tell you the authentic history of Christianity.-The very word “Christianity” is a misunderstanding-at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The “Gospels” died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the “Gospels” was the very reverse of what he had lived: “bad tidings,” a Dysangelium.[14] It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in “faith,” and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian.... To this day such a life is still possible, and for certain men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will remain possible in all ages.... Not faith, but acts; above all, an avoidance of acts, a different state of being.... States of consciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything as true-as every psychologist knows, the value of these things is perfectly indifferent and fifth-rate compared to that of the instincts: strictly speaking, the whole concept of intellectual causality is false. To reduce being a Christian, the state of Christianity, to an acceptance of truth, to a mere phenomenon of consciousness, is to formulate the negation of Christianity. In fact, there are no Christians. The “Christian”-he who for two thousand years has passed as a Christian-is simply a psycho logical self-delusion. Closely examined, it appears that, despite all his “faith,” he has been ruled only by his instincts-and what instincts!-In all ages-for example, in the case of Luther-“faith” has been no more than a cloak, a pretense, a curtain behind which the instincts have played their game-a shrewd blindness to the domination of certain of the instincts.... I have already called “faith” the specially Christian form of shrewdness-people always talk of their “faith” and act according to their instincts.... In the world of ideas of the Christian there is nothing that so much as touches reality: on the contrary, one recognizes an instinctive hatred of reality as the motive power, the only motive power at the bottom of Christianity. What follows therefrom? That even here, in psychologicis, there is a radical error, which is to say one conditioning fundamentals, which is to say, one in substance. Take away one idea and put a genuine reality in its place-and the whole of Christianity crumbles to nothingness!-Viewed calmly, this strangest of all phenomena, a religion not only depending on errors, but inventive and ingenious only in devising injurious errors, poisonous to life and to the heart-this remains a spectacle for the gods-for those gods who are also philosophers, and whom I have encountered, for example, in the celebrated dialogues at Naxos. At the moment when their disgust leaves them (-and us!) they will be thankful for the spectacle afforded by the Christians: perhaps because of this curious exhibition alone the wretched little planet called the earth deserves a glance from omnipotence, a show of divine interest.... Therefore, let us not underestimate the Christians: the Christian, false to the point of innocence, is far above the ape-in its application to the Christians a well-known theory of descent becomes a mere piece of politeness....
-Nietzsche "The AntiChrist" section 39
Your soul is a garden.
The core issue for me, is the belief in God, if there is one God, why so many religions?
Does God need a religion, or does religion need a God?
It is clear to me, that believing that there is the possibility of a God and then not choosing a religion, is a lot less attritional for the human race than believing that God favours one religion over another,
'Religion' is a Western conceptualization of metaphysics, the way we live in relation to ultimate reality, etc. Every human group has something of the sort. Why wouldn't there be one of these for every people? Why does that necessarily mean that all of them are equally valid, equally useful, equally true or false?
@@davidhawley1132 What is the difference between 'every human group', and 'every people'.
Who gets to be the arbiter of what is 'equally valid'?
@@garylake1676 every person has their own responsibility for finding out the truth. I recommend looking into the person of Jesus as portrayed in the bible - everything he said that was recorded.
@@eirik1768 There is no such thing as 'the truth', just different perspectives.
You can have your own truth, that, however, is not universal, hence why so many wars have been fought under the guise of religion.
I get you and I typed out a longer answer(too long imo but I'll probably still post it). But consider the implications if God really exists. Christianity isn't really about whether God exists or not because religion covers that already. But about the crisis humanity faces in relation to that God and how God has gone out of His way to correct that but still requires our belief as our acceptance of that mercy(John 3v16-21 sums up the idea, also the parable of the tenants, to an extent) .
Now the long answer...I'm Christian so do with that what you will. But I think that generally people are able to identify that a Creator exists. Or at least there are unseen spiritual "forces" that exist but just like with science and history on various topics, there are various schools of thought on the underlying attributes and characteristics of said Creator or "spirits" based on each persons experience, reasoning etc. With the little bible knowledge I have what I can say is that the story is basically; the Creator was initially not obscure and had contact with people. Then separation happened and now that wasn't the case anymore due to sin(you know that nasty side of humans where we tend to conceive evil in our hearts and carry it out - to varying degrees of course), despite another part of us which identifies it as wrong but we do so anyway be it to others or ourselves. And so the endpoint of the story, which we're currently in the latter chapters of is to completely restore that relationship and even surpass what it initially was. The end of the story is pretty much guaranteed with the death and resurrection of Jesus which was a major development.
If I were to guess, the difference with Christianity and this story as a whole, which began with righteous individuals, then the decendants of one of them, leading to Judaism and then Christianity is. First the Creator is the one actively driving this story. It wasn't a story which was made up to make us feel good about ourselves where some gods somewhere need our prayers to survive. On the contrary, we are largely condemned and so the faith is actually our redemption not just something that makes life more livable. I think some other religions may share in this reason so the second is
Whether it was Moses or the prophets, or Jesus or the apostles, they had to prove the Creator really sent them. And so the obvious way was being given the ability to do creation-bending stuff like turning the Nile into blood, or dividing the red sea or healing sick people instantly by just a touch or speaking it, etc. And in the case of Jesus Himself, aside the miracles, living and dying as was foretold by prophets(guys who made impossible predictions) across several generations who never met each other, with accuracy on things that would occur at that time, etc. Then predicting your own death and coming back after three days. And your people who were in hiding immediately after you died later claimed they saw you and could do miracles to prove it and were willing to die torturous deaths on that claim etc(read the bible for more details)
And I don't even want to mention the aftermath, that while humans are still atrocious, even within those claiming to belong to Jesus, the impact of the spread of the good news of redemption and all that comes with it has led humanity to unprecedented heights in our moral standards and even how these new ideas led to us seeing the value of things like science and how we are enjoying technology as a result(obviously these are at varying degrees depending on where you are)
P.S. please I'm not here for a back and forth, I've already said too much. Just giving my 2 cents. For more info there are a lot of good resources on TH-cam and you could also take some time to read through the bible with commentary or something. Lastly I left out a bunch of details so please consider that too.
The worship of power has by far brought the greatest amount of human suffering. Nietzsche worshipped power. Why follow him? You think you're great and awesome and mighty? There's always a bigger fish that thinks you're weak, lesser, and to be trampled upon. Worship of power is foolish and a lie. Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.
Nietzche was right about EVERYTHING. Christianity **is** a religion of women and slaves. As those were its first converts, and to them it had the most appeal. It is not suitable for men destined for greatness, but only to soothe the envy of the weak and useless.
Thank you Adolph.
This.
What a load of nonsense why would atheists banish idols they dont believe in to begin with
I think Holland is off track a bit. The implication is Nietzsche was closer to "real" atheism than newer modern atheist talkheads like Richard Dawkins, but I think it's the opposite way. Nietzsche's conclusion that because christianity (or religion) isn't real is not an invitation to be as selfish and contempting of the weak was an error. That doesn't follow. Just because there's elements of christianity that is about helping the weak and not being selfish, doesn't mean those elements are wrong just because christianity isn't true. Nietzsche might just have been wrong. I recently read a lot of Nietzsche lately, and while he's a fascinating figure, I think he was wrong about many things.
ενδιαφερων
Holland conflates fascism and nazism. He should know the differences.
Holland is brilliant as always. The other guy doesn’t seem to follow at all. 😅
Holland conflates the reality of Christian history with the existence of a loving, personal god. Or at least, he fails to acknowledge the absurdity of such a god - something 'modern atheists' do. The conundrum is not of the atheists' making - it is inherent to Christianity. Own the problem!
Um, no. He argues that the core values of Western civilization originates historically in Christian thought, to believe in it as true or not is another matter. Even atheists who know their history concede to this.
@@zgobermn6895 So what is the point being made by these atheists who know their history? They simply point out the obvious - and Holland seems to think that this is an own goal
Methinks Holland has a hidden agenda. Saying that Dawkins is more Christian than he thinks is patronizing to say the least. By the way, can you name one atheist who does NOT know his history?
@@wannabe-muso I doubt that Dawkins has spent much time reading the lives of the saints.
@@wannabe-musoamongst the average atheists, especially a majority of those you see on the internet, many are definitely not very knowledgeable about history lol, most actually make a ton of frankly ridiculous claims. So do a ton of Christians, it’s just the population, what do you expect? Amongst genuine intellectuals, what do you expect?
Who cares about the claim on Dawkins being more Christian than he realizes? You’ve got to be open to such remarks, whether you find them to have merit or not. Take all claims as something to consider, maybe even reshape your thinking on things (alternatively, also don’t take everything that you admit you can’t refute as something to change your worldview, don’t be rash on things like that), rather than a matter of offense. Seek out the way Tom Holland is thinking on this matter.
Are we still talking religio. 😂
Christianity is for slaves...not just of the body but of the mind. The bible actually tells slaves & masters how to behave.
Atheism does not rely upon bible stories to decide what is moral, they (we) rely upon the basic Golden Rule - treat others how you want to be treated (based on Rights) AND do whatever is needed to defend your life, property, & others from those who violate basic fundamental unalienable/inalienable Rights.
And where did that Golden Rule come from? Where do "rights" come from? Right is a moral concept, a "should". But you have no foundation for any use of the word "should". Any statement of that form can only be arbitrary. You can only say what is, not what should be (although, in the final analysis, you cannot even say what is, because you have no reference point for knowledge, even of your own existence).
Where do you get both the golden rule and those inalienable rights???
So Darwin's application of survival of the fittest to people nations and cultures was wrong? Why?
Tom Holland points out that Roman morality was quite different, even disgusting for Westerners today who are living with Christian assumptions about morality that are very particular to the traditional West.
Actually atheism doesn’t rely on that at all. You’ve just made a choice to act and to view things that way and bring that into your atheism. What about the kind of atheism that says that since the natural order is the rule of powerful over the weak, that it’s therefore natural to dominate others if you can?
So your version of atheism is treat others as you wish to be treated. What if my version of atheism is "it is every individuals right to seek and extract direct retribution for an act against themselves or their family". The only natural rights in nature are (sadly) eat or be eaten.
Imagine thinking either was worth discussing.