Against The Cultural Christianity Argument

...

The "cultural Christianity" argument says that atheists might not like Christianity, but they like a culture which depends on Christianity. They like open, free, thoughtful, liberal, beautiful, virtuous societies. Unmoored from a connection to Christanity, a society will gradually have less of those goods, until even atheists are unhappy.

Therefore (continues the argument), atheists should be cultural Christians. While they can continue to privately disbelieve, they should support an overall Christian society, which they can dwell contentedly on the fringes of. I think this is sort of where Ayaan Hirsi Ali is coming from.

I’m in this argument’s target audience. Although I'm mostly atheist, I accept that the modern world has worse aesthetics than its predecessors. I think it's trying as hard as it can to push a bad-things-are-good philosophy down our throat that we might one day choke on. And like everyone else in this category, I'm anti-woke. I do hope the worst is over, but I have continued nightmares about what would have happened if the DEI world had done a better job exploiting the post-George Floyd moment and cemented its advantage forever.

(there are also many ways modern society is better than its predecessors. I’m going to skip over those in order to grant as many as possible of the Cultural Christianity Argument’s assumptions, so we get to the meaty disagreement faster)

I am no fan of medieval theocracy. But I do have a weakness for the 1880 - 1930 period of fin de siecle culture, Art Nouveau, economic liberty, and progressophilia. This period wasn't very religious - Nietzsche had already declared God dead in 1882. But the Cultural Christians would argue that such a flowering of culture and optimism could only happen within a generation or two of a Christian society. It (they would argue) contained the seeds of its own destruction, doomed to degenerate into our current postmodernist brutalist whatever. If I want the 1890s back, I shouldn't advocate the (mostly classically liberal) positions of the 1890s. I should advocate for Christianity, the only ideology under which something like those positions can be stable.

There's one other reason I'm vulnerable: I accept the existence of something like this process of degeneration. At least this is how it’s worked for Jews: the first generation (after immigration) are Orthodox, the second generation Conservative, the third generation Reform, and the fourth generation completely lose interest. If someone wanted to perpetuate Conservative Judaism forever, their best bet would be to support and promote Orthodoxy. All of this checks out.

Only two things block me from becoming a Cultural Theist. The first is boring: I hate asserting false things, even if they're "practical". I don't ask anyone else to share that particular quirk. So I find the second more interesting: the Cultural Christianity argument hinges on the proposition that all liberal societies without Christianity will eventually collapse into wokeness and postmodernism. But Christianity also eventually collapsed into wokeness and postmodernism. So if they're both equally doomed, why not at least be truthful by advocating for the virtuous liberal society I wanted in the first place?

That is, suppose I were to advocate a return to 1890s norms of (let's say) liberalism and beautiful art. The Cultural Christian would tell me this is doomed, because the 1890s cultural package eventually fell apart and became the 20th century cultural package of wokeness and postmodernism (and fascism, socialism, New Dealism, etc). Therefore, I should support Christianity.

But the Christian cultural package also fell apart and became the current post-Christian world. This wasn't just a one-time coincidence either. Protestantism gave way to modernism in Scandinavia, Germany, and the US. Catholicism gave way to modernism in Spain, Italy, and Latin America. Orthodoxy gave way to modernism in Greece, Eastern Europe, and Russia (with a slight Putinist resurrection-in-name-only which hardly seems to have produced a flourishing liberal society). Meanwhile in China, the local mix of Buddhism/Confucianism/Taoism gave way to modernism. In South East Asia, Buddhism gave way to modernism. Only 10% of Israeli Jews are ultra-Orthodox, and it would be lower if they didn't breed so fast. India is moderately Hindu but still noticeably modern. Even the Middle East is gradually becoming less Muslim.

Even if one could turn back the clock until the West was once again as Christian as it was in 1700, we would expect its Christianity to go the same way as 1700s Christianity - that is, to decay and end in modernism. The few sects that escaped decay - ultra-Orthodox Jews, Amish, the Taliban - seem neither clearly scaleable nor entirely desirable. At the very least, they suggest one would need a very different kind of Christianity than the West had in 1700s - one as strict, isolationist, and inward-looking as the Amish - to have a fighting chance.

The challenge of modernity has felled both Christian theocracies and the virtuous liberalisms of the past alike. If modern atheists want a society better than our current one (or rather, better than wherever modern culture is leading us) they'll have to invent some new cultural package that's never been seen before. I don't know what that is, but I prefer to maintain integrity while looking for it, instead of grasping at inadequate pragmatic straws.