The Wrong Way to Convert a Nonbeliever
I'm a hard target for Ross Douthat's evangelism. When I got a copy of his new book, Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious, I felt an impulse to answer, Nope: Why You Should Leave Everyone Alone. I come from a family of atheists and am a lifelong nonbeliever. At difficult times I've tried very hard to cross the river into the kingdom of faith—read the Jewish Bible and the New Testament, attended church and temple services, immersed myself in Kierkegaard, and stared at the sky for a flicker of divinity. None of it made any difference. The universe remains random, empty, cold. We're alone in the dark, nothing means anything until we give it meaning, and death is the end. These are comfortless facts, but I've come to accept and even, at times, embrace them, with no desire to disenchant anyone else.
Douthat came to religion through his parents' New England Protestantism, which took a turn during his childhood from the mainline to the charismatic. His own systematic thinking and interest in the workings of worldly power led him to become a conservative Catholic. When The New York Times hired him as a columnist, he asked me for advice, which in itself showed his open-mindedness. I suggested that, as a precocious Harvard-educated blogger for this magazine, he should make sure now and then to get out of the world of precocious bloggers and talk with people unlike him—to report on the rest of the country. Douthat didn't follow my advice, and he was probably right not to. His own mind, nourished by innate curiosity and wide reading, has become the most interesting site in the landscape of Times opinion. I read him, with admiration and annoyance, religiously.
But Believe suffers from the limitations of Douthat's brilliance. He has absorbed a good deal of recent literature on cosmology, physics, neuroscience, and supernaturalism, and he devotes most of the book to arguing that scientific knowledge makes the existence of God more rather than less likely. Douthat is speaking to the well-educated contemporary reader who requires a rational case for religion, and among his key words are reasonable, sensible, and empirical. Belief, in Believe, isn't a leap of faith marked by paradox, contradiction, or wild surmise; it's a matter of mastering the research and figuring the odds. If brain chemistry hasn't located the exact site of consciousness, that doesn't suggest the extent of what human beings know—it's evidence for the existence of the soul.
Douthat guides the reader through the science toward God with a gentle but insistent intellectualism that leaves this nonbeliever wanting less reason and more inspiration. I can't follow him into his Middle Earth kingdom of angels, demons, and elves just because a book he's read shows that a universe in which life is possible has a one in 10-to-the-120th-power chance of being random. We don't fall in love because someone has made a plausible case for being great together. Some mysteries neither reason nor religion can explain.
The rational, speculative approach of Believe comes to an end in its last pages, when the authoritarianism that underlies Douthat's, and perhaps all, religion, suddenly shows its face. He adopts a darker tone as he asks what you will do if you've guessed wrong—if God turns out to exist and is waiting on the other side to punish you for failing to get the point of Douthat's book. 'What account will you give of yourself if the believers turn out to have been right all along?' he demands—and then goes on to portray nonbelievers as shallow, mentally lazy, and status-obsessed, too concerned with sounding clever at a dinner party to see the obvious Truth:
That you took pointlessness for granted in a world shot through with signs of meaning and design? That you defaulted to unbelief because that seemed like the price of being intellectually serious or culturally respectable? That you were too busy to be curious, too consumed with things you knew to be passing to cast a prayer up to whatever eternity awaits?
This move—a dubious assumption that imputes unflattering qualities to the opposition and stacks the deck in Douthat's favor—is familiar from some of his columns, and it brings Believe closer to his political journalism. Throughout the book Douthat the divine has a reflexive habit of belittling nonbelief in the same way that Douthat the columnist disparages liberalism. He repeatedly sneers at 'Official Knowledge,' the capital letters suggesting that scientific materialism is some sort of conspiracy of the legacy media and the deep state. He accuses atheists of taking the easy way out, of claiming to be serious grown-ups when their worldview is irresponsible and childish: 'It is the religious perspective that asks you to bear the full weight of being human.' But even in Douthat's own account, religion is driven by hedonistic self-interest, for it promises an escape from the suffering of this world, and it conditions the offer on a desire to avoid pain in the next. The humanist view that we have only one another in an instant of eternity—that this life, with all its heartache, is all we're given—raises the stakes of love and imposes sacrifice beyond anything imaginable to a believer in the afterlife.
Believe appears at a moment when nonbelief seems to be running out of gas. Douthat's purpose is to hasten the process. 'Already the time of the new atheism is passing,' he writes; 'already mystery and magic and enchantment seem to be rushing back into the world.' He has been predicting this for some time, and he is almost certainly right. Large numbers of people throughout the West feel that liberal society and the bureaucratic state are failing—not just to provide practical benefits but to offer meaning and community. Secular liberalism is not the same as atheism, but disillusionment with the former seems to be driving modern people into a new period of anti-rationalism and mysticism, with a growing distrust of established science, a leveling off of the percentage of nonbelieving Americans, and a trend toward public figures making high-profile conversions—to Christianity, in the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the atheist refugee from repressive Islam; to Catholicism, in the case of J. D. Vance and others. Christopher Hitchens is dead and UFO sightings are on the rise.
President Donald Trump himself, whose first 78 years were nearly unmarked by signs of faith, has sworn a newfound religiosity since his near assassination. God saved him to make America great again, he has said several times, so 'let's bring religion back.' Days before Believe was published, Trump announced the creation of a Justice Department task force to root out anti-Christian bias, as well as a White House Faith Office, led by Paula White-Cain, Trump's religious adviser, who has said that opposing him means opposing God. (This kind of theocratic edict has turned a generation of young Iranians against religion.) The president's more ardent followers regard him as a kind of mythic figure, above history and politics, leading by spiritual power that connects him directly to the people. By this light, faith is inseparable from authoritarianism.
Believe is not a political book, but it would be naive to imagine that Douthat's evangelism has no political implications. He acknowledges that the book could be 'a work of Christian apologetics in disguise,' and his invitation to religion in general leads predictably to a case for Christianity in particular, preferably of the conservative-Catholic variety. In his columns he draws no bright line between religion and politics: Contemporary America is decadent, liberalism has famished our souls, and any renewal depends on faith—not New Ageism, not progressive Protestantism, but religion of a traditional, illiberal cast. Douthat has carried on a years-long flirtation with MAGA, endorsing many of its policies while hedging his personal dislike of Trump against his antipathy toward the opposition. (He refused to disclose his choice in the most recent election, which seems like a misdemeanor for a political columnist.) Douthat hasn't gone as far as the head of the new White House Faith Office, but when he calls Trump a 'man of destiny,' it isn't easy to extricate his metaphysical leanings from his partisan ones.
Douthat wants you to abandon secular liberalism and become a believer at a moment when democracy is under assault from a phalanx of right-wing ideas, some of them religious. That is not a reason to believe or not to believe, for belief needs no reason. But it should make you pause and think before following Douthat on the path to his promised land.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Stanley Fischer, economist who tackled global crises, dies at 81
After all, he was, in the words of The New York Times, 'the closest thing the world economy has to a battlefield medic.' Dr. Fischer, who served as head of Israel's central bank and as vice chair of the Federal Reserve Board in addition to his IMF time crafting bailouts for stuttering economies from Thailand and Indonesia in Far Asia to Russia to Brazil, died May 31 in Lexington. He was 81. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The cause was complications of Alzheimer's disease, his son Michael told The New York Times. Advertisement For all the bold line entries on his CV, Dr. Fischer's influence perhaps was greatest in developing a generation of economists, policy makers, and deep thinkers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The roster of students he taught and advised included Ben S. Bernanke, who would go on to become Fed chair and called Dr. Fischer his mentor; Mario Draghi, a future European Central Bank president and prime minister of Italy; Greg Mankiw, who would lead President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers; Christina Romer, chair of the council in the Obama administration; Kazuo Ueda, named Bank of Japan governor in 2023; and IMF chief economists, including Olivier Blanchard, Ken Rogoff, and Maurice Obstfeld. Advertisement Countless other college undergraduates were introduced to the dismal science by 'Macroeconomics,' the textbook Dr. Fischer wrote in 1978 with his MIT colleague, Rudi Dornbusch. 'No one had more cumulative influence on the macroeconomic policy makers of the last generation than Stanley Fischer,' Lawrence Summers, who as a Harvard student would audit his classes, told Bloomberg News. 'All of us were shaped by his clarity of thought, intellectual balance, personal decency, and quality of character. 'People all over the world who never knew his name lived better, more secure lives because of all that he did through his teaching, writing, and service to make policy better,' said Summers, who served as Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton and president of Harvard University. 'In one lifetime, he did the work of many.' With the Teton Mountains behind them, Ben Bernanke, then Federal Reserve chairman, chatted with Dr. Fischer outside of the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium in 2012. Ted S. Warren/Associated Press Dr. Fischer was known for his genial, consensus-seeking style. Yet his prescriptions at the IMF included austerity measures that hit heavily on the poor and working class in beleaguered nations. 'Look, I know we've become everyone's favorite whipping boy,' Dr. Fischer told the Times in 1998. 'But remember that in most cases governments call us in only after they discover they are in a mess, usually because they didn't do things they needed to do long ago. If the problems were easy to solve, they'd do it themselves. 'And it's our job to convince people to do things that we believe, and they probably know, are good for them. Even if those things are politically unpopular -- and they usually are.' Advertisement The cures Dr. Fischer pushed for financial crises were broadly in line with the Washington Consensus, a set of 'best practices' compiled in 1989 by John Williamson, a British economist. They were also dubbed the 'Massachusetts Avenue Consensus,' referencing the influence of its promulgators at MIT and Harvard. Those guidelines called for openness to free markets, global trade, and foreign investment. In a 2003 lecture on globalization, Dr. Fischer generally defended the IMF's approach by arguing that opening up to foreign trade and investment had lifted multitudes out of poverty in China and India. In many ways, he was the intellectual heir to British economist John Maynard Keynes, whose calls for government intervention to steer the economy resonated from the 1930s through the 1960s but came under harsh attack in the 1970s. Dr. Fischer's research in the 1970s focused on that split among economists. If unemployment was too high, the Keynesians argued, central banks could stimulate the economy by priming the money supply. Critics countered that such stimulus would prompt workers to expect higher inflation and demand pay increases; the result would be faster inflation and no sustainable rise in employment. Dr. Fischer argued that wages were 'sticky' because of long-term contracts and didn't adjust immediately when a central bank changed its policy. Thus, he wrote in an influential 1977 paper, a well-timed stimulus program could boost job creation in the near term without igniting inflation. 'MIT economists tend to believe governments can do a variety of things well and can improve the situation versus a pure laissez-faire policy,' he told Institutional Investor in 1994. Advertisement In addition to serving as the No. 2 officer at the International Monetary Fund from 1994 to 2001, the head of Israel's central bank from 2005-13, and vice chair of the Fed from 2014-17, Dr. Fischer was chief economist of the World Bank in the late 1980s and vice chair of Citigroup in the early 2000s. He was influential partly because of his diplomatic nature, Blanchard, one of his former students and later a colleague at MIT, wrote in 2023. Even when the field of macroeconomics 'was going through wars of religion, there was no sense of 'us versus them' but instead an openness to alternative views,' Blanchard wrote. Dr. Fischer, then vice chair of the Federal Reserve, spoke with Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen during an open meeting in Washington in 2016. Cliff Owen/Associated Press Stanley Fischer was born into a Jewish family on Oct. 15, 1943, in Lusaka, Northern Rhodesia, then a British protectorate, which became Zambia after independence in 1964. He grew up partly in Mazabuka, a town southwest of Lusaka, where his parents operated a general store. His father, Philip Fischer, was an immigrant from Latvia. His mother, Ann (Kopelowitz) Fischer, was of Lithuanian descent. The family moved to Southern Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, when Stanley was about 13. He joined a Jewish youth group and in 1960 visited Israel as part of a program for young leaders. At the London School of Economics, Dr. Fischer earned bachelor's and master's degrees in economics. For his doctoral studies, he moved to MIT, in part to study with one of his intellectual heroes, Paul Samuelson, who would earn the Nobel in economic science. Dr. Fischer married Rhoda Keet in 1965. They had met as teenagers in a Jewish youth group. He left the Fed in 2017 partly to take care of his wife, who had Lewy body dementia. She died in 2020. In addition to his son Michael, Dr. Fischer leaves two other sons, David and Jonathan, and nine grandchildren. Advertisement After earning his doctorate at MIT in 1969, Dr. Fischer moved to the University of Chicago as a postdoctoral researcher and assistant professor. 'At MIT you did the mathematical work,' he told the Times in 1998, 'and at Chicago you asked the question of how this applies to the real world.' His work in Chicago gave him a clearer understanding of that school's free-market theories and critique of Keynesian economics. He returned to MIT in 1973 as an associate professor. Gradually, he became a magnet for graduate students. 'Stan had acquired near-guru status,' Blanchard said in an MIT statement. Blanchard would recall how Dr. Fischer would help them with their work while they jogged alongside the Charles River. 'Fischer is rightly remembered as an unparalleled scholar, policy maker, and teacher. But it was his empathy, humanity, and thoughtfulness that stick with me,' said Obstfeld, one of those former students. 'He apparently kept all of his students' doctoral dissertations long after they graduated. When he moved from New York to Israel — surely with many better things to do — I received mine in the mail with this note from Stan: 'For the grandchildren.'' Michael J. Bailey of Globe staff contributed to this obituary. Material from The New York Times and Bloomberg News was also used.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senator 'Fighting for His Life' After He Was Shot While Speaking to Supporters at a Park, Teen Arrested
A senator and presidential hopeful was shot multiple times during an event with supporters at a public park on June 7 Miguel Uribe Turbay was speaking with locals in the Fontibón neighborhood of Colombia when the incident took place 'He is fighting for his life," the politician's wife said in a statementA presidential hopeful was shot multiple times while speaking to supporters at a public park over the weekend. Miguel Uribe Turbay, a senator part of Colombia's center-right Centro Democrático party, was attacked on Saturday, June 7, while in the Fontibón neighborhood of the country's capital Bogotá. A 15-year-old, who was carrying a Glock-style pistol, has since been arrested, according to CNN and the BBC, both of which cited the local attorney general's office. Colombia's president Gustavo Petro said during a television appearance later that day that it wasn't clear if the teen was acting alone, per The New York Times. According to an update shared on X by Turbay's wife, Maria Claudia Tarazona, the senator was "fighting for his life" following the shooting. She thanked his supporters for their "solidarity" and "prayers" in a later statement on Sunday, June 8, writing that updates about his health would be shared by the hospital. 'He came out well from the surgery,' his wife later told reporters, per CNN, which cited the Agence France-Presse (AFP). 'He fought the first battle and fought it well. He is fighting for his life.' Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, the hospital where Turbay was admitted, announced in a statement on June 8 that the politician was treated with procedures on his head and his left thigh and remains in intensive care. The hospital called his condition "extremely serious." The BBC reported that Turbay was shot three times on June 7, including twice in the head. Turbay was speaking to supporters at the park over the weekend when loud bangs rang out. He fell to the ground after appearing to be shot from behind, according to widely shared footage from the scene. Later footage showed supporters assisting and carrying the presidential candidate, who appeared to be covered in blood, as he was placed near the hood of a white car. At least three other people were also shot at the park, including a 20-year-old man, a 36-year-old woman and a 15-year-old, the Secretaría de Salud de Bogotá said. Bogota Mayor Carlos Fernando Galán said on June 8, per CNN, that Turbay has since entered 'the critical hours' of recovery following his own procedures. President Petro added during his broadcast on June 7 that "no resource should be spared" when tracking down those responsible for the shooting. "Not a single peso," he said, per the Times, adding that Turbay's security would be investigated for protocol failures. Eyewitness Victor Mosquera told reporters outside of the hospital that he was near the senator during the shooting and still had blood on his clothing while outside of the hospital, per the Times. 'Everyone was screaming and running,' he said, adding, "When I turned around, I saw Miguel lying next to me.' Pedro Sánchez, Colombia's defense minister, has since announced on X that a reward is being offered of up to 3 billion Colombian pesos — roughly $728,000 — for more information. Read the original article on People
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: The Fool's Gold in Trump's White House Is Already Looking Tarnished
Donald Trump is back in the White House, and this time around, he's done some major renovations. A home, any decent designer will tell you, should in its aesthetic reflect its inhabitants: Their lifestyles and their values. And Trump has certainly remade the White House in his image. It's tacky, showy, and narcissistic—but luckily his changes don't seem built to last. The Trump White House also appears to have more gold in it than the Federal Reserve. It's as if Liberace joined forces with Scrooge McDuck. Trump has added copious amounts of gold to every conceivable surface: More paintings with thick gold frames, more gold vases and urns and tchotchkes, even gold paint on the crown molding. There's even a gold-framed New York Post cover with Trump's mug shot on it. The golden doorknobs are polished to maximum gleam; when shadow President Elon Musk showed up to his farewell event in the Oval Office (with a black eye), Trump handed him a golden key. He probably wants that back now but still. There are no reports of golden toilets—yet—but virtually no other surface seems untouched. 'A gilded rococo hellscape' is how one photo editor and creative consultant described it in The New York Times. The president who purports to want to make America great again seems to actually want to make the American capitol Versailles. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told The Wall Street Journal that, 'It's the Golden Office for the Golden Age.' Really though, it's more of a gilded office for a new gilded age: A time when the rich swill champagne in their mansions and members-only clubs while the masses suffer through profound political polarization and extreme inequality. Today, the world's uber-wealthy can buy a Trump Gold Card—of course—visa to get into the US; immigrants who aren't flush, on the other hand, see the doors slam shut. Donald Trump has always loved the ostentatious and ornate. His apartments are notoriously gaudy, as are the buildings he slaps his name on (typically in huge gold letters). He first announced his presidential run a decade ago by descending down a golden escalator. But it all seems to quickly lose its sheen. The Trump name is so deeply associated with grift and chintz that many once-affluent buyers have fled his building. When the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino imploded in Atlantic City after years of neglect, crowds gathered to cheer. This is not a man who builds things that last. This is a man who makes things shiny for as long as it takes him to cash his checks. For all his new-money fixation on expensive, shiny things, Trump's economic policies have badly tarnished his presidency. The president has managed to repeatedly roil global markets, earn a downgrade of America's credit, raise consumer prices and make it impossible for businesses to adequately plan for anything; various tariffs have been removed and revised, put back and removed again, threatened and teased and so on. The back-and-forth has been so endless that Wall Streeters have a nickname for it: TACO, or Trump Always Chickens Out. The president seems to now be saying he will negotiate individual trade deals with countries the world over, an endeavor that will at least keep him too busy to hang up any more gold-framed paintings of himself. (He has thusfar been unable to make very few such deals, instead telling Americans they should simply expect to buy fewer toys for their children.) But what else is Trump himself busy with? Cashing in. He's started a small crypto empire, enjoying the spoils of those foolish enough to buy into his schemes, or canny enough to know buying in can get them access. A state-owned Emirati company has invested some $2 billion in one of the Trump family's enterprises. He's accepting a free luxury jet from Qatar. Unlike previous presidents, he has not put his own assets in a blind trust. He has used his position to extract free work from some of the country's top law firms, who he has intimidated out of challenging him or his agenda. As his administration is cutting basic services for Americans, he's trimming the White House with gold, and sitting on a growing pile of it. The question now is what will come first: The flaking of the White House gold leaf, or the falling-apart of Trump's presidency itself.
