In November 2023, Ayaan Hirsi Ali shocked the world with the publication of her essay, “Why I am now a Christian: Atheism can’t equip us for civilisational war” on Unheard.com. Once a respected and popular Atheist influencer often referred to as the “5th Horseman of New Atheism”, her unexpected declaration that she was leaving the Atheism and secular humanist community to become a so-called “cultural Christian” brought her derision from colleagues in the community that once applauded her. Yet numerous Christian apologetic commentors celebrated, viewing her conversion as a victory that undermined the Atheism movement.
Now her husband, Niall Ferguson, himself a noted historian and public intellectual, recently repeated similar sentiments as his wife did about his own conversion from Atheism to Christianity. In a May 20th interview with Noema Magazine Editor-in-Chief Nathan Gardels titled “America Is In A Late Republic Stage Like Rome“, Ferguson made the claim that Atheism is “a form of faith in itself,” and that his rejection of it was inspired by historical observations that societies “based on Atheism” tend toward violence, disorder, and collapse. His conclusion? That only Christianity can provide a workable moral framework for the West to withstand existential threats. Ferguson’s reflections are fashionable in elite circles enamored with nostalgic illusions of religious unity, but they rest on a scaffold of logical fallacies and historical distortions that must be addressed.
For context, here is Ferguson’s full quote from the interview:
“My parents left the Church of Scotland before I was even born. My mother, as a physicist, was a strict rationalist, long before anyone had heard of Richard Dawkins or Steven Pinker. I was brought up in a household in which the official line was that life was a cosmic accident.
I abandoned atheism, which is a form of faith in itself, in two steps. First, through historical study, I understood that no society based on atheism had been anything other than disastrous. In fact, the correlation between repudiation of religion and extreme violence is very close. The worst regimes in history engaged in anti-clerical activity, the Bolshevik regime, or say, Mao’s regime in China, not to mention the Nazis, who turned against Christ as they identified him, not wrongly, as Jewish.
So, for a variety of historical reasons, I came to the view that you could not organize a society on the basis of atheism. I became like Tocqueville. I didn’t have any religious faith, but I felt it would be good if people generally did.
The second step that led me to become a Christian was the realization that one couldn’t organize one’s life as an individual or as a family without religious faith, and that the teachings of Christ are an extraordinarily powerful and revolutionary solution to some of the central problems of human existence.
We haven’t come up with anything better. Indeed, all attempts to come up with alternatives have, I think, been failures. So, for very personal reasons, my wife and I arrived at Christianity because there seemed to be no other way for us to live good, fulfilled lives and be effective parents.
Ayaan went on a very different journey. I wouldn’t speak for her, as she began as a Muslim and then spent a period of time as one of the “new atheists.” But she arrived in a very characteristic way, almost by first principles, at the need for a Christian God. She appreciated and arrived at the teachings of Christ in a way that I couldn’t, almost working them out, as it were, from scratch. But we both arrived at the same point.
These are probably tiny little parts of a revival of religious faith that had been a long time coming, but I think is probably the only way that we in the West will be able to withstand the challenges that we currently face. It’s simply not feasible for us to have the strength to withstand the challenges from the Communist regimes in China and North Korea, the challenges from the nihilistic fascist regime in Russia, the challenge from Iran, the challenge from radical Islam. We can’t withstand those challenges with the scriptures of Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker. That’s not enough.
I fear that Ferguson’s academic achievements and the perceived authority these achievements afford him have blinded Ferguson’s supporters from understanding his claims are unavoidably irrational, and that several of his statements are blatant misrepresentations of uncontestable historical facts.
Let us begin our analysis where Ferguson began—by mischaracterizing Atheism.
Atheism is Not a Faith
To assert that Atheism is a “form of faith” is to profoundly misunderstand the epistemological structure of Atheism. Atheism is not a blind belief that no gods exist, nor is it a replacement religion. Atheism is the rational conclusion that none of the thousands of claimed deities, including the Christian god, meet the basic burden of proof for existing — and therefore there is no credible reason to believe they exist.
If the very people who claim these deities exist cannot demonstrate why they exist, why should anyone else believe these claims? That is the core premise of Atheism. It is quite the opposite of a faith based belief, as Atheism is the position that the gods people claim to exist do not exist because there is no evidence for their existence, in the same way that there is no rational reason to believe unicorns, leprechauns or goblins exist.
The ancient people who invented these ancient religions did not understand that stars were bodies of burning gases and other planets. They did not understand weather phenomenon such as thunder storms. They did not understand the biological reasons why humans can will themselves into feeling a deep sense of euphoria through the release of endorphins, dopamine, and serotonin — and so these ancient people mistakenly attributed this sense of euphoria to the presence of deities. All of the reasons ancient people invented the idea of gods were the result of ignorance leading them to falsely attribute their observations of real things to the existence of invisible gods in order to explain these observations. Yet now because of the accumulation of scientific data that answers these questions accurately, those old superstitions no longer have a place in our current age. This is why present day Christian apologetics no longer try to use weather as evidence of their god existing, and instead engage in convoluted thought experiments that lack any empirical evidence and are just as irrational as the original superstitions, such as Pascal’s Wager — that people should assume the belief in the Christian god in the chance the god exists so they can avoid going to hell. Pascal’s Wager is deeply irrational, as it ignores the Christian god is only one of thousands of deities that humans have claimed to exist and it would be pure chance that anyone settled on the correct deity to believe in, if one even existed at all. Apologetics of superstitious religions have no valid arguments to defend their continued belief in these debunked religions and so they engage in increasingly more complex delusions instead of just accepting — as Atheists do — that the superstitious ideas they were taught as children are wrong.
Atheism is a stance about what is true—not what is comforting, traditional, or useful. It is not a guide to moral living, nor does it pretend to be. This is a category error Ferguson makes: confusing an ontological claim about reality with a normative system for society.
If Atheism was a faith based belief system then it would not define itself by what non-Atheists claim about deities. Atheism is not, by itself, a religion, but instead a logical reaction to the failure of other people to defend the claims of their own religious beliefs — beliefs whose claims of moral superiority hinge entirely on whether the gods the religious believe in actually said or did any of the things claimed about them.
There are of course individual Atheists who have what are referred to as Atheistic moral frameworks — life stances that include Atheism, but have attached other ethical standards for determining how that Atheist individual should live. For example, some Atheists choose secular forms of Stoicism, Humanism and Utilitarianism. But these additional set of beliefs are not Atheism itself, which is only a descriptive statement about what is true, not a normative statement about how a person ought to live in the light of that truth.
To the Atheist who values truth above social utility, belief in an unprovable god—especially a morally problematic one who demands worship on pain of eternal torture—is not just unnecessary, but immoral. The Christian moral code is not a framework of enlightenment, but of submission: it claims that what is right is what a god commands, and what is wrong is what god forbids. And the fatal flaw of Christianity is that if that god is fictional, so too is the authority underpinning this moral structure the religion depends upon.
Ferguson seems to know this, which is why he does not provide any evidence for the Christian god existing, yet he continues to endorse Christianity not because it is true, but because he views it as socially useful. That admission alone disqualifies his viewpoints as a valid philosophical foundation for any society that claims to value truth, reason, and justice. How Ferguson can convince himself otherwise is mere delusion.
Historical Misrepresentations and Guilt by Association
Ferguson goes on to claim that “no society based on atheism had been anything other than disastrous,” pointing to the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and Nazi Germany. This is historical cherry-picking at its worst, designed to associate Atheism with totalitarianism by correlating it with regimes that also happened to reject popular organized religions.
But Stalin was not acting out of a devotion to Atheism but instead out of devotion to his own religion: Power. The suppression of popular world religions in the USSR was not done in the name of critical inquiry or rational humanism, but as a means of removing competing sources of authority to himself. Mao was no different. Totalitarian regimes don’t hate gods; they hate rivals.
It is equally dishonest to claim that Nazi Germany was Atheistic. The Nazi regime made overt appeals to Christianity, used the language of divine providence, and cooperated with the Catholic Church in the early years. While there were factions within the Nazi party that promoted a pseudo-pagan Germanic mysticism, this was not an endorsement of secular Atheism. Hitler himself frequently invoked “the Creator” in public speeches. There is no evidence of any widespread Atheism movement in Nazi Germany either. When Hitler obtained power in 1933, 95% of Germans were Christian, with 63% being Protestant and 32% being Catholic. Even if there was suppression of independent church leaders during Hitler’s reign, the unavoidable fact remains that Nazi Germany’s population was Christian majority. The Nazi form of Christianity was only a more sinister variant of Protestantism that sought to co-opt it for achieving the Reich’s political agendas.
If Ferguson’s argument were valid, then the reverse would also be true: societies based on religious theocracy would be peaceful, prosperous, and just. Yet history offers the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Thirty Years’ War, and even modern Islamic extremism as devastating counterexamples. As religion and state were intertwined for thousands of years of human history, few wars prior to the rise of secularism in the 19th century had absolutely nothing to do with religion, so if we’re tallying corpses, religious civilizations are not exonerated.
Christianity Is Not the Bedrock of Rational Morality
Ferguson admits that he arrived at Christianity not because its metaphysical claims are true, but because it seemed emotionally and socially beneficial. He notes that he and his wife, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, turned to Christianity as a framework for personal and familial stability. This appeal to emotional utility is not just a red herring—it’s a dangerous one.
To believe something for its perceived benefit rather than its verifiability is to forsake reason. It is to make decisions not based on truth, but instead on wishful thinking. This is no different than advocating belief in Santa Claus because it keeps children well-behaved. These beliefs infantilize the human mind and hinder its full potential.
Even more troubling is Ferguson’s claim that “we can’t withstand” geopolitical threats from China, North Korea, Russia, or radical Islam “with the scriptures of Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker.” But this is not what those writers offer. Dawkins and Pinker provide frameworks of evolutionary biology and cognitive science They are talking about the nature of reality, not developing alternative moral frameworks to Christianity even if they occasionally discuss their own moral viewpoints based on the observations of reality they have made.
What Ferguson misses—or ignores—is that it is possible, and indeed I believe even necessary, to build rational moral frameworks grounded in naturalistic reality. That is precisely what I have sought to do with my own Chivalric Humanism: create a system of virtue ethics derived from evolutionary biology and cultural anthropology, in compliance with objective reality. One does not need to rely on ancient myths to promote goodness, nor does one need to threaten eternal punishment to discourage evil. We can elevate a culture of moral responsibility not through fear, but through reason and an unwavering commitment to truth, regardless of how uncomfortable the truth may be.
Christianity’s Moral Authority Has Eroded
Ferguson’s longing for Christianity as a unifying moral force is rooted in a nostalgic view of a time when religion could provide coherence. But Christianity no longer holds that role in the West—and for good reason. The Protestant Reformation shattered the illusion of unified Christian doctrine. With the advent of mass literacy and modern science, the authority of the clergy collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. This was the logical outcome of efforts to construct order from lies. No matter how mighty its censors be, truth cannot be suppressed forever.
Today, the empirical claims of the Bible have been thoroughly discredited—from the global flood myth to the historicity of Adam and Eve. The Bible’s moral teachings are riddled with contradictions, primitive tribal ethics that violate every standard of modern justice that are entirely incompatible with the legal system used by modern republican nations such as the United States. If people are leaving the churches, it is not because they lack character, but because they can no longer believe the fairy tales.
To pretend that Christianity can once again unify the West without repressing the pursuit of truth is naive at best and authoritarian at worst. Any attempt to reestablish societal religious authority must necessarily persecute science, critical thinking, and dissent—as it always has when given the chance. Those dark times must never return, and humanity should instead only walk forward into the light of truth, regardless of how blinding it may be at times.
The Truth Matters More Than Comfort
Ferguson, like so many other misguided “former” Atheists who have embraced this concept of a “cultural Christianity”, has demonstrated in his interview that he is willing to sacrifice his epistemic integrity on the altar of societal cohesion. He rejects Atheism not because it is wrong, but because he views it as inconvenient. He embraces Christianity not because it is true, but because he views it as useful. But truth is not a tool to be discarded when it no longer serves your emotional or political goals. Truth is a necessary bedrock of any moral system that can endure in our present era of scientific discoveries. The entire reason there even is a decline in religious participation in Western nations is because these ancient superstitious religions cannot withstand scrutiny anymore.
In the present age, where scientific discoveries have revolutionized every facet of human life—from medicine to engineering, communications to climate forecasting—truth must be upheld as one of the highest principles of any moral society. This is because truth — empirical and verifiable truth — serves as the foundation upon which rational decision making rests. Without a commitment to truth, societies cannot accurately assess risks, solve complex problems, or make informed policy decisions. When public discourse becomes divorced from reality, ideologies untethered from facts lead populations into confusion, mistrust, and ultimately, self-destruction.
Furthermore, truth is essential for justice. A fair legal system, for example, cannot function without an objective standard of truth by which to assess guilt, innocence, or harm. Likewise, economic policies require honest data; medical interventions require evidence-based protocols; and education systems require fidelity to factual knowledge. In every domain of social coordination, the absence of truth results in dysfunction. When truth is subverted by dogma, conspiracy, or superstition, it is the most vulnerable in society—children, the poor, the sick—who suffer first. Truth is not a luxury of the elite or the academically inclined; it is a civic necessity for human prosperity, dignity and survival.
Lastly, placing truth at the center of moral philosophy empowers societies to evolve ethically. Scientific truths continually update our understanding of human nature, health, the environment, and even consciousness. A moral society that venerates truth can adapt its ethical principles in response to new evidence rather than remaining shackled to outdated traditions or mythologies. It can recognize previously ignored injustices, such as those rooted in race, gender, or biology, and take corrective action. In this way, truth becomes not only a compass for what is but a catalyst for what ought to be.
To put it plainly, without truth, morality becomes arbitrary and unjust. That is, quite frankly, why Christianity has always been unjust, and this is not going to change merely because many people lack the imagination on how Western societies can operate without it.
Christianity cannot save the West. Only reason can. Any society that builds itself on comforting lies rather than uncomfortable truths is a society already in decline, suffering from an anti-intellectualist culture that is poisoning it. This is why the Soviet Union collapsed, and why talented intellectuals flee countries like China for countries where freedom of speech is viewed as a fundamental human right.
What we in the West need is not a return to myth, but a march toward truth. Atheism may not by itself offer moral answers—but it clears the ground for better ones to be discovered. As we have learned from the usage of the scientific method to subject claims to scrutiny in order to find truth, knowing what is not true is the first step to determining what is true.
Ferguson has chosen to look backward into the darkness of the past, to periods of human history that can never be again. Yet this is misguided — what truths humanity has discovered about the world we live in cannot be unlearned. Our collective ignorance that allowed religions such as Christianity to establish themselves as the defacto authority over all matters of life for millions of people no longer exists even within the churches themselves, as Christian religious leaders today are forced to concede large parts of the Bible are allegory and not historical facts.
Humanity must instead look forward to the dawn of the coming future, one that is built in the light of truth and guided by our collective knowledge of how the world actually works. The superstitious assumptions of long dead people cannot help us determine the best way to live anymore. This is why these religions are in decline in the West, where no one is forcing anyone to abandon them. People are choosing of their own volition to leave these religions behind because ancient fairy tales can do little to assist people in wrestling with new philosophical dilemmas resulting from advances in technology. These ancient religions were never developed for the kind of societies we now live in and they are relics of bygone eras that can never exist again.