Aligning with Extreme Atheism

As I elaborate in other writings, Holland's interpretation of Western history to support this viewpoint is fraught with inaccuracies and misleading implications. Given the shortcomings of his argument, one must wonder why he chose to pen a comprehensive 600-page book.

Holland, though raised in the Christian faith, no longer identifies as one. He appears to align with John Gray's belief that he surpasses the typical secular humanist or naturalistic atheist. In Straw Dogs, Gray claims that naturalism undermines liberalism, proposing that Eastern pragmatists and nihilists offer a more enlightened perspective than the early-modern Western rationalists, who he argues were dismissive of the societal collapse Friedrich Nietzsche termed the death of God.

In a similar vein, Holland frames his argument using perspectives from staunch atheists like Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade. He encapsulates Nietzsche's sentiment, stating,

> "God was dead — but in the great cave that once had been Christendom, his shadow still fell, an immense and frightful shadow. For centuries, perhaps, it would linger. Christianity had reigned for two millennia. It could not easily be banished. Its myths would long endure. They were certainly no less mythical for casting themselves as secular. 'Such phantoms as the dignity of man, the dignity of labour': these were Christian through and through."

Holland asserts that both Nietzsche and Sade appreciated ancient cultures for their enjoyment of cruelty, arguing that life before the shame of pessimism was more joyful.

Defending Sade’s Provocative Views

Holland provocatively defends Sade, referencing a character from The New Justine who describes inferior humans as merely a step above chimpanzees. Holland remarks that while such statements led Sade to be confined in a psychiatric institution, his unflinching gaze was not insanity; he recognized that the existence of human rights is as unprovable as the existence of God.

This dark philosophy is fundamentally flawed, as both Nietzsche and Sade commit the naturalistic fallacy by equating selected natural norms with the best moral standards. This fallacy closely aligns with conservative ideologies, adding yet another layer of error to Holland's claims throughout his work.

Rather than exhibiting clearer insights or courageously confronting atheistic implications, Nietzsche and Sade simply embodied conservative, aristocratic values or authoritarian dispositions. Furthermore, Holland's inquiry into whether human rights are "provable" is a misleading distraction, conflating mathematical and philosophical standards.

Satire and Secular Humanism

Now, let us shift our focus from Holland's interpretation of secularism to his claims regarding the supposed Christian roots of contemporary secular humanism.

Holland asserts that the infamous Charlie Hebdo satire, which provoked Islamist attacks on its cartoonists, was fundamentally a Christian act. He likens the satire to Protestant critiques of Catholicism, stating, "The tradition in which they [the Charlie Hebdo satirists] stood — of satire, of blasphemy, of desecration — was not a repudiation of Christian history, but its very essence."

According to Holland, the secular satirists exposed their Christian biases by expecting Muslims to accept the same treatment as Christians endured. He argues that such expectations reveal a universalist and implicitly Christian mindset among these secular humanists. He claims that modern European ideals are merely manifestations of Christian history, suggesting that the belief in secular values as timeless is, ironically, evidence of their Christian roots.

This argument is deeply flawed. One of Holland's errors lies in his inconsistent definition of "Christianity," implying that any practice or value can be deemed Christian, including satire or the assumption that everyone should share a particular set of beliefs.

Contrary to Holland's assertions, universalism is an inherent aspect of tribal behavior, where groups instinctively believe in their superiority, leading to conflicts with others. Holland misinterprets the secular critique of Islam, misrepresenting it as an assertion of equality among religions. Instead, this critique stems from an understanding of shared human capacities for objectivity and humor, grounded in cognitive science, not Christian doctrine.

While monotheism may offer a more cohesive worldview than polytheism, ancient polytheistic cultures often featured henotheistic beliefs or mystical traditions that emphasized unity. These societies could either highlight the diversity of gods to foster harmony or promote a singular deity to justify imperial ambitions.

Furthermore, the argument that secular humanists "owe nothing" to Christianity is another strawman. As discussed previously, modernity often positioned itself against Christendom, showcasing the Church's failures in stifling progress and politicizing morality. A negative lesson can indeed carry value.

The American Culture War: A Christian Narrative

Regarding the American culture war, Holland notes,

> "Evangelicals and progressives were both recognizably bred of the same matrix. If opponents of abortion were the heirs of Macrina, who had toured the rubbish tips of Cappadocia looking for abandoned infants to rescue, then those who argued against them were likewise drawing on a deeply rooted Christian supposition: that every woman’s body was her own, and to be respected as such by every man."

However, such claims rely on an ambiguous definition of Christianity that renders the label meaningless. Is it inherently Christian for mothers to seek to help infants? The answer is rhetorical, as the anti-abortion stance is rooted in biological parental instincts.

Is feminism a Christian construct? Historically, women have been marginalized within the Church. The Gnostics, for instance, regarded women as equals, finding inspiration in Eve's pursuit of knowledge, whereas orthodox Christianity often condemned such perspectives.

While Christians may have historically advocated for monogamy, that does not imply their reasoning was derived from Christian logic. Jesus viewed earthly marriage as a distraction, emphasizing divine love and brotherhood instead.

Misguided Interpretations of Morality

Holland's attempt to link secular advancements with Christian ideology is misguided, given the Church's historical condemnation of homosexuality and its role in establishing punitive laws against it. The decriminalization of homosexuality in Europe, occurring during the Enlightenment, coincided with a decline in the Church's power, attributed to capitalist growth and democratic ideals.

Holland further claims that the #MeToo movement is steeped in Christian morals:

> "Implicit in #MeToo was the same call to sexual continence that had reverberated throughout the Church’s history."

Even if Christians were proponents of sexual morality, it does not necessarily mean that Christianity inherently promotes such values. While Jesus's teachings emphasize respect for humanity, the Church's historical hypocrisy undermines this claim.

The Impact of Christianity on Modern Values

Holland suggests that the enduring Christian legacy has infused contemporary morals and values, remaining invisible to many, including believers and atheists alike. This perspective reveals a nebulous understanding of Christianity—one that persists despite theological rejection, based on inferred values rather than explicit teachings.

The principles Holland attributes to Christianity—such as the recognition of basic human rights—are not exclusive to the religion. Various spiritual traditions have independently arrived at similar conclusions, highlighting a broader, universal understanding of personhood that transcends any single faith.

Holland's assertion that modern progressive politics owes its "wokeness" to Christianity misses the mark. A more pertinent question is whether the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment could have progressed more swiftly without Christianity's historical failures. The advancements of modernity often occurred despite, rather than because of, Christian ideologies.

Reassessing Holland's Views on Secular Humanism

In concluding his book, Holland expresses skepticism about secular humanism:

> "Just as Nietzsche had foretold, freethinkers who mock the very idea of a god... still piously hold to taboos and morals that derive from Christianity."

He cites a 2002 statement from the World Humanist Congress, arguing it reflects a belief system rather than a genuine alternative to dogmatic religion. Holland questions the basis for secular humanist values, suggesting they lack depth without biblical narratives.

This perspective fails to recognize that secular humanism stems from a rich historical context that includes insights from various spiritual traditions, not solely from Christianity. The recognition of human dignity is a universal concept that predated Christianity and has emerged across cultures.

Holland's references to Nietzsche and other figures highlight a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between morality and religion. While Christianity has influenced moral discourse, it is not the sole source of ethical understanding. Human morality has evolved independently, rooted in social behavior, philosophical inquiry, and historical context.

In summary, secular humanists are not beholden to Christianity, nor do they derive their values solely from it. They recognize the complexity of human rights and moral considerations, drawing from a wide array of philosophical and scientific frameworks that transcend religious dogma.

I compile my writings on platforms like Medium into both paperback and eBook formats, available on Amazon. Recent titles include Our Oddity in Deep Time, Aristocrats in the Wild, and Questing for Epiphanies in a Haunted House, each offering insights into philosophy, religion, and politics.